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 a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1…724725727729730…822

Comments

  • #21782
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You disgust me.
    Evolution disgusts me too. I'm surprised you find your own logic so disgusting, yet you continue to proclaim it.


  • #21783
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    ISAW wrote: »
    What is "kind"?

    A vague handwavy definition which YECs use to get around the issue of speciation and explain how Noah managed to fit all those animals on his boat.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Define it would you?

    Oh, do you really need a proper definition? One that doesn't change? Can't I just prevaricate while I look up the best answer on Answersingenesis? And then I'll cut and paste that for you, would that be OK? I'll highlight important bits in red. Or green. But don't question me on them because I don't really know what they mean. That won't stop me repeating them though.
    ISAW wrote: »
    And the "capacity of a kind"

    Good luck with that. If they can't define "kind", how on earth can they extrapolate from that?
    ISAW wrote: »
    And "capacity" in relation to CSI?

    Again, good luck. They can't even define CSI. Which is fine because it's meaningless. JC thinks that if he shouts random biological phrases when asked about it, that might bamboozle us.


  • #21784
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Evolution disgusts me too. I'm surprised you find your own logic so disgusting, yet you continue to proclaim it.

    Please don't bother. Both parts of your remark were repulsive but the first phrase was, I think, the most revolting argument made to further this agenda I have ever seen.


  • #21785
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Please don't bother. Both parts of your remark were repulsive but the first phrase was, I think, the most revolting argument made to further this agenda I have ever seen.
    If a fly is no longer a fly if it has no wings...

    But I see you struggle with the argument. It's a fly, but it's not, seems to be your argument.

    My argument is it is a fly, no matter its disabilities. And so for every human. None are lesser. None are almost human, but not.


  • #21786
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Exactly, the "living organism" kind, from which all other sub-kinds had their functionality "expressed". Totally in keeping with both creation science and evolution.
    ... only if you accept that Pondslime has always been Pondslime and Cat Kind has always been Cat Kind, Mankind has always been Mankind etc.
    ... and the original Kinds were Directly Created...
    Then we have a deal.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That's quite a bold statement to make. How you can you prove that such an organism never existed?
    If a 'living organism' Kind ever did exist, it certainly wouldn't have been something simple like the Pondslime common ancestor that Materialistic Evolution postulates!!

    It would have had to have the entire CSI of the biosphere ... and there is no evidence that such an organism ever existed.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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
    What I meant that because mutations are observed to always degrade CSI there also never was a Simple Pondslime 'common ancestor' to all living organisms ... and the alternative of a Common Ancestor containing the entire CSI of the biosphere is equally implausible ... so we logically conclude that separately Created Kinds is the most likely scenario!!!
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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?
    ...there are some mutations that have a benefit, even though they have degraded CSI. The HIV mutation involves a pair of mutated genes -- one in each chromosome -- that prevent the immune cells from developing a "receptor" that lets the AIDS virus break in. If the so-called CCR5 receptor -- which scientists say is akin to a lock -- isn't there, the virus can't break into the cell and take it over.
    So the mutation causes a defect ... which has the benefit of preventing AIDS.
    This mutation is still further evidence of a perfect Creation 'running down' ... even though it provides a benefit.
    00000000000000018762.png


  • Advertisement
  • #21787
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    If a fly is no longer a fly if it has no wings...

    This is a somewhat semantic and ostensibly amusing argument, based on the fact that a "fly" is called a "fly" because it "flies". If it doesn't "fly", how can it be a "fly"? See an equivalent argument from The Mad Hatter regarding dogs' tails and "dogs" being called "wags".

    In fact, if you bothered to follow my logic beyond the mildly amusing to the serious, you will come to the next comment which clearly states that a dog with no tail is still a dog. Which you'll agree matches with you here:
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    My argument is it is a fly, no matter its disabilities.

    Ahh, but which of the "flies" is disabled?

