Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1…687688690692693…822

Comments

  • #20672
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    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.

    Not true. Why don't you do a bit of research into the amazing capacity of a retinal explant to detect light and initiate phototransduction?


  • #20673
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Galvasean wrote: »
    You do know that the article in question is not about evolution?
    ...it certainly does prove that everything that is scientifically published isn't peer-reviewed!!!

    I did meet an Evolutionist in a pub the other night ... and he told me that Evolution was a peer-reviewed fact ... I guess this might make some Evolutionist 'grey list' somewhere as well!!!:D

    ...indeed everything that is claimed for Spontaneous Evolution SHOULD be put on some 'grey list' somewhere ... but preferably not left in the streets ... where it could frighten the horses!!!:D:):p


  • #20674
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    J C wrote: »
    ...it certainly does prove that everything that is scientifically published isn't peer-reviewed!!!

    Ok, but who ever said it was?
    I did meet an Evolutionist in a pub the other night

    Hello, Captain Strawman.


  • #20675
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Not true. Why don't you do a bit of research into the amazing capacity of a retinal explant to detect light and initiate phototransduction?
    ...that is because of the amazing 'built in' redundancy and back up systems Intelligently Designed by our Magnificent Creator!!!:D:)


  • #20676
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ...it certainly does prove that everything that is scientifically published isn't peer-reviewed!!!

    So you did? More deceit then JC? Please show us this Christian way of "truth" please ... It is like opposite world is it? To a Christian like yourself a lie is the truth and truth is a lie? No wonder you believe in Creationism so much


  • Advertisement
  • #20677
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...that is because of the amazing 'built in' redundancy and back up systems Intelligently Designed by our Magnificent Creator!!!:D:)

    You have no idea what you are talking about. And that's only in reference to the first part of your response. The second part is irrelevant.

    Do you know what biological redundancy is? If you do and you can explain why this phenomenon might be explanatory for the capacity of a small section of retina to detect light, can you do so? Without the Jebus/Creator bit. I'm asking, from one scientist to another, what your thoughts are.


  • #20678
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ...that is because of the amazing 'built in' redundancy and back up systems Intelligently Designed by our Magnificent Creator!!!:D:)

    The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace


  • #20679
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    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.
    ...there is no deceit in using the above quote ... Jesus DIDN'T come to bring peace ... He came to DIVIDE the Saved from the Unsaved.

    Mt 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
    35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
    37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
    38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
    39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
    40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
    41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
    42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.


  • #20680
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ...there is no deceit in using the above quote ... Jesus DIDN'T come to bring peace ... He came to DIVIDE the Saved from the Unsaved.

    So Jesus came to bring physical violence to the world did he?


  • #20681
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace
    ...if the cap fits Wicknight ... I guess YOU should wear it!!!:D


  • Advertisement
  • #20682
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ...if the cap fits Wicknight ... I guess YOU should wear it!!!:D

    What do you think God does to those who spread falsehoods JC, people who lie in his name?


  • #20683
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    So Jesus came to bring physical violence to the world did he?
    ...He didn't come to bring physical violence ... BUT He also didn't come to bring peace (as illustrated by His use of the Sword analogy) ... which is similar to the use of the word 'Sword' in the Word of God in Heb 4:12

    Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart


  • #20684
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    What do you think God does to those who spread falsehoods JC, people who lie in his name?
    ...only Unsaved people would do that!!!!

    ...and I wouldn't like to be in their shoes TBH!!!!


  • #20685
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ...He didn't come to bring physical violence .

    Ah right.

    So if someone used that quote to suggest he did come to bring physical violence (a sword, taken literally, is after all a weapon of physical violence) they would be deliberately misleading their readers, despite not actually changing any of the words in the quote, but by merely taking the quote out of context of the rest of the passages

    Sort of just like what you were doing with your quote from Gould, no? :rolleyes:


  • #20686
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    J C wrote: »
    ...only Unsaved people would do that!!!!

    ...and I wouldn't like to be in their shoes TBH!!!!

    Perhaps you could explain then why it looks to us like you have misrepresented Gould in a dishonest fashion? I mean, if you didn't, then it should be relatively easily enough to explain why.


  • #20687
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ...only Unsaved people would do that!!!!

    So that must make you unsaved then?

    Or perhaps you don't actually believe in Christianity?

    After all you couldn't knowingly deceive like you do and still genuinely believe that you would be saved, could you?


  • #20688
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    iUseVi wrote: »
    They are both anonymous to each other. So it doesn't matter how wacky the idea is, you will not suffer a reputation loss by endorsing it.
    ...that would indeed have to be a requirement for all of the 'wacky' ideas that Spontaneous Evolution conjures up!!!:D


  • #20689
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Nope I could not. There are multiple reviewers for any paper. If a majority think its suitable then it gets on a shortlist. Obviously theres still the editor etc to contend with. If it did come with glowing reviews from the reviewers I don't see why it couldn't get published. But you and me both know it wouldn't get that far, and its not to do with bias, its to do with the fact that you would have to throw out biology, physics, astrophysics and geology to accept that theory.
    ... just as well that Creation Science has established its own peer-review systems then!!!:)


  • #20690
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    J C wrote: »
    ... just as well that Creation Science has established its own peer-review systems then!!!:)

    I can imagine it now....

    High Lord of Creation Science: "Does it support Creationism? Yeah? Okay, it's in so. No need to read it."


  • #20691
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You have claimed repeatably that there is a world wide materialistic conspiracy in the scientific community to promote the false theory of evolution at the expense of other, Biblical, theories, despite them knowing it is a false theory.

    What would you call that if not calling scientists liars?
    ...I HAVE SAID NO SUCH THING!!!!

    What I have pointed to is the open contempt with which many evolutionists, on this thread, treat me as a Creation Scientist.

    ...equally, there is NO CONSPIRACY against Creationism ... just OPEN advocacy of job discrimination against Creation Scientists and ID Proponents on this thread!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #20692
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    From the article you linked to:

    ‘The Y chromosome is the indicator-DNA that defines men as men, and only men can pass it on to their sons,’’ Dr Wells explained on the National Geographic website that recruits international participants. ‘’We can trace every man alive today, every Y chromosome, back to a single Y chromosome, therefore a single man, who lived in Africa 60,000 years ago. He wasn’t the only man alive at that time but he was the lucky one who left his Y chromosome lineages down to the present day.’’

    That guy wasn't Adam because, as I said in the post you quoted: "We can't prove that no one back then was called Adam but if there was more than one person alive at the time and there were people alive before him, he's not the Adam you're talking about"
    ... and pray tell what were all the other men doing while 'Y-Chromosome Adam' was 'going forth and multiplying'???

    ... were they ALL 'shooting blanks' or something???:eek::D

    ... here we have absolute SCIENTIFIC PROOF for the existence of Adam ... the Father of ALL Mankind !!!:)


  • #20693
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Where am I going?:confused:
    You tell me!!!

    ... if you aren't Saved, you REALLY don't want to go there!!!


  • #20694
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


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

    P.
    ...you do make a rather compelling point there!!!!:D


  • #20695
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    J C wrote: »
    ...you do make a rather compelling point there!!!!:D

    Oh Sweet Mother of God. Sometimes I need a second to just take a step away from my PC exhaustively whirring away for a few moments to take in how depressing some of the stuff you actually say is.


  • #20696
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ah right.

    So if someone used that quote to suggest he did come to bring physical violence (a sword, taken literally, is after all a weapon of physical violence) they would be deliberately misleading their readers, despite not actually changing any of the words in the quote, but by merely taking the quote out of context of the rest of the passages

    Sort of just like what you were doing with your quote from Gould, no? :rolleyes:
    ...If they added a comment that Jesus came to bring physical violence, then they would be misinterpreting the quote.

    ...I didn't add any comment to Prof Gould's quote, other than to TRUTHFULLY point out that Prof Gould was a life-long Evolutionist!!!


  • #20697
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Perhaps you could explain then why it looks to us like you have misrepresented Gould in a dishonest fashion? I mean, if you didn't, then it should be relatively easily enough to explain why.
    ...your Unsaved hearts perhaps????:)


  • #20698
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    J C wrote: »
    ...your Unsaved hearts perhaps????:)

    Oh so basically we can't understand any of your posts or quotations here because we're unsaved? Fanny, PDN any chance ye could ask JC to explain to why it seems like he's misrepresentated Stephen Jay Gould? Also, can you guys understand JC's posts? If not, I think we might all be in some trouble. :rolleyes:


  • #20699
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I can imagine it now....

    High Lord of Creation Science: "Does it support Creationism? Yeah? Okay, it's in so. No need to read it."
    ...is that HOW Evolutionists peer-review their work?

    Creation Scientists are made of sterner stuff ... and they give and take criticism of their work with absolute scientific integrity!!!:)


  • #20700
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Oh Sweet Mother of God. Sometimes I need a second to just take a step away from my PC exhaustively whirring away for a few moments to take in how depressing some of the stuff you actually say is.
    ...yes it can be very uncomfortable for the Unsaved debating with the Holy Spirit of God, even at one remove!!!!

    That's WHY Saved Christians ARE called 'The Salt of the Earth'!!!:)

    Suggestion:-Stop calling on God's Mother ... and start calling on the Man Himself!!!!!:D


  • Advertisement
  • #20701
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    J C wrote: »
    ...is that HOW Evolutionists peer-review their work?

    Creation Scientists are made of sterner stuff ... and they give and take criticism of their work with absolute scientific integrity!!!:)

    Name one paper then.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement