The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

But if you really believe that [insert religion name] will reveal the truth, and seek it with your heart, then you'll discover that it is the truth and all others are false. And obviously no-one could feel the same way about [other religion] as you do about [first religion], because it's so profound that it could be no delusion.

...the truth is objectively verifiable ... and this fact is the fundamental basis of the legal system ...
... so you can verify which aspects of any religion that are true ... and which are false ... like the false notion that muck evolved into Man ... which is a core dogma of Evolutionism!!!:D

Corinthian

the truth is objectively verifiable ... and this fact is the fundamental basis of the legal system

The legal system operates on the basis of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", not absolute proofs of "objectively verified truth".

More info here.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...stop flogging a dead horse ... and continuing to embarass yourselves... I've been trying to tell ye that 3+3=6 (or its equivalent) ... and ye have been arguing that 3+3 = 3 x 3 ... and they both = 9!!!!:eek::D

None of this is true either.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...not only is there no need for a designer for God, there is no possibility that such an entity could exist ... because there is no Intelligence capable of designing an infinitely complex entity, which is what God is.:)

...so it all stops ... and starts ... with the Creator God of the Bible!!!:D

Isn't the standard Christian position that God is simple rather than complex?

Are you saying an infinitely complex being just happens to exist for no reason? That the most complex thing possible is just there, he just exists, in his infinite complexity.

Yet you have a problem with complex improbable things just happening? How does that work?

Isn't it simply that God just existing comforts you where as these other things don't? In which case where is the rationality?

Sam Vimes

Morbert wrote: »

None of this is true either.

I love your responses in this thread

A sample of some recent ones:

Morbert wrote: »

no

Morbert wrote: »

\thread

Morbert wrote: »

no

Morbert wrote: »

None of this is true either.

Morbert wrote: »

None of that is true.

Morbert wrote: »

None of this is true, for obvious reasons.

http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Evolution-Kids-Ideas-Activities/dp/1556525028

Morbert wrote: »

Evolution.

Morbert wrote: »

no

Morbert wrote: »

no

You give creationist nonsense only slightly more attention than it deserves :pac:

liamw

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't the standard Christian position that God is simple rather than complex?

No, that's an absurd position (but it was J C's a couple of hundred pages ago...)

J C

Corinthian wrote: »

The legal system operates on the basis of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", not absolute proofs of "objectively verified truth".

...beyond reasonable doubt is good enough!!!

...it certainly beats the pants off something obviously false ... like the notion that muck spontaneously evolved into man!!!:)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't the standard Christian position that God is simple rather than complex? ...No

Are you saying an infinitely complex being just happens to exist for no reason? That the most complex thing possible is just there, he just exists, in his infinite complexity. ...Yes

Yet you have a problem with complex improbable things just happening? How does that work? ... the problem is with complex impossible things happening spontaneously ... but such things are quite possible with the appliance of intelligence ... ergo intelligence was applied to design living things!!!!!

Isn't it simply that God just existing comforts you where as these other things don't? In which case where is the rationality? ...its got nothing to do with 'comfort' and everything to do with rationality.

.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I love your responses in this thread

A sample of some recent ones:

Originally Posted by Morbert
None of this is true either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
no

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
\thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
no

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
None of this is true either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
None of that is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
None of this is true, for obvious reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
Evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
no

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
no

...not much explanatory power in these answers...but this is 'par for the course' with Evolutionism anyway!!!:eek::pac::):D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...not much explanatory power in these answers...but this is 'par for the course' with Evolutionism anyway!!!:eek::pac::):D

Yeah, I know, the following creation science explanations are infinitely better:

• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
• God did it.
  

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...not only is there no need for a designer for God, there is no possibility that such an entity could exist ... because there is no Intelligence capable of designing an infinitely complex entity, which is what God is.:)

So God is incapable of designing an infinitely complex entity ?

Well he obviously isn't infinitely complex so.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.

Yet you have a problem with complex improbable things just happening? How does that work? ... the problem is with complex impossible things happening spontaneously ... but such things are quite possible with the appliance of intelligence ... ergo intelligence was applied to design living things!!!!!

Isn't it simply that God just existing comforts you where as these other things don't? In which case where is the rationality? ...its got nothing to do with 'comfort' and everything to do with rationality.

Well considering it is a contradiction I am inclinded to think it has nothing to do with rationality and everything to do with comfort

You reject the random forming of a protein because the odds of that happening are make it very unlikely (though not impossible I might add) and things very complex things don't just form.

Now leaving aside that this is a total straw man because evolution explains how they form without requiring that they just form, but it is interesting to note that you have no such doubts about God.

God is, by your own definition, infinitely complex. If a protein is very complex God is infinitely more complex.

Now proteins don't just exist by your own determination. They are too complex for that, they can't just be.

So if proteins are to complex to just be, for no reason, then it stands to your own reason that God cannot just exist

He is too complex, and by your own determination complex things don't just exist or just come into existence. Things don't just happen with complex things.

So it is very interesting that you don't actually believe your own doubt about the idea of a protein just existing or just forming.

If you except that an infinitely complex thing can just exist then you must accept that less complex things can also just exist or just come into being. The universe is very complex, but not infinitely complex, so it can by your own determination of God just exist for no reason. A protein is complex but not as complex as GOd, so it can just come into being for no ryhme or reason. The odds are irrelevant because you accept that infintely complex things can just exist.

Yet you don't, because rationality has NOTHING to do with all this. THe only thing that matters to you is the comfort of your religion.

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

So God is incapable of designing an infinitely complex entity ?

Well he obviously isn't infinitely complex so.

+1

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Yeah, I know, the following creation science explanations are infinitely better:

• God did it.
  .......

...the only difference between the Creation Science proofs that 'God did it' ... and the Evolutionist mantra that He didn't, is that the physical evidence overwhelmingly supports the 'God did it' hypothesis.:):D

J C

monosharp wrote: »

So God is incapable of designing an infinitely complex entity ?

Well he obviously isn't infinitely complex so.

...God didn't need to Create Himself ... as He is a doubly eternal Being of infinite power and infinite complexity.:)

...so your point is meaningless and illogical.:)

J C

...and speaking of things that are meaningless and illogical ... here comes a real 'beauty' ... from Wicki!!!!:)

Wicknight wrote: »

Well considering it is a contradiction I am inclinded to think it has nothing to do with rationality and everything to do with comfort

You reject the random forming of a protein because the odds of that happening are make it very unlikely (though not impossible I might add) and things very complex things don't just form.

Now leaving aside that this is a total straw man because evolution explains how they form without requiring that they just form, but it is interesting to note that you have no such doubts about God.

God is, by your own definition, infinitely complex. If a protein is very complex God is infinitely more complex.

Now proteins don't just exist by your own determination. They are too complex for that, they can't just be.

So if proteins are to complex to just be, for no reason, then it stands to your own reason that God cannot just exist

He is too complex, and by your own determination complex things don't just exist or just come into existence. Things don't just happen with complex things.

So it is very interesting that you don't actually believe your own doubt about the idea of a protein just existing or just forming.

If you except that an infinitely complex thing can just exist then you must accept that less complex things can also just exist or just come into being. The universe is very complex, but not infinitely complex, so it can by your own determination of God just exist for no reason. A protein is complex but not as complex as GOd, so it can just come into being for no ryhme or reason. The odds are irrelevant because you accept that infintely complex things can just exist.

Yet you don't, because rationality has NOTHING to do with all this. THe only thing that matters to you is the comfort of your religion.

...my eyes have just glazed over!!!!!:):D

...I have never seen somebody use so many words to say so little that anybody could understand!!!!:)

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

doubly eternal...is meaningless and illogical.:)

fyp

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...God didn't need to Create Himself ... as He is a doubly eternal Being of infinite power and infinite complexity.:)

...so your point is meaningless and illogical.:)

You said

JC:P:o:p wrote:

because there is no Intelligence capable of designing an infinitely complex entity

Hence you are saying God cannot create an infinitely complex entity.

I didn't say he designed himself, YOU said he CAN'T design an infinitely complex entity.

This shows that God is NOT infinitely complex because any infinitely complex being is by definition capable of designing an infinitely complex being.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

But by your own criteria you don't know the scientific case for creation well enough to make that assertion.

You believe Creationists not because they have presented a compelling scientific argument (since you wouldn't know the standards required for such a thing, as you are quick to point out when ever challenged on the "science" you present here in support of Creationism), but simply because they agree with the position you already deciding before hand must be true.

You can't have it both ways Wolfsbane. You can't hide behind the claim of ignorance of science and the scientific method when pushed to defend Creationism (as you say you leave that to JC), yet claim that you know enough about science and the scientific method to find Creationism scientifically compelling.

It rings totally hallow. You agree with them simply because they say what you have already decided must be true.

Yes, I don't know the science well enough to assess the merits of each item, but I do know enough to see logical flaws and to recognise smoke & mirrors.

The way evolutionary scientists treat the arguments fellow evolutionists when they disagree is also telling regards their dismissive claims about Creation science.

Of course, if scientific expertise is required before one can have a view on the plausibility of any scientific theory or law, then very few scientists can have a view on evolution. Yet the mass of biologists, geologists, chemists, physicists, etc. seem very defensive of it. Who are they trusting? Have they already decided what must be true and their opinions worthless?

Both both sides have their experts in the relevant scientific fields. We non-experts apply our minds to the bits of their argument we can assess.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Of course, if scientific expertise is required before one can have a view on the plausibility of any scientific theory or law, then very few scientists can have a view on evolution. Yet the mass of biologists, geologists, chemists, physicists, etc. seem very defensive of it. Who are they trusting? Have they already decided what must be true and their opinions worthless?

It's a more a case of them seeing the ridiculousness and worthlessness behind Creation science so called "theories".

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If it was all pseudo-science you would have a point. But if it's just science you don't like and it's easier to go with the flow of the atheist establishment...
The mere fact that Michael Behe wanted to redefine science should prove to you that it's not science. He acknowledged under oath that his definition of science would also include astrology remember.

Behe is not a Creationist, so he can answer for himself. But any definition of science that excludes Creation as the origin of the universe is a religious one. Science is only about the material processes, not about how they came to be. Materialism is not science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You need to examine your heart to see how honest you are being with yourself.
...
Fear is a rational response to perceived danger. Only a fool ignores it.
The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” Psalm 14:1a
You also need to ask if you're being honest with yourself. You need to ask yourself if Pascal's wager plays any part whatsoever in your motivation for belief and if so, you're believing out of fear and while fear is a rational response to danger, it is not a reason to believe in a god, especially a god that's supposed to love you. A loving god would not put people in danger simply for not believing that a Jewish guy raised from the dead 2000 years ago

Your 'loving God' is a caricature of the God of the Bible. God is love, but He is also holy and just. He will not forever let sin go unpunished. So His mercy and patience are great, but not without end in the face of wickedness.

Hell is the ultimate punishment for unrepentant sinners. It is where we are all heading when we are born, and our lives make us ever more deserving of it. Unbelief is not an innocent deficiency, but the result of our warped nature.

God warns us to flee the wrath to come, so fear is the appropriate response. The criminal properly fears the Law and the consequences of his actions.

When the Lawgiver offers us full and free pardon and sends His Son to pay for our sins Himself, that calls for repentance and loving surrender from every rebel. Those who refuse are doubly condemned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I agree that pretending to believe is pointless. All we ask is that you seriously ask the big questions about life and its purpose. All who sincerely seek will find.
Except that pretty much no one except people who were brought up to be creationists ever see the "truth" in it. It seems no one ever sincerely seeks. Odd that

I was brought up an unbeliever in God, and assumed evolution was a fact. But God opened my eyes to both Himself and the truth of His word. Examination of the debate on creation-evolution has just confirmed me in that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
In compensation I have lived in a deluded state of good feelings about my purpose and future, and enjoyed the society of many other similarly deluded folk whom I love. On top of all that, by coincidence of course, I have had many answers to my prayers and deliverances from bad circumstances.
Living in a society is great but you don't have to believe in a god to do that. I also have good feelings about my purpose and future among similarly non-deluded folk whom I love.

I'm sure you have. I was just pointing out that the Christian life is not miserable.

Also, I can guarantee you, and numerous studies have shown, that you get exactly the same success rate praying to a carton of milk as praying to god. Trying praying for an amputee's arm to regrow and see how far you get.

The studies assume God is on tap. He's not. He saves whom He wills; he heals/delivers whom He will. And I have experienced His mercy on several remarkable occasions. Not just unusual, but in outcome and timing truly an answer to my prayers.

I can already you picture you thinking to yourself "that's not how it works" and that's because how it works is people learn to only pray for things that could have happened anyway so if they don't happen they can say it wasn't god's will and if they do they can thank god for them. Well I'm sorry to tell you mate but those things would have happened anyway

Not the things I'm thinking of. Not the 'get me this job or help me remember in my exams' sort of things.

and even if they wouldn't have, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a god that would answer a prayer for example for someone to get a promotion while ignoring a prayer to be cured of cancer.

Why do you think God is obliged to say Yes to every prayer? He is free to let people die or to heal them - none of us has an obligation on God. You think too highly of man and too lowly of God. Man is a sinner; God is wholly righteous and true. Anything He gives us is undeserved mercy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
True, if Christianity is false I have deprived myself of much the only pleasures that are on offer - sexual conquests, riches, power, revenge and have exposed myself to ridicule and harassment.
Christianity also deprives people of things that there is nothing wrong with, such as people who spend their lives tormented because they're gay, something over which they have no control and which harms no one.

That's your opinion. God says different. He says homosexuality is a sinful practice and one that degrades the practitioner. The torment many gays suffer is really their conscience recognising their behaviour as sinful and degrading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The difference is I have found the Truth, so no longer need to search for it among all the other religions. I know, I do not suppose, for God has given me that knowledge.
Except that I can point to millions of people who know that their god is real with the same certainty that you know yours is. You can't all be right but you can all be wrong and the only way you can be that certain is if you believe yourself to be infallible.

That may seem so to one on the outside, but I know to the difference, having the witness of the Spirit within and having experienced God's power acting for me outwardly.

You of course cannot be expected to know what happens in anyone's life but your own - so the test is not whether what I say is true or not, but rather it is for you to search for God yourself to see if He is real. Your conscience will help, and He has promised that all who diligently seek Him will find Him.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

doubly eternal...is meaningless and illogical

fyp

... God is doubly eternal ... He always was ... and He always will be.

The Human Spirit is singly eternal ... it starts at the moment of fertilisation ... and it always will exist.:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

It's a more a case of them (Evolutionists) seeing the ridiculousness and worthlessness behind Creation science so called "theories".

...strong words from a crowd who believe that muck can spontanously 'morph' into Man ... with nothing added but time!!!!:rolleyes::D

J C

monosharp wrote: »

You said

Hence you are saying God cannot create an infinitely complex entity.

I didn't say he designed himself, YOU said he CAN'T design an infinitely complex entity.

This shows that God is NOT infinitely complex because any infinitely complex being is by definition capable of designing an infinitely complex being.

...by definition there can ONLY be ONE infinitely complex Being ... and therefore such a Being could not create itself (which would be a contradiction in terms) and as there is no other infinitely complex being ... God therefore must be a doubly eternal entity ... i.e. He always has existed ... and He always will exist.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... God is doubly eternal ... He always was ... and He always will be.

The Human Spirit is singly eternal ... it starts at the moment of fertilisation ... and it always will exist.:)

That's just regular eternal.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...strong words from a crowd that believes that muck can spontanously 'morph' into Man ... with nothing added but time!!!!:rolleyes::D

From the crowd who believe the Earth is 6000 years old, humans existed alongside dinosaurs, neanderthals are a myth, a flood covered the planet and a supernatural being made humans in his image, apparently because a supernatural infinitely complex being requires a badly designed body with a penis.

monosharp

Out of curiousity JC.

It takes a proton about a million years to traverse from the center to the surface of the sun and then 8 minutes to us.

This makes the sun a wee bit older then 6000 years doesn't it ? Or is it just the Earth itself thats 6000 years old ?

What scienmotology research have you found to contradict this ?

Genghiz Cohen

monosharp wrote: »

Out of curiousity JC.

It takes a proton about a million years to traverse from the center to the surface of the sun and then 8 minutes to us.

This makes the sun a wee bit older then 6000 years doesn't it ? Or is it just the Earth itself thats 6000 years old ?

What scienmotology research have you found to contradict this ?

Also, stars.

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

Out of curiousity JC.

It takes a proton about a million years to traverse from the center to the surface of the sun and then 8 minutes to us.

This makes the sun a wee bit older then 6000 years doesn't it ? Or is it just the Earth itself thats 6000 years old ?

What scienmotology research have you found to contradict this ?

That assumes the protons that have hit earth over this last 6000 years originated at the centre of the sun.

But a mature creation is one in which all the necessities of life are present from the word Go. Adam did not start life as a sperm and egg collision, but as an adult male. Ditto for all the rest.