The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... no need to bother ... Yahweh is the only One!!!

Genghiz Cohen
Because the Bible says so.

... yes ... and also because there is logically only ONE infinitely powerful God is needed or is indeed possible!!!

J C

liamw wrote: »

You seem very certain about that, may I ask how you know?

I know Him personally!!!:)

J C

springwell7616 wrote: »

Tis all Bullsh-t. Just another money making exercise to keep those higher ups in the manner to which they have become accustomed and for the weak minded that need something or someone to believe in.

... three points ...

1. I am a Christian and I make absolutely no money from my faith ... I work as a full-time professional scientist ... and I spend my spare time and my spare money saving souls for Jesus!!!

2. Full-time religious personnel may be legitimately paid for their efforts ... just like any other full-time worker ... but there is every reason that they should have at least the same integrity as full-time doctors, teachers or any other professionals!!!!

3. I would also challenge your unfounded assertion that Christians are 'weak minded' ... I have found that the opposite is true ... and the truly feeble minded are to be found amongst those who believe the fairystory that a frog became a prince ... with nothing added but time.
... grow up lads and lassies ... and be Saved ... before it is too late.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

... yes ... and also because there is logically only ONE infinitely powerful God needed or indeed possible!!!

And you know this one to be Yahweh the same way Johnny Muslim knew him to be Allah; through personal experience. How lovely.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I did, and I asked if the main example was colonisation or a new organism that could not function independently.

None of those.

This is not a bacterial colony, which seems to be what you are suggesting, because the cells all live within a primitive skin derived from the cell wall of the original cell and replicate as a asexual multicelluar organism. A bacterial colony is simply bacteria that clump together, which this is not.

It is a new organism but I don't see anywhere that says the individual cells would not survive if forcibly removed from the organism. I might be wrong about this, feel free to read the paper yourself. They won't naturally do this as again they all now live inside this skin, and because of this the organism reproduces in multicellular fashion. But if the could theoretically be surgically removed by the scientists, though I don't see them attempting this in the research (why would they it is some what irrelevant to how this organism would operate in the wild) This isn't surprising, the multicellular structure appeared after only a few hundred generations, why would the cells lose their ability to function independently in such a short time?

What would be the most likely first thing to do is the structure of the cell walls of the individual cells as they no longer need such strong walls as they are encased in the skin. But evolution won't do this until a mutation comes along that provides advantage to reducing the strength of the individual walls (of which there are many).

The 1998 paper by the scientist discussion the total of his studies in this area since the initial discovery in 1983 is found here

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q239365007h43465/fulltext.pdf

Fluffybums

Blimey does JC like the sight of his own words. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And you know this one to be Yahweh the same way Johnny Muslim knew him to be Allah; through personal experience. How lovely.

Muslims don't know their Allah personally ... the only faith whose members are indwelt by their God is the Christian Faith.

J C

Fluffybums wrote: »

Blimey does JC like the sight of his own words. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

... every word is true ... and I have single-handedly decimated the scientific and theological arguments of over 300 Evolutionists on this thread.

The meaningless verbosity is all on the Evolutionists side of this debate.

BTW do you actually have 'fluffybums' - and is it a sex linked characteristic?:eek::)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Science explains what is happening around us the whole time. So does religion, but science is better because it comes up with more understandable excuses when it is wrong.

Science expains what is happening some of the time. For example, it doesn't explain the mind of the Materialist who believes that Pondslime can become Man and Frogs can become Princes with nothing added but time ...
... my seven year-old daughter doesn't even believe this stuff any more!!!!:eek:

... but then nothing can explain the denial by Materialists of the obvious ... that all life was intelligently created ... except an over-riding desire to deny God!!!!:eek:

... equally, modern Evolutionism doesn't come up with any excuses when it is proven wrong ... it just goes into denial ... and silences the scientists who make these discoveries every day!!!!:eek::(

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... my seven year-old daughter doesn't even believe this stuff any more!!!!:eek:

I imagine you and your seven year old daughter share the same level of science education :rolleyes:

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So you're new here then?

... s/he will soon learn that you don't make these kinds of lazy throw-away remarks ... and not expect to get metaphorically 'roasted' by the resulting reply!!!:eek::):eek:

Zombrex

Fluffybums wrote: »

Blimey does JC like the sight of his own words. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

Yeah a bit like the Christian preachers who are fire and brim stone against gays and then turn out to be gay themselves and flying around with rentboys.

Come on JC, just be true to yourself, you are an "evolutionist" deep down, aren't you. You can tell us, this is a safe environment.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine you and your seven year old daughter share the same level of science education :rolleyes:

... we have certainly left the 'fairytale' phase of our lives behind us ... which is something that the Pondslime Ancestor Worshipping Materialists have failed to do!!!!:eek::):D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah a bit like the Christian preachers who are fire and brim stone against gays and then turn out to be gay themselves and flying around with rentboys.

Come on JC, just be true to yourself, you are an "evolutionist" deep down, aren't you. You can tell us, this is a safe environment.

... who are these 'Christian Preachers' ?...

You are the one that needs to be true to yourself ... just ask yourself how Pondslime could ever spontaneously become Man ... when the ratio of non-functional biomolecules outnumber the functional ones by trilions upon trillions upon trillions to one!!!

... no need to say anything ... just be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord!!!:D

J C

... and so, like 'Moths to the Flame' the Evolutionists are irresistably attracted to the truths of Creation Science ... and they end up getting metaphorically 'roasted' ... every time!!!!:D:):eek:

... MBEEP ... MBEEP !!!:D:eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

You are the one that needs to be true to yourself ... just ask yourself how Pondslime could ever spontaneously become Man ... when the ratio of non-functional biomolecules outnumber the functional ones by trilions upon trillions upon trillions to one!!!

Darwinian evolution and 3 billion years. Hey presto "pondslime" to humans.

We know, deep down, you know this is to be true. You protest so much because the truth scares you. Which is why you spend hours and hours of your life on an internet forum posting countless posts proclaiming the opposite with no clear narrative or apparent interest in convincing anyone. You do it for yourself because you can't face the truth, the truth of evolution.

Poor, poor JC. One day you will realize this and look back over this time with sadness but relief it is over.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... thanks Galvasean ... would you like to join us in this prayer for you?

No thanks. But I appreciate the effort.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Darwinian evolution and 3 billion years. Hey presto "pondslime" to humans.

We know, deep down, you know this is to be true. You protest so much because the truth scares you. Which is why you spend hours and hours of your life on an internet forum posting countless posts proclaiming the opposite with no clear narrative or apparent interest in convincing anyone. You do it for yourself because you can't face the truth, the truth of evolution.

Poor, poor JC. One day you will realize this and look back over this time with sadness but relief it is over.

... just like you can't make 'a silk purse out of a pigs ear' ... you will also never see Pondkind evolve into Mankind ... the CSI for silk simply isn't present in the Pig's Ear ... and the CSI for Homo Sapiens isn't present in the Pondkind!!

You seem to be forgetting that I once was an Evolutionist ... and there is only so much denial that anybody can engage in during one lifetime!!!:eek::D

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

No thanks. But I appreciate the effort.

... no problem.

May God bless you and Save you.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

Christians don't know their Yahweh personally ... the only faith whose members are indwelt by their God is the Jewish Faith.

Fixed, for great justice.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting that I once was an Evolutionist

Worst evolutionist ever.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

None of those.

This is not a bacterial colony, which seems to be what you are suggesting, because the cells all live within a primitive skin derived from the cell wall of the original cell and replicate as a asexual multicelluar organism. A bacterial colony is simply bacteria that clump together, which this is not.

It is a new organism but I don't see anywhere that says the individual cells would not survive if forcibly removed from the organism. I might be wrong about this, feel free to read the paper yourself. They won't naturally do this as again they all now live inside this skin, and because of this the organism reproduces in multicellular fashion. But if the could theoretically be surgically removed by the scientists, though I don't see them attempting this in the research (why would they it is some what irrelevant to how this organism would operate in the wild) This isn't surprising, the multicellular structure appeared after only a few hundred generations, why would the cells lose their ability to function independently in such a short time?

What would be the most likely first thing to do is the structure of the cell walls of the individual cells as they no longer need such strong walls as they are encased in the skin. But evolution won't do this until a mutation comes along that provides advantage to reducing the strength of the individual walls (of which there are many).

The 1998 paper by the scientist discussion the total of his studies in this area since the initial discovery in 1983 is found here

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q239365007h43465/fulltext.pdf

Thanks, I'll get a look at it.

Morbert

I don't get you wolfsbane. Unlike J C, you seem to be a genuine Creationists with genuine (albeit misplaced) concerns. But then you turn around and commend J C for what he says in his posts. It's very inconsistent.

For example, J C has repeatedly referred to "spontaneous evolution" despite the fact that we have explained that evolution is anything but spontaneous, and that such spontaneity is too improbable and therefore cannot be part of the evolutionary process. Do you condone such repetition; such stifling of the conversation, with the same regurgitated vapid rhetoric? Do you encourage the use of phrases like "spontaneous evolution" or "frogs to princes", knowing that they are not related to Darwinian evolutionary biology?

Earlier, you seemed to convey yourself as someone who admits they do not know the science, and admits that evolutionary biology is accepted by the scientific community, but didn't trust the scientific community due to their methodological materialism. If you commend J C's disingenuous remarks, then you are not even that far, and instead simply want evolution to be wrong regardless of the validity of the arguments for or against it.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Muslims don't know their Allah personally ... the only faith whose members are indwelt by their God is the Christian Faith.

Misquoted by Genghiz Cohen
Christians don't know their Yahweh personally ... the only faith whose members are indwelt by their God is the Jewish Faith.

Neither Mulsims nor Jews claim to be indwelt by their God ... and they would be highly offended at such a claim being made on their behalf!!!

My original statement remains true and your garbled version of my statement isn't true ... a bit like the rest of your postings!!!:eek::)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
You seem to be forgetting that I once was an Evolutionist

Genghiz Cohen
Worst evolutionist ever.

... only after I found out Evolution was a load of baloney ... and spent nearly 10 years in denial and fretting about what my fellow Evolutionists would say when I told them that I no longer believed that I had slimeball ancestors and was a monkey's cousin!!!!:eek::):D

J C

Morbert wrote: »

I don't get you wolfsbane. Unlike J C, you seem to be a genuine Creationists with genuine (albeit misplaced) concerns. But then you turn around and commend J C for what he says in his posts. It's very inconsistent.

... what is a 'genuine Creationist' in your opinion?

Morbert wrote: »

For example, J C has repeatedly referred to "spontaneous evolution" despite the fact that we have explained that evolution is anything but spontaneous, and that such spontaneity is too improbable and therefore cannot be part of the evolutionary process. Do you condone such repetition; such stifling of the conversation, with the same regurgitated vapid rhetoric? Do you encourage the use of phrases like "spontaneous evolution" or "frogs to princes", knowing that they are not related to Darwinian evolutionary biology?

... the bottom line is that Materialists do believe that Materialistic Processes alone are responsible for 'evolving' Pondkind to Mankind' and they therefore believe it to be a 'spontaneous' process i.e. a non-intelligently directed process.
Equally, the supposed evolution of the so-called 'first amphibians' into mammals including Man over millions of years via non-intelligently directed processes can be accurately summarised as 'frogs turning into princes with nothing added but time'.
I know it is a load of baloney ... but it perfectly summarises the Materialistic 'origins story' in a nutshell.

Morbert wrote: »

Earlier, you seemed to convey yourself as someone who admits they do not know the science, and admits that evolutionary biology is accepted by the scientific community, but didn't trust the scientific community due to their methodological materialism. If you commend J C's disingenuous remarks, then you are not even that far, and instead simply want evolution to be wrong regardless of the validity of the arguments for or against it.

... my remarks aren't disingenious ... they are a true summary of Materialistic Evolution!!!:)

... and ye are the guys who believe in Evolution, regardless of the invalidity of the arguments for it!!!!:eek::)

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

... only after I found out Evolution was a load of baloney ... and spent nearly 10 years in denial and fretting about what my fellow Evolutionists would say when I told them that I no longer believed that I had slimeball ancestors and was a monkey's cousin!!!!:eek::):D

Your deep and profound understanding of the basics of evolution really attest to that.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Your deep and profound understanding of the basics of evolution really attest to that.

... yes indeed!!!

... I once did believe that I was descended from a common Pondkind Ancestor and also that Mankind and Monkeys had a common ancestor that was an Ape!!!!

... I blush profusely at my gullibility, every time I think about it!!!:eek:

J C

... and continuing our education series for Evolutionists ... here are some quotes from an Evolutionist for Evolutionists:-

All quotes are from Dr Michael Ruse Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series in the Philosophy of Biology :-

I always find when I meet creationists or non-evolutionists or critics or whatever, I find it a lot easier to hate them in print than I do in person. Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993
... Creation Scientists really are a very nice group of people ... and the more you get to know us face to face the more you will like us and our Science!!!:):D


But we did talk much more about the whole question of metaphysics, the whole question of philosophical bases. And what Johnson was arguing was that, at a certain level, the kind of position of a person like myself, an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level, just as much as the kind of position of let us say somebody, some creationist, someone like Gish or somebody like that. And to a certain extent, I must confess, in the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself. Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993
... a very fair and reasonable acceptance by Dr Ruse that Evolutionism is just as much a metaphysical/religious position as Creationism


I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things. Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993
... it certainly wouldn't be a good thing to admit that Evolutionism is a form of metaphysical religion in a court of law, if you are arguing that it is a science deserving of being taught to children of all faiths and none in a school system where religious education is banned by law!!!

... however honesty, as Dr Ruse admits, demands that such an admission be made ... and the consequences of such an admission is that either Evolution is also banned in these schools ... or else all religions (including Evolutionism) should be taught in a fair and balanced manner to children, whose parents have consented to such teaching.

... the current set-up in America is that Evolutionism is a form of State Established Religion ... and quite an agressive Established Religion at that.
Many established religions, like Anglicanism, never dared to legally enforce their religious teaching on children of other faiths ... so in many ways Evolutionsm is even more brazen and arrogant than other established state religions have been in the past ...
... the Atheistic Evolutionists even hypocritically call for the separation of church and state ... when it is themselves (and their beliefs alone) that now enjoys the protection of the state including the legally enforced indoctination of all children of all faiths with their unfounded beliefs!!!:eek::(


It's certainly been the case that evolution has functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with elements akin to a secular religion. Those of us who teach philosophy of religion always say there's no way of defining religion by a neat, necessary and sufficient condition. The best that you can do is list a number of characteristics, some of which all religions have, and none of which any religion, whatever or however you sort of put it. And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion. Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993
... more confirmation, from an Evolutionist that Evolutionism is a form of religion ... and therefore a form of state established religion, where its teachings are a legally required part of the curriculum in American state schools (where no other religion is allowed) ...
... equally, where it's scientists are paid by the state, they are a type of state supported 'high priesthood' akin to the priesthoods of Ancient Rome!!!

Indeed the calls from some of their number for the active suppression of Christianity by the State (and describing the Christian Faith as a form of child abuse is indeed such a call) has ominous historical parallells with the persecution of the early Church by non-Christian priesthoods in consort with their governments.


Certainly, though, as I say, for Thomas Henry Huxley, I don't think there's any question but that evolution functioned, at a level, as a kind of secular religion...If you look both at his printed stuff, and if you go down to Rice University which has got all his private papers, again and again in the letters, it comes through very strongly that for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a kind of secular religion...I think that today also, for more than one eminent evolutionist, evolution in a way functions as a kind of secular religion...Certainly, if you look for instance in On Human Nature, Wilson is quite categorical about wanting to see evolution as the new myth, and all sorts of language like this. That for him, at some level, it's functioning as a kind of metaphysical system. Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993
... Evolutionism has always been ... and continues to be a religion ... so how has this unfounded secular myth got full state protection and full support from many Christians in America and elsewhere???


And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may. Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993
... once again I would ask the question as to how this secular anti-God myth, that has been devised and continues to be promoted by Atheists to help them to feel intellectually satisfied, has garnered the full support of many Christians ???


... waits for the usual smart-assed 'one liners' from the Materialists (and no response from the Theists) as the Evolutionists continue to ignore/deny the key points in the above Evolutionist quotes.

.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

a 'spontaneous' process i.e. a non-intelligently directed process.

The definition of spontaneous is not "non-intelligently directed process". Spontaneous means random and without an external cause. Darwinian evolution is the "non-random" development of life due to the external cause of selective pressures on random mutations. Mutations might be spontaneous in a certain sense, but because they are spontaneous, they must be very very very slight. Significant spontaneity would make evolution as probable as a tornado moving through a junkyard and contructing a jumbo jet.

So evolution is not spontaneous. It is the very opposite. It is the gradual migration of survival strategies into the various niches presented by the natural world.

... what is a 'genuine Creationist' in your opinion?

Someone who holds Creationism as true, rather than an agenda to be served by poor arguments.