The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

It would be more apt to say that the painting is the work of a painter, and the painter takes pride in it (the deadliest sin I assume?). How and ever, even if we accept all of that part of the analogy to be true then the Earth is a proton in an atom in a molecule of one tiny piece of paint on that 100ft x 100ft painting. Does the painter lavish such attention on that?

I don't see it a sin to be happy with your work. In a Biblical context, it is more arrogance that it deals with. It isn't wrong to be proud with something as long as one doesn't get all puffed up about it. Contrary to popular opinion, God isn't a killjoy.

Considering that human beings in the Judeo-Christian context are created in His image, and in His likeness and are intelligent animate beings born with a unique teleological purpose by God, I would have to assume that He would care about us.

The analogy of the atom also falls short in this respect.

Although you aren't the first person to doubt this by any means. King David did too:

Psalm 8:4 wrote:

what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?

Flamed Diving

This video = this thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs

It's depressingly accurate...

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This video = this thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs

It's depressingly accurate...

That's twice I've beaten you now flamed.:p

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see it a sin to be happy with your work. In a Biblical context, it is more arrogance that it deals with. It isn't wrong to be proud with something as long as one doesn't get all puffed up about it. Contrary to popular opinion, God isn't a killjoy.

Considering that human beings in the Judeo-Christian context are created in His image, and in His likeness and are intelligent animate beings born with a unique teleological purpose by God, I would have to assume that He would care about us.

The analogy of the atom also falls short in this respect.

Although you aren't the first person to doubt this by any means. King David did too:

No need to get hung up on the pride joke, it was a throwaway remark.

I have realised a serious problem in this argument is that you consider scripture to be evidence and I do not. As such I doubt we shall find any compromise in our positions. Which is a pity. But best to let it lie.

Flamed Diving

Malty_T wrote: »

That's twice I've beaten you now flamed.:p

Blast!

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

I have realised a serious problem in this argument is that you consider scripture to be evidence and I do not. As such I doubt we shall find any compromise in our positions. Which is a pity. But best to let it lie.

I personally won't be compromising my faith because it isn't something to be compromised.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Isn't Hoyle responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" and causing all the popular misconceptions about it?

...Sir Fred Hoyle was a leading British Astronomer and mathematician ... and served as director of the prestigous Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge University.
As well as abandoning Evolution for mathematical reasons ... he also correctly spotted that the 'Big Bang Theory' was another load of Evolutionist baloney!!!:D

...full marks to Sir Fred!!!

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

How familiar are you with the Hebrew word "yom" J C? It's a key word in the Genesis 1 passage.

...very familiar, as it so happens...

Every time the word 'yom' is accompanied by a number ... or the words 'evening' or 'morning' ... it always means an ordinary 24 hour day ... and the use of 'yom' in Genesis 1 follows this convention!!!:)

... and here is Dr Ken Ham's fuller explanation:-
The context of Genesis 1 clearly shows that the days of creation were literal days.

First, yom is defined the first time it is used in the Bible (Genesis 1:4–5) in its two literal senses: the light portion of the light/dark cycle and the whole light/dark cycle.

Second, yom is used with “evening” and “morning.” Everywhere these two words are used in the Old Testament, either together or separately and with or without yom in the context, they always mean a literal evening or morning of a literal day.

Third, yom is modified with a number: one day, second day, third day, etc., which everywhere else in the Old Testament indicates literal days.

Fourth, yom is defined literally in Genesis 1:14 in relation to the heavenly bodies.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-066/word-yom-mean

...and here are the reasons why ALL Christians SHOULD be YEC:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally won't be compromising my faith because it isn't something to be compromised.

...but you are compromising your faith, to a degree, if you accept the Atheist 'one-trick pony' ... Spontaneous Evolution!!!

philologos

How do you calculate that the world is 6,000 years old from the Bible?
Also, how could literal 24 hour days have existed before the sun and moon were created? (Genesis 1:16)

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

How do you calculate that the world is 6,000 years old from the Bible?
Also, how could literal 24 hour days have existed before the sun and moon were created? (Genesis 1:16)

...it could be as much as 10,000 years ... but the calculation method is the same ... the genealogy from Adam to Noah is recorded in Genesis 5:3-32 and the genealogy from Noah to Abraham is recorded in Genesis 11:10-27.
The biological genealogy from Adam to Jesus via Mary is recorded in Luke 3:23-38 and the legal genealogy from Abraham to Jesus via Joseph is recorded in Matthew 1:1-17.:):D

... and Genesis 1:3-5 tells us what happened on the first day
Ge 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

In order to create the first day, God separated the light from the darkness ... without any need for a Sun ... which wasn't created until the fourth day

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

... so-called 'micro-evolution' is possible because it involves selection/isolation within the pre-existing functional genetic diversity (CSI) infused into Created Kinds at the moment of their creation.:D:)

And how are the functional parts selected?

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And how are the functional parts selected?

...like I have already said, ...the PROBLEM for 'evolution' has never been with the 'selection' bit ... the problem has ALWAYS been with explaining the spontaneous production of the Complex Specified Information upon which NS acts!!

... and the only possible answer is Intelligent Design!!

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...like I have already said, ...the PROBLEM for 'evolution' has never been with the 'selection' bit ... the problem has ALWAYS been with explaining the spontaneous production of the Complex Specified Information upon which NS acts!!

... and the only possible answer is Intelligent Design!!

You misunderstood me.
How is a trait within the creatures existing traits selected for mutation?

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You misunderstood me.
How is a trait within the creatures existing traits selected for mutation?

....traits aren't selected for mutation ... which is a random deleterious process ... there are many different varieties of trait ALREADY within the genome ... and they get expressed, selected and isolated as reproduction proceeds!!!

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...very familiar, as it so happens...

Every time the word 'yom' is accompanied by a number ... or the words 'evening' or 'morning' ... it always means an ordinary 24 hour day ... and the use of 'yom' in Genesis 1 follows this convention!!!:)

Yet last time I checked your entire argument against the age of the Earth/Universe was based on arguing against the constant of light/radioactive decay over time. You said that Scientists wrongly assume the speed of light/radioactive decay is constant.

Lets look at a day shall we.

wikipedia wrote:

The word refers to various relatedly defined ideas, including the following:
24 hours (exactly)
the period of light when the Sun is above the local horizon (i.e., the time period from sunrise to sunset);
the full day covering a dark and a light period, beginning from the beginning of the dark period or from a point near the middle of the dark period;
a full dark and light period, sometimes called a nychthemeron in English, from the Greek for night-day;
the time period from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM or 9:00 PM or some other fixed clock period overlapping or set off from other time periods such as "morning", "evening", or "night".

Oh there we have your 24 hours JC. Well done.

But oh wait ...

wikipedia wrote:

The Earth's day has increased in length over time. The original length of one day, when the Earth was new about 4.5 billion years ago, was about six hours as determined by computer simulation. It was 21.9 hours 620 million years ago as recorded by rhythmites (alternating layers in sandstone). This phenomenon is due to tides raised by the Moon which slow Earth's rotation. Because of the way the second is defined, the mean length of a day is now about 86,400.002 seconds, and is increasing by about 1.7 milliseconds per century (an average over the last 2,700 years).

Heres some formulas to calculate the length of a day. http://www.gandraxa.com/length_of_day.aspx

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

Which is still just as meaningless.


Nope, I'm just saying that what you believe in is based on ideas such as "random" and "chance," which both happen to be imaginary, or have meaning only because you know nothing. "I don't know what caused it, so it must be God random."

Oh dear. I've seen this many times on creationist videos but no, just no. There is conclusive proof that the mechanism of evolution through the selection of random mutations works perfectly well without anything guiding the mutations, evolutionary algorithms. These are computer simulations that model evolution where many simple units are randomly varied and then tested using a fitness function. These algorithms regularly produce the kind of complexity that ID proponents claim is imposssible and solve problems that even our most intelligently designed algorithms can't.

chozometroid wrote: »

I'll give you some credit, though. This falls in line with the atheist mantra of, "we admit that we just don't know." So, random = "I don't know."

Evolution "appears" to have no ordered or guided process, which is perfect for your belief in no God.

Again no. Firstly I don't have a "belief in no god". And evolution requires no god but that's not the same as it having no ordered or guided process. The ordered and guided process is natural selection

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

....traits aren't selected for mutation ... which is a random deleterious process ... there are many different varieties of trait ALREADY within the genome ... and they get expressed, selected and isolated as reproduction proceeds!!!

So traits aren't selected, but then are selected?
And if all traits are within the genome, how are there any different breeds of anything?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

....traits aren't selected for mutation ... which is a random deleterious process ... there are many different varieties of trait ALREADY within the genome ... and they get expressed, selected and isolated as reproduction proceeds!!!

Why is mutation deleterious? Surely that's context dependent?

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

Why is mutation deleterious? Surely that's context dependent?

He thinks that animals started out with all of their genetic information present and perfect because "information can only come from a mind" and that mutations can only degrade the information. Total nonsense but then that's creationism for you.

doctoremma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He thinks that animals started out with all of their genetic information present and perfect because "information can only come from a mind" and that mutations can only degrade the information. Total nonsense but then that's creationism for you.

Eh? What does he think when a mutation (which amazingly so many people view as an always negative thing) allows an animal to be bigger/stronger/better or confers a new ability?

Turtwig

doctoremma wrote: »

Eh? What does he think when a mutation (which amazingly so many people view as an always negative thing) allows an animal to be bigger/stronger/better or confers a new ability?

An Intelligence was behind it d'uh.:D

doctoremma

Malty_T wrote: »

An Intelligence was behind it d'uh.:D

That god changed the gene?

