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
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Could you also do some real science and give me an answer to my question with regard to Riemannian Geometry I asked earlier?
Also could you prove that DNA formation is mathematically impossible and strictly define genetic information?
This is a direct request for you to show me how Creation Science deals with scientific questions.
If you don't want to tackle all three then just pick one.0 -
The evidence for creation doesn't exist. Any "evidence" you have shown so far is a misrepresentation of actual science.J C wrote:Science should ethically pursue knowledge and objectively evaluate evidence wherever it may be found. If the evidence supports Evolution, so be it or equally, if it supports Creation so be it ALSO.
This is identical to the hurricane assembling a 747 in a junk yard arguement and shows that you completely misunderstand evolution. You assume that complex life like humans is the final product of evolution and depends on macromutations to functionJ C wrote:It is analogous to saying that because iron filings form ordered patterns that eventually they will organise themselves into a tape and tapedeck and begin to pump out the music of Status Quo.
The critical ingredient, once again is intelligently produced information (in the case of the music) and specified complexity (in the case of the tape and tapedeck).
Wishful thinking perhaps but no evidenceJ C wrote:(1)Geology (2)No evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe (3)Evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe (4) Evidence of a Global Flood Catastrophe.
Mutations are nearly always harmful in evolution. features such as slightly longer legs or slightly better eyesight are favoured by natural selection because they sightly increase the survival of an animal. It is the summation of these advantages that result in evolution.J C wrote:(1)Mutations (2)Nearly always Beneficial (3)Nearly always Harmful (4)Nearly always Harmful.
Once again you demonstrate beyond doubt your lack of understanding of evolution, nothing that has allowed its genetic information to survive until now is inferior to anything else that has acheived the same.J C wrote:(1)Nature of Mankind (2)Quantitatively superior to animals (3)Qualitatively distinct from animals (4)Qualitatively distinct from animals.
[/QUOTE]J C wrote:(1)God (2)Doesn’t need to exist (3)Can be objectively proven to exist (4)Can be objectively proven to exist.
Please explain this. If you could have shown us this evidence before we would have finished this arguement long ago.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Most of these politicians were not true Christians, but some were. One mitigating factor that can be offered is initial ignorance. They didn't fully foresee how sincere people would react, being politicians who are mostly concerned with cheap volumes of hot-air. Another factor is more understandable: they saw only the wrongs done to their community and had not thought about the problems of the other side. I myself was guilty of that for a few years.
Of these two points I can accept the latter more easily. It would be difficult to claim "initial ignorance" of the effect of either Unionist or Nationalist rhetoric at any time in the last 30 years.wolfsbane wrote:I agree, although modern war throws up high levels of collateral damage. What cannot be accepted is the specific targeting of the innocent.
No, neither is acceptable. Deliberate killing is only really more of an issue because it's likely to kill more children, although this is not the case. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Palestinians are more likely to target children, but I suspect the Israelis have actually killed more. In Iraq, the US may not be targetting children, but it regards them as an acceptable "bycatch", while the "mad terrorists" of Al-Quaeda may be targetting them, but they don't seem to be killing them.wolfsbane wrote:Not really. And it doesn't apply just to true Christians: anyone who seriously follows any ideal will have their behaviour modified by it. Those who live no different from the immoral just show how insincere their professed belief is.
That is true, and is one of the worthwhile aspects of religion that I would not see removed. On the other hand, while I can accept this point in relation to specific individuals, it does not seem to hold for society overall - the statistics are in fact the reverse of what you would expect if your contention were correct.wolfsbane wrote:Sure, these things can happen in marriage; just like you can be killed in an RTA while sitting in your own home. It is the probabilities that matter. Monogamy is much safer and more likely to bring long-term fulfilment than promiscuity or polygamy.
I've said this somewhere else - this argument is irrelevant to the morality of monogamy. Becoming a fireman is not a safer choice than accountancy, but that does not make it immoral.wolfsbane wrote:It is all down to the defination of 'religious'. By definition, folk who are Christian (of any type) are those who will practice Christ's ways. Promiscuity is not one of His ways. Therefore, those who say they are good Catholics or born-again Baptists or whatever, but who live immorally, are just hypocrites. They are 'social' or nominal Christians, irreligious folk who wear the religious label for some ulterior motive.
Or who try to live up to the ideal, but fail because of their sinful nature? See also the point above...wolfsbane wrote:I doubt that, my friend. I who feel comfortable passing such a group, not because they are constrained by their enviroment, but rather by their (usually) Humanist or other socially friendly beliefs. Surely you are not saying that they are likely to attack a pensioner once they have left the vicinity of the building or their atheist companions?
Well, I always do, so I just assumed all the other atheists did too... No, I just think that in the right "social context" I would trust neither atheists nor Christians to behave well.wolfsbane wrote:Leaving aside the nature of true conversion to Christ and its radical effects, I am indeed saying that both humanism and Christianity have positive morally restraining effects on the individual who holds that belief. My argument concerned how atheism in itself removes all moral restraints, if followed logically. Humanism is not a logical development of atheism, but a desperate refuge by the atheist who feels the chilly winds of meaninglessness.
Well, from my point of view I would have to say that religion is actually the desperate refuge for those who feel the chilly winds of meaninglessness - consider the words of the pagan priest Coifi, talking to King Edwin of Northumbria, as recorded by Bede:'Your Majesty, when we compare the present life of man on earth with that time of which we have no knowledge, it seems to me like the swift flight of a single sparrow through the banqueting-hall where you are sitting at dinner on a winter's day with your thegns and counsellors. In the midst there is a comforting fire to warm the hall; outside, the storms of winter rain or snow are raging. This sparrow flies swiftly in through one door of the hall, and out through another. While he is inside, he is safe from the winter storms; but after a few moments of comfort, he vanishes from sight into the wintry world from which he came. Even so, man appears on earth for a little while; but of what went before this life or of what follows, we know nothing. Therefore, if this new teaching has brought any more certain knowledge, it seems only right that we should follow it.'
I myself, on the other hand, would follow the Rubayiat:And if the wine you drink, the lip you press,
end in the nothing all things end in - yes -
then fancy while thou art, thou art but what
thou shalt be - nothing -- thou shalt not be less.
That is, I do not require any such refuge - to me, that's what distinguishes the atheist from the mere unbeliever.
Christianity does not logically follow from anything, except that urge not to feel the winter winds of nothingness.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Check out the RATE project mentioned here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
I'm not sure how much of it is available on-line as opposed to the textbook. But there are many technical articles freely available.
Here's an interesting interview with with leading Australian molecular biologist and microbiologist Ian Macreadie:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/research.asp
Alas, none of this fits the criterion.
Everything that the authors of this stuff are pleased to call "research" is actually just gleanings from the literature, taken out of context, or from work that has been superseded, and used to bolster a position that is already fixed, and that cannot be changed by any evidence.
I am looking for primary research - that is, investigative work, undertaken by Creationists, and reviewed by neutral peers, that will yield a different result depending on whether Young Earth Creationism or standard scientific thought is a better fit to the evidence.
What seems to happen instead is that Creationists find a bit of the scientific jigsaw that doesn't fit, and immediately and happily proclaim that it sounds the death-knell of science, and that they are thereby correct. A little while later some scientist or other comes along and turns the jigsaw piece round, and pop! it fits into the picture. The Creationists, however, are already somewhere else, loudly proclaiming that something else is the death-knell of "evolutionism".
The best that appears to be on offer is a certain amount of theorising, which at least may be testable. However, the available material is not encouraging.
To take an example at random - the Hydroplate "Theory" of Dr Walt Brown is said to have been "proved" by the discovery of "water-filled chambers" under the Tibetan Plateau. There's even a reference, although it references another reference, and so on. With a little persistence, you can follow this along to the original paper, which is actually about plastic deformation in a layer about 10 miles below the plateau, and which refers to water as one component in the semi-liquid rocks at that depth. The water is derived from the subduction of Tethys, the ocean that separated India and Asia before collision.
Where, in this, are the "water-filled chambers"? Answer - they aren't. How is this proof, then? Answer - it isn't. Why is it cited, then? Answer - because it sounds like proof, and/or because the person citing it didn't understand what was being discussed.
So - is hydroplate theory Creation Science? Well, it's certainly a theory, and an interesting one that has a certain instant appeal. It does offer testable predictions (such as plate motion slowing down, which is testable, and turns out not to be the case). This makes it at least possibly scientific, assuming the proponents of the theory are willing to test it, and to accept it as false if the predictions it makes are incorrect.
However, no original research has been done to test the theory, which is not a good sign, and every piece of evidence that is cited in support of it is secondary at best. All the predictions that the theory makes that can be tested without specific research (for example, plate motions have been studied repeatedly, so we need only use the available research) show it to be false. However, not only do its proponents continue to support the theory, they don't even modify it.
Now, why does the theory not get modified, if it fails to make true testable predictions? The answer, it seems, is because to do so would destroy the fit of the theory to Genesis - and that's that.
When the ultimate arbiter of the correctness of a "scientific theory" is not the observable world, but the Bible, that theory is not scientific in any meaningful sense. Hydroplate theory is, therefore, not a scientific theory.
Now, all the Creation Science I've seen is at this level and below. It's not as if Creationism doesn't have the money to do the primary research - it just doesn't do it. Instead it relies on a string of unpaid quacks to try to knock holes in theories by misinterpreting the evidence of others. It does so because it is not science, it is religion, and religion does not do or require research, because it starts with the answers.
In the real world, if there is a conflict between what the manual says, and what the product actually does, we have enough sense to say "oh well, the manual must be wrong, then".
When the manual is Genesis, and the product is the world, certain people insist, against all the evidence, that the manual must be correct, because they consider the author to be infallible. I would not leave such people in charge of a nuclear power station, or even my PC - I certainly do not want them running an education system, or any part of the world, in case they apply the same logic.
cordially, but lengthily,
Scofflaw0 -
wolfsbane wrote:I don't see how you reached this conclusion, but let me set it out as clearly as I can:
Noah and his family were the only human survivors of the Flood. His descendants spread out over the Earth to become all the peoples and nations that have existed since then, including the Native Americans. We are all cousins, with Noah as our granddaddy many times removed. All of the accounts of the Flood were written by his descendants.
This means everyone in the world is descended from a practising (and indeed, devout!) Jew, but nowhere in the world except in certain very limited areas of the Middle East did those descendants in any way follow the dress habits, lifestyle, dietary habits, religious beliefs, etc etc etc of their forefathers.
Absolute piffle, and a sad reflection on the power of credulity.wolfsbane wrote:Slavery, like polygamy and easy divorce, were never God's standard. He tolerated their existence for a time but modified and ameliorated their worst effects. But 'it was not so from the beginning', and Christians are commanded to love their neighbours as themselves. Support for slavery is not an option.
Easily said, but there are no prohibitions in the Bible against slavery.wolfsbane wrote:The Genocide of the Amalekites was a God-ordained judgement, not a man-devised one. God is allowed to preserve or destroy sinners as He sees fit. We are not.
Indeed, and he regularly kills them off in enormous batches, with tsunamis and the like.wolfsbane wrote:I am not confusing them, just pointing out that a 'born that way' defence is not accepted by most of us for one sort of sexual behaviour, and therefore cannot be offered in defence of another. I don't accept the concept anyway, but even if I did, your point about it not justifying the behaviour stands.
If you don't consider homosexuality immoral, the question of defence doesn't arise - "born that way" could equally well apply to breathing.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Just briefly (I promise) - I have to laugh at this pronouncement of JC's:JC wrote:As I have said before, the common ancestor of all women IS logically the first woman aka EVE!!
Creation Science has established that the regression equations indicate that she lived less than 10,000 years ago. Even your figure of 150,000 years is a mere ‘drop in the ocean’ of supposed Evolutionary ‘billions of years’.
The Bible is silent on the location of the Garden of Eden – and it’s location cannot now be established because of the ‘interruption’ caused by Noah’s Flood.
Those of us who can remember back more than a couple of pages will perhaps remember introducing JC to the "mitochondrial Eve" research - his initial rejection, followed by complete incomprehension, followed by total misinterpretation....how glorious that he now claims this as a piece of "Creation Science"!
Perhaps JC has Alzheimer's? Or thinks we all do?
"Creation Science has established that the regression equations indicate"....you couldn't make it up!
laughing,
Scofflaw0 -
WrongJ C wrote:Mutations are almost always deleterious and always degrade genetic information.
The vast majority of mutations do nothing, neither helpful or harmful. The average human has 65 mutations in them. And mutations can increase genetic complexity. Observations of this are rare but have been observed. They are not simply re-arranging pre-existing genetic "information", they are creating increased information
WrongJ C wrote:The formation of "self contained, self replicating molecules" is NOT (by a long shot) the formation of LIFE aka Abiogenesis.
Yes JC actually it is. All we are is much more complex self-replicating moluecules.
WrongJ C wrote:If something is DEAD a billion years won’t make one iota of a difference – it will still be DEAD. Ditto with self-replicating molecules. You are also confusing the (complex) chemistry aspect of DNA with its (infinitely more complex) information storage dimension.
You seem to not understand what the biological definitions of DEAD and ALIVE actually are JC. As soon as you explain what something has to do to meet your definition of ALIVE I can tell you if simple self-replicating molecules do. But they meet the standard biological one. The grown, consume and replicate under their own steam.
Wrong and wrong.J C wrote:Such protein mergers have never been observed and the resultant ‘merged protein’ and all of its intermediates would be equally USELESS!!
Well please stop repeatably stating the biologiests have claimed as such. No one ever did.J C wrote:I agree with you on this one.
WrongJ C wrote:However, the only plausible mechanism then is their Creation by an infinitely intelligent mind aka God!!!
No, I think you will find evolution of simple self-replicating molecules into more complex ones is actually how it happened. Its plausable, we know it can happen, and it doesn't require a supernatural event that we have no evidence for.
It would be the radio signal JC, not the Amoeba's DNA. I take it you don't actually know much about SETI.J C wrote:We know enough to be able to recognise that the radio broadcast of the DNA code for an Amoeba from deep space would be objective proof of ET intelligence.
No, JC its not. The Amoeba can develop naturally, so it doesn't make sense to assume a God must have made it. Even if the Amoeba can't develop naturally it is incorrect to assume it must have been a God. It could have been anything.J C wrote:The Amoeba itself is therefore also proof of ET intelligence aka God.J C wrote:All living creatures are observed to have functionally USEFUL organs and sensory mechanisms
Once again you show your classic ignorance, as a good Creation Scientists should. All living creatures are not observed to have functionally useful organs. The human body contains a number of organs that have no function. Secondly, all intermediate life forms are fully funcationall, other wise they wouldn't survive. Each mutation that increases genetic complexity must also be functional.
You seem to actually not understand anything about evolution. No wonder you like it.
No, as has been explained to you before, its not.J C wrote:As I have said before, the common ancestor of all women IS logically the first woman aka EVE!!
I'm not sure how, considering that would contradict the whole idea of generational seperation. But I'd be very interested in seeing this research.J C wrote:Creation Science has established that the regression equations indicate that she lived less than 10,000 years ago.
No, so far no one has ever attempted to do that. I'm aware of computer models that similuate it.J C wrote:Are you aware of the ARTIFICIAL CREATION of even ONE single living cell?
Have you or anyone ever wittnessed the supernatural creation of even one single living cell?0 -
Actually weather on Earth, at high resolution, requires 100s of met services around the world, each containing a room full of super computers, to work out the Earths weather. And they still get it wrong. Doesn't mean the Earth's weather is intelligent, does it?J C wrote:Weather may require high capacity computers to MODEL it but DNA requires super computers to DECODE it.
No, not really. Rust is a tightly specified process, does it require intelligence too?J C wrote:Weather is caused by RANDOM processes but life is objectively the result of TIGHTLY SPECIFIED processes - and such processes DO require the appliance of intelligence.
Evolution based on natural selection is not a random process, as has been explained to you before, and I think you admitted was true.J C wrote:‘Imperfect’ creatures are quite capable of surviving and reproducing. Materialistic mechanisms cannot explain how the levels of perfection we observe in living creatures could be achieved or sustained by blind random processes (even with the assistance of N S).
You can suggest that, but you would be wrong. Not the first time is it JC.J C wrote:Could I also suggest that a mechanism (like mutation) that doesn’t increase genetic information and that results in unchanged phenotypes most of the time is a pretty poor candidate to account for the Evolution of molecules to Man.
If it cannot be observed it is NOT amenable to the Scientific Method.J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
[/quote]
Actually it is. Not that I would expect you to understand since you don't actually understand or respect the scientific method (any time you want to tell us your qualifications JC).
Why? By that logic your urine or fecies should be complex bio-molecules? Not following you. Should your piss be intelligent?J C wrote:Equally, the fact that SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules are observed today to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules IS in very serious contradiction of what one would expect if Evolution were true.
No, it doesn't. As has been explained to you beforeJ C wrote:Could I also point out that the production of DNA is the least of the problems facing Evolutionists – the production of the enormous amounts of information stored by DNA also requires the application of enormous intelligence (on a God-like scale).
Actually, we have. I can understand how you wouldn't accept this, since it is another nail in your YEC "reality", but we have.J C wrote:We haven’t actually!!!
Well, as shown above you don't actually know what a transititional fossil should look like (a creature with a whole load of half-formed non-functioning organs :rolleyes:), but transitional fossils have been discovered. Quite a lot of them in factJ C wrote:There are NO transitional fossils in the entire fossil record.
As I explained, no they didn't. Read up on the Cambrian period please.J C wrote:The particular problem for the Cambrian section of the record, is that representative fossils of most of the major animal and plant groups suddenly appear
together fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor thereby contradicting what one would expect if gradual Evolution were true.
No, clearly you don't :rolleyes:J C wrote:I don’t have any inferiority complex. [/b]You’re the guys claiming to be the direct lineal descendents of Pond Scum.[/b]
Sorry, sorry. You aren't lying. You are just repeatable posting "facts" that have been shown to by wrong/incorrect/false. That's not lying at all :rolleyes:J C wrote:It is a recurring theme on this thread that I am lying.
Once it has been shown that you are wrong and you repeat the same statement again, sorry JC but what are people supposed to think. For example, you repeatable claim that amino acid strings could not form randomly. Despite the fact that no evolutionary theory has ever claimed they formed randomly, yet you continue to use this as evidence of a flaw in evolutionary theory. This has been pointed out to you before.J C wrote:As a fallible Human Being, I may be MISTAKEN in some of my beliefs or facts but I am certainly not lying about them.
You also insist that genetic mutation cannot increase genetic complexity, which is not only wrong but it has been pointed out to you that it is wrong, yet you continue to post this incorrect statement knowing it is wrong.
You also insist the abiogensis has never been observed. That is incorrect, and the only way you are trying to get out of that fact is to change the definition of what "Life" is. You then refuse to give the definition of life you are using, and as such you can never be shown to be wrong because you can simply decide that such and such doesn't fall inside your secret defintion.
So maybe you are not lying. Maybe you really just don't understand anything that you are posting.
I know that any mistakes will be rapidly pointed out - so there is every incentive for me to avoid mistakes and certainly no reason to lie!![/QUOTE]0 -
So are you admitting you don't actually have an scientific achievements, as you once claimed. I seem to remember you repeatably statiing "As a trained scientist.." .. what exactly were you trained in?J C wrote:Sounds like a rather counter-productive activity on any thread
- and a completely irrelevant activity on the Christianity Forum!!!
No, we have just been writting for 108 pages for fun ... :rolleyes:J C wrote:NO evidence has been discovered for ‘molecules to Man Evolution’ either
There is no "evidence" that supports Creation. Creation is an assumption. You dont understand how something happened so you assume God did it.J C wrote:Science should ethically pursue knowledge and objectively evaluate evidence wherever it may be found. If the evidence supports Evolution, so be it or equally, if it supports Creation so be it ALSO.
After 1 billion years of trillions of molecules increasing in complexity. I think you will find it can.J C wrote:So-called ‘self replicating’ molecules cannot account for the vast quantities of INFORMATION stored in the DNA of even the simplest organism.
Iron filings don't self-replicate.J C wrote:It is analogous to saying that because iron filings form ordered patterns that eventually they will organise themselves into a tape and tapedeck and begin to pump out the music of Status Quo.
No, you can model it. As we do.J C wrote:Equally, if life evolved gradually over billions of years this is also not repeatably observable and therefore is ALSO outside of Science.
Can you model divine creation? Can you tell me exactly what God did? (seem to remember asking this question a few times already)
What? Galaxies are not constant. We can track expansion of galaxiesJ C wrote:(4)Galaxies Constant.
What in the name of Donald Duck are you talking about. Who claimed stars evolve into "better" types.J C wrote:Stars Unchanged or dying.
What nonsense. Are you just ranting because you have run out of arguments. Do you actually know anything about anything0 -
Wicknight wrote:
No, so far no one has ever attempted to do that. I'm aware of computer models that similuate it.JC wrote:Are you aware of the ARTIFICIAL CREATION of even ONE single living cell?
Have you or anyone ever wittnessed the supernatural creation of even one single living cell?
Actually, the attempts are currently underway. Check "biohacking" or "synthetic biology" in Google. Of course, we're proceeding by trial and error rather than omniscience...
Also, if the information storage capacity of the DNA in the human genome were really as mind-boggling as JC likes to make out, we wouldn't be able to store it on computers.
If it were as "tightly specified" as JC likes to claim, we couldn't write compression software specially for it and still retain anything useful.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Son Goku
What experiment can be preformed which shows the existence of God?
What are we measuring? God's mass? Perhaps his spin?
We can look for EVIDENCE of His activity as an omniscient and omnipotent God.
Evidence for such activity would include ;-
1. Systems that are on an infinite scale (The Universe).
2. Systems that contain tightly specified high density information (DNA).
3. Processes that are irreducibly complex and mathematically impossible to achieve by undirected means (living systems).
Originally Posted by J C
(1)Nature of Mankind (2)Quantitatively superior to animals (3)Qualitatively distinct from animals (4)Qualitatively distinct from animals.
Son Goku
Again with the word superior. Evolution does not make value judgements
Science IS capable of making QUALITATIVE judgements – it makes them every day.
Human Beings ARE objectively qualitatively superior to all other species – they possess superior brain power, manual dexterity and are capable of non-circumstantial morality and non-instinctive behaviour (both good and bad).
Mankind IS QUALITATIVELY different to animals - if you doubt me try asking a monkey to work out the square root of 36 or try having a sensible conversation with an Elephant!!! Equally, ask a policeman (in ANY country) if they will treat you differently if you kill a person or a rat.
Originally Posted by J C
(1)Mutations (2)Nearly always Beneficial (3)Nearly always Harmful (4)Nearly always Harmful
Son Goku
Evolution presumes beneficial mutations occur, not their frequencies among general mutations.
For mutations to successfully evolve ‘molecules into Man’ requires that the majority of mutations be beneficial in order to avoid a ‘one step forward and two steps’ backwards syndrome.
In addition the beneficial mutations must ADD genetic information.
What we observe is that the ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations are over 1,000 to one and the one “beneficial” mutation ALSO results in a LOSS of genetic information!!!
Son Goku
could you prove that DNA formation is mathematically impossible and strictly define genetic information
Genetic information is the specific instructions necessary to biochemically produce a living organism as found in the DNA of the cells of that organism.
These instructions are highly specific, even one nucleotide misplaced along a critical sequence will have catastrophic consequences for the organism.
They are also NOT chemically / physically pre-determined, patterned, repetitive or random as one would expect if they were derived by undirected processes, such as those postulated by gradual Evolution.
There are about 3 billion base pairs in the Human Genome and their sequences are observed to be tightly specified.
For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old. It would appear that life is a complex “perfect” system running ‘down-hill’ and not a simple “imperfect” system running ‘up hill’ as evolution would have us believe.
The genetic information is stored by means of the Precise order of the base pair ‘rungs’ in the DNA ‘ladder’.
Just FOUR base pair combinations are used A-T, T-A, C-G and G-C.
The number of possible combinations in the 3 billion base pair Human Genome (if undirected processes were used to produce it is a binomial expansion of ¼ x ¼ x ¼ …..3 billon times which is approximately 1/10^^1,800,000,000.
These are the approximate odds AGAINST getting the correct base sequence for a Human Being using undirected processes. If we consider that the number of atoms in the conventionally hypothesised Universe is only 10^^82 I think that it is reasonable to conclude that Mankind (or indeed any other life form) was NOT produced by undirected processes. The above figures indicate that such an eventuality is mathematically impossible.
5uspect
This is identical to the hurricane assembling a 747 in a junk yard arguement and shows that you completely misunderstand evolution. You assume that complex life like humans is the final product of evolution and depends on macromutations to function
My understanding is that Evolution DOES postulate that Humans ARE the result of accumulated mutations that have been selected by Natural Selection for their supposed advantages.
There are a number of problems with this idea:-
1. Both micro and macro mutations are currently observed to cause the DEGRADATION of genetic information – and not it’s production.
2. There is no simple step process between one useful bio molecule and another one for the supposedly gradual Evolutionary process to ‘follow’.
3. There is equally no stepped processes that will produce the multitudes of irreducibly complex systems found in living organisms.
4. There is no plausible mechanism that accounts for the body plans of multicellular organisms and systems operating at distances in both time and space observed in these creatures.
Originally Posted by J C
(1)Mutations (2)Nearly always Beneficial (3)Nearly always Harmful (4)Nearly always Harmful
5uspect
Mutations are nearly always harmful in evolution. features such as slightly longer legs or slightly better eyesight are favoured by natural selection because they sightly increase the survival of an animal. It is the summation of these advantages that result in evolution.
So you accept that mutations are “nearly always harmful”.
I would also add that even the small minority of supposedly ‘useful’ mutations, like insects LOSING their wings on wind-blown islands and bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics by LOSING their ability to metabolise the antibiotic are also all examples of LOSING genetic information. Mutation therefore shows no potential to account for the enormous quantities of tightly specified genetic information observed in all living organisms.
I too accept that advantageous leg length or better eyesight MAY be selected by N S.
However, I don’t agree with your major ‘leap of faith’ that mutations somehow give slightly longer legs or slightly better eyesight.
Mutations simply DON’T operate this way – they change the DNA base sequence by changing/damaging it, and like all undirected changes/damage to complex information systems, they result in everything from the bizarre to the catastrophic to no effect at all. They are like the proverbial ‘spanner in the works’ – certain to do no good, but sometimes doing no permanent damage (if you are lucky).
Mutations DON’T result in gradual step changes however, and they are often eliminated in the next generation by the dominant normal allele and/or by various ‘proof reading’ / correction devices that are observed to operate within DNA replicating systems.
Scofflaw
Those of us who can remember back more than a couple of pages will perhaps remember introducing JC to the "mitochondrial Eve" research
I am quite familiar with the research results on “mitochondrial Eve”. In fact it was I who brought up these results in the first place, on this thread.
I also remember that there was quite a debate on the thread about this matter. In the end, the simple logic prevailed that the common ancestor (singular) of all women must be ONE woman.
It was also logically deduced after considerable debate that “mitochondrial Eve” was most likely also the FIRST woman.
Either way, the fact that Evolutionists now accept that there was one common ancestor of all women – and she lived only 150,000 years ago is in direct contradiction of evolutionary assumptions that all men and women are descended from a common ‘pond slime’ ancestor who supposedly lived a billion years ago.0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
Those of us who can remember back more than a couple of pages will perhaps remember introducing JC to the "mitochondrial Eve" research
I am quite familiar with the research results on “mitochondrial Eve”. In fact it was I who brought up these results in the first place, on this thread.
I also remember that there was quite a debate on the thread about this matter. In the end, the simple logic prevailed that the common ancestor (singular) of all women must be ONE woman.
It was also logically deduced after considerable debate that “mitochondrial Eve” was most likely also the FIRST woman.
Either way, the fact that Evolutionists now accept that there was one common ancestor of all women – and she lived only 150,000 years ago is in direct contradiction of evolutionary assumptions that all men and women are descended from a common ‘pond slime’ ancestor who supposedly lived a billion years ago.
Well, now I'm just plain worried about you. None of the above occurred anywhere outside your head.
concerned,
Scofflaw0 -
None of that is evidence. If you assume that something intelligent make life on Earth (and it is only a wild assumption based on no evidence) there is still no evidence that it was your Christian god. It could be a magic lepreconn, or super intelligent time traveling monkey for all you know.J C wrote:Evidence for such activity would include ;-
1. Systems that are on an infinite scale (The Universe).
2. Systems that contain tightly specified high density information (DNA).
3. Processes that are irreducibly complex and mathematically impossible to achieve by undirected means (living systems).
Evolution doesn't saying any species is or is not superior because general comparision is pointless. We have superior mental ability but we can't fly, or survive tempratures over 50C, where as a lot of other animals can.J C wrote:Human Beings ARE objectively qualitatively superior to all other species – they possess superior brain power, manual dexterity and are capable of non-circumstantial morality and non-instinctive behaviour (both good and bad).
It is silly to make up the criteria of "superior" around the things we are specifically good at and then say, without any hint of irony, that we are in fact superior. Its like saying a English man is superior in languages than a Chinese man because the English man can speak better English.
Complete nonsense. If every generation, in every life form, produces between 10 and 100 genetic mutations 4 billion years is more than enough time to develop all sorts of genetic complexities.J C wrote:For mutations to successfully evolve ‘molecules into Man’ requires that the majority of mutations be beneficial in order to avoid a ‘one step forward and two steps’ backwards syndrome.
I'll say it again. Trillions of individual life forms and billions of years. More than enough time. Considering a new creature is born on Earth every 0.0000000000001 seconds, and that new creature will have a number of mutations, you do the math :rolleyes:J C wrote:What we observe is that the ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations are over 1,000 to one and the one “beneficial” mutation ALSO results in a LOSS of genetic information!!!
Actually that isn't true at all. Large sections of DNA can be removed and the animal develops normally.J C wrote:These instructions are highly specific, even one nucleotide misplaced along a critical sequence will have catastrophic consequences for the organism.
For the last time JC, evolution isn't undirected. I don't want to call you a liar, because the mods have ask me not to use that turn, but seriously, you know it isn't undirected, you have even admitted that it is directed by natural selection before.J C wrote:They are also NOT chemically / physically pre-determined, patterned, repetitive or random as one would expect if they were derived by undirected processes, such as those postulated by gradual Evolution.
You are talking complete and utter nonsense. The DNA for a human being did not randomly form out of a sea of floating molecules. It formed after 4 billion years of a directed evolution, and evolution directed by natural selection.J C wrote:These are the approximate odds AGAINST getting the correct base sequence for a Human Being using undirected processes. If we consider that the number of atoms in the conventionally hypothesised Universe is only 10^^82 I think that it is reasonable to conclude that Mankind (or indeed any other life form) was NOT produced by undirected processes. The above figures indicate that such an eventuality is mathematically impossible.
That is wrong. As I have told you, about 100 times already, mutation has been OBSERVED to increase genetic complexity. It has been OBSERVED a number of times to do this.J C wrote:Both micro and macro mutations are currently observed to cause the DEGRADATION of genetic information – and not it’s production.
Yes there is. This again has been OBSERVEREDJ C wrote:There is no simple step process between one useful bio molecule and another one for the supposedly gradual Evolutionary process to ‘follow’.
Yes there is. Mutation has been OBSERVED to increase genetic complexity.J C wrote:There is equally no stepped processes that will produce the multitudes of irreducibly complex systems found in living organisms.
Yes there is. Such a mechanism has been OBSERVED.J C wrote:There is no plausible mechanism that accounts for the body plans of multicellular organisms and systems operating at distances in both time and space observed in these creatures.
I can't see how you are familiar with the research since you claimed she was the first human female (she wasn't, in fact the theory doesn't work if she was) and you also claimed she lived 10,000 years ago when she actually lived 150,000 years ago. You claimed the Creationist research proved she lived 10,000 years ago, but so far (surprise surprise) you have not been able to present that.J C wrote:I am quite familiar with the research results on “mitochondrial Eve”. In fact it was I who brought up these results in the first place, on this thread.
No, it was established that if M-Eve was the FIRST woman in existance the thoery of mitochondiral DNA geneology wouldn't work. WHich kinda puts a dampener on that theory now doesn't it. You can't have a theory that disproves itself.J C wrote:It was also logically deduced after considerable debate that “mitochondrial Eve” was most likely also the FIRST woman.J C wrote:Either way, the fact that Evolutionists now accept that there was one common ancestor of all women – and she lived only 150,000 years ago is in direct contradiction of evolutionary assumptions that all men and women are descended from a common ‘pond slime’ ancestor who supposedly lived a billion years ago.
Have you actually read any thing on M-Eve? She was the most recent common human female ancestor. There were other women alive at the same time, and there are other common human female ancestors before her, she is simply the most recent. In fact the theory doesn't work unless she had human mother and father.
Seriously JC, its not even that complex a theory to get a hold off. By the fact that you can't even get the terminology correct would imply you haven't even bothered to read up on the theory, and just figured because it had the name "Eve" in it it must be something to do with the Genesis :rolleyes:0 -
Is it not funny thought that their accounts would be completely different, involving a different set of gods and fables? Who is to say the Biblical description is actually the correct one?wolfsbane wrote:Yes, all accounts were written by Noah's descendants.
True, but you assumption is that this is in fact sinful, when the evidence would suggest otherwise. God made it necessary for sex to take place outside of marriage, since we had to have sex before the concept of marriage had even been invented, before we had even developed language. Back then sex outside marriage was not only a good thing it was also necessary. Would that not lead on to believe the sex outside of marriage is not in fact a sin, and is in fact how God naturally intended us to reproduce.wolfsbane wrote:God did not make us sinful. We did that.
You don't know that for sure, and nature would contradict that assumption. Homosexuality occurs natural in a large number of animals, including humans. It seems rather strange that God would make homosexuality part of nature and then declare that this act, which actually harms no one, is in fact a sin. Would it not have been easier just not to put it in the natural world, to not put it in our genes and DNA?wolfsbane wrote:As I pointed out above, man was originally made sinless. Also, made male and female: the sexual union was meant to be male and female.
Based on study of the natural world it is in fact clear that homosexuality is a natural occurance, and since it harms no one there is no logical reason to believe God has anything against it. I mean just because the Bible says so doesn't mean its actually God's wishes. The Bible has been wrong about so much else, why assume this is correct when nature itself contradicts that assumption.
So God brought it on himself. That seems a bit strange doesn't it? I mean, if I see someone about to steal my car, and I have the power to stop them but I choose not to should I really complain that my car has been stolen? Why would I choose not to stop them in the first place?wolfsbane wrote:Yes, God could have stopped Adam sinning. But He did not choose to do so. With the sin, all of nature became open to perverseness.
Why would God choose to put homosexuality into nature, and then tell people not to do it? Why encode homosexuality into the genetic make up of so many animals, and then say that it is sinful?
Likewise, why make it necessary for animals, including humans, to have sexual intercourse to survive the species, thousands of years before humans developed language and rituals, such as marriage. All those humans who were having sex outside of marriage (because marriage hadn't been invented yet) were committing a sin, but unware of it and had to do it otherwise we wouldn't be here no.
No offence, but that makes it sounds like God is just taking the piss.
Since I think you will agree that is unlikely is it not more likely that the Bible is just wrong, and that all God meant was that sex should take place inside a loving relationship, which is why both love and sex (but not the concept of marriage) are inbedded inside our instincts.
Marriage is something we invented only a few thousand years ago, initially as a financial transaction. There is no reason to believe God meant for all sex to take place inside it. That would just be silly when you look at the natural world, including humans.0 -
Scofflaw said:
That is because majority religious societies are made up of large numbers of:That is true, and is one of the worthwhile aspects of religion that I would not see removed. On the other hand, while I can accept this point in relation to specific individuals, it does not seem to hold for society overall - the statistics are in fact the reverse of what you would expect if your contention were correct.
1. Non-religious, usually a significant minority. And crime is not evenly distributed in society; a small number of people commit the greatest number of crimes.
2. Even those classified as religious are not uniformly so; many are merely nominal in their profession of faith.
Sure, the safety of a belief or practise is not an infallible indicator to its morality. It is very dangerous to be a Christian in many parts of the world. But natural consequences can be an indicator of the correctness of a practice: even in secular terms, such as unprotected sex in promiscious relationships. I hold that is true also for promiscuity itself, that it is an intrinsically dangerous practise. It is so because it is us treating our bodies contrary to the Manufacturer's instructions.I've said this somewhere else - this argument is irrelevant to the morality of monogamy. Becoming a fireman is not a safer choice than accountancy, but that does not make it immoral.
Correct. Even true believers sometimes fail. What makes the difference is whether this is the exception or the practice.Or who try to live up to the ideal, but fail because of their sinful nature? See also the point above...
I was speaking about normal conditions; but you are right to say that extraordinary circumstances can modify behaviour. Strong temptation is more likely to cause a fall than normal conditions: eg., seduction is more likely to lead a believer to adultery than just seeing a pretty woman pass by. The benefit for the Christian is both the conscience they have toward the God they love and want to please, and the God they know who judges men according to their works, without respect to persons. The atheist has only his self-devised morality to restrain him in the face of strong temptation.Well, I always do, so I just assumed all the other atheists did too... No, I just think that in the right "social context" I would trust neither atheists nor Christians to behave well.
Certainly, that makes sense, from an atheistic perspective. I just want you to see that it requires you to admit that atheism reduces all morality to this delusional comfort-blanket.Well, from my point of view I would have to say that religion is actually the desperate refuge for those who feel the chilly winds of meaninglessness
That's logical, but not if you argue for any morality.That is, I do not require any such refuge - to me, that's what distinguishes the atheist from the mere unbeliever.
Christianity follows logically from the precept that there is a designer behind all nature, and that that Designer has revealed Himself to us in His word, the Bible. The truth of that is known in the heart and mind of the believer.Christianity does not logically follow from anything, except that urge not to feel the winter winds of nothingness.
Atheism can likewise claim to be logically based, citing the precept that the design we see is just the way things are, and that the concept of God is made unlikely by the existence of evil. What is not logical is morality based on an atheist presupposition.0 -
J C, I think your understanding of the role of mutations in evolution and probably the definition of mutation are confused. Large mutations are nearly always detrimental to an organism. Such mutations will nearly always never result in the organism being able to reproduce due to sexual selection and be too rare in a population. Small scale mutations are common as a result of the meiosis lottery and it has been observed that there are many healthy people walking around with large chunks of chromosones missing or even amplified. Reproduction also introduces constant variation to the gene pool. This is results from changing selection pressures due things like disease, parasites and enviormental effects which favour different genes over time.
Genes themselves are evolving, it has been shown that your "irreducibly complex" systems are a result of ancient genes being employed in different ways as selection pressures change.
not MAY but DOES, for example see the leggy aussie cane toadsJ C wrote:I too accept that advantageous leg length or better eyesight MAY be selected by N S.0 -
Scofflaw said:
Hmm. I got the impression that this was more than them reviewing other men's books. But that's not my field. There are many articles on the subject, however, eg:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.aspEverything that the authors of this stuff are pleased to call "research" is actually just gleanings from the literature, taken out of context, or from work that has been superseded, and used to bolster a position that is already fixed, and that cannot be changed by any evidence.
But various models are proposed and critiqued. Like in the rest of science, proposers are often keen to hold on to their baby in the face of what others consider great difficulties. An interesting overview:Now, why does the theory not get modified, if it fails to make true testable predictions? The answer, it seems, is because to do so would destroy the fit of the theory to Genesis - and that's that.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp0 -
Scofflaw said:
Noah was not a Jew. Jews are the descendants of Jacob (Israel). The genealogy is: Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob. It was a long time after Noah that the Jews came into existence.This means everyone in the world is descended from a practising (and indeed, devout!) Jew, but nowhere in the world except in certain very limited areas of the Middle East did those descendants in any way follow the dress habits, lifestyle, dietary habits, religious beliefs, etc etc etc of their forefathers.
No so. The general principle is there of loving your neighbour as yourself, but also slavery is shown as perverse by such texts as:Leviticus 25:39 ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves.Easily said, but there are no prohibitions in the Bible against slavery.
They were allowed to hold foreign slaves, but this was part of Israel's typological purpose, to show the salvation and goodness of God to those who serve Him. That purpose ended with the coming of the Messiah. Salvation then went out to all the nations.
Yes, He is our Maker and our lives are in His hand. He determines when and how they end. Our time here is to be used in preparing to meet Him.Indeed, and he regularly kills them off in enormous batches, with tsunamis and the like.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Scofflaw said
But various models are proposed and critiqued. Like in the rest of science, proposers are often keen to hold on to their baby in the face of what others consider great difficulties. An interesting overview:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp
There are individual researchers who cling to their research even if the majority of other researchers disagree. However these researchers are relativel obscure and remain unpublished in the literature. This is the purpose of peer review. The problem with this work is that it is not effectively peer reviewed. The psuedo science here is "reviewed" by those who hold similar minority beliefs and not by scientists unbaised by such unfounded religous convictions.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:They were allowed to hold foreign slaves, but this was part of Israel's typological purpose, to show the salvation and goodness of God to those who serve Him. That purpose ended with the coming of the Messiah. Salvation then went out to all the nations.
I'm afraid I don't follow you here. How is the holding of slaves, foreign or otherwise, supposed to show the goodness of your god?0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight said:
Not at all. They were rebels against God, so why would they give a faithful account? Even today, history is skewed by the prejudicies of the historian.Is it not funny thought that their accounts would be completely different, involving a different set of gods and fables? Who is to say the Biblical description is actually the correct one?
Ah, I see your misconception. No, sex did not come before marriage, for man was not on the earth tens of thousands of years before the social institutions developed. Man was created about 6000 years ago, and from the outset marriage was there. I know this is not accepted as historical by evolutionists, but the arguement is about the consistency of God creating man with a sexual appetite and the existence of marriage. The Creator God of the Bible and marriage as the only condition for sex is self-consistent.True, but you assumption is that this is in fact sinful, when the evidence would suggest otherwise. God made it necessary for sex to take place outside of marriage, since we had to have sex before the concept of marriage had even been invented, before we had even developed language. Back then sex outside marriage was not only a good thing it was also necessary. Would that not lead on to believe the sex outside of marriage is not in fact a sin, and is in fact how God naturally intended us to reproduce.
Violence and death are part of nature, but God did not make man or beast to do that. It came with the Fall. Likewise with perverse sex.You don't know that for sure, and nature would contradict that assumption. Homosexuality occurs natural in a large number of animals, including humans. It seems rather strange that God would make homosexuality part of nature and then declare that this act, which actually harms no one, is in fact a sin. Would it not have been easier just not to put it in the natural world, to not put it in our genes and DNA?
1. It does harm those who practise it.Based on study of the natural world it is in fact clear that homosexuality is a natural occurance, and since it harms no one there is no logical reason to believe God has anything against it.
2. It is logical to believe God condemns it, because He says so.
The Bible is either God's word or it is not. If it is wrong in anything it asserts, then the God it declares is bogus. But it has not been proved wrong about anything, much less 'so much else'. I have been over the 'flat-earth' and 'cud-chewing hares' with others here.I mean just because the Bible says so doesn't mean its actually God's wishes. The Bible has been wrong about so much else, why assume this is correct when nature itself contradicts that assumption.
He doesn't say. But He is a lot smarter than I am, seeing He made the universe. As to allowing someone to steal my car, perhaps I might want to show my wrath against evil, or my mercy toward the unworthy.So God brought it on himself. That seems a bit strange doesn't it? I mean, if I see someone about to steal my car, and I have the power to stop them but I choose not to should I really complain that my car has been stolen? Why would I choose not to stop them in the first place?
He didn't. Man sinned and the consequences came upon man and all his dominion.Why would God choose to put homosexuality into nature, and then tell people not to do it? Why encode homosexuality into the genetic make up of so many animals, and then say that it is sinful?
Marriage is found in the Genesis account, and it is nothing to do with finance, all to do with companionship and procreation.Marriage is something we invented only a few thousand years ago, initially as a financial transaction. There is no reason to believe God meant for all sex to take place inside it. That would just be silly when you look at the natural world, including humans.0 -
hairyheretic wrote:I'm afraid I don't follow you here. How is the holding of slaves, foreign or otherwise, supposed to show the goodness of your god?
It does to the people who get the slaves. The rest of the world, not so good.
God only decided to extend his "love" to the rest of the world after the coming of Jesus. Up until that point God really didn't give a sh*t about the non-Hewbrews0 -
hairyheretic said:
In His goodness to His people, as opposed to those who were in rebellion against Him. It was one of the reminders of the difference between the two sorts, that they could hold slaves of foreigners, but not of Israel.I'm afraid I don't follow you here. How is the holding of slaves, foreign or otherwise, supposed to show the goodness of your god?0 -
That doesn't answer the question, why believe the biblical account over any other account.wolfsbane wrote:Not at all. They were rebels against God, so why would they give a faithful account? Even today, history is skewed by the prejudicies of the historian.
Oh gosh (;) to the mods), not you too.wolfsbane wrote:Ah, I see your misconception. No, sex did not come before marriage, for man was not on the earth tens of thousands of years before the social institutions developed. Man was created about 6000 years ago, and from the outset marriage was there.
Look the Earth was not created 6,000 years ago (its actually 6,000 BCE, so that would be 10,000 years ago btw). Humans have been on the earth for at least 150,000 years, since we evolved from other primates. We have evidence for this. Lots and lots and lots of evidence.
The Bible is simply wrong.
No the argument is the that the Bible's description of sinful acts clearly contradicts the actual reality. So which are you going to accept, the Bible or reality?wolfsbane wrote:I know this is not accepted as historical by evolutionists, but the arguement is about the consistency of God creating man with a sexual appetite and the existence of marriage.
Violence and death were not necessary for the human species to continue to survive. Sex (outside of marriage) was.wolfsbane wrote:Violence and death are part of nature, but God did not make man or beast to do that. It came with the Fall. Likewise with perverse sex.
How?wolfsbane wrote:1. It does harm those who practise it.
No, the Bible says so. The same Bible which says the earth is 10,000 years old, that the sun goes around the Earth and that Pi is 3.wolfsbane wrote:2. It is logical to believe God condemns it, because He says so.
Why has it not occured to anyone that the Bible might just be wrong?
No one did actually answer my question as to why so much faith is actually put into the Bible?
Thats a bit of a leapwolfsbane wrote:The Bible is either God's word or it is not. If it is wrong in anything it asserts, then the God it declares is bogus.
It is perfectly possible to believe (know) there is a God but to not accept that the Bible is the literal word of God. Lots of people do that all the time, in fact most of my Christian friends believe the Bible was simply the result of men, like themselves, attempting to explain something they didn't really understand (ie God).
Well the creation story for one. The Earth was not created in 6 days 10,000 year ago, and humans did not all decend from 2 humans who lived in a magical garden, and there was not a world wide flood 6,000 years ago.wolfsbane wrote:But it has not been proved wrong about anything, much less 'so much else'. I have been over the 'flat-earth' and 'cud-chewing hares' with others here.
Is it then not a little presumptuious of you to assume you know what he was planning when he made homosexuality part of nature? How do you know it is sinful except for the description in the Bible?wolfsbane wrote:But He is a lot smarter than I am
So God was forced to encode homosexuality into people because of what Adam did, even though it would displease him? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense?wolfsbane wrote:He didn't. Man sinned and the consequences came upon man and all his dominion.
Marriage is also found all over the rest of the Old Testement and it is very much to do with fiance and property.wolfsbane wrote:Marriage is found in the Genesis account, and it is nothing to do with finance, all to do with companionship and procreation.0 -
nit picking time :mad:wolfsbane wrote:Violence and death are part of nature, but God did not make man or beast to do that. It came with the Fall. Likewise with perverse sex.
If god make all the animals and God didn't make violence or death how did god imagine the animals would eat?0 -
wolfsbane wrote:That is because majority religious societies are made up of large numbers of:
1. Non-religious, usually a significant minority. And crime is not evenly distributed in society; a small number of people commit the greatest number of crimes.
2. Even those classified as religious are not uniformly so; many are merely nominal in their profession of faith.
The stats referred to do not make any assumptions about whether a society is religious - they directly asked about faith ("do you believe..") and church attendance, rather than taking census records or deciding which societies were religious in advance. This effectively disposes of point 1.
Point 2 is a stronger criticism. It would be possible to argue, however, that overall numbers professing a faith are likely to be a good measure of non-nominal believers in modern democratic societies, where there is no repression of religion.
The main problem, for you, is that there are no statistics I am aware of that show the opposite trend...?wolfsbane wrote:Sure, the safety of a belief or practise is not an infallible indicator to its morality. It is very dangerous to be a Christian in many parts of the world. But natural consequences can be an indicator of the correctness of a practice: even in secular terms, such as unprotected sex in promiscious relationships. I hold that is true also for promiscuity itself, that it is an intrinsically dangerous practise. It is so because it is us treating our bodies contrary to the Manufacturer's instructions.
So, before syphilis arrived from the New World, unprotected sex was more in tune with the Manufacturer's instructions? I must say I consider this a peculiarly dangerous form of moral relativism, and an argument that has probably led to untold deaths from treatable conditions. Do you believe that living past 60 (which is where most cancers etc kick in) is somehow against the "instructions"?
Rubbish. Medieval rubbish that you should be ashamed to accept.wolfsbane wrote:I was speaking about normal conditions; but you are right to say that extraordinary circumstances can modify behaviour. Strong temptation is more likely to cause a fall than normal conditions: eg., seduction is more likely to lead a believer to adultery than just seeing a pretty woman pass by. The benefit for the Christian is both the conscience they have toward the God they love and want to please, and the God they know who judges men according to their works, without respect to persons. The atheist has only his self-devised morality to restrain him in the face of strong temptation.
It seems to work - indeed, I am arguing that it works better. Who will forgive the atheist if he falls off the pedestal he has put himself on?wolfsbane wrote:Certainly, that makes sense, from an atheistic perspective. I just want you to see that it requires you to admit that atheism reduces all morality to this delusional comfort-blanket.
Well, it requires me to admit that either:
(a) all morality, including yours, is a delusional comfort blanket. Yours has an extra fluffy layer of Godliness, that's all...
(b) all morality is based on a combination of in-built moral perception (ie that we have an evolved morality) plus a certain amount of social contract.
Personally, I go with the latter - we are moral beings as much as we are sexual ones, and it doesn't make sense to require a level of "meaning" in morality that we don't require in sex. Admittedly, morality is rarely as much fun - although I am enjoying this discussion, I'd probably prefer sex.wolfsbane wrote:Christianity follows logically from the precept that there is a designer behind all nature, and that that Designer has revealed Himself to us in His word, the Bible. The truth of that is known in the heart and mind of the believer.
Alas, this is an assumption - a step of faith. Once you've made it, you can pull the ladder up behind you, but until you make it, the ladder is always visible.wolfsbane wrote:Atheism can likewise claim to be logically based, citing the precept that the design we see is just the way things are, and that the concept of God is made unlikely by the existence of evil. What is not logical is morality based on an atheist presupposition.
I have never required that morality be logically supportable. I only require that it works. This is the difference, I daresay, between the empirical scientist and the rational philosopher...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Hmm. I got the impression that this was more than them reviewing other men's books. But that's not my field. There are many articles on the subject, however, eg:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1030meert.asp
Well, I've looked pretty hard for any evidence of primary research, and there isn't any. Any factual research that's quoted in these papers is mainstream, done by someone else at some other point, and for reasons entirely unrelated to the theories presented in the Creationist papers. I'm not making that up - you're welcome to check, because I'd like to actually see primary Creationist research.wolfsbane wrote:But various models are proposed and critiqued. Like in the rest of science, proposers are often keen to hold on to their baby in the face of what others consider great difficulties. An interesting overview:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp
True, but I think I covered that point. People are keen to hold onto their pet theories, and in a small number of cases have made themselves ridiculous by holding on well past the point where their theory has been effectively demolished.
On the other hand, the difference between science and dinner-table theorising is large. I can come up with postulated mechanisms for solar system formation sitting here, but unless they offer a testable prediction, and that prediction is tested, it isn't science - I am entitled to use it as part of the mechanics of a space game (which I am), but would not consider taking it to an astrophysics convention and giving a paper on it. All of the Creationist theorising I've seen so far is of about that quality - you could write an interesting SF book using hydroplate theory, but it's not science. Science isn't supposed to require "suspension of disbelief".
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Noah was not a Jew. Jews are the descendants of Jacob (Israel). The genealogy is: Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob. It was a long time after Noah that the Jews came into existence.
Oops - good point, although it doesn't change the substance of my issue, merely the details. The survivors throughout the world retained absolutely nothing of their Middle Eastern heritage - none of the agricultural practices, for example.
It does make me wonder whether the God of the pre-Mosaic Israelites was the same one at all, of course. Possible to read the Bible as simply containing a record of three phases of a religion.wolfsbane wrote:No so. The general principle is there of loving your neighbour as yourself, but also slavery is shown as perverse by such texts as:Leviticus 25:39 ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves.
They were allowed to hold foreign slaves, but this was part of Israel's typological purpose, to show the salvation and goodness of God to those who serve Him. That purpose ended with the coming of the Messiah. Salvation then went out to all the nations.
Weak - that's an exemption from slavery, not a prohibition - and where does Jesus extend it to all mankind? However, I see that others have taken up the cudgels here.wolfsbane wrote:Yes, He is our Maker and our lives are in His hand. He determines when and how they end. Our time here is to be used in preparing to meet Him.
Such a waste.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
5uspect wrote:nit picking time :mad:
If god make all the animals and God didn't make violence or death how did god imagine the animals would eat?
One reply is:
animals are not considered to have a soul. they act callously without "violence" We can no more blame a lion for being "violent" than we can a "violent" storm for knocking down a wall. animals dont kill each other for envy or fun or greed. Humans may do it by choice.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight wrote:That doesn't answer the question, why believe the biblical account over any other account.
Faith usually.
No, the Bible says so. The same Bible which says the earth is 10,000 years old, that the sun goes around the Earth and that Pi is 3.
first of all it was Bishop Usher who stared the 4004 BCE date. Like in the Koran a month or year or age can be considered " a long time".Why has it not occured to anyone that the Bible might just be wrong?
the bible isnt a science text. People sometimes even dis the Mosaic law but that in itself was a vast sociological improvemnt.No one did actually answer my question as to why so much faith is actually put into the Bible?
You really must think that Christians are Biblical fundamentalists. That is reserved mainly for the thousands of Protestant sects in the USA.
As to the mass of christians - the Catholic church. It basically has the same dogma and has a hierarchal structure. a difference emphasis is fount in parts of the church. The Anglicans empahasise the Word - just as many Us sects and other Protestant Christians do i.e. the Bible as a manual for life. But even the anglicans are small in the catholic church. The Orthodox emphasise the spirit. So they have a mass where no particular part is more sacred but it is the same communion. The Romans emphasise the eucharist. All three are not today what one would call biblical fundamentalists but it is interesting to note that Ussher was of the anglican "word" branch.It is perfectly possible to believe (know) there is a God but to not accept that the Bible is the literal word of God. Lots of people do that all the time, in fact most of my Christian friends believe the Bible was simply the result of men, like themselves, attempting to explain something they didn't really understand (ie God).
Indeed the VAST MAJORITY of christians believe this. And it is also the dogma of the Catholic church.Is it then not a little presumptuious of you to assume you know what he was planning when he made homosexuality part of nature? How do you know it is sinful except for the description in the Bible?
I conmtest that the Bible says homosexuals are all sinners. Indeed some Anglican clergy are homosexual.Marriage is also found all over the rest of the Old Testement and it is very much to do with fiance and property.
as was unmarried priests in the Roman church!0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement