The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Genghiz Cohen

Someone (not me) must go back through this thread and re-post all the arguments & evidence the JC seems to have ignored or fobbed off with "You're in denial/confused!!! :pac: "

That would be quite a post...

The Mad Hatter

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Someone (not me) must go back through this thread and re-post all the arguments & evidence the JC seems to have ignored or fobbed off with "You're in denial/confused!!! :pac: "

That would be quite a post...

Wouldn't fit in one post...

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

... micro-evolution, using pre-existing information is a fact

Are you agreeing that organisms can change through biological anomalies?
Then changes that turn out to be an advantage increase that organisms chances to reproduce, passing on that anomaly, surely?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... these lines are very thick lines (in every sense of the word)!!!!:eek::D
...Punctuated Equilibrium was indeed scoffed at by many Darwinists as it was perceived as an embarassment to the gradualism of Darwinism ... and a significant threat due to its perceived highlighting of the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record.

http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Punctuated_Equilibrium

One popular creationist myth is that punctuated equilibrium was thought up to explain the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. There are, of course, an abundance of such forms: and if they were absent, the claim of Gould and Eldredge that most evolution takes place during speciation would not explain their absence. Punctuated equilibrium purports to explain the relative scarcity (not complete absence) of intermediate forms at the species level only.

Darwinian evolution does not require "gradualism". Yes that was generally accepted to be how it happened but Gould's theory has been shown to be evident in at least some cases. No one ever said the theory was perfect, as I just said I am 100% sure it will be updated in the future, but that does not mean it's entirely wrong. Gould totally accepted the mechanism of evolution, he simply suggested that beneficial mutations generally only take hold in a population in smaller groups where selective pressure is greater.

By the way, even if there was not a single fossil in the ground, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming, in comparative anatomy and in DNA analysis for example.

J C wrote: »

...so when will Prof Behe et al be accorded membership of the Pantheon of the Evolutionist Gods????

As soon as they actually water it down and stop talking nonsense. They watered down creationism to ID already so they might as well go one step further.

J C wrote: »

... micro-evolution, using pre-existing information is a fact ... all the rest is an unfounded belief that is promoted in order to 'shore up' Atheistic Materialism!!!

Except that millions upon millions of religious scientists fully accept evolution and still believe in god. This idea of evolution as an atheist conspiracy is nonsense. Why don't you attack geologists, astronomers, anthropologists, historians, archaeologists, chemists, physicists and for that matter bishops, archbishops, cardinals and the pope with the same vigour that you attack evolutionists with? They say you're wrong too.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...you guys are in such denial that even when an 'icon of evolutionism' like Prof Gould makes true statements about the paucity of evidence for gradual (Darwinian) evolution you start alleging that he is somehow being quoted 'out of context' ... even though an earlier generation of Darwinists persecuted the self same Prof Gould for making precisely these statements!!!!

...and suddenly in some sort of orwellian revisionism ... I'm the one supposedly 'blackening the name' of a great scientist ... even though I defended Prof Gould against the unfounded attacks of Darwinists when you were still in nappies ... on precisely these same issues and arguments!!!!!!

Could I gently point out that Prof Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium Theory is still denied by Darwinists ... with almost as much vehemence as they deny Creation!!!!:eek:

...so quit the 'crocodile tears' over Prof Gould's reputation ... he was a great scientist and an original thinker ... and my quote is an accurate reflection of his position on the lack of support in the fossil record for gradual evolution ... a position that I myself continue to endorse!!!

...he was, of course an evolutionist despite the lack of evidence for its validity ... but nobody is perfect!!!:eek::)

On your "support" for Gould, I was going to post some more excerpts from this article:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

but I found that I had got all the way to the bottom without finding anything I felt could be left out. You should read that entire article and after doing so, if you ever mention Gould again (such as in your sig) as if his theories are in any way supportive of creationism you will have proven your dishonesty beyond a shadow of a doubt (or possibly your level of brainwashed-ness)

Sam Vimes

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Are you agreeing that organisms can change through biological anomalies?
Then changes that turn out to be an advantage increase that organisms chances to reproduce, passing on that anomaly, surely?

He's acknowledged that for a while now. It's all about "kinds" in modern creationism, as in there can be change within the "dog kind" but a dog can never become a non-dog. It seems there's an imaginary wall preventing it from happening.

Genghiz Cohen

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He's acknowledged that for a while now. It's all about "kinds" in modern creationism, as in there can be change within the "dog kind" but a dog can never become a non-dog. It seems there's an imaginary wall preventing it from happening.

Ah, I was planning on moving towards that wall slowly. But if he has seen it already...

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Someone (not me) must go back through this thread and re-post all the arguments & evidence the JC seems to have ignored or fobbed off with "You're in denial/confused!!! :pac: "

That would be quite a post...

...as there is almost total denial and absolute confusion amongst evolutionists ... it would indeed be some post!!!!:):D

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Are you agreeing that organisms can change through biological anomalies?
Then changes that turn out to be an advantage increase that organisms chances to reproduce, passing on that anomaly, surely?

