The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... so a fly that loses its wings isn't a fly???
... presumably then a dog that loses its tail isn't a Dog

The Mad Hatter
In fairness, it's not called a wag.

... whatever about 'dogs' not being called 'wags' ... there certainly have been a few 'wags' that have been called 'bitches'!!!:eek::):D:eek:

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I can't believe, after the excellent post about how we classify stuff, that you are still insisting that the fly I showed you is a fly. It doesn't have wings i.e. it's not a fly. Moreover, it's a fairly content fly and one able to reproduce readily.

...what do Evolutionists call a fly without wings ... is it a 'walk' ???:eek::pac::):D

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... so a fly that loses its wings isn't a fly???
... using this logic, then a dog that loses its tail isn't a Dog!!! :eek::):D

What do you imagine the defining feature of a "fly" is, JC? I mean, it's called a "fly" for a reason.

So, what do you call a fly without wings? A walk?

But not a fly. Taxonomists would surely be forced, if they came across this creature for the first time, to define it as "almost like a fly but not".

A dog without a tail is a dog. But it's a bit more like a Manx cat than it's parents were. Or a bat.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

What do you imagine the defining feature of a "fly" is, JC? I mean, it's called a "fly" for a reason.

So, what do you call a fly without wings? A walk?

But not a fly. Taxonomists would surely be forced, if they came across this creature for the first time, to define it as "almost like a fly but not".

A dog without a tail is a dog. But it's a bit more like a Manx cat than it's parents were. Or a bat.

...whatever you call these mutants ... they are all examples of devolution i.e loss of functionality/CSI ... and they are therefore predicted by Creation Theory (which postulates a biosphere that is 'running down' from perfection) ...
... however they are decidedly not supportive of an 'Evolution' that supposedly 'ran up' from 'Pondkind to Mankind'.:):D

doctoremma wrote: »

So, what do you call a fly without wings? A walk?

... it is technically a wingless mutant Fly.:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...whatever you call these mutants ... they are all examples of devolution i.e loss of functionality/CSI ... and they are therefore predicted by Creation Theory (which postulates a biosphere that is 'running down' from perfection) ...
... however they are decidedly not supportive of an 'Evolution' that supposedly 'ran up' from 'Pondkind to Mankind'.:):D

But you've been shown examples of a gain in functionality and you've had stock excuse ready to explain them away so fact that these specific examples showed loss of functionality isn't really relevant is it.......?

wolfsbane

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

I'm a bit of a late comer to this thread, (and there's not a chance in hell I'm reading through the previous posts), what is the general opinion of the Daniel prophecies by the Christians in here?

The historic Christian view - real prophecies, not stories made up after the event, nor contemporaneously as morale builders.

Some of them have come to pass, others are yet to be fulfilled.

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

What do you imagine the defining feature of a "fly" is, JC? I mean, it's called a "fly" for a reason.

So, what do you call a fly without wings? A walk?

But not a fly. Taxonomists would surely be forced, if they came across this creature for the first time, to define it as "almost like a fly but not".

A dog without a tail is a dog. But it's a bit more like a Manx cat than it's parents were. Or a bat.

And thalidomide children are not human. I see.

No wonder evolutionists were so enamoured with eugenics.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...whatever you call these mutants ... they are all examples of devolution i.e loss of functionality/CSI ... and they are therefore predicted by Creation Theory (which postulates a biosphere that is 'running down' from perfection) ...

You are making an massive and completely unfounded assertion. If you were a biologist, working long before we could sequence a genome in a day, and you came across two of these creatures, one with wings and one without, why on earth would you assume that the one without wings has "lost" something? You have absolutely no basis for this assumption and are projecting your completely subjective judgement about what has happened onto the situation. I suspect that you think it's somehow obvious (and you might express this with a snide remark about me not knowing a fly from a walk and some manic faces) but it is clear that having intuition about a situation DOES NOT MAKE IT A SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION.

Without genetic analysis, it would be impossible to tell whow these flies are related to each other and you have absolutely no way to say in which direction the genetic change has happened. Even by pinpointing the genetic change that has resulted in one "fly" and one "walk", we would still be unable to make any conclusion about which is the "proper" animal and which is the "devolved" animal.

Epic fail.

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

And thalidomide children are not human. I see.

No wonder evolutionists were so enamoured with eugenics.

You disgust me.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

And thalidomide children are not human. I see.

No wonder evolutionists were so enamoured with eugenics.

Flame bait much?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But you've been shown examples of a gain in functionality and you've had stock excuse ready to explain them away so fact that these specific examples showed loss of functionality isn't really relevant is it.......?

...ah yes the Evolutionist 'one trick pony' of the 'Nylon Bug' ... which doesn't make Nylon, which would indeed be a significant achievement ... but instead does the much easier feat of breaking down Nylon using its pre-existing organic chemistry 'recycling' skill set!!!

... and that seems to be it!!!:eek:

Could I gently point out that if Pondkind did, in fact evolve into Mankind, the World should be littered with unambiguous examples of CSI-increasing mutations ... and wingless insects developing wings (instead of winged ones losing theirs)!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...ah yes the Evolutionist 'one trick pony' of the 'Nylon Bug' ... which doesn't make Nylon, which would indeed be a significant achievement ... but instead breaks down Nylon using its pre-existing organic chemistry 'recycling' skill set!!!

... and that seems to be it!!!

Could I gently point out that if Pondkind did, in fact evolve into Mankind, the World should be littered with unambiguous examples of CSI-increasing mutations ... and wingless insects developing wings (instead of the other way around)!!!:D

Well off the top of my head there's the nylon bug and e-coli developing the ability to metabolise citrus and the slugs developing the ability to photo synthesise and the evolution of multi-cellularity in response to a predator seen in a lab and the "defect" that gives some humans immunity to HIV. Each of which has a hand waving nonsense filled excuse to explain them away or is simply ignored

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well off the top of my head there's the nylon bug and e-coli developing the ability to metabolise citrus and the slugs developing the ability to photo synthesise and the evolution of multi-cellularity in response to a predator seen in a lab and the "defect" that gives some humans immunity to HIV. Each of which has a hand waving nonsense filled excuse to explain them away or is simply ignored

...each of which use their own or something elses's existing CSI to do pretty mundane things ... in comparison with truly amazing CSI-rich processes ... like the sight cascade, for example!!!:eek::D

... like I have said, if Pondkind did, in fact evolve into Mankind, the World should be littered with unambiguous examples of CSI-increasing mutations ... and wingless insects developing wings (instead of winged ones losing theirs)!!!:eek::D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

You are making an massive and completely unfounded assertion. If you were a biologist, working long before we could sequence a genome in a day, and you came across two of these creatures, one with wings and one without, why on earth would you assume that the one without wings has "lost" something?

... because you would have just seen the loss of wings between two generations of flies!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

You have absolutely no basis for this assumption and are projecting your completely subjective judgement about what has happened onto the situation. I suspect that you think it's somehow obvious (and you might express this with a snide remark about me not knowing a fly from a walk and some manic faces) but it is clear that having intuition about a situation DOES NOT MAKE IT A SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION.

it is quite clear to everyone, only those in deepest denial, that a Fly with a set of wings and the ability to use them has more CSI than a Fly without these abilities.

It is also quite clear that the loss of these features is a loss of CSI.

doctoremma wrote: »

Without genetic analysis, it would be impossible to tell whow these flies are related to each other and you have absolutely no way to say in which direction the genetic change has happened. Even by pinpointing the genetic change that has resulted in one "fly" and one "walk", we would still be unable to make any conclusion about which is the "proper" animal and which is the "devolved" animal.

...the one losing functionality would obviously be the Fly losing the CSI!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

Epic fail.

Touché!!!:D

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

So put me to the test. Show me your observed change that is observably quite different from the original.

Certainly. Pick any one you like from here

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

My fav is the "induction of multicellularity", ie a single celled organism evolved into a multi celled one, even going so far as to evolve the ability to make a primitive skin around itself.

After this happened the biologists not only had to say a new species evolved but it was in fact a new genus,

"They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."

You can't really get a bigger observable evolution than that.

I await your inevitable dismissal (but but Wicknight, it was still green!! :rolleyes:)

wolfsbane wrote: »

Something most of us would say, 'Hey, that's not an ......!' To which you say, 'Well, we bred many generations of ...... and this is what we came out with.'

Hey, that's not a Chlorella vulgaris! In fact that isn't even a Chlorella, since Chlorella are single celled and this is multi-celled

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... because you would have just seen the loss of wings between two generations of flies!!!

How would you know it wasn't the gain of wings between two generations?

J C

J C wrote: »

This does, of course raise valid questions about the compatibility of a belief in Evolution with, for example, a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Could I emphasise that I am not saying that a Christian cannot be an Evolutionist ... quite clearly there are many Chrisitans who are Evolutionists ... but there are serious issues that could be profitably examined in relation to how a belief in Evolution can be reconciled with the Christian Faith.:)

I would like to hear how, for example, Theistic Evolutionists reconcile a belief in Evolution with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture

... as has happened numerous times on this thread ... all we get is silence from the Theistic Evolutionists when they are asked to justify their unfounded scientific position from a Biblical / Theological perspective!!!

... OK, as the Theistic Evolutionists seem to have 'lost their tongues' I will start with the basic types of Theistic Evolution (courtesy of Creation Worldview Ministries):-
There are many forms of theistic evolutionism. However, while there are many slightly different versions, they all basically fit into three groups.

The first group is the true deist who says that God may be deduced to exist because the obvious design seen in nature proves there is Designer God. The deist, however, believes that God started it all and then went home to read the newspaper and he has not been back since. This position states that God created the universe, the initial single celled life and He then gave it the intrinsic ability to evolve upward on its own until finally reaching the current state of man's existence. So, here we have God at the beginning only.

The second group contains those theists who believe that God used evolutionary processes over a long period of time in order to achieve the current creation. This group states that God used a screwdriver here, a wrench there and a hammer whenever it was needed and did this over millions and billions of supposed years. So, here we have God throughout the process.

The third group consists of those who are perfectly willing to accept that everything in the universe is self existent and evolved entirely on its own until one day God came walking through the universe and said, “Gee, this would make a perfect place for humans made in My image.” God then created man and woman and placed them into an evolved universe. This placates the person who is willing to accept evolution in total; with the exception that humans are a unique creation of God and man did not evolve from a common primate ancestor. So, here we have God at the end.

... so which group(s) do the Theistic Evolutionists on this thread belong?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... because you would have just seen the loss of wings between two generations of flies!!!

doctoremma
How would you know it wasn't the gain of wings between two generations?

... because you have just seen the loss of wings between the two generations!!!

Has language lost all meaning for Evolutionists?

... and BTW a gain of wings (by a previously flightless insect species) has never been observed.:D

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... because you have just seen the loss of wings between the two generations!!!

?????? If you found these two flies side-by-side, without any knowledge of where they had come from, how would you know whether one fly had lost a set of wings or one fly had gained a set of wings?

J C wrote: »

Has language lost all meaning for Evolutionists?

This is laughable given your continuous twisting, stretching and denial.

J C wrote: »

... and BTW a gain of wings (by a previously flightless insect species) has never been observed.:D

The information required to generate a fully-functioning pair of wings is large. We won't see that in a small number of generations. Remember - this statement does not contradict evolutionary theory in any way.

But anyway, I'm pretty certain that wings have been gained by several creatures throughout an evolutionary period. We can see animals with intermediate stage wings in the trees and in the sea. It's not really that difficult a concept...

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

?????? If you found these two flies side-by-side, without any knowledge of where they had come from, how would you know whether one fly had lost a set of wings or one fly had gained a set of wings?

... but the point is that we know that the winged Fly mutated to a wingless one ... and the opposite has never been observed (a gain of wings by a previously flightless insect species).

doctoremma wrote: »

The information required to generate a fully-functioning pair of wings is large. We won't see that in a small number of generations. Remember - this statement does not contradict evolutionary theory in any way.

...so even though wings can disappear in one generation ... they have never been observed to appear in a previously flightless insect ... nor has any other new CSI been observed to appear either!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

But anyway, I'm pretty certain that wings have been gained by several creatures throughout an evolutionary period. We can see animals with intermediate stage wings in the trees and in the sea. It's not really that difficult a concept...

... isn't faith a wonder to behold!!!!:eek::D

Sea Sharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

The historic Christian view - real prophecies, not stories made up after the event, nor contemporaneously as morale builders.

Some of them have come to pass, others are yet to be fulfilled.

I see. So which Christian interpretation do you all agree with?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...each of which use their own or something elses's existing CSI to do pretty mundane things ... in comparison with truly amazing CSI-rich processes ... like the sight cascade, for example!!!:eek::D

... like I have said, if Pondkind did, in fact evolve into Mankind, the World should be littered with unambiguous examples of CSI-increasing mutations ... and wingless insects developing wings (instead of winged ones losing theirs)!!!:eek::D

So you are now saying that the appearance of new functionality in the offspring of an organism that did not exist in any of its ancestors is also predicted by creation science so we have no dispute, "pondkind to mankind" evolution is predicted by creation science.

Evolution predicts loss of function through mutation
Creation science predicts loss of function through loss of "CSI"

Evolution predicts gain in function through mutation
Creation science predicts gain in function through "expression" of pre-existing "CSI" that was hiding around somewhere undetectably and suddenly appeared but definitely didn't mutate into being no siree.

All that would be required for "pondkind to mankind" evolution is for the original "pondkind" to contain the "CSI" of every organism we see today but for all of this functionality to be hidden away undetectably the way the photosynthesis ability of the slug was. And micro-evolution, which you fully accept, takes care of the rest. I propose the introduction of a new "kind", the "living organism" kind. All variation takes place within this kind and no amount of variation away from the original is too much because the original organism was infused with the CSI of all other organisms, albeit not "expressed". So dachsunds and dobermans are branched off members of the dog kind and tigers and tabbys are branched off members of the cat kind but all of them are members of the "living organism" kind, from which the dog and cat sub-kinds branched off. It's great to see that we've finally reached agreement

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you are now saying that the appearance of new functionality in the offspring of an organism that did not exist in any of its ancestors is also predicted by creation science so we have no dispute, "pondkind to mankind" evolution is predicted by creation science.

Evolution predicts loss of function through mutation
Creation science predicts loss of function through loss of "CSI"

Evolution predicts gain in function through mutation
Creation science predicts gain in function through "expression" of pre-existing "CSI" that was hiding around somewhere undetectably and suddenly appeared but definitely didn't mutate into being no siree.

All that would be required for "pondkind to mankind" evolution is for the original "pondkind" to contain the "CSI" of every organism we see today but for all of this functionality to be hidden away undetectably the way the photosynthesis ability of the slug was. And micro-evolution, which you fully accept, takes care of the rest. I propose the introduction of a new "kind", the "living organism" kind. All variation takes place within this kind and no amount of variation away from the original is too much because the original organism was infused with the CSI of all other organisms, albeit not "expressed". So dachsunds and dobermans are branched off members of the dog kind and tigers and tabbys are branched off members of the cat kind but all of them are members of the "living organism" kind, from which the dog and cat sub-kinds branched off. It's great to see that we've finally reached agreement

...the only problems with this 'happy ever after' ending is the problem of capacity.

The CSI capacity of each particular Kind is confined to that particular Kind.

There is and never has been any one organism with the entire CSI of all living organisms ... so the 'living organism' kind has never existed.

Equally, mutations are observed to always degrade CSI ... and so there also never was a 'common ancestor' to all living organisms either.

There were various Kinds Created alright ... and they contained all of the CSI appropriate to their particular Kind.


]

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the only problems with this 'happy ever after' ending is the problem of capacity.

The CSI capacity of each particular Kind is confined to that particular Kind.
...
There were various Kinds Created alright ... and they contained all of the CSI appropriate to their particular Kind.

Exactly, the "living organism" kind, from which all other sub-kinds had their functionality "expressed". Totally in keeping with both creation science and evolution.

J C wrote: »

There is and never has been any one organism with the entire CSI of all living organisms ... so the 'living organism' kind has never existed.

That's quite a bold statement to make. How you can you prove that such an organism never existed?

J C wrote: »

Equally, mutations are observed to always degrade CSI ... and so there also never was a 'common ancestor' to all living organisms either.

I don't see how the first half of that sentence has anything to do with the second half. Looks to me like a non sequitur

Also, what do you call the mutation, and it was a mutation, that allows some humans to be immune to HIV? Or, if you believe that we all have this ability in our "CSI" but it's just not being expressed, how do you propose we cause it to be expressed?

Zombrex

Jesus eats Darwin?

That is freaking awesome!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

]
Jesus eats Darwin?

That is freaking awesome!

...awesme doesn't even begin to describe it!!!:D:)

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...awesme doesn't even begin to describe it!!!:D:)

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So Jesus eats Dawkins and then we eat Jesus

And I get his powers. His tasty juicy powers.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

The CSI capacity of each particular Kind is confined to that particular Kind.

What is the CSI capacity of each Kind?

E.g
Dog 1.4Mbits
etc...

wolfsbane

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

I see. So which Christian interpretation do you all agree with?

You mean in the details? All would agree that the big time chunk has already been fulfilled - the rise of the various empires, the coming of Messiah. We differ on the exact details of the very end time segment - the rise of Antichrist, etc.

I find the Pre-tribulation Rapture position very difficult to square with the Bible, as I do the Post-millennial view. The A-millennial and the Historic Pre-millennial are easier to defend. I go with the former.

ISAW

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What is the CSI capacity of each Kind?

What is "kind"?
Define it would you?
And the "capacity of a kind"
And "capacity" in relation to CSI?