The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

... what Sam means is that the Evolutionists have already tried all of their usual arguments on this thread ... and none of them work!!!!:):)

In fairness, this isn't really helping address questions raised.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

No dating system is perfect, but you guys want to throw them out not because you are worried about their accuracy (no measurement system in science is 100% accurate, dating methods are no worse than anything else) but simply due to religious ideology because they conflict with the Bible.

I do have religious reasons for rejecting many of the methods, but I'm speaking of scientific objections. Such as:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/dating_game.asp

I'm happy for any scientist to promote their method and the conclusions it suggests, but honesty demands they be open about discordant findings. When we see scientists being silenced for not keeping quiet about findings that challenge the establishment view, surely it makes one suspicious of that dogma? JC's link on post 22641 needs an answer:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66664639&postcount=22641

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to the ancient authors you say wrote before the date we give of the Flood, have you any examples?
The Egyptians have an unbroken historical record going right through the period where they should be underwater.

They have documents/tablets dating from before c2300BC? Or have they only a history that purports to cover that time?
_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

Genghiz Cohen

gosplan wrote: »

It's been nearly 6 years. Are you going to acknowledge that you weren't being truthful here or are you going to go into this proof.

fixed...

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

I do have religious reasons for rejecting many of the methods, but I'm speaking of scientific objections. Such as:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/dating_game.asp

wolfsbane, seriously, no one that you are speaking to on this thread gives the slightest bit of credence to the proven liars at answers in genesis. You might not agree that they're liars but that is how everyone else on the thread sees them so you are simply wasting your time and everyone else's by constantly referring to them. Debunking these charlatans' latest regurgitations is futile because they already know what the refutations before they ever publish it. No matter how thoroughly their nonsense is debunked they will continue to spout it because they are liars furthering an agenda and you will continue to believe whatever they say because they're telling you what you want to hear.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes wrote: »

wolfsbane, seriously, no one that you are speaking to on this thread gives the slightest bit of credence to the proven liars at answers in genesis. You might not agree that they're liars but that is how everyone else on the thread sees them so you are simply wasting your time and everyone else's by constantly referring to them. Debunking these charlatans' latest regurgitations is futile because they already know what the refutations before they ever publish it. No matter how thoroughly their nonsense is debunked they will continue to spout it because they are liars furthering an agenda and you will continue to believe whatever they say because they're telling you what you want to hear.

If you guys refuse to check the objections to your dogma, you seem to be the one with the problem.

And as I pointed out, the evolutionists on JC's link also fell foul of current dogma. Maybe that explains the dismissive attitude - scared of Big Brother? But as this is an anonymous board, it is more likely you guys are just scared of uncomfortable truths.
_________________________________________________________________
Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you guys refuse to check the objections to your dogma, you seem to be the one with the problem.

And as I pointed out, the evolutionists on JC's link also fell foul of current dogma. Maybe that explains the dismissive attitude - scared of Big Brother? But as this is an anonymous board, it is more likely you guys are just scared of uncomfortable truths.
_________________________________

The problem here is not us "not checking the objections to our dogma", it's that we have all investigated claims of AIG in the past and invariably found that everything they were saying had already been debunked many times before, often decades ago. AIG is the boy who cried wolf. Every other time I looked at an article I found it to be packed with lies so I see no reason to believe any link you give me now will be any different.

It's not even that they do what you're accusing me of by not checking the objections to their dogma, they know what they objections are because they've been told hundreds and hundreds of times. They simply ignore these objections using the method I detailed in this post. AIG are fundamentally dishonest; I would not believe them if they told me it was Wednesday and I think I can safely say that goes for every person on this thread other than J C. You are wasting your time by referring to them.

edit: only two weeks ago I responded to some nonsense J C copypasted from AIG to point out it's mind numbing stupidity. I am not afraid of these people as you seem to think, I just think they're liars and fools

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

wolfsbane, seriously, no one that you are speaking to on this thread gives the slightest bit of credence to the proven liars at answers in genesis. You might not agree that they're liars but that is how everyone else on the thread sees them so you are simply wasting your time and everyone else's by constantly referring to them. Debunking these charlatans' latest regurgitations is futile because they already know what the refutations before they ever publish it. No matter how thoroughly their nonsense is debunked they will continue to spout it because they are liars furthering an agenda and you will continue to believe whatever they say because they're telling you what you want to hear.

... you are plumbing depths of denial that even Ostriches never reach!!!!:eek::):D

Mt 5:10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.
12 "Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sigh. Do you understand the difference between saying that life has the appearance of being designed and saying that life was designed, and that saying that life has the appearance of being designed but was actually not is not "promptly denying" anything?*

... everyone knows that there is a difference between saying that life was designed and life has the appearance of being designed ... so my quote is a fair and honest reflection of Prof Dawkin's views on the subject ... and I would ask you to retract your scurrilous lies about my quote being somehow 'dishonest'!!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

*Yes of course you do but if you admitted that then you couldn't put a dishonest out of context quote in your sig.

... however, one problem for Prof Dawkin's idea is that ... if it has the appearance of quacking like a duck and has the appearance of swimming like a duck and has the appearance of looking like a duck ... then it can be safely concluded that it is a duck!!!!

... so Prof Dawkin's conclusion that living processes has the appearance of being designed for a purpose ... means that it can be safely concluded that they were so designed!!!
... and that is why you are so 'twitchy' about this quote ... and you are trying to erect a 'smoke screen' around it by making unfounded allegations that it is 'out of context' or somehow 'dishonest' ... when it is a fair representation of Prof Dawkin's statement on the subject!!!

Similarly, you are falsely accusing me of not answering questions in relation to the mathematical proof for God's existence ... when this has been repeatedly given to you already!!!!

... for example here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64146692&postcount=20235
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63409709&postcount=19242
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61519498&postcount=16717
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61516066&postcount=16710
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58461952&postcount=14087
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58453017&postcount=14067
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57313883&postcount=12353

... enjoy!!!:eek::D

gosplan

wolfsbane wrote: »

JC's link on post 22641 needs an answer:

but he never asked a question

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
JC's link on post 22641 needs an answer:

gosplan
but he never asked a question

... like I have said, some Evolutionists have depths of denial ... that would make an Ostrich blush!!!:eek::):D

... any comments on the issues raised here?

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In fairness, this isn't really helping address questions raised.

... I was responding to the following comment Sam Vimes ... which also didn't help address the questions raised!!!

Sam Vimes wrote:

You're new here I see

... and who says that we must answer questions all of the time ... it is often just as important to illustrate the ridiculous claims of Evolution ... using other methods!!!!:eek::D

Overheal

J C wrote: »

... and who says that we must answer questions all of the time ... it is often just as important to illustrate the ridiculous claims of Evolution ... using other methods!!!!:eek::D

Which involves deflection and soapboxing, apparently.

This is a Discussion Forum and for my part I'm interested in The Discussion. As such I appreciate when other posters have the common courtesy to address the many points I have already raised that have been completely dismissed, or blithely ignored by yourself.

J C

Overheal wrote: »

Which involves deflection and soapboxing, apparently.

This is a Discussion Forum and for my part I'm interested in The Discussion. As such I appreciate when other posters have the common courtesy to address the many points I have already raised that have been completely dismissed, or blithely ignored by yourself.

... what points?

J C

gosplan wrote: »

I'm calling you out JC.

... OK ... I have a Royal Flush ... and you have a 'busted' straight!!!!:eek::):D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... everyone knows that there is a difference between saying that life was designed and life has the appearance of being designed ... so my quote is a fair and honest reflection of Prof Dawkin's views on the subject ... and I would ask you to retract your scurrilous lies about my quote being somehow 'dishonest'!!!!

... however, one problem for Prof Dawkin's idea is that ... if it has the appearance of quacking like a duck and has the appearance of swimming like a duck and has the appearance of looking like a duck ... then it can be safely concluded that it is a duck!!!!

... so Prof Dawkin's conclusion that living processes has the appearance of being designed for a purpose ... means that it can be safely concluded that they were so designed!!!
... and that is why you are so 'twitchy' about this quote ... and you are trying to erect a 'smoke screen' around it by making unfounded allegations that it is 'out of context' or somehow 'dishonest' ... when it is a fair representation of Prof Dawkin's statement on the subject!!!

This is what you said:

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins has indeed said that living organisms give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose ... and he then promptly denied this by claiming that blind evolutionary processes did it ...