    Anyway, you clearly didn't follow my post through to this as it would have denied you the opportunity to release the horror of the the thalidomide comment. I can only assume you are projecting your definition of a "human" as I wouldn't even entertain the idea of describing someone with any kind of birth defect as "non-human". And then you have the audacity to drop in the eugenics comment, when it is you who has framed a sentence linking disabled children and the phrase "not human". I find that breathtaking that someone even has that in their head, let alone uses it in a sensible debate.

    A few notes: Thalidomide defects are not genetic defects so you couldn't even pick something that was logically consistent. Also, your knowledge of the genus Homo needs some revision.

    You said it to be inflammatory, score points, whatever, but you provide a remarkably good example for why creationists should be metaphorically gagged.


  • #21788
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...there are some 3. mutations that have a benefit, even though they have degraded CSI. The HIV mutation involves a pair of mutated genes -- one in each chromosome -- that prevent the immune cells from developing a "receptor" that lets the AIDS virus break in. If the so-called CCR5 receptor -- which scientists say is akin to a lock -- isn't there, the virus can't break into the cell and take it over.
    So the mutation causes a defect ... which has the benefit of preventing AIDS.
    This mutation is still further evidence of a perfect Creation 'running down' ... even though it provides a benefit.

    1. If you're going to copy and paste, you really should reference your source. How very unscientific of you.
    2. There is no evidence that the allele variant is anything other than that, an allelic variation. If anything, it is, in the absence of immune challenge, a neutral mutation.
    3. Given that the longer and the shorter variant have differing activities in response to different viruses, how can we say which is the "original" and which is the "degraded" version?


  • #21789
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    1. If you're going to copy and paste, you really should reference your source. How very unscientific of you.
    2. There is no evidence that the allele variant is anything other than that, an allelic variation. If anything, it is, in the absence of immune challenge, a neutral mutation.
    3. Given that the longer and the shorter variant have differing activities in response to different viruses, how can we say which is the "original" and which is the "degraded" version?
    ...I am indebted to the following article on HIV resistance.
    http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198

    ... the bottom line is that the AIDS resistance is due to a loss of CSI i.e. a defect in the immune cells.

    Yet another example of a perfect Creation 'running down' ... as distinct from something like Pondkind 'running up'!!!:D

    00000000000000060890.png


  • #21790
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by Sam Vimes
    Exactly, the "living organism" kind, from which all other sub-kinds had their functionality "expressed". Totally in keeping with both creation science and evolution.
    ...Materialistic Evolutionists have only one thing in common with Creationists ... they both believe that the Theory of Evolution and Theism are non sequitors!!!!:D

    newmodel_2c.jpg


  • #21791
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ... only if you accept that Pondslime has always been Pondslime and Cat Kind has always been Cat Kind, Mankind has always been Mankind etc.
    ... and the original Kinds were Directly Created...
    Then we have a deal.


    If a 'living organism' Kind ever did exist, it certainly wouldn't have been something simple like the Pondslime common ancestor that Materialistic Evolution postulates!!

    It would have had to have the entire CSI of the biosphere ... and there is no evidence that such an organism ever existed.
    Why would it have to be complex? You've just acknowledged that new abilities can appear in offspring through the "expression" of previously existing but undetectable CSI so why couldn't an organism that appeared outwardly simple like pondslime contain all the CSI we see around us today, just in an unexpressed state?
    J C wrote: »
    What I meant that because mutations are observed to always degrade CSI there also never was a Simple Pondslime 'common ancestor' to all living organisms ... and the alternative of a Common Ancestor containing the entire CSI of the biosphere is equally implausible ... so we logically conclude that separately Created Kinds is the most likely scenario!!!
    Believe or not, repeating the same non sequitur and adding a baseless conclusion does not stop it being a non sequitur
    J C wrote: »
    ...there are some mutations that have a benefit, even though they have degraded CSI. The HIV mutation involves a pair of mutated genes -- one in each chromosome -- that prevent the immune cells from developing a "receptor" that lets the AIDS virus break in. If the so-called CCR5 receptor -- which scientists say is akin to a lock -- isn't there, the virus can't break into the cell and take it over.
    So the mutation causes a defect ... which has the benefit of preventing AIDS.
    This mutation is still further evidence of a perfect Creation 'running down' ... even though it provides a benefit.
    So what you're saying is that even if a mutation degrades CSI it can perform a beneficial function. You realise you've just admitted that a "random" process undirected by intelligence and guided only by survival of the fittest can produce beneficial functionality and therefore that evolution makes sense right?


  • Advertisement
  • #21792
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... the bottom line is that the AIDS resistance is due to a loss of CSI i.e. a defect in the immune cells.
    Yet another example of a perfect Creation 'running down' ... as distinct from something like Pondkind 'running up'!!!:D

    So resistance to HIV (not AIDS, AIDS isn't a virus) due to a deletion change is an example of loss of CSI. Ok, from that premise...

    How does that compare to the generation of new DNA sequences in immunoglobulin genes, where frequent rearrangements and the addition of random stretches of nucleotides (junctional diversity) are an important feature in immunity? Let's be clear - the undirected and random insertion of genetic material can cause a new protein to be created which can confer resistance to a pathogen.

    Loss of CSI? No. Sequestering existing CSI? No. Gain of CSI? Yes.


  • #21793
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    ISAW wrote: »
    What is "kind"?
    \_(0_o)_/
    ISAW wrote: »
    Define it would you?
    \_(0_o)_/
    ISAW wrote: »
    And the "capacity of a kind"
    \_(0_o)_/
    ISAW wrote: »
    And "capacity" in relation to CSI?
    \_(0_o)_/


    I neither peddle nor believe this claptrap.


  • #21794
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    So resistance to HIV (not AIDS, AIDS isn't a virus) due to a deletion change is an example of loss of CSI. Ok, from that premise...

    How does that compare to the generation of new DNA sequences in immunoglobulin genes, where frequent rearrangements and the addition of random stretches of nucleotides (junctional diversity) are an important feature in immunity? Let's be clear - the undirected and random insertion of genetic material can cause a new protein to be created which can confer resistance to a pathogen.
    HIV resistance = AIDS resistance = HIV resistance...

    ... a bit like Tetanus immunity = Lockjaw immunity = Tetanus immunity

    i.e. it is equally valid to use the name of the agent or the disease when talking about immunity or disease resistance!!!

    Anyway, the point remains that HIV/AIDS resistance (and resistance to many other diseases as well as antibiotic resistance) occurs due to a loss of CSI.

    And yes random processes can destroy locks and keys ... which is what is going on with resistance ... but they cannot make the locks and the keys in the first place!!!

    As I have said it is an example of a perfect Creation 'running down' ... as distinct from something like Pondkind 'running up'!!!:D

    perfect-sense.jpg


  • #21795
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C, you say that mutations are always observed to degrade CSI but

    You define a "loss" of DNA as a loss of CSI, regardless of whether it results in loss of function, gain of function or no change of function

    You define a "gain" of DNA as a loss of CSI, regardless of whether it results in loss of function, gain of function or no change of function

    You define a "shift" of DNA as a loss of CSI, regardless of whether it results in loss of function, gain of function or no change of function

    You define a "point mutation" of DNA as a loss of CSI, regardless of whether it results in loss of function, gain of function or no change of function

    etc etc etc

    Until there's nothing left. You have defined in advance every single change that it is possible for DNA to undergo as a loss of CSI so it's not really all that surprising that you never observe a gain is it, since under your definition there is nothing that could ever be called a gain?


  • #21796
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    \_(0_o)_/

    \_(0_o)_/

    \_(0_o)_/

    \_(0_o)_/
    hogwashmeterred.jpg


  • #21797
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    J C, you say that mutations are always observed to degrade CSI but

    You define a "loss" of DNA as a loss of CSI, regardless of whether it results in loss of function, gain of function or no change of function
    ...I have shown that CSI is lost by all mutations whether they provide a 'benefit' or not ... nothing more and nothing less!!!:D:)


  • #21798
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ...I have shown that CSI is lost by all mutations whether they provide a 'benefit' or not ... nothing more and nothing less!!!:D:)

    Not. for the first time it appears you don't understand the difference between "shown" and "repeated over and over until people got bored of correcting you"


  • #21799
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Not. for the first time it appears you don't understand the difference between "shown" and "repeated over and over until people got bored of correcting you"
    ...I have shown that CSI is lost by all mutations whether they provide a 'benefit' or not ... and the only reason you don't see it is because you are like this Evolutionist:-

    head-in-sand.JPG


  • #21800
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ...I have shown that CSI is lost by all mutations whether they provide a 'benefit' or not ... and the only reason you don't see it is because you are like this Evolutionist:-

    head-in-sand.JPG
    Right so. To a creationist, shown=repeated ad nauseum. Gotcha


  • #21801
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Right so. To a creationist, shown=repeated ad nauseum. Gotcha
    ...the objective evidence for Creation and Evolution has been put to the test on this thread ... and the Evolution 'evidence' crumbled before our eyes ... and 'was found wanting'!!!

    weighingcreation.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #21802
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    J C wrote: »
    ...the objective evidence for Creation and Evolution were put to the test on this thread ... and the Evolution 'evidence' crumbled before our eyes ... and 'was found wanting'!!!

    weighingcreation.jpg
    Oh look, a humorous picture. Is this another example of you "showing" us that evolution is wrong?


  • #21803
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    If a fly is no longer a fly if it has no wings...

    But I see you struggle with the argument. It's a fly, but it's not, seems to be your argument.

    My argument is it is a fly, no matter its disabilities. And so for every human. None are lesser. None are almost human, but not.

    "Disability" is a human concept.

    You can view the fly as being "disabled" if you like, but that has nothing to do with evolution (though possibly a lot to do with how you view the notion of a "perfect" creature and view anything other than that as something lesser, something degraded, including disabled people apparently. Rather unpleasant view point but consistent at least)

    The only think that matters from the point of view of evolution is whether the change in the organism makes it more or less adapted to it's environment.


  • #21804
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    perfect-sense.jpg

    Nothing "magically" exploded.

    Er, isn't what you believe?

    I think you will be hard pressed to find an atheist who believes in magic.

    Introduce a sky god though and you have magic up that whazzo.

    And he can apparently make nothing explode into something, a position you are laughing at.

    Good to see you can laugh at the ridiculousness of your own religion then ...


  • #21805
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Nothing "magically" exploded.

    Er, isn't what you believe?

    I think you will be hard pressed to find an atheist who believes in magic.

    Introduce a sky god though and you have magic up that whazzo.

    And he can apparently make nothing explode into something, a position you are laughing at.

    Good to see you can laugh at the ridiculousness of your own religion then ...
    ....its an issue of capacity ... an omnipotent God can create ex nihilo i.e. out of nothing ... but if you don't believe that 'God did it' ... then you are left with the totally implausible idea that a combination of 'nothing' and 'magic' did it all!!!:):D

    ...and now you are telling me that Atheists don't believe in magic ... they are left with only 'nothing' producing something out of nothing upon which nothing acted, as the Atheist's 'explanation' for the existence of everything!!!!:D

    As Emma might say, if she weren't an Atheist ... Epic Fail ... must do better!!!:D


  • #21806
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Oh look, a humorous picture. Is this another example of you "showing" us that evolution is wrong?
    ... its illustrating what has happened on this thread ... the evidence for Creation and Evolution has been weighed in the balance ... and the evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution has been found 'wanting' ... actually non-existent!!!:D:)

    weighingcreation.jpg


  • #21807
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    "Disability" is a human concept.

