The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

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

Well, creationists would certainly know that feeling. See:

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

Those aren't Roman numerals; they're version numbers.

J C

Originally Posted by Genghiz Cohen wrote:

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

The Mad Hatter
Those aren't Roman numerals; they're version numbers.

...when has a monkey ever been observed to give birth to a Human??

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...when has a monkey ever been observed to give birth to a Human??

Never. That's not how it works.

I know you're blind to sentences like that, and you prefer your little fairytale of what you think evolution is, but it's still true.

Genghiz Cohen

It's almost as if he's reading another thread and replying to this one...

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...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

Without referring to the Bible or Scripture; What is the process by which Creationist Scientists test the theory's they come up with?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...when has a monkey ever been observed to give birth to a Human??

Seriously? After 4 years and all your grandiose claims about your scientific qualifications, you're still trotting out......stuff like the above? No wonder no one has ever managed to "prove evolution" to you, your understanding of it is so warped that the question you just asked to try to get someone to show evidence of evolution would actually completely disprove it.
You have no idea what evolution is yet you feel qualified to say that every reputable scientist on the planet is wrong about it.

J C, you really should read the following book before continuing:
www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d.html/179-5408338-4245857?a=1556525028
I don't know what's left to salvage after four years but you may yet redeem yourself by at least gaining some basic understanding of the theory you are denying

liamw

J C wrote: »

...when has a monkey ever been observed to give birth to a Human??

So... unless you can see something happen in front of your own eyes it can't have happened? Is this your general theory?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Genghiz Cohen
Seriously though, what is the difference between DogV1->DogV1000 and MonkeyV1->MonkeyV1000(Humans)

J C
....when has a monkey ever been observed to give birth to a Human??

The Mad Hatter
Never. That's not how it works.

I know you're blind to sentences like that, and you prefer your little fairytale of what you think evolution is, but it's still true.

...so what is all this Evolutionist 'monkey business' all about then ...
[Originally Posted by Genghiz Cohen "MonkeyV1->[COLOR="Red"]MonkeyV1000(Humans)[/COLOR]"]
...seems like the fairytales are all being invented by the Evolutionists on this thread!!!!:D

J C

liamw wrote: »

So... unless you can see something happen in front of your own eyes it can't have happened? Is this your general theory?

..no ... but the thing proposed must have some basis in logic and reality ... and the idea of a monkey spontaneously giving birth to a Human is NOT based on either logic or reality.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

..no ... but the thing proposed must have some basis in logic and reality ... and the idea of a monkey spontaneously giving birth to a Human is NOT based on either logic or reality.

No it's not but who ever said that happened

After 4 years do you honestly think that's what evolution is, a monkey giving birth to a fully formed human?

liamw

J C wrote: »

..no ... but the thing proposed must have some basis in logic and reality ... and the idea of a monkey spontaneously giving birth to a Human is NOT based on either logic or reality.

wow, you have a distinct misunderstanding of evolution. I don't understand how this thread has thousands of posts and yet, you can still be so ignorant on the topic.

Evolution is a gradual process.

Wikipedia wrote:

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations. Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.

Turtwig

I was just rereading on of my favourite books of all time and came across this little gem.

Imagine if you took all the components that make up a human being—carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and so on—and put them in a container with some water, gave it a vigorous stir, and out stepped a completed person. That would be amazing.

That my dear friends is the creationist view of life down to a tee. God is the magician who brews the stew and out pops the human being.
(5 points to the person who guesses the book:))

liamw

Malty_T wrote: »

I was just rereading on of my favourite books of all time and came across this little gem.

That my dear friends is the creationist view of life down to a tee. God is the magician who brews the stew and out pops the human being.
(5 points to the person who guesses the book:))

Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything. He goes on to say how creationists are wrong, but I'm sure Creationists enjoy quote mining this one

Turtwig

liamw wrote: »

Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything. He goes on to say how creationists are wrong, but I'm sure Creationists enjoy quote mining this one

5 points and piece of chocolate cake for you sir.:)

dvpower

J C wrote: »

...are you also in denial of the Russian evidence for Human Dinosaur co-existence?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/dinosaurs.asp

The article itself is in denial:

answersingenesis wrote:

Note: This article is a factual account of a genuine, sober report in the Russian newspaper. However, one needs to be cautious about accepting the prints described on the basis of just this report. None of our sources has been able to obtain any further information on the prints, nor any photograph to this date. It is presented for the information of readers, and to show how these particular evolutionists interpreted evidence which seemed to contradict the whole concept.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I was just rereading on of my favourite books of all time and came across this little gem.

Quote:
Imagine if you took all the components that make up a human being—carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and so on—and put them in a container with some water, gave it a vigorous stir, and out stepped a completed person. That would be amazing.

That my dear friends is the creationist view of life down to a tee. God is the magician who brews the stew and out pops the human being.
(5 points to the person who guesses the book:))

...that ISN'T the Creationist view of how life arose ... the Creationist view is that the Creator God of the Bible used His omnipotence and omniscience to CREATE life de novo and ex nihilo

The above quote does come dangerously close to describing the Evolutionist position however ... the only extra ingredient ... in the Evolutionist fairytale, being TIME !!!!:D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...so what is all this Evolutionist 'monkey business' all about then ...
[Originally Posted by Genghiz Cohen "MonkeyV1->[COLOR="Red"]MonkeyV1000(Humans)[/COLOR]"]
...seems like the fairytales are all being invented by the Evolutionists on this thread!!!!:D

Are you sure you've read The Greatest Show on Earth? Because you seem to have missed a small aspect of it.

