The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Pocari Sweat

If you had a proper god running the show, then he would have a modicom of consistency and decency.

For example he would either be a full hands on helper in the universe, or a bit laid back but accessible for help and advice or totally impartial, once he did a proper job of creating what he created.

Instead you have this depiction of some sort of crazed lunatic, who makes a complete feck up of leaving adam and eve to somehow populate the earth without alot of in family incest and knobbing needed for it to carry on.

Then he leaves countless billions of dinosaur and fossil remains in the structure of our earth's geology to raise big questions whether the adam and eve crock of shyte was worth any merit from the start.

Then he is meant to be hands on and a very vengeful god, smyting any of those who step out of line, murdering the first born of the egyptians and offering to set free bears on dozens of children, and yet at the same time is an absent landlord who has not been seen or heard of for 2,000 years except for some nutcase stories dished out from time to time from various organised religions.

The bloke is a fruit cake if he was real, and I know he does not exist as the bible portrays him because any organised religion with the filth written about him would be taken to one side, every member, and given a right proper talking to or slapping, and told to clean up their act.

J C

Scofflaw

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.

The following exchanges between Dr Michael Behe and the editor of a Science Journal is quite illuminating about the possibility of review and publication of ID papers by ‘neutral peers’.
I have no reason to believe that Creation Science papers would fare any better

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp


Scofflaw
peer review is not a mechanism that is designed to suppress papers that the reviewers disagree with - it is almost entirely a methodological review, to check for flaws and errors in the methodology of the research, not the conclusions.
Look at http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp AGAIN!!.


Wicknight
The vast majority of mutations do nothing, neither helpful or harmful. The average human has 65 mutations in them.

OK so you accept that on the 3 billion base pair Human Genome, mutations are observed to occur at 65 locations.
Could I remind you that Evolutionists (hilariously) claim that the said 3 billion base pair genome is itself ENTIRELY derived from BILLIONS of mutations over billions of years!!
Your own words provide irrefutable evidence that the Human Genome is a complex perfect system that is ‘running down’ (as predicted by Creationism) because of this very small number of mutations.
It is certainly NOT a simple imperfect system that is being propelled ‘upwards and onwards’ by billions of mutations (as predicted by Evolutionism).



Originally Posted by J C
The formation of "self contained, self replicating molecules" is NOT (by a long shot) the formation of LIFE aka Abiogenesis.
Wicknight
Yes JC actually it is. All we are is much more complex self-replicating moluecules

Oh NO we aren’t.
Can I give you one practical example – protein synthesis.

Conventional Evolution hypothesised (based on Stanley Millar’s famous amino acid experiments) that a broth of amino acids in a primordial sea eventually linked up to form basic proteins and these proteins eventually linked up to form the first simple living cell.

Could I point out the following flaws in this hypothesis:-

1. Amino acids don’t concentrate (or join up) in water – they actually break up and disperse.
2. The amino acids were observed to be grossly contaminated in the Stanley Millar experiments and these contaminants were actually organic POISONS – that reverse protein synthesis.
3. Even pure amino acids (synthesised by intelligent chemical engineers) don’t spontaneously form proteins.
4. Miller’s amino acids were a 50:50 mix of ‘left handed’ and ‘right handed’ amino acids – but living things use exclusively ‘left handed’ amino acids.
5. The exact sequence of amino acid is always specified by DNA and read by complex machinery requiring PRE-EXISTING proteins. This is a ‘chicken and egg’ syndrome that Evolutionists have never been able to explain.
6. In order to perform it’s function in a cell, each protein must be folded correctly in it’s own unique three-dimensional shape – like a specific key to fit a specific lock.
7. Unfolded or incorrectly folded proteins are the same chemically to properly folded useful proteins, but they are functionally useless.
8. IBM has built the world’s most powerful supercomputer in 2005 to model protein folding. It is called ‘Blue Gene’ and it takes about ONE YEAR to complete it’s calculations and model the folding of just one simple protein. A living cell performs this feat in less than ONE SECOND.
9. Specialised proteins called Chaperones or Chaperonins have been discovered to be vital to the protein folding process. They accompany the newly made protein to the exact place in the cell where the protein fits to function perfectly with the other proteins around it.
10. Even though there may be millions of wrong places for these proteins to go there is often just one place where any newly made protein will fit and function. So how do proteins actually end up in the correct place?
11. The 1999 Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to the man who discovered the answer. Dr Guenter Blobel found that each newly minted protein comes with an ‘address string’ of amino acids attached as a tail to the longest string of amino acids which makes up the protein. This ‘address string’ determines exactly where the protein is delivered.
12. The cell also needs the right amount of the particular protein to be produced – not too much and not too little as well as in the correct sequence with other proteins. Regulatory DNA (which is itself a pre-existing protein) performs this task.

Undirected chemical systems are simply unable to perform these highly complex, tightly specified tasks – which are governed by such information rich systems that the world's most powerful supercomputer is required to model what is going on.
Simple mechanisms such as Natural Selection cannot account for the observed phenomena associated with protein synthesis. Only an all powerful and infinitely intelligent God who directly created such closely interlinked complex systems ‘fits the bill’.


Wicknight
It would be the radio signal JC, not the Amoeba's DNA. I take it you don't actually know much about SETI.

It WOULDN’T be the radio signal – otherwise Pulsars would be evidence of ET intelligence.
The INFORMATION content of any radio signal would be the critical aspect.

That is why an information rich signal (such as the transmission of the DNA code for an Amoeba) from a distant point in our galaxy, would be definitive proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – and a Pulsar radio signal isn’t!!!.


Wicknight
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.

The Amoeba CANNOT develop naturally without the pre-existence of a living parent Amoeba (biogenesis).

So we have a choice :–
I believe that the original Amoeba was directly created by an omnicienent and omnipotent God.

You believe that the genesis of the Amoeba “could have been anything”.

The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created - and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God

He also happens to be the only God that I am aware of who loved you and me personally so much that He humbled Himself to take on our Human nature and suffered the most horrible death imaginable in perfect atonement for our sins. All that He asks of us in return is that we believe on Him and repent of our sins so that we might be saved.

J C

Wicknight
all intermediate life forms are fully functional, other wise they wouldn't survive. Each mutation that increases genetic complexity must also be functional.

I agree that all intermediate structures must be functional in order to survive – but unfortunately for Gradual evolution, such a continuum has never been observed.
Indeed it is impossible to even imagine what a fully functional continuum of eyes between a light sensitive spot and the Human Eye would even look like.
The biochemistry of the different sight systems also cannot be reconciled with gradualist Evolution because of the enormous ‘useless combinatorial space’ which exists around every biomolecule involved in different sight systems.
This means that a gradual change in any protein sequence would render the protein functionally useless thereby making each useful protein a ‘prisoner’ of its own sequence and thereby ruling out the gradual evolution of novel useful information.


Wicknight
Rust is a tightly specified process, does it require intelligence too?

Rust is the SIMPLE chemical oxidation process.
Unlike life’s COMPLEX highly interactive, information dense systems it ISN’T specified (tightly or otherwise).


Wicknight
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.

Your faith in the power of mutagenesis to improve your genome is truly awe inspiring.

However, your faith in the positive power of mutations is somewhat undermined by the banning of the use of mutagenic chemicals and the extraordinary measures take to minimise Human exposure to X-Rays!!!

It is also undermined by the distinct reluctance of Evolutionists to expose themselves to mutagenic agents.


Originally Posted by J C
These instructions are highly specific, even one nucleotide misplaced along a critical sequence will have catastrophic consequences for the organism.
Wicknight
Actually that isn't true at all. Large sections of DNA can be removed and the animal develops normally.
I DID use the words “critical (DNA) sequence”.
Equally, the only reason that ‘large sections of DNA can be removed and the animal develops normally’ is because multiple copies of some genetic information are held by backup and correcting systems within the DNA – a luxury that wouldn’t be expected to be present in an undirected system being lifted up by it’s own bootstraps via fierce competition.
These systems are similar to the auto correction mechanisms devised by intelligent programmers that re-boot computers which have picked up errors – and they therefore provide additional evidence of the intelligent design of living systems.


Wicknight
For the last time JC, evolution isn't undirected.
……… you know it isn't undirected, you have even admitted that it is directed by natural selection before.

The postulated Evolution mechanism of mutation IS both random and undirected – so NS cannot make a proverbial (directed) ‘silk purse’ out of an (undirected) mutated ‘cows ear’.

The phenomenon of irreducible complexity rules out undirected processes generating living systems. Natural Selection can only passively make the most suitable selections available to it.
Random mutations shows no potential to generate ANY useful biomolecules, never mind ‘simple cells’ or multicellular creatures.
However, created genetic diversity does provides plenty of useful phenotypes from which to select.


Wicknight
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.

Forget about the vastly complex Human Genome, my figures are showing that the DNA for EVEN a simple useful protein COULDN’T arise spontaneously.

If each electron in the postulated ‘Big Bang Universe’ was furiously generating a different 100 chain sequence one thousand million times every second (with NS eliminating every useless one just as fast) it would take an average of 10^28 years to produce a specific 100 chain critical amino acid sequence for a useful protein i.e. 10 billion billion billion years.
The evolution of molecules into LIFE is therefore a mathematical impossibility.
This is why nobody can provide any evidence for macro-evolution – because it obviously did not occur.


Wicknight
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.

Please describe just one such observation.


Originally Posted by J C
There is no simple step process between one useful bio molecule and another one for the supposedly gradual Evolutionary process to ‘follow’
Wicknight
Yes there is. This again has been OBSERVERED

Again, please describe just one such observation.


Wicknight
Yes there is. Mutation has been OBSERVED to increase genetic complexity
Again, please describe just one such observation.


5uspect
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

I agree with you on all of the above. However, could I point out that :-

1. You have ruled out macro-mutations on the basis that they are invariably detrimental.

2. Micro-mutations are merely examples of pre-existing genetic diversity phenotypically expressing itself through recombination via sexual reproduction.

Neither macro or micro mutation ADDS to genetic information. Macro-mutation always degrades genetic information (usually to the point of the elimination of the organism concerned). Micro mutation is also either neutral or degrading of genetic information.

J C

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.

I know, isn’t it amazing how some people continue to believe in macro-evolution long after it has been scientifically demolished by the overwhelming evidence for ID and Creation :eek: ?


Scofflaw
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,

The indulgence in casual unprotected sex is indeed is “a very dangerous form of relativism” – as proven by the spread of Syphilis in both the Old and New Worlds!!
Could I also point out that oral to oral infection is one of the prime transmission routes for Syphilis – and the use of a condom provides little protection from this route of transmission.

Equally, the relativism that you speak of ISN’T Biblical.
The Word of God is very clear about the importance of not engaging in casual sex.


Scofflaw
Who will forgive the atheist if he falls off the pedestal he has put himself on?

Who indeed will forgive the atheist when he falls off the pedestal that he has put himself on?
This is the dilemma of the atheist writ large.
Unable to forgive himself, and not believing in the power of Jesus Christ to forgive him, the atheist is essentially consigned to remain under the condemnation of his own conscience.

It is indeed a very tough situation, and the only solution is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
It has the added bonus of being saved for all of eternity, as well!!!


Scofflaw
I have never required that morality be logically supportable. I only require that it works.

A morality that isn’t logically supported is unlikely to ’work’.
If I can make up my own morality as I go along, without any objective logic underpinning it, I can justify almost any type of behaviour on the basis that my morality is every bit as valid as the next person's morality.


Another great scientist rejects ‘Materialistic Evolution’.
Prof Francis Collins, Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute claims that his work has led him to a deeper faith in God.

Prof Collins, who led the team that decoded the Human Genome, has concluded that there is a rational basis for a Creator and that the latest scientific discoveries actually brings Man closer to God.

Prof Collins describes how unravelling the Human Genome allowed him to have a ‘glimpse at the workings of God’.
He said “when you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilation because you have been on this search and seem to have found it. But it is also a moment where I feel closeness to the Creator in the sense of having now perceived something no Human knew before, but God knew all along”.

Prof Collins is following in the scientific footsteps of people such as Sir Isaac Newton who concluded that the Universe was a “most beautiful system (that) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”


Robin
the Interacademy Panel, a co-ordinating group for scientific academies worldwide, has just released a joint statement on the validity of evolution.

Did they perchance provide any repeatably observable evidence for ‘molecules to Man Evolution’?


Bluewolf
He expects us to believe a lot of what he says based on his claim to be a scientist

I DON’T expect you to believe anything that I say based upon the fact that I am a scientist.
I merely present the evidence against Evolution and in favour of Direct Creation and leave it up to you to make your own mind up about which is more likely to have occurred.

I have told you that I am a trained scientist and you don’t believe me – I see no further point in discussing my credentials.


Son Goku
You do realise that operational science would have to be wrong for Creationism to be right.
For instance we would have to be completely wrong about the Weak Force for the Dating methods to be incorrect.

No.
Dating systems would only need to be wrong about their ASSUMPTIONS in relation to the radioactive content of the rock when it was formed, the belief that no radioactivity was added/subtracted externally throughout the period that that rock has existed and the assumption that the rate of change in the radioactive decay has remained constant.


Son Goku
If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible you have to accept the fact that the omnipotent creator of the universe has rewarded women in the past with husbands who have big penises.

Modesty forbids me from confirming that this continues to be the case:D !!!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

The following exchanges between Dr Michael Behe and the editor of a Science Journal is quite illuminating about the possibility of review and publication of ID papers by ‘neutral peers’.
I have no reason to believe that Creation Science papers would fare any better
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp

Scofflaw wrote:

peer review is not a mechanism that is designed to suppress papers that the reviewers disagree with - it is almost entirely a methodological review, to check for flaws and errors in the methodology of the research, not the conclusions.

Look at http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp AGAIN!!.

Letter publication is not peer-review, JC, which is the point. Those journals were asked to publish, in effect, a piece of propaganda writing by Behe. In both cases they considered it, looked at what Behe had written, and turned down the request on the basis that his piece added nothing to the science their journal is concerned with.

In the case of primary research, peer review is limited to methodological checks. Asked to publish propaganda pieces for a particular point of view, all journals have the right to consider all angles - after all, one cannot conduct a methodological review of something that has no methodology other than rhetoric.

patiently,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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.

I know, isn’t it amazing how some people continue to believe in macro-evolution long after it has been scientifically demolished by the overwhelming evidence for ID and Creation?

It is usual to actually demolish first, and claim afterwards, but have it your way...

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

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,

The advocacy of casual unprotected sex is indeed is “a very dangerous form of relativism” – as proven by the spread of Syphilis in both the Old and New Worlds!!
Could I also point out that oral to oral infection is one of the prime transmission route for Syphilis – and the use of a condom has NO effect on this route of transmission.

Equally, the relativism that you speak of ISN’T Biblical.
The Word of God is very clear about the importance of not engaging in casual sex.

Admittedly, I wasn't thinking of oral-to-oral as such.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Who will forgive the atheist if he falls off the pedestal he has put himself on?

Who indeed will forgive the atheist WHEN he falls off the pedestal that his conscience has put him on?
This is the dilemma of the atheist writ large.
Unable to forgive himself, and not believing in the power of Jesus Christ to forgive him, the atheist is essentially consigned to remain under the condemnation of his own conscience.

It is indeed a very tough situation, and the only solution is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
It has the added bonus of being saved for all of eternity, as well!!!

How convenient to have a God who forgives those things you cannot forgive yourself for. Obviously, if I find myself in need of such a mechanism (currently I am in good mental health, thanks) I will consider your universal palliative.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

I have never required that morality be logically supportable. I only require that it works.

A morality that isn’t logically supported is unlikely to ’work’. If I can make up my own morality as I go along, without any objective logic underpinning it, I can justify almost any type of behaviour on the basis that my view is every bit as valid as the next person's view.

You're taking me a bit too literally - I am in favour of logically derived schemes of morality, simply because they are so much more usable. I refer to the possibility of supporting any morality from first principles without assumptions - hence "logically supportable" rather than "logical".

However, I would be wary of simply applying a logical scheme without empirical testing.

JC wrote:

Another great scientist rejects ‘Materialistic Evolution’.
Prof Francis Collins, Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute claims that his work has led him to a belief in God.

Prof Collins, who led the team that decoded the Human Genome, has concluded that there is a rational basis for a Creator and that the latest scientific discoveries actually brings Man closer to God.
Prof Collins describes how unravelling the Human Genome allowed him to have a ‘glimpse at the workings of God’.
He said “when you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilation because you have been on this search and seem to have found it. But it is also a moment where I feel closeness to the Creator in the sense of having now perceived something no Human knew before, but God knew all along”.

Once again, JC, either your hypocrisy or your ignorance appears to know no bounds. Prof Collins has been "a committed Christian since his days as a medical student" - as it says in the Wellcome Trust bio page of him, had you bothered to check.

And would you like to claim he is a Creationist, as you imply? Let's quote Collins, at a 2002 ASA meeting:

Prof Francis Collins wrote:

Another issue, however—one where I am very puzzled about what the answer will be—is the origin of life. Four billion years ago, the conditions on this planet were completely inhospitable to life as we know it; 3.85 billion years ago, life was teeming. That is a very short period—150 million years—for the assembly of macromolecules into a self-replicating form. I think even the most bold and optimistic proposals for the origin of life fall well short of achieving any real probability for that kind of event having occurred. Is this where God entered? Is this how life got started? I am happy to accept that model, but it will not shake my faith if somebody comes up with a model that explains how that the first cells formed without divine intervention. Again, watch out for the God-of-the-gaps. However, I think it is noteworthy that this particular area of evolution, the earliest step, is still very much in disarray.

He may not think much of current proposals about the origin of life, but I'm afraid Prof Collins is that terribly tedious thing - a mainstream Christian, and one who probably finds your ideas just as nutty as I do.

JC wrote:

Robin wrote:

the Interacademy Panel, a co-ordinating group for scientific academies worldwide, has just released a joint statement on the validity of evolution.

Did they perchance provide any repeatably observable evidence for their belief in ‘molecules to Man Evolution’?

No - it's a "statement" - you know, of position. I know you do have that sort of thing confused with presentation of scientific data, but not everyone does.

JC wrote:

Bluewolf wrote:

He expects us to believe a lot of what he says based on his claim to be a scientist

I DON’T expect you to believe anything that I say based upon the fact that I am a scientist.
I merely present the evidence against Evolution and in favour of Direct Creation and leave it up to you to make your own mind up about which is more likely to have occurred.

I have told you that I am a trained scientist and you don’t believe me – I see no further point in parading my credentials.

No, JC - you repeatedly claim to be able to "debunk" this or that piece of "evolutionism" based on your "scientific training". It is clear that you do this to increase the credibility of your arguments, as everyone else agrees. Your claims are now so wide as to be unsupportable by anyone but a top-range polymath. You must put up or shut up.

JC wrote:

Son Goku wrote:

If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible you have to accept the fact that the omnipotent creator of the universe has rewarded women in the past with husbands who have big penises.

Modesty forbids me from confirming that this continues to be the case:D !!!

I can certainly see that something is interfering with the blood flow to your brain...

deriding your "scientific credentials",
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Some of you may enjoy this, if you haven't already seen it:

Doonesbury

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

J C wrote:

I agree with you on all of the above. However, could I point out that :-

1. You have ruled out macro-mutations on the basis that they are invariably detrimental.

2. Micro-mutations are merely examples of pre-existing genetic diversity phenotypically expressing itself through recombination via sexual reproduction.

Neither macro or micro mutation ADDS to genetic information. Macro-mutation always degrades genetic information (usually to the point of the elimination of the organism concerned). Micro mutation is also either neutral or degrading of genetic information.

See here for citations of scientific work that shows increase in complexity due to mutation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Large macro mutations are nearly always detrimental, but not always. They are not the main driving force behing evolution but may have played a somewhat larger role before the evolution of sexual reproduction

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Faithful married couples would not have produced enough happy well-adjusted off-spring, so multiple partners and absent Dads was a better idea?

How can you get married to someone if you can't speak yet?

Human lanuage developed after humans. The ritual of marriage much later after that. For thousands of years humans were having sex outside of marriage because they didn't know what marriage was to start with.

wolfsbane wrote:

Damage to the rectum, diseases passed by anal sex.

And if you don't damage the rectum and have an STD test with your partner before you first have sex? Is it then still a bad idea?

wolfsbane wrote:

Not to speak of the psychological damage done by practising what your deepest conscience knows to be perverse.

Its not perverse if you are homosexual, thats the point.

wolfsbane wrote:

1. It actually gives a 6000yr. approximation, by genealogy.

6000 yrs before Christ, which was 2000 years ago, and I thought Adam and Eve lived for a long time in Eden?

wolfsbane wrote:

2. Our weather-forecasters must also be in profound ignorance when they speak of 'sunrise' and sunset'. One would have thought they knew the truth, that this is only the apparent reality.

They do. A sunrise is the appearence of the sun on a specific spot on Earth. Its kinda hard to have sunrise if you don't have a specific spot, an Earth or for that matter a sun yet.

wolfsbane wrote:

3. What is the value of Pi? WARNING, approximations are not acceptable, and will be regarded as errors.

Pi "approximated" to 3 is incorrect, it won't work. The level or error is too great, just like 1+1=3 is also too great a level of error.

wolfsbane wrote:

That is true - one can believe in a god without believing the Bible is his word. It is just that one cannot believe in the God declared by the Bible and at the same time hold the Bible as man-made. Your 'Christian' friends are therefore flying under a false flag.

Why? they believe in Jesus, they believe in God. They just don't accept that the people who wrote the Bible must have got everything perfect, and if they see something in the Bible that contradicts what we know about nature, they go with the nature and assume the Bible's description is a mistake

Its quite simple really.

wolfsbane wrote:

If they were honest they would describe themselves as an eclectic mix of their own ideas and some from the Bible and elsewhere.

No, they describe themselves as Christians who also like to think.

wolfsbane wrote:

Again, He did not make it part of nature. Sin by man caused the unnatural behaviour we witness around us, whether in greed, violence or lust.

That view would be contradicted by what we know about nature (see the above)

wolfsbane wrote:

Sin brought God's judgement on the world. Death, suffering and degradation are part of that.

Yes but what made homosexuality part of human nature? What force encoded homosexuality into the gentic make up of humans and other animals. "Sin" isn't something that does stuff, "sin" can't make change the laws of biology?

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm telling you how marriage originated. What man changed it to is another matter.

And I'm telling you that your idea of marriage is not the one found in the Bible.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

I think Judges 19 has it all, paedophilia, rape, homosexuality, abuse of women.
It even suggests that paedophilia is not as bad as homosexuality as the master of the house offers his daughter to the mob to be raped rather than the man suffer at the hands of the mob.

Yes, it certainly displays the wickedness of man. But it is a mistake to understand 'virgin daughter' as a child, rather it is a description of any young woman who has not been given in marriage. The householder's behaviour in offering his daughter to be raped instead of his guest suggests a cultural taboo on allowing harm to one's guests, rather than a judgement as to whether rape of a man or woman is greater.

The rape that did occur - of the guest's concubine - brought exemplary judgement on the perpetrators and those who refused to hand them over: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=20&version=50

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

None of those physicists have a single paper on arxiv, so I'm sceptical about this list.

See: Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Well, if the harm done by, for example, anal sex is evidence of how it goes against the "maker's instructions" for our bodies, then presumably it was less harmful before AIDS? Are condoms sinful, or is protected sex (which reduces disease) less sinful? Is oral sex (which is not such a transmission route) less sinful?

Yes, it was less harmful before AIDS. Condoms are not sinful. Protected sex is not in itself sinful ( sinful only when outside marriage). Same applies to oral sex.

See above - if living past fifty is what generally lines you up for cancer, then it's clear by your logic that this is somehow "against the maker's instructions".

Living responsibly is according to the Maker's instructions. We will all die eventually, but our death is not a consequence of our living. My car comes with Manufacturer's instructions. If I ignore them, the life of my car or its performance may well be effected. If I adhere to them, eventually it will wear out anyway. So with our lives. Except that God directly intervenes in our lives daily, unlike the car maker. If He decides I get cancer at any age, that is up to Him. The length of my life and its quality is up to Him, even if I try to keep all the instructions.

No, one can say that rape is morally wrong full stop, based on morality as a social contract or based on the assumption of individual rights. There is no need to invoke God to make morality absolute. The rapist is a danger to others who do not subscribe to his morality or accept his assertion of "rights" - and if they do, it's difficult to see how it can be classed as rape, unless the 'victim' was mentally/morally incapable, or deceived in some way.

That is the point - it must be based on a social contract, which will vary as the society does; or on an 'assumption', not on the logical consequence of the premise of atheism.

What it is more or less impossible to condemn is behaviour that does not harm another, no matter how repugnant it may be. It is sometimes possible to make a case that it such behaviour is correlated with some activity that is harmful, but this does not prove causality, merely association - the repugnant but harmless behaviour may be symptomatic of a moral framework or a perturbation that also causes dangerous behaviour.

That makes sense if atheism is true. Non-harmful actions certainly cannot be condemned, if there is no higher standard than not harming another.

But if Christianity - or one of several other religions - is true, then acts like sex outside of marriage must be condemned, for they violate the commands of the Creator.

That is because it is possible to make them so by stating them as being so - this has as much force as claiming that they are backed by God (in the absence of universally acceptable demonstration by God). Where they err is in believing that one statement of absolute morality is somehow more "logical" than the other - but then, you also suffer from that error, my friend!

I agree - or rather, I agree that explains the folly of claiming absolute standards without the premise, and the proof of that premise in one's own mind. The Christian has both. The outsider cannot have the same certainty, so may well regard our claims as as unknowable as any other. That doesn't make them any less valid - a thing is true whether one believes it or not. Christians know their God is real and is as revealed in the Bible. He has sent us to call our fellowmen to Him also, and those who have been chosen by Him will come to faith.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

The homosexual offenders part or the bible in general?
Because if you mean the former, that's simply not true.

Both. Please explain why it cannot be true that honest unbelieving commentators will agree that the Bible condems homosexuality.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Not really. Evolution is a framework into which several theories, sub-theories, and hypotheses fit - they fit the framework, and they fit each other. To suggest that they are a "patch-work" gives the impression that they do not really fit with each other, which is false.

OK, but I was applying the image to both evolutionary and creationist ideas. Obviously they present a framework. But are you saying it is a completed jigsaw?

That's right. If we suggest a mechanism that, however plausible, fails to account for the features we see, that mechanism must be incorrect. Similarly, if we suggest a mechanism that explains all the features, but is either impossible or invokes the supernatural, that mechanism is discounted. Two competing theories can usually be discriminated on the basis of their different predictions.

The problem in the midst of this generally correct comment is that of invoking the supernatural. To reject the possiblility of such a happening is not science, but materialism. The claim of supernatural intervention must be open to examination just as any other proposed mechanism. We cannot rule out beforehand uniformitarian explanations of a geological feature, nor a natural catastropic origin, nor a supernatural one. That is scientism, not science.

Creationist science, in general, does not make testable predictions, and relies on mechanisms that are physically impossible, and which require the invocation of the supernatural.

Creationists would deny the first two points.

Consider the Scientologists, for example - they have an explanatory framework which looks surprisingly like it was made up by a second-grade science fiction author, and involving some startling and untestable assertions about the history of Earth. They consider this scientific, but it suffers from exactly the same problems as Creationist "science" - untestable, impossible, and invoking the supernatural, although in their case it's a galactic dictator.

Obviously, if a thing cannot be tested to see if its effects are in line with its claimed existence, it is beyond science. But Creationist claims - a young earth; world-wide flood; mathematical improbability of abiogenesis, for example - can be tested. It is the means and interpretations of those tests that is disputed.

Haha! No, that's a false dichotomy. All science is historical, or forensic, or observational, if you like, although some more obviously than others (geology perhaps most of all). Forensic science is still science, but more variables are uncontrolled, that's all.

Creationists would agree with that explanation. That's why I called both types 'science'.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Others, including honest unbelievers, may be unsurprised to learn that the "Biblical usage" above is not undisputed. Indeed, it would be strange if it were not, given that we are unable at this time to contact the original authors...

Sure, it is disputed. But is it honestly disputed? Can any scholar or just literate reader of Romans deny Paul's plain condemnation of homosexuality? Remember also, it is in the context of Paul knowing the various moral condemnations of the Mosaic Law.

These attempts to modernise Paul remind me of similar attempts with regard to his commands on women's role in the church and home; and of the Bible's portrayal of a recent Creation. Peter had a phrase for it,:
2 Peter 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

All that's been "experimentally proven" is speciation,

No problem there. In fact, a natural waterfall pool has achieved the same results: Speedy species surprise http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Too flimsy, particularly given Jesus' failure to preach to the Gentiles who were available to him - the Romans, for example.

Neither Jesus nor His disciples during His life extended the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles as a matter of course. The few exceptions prove the rule. In fact, Jesus forbade His disciples from going to any but the people of Israel. Why so? Because the gospel is to the Jews first, then the Gentiles. God's plan and purpose centred on Israel. God's promises were to them. The Gentiles were to be brought into that commonwealth and to share in their promises as equals, but only after Christ first came to His own.

This correct concept of Jewish priority led however to an incorrect assumption amongst the first Jewish Christians - that salvation was only for the Jews. That was what God put right via Peter and then strongly reinforced by Paul. They made it clear that the promises of God in the Old Testament included the ingathering of the Gentiles after the Messiah had come.
eg. Acts 15:14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’

That quotation was from Amos 9:11, 12.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Does it not strike you as ironic that you, in turn, are demanding a biological formula from a historical record? Or does intellectual honesty have to apply only to your adverseries and not to you?

You are saying evolution is an approximate description of 6-Day Creation? OK, if 300 is an approximate value of Pi. I'll leave you to decide on that and my intellectual honesty.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Can you not come up with a better response than that? Why not try producing some evidence, or a line of reasoning, or a fact, or why not anything at all, rather than just slagging them off?

I didn't realise I was slagging them off when I said they must be worried to have produced that. I would have assumed you agreed. Do you have another explanation for their production? Too much time on their hands?

Also, I notice that the geniuses in AiG, while comfortable to condemn the world's collected scientific academies for not being able to "include the evidence" for evolution in a two-page pamphlet, nonetheless inexplicably fail to produce any evidence at all for their own position.

The AiG document was but a quick report about the release of the academy's statement. The latter, in making such a public assertion, could have been expected to offer at least notes to their agruments. The AiG arguments are all on their website.

Does the irony of this too, strike you? Can you spot irony at all?

I'm not the sharpest.

wolfsbane

ISAW said:

Fornicators are not by necissity homosexuals!

Correct.

Homosexuality is NOT condemned!

Wrong. Other texts that support such a reading of 1 Corinthians 9 include Romans 1 and 1 Timothy 1:10, as well as the Mosaic Law.

Where in the Bible is this?

1 Timothy 1:10, where arsenokoites is translated in these modern versions as perverts, sodomites, men who practice homosexuality, and homosexuals. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20timothy%201:10;&version=31;50;47;49;

where does any quote above condemn homosexuality?

Read the texts; consider all the Bible has to say on homosexuality.

The Bible also mentions acts of hetrosexuals which are not accepable. But does that mean it condems hetrosexuality?

No. It mentions acts of priests that were unacceptable, that does not mean priesthood was bad. But it mentions acts of murderers, and it does mean murder is bad. Likewise for homosexuality.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

Anecdotal evidence is not proof of supernatural beings.

I agree. But it is evidence and should not be dismissed without consideration. The fact that many report it must give it some weight as a possible reality. For instance, if the astronauts had reported seeing a UFO on the other side of the moon, but had no photo of it, surely it would be considered as possibly or probalby true, depending on our assessment of their character.

That is does not persuade me is exactly the point. I can read any work of fiction and be convinced that it is true. That doesn't make it true. Millions have read the Da Vinci Code and believe that it is based on historical truths. Just because a book gives me the warm fuzzy feeling inside doesn't make it true. If the book prophesied that gravity would suddenly be reduced by half I wouldn't believe it until such an event actually happened.

Yes, it doesn't make it true. But it doesn't disprove it either, which is what you were asserting.

No, just wishful thinking. All these are under the influence of people. Their knowledge of the prophecy is irrevalent. All prophecies are vague and open to wide interpretation with plenty of talk about the end of the world or a a great war or some natural disaster that will happen but little in the way of exact details. These are things that are likely to happen regardless. They may even make a great psycholigical weapon for the benefactor in the prophecy. Has anyone actually prophesied an event outside the influence of people or something outside the laws of probability (unlike that it is highly likely that there will be a big earthquake around the pacific ring of fire sometime soon) that has actually come true?

The influence of people would have to be to support the prophecy. The Romans, etc. had no reason to seek to fulfil Jewish prophecy. In fact, the history of the world shows repeated attempts to exterminate the Jews, not just keep them in exile.

I suppose the final one will be the rise of Antichrist. But by then it may be too late to take heed. God will send a strong delusion on all who have not obeyed the gospel, and their opportunity to do so will be forever gone.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20thessalonians%202;&version=31;50;47;49;

mountainyman

wolfsbane wrote:

I suppose the final one will be the rise of Antichrist. But by then it may be too late to take heed. God will send a strong delusion on all who have not obeyed the gospel, and their opportunity to do so will be forever gone.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20thessalonians%202;&version=31;50;47;49;

Seems a bit harsh; why is God trying to fool us. That's too easyy like me tricking the dog.

MM

robindch

> I didn't realise I was slagging them off when I said they must be
> worried to have produced that.

No, you didn't say "them", you wrote "The Establishment" which is a petulant term to apply to the majority of the world's scientific societies releasing a joint statement on a scientific topic.

And yes, they are worried. Because creationists continually lie about scientists, lie about evolution, lie about physics, lie about chemistry. And all to make money and spread their nihilistic and vacant philosophy on the backs of well-meaning people like you. And because they carry a bible in one hand, you will refuse to doubt their honesty. Makes life easy for them!

> The AiG document was but a quick report about the release of the
> academy's statement. The latter, in making such a public assertion,
> could have been expected to offer at least notes to their agruments.

Have you not suspected after all this time on the thread that the world's libraries might be full of these "notes"? That there a tens of thousands of papers published each year adding to the already conclusive evidence in favour of evolution? Have you not read a single of the millions of pages accurately discussing evolution on the internet? Have you not noticed that Ham's outfit doesn't link to a single scientific organization, but still claims to be an authority on a scientific topic? Do you think that there might be a reason for this failure?

> I'm not the sharpest.

I'll accept your word on that! And while it certainly helps to explain your creationist leanings, I can't help but think that if you would spend even ten percent of the time reading up on evolution, as described by competent people, as you seem to spend reading the soft-brained drivel on AiG, you might make some headway in understanding the world you live in

Paulw0t

Pocari Sweat wrote:

No, regardless, I wouldn't write him off as nutter, because he clearly did some proper stuff.

The point is you don't need to be the son of a god, or follow some god, to do good things and be a decent person.

Religious people may think you have to be a nutter if you are trying to lead a proper decent life, unless there is some supernatural thing backing up what you believe.

I know, so, so, so many people that go to church every sunday, and many lie like fecking troopers, deceive and act like scum, others are far far worse and are real pond life.

To me the church offers zero likelyhood in making someone good.

Jesus did not have to have the god that was described in the bible as his dad, and I would like to think god wasn't his dad, because the particular brand of god described in the bible, I can guarantee you with a full list of examples, s a total pratt. No one would want that kinda fecker running the universe.

I would agree That the church will make no one good as you state I would have to leave that in the hands of God. And you don't need to be a christian to good acts many of the Humanitain acts of this world have come from people who do not profess to follow God

My Point wasn't that Jesus was a nutter because he did good things for many people over the years have done good things or lived what we would call good lives - however Jesus claims to be God and the Son of God and thats what the bible teach's.

If this is true it has major significance for the way we live our our lives, If its not he made some major false claims despite any good things he did.

wolfsbane

Pocari Sweat said:

In reply to ISAW, I was going to mention the usual things like Eve allowing her sons Kane and Abel to give her an incestuous paedo knobbing to illustrate that an antiquated God's vision of a hill billy bible is not what society would currently approve of.

Just shows your deplorable ignorance of the Bible. Cain (not Kane) and Abel and Seth are mentioned by name as the sons of Adam and Eve. But the Bible also says: Genesis 5:4After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. That is, Adam's sons married their sisters, a perfectly acceptable thing seeing that the gene pool would have been almost perfect.

Also the cock ups the writers of the bible made when missing out the dinosaurs and trying to say that Noah managed to live for over 900 years.

AiG has various articles on dinosaurs. This from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp
If the different kinds of dinosaurs survived the Flood, then they must have come off the Ark and lived in the post-Flood world.

In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal, called ‘behemoth,’ is described as ‘the chief of the ways of God,’ perhaps the biggest land animal God had created. Impressively, he moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur like Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees!

In a different thread I mentioned any good god would not be depicted as a mass murdering child killer when he went after the first born of the egyptians, and slaughtered wholesale all the babies and youths that were the first born of some older egyptian blokes that had crossed the line with upsetting moses or some usual kerfuffle they had in them days. Why did this god nutter not go after the older bloke offenders, why mass murder all the kids, and then give out commandments saying ye shall not kill.

1. God is creator of all, so all our lives are at His disposal. He is the potter, we the clay.
2. The loss of your first born son would be a very severe punishment, the penultimate step to being destroyed yourself. God's actions were to warn man of his folly in defying God.
3. Ye shall not kill is actually you shall not murder. Man's unjust killing is not the same as God's just killing.

Were the tablets never found after moses broke them. And why did moses break te tablets, was there a load of auld shyte written on them?

Ignoring your juvenile rant, there is no record of what happened to the tablets Moses broke. Just that God gave him new ones. Moses broke the originals in fury at the wickedness of Israel.

And ye shall set the bears loose on all ye kids.

Youths, actually.

And ye shall climb inside a whale for forty days.

3 day and 3 nights, actually.

And ye shall not mention the dinosaurs.

See article above.

And ye shall all be hill billys or paedo priests.

nothing wrong with being a poor peasant. 1 Corinthians 1:26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.

Paedo priests are not Christians, though some hilbillys are.

And ye shall walk on water and magic fish and bread out of a hat.

My God is able to do that. Yours is obviously limited by the laws of nature.

And ye shall not wear condoms and have 20 kids.

I think you are confusing the Bible with the decrees of a bloke in a big house in Italy.

And some of ye may not eat pork and others stuff on a friday.

Ditto.

Once we sort out the calendar properly and know what day friday is.

etc.

That would be the 6th day of the week. You had other ideas?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible you have to accept the fact that the omnipotent creator of the universe has rewarded women in the past with husbands who have big penises.

Hmm. I've missed that one. Please refer me to the text.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

Your're right. I'm very interested in the responses to this also. For a "true" believer to fully accept Jesus he must accept that he died for all our sins. That includes the sins of adam and eve. So once you've bought into Jesus as saviour you have to buy into the literal nonsense also.

You are right in implying that a Christian must buy into all that the Scripture asserts. You are wrong in thinking Christ died for all the sins of everyone without exception. Many Christians believe that, but the Bible is fairly clear that He only bore the sins of His people on the tree. He died for His sheep alone, not for the goats also. All whom He died for will be saved.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

The problem in the midst of this generally correct comment is that of invoking the supernatural. To reject the possiblility of such a happening is not science, but materialism. The claim of supernatural intervention must be open to examination just as any other proposed mechanism. We cannot rule out beforehand uniformitarian explanations of a geological feature, nor a natural catastropic origin, nor a supernatural one. That is scientism, not science.

A Supernatural explanation has never produced a testable prediction. I have yet to see it. All I ever hear is how people working in evolution have misinterpreted things, I have yet to see a single actual prediction.
This is the reason your side has never risen beyond the internet forum level of scientific enquiry.
Stop following evolution around and saying where it is incorrect, make an independant prediction to counter it.

wolfsbane wrote:

See: Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

A single physicist, in a non-origins related area of physics......................................who actually doesn't work in research, but as a technician.

wolfsbane wrote:

But Creationist claims - a young earth; world-wide flood; mathematical improbability of abiogenesis, for example - can be tested. It is the means and interpretations of those tests that is disputed.

What ways can it be tested?
Can anybody give me a single experiment or test we could perform?

JC wrote:

that the rate of change in the radioactive decay has remained constant.

So your saying the weak force is completely different to what QFT says it's like.

Okay thats another area of theoretical physics you disagree with. Again I can show you my calculations or you can show me yours.

So which area first:
1. QFD's account of the weak force, technical calculations included.

or those other ones you seem to have forgotten about:
2. Could you also do some real science and give me an answer to my question with regard to Riemannian Geometry I asked earlier?
3. Could you prove that DNA formation is mathematically impossible and strictly define genetic information?
4. Show an error in my calculations on the effects of a supernova.

Anyone of them at all JC.

wolfsbane

Pocari Sweat said:

and then I am asked to atone for the sins of adam and eve from the vicar or priest.

Obviously not a Christian church, for Christ is the only One who atones for sin.

What is the priest going to say when a new member of his flock, devout on Jesus and speaking all the Christ is Lord terminology etc, then says that Eve got knobbed by Kane and Abel, they were all a bunch of hill billys, that aint right. The priest is just going to toss me out on me ear for speaking me mind.

Assuming you found a real Christian church and made a profession of faith, then came out with this nonsense about incest, I would expect the pastor/elder to take you aside and better explain what the Bible teaches. Immature Christians will have some funny ideas.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Some of you may enjoy this, if you haven't already seen it:

Doonesbury