The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Neither would be objective. If the creationist admits that the evidence points to an old earth but still follows a belief system that contradicts that, he is not being objective. Holding a belief that is contradictory to the evidence is not objective be they "materialist" or creationist. The thing is that the evolutions don't see any evidence of a young earth. You can argue that they are in denial or they are wrong but the fact is they are following what they believe to be the evidence.

...not so much a problem with objectivity as sustainability!!!!
...a professional scientist should be able to objectively assess any evidence put before him/her ... independently of their pre-conceptions/beliefs (although the emotional reactions by some Materialists on this thread to the physical evidence for Creation would give one cause to closely consider their objectivity on the scientific evaluation of the 'origins issue').
However, if the evidence overwhelmingly denies the faith position of the beholder, then the sustainability of the faith-position becomes seriously questionable ... there is only so much denial that (most people) can engage in ... although Materialists on this thread, do seem to have a considerable capacity in this regard!!!!:eek::):D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On the other hand the creationist has admitted that he doesn't give a crap what the evidence says because he'd be a creationist regardless. If the evidence stopped pointing towards evolution, scientists would stop being evolutionists. Misinterpreting evidence can happen to anyone but this guy has admitted that he will deliberatly ignore any evidence that contradicts his religious beliefs.

...Dr Wise didn't say that he didn't care about the evidence ... speaking as the professional scientist that he undoubtedly is, he said that he would be the first to admit it, if the physical geological evidence pointed to an old Earth.

However, hope springs eternal ... as the Evolutionists prove by clinging on to the unfounded idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' ... with nothing added but time and (selected) mistakes!!!!

... BTW isn't Dr. Wise a very appropriate name for a Creation Scientist who has rejected Evolutionism ... and all its unfounded empty promises????!!!! :eek:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If the evidence stopped pointing towards evolution, scientists would stop being evolutionists.

...if that was really the case, there would be no 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolutionists left ... but many Evolutionists are not the objective creatures that they claim to be ... and instead they hold to their unfounded belief in the CSI potential of Pondslime with all of the misguided tenacity of latter-day 'Flat Earthers'!!!!!:D:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Dr Wise didn't say that he didn't care about the evidence ... speaking as the professional scientist that he undoubtedly is, he said that he would be the first to admit it, if the physical geological evidence pointed to an old Earth.

But that he would ignore it, which makes any evidence for either evolution or creationism completely irrelevant

Mjollnir

J C wrote: »

...the fact is I am a conventionally qualified scientist.

I see zero evidence of that, and the term 'conventionally qualified' doesn't actually mean anything, so please spare us your bumbling attempts at self-legitimazation.

Equally, there have been calls on this thread to have the scientific qualifications of any scientist who declares themselves to be a Creationist rescinded.

Again with your penchant for irrelevancies. So what? I have not made such a call; my topic thus far has been specifically your scientific illiteracy, and no one else's.

So, you seem to also be in denial over your lack of objectivity, when you come to make observations/judgements on the scientific qualifications/abilities of Creationists, such as myself.

I'm not in denial over claims I haven't made, Sport. You exhibit zero understanding of science, it's nature and how it's applied.

...and so my question remains unanswered ... why do Evolutionists deny the scientific qualifications of the scientists with whom they disagree?

Sorry, you're now dodging what was put to to you in a very straightforward manner.

:):D

Yawn. Good luck with your childish word games. I don't play them, so you'll have to look elsewhere.

philologos

Just to ask a question of JC:

This is something that I am curious about. If there are species like the llama and the camel which are both of the same family of creatures, how do you believe that came about unless they have a common ancestor and changed over time?

As always, thanks for the time and effort.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

Just to ask a question of JC:

This is something that I am curious about. If there are species like the llama and the camel which are both of the same family of creatures, how do you believe that came about unless they have a common ancestor and changed over time?

As always, thanks for the time and effort.