J C

liamw wrote: »

wow, you have a distinct misunderstanding of evolution. I don't understand how this thread has thousands of posts and yet, you can still be so ignorant on the topic.

Evolution is a gradual process.

...and what is 'gradual' about a monkey supposedly giving birth to a Human???

...and what is all this Evolutionist 'monkey business' all about ...
[Originally Posted by Genghiz Cohen "MonkeyV1->[COLOR="Red"]MonkeyV1000(Humans)[/COLOR]"]

wrote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations. Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species.

...speciation tends to be sudden and within Kind ... and genetic drift is limited by the genetic information compliment and limits of the original Created Kind to which the creature belongs!!!!:D

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Are you sure you've read The Greatest Show on Earth? Because you seem to have missed a small aspect of it.

...which bit did I miss????

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...that ISN'T the Creationist view of how life arose ... the Creationist view is that the Creator God of the Bible used His omnipotence and omniscience to CREATE life de novo and ex nihilo

The above quote does come dangerously close to describing the false creationist view of the Evolutionist position however ... the only extra ingredient ... in the Evolutionist fairytale, being TIME !!!!:D

Fixed.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...which bit did I miss????

The words.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...and what is 'gradual' about a monkey supposedly giving birth to a Human

Nothing, that's why the only pepole who have ever claimed that such a thing happens is creationists

J C wrote: »

...speciation tends to be sudden and within Kind

I think this is the standard creationist misunderstanding of punctuated equilibrium. I've already corrected you on it but sure let's give it another shot. When Gould says that adaptations take place quickly he means ~50,000 years. In the geological timescale that is a mere instant but of course it represents thousands of generations. It does not mean a monkey giving birth to a human, at all stages the offspring are only very slightly different to the parents.

Sam Vimes

Oh and I think you missed this before:
You have this idea of evolution as an atheist conspiracy but millions upon millions of religious scientists fully accept evolution and still believe in god and evolution is only one of the dozens of scientific disciplines that directly contradict creationism. 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.

Genghiz Cohen

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh and I think you missed this before:
You have this idea of evolution as an atheist conspiracy but millions upon millions of religious scientists fully accept evolution and still believe in god and evolution is only one of the dozens of scientific disciplines that directly contradict creationism. 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.

And once more for the charm of the number.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Nothing, that's why the only pepole who have ever claimed that such a thing happens is creationists

I think this is the standard creationist misunderstanding of punctuated equilibrium. I've already corrected you on it but sure let's give it another shot. When Gould says that adaptations take place quickly he means ~50,000 years. In the geological timescale that is a mere instant but of course it represents thousands of generations. It does not mean a monkey giving birth to a human, at all stages the offspring are only very slightly different to the parents.

...so the Darwinists have actually neutered Punctuated Evolution ... and turned it into Gradualistic Darwinism!!!!

...so that's how the Darwinists have made Punctuated Equilibrium 'safe' for Darwinism!!!:D:)

...and then you have the 'brass neck' to accuse me of misrepresenting Prof Gould ... even thought my quote is verbatim and reflects one of the reasons for Punctuated Equilibrium being proposed by Prof Gould in the first place!!!!:eek:

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...so the Darwinists have actually neutered Punctuated Evolution ... and turned it into Gradualistic Darwinism!!!!

...so that's how the Darwinists have made Punctuated Equilibrium 'safe' for Darwinism!!!:D:)

...and then you have the 'brass neck' to accuse me of misrepresenting Prof Gould ... even thought my quote is verbatim and reflects one of the reasons for Punctuated Equilibrium being proposed by Prof Gould in the first place!!!!:eek:

... So your understanding of of Punctuated Evolution is that once ever 10,000 years a snake gives birth to a fully formed elephant?


Read a book.

Turtwig

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

... So your understanding of of Punctuated Evolution is that once ever 10,000 years a snake gives birth to a fully formed elephant?

Blue Whale!:p

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...so the Darwinists have actually neutered Punctuated Evolution ... and turned it into Gradualistic Darwinism!!!!

...so that's how the Darwinists have made Punctuated Equilibrium 'safe' for Darwinism!!!:D:)

Again J C, no. Creationists just never understood what punctuated equilibrium is. It was always talking about periods of about 50,000 years. If creationists either misunderstand a theory or deliberately distort it and someone corrects them, that's not the same as "neutering" the theory

Turtwig

Em,

How bout a role reversal, so that the creationist folk here might actually understand what they're supposed to be dismissing. Instead of clutching at straws and having to be constantly corrected.

So, JC,

I'm the creationist scientist from here on in, you're the evolutionist.
How would you respond to the following statement?

"Evolution predicts that we should have a dog giving birth to a cat."

Genghiz Cohen

Malty_T wrote: »

"Evolution predicts that we should have a dog giving birth to a cat."

Will eat hat if this doesn't appear in some creationists sig within the next 3 weeks.