The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...like I have already said LA ... there are several conditions that disimprove sight LA ... and many more that cause instant blindness LA... LA

All of this PROVES that the Human Eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sightedness ... and in many cases for sightedness itself!!!!:) *Not listening.*

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...like I have already said ... there are several conditions that disimprove sight ... and many more that cause instant blindness ...

All of this PROVES that the Human Eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sightedness ... and in many cases for sightedness itself!!!!:)

Please retract your previous quote:

50% of an eye is not only completely blind

Wacker

J C wrote: »

...like I have already said ... there are several conditions that disimprove sight ... and many more that cause instant blindness ...

All of this PROVES that the Human Eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sightedness ... and in many cases for sightedness itself!!!!:)

...small rodents aren't a normal part of our diet ... so we don't NEED to see small critters at 1000 metres in order to kill them !!

But what is this 'prefect sightedness' that you speak of? Is it an owl's sight, that you just said we wouldn't need?

doctoremma

Wacker wrote: »

But what is this 'prefect sightedness' that you speak of? Is it an owl's sight, that you just said we wouldn't need?

Dream on if you think you'll get a sensible answer

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...like I have already said ... there are several conditions that disimprove sight ... and many more that cause instant blindness ...

All of this PROVES that the Human Eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sightedness ... and in many cases for sightedness itself!!!!:)

To use a religious reference, Jesus wept

Sam Vimes wrote: »

J C wrote: »

...yes, there are several conditions that disimprove sight ... and many more that cause instant blindness ...

All of this PROVES that the Human Eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sightedness ... and in many cases for sightedness itself!!!!:)

What it proves is that your claim that an eye that is missing components cannot have ANY function is demonstrably false. You have now backtracked from saying "the eye is irreducibly complex" which would disprove evolution if it was true to "the eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sight and in many cases for all sight" which disproves nothing. Unless it's irreducibly complex for ALL sight in ALL cases it's not irreducibly complex. You're shifting the goal posts because you've been proven wrong and a few days from now when you think this is forgotten about you'll shift them back.

You're talking nonsense. A child with absolutely no knowledge of evolution could see that you're talking nonsense because you fail at basic logic and that's not protected by any discrimination legislation

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

You know what? Let's scrap the peer review system. It's too biased against unpopular science. Now to publish my theory about how I created the universe. Prove me wrong folks.

...you just might get away with such a claim ... because evolutionist 'peer review' may already be in meltdown .....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

As a practicing scientist myself ... my eyebrows were certainly raised by the following extract published two weeks ago:-
"It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine. ":eek::pac::):D

...so that's how Evolutionist predictions are made!!!!!:D

...I must google some old Charlie Bird interviews ... you just never know I might discover some 'peer reviwed' gems of Evolutionist 'wisdom'!!:D:eek:

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...you just might get away with such a claim ... because evolutionist 'peer review' may already be in meltdown .....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

As a practicing scientist myself ... my eyebrows were certainly raised by the following extract published two weeks ago:-
"It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine. ":eek::pac::):D

...so that's how Evolutionist predictions are made!!!!!:D

...I must google some old Charlie Bird interviews ... you just never know I might discover some 'peer reviwed' gems of Evolutionist 'wisdom'!!:D:eek:

Check the guidelines of the IPCC, grey literature reports are allowed to be cited and referenced. It's a huge report and the use of grey lit is being gradually phased out.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

I am actually a conventionally qualified Galvasean scientist. I analyzed some turtle blood back in the 1960s and this supports the Galvasean theory of creation. Praise him. :pac:

...sounds like you should submit your ideas to some Evolutionist 'grey list' !!!!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To use a religious reference, Jesus wept

...Jesus is quite happy with me ... because I'm Saved!!!
....but if you're not Saved ... Jesus may very well be weeping for YOU.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Check the guidelines of the IPCC, grey literature reports are allowed to be cited and referenced. It's a huge report and the use of grey lit is being gradually phased out.

...hopefully all the 'grey lists' and 'tall tales' with which Evolutionists continue to confuse themselves with ... will ALSO be 'gradually phased out'!!!!:):D:eek:

liamw

J.C are you a badly programmed bot? you keep saying the same stuff over and over and over again without listening to any of the responses.

Perhaps an experiment of some sort, an bot programmed with an evolutionary algorithm to try and learn things from responses. I think the experiment should stop now though, it's failed a long time ago.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Dream on if you think you'll get a sensible answer

....I have long given up on getting sensible answers from Evolutionists...

... I now just listen to them for sheer entertainment!!!!:D:):eek:

J C

liamw wrote: »

J.C are you a badly programmed bot? you keep saying the same stuff over and over and over again without listening to any of the responses.

Perhaps an experiment of some sort, an bot programmed with an evolutionary algorithm to try and learn things from responses. I think the experiment should stop now though, it's failed a long time ago.

...if I am a Bot ... I'm beating the pants off you guys!!!!:D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Please retract your previous quote:

50% of an eye is not only completely blind

....I certainly will not retract ... a half an eye would indeed be COMPLETELY BLIND!!!!:D

J C

Wacker wrote: »

But what is this 'prefect sightedness' that you speak of? Is it an owl's sight, that you just said we wouldn't need?

... 'perfection' is in the eye of the beholder!!!!:D:)

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, you have a point. There could be a natural process by which an engine-less car gets an engine.

... if there is, I'd just love to hear about it!!!!:eek:

... you should submit this idea for 'peer-review' ... you never know ... it might just make it to some Evolutionist 'grey list'!!!:D:eek:

J C

iUseVi wrote: »

Which establishment? Theres no central authority for peer-reviewed papers. You sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, especially capitalising the 'E' on establishment.

The fact is that if there was half as many creation scientists as JC and you suggest, they would approve each others papers in the peer review process and they would get published. I speak as someone was has actually had papers published by anonymous review, theres no danger of people losing their jobs or anything.

...there is no danger of a Creationist losing their job IF they keep their mouths shut about their Creationism!!!!

...if they don't ... I wouldn't rate their chances of career advancement as very high, if the trenchent advocacy of discrimination against Creation Scientists by Evolutionists on this thread is anything to go by!!!!:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Jesus is quite happy with me ... because I'm Saved!!!
....but if you're not Saved ... Jesus may very well be weeping for YOU.

As I've told you many times before, if the christian god does exist I'd say he has a special circle of hell reserved for people who turned others away from the faith by burying it under a mountain of pseudo science and making it look ridiculous, such as now when you ignored by post for the second time and instead went on about being saved

J C

iUseVi wrote: »

Whether or not they do objective science cannot be determined by you. Peer review is (often not always) anonymous. You have no idea why a certain paper is rejected or not. You are assuming bias but the bias is in fact yours.

Creating your own journals does not count. If its valid biology put it in a biology journal, if its valid astrophysics, put it in an astrophysics journal. JC contends there are secret creationists everywhere. If this were the case some of them would surely by anonymous reviewers? Creationist papers would stand at least half a chance.

...they are there alright, helping to hold back some of the wilder flights of Evolutionist fancy ... BUT if they gave the 'green light' to an overtly Creationist paper (or EVEN an ID one) they MIGHT find themselves 'outside looking in' as quickly as you could say "Richard Sternberg"!!!!:D:)

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

....I certainly will not retract ... a half an eye would indeed be COMPLETELY BLIND!!!!:D

Can you define for me what you imagine 50 % of an eye looks like? Are you imagining an eye which has lost 50 % of its "necessary" structures, 50 % of its "necessary" volume, any other options?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Can you define for me what you imagine 50 % of an eye looks like? Are you imagining an eye which has lost 50 % of its "necessary" structures, 50 % of its "necessary" volume, any other options?

..whether it is cut in half ... or possesses 50% of its structures and biochemical cascades ... a half an eye would ALWAYS be completely blind.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As I've told you many times before, if the christian god does exist I'd say he has a special circle of hell reserved for people who turned others away from the faith by burying it under a mountain of pseudo science and making it look ridiculous, such as now when you ignored by post for the second time and instead went on about being saved

... there is NOTHING more important than being Saved!!!!

... all that Christians are asked to do is to present the TRUTH ... whether people listen ... or not ... is ENTIRELY up to them!!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...all Christians are asked to do is to present the TRUTH ... whether people listen ... or not ... is ENTIRELY up to them!!!!:D

Given that you deliberately deceive (look at your signature, misquoting Gould), doesn't that make you a pretty poor Christian?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...all Christians are asked to do is to present the TRUTH ... whether people listen ... or not ... is ENTIRELY up to them!!!!:D

You should probably start doing that so. Whether it's through incompetence, delusion or dishonesty, what you are presenting is not the truth

oceanclub

J C wrote: »

..whether it is cut in half ... or possesses 50% of its structures and biochemical cascades ... a half an eye would ALWAYS be completely blind.

I suppose you will tell us next that legs couldn't possibly have evolved because animals can't walk on their knees.

P.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

*Not listening.*:(

... Nobody can make you listen.

... you are a Child of God with free-will.
... God loves you like a Father ... and He is waiting for you with 'open arms' for you to make the decision to believe on Him.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that you deliberately deceive (look at your signature, misquoting Gould), doesn't that make you a pretty poor Christian?

...my quote is a VERBATIM quote from Gould!!!

i.e. FULLY truthful ... the problem is that you cannot accept that somebody could say this and still continue to believe in Evolution.

... all I can say is that he did ... and he did!!!!

... i.e. Gould did say this and Gould did continue to believe in Evolution ...
... admittedly of the punctuated rather then the gradual variety!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

...you just might get away with such a claim ... because evolutionist 'peer review' may already be in meltdown .....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

As a practicing scientist myself ... my eyebrows were certainly raised by the following extract published two weeks ago:-
"It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now told The Times that he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with the New Scientist magazine. ":eek::pac::):D

You do know that the article in question is not about evolution?

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Good luck with the car. :pac:

...I once had a car like that ... it was a large cardboard box with wheels drawn on the sides with a black marker ... and I was only 5 at the time!!!!:D

...BTW it used to do '0 to 60' in 2 seconds (of Evolutionist Time)!!!!:):D:eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...my quote is a VERBATIM quote from Gould!!!

And "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" is a verbatim quote from Jesus. The deceit comes from taking that quote out of the context in which it was said to suggest that Jesus was bringing physical violence.

Gould's full quote, as you no doubt aware is this.

Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial fo this literal record:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory.

Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never “seen” in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as th eonly true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution of this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism.

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

The argument of Darwin Gould is referring to in your quote is not evolution but gradualism within evolution.

You deliberately mislead by remove the quote from this context, and since most people are only aware of one argument made by Darwin (evolution), and since your selective quoting mentions only evolution by natural selection, the message you are trying to present with that quote is that Gould is doubting evolution by natural selection, when in fact he is doubting Darwian's ideas of gradualism.

As Gould himself said

“Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.”

To claim you represent truth is frankly a disgrace to the concept. If you represent Christian "truth" it makes me glad I'm an atheist.