    You can view the fly as being "disabled" if you like, but that has nothing to do with evolution (though possibly a lot to do with how you view the notion of a "perfect" creature and view anything other than that as something lesser, something degraded, including disabled people apparently. Rather unpleasant view point but consistent at least)

    The only think that matters from the point of view of evolution is whether the change in the organism makes it more or less adapted to it's environment.
    ... to lose the ability to fly is a disability by definition!!!

    I accept that some disabilities (like losing the ability to fly on windswept areas where the insect could be swept out to sea and drowned) could aid (local/short-term) survival.
    However, increasing disability doesn't explain ... and indeed it further invalidates the idea that Pondkind could ever become Mankind ... through a series of 'mistakes' that produce a loss of ability every time!!!:D


  • #21808
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    i.e. it is equally valid to use the name of the agent or the disease when talking about immunity or disease resistance!!!

    No it isn't. Try saying that to a roomful of virologists/microbiologists and see how far you get. I understand that in your non-scientific world of copied snippets, it might be acceptable, but not in the world of biology, sorry.
    J C wrote: »
    Anyway, the point remains that HIV/AIDS resistance (and resistance to many other diseases as well as antibiotic resistance) occurs due to a loss of CSI.

    Despite your new knowledge of the biological system that I just outlined for you? Where entirely new pieces of DNA are gained to generate new arrays of proteins? Did you not read what I wrote? You are defining a gain of DNA and subsequent function as a loss of CSI? Repeating that it is a "loss of CSI" doesn't make it true, does it?

    How can you define the addition of entirely novel DNA sequences within the immunoglobulin genes which subsequently serve to generate pathogen-fighting antibodies as a "loss of CSI"? Do you understand how unhinged this makes you sound? Do you understand how inconsistent this is?
    J C wrote: »
    And yes random processes can destroy locks and keys ... which is what is going on with resistance ... but they cannot make the locks and the keys in the first place!!!

    Despite your new knowledge of the biological system that I just outlined for you? Where whole new sets of locks/keys are being created by the addition of novel sections of DNA all the time?

    You are a mass of contradictions, which might be workable, but you combine it with apparently wanton ignorance and a breathtaking obtuseness.


  • #21809
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ....its an issue of capacity ... an omnipotent God can create ex nihilo i.e. out of nothing ... but if you don't believe that 'God did it' ... then you are left with the totally implausible idea that a combination of 'nothing' and 'magic' did it all!!!:):D

    But if you have no fundamental objection to something appearing from nothing then you have no objection, given that you have nothing to support the idea that something can come from notion only if God does it.

    So, like so many times on this thread, you have contradicted yourself.

    Laughing at the idea that something came from nothing (not actually the atheist position but anyway....) when that is the foundation of your belief system simply highlights how out of touch you are even with your own beliefs.

    By the way, how does God create something out of nothing? What does he create it out of?
    J C wrote: »
    ...and now you are telling me that Atheists don't believe in magic ... they are left with only 'nothing' producing something out of nothing upon which nothing acted, as the Atheist's 'explanation' for the existence of everything!!!!:D

    And you know there was nothing before the Big Bang how exactly?


  • #21810
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    I accept that some disabilities (like losing the ability to fly on windswept areas where the insect could be swept out to sea and drowned) could aid (local/short-term) survival.

    Then by definition it isn't a disability :rolleyes:

    What is it with you guys and using the wrong words.
    J C wrote: »
    However, increasing disability doesn't explain ...
    Increasing disability?

    We just determined above that it isn't a disability, it in fact enhances the survival of the insect. So don't you mean increasing ability?


  • Advertisement
  • #21811
    Sea Sharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Sea Sharp


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    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.

    Yea, go into the details. You're saying amillennial, but I want your interpritation of the multi-colored statue and all the crazy animals in the prophecy. (Assuming that somebody with an amillennial point of view still agrees that the Daniel prophecies symbolized the world powers throughout history)

    (Heads Up: I'm going to disagree but I just want to make sure I'm disagreeing with what people actually believe. :))


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement