The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...my hypothesis is the logical follow-on from the idea that green photsynthesising 'Pondslime became Man' ... but because the lack of green skin on nearly ALL animals decimates the idea that 'Pondslime became Man' it is, of course something upon which Evolutionists don't wish to focus!!!:eek:

What colour is bacterias skin?

token56

J C wrote: »

...my hypothesis is the logical follow-on from the idea that green photsynthesising 'Pondslime became Man' ... but because the lack of green skin on nearly ALL animals decimates the idea that 'Pondslime became Man' it is, of course something upon which Evolutionists don't wish to focus!!!:eek:

I'm not sure I'm exactly understanding your point, I dont think its being made well, but anyway I think I have it. I think what you are saying is also unrealisitic but anyway, Ok should we go under the hypothesis that life formed from a photosynthesising "pondslime" (I'm assuming you dont mean this is what evolutionists actually claim, because as far as I know they dont, if they do please point me to where they say that) therefore all life should all have the ability for photosynthesis because this is such a useful ability. First of all photosynthesis cannot provide a huge amount of energy quickly, so it is not suitable for humans or any large organism which requires alot of energy relatively quickly. Therefore humans having photosynthesis would not lead to us being self sufficient.

What would have more likely happened if this photosynthesising trait was held on during evolution of life is, the capabilities of life would have been limited by the amount of energy which photosynthesis could produce and life would not have evolved to the point it is now (Hence why I think this green pondslim became man eample thing is unrealisitc). It is also possible that should life produced by this slim start living in changing environments where light was not available in quantaties needed, it would have evolved to adapt to the environment it is in, i.e. gain energy by other means (photosynthesis is no longer useful here on its own). Adapting to ones environment through evolution is something evolutionist claim can and does happen. Therefore not all life produce by the photosynthesising "pondslim" would have to be gain energy from photosynthesis. This is what I was trying to get at when I was talking about your lack of understanding of evolution.

Also I think you are missing the point about this whole slug example.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What colour is bacterias skin?

... I was referring to the green-skinned Sea Slug that sequesters chloroplasts from algae.

monosharp

doctoremma wrote: »

Monosharp, I caught this on the news last week. Absolutely fascinating and yet another nail in the coffin for those arguing against naturally increasing complexity...

Yes it is really fascinating, unfortunately the majority of creationists won't understand it and those that do understand it will ignore the implications and put it all down to gods magic design.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Yes it is really fascinating, unfortunately the majority of creationists won't understand it and those that do understand it will ignore the implications and put it all down to gods magic design.

... well it certainly isn't due to Mutation and its 'ham-fisted' awkward half-cousin Natural Selection!!!!:D

token56

J C wrote: »

... well it certainly isn't due to Mutation and its 'ham-fisted' awkward half-cousin Natural Selection!!!!:D

Would you care to explain exactly how it could come about from a creationist standpoint and the logic behind it?

del88

I've had many a debate with my brother in law re evolution and I'm always amazed that he except most other aspects of science....why lights turn on...how computers work.....how plastic is made , yet he won't except evolution even thou it's the same scientists and scientific method that produce it......
Do creationist have any issues with the scientific method when applied to other theories unrelated to evolution...
Why not disprove the scientific method in other ares of science.....come up with an alternative theory for electromagnetism .

Sam Vimes

token56 wrote: »

Would you care to explain exactly how it could come about from a creationist standpoint and the logic behind it?

God made it that way, duhhhh :rolleyes:

And it's only mainstream sciences bias and hatred of creation scientists that make them say that answer isn't good enough

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Yes it is really fascinating, unfortunately the majority of creationists won't understand it and those that do understand it will ignore the implications and put it all down to gods magic design.

The magic stuff was vaguely amusing the first time, but now it's just boring. So no more of it please.

monosharp

del88 wrote: »

Do creationist have any issues with the scientific method when applied to other theories unrelated to evolution...

Creationists have some issues with almost all scientific areas because in almost all areas there is something that disagrees with their nonsense.

The Big Bang Theory, the Age of the Earth, Archaeology, Anthropology, Geology, Physics etc etc.

Not to even speak of abiogenesis because they group it into the theory of Evolution even though its a separate field of study.

Basically they have issues with anything that disagrees with a literal interpretation of genesis which is pretty much most of Science.