...we are in agreement that populations of organisms can and do change ... it is the ultimate source of the information producing the changes (as well as their type and scale) that we are in disagreement about ...
... you say that the info arises spontaneously ... and I say that the spontaneous production of functional complex specified information is a mathematical impossibility ... and it therefore ultimately had an intelligent causation.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Ah, I was planning on moving towards that wall slowly. But if he has seen it already...

...good ... but please speed it up!!!!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On your "support" for Gould, I was going to post some more excerpts from this article:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

but I found that I had got all the way to the bottom without finding anything I felt could be left out. You should read that entire article and after doing so, if you ever mention Gould again (such as in your sig) as if his theories are in any way supportive of creationism you will have proven your dishonesty beyond a shadow of a doubt (or possibly your level of brainwashed-ness)

...please DO read the ENTIRE article ... including the following indictment of 'Darwinism' by Prof Gould (emphasis mine):-
"But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.

But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost."
...unfortunately the Darwinist 'High Priests' have won out and they have assimilated and neutered Punctuated Equilibrium like some kind of minor 'heresy' within the Canon of Evolutionism...and they then proceeded to rally around the flag of strict Darwinism ... and to supress, ANY alternative ideas to Orthodox Darwinism within Evolutionism !!!!

For example, Intelligent Design or even the mere suggestion of Intelligent Design by Evolutionists ... is shunned with an efficiency and an effectiveness that would make a Mideval inquisitor blush!!
Prof Gould also needn't have worried that Evolutionism would disappear from the school curriculum ... the reverse has actually happened ... and Christian children are often now taught (both within 'religion' classes and in Biology lessons) that Materialistic Humanism (and its ideas) are the ONLY 'game in town'!!!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He's acknowledged that for a while now. It's all about "kinds" in modern creationism, as in there can be change within the "dog kind" but a dog can never become a non-dog. It seems there's an imaginary wall preventing it from happening.

...there is a very real genetic 'wall' there allright ... and YES actually ... a dog cannot produce a non-dog AKA a cat!!!!:D:)

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...there is a very real genetic 'wall' there allright ... a YES ACTUALLY ... a dog can and never does produce a non-dog AKA a cat!!!!:D:)

No one says it does.

What we do say is that DogV1 can sometimes change to DogV2 and if DogV2 is better it might either eventually replace V1, or be more suitable for a better, more food rich environment than V1 and move into that environment.

Then sometimes DogV2 might change to DogV3.

And so on until if you were to look at DogV1, it would be quite different to DogV1000 and maybe in a completely different location, globally speaking.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...please DO read the ENTIRE article ... including the following inditement of 'Darwinism' by Prof Gould (emphasis mine):-
"But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.

As I see it the point being made is an ironic one. He sees that because there is some disagreement between him and other evolutionists over one aspect of the theory, creationists are distorting the argument to make it appear that he is disputing evolution entirely and is being suppressed.

He therefore ironically suggests that they should mute disagreements if only to avoid giving the creationists quotes to mine and distort. And the reason I know he is being ironic is that he immediately goes on to say that, no, of course they shouldn't do that and "presenting a united front" would be misguided, as you yourself posted:

J C wrote: »

But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost."

What do you think he's saying?

J C wrote: »

...unfortunately the Darwinist 'High Priests' have won out and they have assimilated and neutered Punctuated Equilibrium like some kind of minor 'heresy' within the Canon of Evolutionism...and they then proceeded rally around the flag of strict Darwinism ... and to persecute, with Mideval zeal, ANY alternative ideas to Orthodox Darwinism within Evolutionism !!!!

I'm afraid it was never "neutered", it simply never actually said what creationists claimed it said, as was very clearly laid out in the article. And as I already pointed out, punctuated equilibrium is now considered a useful model:

The concept of punctuated equilibrium was, to some, a radical new idea when it was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Now it is widely recognized as a useful model for one kind of evolutionary change. The relative importance of punctuated and gradual patterns of evolution is a subject of debate and research.

But why worry about the truth when a quote mined distortion is so much more useful to you!

J C wrote: »

For example, Intelligent Design or even the the suggestion of the Appearance of Intelligent Design by Evolutionists ... is shunned with an efficiency and an effectiveness that would make a Mideval inquisitor blush!!
Prof Gould also needn't have worried that Evolutionism would disappear from the school curriculum ... the reverse has actually happened ... and Christian children are now taught (both within 'religion' classes and in Biology lessons) that Materialistic Humanism (and its ideas) are the ONLY 'game in town'!!!!

Can you please define an experiment to disprove design or is it, as all the evidence seems to suggest, nothing more than a declaration of "I don't know so it must be god"?

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

"For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost."

Reading it with my emphasis makes more sense.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

No one says it does.

What we do say is that DogV1 can sometimes change to DogV2 and if DogV2 is better it might either eventually replace V1, or be more suitable for a better, more food rich environment than V1 and move into that environment.

Then sometimes DogV2 might change to DogV3.

And so on until if you were to look at DogV1, it would be quite different to DogV1000 and maybe in a completely different location, globally speaking.

...but the point is that they are ALL dogs!!!:D;)

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...but the point is that they are ALL dogs!!!:D;)

Great!
Now replace Dog with Monkey.

Then have a look at this picture, tell me what you see.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Reading it with my emphasis makes more sense.

...whatever way you emhasise it ... the Darwinists have proceeded to rally around the flag of strict Darwinism ... and to eliminate ANY alternative ideas to Orthodox Darwinism within Evolutionism !!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...whatever way you emhasise it ... the Darwinists have proceeded to rally around the flag of strict Darwinism ... and to persecute, with Mideval zeal, ANY alternative ideas to Orthodox Darwinism within Evolutionism !!!!

Maybe you'll read it the third time:

Sam Vimes wrote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html
The concept of punctuated equilibrium was, to some, a radical new idea when it was first proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in 1972. Now it is widely recognized as a useful model for one kind of evolutionary change. The relative importance of punctuated and gradual patterns of evolution is a subject of debate and research.

Scientists have scrutinized the fossil records of many organisms looking for evidence of punctuated evolution. One group of coral-like sea organisms in particular, called bryozoan, shows this kind of pattern. The well-preserved fossil record of bryozoans shows that one species first appeared about 140 million years ago and remained unchanged for its first 40 million years. Then there was an explosion of diversification, followed by another period of stability for vast amounts of time.

Although the patterns predicted by punctuated equilibrium have been observed in at least some cases, debate continues over how frequently this model of evolutionary change occurs -- is it the norm, or only an exception? Punctuated equilibrium also generates interesting questions for further research. What, for example, are the processes that produce rapid evolution? Population genetic studies show us that small changes can accrue quickly in small populations. And evolutionary developmental biology is revealing new mechanisms that regulate the expression of small genetic changes in ways that can have a large effect on phenotype. Which evolutionary factors are primarily responsible for the periods of stasis -- in which lineages persist without change -- that can be observed in the fossil record? In seeking the answers to these questions, researchers will continue to advance our understanding of the evolutionary processes that produced the remarkable variety of life on Earth

It seems they don't vehemently deny puntuated equilibrium and it is in fact the subject of much debate and research, unlike creationism which has rightly been debunked as nonsense. It appears that what you said bears little relation to reality. What a surprise

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Maybe you'll read it the third time

...we will have to agree to differ on this one...

...as Fr Jack might say, this is a grey area of Evolutionism!!:D:)

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Great!
Now replace Dog with Monkey.

Then have a look at this picture, tell me what you see.

....an 'X'!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...we will have to agree to differ on this one...

...as Fr Jack might say, this is a grey area within Evolutionism!!!!:D:)

It's not a grey area J C, it quite clearly refutes your claims about punctuated equilibrium being vehemently opposed but creationism lives in such "grey areas", ie areas that are not actually grey at all but creationists simply distort the truth and call anyone who says they're wrong a liar, up to and including the person they have quote mined, as if they understand what was meant better than the person who said it

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

....an 'X'!!!:D

Go on.
You can do it!
I believe in you!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not a grey area J C, it quite clearly refutes your claims about punctuated equilibrium being vehemently opposed but creationism lives in such "grey areas", ie areas that are not actually grey at all but creationists simply distort the truth and call anyone who says they're wrong a liar, up to and including the person they have quote mined, as if they understand what was meant better than the person who said it

...such cynicism ... and in one so young!!!!:D:)

...like I have said, they have assimilated whatever they could make 'safe for evolution' ... and continue to reject whatever cannot be made safe!!!!

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Go on.
You can do it!
I believe in you!

...thanks!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...such cynicism ... and in one so young!!!!:D:)

...like I have said, they have assimilated whatever they could make 'safe for evolution' ... and continue to reject whatever cannot be made safe!!!!

Or maybe, just maybe, they "assimilate" whatever is supported by evidence and reject unsupported declarations of "god did it" or the disingenuous "an intelligent agency who is most certainly not a god did it" because they're not science no matter how many times it's repeated

Genghiz Cohen

Seriously though, what is the difference between DogV1->DogV1000 and MonkeyV1->MonkeyV1000(Humans)

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Seriously though, what is the difference between DogV1->DogV1000 and MonkeyV1->MonkeyV1000(Humans)

...any other Evolutionists not know the difference between a monkey and a man ??!!!!:pac::):D:eek:
...must be 'primate blindness'!!!:D

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...any other Evolutionists not know the difference between a monkey and a man ??!!!!:pac::):D:eek:
...must be 'primate blindness'!!!:D

Oh you :rolleyes::eek::cool::pac::D

Any other Creationists know the difference between a rebuttal, an actual debate and a cop-out ??!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Oh you :rolleyes::eek::cool::pac::D

Any other Creationists know the difference between a rebuttal, an actual debate and a cop-out ??!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

...or having the proverbial pants beaten off you on every issue...

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Seriously though, what is the difference between DogV1->DogV1000 and MonkeyV1->MonkeyV1000(Humans)

......you also have a serious problem with Roman Numerals!!!!!:D:)

...give up that Evolutionist stuff ... and become a real scientist ... without any hangups about being an accident of nature .... and a direct descendant of pondslime!!!!:D