So he accepts that genetic change (deletion, addition, subsitution etc) happens, that "information" can "increase" (what a meaningless phrase) and that it could be of benefit for the host organism, depending on the environmental pressure on the host organism at the time. He's not too far away now....

monosharp

doctoremma wrote: »

Eh? What does he think when a mutation (which amazingly so many people view as an always negative thing) allows an animal to be bigger/stronger/better or confers a new ability?

Ah your new, I must warn you that concepts like common sense and facts are not welcome here.

I'm sure JC will argue with you that mutation never confers an advantage since we are all deteriorating since our 'creation'. Apart from the super-evolution period of course ....

JC believes that after the flood (that would be Noahs flood, the one which caused the fossil record to make it look like the Earth is older then 6000 years) there were about 10,000 species (is that right JC ?) which disembarked off Noah's yacht. These 10,000 species subsequently underwent super-evolution (within their own kind*) which gave us all the species we have today. Oh yeah and the super-evolution stopped after an unspecified amount of time for an unspecified reason.

*kind has yet to be defined but basically JC and others see dogs, cats, fish etc as all been within their own 'kind' so a dog-like creature stepped off Noah's Yacht and gave birth within a couple of thousand years to all the dog 'kinds' we have today as with fish, cats etc.

Turtwig

doctoremma wrote: »

That god changed the gene?

So he accepts that genetic change (deletion, addition, subsitution etc) happens, that "information" can "increase" (what a meaningless phrase) and that it could be of benefit for the host organism, depending on the environmental pressure on the host organism at the time. He's not too far away now....

Yep but it's about this time he starts chucking claims that muck to man spontaneous evolution is a logical mathematical impossibility. This is usually followed by a rebuke of his CSI (Complex Specified Information) rubbish.The he follows with a brief period of posts about problems with the evolutionist faith or something to that extent, until we're back to the whole information cannot increase and round and round we go.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Yep but it's about this time he starts chucking claims that muck to man spontaneous evolution is a logical mathematical impossibility. This is usually followed by a rebuke of his CSI (Complex Specified Information) rubbish.The he follows with a brief period of posts about problems with the evolutionist faith or something to that extent, until we're back to the whole information cannot increase and round and round we go.

I summarised a recent exchange I had with J C in the following diagram. It's already been posted but it should help doctoremma get the idea

doctoremma

monosharp wrote: »

Ah your new, I must warn you that concepts like common sense and facts are not welcome here.

Consider me warned

monosharp wrote: »

I'm sure JC will argue with you that mutation never confers an advantage since we are all deteriorating since our 'creation'.

Tell that to all those dying on their arses from MRSA infections...

monosharp wrote: »

Apart from the super-evolution period of course ....

So he accepts evolution? But is hung up on species "boundaries"?

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I summarised a recent exchange I had with J C in the following diagram. It's already been posted but it should help doctoremma get the idea

Brilliant!
Sums it up perfectly imo.
Kind of depressing too.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Yet last time I checked your entire argument against the age of the Earth/Universe was based on arguing against the constant of light/radioactive decay over time. You said that Scientists wrongly assume the speed of light/radioactive decay is constant.

...this has nothing to do with the fact that a day has always been 24 hours in duration covering a full dark and light period.

monosharp wrote: »

Lets look at a day shall we.

Originally Posted by wikipedia
The word refers to various relatedly defined ideas, including the following:
24 hours (exactly)
the period of light when the Sun is above the local horizon (i.e., the time period from sunrise to sunset);
the full day covering a dark and a light period, beginning from the beginning of the dark period or from a point near the middle of the dark period;
a full dark and light period, sometimes called a nychthemeron in English, from the Greek for night-day;
the time period from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM or 9:00 PM or some other fixed clock period overlapping or set off from other time periods such as "morning", "evening", or "night".


Oh there we have your 24 hours JC. Well done.

... thanks mono!!!

monosharp wrote: »

But oh wait ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
The Earth's day has increased in length over time. The original length of one day, when the Earth was new about 4.5 billion years ago, was about six hours as determined by computer simulation. It was 21.9 hours 620 million years ago as recorded by rhythmites (alternating layers in sandstone). This phenomenon is due to tides raised by the Moon which slow Earth's rotation. Because of the way the second is defined, the mean length of a day is now about 86,400.002 seconds, and is increasing by about 1.7 milliseconds per century (an average over the last 2,700 years).

Heres some formulas to calculate the length of a day. http://www.gandraxa.com/length_of_day.aspx

...as the Earth is less than 10,000 years old ... the day has lengthened by less than 0.17 seconds since it was created ... which is a practical irrelevancy!!!!

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So traits aren't selected, but then are selected?
And if all traits are within the genome, how are there any different breeds of anything?

... crossover and recombination during reproduction and then intense selection/isolation of particular traits.

There was also multiple latent traits infused at Creation ... which were originally within what is now called the 'junk DNA' ... this allowed great episodes of speciation and phenotypic diversity to manifest themselves.