Dawkins said that living organisms have the appearance of being designed. You acknowledge that this is different to saying that they were designed and it is your spurious reasoning that equates the two. Since he does not nor did he ever equate the two or give any suggestion that he did or even bring up the idea that they might be equatable, what exactly did he say and then promptly deny?

J C wrote: »

Similarly, you are falsely accusing me of not answering questions in relation to the mathematical proof for God's existence ... when this has been repeatedly given to you already!!!!

... for example here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64146692&postcount=20235
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63409709&postcount=19242
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61519498&postcount=16717
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61516066&postcount=16710
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58461952&postcount=14087
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58453017&postcount=14067
... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57313883&postcount=12353

... enjoy!!!:eek::D

Ah yes the creationist circle of proof. You have indeed given that many times and each time you have I have pointed out that this is the reasoning you are using
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64455426&postcount=20900


Also, there are no maths in your "mathematical proof"

gosplan

J C wrote: »

Similarly, you are falsely accusing me of not answering questions in relation to the mathematical proof for God's existence ... when this has been repeatedly given to you already!!!!

... for example here:-

... enjoy!!!:eek::D

Nope that was me.

Instead of going through post by post, can I just confirm that your mathematical proof of God is basically the two theories of Complex Specified Information and Irreducible Complexity?

Is there anything else or am I OK to just speak about those?

gosplan

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, there are no maths in your "mathematical proof"

this is a very good point.

Even Dembski(proposer of Specified Complexity) said that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".

But you've done it for him JC???

J C

gosplan wrote: »

this is a very good point.

Even Dembski(proposer of Specified Complexity) said that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".

But you've done it for him JC???

Yes!!:):D

Overheal

J C wrote: »

... I have a Royal Flush ... and you have a 'busted' straight!!!!:eek::):D

And I have a flying bicycle. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

J C wrote: »

... what points?

That 10,000 years of recorded history is inconclusive evidence of Man's creation only 10,000 years ago: It completely abandons paleontology.

Or that the Deluge described in the bible could very well be a re-imagining, or theorization of the formation of the Mediterranean sea 5.33 million years ago, with the addition of a God, a Noah, and Ark and some Animals. A theory that was crafted by the authors of the book of Genesis.

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Nope that was me.

Instead of going through post by post, can I just confirm that your mathematical proof of God is basically the two theories of Complex Specified Information and Irreducible Complexity?

Is there anything else or am I OK to just speak about those?

... all that plus Non-functional Combinatorial Space and the fact that it cannot be 'crossed' by non-intelligently directed processes!!!:):D:eek:

J C

Overheal wrote: »

And I have a flying bicycle. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

... thanks ... but no thanks!!!:):D

Overheal wrote: »

That 10,000 years of recorded history is inconclusive evidence of Man's creation only 10,000 years ago: It completely abandons paleontology.

... the co-incidence between the less than 10,000 years of written history with the less than 10,000 years since Creation is an impressive correlation. I accept that it isn't conclusive evidence for a Young Earth and a recent Creation ... but it does seriously undermine the millions of years paradigm of Evolution!!!!:)

Overheal wrote: »

Or that the Deluge described in the bible could very well be a re-imagining, or theorization of the formation of the Mediterranean sea 5.33 million years ago, with the addition of a God, a Noah, and Ark and some Animals. A theory that was crafted by the authors of the book of Genesis.

... except that your idea is not in agreement with the evidence ... in the form of uniform fossiliferous sedimentary rocks all over the world ... AKA billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth!!!!:):D

... and the Genesis Account of a worldwide flood is in accord with this evidence!!!!:D

Overheal

J C wrote: »

... thanks ... but no thanks!!!:):D

So you claim you have completed the work but refuse to provide it.

:rolleyes:

... the co-incidence between the less than 10,000 years of written history with the less than 10,000 years since Creation is an impressive correlation. I accept that it isn't conclusive evidence for a Young Earth and a recent Creation ... but it does seriously undermine the millions of years paradigm of Evolution!!!!:)

Not really. Language, Writing, and Preservation methods for said language and writing would have also taken time to Evolve and Develop.

... except that your idea is not in agreement with the evidence ... in the form of uniform fossiliferous sedimentary rocks all over the world ... AKA billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth!!!!:):D

... and the Genesis Account of a worldwide flood is in accord with this evidence!!!!:D

I dont know what fossils you're speaking about or if these are in accordance with an Ice Age at some point.

But I do find it fascinating you can both cite paleontology and throw it out completely, by rejecting Dating methods.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Overheal
And I have a flying bicycle. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Originally Posted by J C
... thanks ... but no thanks!!!


Overheal
So you claim you have completed the work but refuse to provide it.

... what are you talking about???

... and BTW the flying bicycle is a really good analogy for Evolution!!!!:):D:eek:

wrote:

Originally Posted by Overheal
Not really. Language, Writing, and Preservation methods for said language and writing would have also taken time to Evolve and Develop.

... all languages and writing has appeared suddenly and completely ... and there is no evidence for any supposed 'evolution from grunt to onomatopoeia' !!!!:eek::D:)

wrote:

Originally Posted by Overheal
I dont know what fossils you're speaking about or if these are in accordance with an Ice Age at some point.

But I do find it fascinating you can both cite paleontology and throw it out completely, by rejecting Dating methods.

.... I reject the millions of years conclusions of Evolutionists ... and polystrate fossils also disproves their dating methods!!!:):D

Kirby

J C wrote: »

... all languages and writing has appeared suddenly and completely... and there is no evidence for any supposed 'evolution from grunt to onomatopoeia' !!!!:eek::D:)

Are you being sarcastic here? It doesn't appear so but this statement is so ridiculous I have to ask.

Many languages have been invented since the bible was written. . Language evolves constantly. Go read a shakespeare play and compare it to the language of today. Strike that, compare language of thirty years ago and compare it to today. I can't imagine a person from the eighties knows what an "internet" is, how many "lols" a comedian gets, and probably thinks "d'oh" is something you use to make doughnuts.

Words and languages fall out of use and are forgotten, and new words are formed with combinations of letters not seen before. This is natural and has always happened, and will always happen.

The Mad Hatter

Kirby wrote: »

Are you being sarcastic here? It doesn't appear so but this statement is so ridiculous I have to ask.

Many languages have been invented since the bible was written. . Language evolves constantly. Go read a shakespeare play and compare it to the language of today. Strike that, compare language of thirty years ago and compare it to today. I can't imagine a person from the eighties knows what an "internet" is, how many "lols" a comedian gets, and probably thinks "d'oh" is something you use to make doughnuts.

Words and languages fall out of use and are forgotten, and new words are formed with combinations of letters not seen before. This is natural and has always happened, and will always happen.

No, he's quite serious. Well, to the extent that I believe he's trolling - I don't think anyone could be that consistently dishonest without knowing it.

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

Yes!!:):D

Will we be seeing this, JC?

Nick Dolan

J C wrote: »

... like I have said, some Evolutionists have depths of denial ... that would make an Ostrich blush!!!:eek::):D

... any comments on the issues raised here?

So your saying evidence of people living in america 250000 years ago is proof the world is only 6000 years old? Hey its Moses saying it so it must be true.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Will we be seeing this, JC?

I'm afraid we've seen it. He calls that circular nonsense he keeps posting about non functional permutations etc a mathematical proof

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm afraid we've seen it. He calls that circular nonsense he keeps posting about non functional permutations etc a mathematical proof

I hate this thread.

Overheal

J C wrote: »

... what are you talking about???

... and BTW the flying bicycle is a really good analogy for Evolution!!!!:):D:eek:

You're avoiding having to address my last post.

... all languages and writing has appeared suddenly and completely ... and there is no evidence for any supposed 'evolution from grunt to onomatopoeia' !!!!:eek::D:)

You've never raised a child then.

Though thrusting that example what if I were to say I burned and destroyed all of my papers, my birth certificate, my childhood crayola drawings, the family video collection, and expunge all record of my presence from the internet.

Would I then by your mechanic of reasoning be considered to have just been placed here all of a sudden on the planet earth as a walking talking 23 year old manchild? More Importantly, would it be assumed that I could speak fluent english of my own volition through some miracle? As there would be no proof I ever went to school, or practice language, because all of those records were erased.

.... I reject the millions of years conclusions of Evolutionists ... and polystrate fossils also disproves their dating methods!!!:):D

in your opinion.