Why not disprove the scientific method in other ares of science.....come up with an alternative theory for electromagnetism

'Disprove' ? They don't even understand what the scientific method is.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

The magic stuff was vaguely amusing the first time, but now it's just boring. So no more of it please.

Come on PDN, you know when I'm referring to creationism and creationist beliefs I am not talking about real Christians or real beliefs but the utter nonsense that the vast majority of Christians and people of all religions laugh at.

I'm talking about JC and co's god of the gaps. You might as well give me a warning for insulting the idea of thetans (scientology).

You know I amn't talking about your god. Although outside of the creationism thread I do.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...so what!!!
...an intelligently designed slug that photosynthesises using sequestered intelligently designed chlorphyll genes!!!

I asked you what kind it is. I asked you the implications for creationist beliefs.

On the other hand, if each kind was independently created by a Common Designer ... such commonalities should be expected ... but they should not necessarily be widespread!!!!:D

So the slug didn't evolve this ability ? It has always had it ? Yes ?

Because if it did evolve this ability then that would pretty much destroy your 'complexity cannot increase naturally' argument now wouldn't it ?

Morbert

monosharp wrote: »

So the slug didn't evolve this ability ? It has always had it ? Yes ?

Because if it did evolve this ability then that would pretty much destroy your 'complexity cannot increase naturally' argument now wouldn't it ?

I like where this is going.

A fiver on "Actually, all slugs had this ability, but most of them lost it through DELETERIOUS mutations... :eek::D:pac::eek::eek::pac::pac::P

Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1 Corinthians v. 6."

J C

del88 wrote: »

I've had many a debate with my brother in law re evolution and I'm always amazed that he except most other aspects of science....why lights turn on...how computers work.....how plastic is made , yet he won't except evolution even thou it's the same scientists and scientific method that produce it......
Do creationist have any issues with the scientific method when applied to other theories unrelated to evolution...
Why not disprove the scientific method in other ares of science.....come up with an alternative theory for electromagnetism .

...but it's NOT the same scientific method that is used to evaluate 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution as is used to produce plastic polymers, light bulbs, etc.
Forensic Science (using indirect methods because nobody can directly observe what happened 5 billon / 10 thousand years ago) is used to evaluate 'origins' questions by BOTH Evolutionists and Creation Scientists ... while ordinary operative science (using direct and repeatable observations) is used to examine light switches, etc.!!!:):D

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Come on PDN, you know when I'm referring to creationism and creationist beliefs I am not talking about real Christians or real beliefs but the utter nonsense that the vast majority of Christians and people of all religions laugh at.

I'm talking about JC and co's god of the gaps. You might as well give me a warning for insulting the idea of thetans (scientology).

You know I amn't talking about your god. Although outside of the creationism thread I do.

...just like you have confirmed in my emboldened section of your quote, you are talking about the God of the Bible when you are laughing at Genesis!!!

...and you are laughing at ALL Christians (who believe in a Creator God they have never seen) when you refer to "Gods magic design"!!!

Somebody who thinks that 'muck turned into Man' talking about the 'magic' of the omnipotent creator God of the Universe is more to be pitied than censured!!!!
I would point out that the word 'magic' doesn't even begin to describe the magnitude and magnificence of God ... but when an Atheist, uses the word 'magic' about God I suppose, it is a start!!!!!:)

J C

Morbert wrote: »

I like where this is going.

A fiver on "Actually, all slugs had this ability, but most of them lost it through DELETERIOUS mutations... :eek::D:pac::eek::eek::pac::pac::P
[/COLOR]"

...the originally infused CSI at Creation allows the slug to develop this ability.

It is akin to a very sophisticated computer programme that has the potential to adapt to all kinds of situations and environments under which the programme is run (the Creationist Model)
... versus the equivalent of a wheelbarrow and a packet of clothes pegs being expected to turn into a Jumbo Jet using nothing only time and plenty of 'whacks' with a sledge hammer (the Evolutionist Model)!!!!:eek::D

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...but it's NOT the same scientific method that is used to evaluate 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution as is used to produce plastic polymers, light bulbs, etc.

JC, will you please define what you are trying to argue with us ? Are you trying to argue against the theory of Evolution or are you trying to argue against Abiogenesis or are you trying to argue against the fact of common descent with modification ?

After so many years and so much crap will you at least answer that question.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

The rules of Forensic Science (using indirect methods because nobody can directly observe what happened 5 billon / 10 thousand years ago) are used to evaluate 'origins' questions by BOTH Evolutionists and Creation Scientists ... while ordinary operative science (using direct observations) is used to examine your light switch!!!:):D

Forensic science (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to a legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or a civil action. Besides its relevance to a legal system, more generally forensics encompasses the accepted scholarly or scientific methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event, or an artifact, or some other physical item (such as a corpse) are ascertained as being the case. In that regard the concept is related to the notion of authentication, where by an interest outside of a legal form exists in determining whether an object is what it purports to be, or is alleged as being.

Real forensic science gathers observable, empirical and measurable evidence and then tries to reason what this evidence shows us through experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Hypotheses have been drawn up based on scientific research about the possible conditions of the early Earth and experimentation performed on producing organic material from non-organic material. This experiment was successful and is repeatable by anyone anywhere anytime.

This proves that organic material can naturally be produced from non-organic material.

This does not prove organic material DID 100% without a doubt come from non-organic material.
This does not prove life came from non-organic material.

All this shows is that under certain conditions that non-organic material can produce organic material.

This is not a theory, it is one of many hypotheses about the origin of life, precisely because there is not enough evidence to support it and precisely because this organic material has not been observed under experimentation to produce 'life'.

The question of how these organic materials formed a protocell is still unknown.

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.

We don't 'know' life arose this way, its just the best explanation supported by the best evidence that we currently have.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...just like you have confirmed in my emboldened section of your quote, you are talking about the God of the Bible when you are laughing at Genesis!!!

Would you consider yourself and a Muslim to have the same god ? Would you consider yourself and Mormons to have the same god ?

I believe creationism is so distinct from common sense Christianity that it is its own belief system entirely and therefore your god is not the Christian god.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...the originally infused CSI at Creation allows the slug to develop this ability.

This ability is not found in other slugs, the genes to do this are not found in other slugs. Where did it come from ?

Wouldn't you agree that a slug that lives entirely off of photosynthesis is a different species to old slimey out in the back yard eating his way through Mom's cabbages ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Would you consider yourself and a Muslim to have the same god ? Would you consider yourself and Mormons to have the same god ?

I believe creationism is so distinct from common sense Christianity that it is its own belief system entirely and therefore your god is not the Christian god.

That is not how this moderator sees it. That kind of semantics won't wash. I gave you a moderating instruction and if you or JC wish to comment on it further then I suggest you do it by PM to avoid backseat modding.

This thread has enough rabbit trails and off-topic subsections already without discussing moderation.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...the originally infused CSI at Creation allows the slug to develop this ability.

This is meaningless. Let's see where you're going wrong.

1. Before the first slug incorporated the chorophyll gene into it's genome, the ability to produce chlorophyll was manifestly absent, yes?

2. And after undergoing some kind of horizontal transfer event, the first slug became capable of producing chlorophyll, yes?

3. The cholorophyll the slug produces is wholly dependent on the gene it has incorporated, originally from another type of organism altogether, yes?

4. So are you using the term "CSI" to refer to the potential that a genome has to undergo radical genetic changes to produce useful functions? Are you saying that this potential was "infused" by an intelligent designer?

5. If Q4 is what you think, we may as well give up now.

J C wrote: »

It is akin to a very sophisticated computer programme that has the potential to adapt to all kinds of situations and environments under which the programme is run (the Creationist Model)

Ah ha. It seems that you do agree with Q4. So tell me, when a sophisticated computer programme adapts to an environmental situation, how does it adapt? What is the "raw material" that allows it to adapt? Is the relevant data always present and simply presented at an appropriate time? If we are talking about a programme which has a pre-programmed set of instructions about how to behave in any given situation (and indeed, how to combine these instructions to "learn" how to behave in an unforseen situation), then the term "CSI" might be applicable - the instructions are always there. It's just sometimes, we never see the outcome of them.

Now let's look at the slug. Provided you have actually read and understood what's happened (which I reckon is around 50:50), you will know that the data i.e. the gene for producing chlorophyll, wasn't there in the "original" slug. The slug isn't "expressing" some measure of "CSI" that was always there. Before it robbed a gene from an algae species, it couldn't, under any circumstances, have made chlorophyll, no matter how advantageous it might have been to have that ability. So how, by any sensible definition, did the slug have the "CSI" required to produce chorophyll?

Unless you are using "CSI" the refer to potential...

...in which case, I'm just off to make myself a brew and marvel at the CSI infused in a kettle of water that allows me to apply heat and directly observe the vastly more complex array of water molecules that emerges from the hole in the top.

J C wrote: »

versus the equivalent of a wheelbarrow and a packet of clothes pegs being expected to turn into a Jumbo Jet using nothing only time and plenty of 'whacks' with a sledge hammer (the Evolutionist Model)!!!!:eek::D

You don't actually understand natural selection or evolution, do you? It's alright to admit it, honey, it can be a bit tricky... I don't understand things like computer programming, despite talking about such things in this post. The difference between you and me is that I don't try to argue about things I don't understand and I'm always prepared to be corrected and learn when I do.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... that SHOULD be the way that academic and religious freedom SHOULD operate ... but once the awarding of a degree is based on somebody's religious views being examined before awarding it ... such high-minded pretentions have been effectively abandoned!!!!:eek:

Unfortunately, if I choose to sit a French exam and write entirely in English, I don't expect to pass, even though I am exercising my right to write in my first language. Similarly, when sitting my RE exam, I answered how I was coached to, even though I didn't believe it and the majority of the opinion I was required to regurgitate impinged on my right to religious freedom.

To suggest that science examiners are somehow at fault because they only accept scientific answers in a science exam is laughable.

J C wrote: »

...my hypothesis is the logical follow-on from the idea that green photsynthesising 'Pondslime became Man' ... but because the lack of green skin on nearly ALL animals decimates the idea that 'Pondslime became Man' it is, of course something upon which Evolutionists don't wish to focus!!!:eek:

To back up Monosharp, why do you assume that photosynthesis would be the best method of producing energy for all organisms for all evolutionary history?

monosharp

doctoremma wrote: »

To back up Monosharp, why do you assume that photosynthesis would be the best method of producing energy for all organisms for all evolutionary history?

I especially like his inference that photosynthesis relies on green skin, I must have missed that day in biology class.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

Somebody who thinks that 'muck turned into Man' talking about the 'magic' of the omnipotent creator God of the Universe is more to be pitied than censured!!!!

Isn't that what the bible says happened? That Adam was created from dust?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the originally infused CSI at Creation allows the slug to develop this ability.

It is akin to a very sophisticated computer programme that has the potential to adapt to all kinds of situations and environments under which the programme is run (the Creationist Model)
... versus the equivalent of a wheelbarrow and a packet of clothes pegs being expected to turn into a Jumbo Jet using nothing only time and plenty of 'whacks' with a sledge hammer (the Evolutionist Model)!!!!:eek::D

...and yes a little leaven (two Bible Believing Christians) does indeed leaveneth the whole Boards 'lump'!!!!!:)

J C, if all CSI is infused from creation and new abilites can manifest themselves through the expression of already existing CSI, isn't it entirely possible that "muck to man" evolution could have happened? It would have happened differently to how conventional science says it did because they say the "information" gradually developed over time whereas you say it was there to begin with and just got expressed differently at different times but isn't the scenario of apparently simple organisms apparently becoming more complex equally plausible under both scenarios?

How do you know that each "kind" only has the information for its own "kind"? Maybe all "kinds" have the CSI for all other "kinds" but it's just not being expressed?

J C

monosharp wrote: »

JC, will you please define what you are trying to argue with us ? Are you trying to argue against the theory of Evolution or are you trying to argue against Abiogenesis or are you trying to argue against the fact of common descent with modification ?

After so many years and so much crap will you at least answer that question.







Real forensic science gathers observable, empirical and measurable evidence and then tries to reason what this evidence shows us through experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Hypotheses have been drawn up based on scientific research about the possible conditions of the early Earth and experimentation performed on producing organic material from non-organic material. This experiment was successful and is repeatable by anyone anywhere anytime.

This proves that organic material can naturally be produced from non-organic material.

This does not prove organic material DID 100% without a doubt come from non-organic material.
This does not prove life came from non-organic material.

All this shows is that under certain conditions that non-organic material can produce organic material.

This is not a theory, it is one of many hypotheses about the origin of life, precisely because there is not enough evidence to support it and precisely because this organic material has not been observed under experimentation to produce 'life'.

The question of how these organic materials formed a protocell is still unknown.

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.

We don't 'know' life arose this way, its just the best explanation supported by the best evidence that we currently have.

... I think that Evolutionists have a lot in common with Donald Rumsfeld ...
... evolution is mostly about unknown unknowns ... and the rest of it about known unknowns!!!!:D:)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

This is meaningless. Let's see where you're going wrong.

1. Before the first slug incorporated the chorophyll gene into it's genome, the ability to produce chlorophyll was manifestly absent, yes?

2. And after undergoing some kind of horizontal transfer event, the first slug became capable of producing chlorophyll, yes?

3. The cholorophyll the slug produces is wholly dependent on the gene it has incorporated, originally from another type of organism altogether, yes?

4. So are you using the term "CSI" to refer to the potential that a genome has to undergo radical genetic changes to produce useful functions? Are you saying that this potential was "infused" by an intelligent designer?

5. If Q4 is what you think, we may as well give up now.



Ah ha. It seems that you do agree with Q4. So tell me, when a sophisticated computer programme adapts to an environmental situation, how does it adapt? What is the "raw material" that allows it to adapt? Is the relevant data always present and simply presented at an appropriate time? If we are talking about a programme which has a pre-programmed set of instructions about how to behave in any given situation (and indeed, how to combine these instructions to "learn" how to behave in an unforseen situation), then the term "CSI" might be applicable - the instructions are always there. It's just sometimes, we never see the outcome of them.

Now let's look at the slug. Provided you have actually read and understood what's happened (which I reckon is around 50:50), you will know that the data i.e. the gene for producing chlorophyll, wasn't there in the "original" slug. The slug isn't "expressing" some measure of "CSI" that was always there. Before it robbed a gene from an algae species, it couldn't, under any circumstances, have made chlorophyll, no matter how advantageous it might have been to have that ability. So how, by any sensible definition, did the slug have the "CSI" required to produce chorophyll?

Unless you are using "CSI" the refer to potential...

...in which case, I'm just off to make myself a brew and marvel at the CSI infused in a kettle of water that allows me to apply heat and directly observe the vastly more complex array of water molecules that emerges from the hole in the top.

... the slug 'borrows' the complete chloroplast from the algae ... and then uses pre-existing CSI to maintain the functionality of the chloroplasts ... it's a kind of an 'App' that this intelligently designed slug 'downloads' from the algae ...
... they both have a common protocol ... because they have a common designer!!

doctoremma wrote: »

You don't actually understand natural selection or evolution, do you? It's alright to admit it, honey, it can be a bit tricky... I don't understand things like computer programming, despite talking about such things in this post. The difference between you and me is that I don't try to argue about things I don't understand and I'm always prepared to be corrected and learn when I do.

...but honey, I do know what I'm talking about!!!

... you seem to be a very thoughtful and insightful young lady ... so I'm at a complete loss to know why you have 'bought into' the myth that you are glorified pondslime ... with nothing added but time and mistakes ... when you are obviously a beautiful specimen of Homo Sapiens made in the image and likeness of the Living God.

... BTW your most recent postings show that you are starting to think like a Creation Scientist ... and it can only be good when an evolutionist does so!!!;):)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How do you know that each "kind" only has the information for its own "kind"? Maybe all "kinds" have the CSI for all other "kinds" but it's just not being expressed?

...a very interesting idea ... but, either way, it completely does away with the reqirement for 'deep time'!!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...a very interesting idea ... but, either way, it completely does away with the reqirement for 'deep time'!!!!:D

I'm not sure it does. Even if all CSI was present in the very first forms of life but just not being expressed it would still take a lot of time for all of the apparent complexity and variation we see around us to be expressed. This idea seems to me to be a good compromise between the two positions because you still get to keep the idea that god infused the first life with CSI and you no longer have to deny the plain fact that the genetic code of all living beings shows a clear pattern of descendancy. Our genetic codes and the fossil record to name just two things clearly indicate a family tree, it is a family tree that contains both humans and turnips but that doesn't mean god couldn't have kicked the whole thing off with an infusion of CSI with man as the final goal

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Somebody who thinks that 'muck turned into Man' talking about the 'magic' of the omnipotent creator God of the Universe is more to be pitied than censured!!!!

Sam Vimes
Isn't that what the bible says happened? That Adam was created from dust?

...the Bible doesn't say that dust spontaneously turned into Man ... which is completely implausible
...it says that an omnipotent God CREATED Man from dust ... which is completely plausible!!!!