I think this has been covered. J C and wolfsbane accept evolution. They just put a magical barrier in the middle and say, arbitrarily, that something can evolve this far and no further. Thus, the animals on the ark weren't the animals we know today, but their ancestors - the previously mentioned motherflies, rhinoceropses and now (many thanks) camellamas. This was followed by a period of super-speciation, wherein all today's species rapidly and for no apparent reason evolved from these common ancestors (without a single word of comment from any writings of the time).

philologos

I'm sure just about everything has been covered in this monstrosity of a thread, but I'm curious just to ask.

Perhaps for JC and wolfsbane it would be reasonable if God created starting creatures, and then evolution took place after this point?

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

Just to ask a question of JC:

This is something that I am curious about. If there are species like the llama and the camel which are both of the same family of creatures, how do you believe that came about unless they have a common ancestor and changed over time?

As always, thanks for the time and effort.

...they are probably of the same Kind ... and therefore descended from a common ancestor. Creation Scientists accept that speciation has occurred ... rapidly and using pre-existing CSI.

philologos

J C wrote: »

...they are probably of the same Kind ... and therefore descended from a common ancestor. Creation Scientists accept that speciation occurs ... rapidly and using pre-existing CSI.

So God created animal X, and then animal X1 and animal X2 came from animal X?

Let me ask you another question if I may:
Is it not possible that God could create basic life, and then bring a multitude of animals from basic life?

I'm really interested in this.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm sure just about everything has been covered in this monstrosity of a thread, but I'm curious just to ask.

Perhaps for JC and wolfsbane it would be reasonable if God created starting creatures, and then evolution took place after this point?

Yeah, that's what they say. It doesn't stand up to the evidence any better than the no-evolution-whatsoever rubbish, but it is a bit, um, different at least.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think this has been covered. J C and wolfsbane accept evolution. They just put a magical barrier in the middle and say, arbitrarily, that something can evolve this far and no further. Thus, the animals on the ark weren't the animals we know today, but their ancestors - the previously mentioned motherflies, rhinoceropses and now (many thanks) camellamas. This was followed by a period of super-speciation, wherein all today's species rapidly and for no apparent reason evolved from these common ancestors.

... sounds like you have a great future ... as a Creation Scientist !!!!:eek::):D

... I just love the names you give these Baramin ... motherflies, rhinoceropses and camellamas ...

... you may not even realise it yet ... but you really are a great Creation Scientist ... in utero!!!:):D:eek:

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

So God created animal X, and then animal X1 and animal X2 came from animal X?

...when X1 and X2 come from X it is because of SEX ... and speciation!!:D

X + SEX = X1 + X2 !!!

who'd have thought that maths could be so much fun!!!!:D

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm sure just about everything has been covered in this monstrosity of a thread, but I'm curious just to ask.

Perhaps for JC and wolfsbane it would be reasonable if God created starting creatures, and then evolution took place after this point?

... that is what seems to have happened ... but the 'evolution' hasn't created any CSI de novo ... it has used the originally created genetic information compliment of each Kind to produce the species diversity we see today.

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me ask you another question if I may:
Is it not possible that God could create basic life, and then bring a multitude of animals from basic life?

I'm really interested in this.

...yes, that is what Creation Scientists believe to have actually happened.

The 'basic life' forms were the Created Kinds (or Baramin) ... and the 'multitude of animals' are our current diversity of species and breeds within species.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... sounds like you have a great future ... as a Creation Scientist !!!!:eek::):D

... I just love the names you give these Baramin ... motherflies, rhinoceropses and camellamas ...

... you may not even realise it yet ... but you really are a great Creation Scientist ... in utero!!!:):D:eek:

Good to know I don't need to actually know anything or understand anything in order to impress you so much with my summation of your absurd position.

philologos

J C wrote: »

...when X1 and X2 come from X it is because of SEX ... and speciation!!:D

X + SEX = X1 + X2 !!!

who'd have thought that maths could be so much fun!!!!:D

Right, but this leads another question, how does speciation happen? Or indeed, how is it that people can breed dogs to select certain genes that will make them different from other dogs?

Is it that the selection of genes causes them to differ from other dogs?

If so, I assume it would be safe to say that this selection can also occur in nature. The genes that positively affect reproduction will result in certain animals reproducing, and the genes that negatively affect reproduction will result in others dying. As some die, and others reproduce it seems sensible to suggest that the surviving genes are selected over the dying ones which in turn will cause differences in animals.

It is impossible that God created life and our world like this?

Galvasean

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think this has been covered. J C and wolfsbane accept evolution. They just put a magical barrier in the middle and say, arbitrarily, that something can evolve this far and no further. Thus, the animals on the ark weren't the animals we know today, but their ancestors - the previously mentioned motherflies, rhinoceropses and now (many thanks) camellamas. This was followed by a period of super-speciation, wherein all today's species rapidly and for no apparent reason evolved from these common ancestors (without a single word of comment from any writings of the time).

I remember that guy. He's still knocking about actually.

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

I remember that guy. He's still knocking about actually.

I really should have kept updating that list. I'll add the camellama, though.

The Mad Hatter

Updated from my own post no. 13807, documenting "created kinds" as brought up by the creationists on this thread (or, as in the case of no. 7, elsewhere. J C seems to support no. 8, so I'm leaving it).

1) The 'sort-of-looks-like-a-horse' kind (which wolfsbane soberly titled the 'equine' kind) - horses, zebras and donkeys.

2) The 'Small-furry-brown-things-living-in-water' kind - beavers and otters

3) The noble rhinocerops - rhino and triceratops

4) The 'long-wet-legless' kind - eels and sea-snakes

5) Fish kind (note - doesn't have to be actual fish) - Dolphins, whales and sharks

6) The Motherfly kind - moths and butterflies

7) The fly/fishing fly kind.

8) The camellama - camels and llamas.

Galvasean

1) The 'sort-of-looks-like-a-horse' kind (which wolfsbane soberly titled the 'equine' kind) - horses, zebras and donkeys.

They are all of the same genus, so that's fair enough.

2) The 'Small-furry-brown-things-living-in-water' kind - beavers and otters

I suppose mink should be added. What about seals?

3) The noble rhinocerops - rhino and triceratops

>_<

4) The 'long-wet-legless' kind - eels and sea-snakes

5) Fish kind (note - doesn't have to be actual fish) - Dolphins, whales and sharks

Poor eel, doesn't get to be in the fish kind despite being a fish.
What about the mosasaur,

'long-wet-legless' or 'fish' kind?

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Good to know I don't need to actually know anything or understand anything in order to impress you so much with my summation of your absurd position.

...I did say that your Creation Science was still in utero ... and it is only when you finally 'emerge' from your denial, that your latent Creation Science talents will really come to fruition!!!!:D:eek:

...you have the potential to be a great Creation Scientist ... but you keep frustrating this potential, by your denial!!!:D

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

They are all of the same genus, so that's fair enough.

You know, I think in a very ham-fisted and clumsy way, genus is what creationists are actually trying to get at.

That said, they go from a very scant analysis of its outer shape, rather than actually trying to understand how the animal is made up (as it were).

(Funny, I seem to recall Wolfsbane saying words to this effect some time ago. Not sure, though.)

Galvasean

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You know, I think in a very ham-fisted and clumsy way, genus is what creationists are actually trying to get at.

That said, they go from a very scant analysis of its outer shape, rather than actually trying to understand how the animal is made up (as it were).

In the case of the horse, zebra, donkey that's fair enough. However, lumping an eel and a snake in the same 'kind' is frankly, ridiculous. One has lungs and breathes air, while the other has gills and gets it's oxygen from water.
It would be a bit like assuming two people were cousins based on the fact that they both have beards.

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

Right, but this leads another question, how does speciation happen? Or indeed, how is it that people can breed dogs to select certain genes that will make them different from other dogs?

Is it that the selection of genes causes them to differ from other dogs?

If so, I assume it would be safe to say that this selection can also occur in nature. The genes that positively affect reproduction will result in certain animals reproducing, and the genes that negatively affect reproduction will result in others dying. As some die, and others reproduce it seems sensible to suggest that the surviving genes are selected over the dying ones which in turn will cause differences in animals.

It is impossible that God created life and our world like this?

...both speciation and controlled breeding exploit similar genetic mechanisms within Created Kinds ... and both result in a reduction in genetic diversity in the resulting species / breed respectively ... but greater divergence/diversity between the new species/breeds!!!

...and just like artificial selection can produce some very diverse breeds quite rapidly, natural selection / isolation can also produce diverse/divergent species quite rapidly as well.
...another example of where Evolutionists confuse themselves with their 'millions of years' baloney!!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/rapid-speciation

..the above short video investigates the (rapid) speciation phenomenon ... including the 'Camellama'!!!:D

philologos

But if say, this selection takes place over numerous generations, it's quite probable that the animal that is born may appear very different to the animal that was first bred? This can happen over mere centuries even.

So, you believe evolution did take place, but just much more quickly than others say it did?

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Updated from my own post no. 13807, documenting "created kinds" as brought up by the creationists on this thread (or, as in the case of no. 7, elsewhere. J C seems to support no. 8, so I'm leaving it).

1) The 'sort-of-looks-like-a-horse' kind (which wolfsbane soberly titled the 'equine' kind) - horses, zebras and donkeys.

2) The 'Small-furry-brown-things-living-in-water' kind - beavers and otters

3) The noble rhinocerops - rhino and triceratops

4) The 'long-wet-legless' kind - eels and sea-snakes

5) Fish kind (note - doesn't have to be actual fish) - Dolphins, whales and sharks

6) The Motherfly kind - moths and butterflies

7) The fly/fishing fly kind.

8) The camellama - camels and llamas.

...your list is like a 'curates egg' ... only valid in parts ... but an excellent effort for somebody so new to Creation Science!!!:D

The Equine, Rhinocerops and Camelid are valid Kinds ... the rest are 'urine extractions' on your part!!!:D:):eek:

and here is an example of rapid speciation within plants via hybridization...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21713/?tool=pmcentrez

...and here is an example within a marine environment...
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/70/abstract

...many Evolutionists have known about this phenomenon all along ... yet they still cling to their pet 'millions of years' myth!!!:D

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

But if say, this selection takes place over numerous generations, it's quite probable that the animal that is born may appear very different to the animal that was first bred? This can happen over mere centuries even.

So, you believe evolution did take place, but just much more quickly than others say it did?

...because 'evolution' is such a 'weasel word' I want to be quite specific in what I say.

Natural/Sexual Selection is a fact.

(Rapid) Speciation/Isolation is a fact.

...and you are correct, that because of Natural/Sexual Selection and/or Isolation/Speciation ... that some modern Species may look quite different from their common ancestors i.e. the original Created Kind from which they have descended...and it should also be said that some other species (including Mankind) don't look appreciably different from their original Kind.

... yes, 'evolution' has, and does take place ... but it is not the 'Pondkind to Mankind' type of evolution. which would require the generation of new CSI (which is a mathematical impossibility)...

... instead, it is the 'Camelkind to Camel/Llama/Alpaka' type of evolution, which uses the original CSI diversity compliment of the original Camelid Kind ... to produce the new species/breeds:)

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

4) The 'long-wet-legless' kind.

...are you sure that you're not confusing Anatomy and Baraminology???:pac::pac::):D:p

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

(which is a mathematical impossibility)

Whysthat?

philologos

JC: If say God were involved in abiogenesis, would it be impossible?

liamw

J C wrote: »

... yes, 'evolution' has, and does take place ... but it is not the 'Pondkind to Mankind' type of evolution. which would require the generation of new CSI (which is a mathematical impossibility)...

Are you saying addition of new information to the genome is a mathematical impossibility? What is your definition of 'information'?

Surely information, if defined as knowledge of the environment, increases each time a mutation is selected...