The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, the creationist, and all Christians, hold that inability to see, hear, walk, etc. are not the way humans are supposed to be. And so we make efforts to help those so disabled. But there is no moral wrongness involved.
There isn't?

Creationists believe that humans are not this way because of the effects of sin. Sin is moral wrongness, correct?

All our suffering and death itself is the consequence of Adam's sin. But the individual sufferer is not sinning by being deformed or ill; nor is the suffering necessarily a particular judgement on that individual:
John 9:2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.

wolfsbane

J C wrote: »

... I see that Italy's premier science funding agency the Italian National Research Council (CNR) is funding the publication of a Creation Science book.

A model of best practice that their eqivalent Science Research Academies in other countries could profitably follow.

Physicist and CNR President Luciano Maiani has said, that CNR's publishing side independently approved the funds for the book but CNR did not specifically back the book.
While stressing that the Creation Science book doesn’t reflect CNR’s position on evolution, President Maiani has, defended the decision to publish the book, saying: “I’d like to stress both the fact that the intellectual research is an open enterprise, as well as my personal endorsement against any form of censorship. The freedom of expression is guaranteed by the article 21 of [Italy’s] Constitution.”

Professor Miani is obviously a man of integrity and fairness and this decision is a model of true liberalism and civilised tolerance.

The Atheistic Evolutionists are whinging at this small gesture of equality and they are seething that this has happened.
I would ask all persons of integrity and good-will to pray for Professor Maiani and everyone else involved in this very brave decision to support academic freedom in the teeth of what is likely to be considerable opposition from the forces of censorship within Atheism and its 'fellow travellers'!!!!

Among the evolutionists voicing dismay, zoologist Ferdinando Boero of University of Lecce wrote an open letter saying “We are in front of the paradox that, while the Vatican {Pontifical] Academy of Science endorses evolutionism, the VP of the biggest scientific institution in Italy denies it.”
Strange days indeed!!!

Nicola Cabibbo, President of the (Vatican) Pontifical Academy of Sciences, has expressed strong disapproval of CNR funding such a book. “The Catholic Church has accepted the thesis of evolutionism. It is interesting that while the Church has devoted many conferences to the topic this year, the VP of CNR organized conferences in favor of creationism.”

So because the Vatican is now apparently throwing its lot in with evolutionism it wants to silence Creation Science.
I can assure the Roman Catholic hierarchy that Creation Scientists will not be signing any confidentiality agrements or taking any 'oaths of silence' when it come to 'blowing the whistle' on the whole load of baloney that Evolution truly is!!!!:eek::eek:

... quotes above from various press sources.

Good to see a breath of real liberalism in Europe. We'll pray the Inquisition don't get him.

I'm sure Dawkins has his moments of uneasiness when he thinks of his bed-fellows from the Dark Side.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... the fact that some algae is found as single cells and conglomerates of cells doesn't constitute new CSI.
it is obviously a pre-existing capacity of this particular Kind.

There are numerous examples of much more dramatic and rapid/instantaneous speciation happening all the time ... and these processes use existing CSI as well.

The point wasn't the multi cellularity, it was that skin. And it's now apparent that the answer to my question is no, there is nothing that you could be presented with that you would admit to being an increase in CSI because you define, and always will define, every new ability that an organism could ever gain as "obviously" an expression of previously existing CSI and you can do this of course because there doesn't have to have been the slightest shred of evidence of this ability before it suddenly appeared, you simply declare that it was always there but somehow hiding away undetectably. And not only is it a baseless declaration without a shred of evidence, it's also totally unfalsifiable which is one of many reasons why it's fully appropriate to put the quotes around creation "science", to indicate that it's not real science

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
The NKJV uses the words 'you shall not murder' (instead of kill) ... but in any event, the ban on killing in the Sixth Commandment was clearly a ban on killing other Human Beings.
In fact when it was written it applied only to other Jews. Non-Jews were God's enemies and God regularly instructed the Jews to kill them

To be even more exact, the commandment was against murder, not killing (as JC pointed out). The same set of laws also commanded the execution of certain types of criminal, so it should be obvious to all who read the full text that 'kill' meant murder, not all sorts of killing.

That meant the Jews could kill their national enemies when God so commanded them, without violating a previous command.

The Mad Hatter

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point wasn't the multi cellularity, it was that skin. And it's now apparent that the answer to my question is no, there is nothing that you could be presented with that you would admit to being an increase in CSI because you define, and always will define, every new ability that an organism could ever gain as "obviously" an expression of previously existing CSI and you can do this of course because there doesn't have to have been the slightest shred of evidence of this ability before it suddenly appeared, you simply declare that it was always there but somehow hiding away undetectably. And not only is it a baseless declaration without a shred of evidence, it's also totally unfalsifiable which is one of many reasons why it's fully appropriate to put the quotes around creation "science", to indicate that it's not real science

Wolfsbane, I hope you're seeing here how J C has stacked the deck against evidence.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Good to see a breath of real liberalism in Europe. We'll pray the Inquisition don't get him.

Tell me wolfsbane, in the name of liberalism and free speech, would you support the teaching in science class of astrology, water divining and the creation stories of every other religion (e.g. the aboriginal view that the gods dreamed the universe into existence) or does your desire for liberalism and free speech extend only to the teaching of your religious beliefs as science?

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

You were the one who came to this conclusion.



Ironically, the sentiments most closely matching those you might expect from a proponent of eugenics came from yourself (see above). Obviously, they might have matched even more closely had you picked a genetic disorder to discuss in the first place. And then when you changed your mind, used a genetic disorder in the second place, rather than a chromosomal aberration that wouldn't be tractable to a eugenics programme...



And how dare you suggest that I/we/atheists/scientists somehow don't respect the sanctity of life. All life. This is deeply insulting and my disgust/horror/bit of sick in mouth about the things you say has extended immensely.

It was not my conclusion, but the logic of the fly/non-fly assertion you made. But you have since said it was not a serious claim and I fully accept that.

As to not holding to the sanctity of life, I name those who support abortion on demand (at least). They openly deny the person-hood of the unborn child, right up to birth.

If you don't fall into that category, it doesn't apply to you. But many atheists and scientists do.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Tell me wolfsbane, in the name of liberalism and free speech, would you support the teaching in science class of astrology, water divining and the creation stories of every other religion (e.g. the aboriginal view that the gods dreamed the universe into existence) or does your desire for liberalism and free speech extend only to the teaching of your religious beliefs as science?

I don't support even my religion being taught in a science class. I do support the science of creationism being taught there.

If astrology or water-divining has any science to present, by all means let it be presented. Creationism has the support of many leading scientists in many lands, who present its scientific arguments. I haven't heard that of astrology or water-divining.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Wolfsbane, I hope you're seeing here how J C has stacked the deck against evidence.

I'm still investigating the nature of this organism - time constrains me, but I hope to get something one way or the other by next weekend. I welcome JC's input, and would value more if he has time.

Just a bit of initial thought - is colonisation involved in this?

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't support even my religion being taught in a science class. I do support the science of creationism being taught there.

If astrology or water-divining has any science to present, by all means let it be presented. Creationism has the support of many leading scientists in many lands, who present its scientific arguments. I haven't heard that of astrology or water-divining.

Asking a scientist if they support something is not how science is done. And neither is it done by dishonestly quoting scientists which is what creationists do. The way science is done is the peer review process and creationists never submit any work to it. They claim that it's because science is a "closed shop" and they're discriminated against but since they never actually try I'm not sure how they know that and since, as you say, many leading scientists in many lands are creationists I'm not sure where they got the idea that they're discriminated against.

But anyway, the fact remains that until creationists submit their work to the same process that every other scientist in the world uses and allow their work to undergo the same scrutiny that every other hypothesis undergoes, all they have is the personal opinions of some people who call themselves scientists. And that, wolfsbane, does not science make. You say that when water divining has some science to present it should be presented and presumably that until that point it should stay out. Well wolfsbane, that puts creationism out too because all they have are hypotheses that are in some cases untested, in other cases untestable and in many other cases, utterly disproved decades ago

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm still investigating the nature of this organism - time constrains me, but I hope to get something one way or the other by next weekend. I welcome JC's input, and would value more if he has time.

Just a bit of initial thought - is colonisation involved in this?

Not sure what you're talking about here. Sam and J C were talking about complex specified information, and what would qualify as an increase in that. It would seem from J C's responses that any evolutionary change would be seen as a manifestation of previously hidden CSI, rather than an increase in information, which really renders the idea of CSI in the first place null and void.

wolfsbane

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Yer leavin' me hanging JC.:o

Here's one: Jesus loved using analogies to explain concepts as is evident in the Gospels. (And I'd personally agree that it's an extremely effective way of getting points across.)
Perhaps this could be extended to say that Genesis could very well be an analogy of the modern day scientific explanation we have come to realise. After all concepts such as 'CSI' and 'random DNA mutations' etc.. would have gone down like a led balloon for people alive at any time before the twentieth century.

The teaching method of an omnipotent being isn't going to change as it was already as good as it was ever going to be. Therefore JC/God would have always known that analogies were a good way of getting points across.
:cool:

But Genesis 1-11 is presented no differently than the rest of Genesis, and indeed is locked into the whole OT by the genealogies. So is the whole OT an analogy?

It also presents the difficulty of Santa Claus Theology - be good or Santa won't come. If there is no Santa? If it is really Mummy and Daddy? No God, really matter and natural selection? Why then should we obey Biblical commandments? Why not just make up our own?

But the Bible, especially the NT, commands specifics based on literal events in Genesis - Adam being created before Eve, for example, is the basis of woman being barred from authority in the church (see my sig.) If he wasn't, why should a woman not be a pastor?

Sam Vimes

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Not sure what you're talking about here. Sam and J C were talking about complex specified information, and what would qualify as an increase in that. It would seem from J C's responses that any evolutionary change would be seen as a manifestation of previously hidden CSI, rather than an increase in information, which really renders the idea of CSI in the first place null and void.

Exactly. Wolfsbane, honestly, can you not see that even if a dog gave birth to a cat tomorrow, J C would still dismiss it as an expression of previously existing CSI? There is no conceivable change that an organism could undergo that cannot be dismissed as an expression of information that was hiding away somewhere completely undetectably right up until the point when it spontaneously appeared

J C

... the Human/animal Chimeras have started here:-




....and ths is where the Chimeras could be heading:-



... and this is where we are at with the 'ethics'!!!

Recently Scientists at Stanford University injected human neuronal stem cells into mouse fetuses, creating mice whose brains were about 1% human. By dissecting the mice at various stages, the researchers were able to see how the added brain cells moved about as they multiplied and made connections with mouse cells. The same scientists now want to add human brain stem cells that have the defects that cause Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease and other brain ailments and study how those cells make connections. Indeed, scientists suspect that these diseases, though they manifest themselves in adulthood, begin when something goes wrong in early development.

Because of this, the Stanford team is also thinking about making chimeric mice whose brains are 100% human. However, they suggest that if the brains look as if it is taking on a distinctly human architecture - a development that could suggest a specific amount of 'humanness' - they could be killed. On the other hand, if they look as if they are organising themselves in a mouse brain architecture, they could be used for research [92,93].

In January 2005, an informal ethics committee at Stanford University endorsed the proposal to create mice with brains made nearly completely of human brain cells. The chairperson of this committee indicated, in this respect, that the board was satisfied that the size and shape of the mouse brain would prevent the human cells from creating any traits of humanity. But just in case, the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice's behaviour and immediately killing any that display human-like behaviour

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Exactly. Wolfsbane, honestly, can you not see that even if a dog gave birth to a cat tomorrow, J C would still dismiss it as an expression of previously existing CSI?

... never mind cats ... it is quite possible that some Evolutionists could engineer a situation where a dog would give birth birth to a dog-Human chimera ... or even a cybrid

... but it will still be using previously existing CSI !!!!

wolfsbane

Before this goes off-air, did anyone catch the Horizon program?
Horizon - 2009-2010 -
15. Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?

There's something very odd going on in space - something that shouldn't be possible. It is as though vast swathes of the universe are being hoovered up by a vast and unseen celestial vacuum cleaner.

Sasha Kaslinsky, the scientist who discovered the phenomenon, is understandably nervous: 'It left us quite unsettled and jittery' he says, 'because this is not something we planned to find'. The accidental discovery of what is ominously being called 'dark flow' not only has implications for the destinies of large numbers of galaxies - it also means that large numbers of scientists might have to find a new way of understanding the universe.

Dark flow is the latest in a long line of phenomena that have threatened to re-write the textbooks. Does it herald a new era of understanding, or does it simply mean that everything we know about the universe is wrong? Broadcast on:BBC Two, 9:00pm Tuesday 9th March 2010Duration:60 minutesAvailable until: 9:59pm Thursday 25th March 2010Categories:
Audio Described, Sign Zone, Factual, Science & Nature

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... the Human/animal Chimeras have started here:-

JC, do you even know when you're lying? This mouse has absolutely nothing human about it at all. It hasn't been genetically engineered, it is not a hybrid, it is not a chimera. Stop lying.

J C wrote: »

But just in case, the committee recommended closely monitoring the mice's behaviour and immediately killing any that display human-like behaviour

Lol, like what? Mice display a lot of human-like behaviour. Are they saying that they are expecting these mice to sit up and talk?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Before this goes off-air, did anyone catch the Horizon program?
Horizon - 2009-2010 -
15. Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?

There's something very odd going on in space - something that shouldn't be possible. It is as though vast swathes of the universe are being hoovered up by a vast and unseen celestial vacuum cleaner.

Sasha Kaslinsky, the scientist who discovered the phenomenon, is understandably nervous: 'It left us quite unsettled and jittery' he says, 'because this is not something we planned to find'. The accidental discovery of what is ominously being called 'dark flow' not only has implications for the destinies of large numbers of galaxies - it also means that large numbers of scientists might have to find a new way of understanding the universe.

Dark flow is the latest in a long line of phenomena that have threatened to re-write the textbooks. Does it herald a new era of understanding, or does it simply mean that everything we know about the universe is wrong? Broadcast on:BBC Two, 9:00pm Tuesday 9th March 2010Duration:60 minutesAvailable until: 9:59pm Thursday 25th March 2010Categories:
Audio Described, Sign Zone, Factual, Science & Nature

IPlayer isn't available outside the UK. Sounds interesting, though. Doubt it's really as sensational as the title.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Before this goes off-air, did anyone catch the Horizon program?
Horizon - 2009-2010 -
15. Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?

There's something very odd going on in space - something that shouldn't be possible. It is as though vast swathes of the universe are being hoovered up by a vast and unseen celestial vacuum cleaner.

Sasha Kaslinsky, the scientist who discovered the phenomenon, is understandably nervous: 'It left us quite unsettled and jittery' he says, 'because this is not something we planned to find'. The accidental discovery of what is ominously being called 'dark flow' not only has implications for the destinies of large numbers of galaxies - it also means that large numbers of scientists might have to find a new way of understanding the universe.

Dark flow is the latest in a long line of phenomena that have threatened to re-write the textbooks. Does it herald a new era of understanding, or does it simply mean that everything we know about the universe is wrong? Broadcast on:BBC Two, 9:00pm Tuesday 9th March 2010Duration:60 minutesAvailable until: 9:59pm Thursday 25th March 2010Categories:
Audio Described, Sign Zone, Factual, Science & Nature

The "everything" in that is some what hyperbole.

If what Creationists say is wrong about modern science (ie the universe is young and all evidence to the contrary, such as distance to stars, are mistakes) we wouldn't even have got to the bit where we were looking at Dark flow

So, while it is very interesting (we have already re-written the text books on Cosmology a number of times, from discovering the speed effects time, to discovering the universe is expanding, to discovering the universe is accelerating), it doesn't help Young Earth Creationism much.

What it does help is the theory of multiple universes, which interestingly is something theist traditionally hate

So be careful what you wish for :pac:

Soul Winner

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

IPlayer isn't available outside the UK. Sounds interesting, though. Doubt it's really as sensational as the title.

It's on YouTube...

Part 1 of 6 below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge6RjTgyLr0

More here

I have it on disk so I'm gonna watch it later myself.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the individual sufferer is not sinning by being deformed or ill;

But you do believe that they are deformed because of sin, correct? That it is not the perfect form that God intended, that it is in fact a degraded form, some more degraded from the perfect standard than others? Correct?

wolfsbane wrote: »

nor is the suffering necessarily a particular judgement on that individual:

Are you suggesting it can be?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, do you even know when you're lying? This mouse has absolutely nothing human about it at all. It hasn't been genetically engineered, it is not a hybrid, it is not a chimera. Stop lying.

... what I meant to say was that the idea for creating animal/human chimeras started with the 'ear mouse'.
think that there are going to be many ethical applications of adult stem cells in growing organs for transplant ... but I don't think that animals are going to play much of a role in the process due to disease risks.

doctoremma wrote: »

Lol, like what? Mice display a lot of human-like behaviour. Are they saying that they are expecting these mice to sit up and talk?

... creating Human/Mice Chimeras with 100% Human brain cells is indeed a 'bridge too far'!!!!

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... what I meant to say was that the idea for creating animal/human chimeras started with the 'ear mouse'.

Out of curiosity, do you think you will ever admit it when your wrong ? about anything ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

There have been occasional reports and rumors of humanzees throughout history. St. Peter Damian, in his 11th century De bono religiosi status et variorum animantium tropologia, tells of a Count Gulielmus whose pet ape became his wife's lover. One day the ape became "mad with jealousy" on seeing the count lying with his wife and it fatally attacked him. Damian claims he was told about this incident by Pope Alexander II and shown a creature named "Maimo", which was supposed to be the offspring of the countess and the ape.

Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov was the first to actually attempt to create a human-ape hybrid. As early as 1910 he had given a presentation to the World Congress of Zoologists in Graz, Austria in which he described the possibility of obtaining such a hybrid through artificial insemination.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Out of curiosity, do you think you will ever admit it when your wrong ? about anything ?

I am rarely, if ever wrong ... and I have just admitted that I wasn't clear enough in what I said ... so what more do you want?

monosharp wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee
Quote:
There have been occasional reports and rumors of humanzees throughout history. St. Peter Damian, in his 11th century De bono religiosi status et variorum animantium tropologia, tells of a Count Gulielmus whose pet ape became his wife's lover. One day the ape became "mad with jealousy" on seeing the count lying with his wife and it fatally attacked him. Damian claims he was told about this incident by Pope Alexander II and shown a creature named "Maimo", which was supposed to be the offspring of the countess and the ape.

... quite!!!!:eek::(:(

monosharp

J C wrote: »

I am rarely, if ever wrong ... and I have just admitted that I wasn't clear enough in what I said ... so what more do you want?

And then after you said you weren't clear enough you stated that 'that the idea for creating animal/human chimeras started with the 'ear mouse'.

I've just corrected you on that. Are you going to admit you were wrong ?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... what I meant to say was that the idea for creating animal/human chimeras started with the 'ear mouse'.

I don't believe you. Sorry. I think you were being controversial in order to reinforce the rather dubious point you were trying to make. I suspect your aim was to shock/disgust the non-scientists reading who may not have come across this mouse, in order to deliberately mislead them about the type of research we are discussing. However, you got caught in a lie and are now trying to wiggle out.

J C wrote: »

... creating Human/Mice Chimeras with 100% Human brain cells is indeed a 'bridge too far'!!!!

I'd love to know what you imagine this chimera might look like. I'd also love to know exactly how different you think mouse and human brain cells are.

GuanYin

J C wrote: »

81 GuanYin

As a practicing member of a religious doctrine, I'm interested to know when "not conforming to your beliefs" made me an atheist?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't believe you. Sorry. I think you were being controversial in order to reinforce the rather dubious point you were trying to make. I suspect your aim was to shock/disgust the non-scientists reading who may not have come across this mouse, in order to deliberately mislead them about the type of research we are discussing. However, you got caught in a lie and are now trying to wiggle out.

... does putting a price of $50 on a pair of foetal eyes, $150 for lungs and hearts ... and $999for an eight week brain ... recovered from abortuaries not disgust people enough???

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=20000209&id=2q4oAAAAIBAJ&sjid=n1UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6495,3535151

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... does putting a price of $50 on a pair of foetal eyes, $150 for lungs and hearts ... and $999for an eight week brain ... recovered from abortuaries not disgust people enough???

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=20000209&id=2q4oAAAAIBAJ&sjid=n1UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6495,3535151

Ah, the Ludington Daily News, that hallmark of journalistic standards, respected around the globe.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... does putting a price of $50 on a pair of foetal eyes, $150 for lungs and hearts ... and $999for an eight week brain ... recovered from abortuaries not disgust people enough???

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=20000209&id=2q4oAAAAIBAJ&sjid=n1UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6495,3535151

Honestly, no. But I reckon that I have more of an insight into the "pricing schemes" than most.

Also, what does this have to do with you lying in order to generate support for your cause?