The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...like I have already said ... this is an 'Eucuminical Question' ... within Creation Science ... with a number of different hypotheses currently under active investigation.
Whenever a definitive conclusion is reached ... you will be the first to know.:)

So what you're telling us is that creationists cannot explain why the light from stars makes the universe appear to be 14 billion years old. Forgetting for a moment that a proper scientist would accept this evidence instead of trying to make it fit their preconceptions, how would you test any of the current hypotheses?

token56

J C wrote: »

...like I have already said ... this is an 'Eucuminical Question' ... within Creation Science ... with a number of different hypotheses currently under active investigation.
Whenever a definitive conclusion is reached ... you will be the first to know.:)

Would you be able give any examples of the type of research that is currently been conducted on behalf of creationist scientists on this subject. By this I mean links to or names of material published, or examples of projects currently underway etc.

equivariant

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That trend is relatively recent in comparison to the 150 years since the theory was formulated so I don't think one has anything to do with the other, I think the idea that accepting evolution requires atheism is a creationist myth but of course this is the problem isn't it? You think that evolution conflicts with your religious beliefs and therefore it's wrong. At that point the amount of evidence there is to support it becomes irrelevant; anything that is presented will be denied because retaining belief in god is more important than acknowledging reality

You say that you're "completely at a loss to explain why a Christian would promote the main concept which makes Atheists feel intellectually fulfilled, to their own children" but the reason is that unlike creationists, they're not prepared to lie to their children because of the mistaken idea that the lie is necessary to maintain belief (it's called pious fraud). Instead they take a more sophisticated interpretation of the bible that allows both evolution and belief to coexist and this is what the overwhelming majority of believers do

I disagree slightly here Sam. I thnk that the reason that many Christians do not indoctrinate their children with the biblical creation story is that many Christians do not really believe in the supernatural aspects of Christian doctrine. I think that many people label themselves as Christian for a variety of reasons e.g. they believe that Christianity encourages altruism, they were brought up as Chrisitians and just go along with that, etc...

However, I believe (and this is only my belief) that many Chrisitians (maybe, indeed, a large majority in developed countries such as Ireland)
do not really believe in God/the resurrection story/the Genesis creation story/etc..

Essentially, their faith is only skin deep. Most educated people these days place more trust in their own reason than in stories that are foisted upon them in their youth by a religious authority. This, from our (I presume that you are atheist?) point of view is a good thing. It is part of the inevitable and undeniable historical trend towards rationalism and away from belief in religion and the supernatural. It is the reason why we shouldn't get too worried by the likes of J C and his ilk.

Basically they are like the Japanese soldiers who got stranded on Pacific islands after WWII. The war has been lost, but they refuse to acknowledge reality and insist that there is still a battle to be fought.

I think that religious belief is doomed to gradually dwindle. It won't happen in our life times, but any realistic analysis of history shows that as societies progress and education becomes more available, religious observance declines. The conclusion is obvious.

PS A couple of hundred years ago, people would have been executed for expressing some of the sentiments that the atheists have expressed here (J C probably thinks that was a good thing). 50 years people would have been ostracised from society. Now, people can declare their atheism with impugnity (almost). Society advances as religion recedes

doctoremma

Thanks for the answers, JC.

2. Are you saying that the slug always had this gene? ... I don't know for certain - it may have ... but it is more likely to have been transferred from algae to the slug by known artificial means or by heretofore unknown natural means.

We understand the mechnisms by which existing DNA can incorporate new DNA - what do you mean by "unknown natural means"?

3. Is the "CSI" the potential to incorporate new genetic information? ...CSI has the potential to produce genetic variety ... but the likelihood of slug CSI producing the exact same CSI as in Algae are effectively ZERO .

Why? How does CSI produce new CSI? If god was using an instruction book, wouldn't he use the same CSI for the same outcome?

Therefore must have been either originally infused in the Slug DNA or (more likely)transferred by a (natural or artificial) recombinant process into the slug DNA.

What do you mean "infused"? This is a confusing word. Do you mean that the gene was there or not? Can CSI be present without a gene? Are you just substituting the word "gene" for "CSI"? Can a gene not be CSI?

8. Do you understand that the mechanisms behind the incorporation of new DNA into existing DNA are chemical and physical, with no more an intelligent input that the application of heat to water to make steam? ...no ... it is observed to be a highly controlled and exacting process ... whether by sex or genetic engineering

DNA is in a constant state of flux, breaking, being repaired, replicating etc. The processes that deal with this may be exacting but that doesn't mean they don't follow the laws of chemistry and physics.

9. Do you understand that the slug was probably incorporating lots of new sequences into its DNA at any one time, as you and I may well be doing now? ... no ... this genetic information wasn't due to a mutation ... it was either pre-existent in the slug ... or it was taken directly from the Algal genome.

Do you think the slug "took" this specific gene from the algae? Do you think there might have been several slugs that "took" lots of pieces of DNA but one happened to take 1. a whole genetic unit 2. one which proved advantageous to survival?

11. Do you understand that many of these DNA rearrangements will be neutral, some may be negative and some may be positive? ... true ... but all of them will a degradation of the slugs DNA CSI ... and that is why EVERYBODY avoids mutagenesis!!!

If you are classifying this change to the slug's genetic makeup as a "degradation of CSI", I don't think you're defining CSI as anything meaningful (which is common creationist behaviour). We have no evidence that anything in the slug's "original" genome was changed at all. The slug may not have lost a single piece of DNA. How has its CSI been degraded?

13. Do you understand how natural selection would operate on this "new" slug? ... it might favour it ... then again it might be more efficient to eat the algae (thereby availing of an ocean-full of the stuff), rather than carrying a few plasmids around on its back ... that would be an energy 'liability' when not in direst sunlight!!!

If the burden of incorporating a new gene/metabolising a new protein proves less efficient for the slug, this gene would be lost, because the slug is less fit to reproduce.

15. How do you think god controlled this process? ... He most likely didn't

So god isn't controlling this event at any level?

I am manifestly not glorified pondslime with nothing added but mistakes and time. I am pondslime with the addition of "mistakes", time and the most elegant, beautifully-simple natural mechanism ever demonstrated for promoting the selection of advantageous traits while removing those which are positively bad. ... the problem with such an idea is the well know phenomenon of 'rubbish in - rubbish out' ... i.e. natural or sexual seletion will not 'save the day' if they have nothing useful to select ... and 'rubbish' is unfortunately all you are going to get with mistakes and time!!!

Have you gone back to the idea that all genetic changes are negative...sigh... What is this well-known phenomenon of which you speak? This reply is absolute gobbledygook (lol, I have no idea how to spell that).

I'm trying to understand your mindset. It's difficult as it requires me to abandon logic and 15 years of biological knowledge ... Emma, what you need to abandon is all of the Evolutionist baloney that you have assimilated to the point where you now actually believe it unquestioning, like some kind or religious acolyte !!!

How can I abandon the theory of evolution where there's so much evidence?

Sam Vimes

I don't think you quite understand the idea of complex specified information (CSI) doctoremma. Don't worry it's not your fault, the concept is kept deliberately vague to aviod it being pinned down and disproved. It's basically waffle meant to impress and sound scientific.

But anyway, this is an example that J C gave before:

J C wrote: »

simplicity = eeeeeeeeeeeeeee or aaabbbaaabbbaaabbb
non-specified complexity = ashkjwoioncvnfhkzdvndjbvsdkfl;dsvjklkbdsfkvldsk
specified complexity = the argument that Specified Complexity doesn't exist is the nadir of Materialistic denial!!!:D

As I said, waffle, but you should at least know what he (mostly) means when he says it


The argument is that it's extremely unlikely for a "random" process to create something like an entire functional "sentence" and then there is a logical jump made that it therefore must have been done by god, it's one massive "I don't know so it must be god" argument.

Of course the problem with the argument is that evolution does not attempt to form the whole "sentence" in one go, it does it in gradual steps. The creationist response is that some natural components such as the eye are "irreducibly complex" and therefore cannot have arisen through a gradual process but every example that creationists have ever given of a supposedly irreducibly complex system has been shown not to be

Here's an article from a catholic evolutionary scientist Ken Miller who was involved in the Dover trial who showed that the main focus of the ID movement, the bacterial flagellum motor, is not irreducibly complex: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

You can see it here on youtube but it's a bit long

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

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That trend is relatively recent in comparison to the 150 years since the theory was formulated so I don't think one has anything to do with the other, I think the idea that accepting evolution requires atheism is a creationist myth but of course this is the problem isn't it? You think that evolution conflicts with your religious beliefs and therefore it's wrong. At that point the amount of evidence there is to support it becomes irrelevant; anything that is presented will be denied because retaining belief in god is more important than acknowledging reality

You say that you're "completely at a loss to explain why a Christian would promote the main concept which makes Atheists feel intellectually fulfilled, to their own children" but the reason is that unlike creationists, they're not prepared to lie to their children because of the mistaken idea that the lie is necessary to maintain belief (it's called pious fraud). Instead they take a more sophisticated interpretation of the bible that allows both evolution and belief to coexist and this is what the overwhelming majority of believers do

1. It is true that leading Atheists claim that Evolution allows them to be intellectually fulfilled

2. It is true that mainstream church attendance has reached a 'tipping point' due to the 'invasion' of the mainstream Churche thinking by an effectively Atheistic Worldview (including Evolution) which went into 'overdrive' about 30 years ago!!!

3. This is particularly tragic, in view of the fact that Creation Science has DISPROVEN practically every aspect of evolution and abiogenesis:)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So what you're telling us is that creationists cannot explain why the light from stars makes the universe appear to be 14 billion years old. Forgetting for a moment that a proper scientist would accept this evidence instead of trying to make it fit their preconceptions, how would you test any of the current hypotheses?

...I am satisifed that I can explain it ... but I respect my colleagues sufficiently to await their further deliberation on the subject.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

Has MacroEvolution really never been observed? Have scientists really never seen one "kind" evolve into another "kind"? Surely information can't ever been added to the genome by unintelligent processes...

token56

J C wrote: »

3. This is particularly tragic, in view of the fact that Creation Science has DISPROVEN practically every aspect of evolution and abiogenesis:)

You can say this all you want but that doesn't make it true. Not once in this thread have you done this or provided any evidence which "disproves" evolution in particular. Any questions or points you have made regarding evolution have been answered appropiately and many explanations given about how exactly evolution works. Yet you continue to use your own definition of "spontaneous evolution" which is far from what anyone here claims. Each time this is explained to you, you just seem to ignore it and continue on spouting about "spontaneous evolution". We have had examples of evolution in real life, we have had emma expain to you some of the key aspects of evolution at a gentic and other biological levels.

Now just because you provide some alternative explanation, key aspects of which have been disputed time and time again, does not mean you have disproven evolution. An alternative explanation does not automatically disprove all other ones. For this to happen you would have to at least provided evidence which catagorically proves every aspect of what you say is true, you have not been able to prove any aspect of it. So please lets get ride of this fairy tale notion that creationists have disproven evolution.

J C

equivariant wrote: »

I disagree slightly here Sam. I thnk that the reason that many Christians do not indoctrinate their children with the biblical creation story is that many Christians do not really believe in the supernatural aspects of Christian doctrine. I think that many people label themselves as Christian for a variety of reasons e.g. they believe that Christianity encourages altruism, they were brought up as Chrisitians and just go along with that, etc...

However, I believe (and this is only my belief) that many Chrisitians (maybe, indeed, a large majority in developed countries such as Ireland)
do not really believe in God/the resurrection story/the Genesis creation story/etc..

Essentially, their faith is only skin deep. Most educated people these days place more trust in their own reason than in stories that are foisted upon them in their youth by a religious authority. This, from our (I presume that you are atheist?) point of view is a good thing. It is part of the inevitable and undeniable historical trend towards rationalism and away from belief in religion and the supernatural. It is the reason why we shouldn't get too worried by the likes of J C and his ilk.

Basically they are like the Japanese soldiers who got stranded on Pacific islands after WWII. The war has been lost, but they refuse to acknowledge reality and insist that there is still a battle to be fought.

I think that religious belief is doomed to gradually dwindle. It won't happen in our life times, but any realistic analysis of history shows that as societies progress and education becomes more available, religious observance declines. The conclusion is obvious.

PS A couple of hundred years ago, people would have been executed for expressing some of the sentiments that the atheists have expressed here (J C probably thinks that was a good thing). 50 years people would have been ostracised from society. Now, people can declare their atheism with impugnity (almost). Society advances as religion recedes

...yes many people who classify themselves as Christians today are only 'cultural Christians' who are enamoured with some of the social aspects of Christianity without any belief in the supernatural ... and that is the main reason for the 'implosion' in mainstream church activity.

I disagree that societies improve with the expansion of Atheism.
For one thing, it is associated with the development of all kinds of irrationalism ... exemplified by the belief that Pondkind could develop into Mankind via selected mistakes.

...and executing people (or their careers) with whom you disagree is reprehensible ... whether it is done by a Theist or an Atheist!!!

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand the idea of complex specified information (CSI) doctoremma. Don't worry it's not your fault, the concept is kept deliberately vague to aviod it being pinned down and disproved. It's basically waffle meant to impress and sound scientific.

But anyway, this is an example that J C gave before:

J C wrote: »

simplicity = eeeeeeeeeeeeeee or aaabbbaaabbbaaabbb
non-specified complexity = ashkjwoioncvnfhkzdvndjbvsdkfl;dsvjklkbdsfkvldsk
specified complexity = the argument that Specified Complexity doesn't exist is the nadir of Materialistic denial!!!:D

From that definition, CSI just sounds like ignorance around the basic principles of evolution - random mutations and natural selection ??

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...yes many people who classify themselves as Christians today are only 'cultural Christians' who are enamoured with some of the social aspects of Christianity without any belief in the supernatural ... and that is the main reason for the 'implosion' in mainstream church activity.

Does the acceptance of Evolution, in your opinion, hamper someones chances of getting into Heaven?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

1. It is true that leading Atheists claim that Evolution allows them to be intellectually fulfilled

2. It is true that mainstream church attendance has reached a 'tipping point' due to the 'invasion' of the mainstream Churche thinking by an effectively Atheistic Worldview (including Evolution) which went into 'overdrive' about 30 years ago!!!

3. This is particularly tragic, in view of the fact that Creation Science has DISPROVEN practically every aspect of evolution and abiogenesis:)

1. Yes that's true

2. It is true that mainstream church attendance has reached 'tipping point' but 88% of Irish people still tick catholic on the census form. It's not that they believe there is no god, it's just that religion is irrelevant to their lives.

3. The problem is that you're attacking the wrong target. Instead of making yourself and the followers of your religion look like fundamentalist lunatics by denying solid science whenever it disagrees with your religious beliefs you should be attacking the apathy that is prevalent in society towards religion. I keep telling you that if you 100% disproved evolution in the morning I still wouldn't become a christian and that is the truth J C. You can argue that I would become "intellectually unfulfilled" but just because I don't have the answer to a question doesn't mean I have to stick god in that gap. I will accept that a god exists when it can be shown to exist. The logic of "I don't know so it must be god" is flawed and it would remain flawed if evolution was shown to be false. I keep telling you that if you disprove evolution the bible does not win by default and I mean it

As someone whose quote I can't find once said (paraphrased): the destiny of the god of the gaps is to shrink more and more until it vanishes. You would be far better off seeing god's fingerprint in the wonder of nature around us, including the simple and elegant process of evolution, rather than assuming that a universe created by a god cannot be described by science and vehemently fighting anyone who tries. Personally I think that a god who can create a universe that operates according to natural laws and produces complexity through predestined emergence is far more impressive than one that has to keep tinkering to make sure things go the way he wants

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...I am satisifed that I can explain it ... but I respect my colleagues sufficiently to await their further deliberation on the subject.

How do you explain it?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

3. This is particularly tragic, in view of the fact that Creation Science has DISPROVEN practically every aspect of evolution and abiogenesis:)

Just thinking about that it's actually pretty sad. You and your ilk are hacking away at evolution every day in what you think is the service of your god and you don't understand why it isn't working. You're like a guy who sees a fish in a lake and pulls it out of the water to try to rescue it from drowning, fighting harder and harder to save it as it inexplicably tries to get away from you and back into the water

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just thinking about that it's actually pretty sad.

Me too, I think it's really tragic. I've seen too many examples of J.C just ignoring arguments and sticking his fingers in his ears on this thread to think there's any hope of him thinking clearly. You might think I'm joking but I genuinely feel gutted to think that some people are so indoctrinated that they can't think straight. I think the only point in continuing this thread is to show passers by or people on the fence that evolution is really a fact.

Wacker

liamw wrote: »

Me too, I think it's really tragic. I've seen too many examples of J.C just ignoring arguments and sticking his fingers in his ears on this thread to think there's any hope of him thinking clearly. You might think I'm joking but I genuinely feel gutted to think that some people are so indoctrinated that they can't think straight. I think the only point in continuing this thread is to show passers by or people on the fence that evolution is really a fact.

I might hazard a guess that, after over 20,000 posts, there are no undecideds left lurking here!

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Does the acceptance of Evolution, in your opinion, hamper someones chances of getting into Heaven?

...the only determinant of whether you get into Heaven is whether you are Saved or not.

... however, whilst a belief in Evolution per se doesn't prevent you being Saved ... it can act as a 'stumbling block' to placing your faith in Jesus Christ ... and therefore the answer to your question is a qualified 'yes'.

J C

Wacker wrote: »

I might hazard a guess that, after over 20,000 posts, there are no undecideds left lurking here!

...every non-Saved person is an 'undecided' ... even if they don't accept that they are.
They only become 'decided' (for eternal perdition) at the moment of death ... if they haven't been Saved by then!!!

...and there are many 'searchers' lurking on this thread ... just like everywhere else.:D

J C

liamw wrote: »

Me too, I think it's really tragic. I've seen too many examples of J.C just ignoring arguments and sticking his fingers in his ears on this thread to think there's any hope of him thinking clearly. You might think I'm joking but I genuinely feel gutted to think that some people are so indoctrinated that they can't think straight. I think the only point in continuing this thread is to show passers by or people on the fence that evolution is really a fact.

...you feel sad that somebody doesn't believe that they are spontaneously descended from Pondslime via selected mistakes ... even though there is not a shred of evidence or logic to such a belief!!!!

...can you try to imagine how REALLY sad it is that MOST people are being lost to etenal pedition ... because they refuse to be Saved by believing on Jesus Christ ... even though both the evidence and logic points to an omnipotent Creator God ... who created each one of us and therefore will demand an account from every one of us when we die...and the only way of settling this account is to avail of God's free gift of salvation (while we are still alive).

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just thinking about that it's actually pretty sad. You and your ilk are hacking away at evolution every day in what you think is the service of your god and you don't understand why it isn't working. You're like a guy who sees a fish in a lake and pulls it out of the water to try to rescue it from drowning, fighting harder and harder to save it as it inexplicably tries to get away from you and back into the water

...we know why it often doesn't work ... it is the hardness of heart of the Unsaved ... a hardness that may never be overcome in many cases - and which can ONLY be overcome by the grace and power of God.

I would 'adjust' your analogy in relation to 'unsaved' people ... they are more like 'lemmings' than fish ... they are very often determined, despite all warnings, to continue on their path to destruction in the 'waters' of perdition...and I fully respect (even though I obviously regret) their decisions to do so.

...and my scientific challlenges to evolution is in service of the truth!!!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. Yes that's true (that leading Atheists claim that Evolution allows them to be intellectually fulfilled). OK

2. It is true that mainstream church attendance has reached 'tipping point' but 88% of Irish people still tick catholic on the census form. It's not that they believe there is no god, it's just that religion is irrelevant to their lives. Any who have believed on Jesus Christ are Saved...the rest (who believe that the church is irrelevant to their lives) would appear to be 'cultural' Christians.

3. The problem is that you're attacking the wrong target. Instead of making yourself and the followers of your religion look like fundamentalist lunatics by denying solid science whenever it disagrees with your religious beliefs you should be attacking the apathy that is prevalent in society towards religion. I keep telling you that if you 100% disproved evolution in the morning I still wouldn't become a christian and that is the truth J C. You can argue that I would become "intellectually unfulfilled" but just because I don't have the answer to a question doesn't mean I have to stick god in that gap. I will accept that a god exists when it can be shown to exist. The logic of "I don't know so it must be god" is flawed and it would remain flawed if evolution was shown to be false. I keep telling you that if you disprove evolution the bible does not win by default and I mean it

As someone whose quote I can't find once said (paraphrased): the destiny of the god of the gaps is to shrink more and more until it vanishes. You would be far better off seeing god's fingerprint in the wonder of nature around us, including the simple and elegant process of evolution, rather than assuming that a universe created by a god cannot be described by science and vehemently fighting anyone who tries. Personally I think that a god who can create a universe that operates according to natural laws and produces complexity through predestined emergence is far more impressive than one that has to keep tinkering to make sure things go the way he wants

...there is nothing 'solid' about the 'science' surrounding spontaneous evolution and the situation is just as 'shaky' with it's equally hapless 'pre-cursor' ... Abiogenesis.
Evolution is a 'big deal' ... and the Evolutionists know it. That is why the Atheists on this thread often defend Theistic Evolution ... which they can then dismiss at a later stage, as being Materialistic Evolution ... once, the 'God of the Gaps' is removed!!!
No such 'happy' accommodation can exist with Creationism ... and that is why the two are implaccably opposed!!!

Unlike Theistic Evolution, Creationism is a direct philosophical threat to the Atheistic/Materialistic worldview, made all the more menancing by its obvious veracity ... and that is why the Materialists vehimently oppose Creation Science by trying to make up for the lack of evidence for evolution, by sarcism towards Creation Science ... in the hope that nobody will notice what they are up to.

Interestingly, on this thread, the Thesitic Evolutionists themselves are remarkably reticent about defending (or even putting forward) their position.:eek::)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Thanks for the answers, JC.


We understand the mechnisms by which existing DNA can incorporate new DNA - what do you mean by "unknown natural means"? ...while natural horizontal gene transfer has been know between plants and bacteria ... natural trans-kingdom DNA transfer between plants and animals (like this suggested horizontal transfer between algae and a slug) has never been verified.


Why? How does CSI produce new CSI? If god was using an instruction book, wouldn't he use the same CSI for the same outcome? ...the discovery of controlling genes like hox box genes indicates that there is something much more sophisticated going on!!!

What do you mean "infused"? This is a confusing word. Do you mean that the gene was there or not? Can CSI be present without a gene? Are you just substituting the word "gene" for "CSI"? Can a gene not be CSI? ...CSI is all Complex Specified Infomation present in living organisms ... of which genetic information is but a small (but very important) part!!!


DNA is in a constant state of flux, breaking, being repaired, replicating etc. The processes that deal with this may be exacting but that doesn't mean they don't follow the laws of chemistry and physics.
...the primary activity is the conservation and transmission of information ... in a chemical medium.


Do you think the slug "took" this specific gene from the algae? Do you think there might have been several slugs that "took" lots of pieces of DNA but one happened to take 1. a whole genetic unit 2. one which proved advantageous to survival? ... I don't think it was 'taken' by the slug ... if this were proven to occur naturally it would have very significant implications ... you would certainly have to think very carefully about what you eat it this is true !!!


If you are classifying this change to the slug's genetic makeup as a "degradation of CSI", I don't think you're defining CSI as anything meaningful (which is common creationist behaviour). We have no evidence that anything in the slug's "original" genome was changed at all. The slug may not have lost a single piece of DNA. How has its CSI been degraded? ...if the CSI was transferred from the algae it may not have been degraded ... if it is being argued that it originated independently within the slug, in some kind of spontaneous parallel evolution, this is an impossibility.


If the burden of incorporating a new gene/metabolising a new protein proves less efficient for the slug, this gene would be lost, because the slug is less fit to reproduce. ... fair enough!!!



So god isn't controlling this event at any level? ... God is transcendant ... and He therefore doesn't normally directly interfere with His Creation!!


Have you gone back to the idea that all genetic changes are negative...sigh... What is this well-known phenomenon of which you speak? This reply is absolute gobbledygook (lol, I have no idea how to spell that). ...a small minority may be (temporarily) positive ... but all mutations degrade CSI.


How can I abandon the theory of evolution where there's so much evidence? ... please list some evidence for evolution of the type required to move from Pondkind to Humankind ... i.e. the creation of CSI by spontaneous non-intelligently directed processes.

.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...we know why it often doesn't work ... it is the hardness of heart of the Unsaved ... a hardness that may never be overcome in many cases - and which can ONLY be overcome by the grace and power of God.

I would 'adjust' your analogy in relation to 'unsaved' people ... they are more like 'lemmings' than fish ... they are very often determined, despite all warnings, to continue on their path to destruction in the 'waters' of perdition...and I fully respect (even though I obviously regret) their decisions to do so.

...and my scientific challlenges to evolution is in service of the truth!!!:D

I can only imagine that if there is a god he will be very angry with you because the only possible effect of your antics on this thread is to turn people away from creationism. Even if it is true, your nonsense makes it look like it's not. The only person you're fooling is yourself

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can only imagine that if there is a god he will be very angry with you because the only possible effect of your antics on this thread is to turn people away from creationism. Even if it is true, your nonsense makes it look like it's not. The only person you're fooling is yourself

God will NEVER be angry with me ... because I am Saved ... I am therefore in receipt of His mercy (which I don't deserve) ... and not His Justice and anger (which I do deserve).
In any event, I am ALSO telling the truth about what God's Word has to say on Creation as well as the scientific facts on the subject !!!

If I was unsaved, I would certainly fear falling into the hands of a Just and Living God...and I certainly wouldn't stake the possibility of eternal perdition on an unfounded belief that He doesn't exist ... means everything He says!!!!

Here is what the Word of God says about those who wilfully reject Savation when it is placed before them:-

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

EVERY Human Being is precious to God ... and He loves YOU with infinite love ... a love so great that (even though He is the Awesome Creator God of the universe) He will not force you to love Him ... and He is 'heart-broken' when you reject Him.

Jesus came so that NOBODY might be lost ... He came to bring YOU life in abundance ... and all He asks is that you soften your heart towards him ... and believe on Him to Save YOU
Jesus came to Save sinners (like you and me) and NOT to condemn us.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Matter:mad:

Also, you didn't answer the question, but with my amateur knowledge of creation science, I shall do so for you.

Hi Sam,

You see creationists have no problem with Einstein's theory of Revolution. (The evolutionists didn't like that name so they coined it relativity.) Einstein was a great guy. He was influenced to some degree by materialist thinking but luckily it did not distract him fully from the genius of creation science.

Einstein's genius (endowed unto Him by the almighty creator) was that he realised the materialist view of an "eternal" universe could not right. His theory's caused Him to question his very own materialist faith and he realised that the universe had to be constantly changing shape. One of the most esteemed creation scientists, La Maitre, postulated that the world came from a primeval atom. Unfortunately another of our esteemed creation scientists opposed this notion (He later saw the light) and coined the term "Big Bang". Creation scientists are responsible for both figuring out the big bang occurred, coining the term, and, unfortunately, misrepresenting it. All started by the genius of Einstein.

The majority of the misrepresentation though was done by materialists. They corrupted the theory to distort their faith based beliefs of a old earth. Luckily we have Dr Russell Humphreys, a physicist fighting to preserve the truth of Genesis, to enlighten us on what actually occurred. There are two primary phenomenon at play. Achronicity and Reverse Expansion. Allow me to explain.

Achronicity, derives from Einstein's theory of Revolution. Put simply, achronicity is a form of time dilation whereby in a given region time has stopped completely. This occurs when the gravitational potential of a given region has become so negative that the total energy density of space is also negative. Thus stopping all physical processes.

The Reverse Expansion inspired by Genesis tells us the Earth was created after the Galaxies and the Stars. This means that due the rapid expansion or stretching of space. We know this from Psalms 18:9:
He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet.
This verse can also be translated to mean "He stretched the Heavens" suggesting that God stretched out the heavens at a very high speed. This expansion would have cause the objects that God created first to age faster than those that came after. As the Earth was one the last planets to be created it goes without saying that all the stars and galaxies around it appears older. Of course, when one factors in Achronicity into this we see that the galaxies are actually only a few thousand years old.

See, for a simple overview:
Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

But my main reason for posting is to ask you where you got the assertion that the Earth was created last? As I understood Humphreys, he took the usual YEC line that the universe was created on Day 4 of the Earth.

Thanks.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Malty_T
Matter

Also, you didn't answer the question, but with my amateur knowledge of creation science, I shall do so for you.

Hi Sam,

You see creationists have no problem with Einstein's theory of Revolution. (The evolutionists didn't like that name so they coined it relativity.) Einstein was a great guy. He was influenced to some degree by materialist thinking but luckily it did not distract him fully from the genius of creation science.

Einstein's genius (endowed unto Him by the almighty creator) was that he realised the materialist view of an "eternal" universe could not right. His theory's caused Him to question his very own materialist faith and he realised that the universe had to be constantly changing shape. One of the most esteemed creation scientists, La Maitre, postulated that the world came from a primeval atom. Unfortunately another of our esteemed creation scientists opposed this notion (He later saw the light) and coined the term "Big Bang". Creation scientists are responsible for both figuring out the big bang occurred, coining the term, and, unfortunately, misrepresenting it. All started by the genius of Einstein.

The majority of the misrepresentation though was done by materialists. They corrupted the theory to distort their faith based beliefs of a old earth. Luckily we have Dr Russell Humphreys, a physicist fighting to preserve the truth of Genesis, to enlighten us on what actually occurred. There are two primary phenomenon at play. Achronicity and Reverse Expansion. Allow me to explain.

Achronicity, derives from Einstein's theory of Revolution. Put simply, achronicity is a form of time dilation whereby in a given region time has stopped completely. This occurs when the gravitational potential of a given region has become so negative that the total energy density of space is also negative. Thus stopping all physical processes.

The Reverse Expansion inspired by Genesis tells us the Earth was created after the Galaxies and the Stars. This means that due the rapid expansion or stretching of space. We know this from Psalms 18:9:
He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet.
This verse can also be translated to mean "He stretched the Heavens" suggesting that God stretched out the heavens at a very high speed. This expansion would have cause the objects that God created first to age faster than those that came after. As the Earth was one the last planets to be created it goes without saying that all the stars and galaxies around it appears older. Of course, when one factors in Achronicity into this we see that the galaxies are actually only a few thousand years old.
Thanks.

...Malty ... mocking is catching!!!!:):D

...and do also remember that imitation (even if poorly executed) is the best form of flattery!!!!:D

Livnat

If gravity had to evolve like all the rest of it what was happening in the interim you big evolutionist know it alls

Livnat

or photosynthesis or the human eye...how do evolutionists explain the finding of flesh in the hollowed bones of said reptilians which are these days defunct

Livnat

jc like the dinosaur these guys in here will eat you alive such is the ferocity of their rebellious nature:)