Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Options
1…770771773775776…822

Comments

  • Options
    #23162
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Ush1 wrote: »
    So why did you call the suppression of ID research religious discrimination if it is science and not religion?
    ... I called it religious discrimination because the discrimination is being prosecuted by some Materialists to 'shore up' their Materialistic Faith-based beliefs!!!
    ... and thus the motive is religious in character!!!

    ... the suppression of ID science is thus 'religiously' inspired ... just like the suppression of Galeleo's science was also 'religiously' inspired!!!!

    ... and for much the same basic reason ... the defense of the faith-position of the dominant power group ... of each age!!!


  • Options
    #23163
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Ush1 wrote: »
    So why did you call the suppression of ID research religious discrimination if it is science and not religion?

    Ush, welcome to the thread. This is pretty much how it goes here. It seems J C's current definition of religious discrimination is "discrimination by religious people". In many situations, redefining and reversing the meaning of a common phrase would be a novel way of getting out of admitting you're wrong; here it's par for the course.


  • Options
    #23164
    Lantus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,027 ✭✭✭Lantus


    J C wrote: »
    ... OK lets start with the first verse "In the beginning God Created the heavens and the earth" ... or how about "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." ... sounds like pretty unambiguous stuff to me!!!

    how were these heavens and earth created, what were they made of? what was the exact order of creation of the various elements, did it just slowly come into focus over the course of one day like some picture you can't see then can see and go 'ohhh thats what it is?' or were some elements made first and some later? the writer doesn't seem to elaborate.

    how was the light seperated from the darkness? was it a murky grey with 50 light and 50 dark? was it a mix of air and vacuum? what did he use to seperate it? some sort of tool perhaps? what was the chemical composition and atomic structure? the writer seems to have no knowledge of these scientific principles, or no interest, or god just was just really stingy with the facts and worried people would make loads of planets and universes if he told them the secret?

    he called the light "day"? does that mean he created language on the day before day 1 (day zero perhaps?)

    so yes it is vague given the critical importance of the event. there are no facts unless you rely on faith to just accept it without any evidence.

    HOWEVER, I believe that all of that is irrelevant. The core importance is that christians believe they were created by god, thats what the writer was trying to convey in as little text as possible to avoid these kinds of future arguments. they should accept it and not worry too much about what science discovers. You cannot disprove faith and I dont think we will be able to disprove god in the next 40,000 or more years if at all. why would we even want to?

    i still stand by my op that the bible is about people first and foremost and their interaction, it's about the core idea's of love for one another and knowledge and understanding. using the bible as a basis for science makes about as much sense as using the laws of thermodynamics to better understand compassion.

    I think if jesus were here today he'd be really sad at all the time being spent by so called christians in trying to prove scientifically the first few pages of genesis. It would be fairly dissheartening to see after 2000 years thats what was occupying the minds of millions of his followers. believeing is one thing, but understanding is quite another.

    religous texts like the bible will always be under pressure because they will never change or be updated in a world that is driven by change. Theres a wealth of good information in the bible but they really need to take the good stuff and move forward.


  • Options
    #23165
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Ush, welcome to the thread. This is pretty much how it goes here. It seems J C's current definition of religious discrimination is "discrimination by religious people". In many situations, redefining and reversing the meaning of a common phrase would be a novel way of getting out of admitting you're wrong; here it's par for the course.
    Atheists can't have it both ways ... but I can't blame them for trying!!!
    They reject any religious label ... yet they have campaigned for (and have largely achieved) the recognition of Atheistic Humanism as a recognised belief/faith system ... in everything from ethics to school religion classes (and I fully respect their rights in these regards ... but I think that it is only fair that they also respect the rights of Creationists on these issues as well)
    ... instead, they have 'slipped in' their core faith-belief (in Materialistic Abiogenesis and Evolution) into the mandatory school science curriculum in American public schools, and succeded in banning the study/discussion of all other faith-beliefs by law!!!!

    ... great stuff ... if you can get away with it ... and they seem to have done so!!!

    ... all this one-sided success has emboldenment parts of the Atheist side ... with calls now coming from some of them to have the transmission of the Christian/Jewish/Moslem Faith defined as child abuse ... with obvious implications for Monotheistic parents and their children ... if this ever becomes accepted by society!!!!

    ... not only should there be equal time given to ID and Materialistic Evolution for scientific reasons ... equal time should also be given to Creation and Atheistic Humanism for religious reasons!!!!

    ... otherwise the banning of 'religion' in schools it is just a 'one way street' for the promotion of Atheism ... and the suppression of the rights of other faiths!!!!

    ... in this regard, we should remember that the American Constitution guarantees freeedom of religion ... and not freedom from religion!!!


  • Options
    #23166
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭SleepDoc


    J C wrote: »
    ... plenty of wind and bluster ... but no substantive evidence!!!

    ... show me da monay!!!!

    You would not know substantive evidence if it sat on your face. Dawkins is right, it's pointless debating with people like you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #23167
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    J C is still going on about pondslime and bootstraps.. *sigh*


  • Options
    #23168
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    You would not know substantive evidence if it sat on your face. Dawkins is right, it's pointless debating with people like you.
    ... Dawkins is right that it is pointless debating ... because Evolutionists have no substantive evidence in support of their position!!!
    ... engaging in debate only highlights the desperate state of Evolution ... much better to 'bang on about' the supposed 'evils' of Montheism!!!
    ... and even then, it is best to do so at a safe distance from any Saved Christian ... who could easily show that such accusations are also baseless!!!

    ... as I have repeatedly said ... if anybody has any evidence for 'Big Picture' Evolution ... show me da monay!!!!
    SleepDoc wrote: »
    You would not know substantive evidence if it sat on your face.
    ... don't worry about me ... just think about everyone else on this thread ... who are also seeing no substantive evidence being presented for 'Big Picture' Evolution.

    ... of course the reason why no evidence is being provided for Evolution is because there is no substantive evidence for Evolution!!


  • Options
    #23169
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Galvasean wrote: »
    J C is still going on about pondslime and bootstraps.. *sigh*
    ... and you are still in acute denial of reality !!!

    ... the truth will set you free ... once you stop denying it!


  • Options
    #23170
    token56
    Registered Users Posts: 2,622 ✭✭✭token56


    Whatever happened to the idea of a reasonable debate that was brought up shortly after this monster was reopened?

    Is it too late to salvage something?


  • Options
    #23171
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    token56 wrote: »
    Whatever happened to the idea of a reasonable debate that was brought up shortly after this monster was reopened?
    As far as I can see, both sides are engaging in reasoned civil debate ...
    ... the debate is sometimes robust ... but I've seen much more blood drawn at the Oxford Union!!!

    token56 wrote: »
    Is it too late to salvage something?
    ... it is probably too late to salvage anything about 'Big Picture' Evolution ... which hangs unloved and unsupported on this thread!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #23172
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭SleepDoc


    J C wrote: »
    As far as I can see, both sides are engaging in reasoned civil debate ...
    ... the debate is sometimes robust ... but I've seen much more blood drawn at the Oxford Union!!!


    ... it is probably too late to salvage anything about 'Big Picture' Evolution ... which hangs unloved and unsupported on this thread!!!!

    I'm glad to see that the Iraqi Information Minister (circa 2003) has found alternative ways to occupy his time.


  • Options
    #23173
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    I'm glad to see that the Iraqi Information Minister (circa 2003) has found alternative ways to occupy his time.
    ... how very obtuse ... do tell us more???


  • Options
    #23174
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭SleepDoc


    J C wrote: »
    ... how very obtuse ... do tell us more???

    Iraqi Information Minister in 2003 re the American invasion (among many, many wonderful quotes).

    "I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have
    started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We
    will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."


    You.

    "......Darwinian Evolution has become scientifically untenable!!!!"


  • Options
    #23175
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    Iraqi Information Minister in 2003 re the American invasion (among many, many wonderful quotes).

    "I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have
    started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We
    will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."


    You.

    "......Darwinian Evolution has become scientifically untenable!!!!"

    Ah, my dear SleepDoc, JC's interpretation and definition of evolution is so utterly misguided and convolutely wrong that there exists no evidence of any shape or form for what he hypothesises evolution to be. So, alas, he is actually telling the truth. Indeed, were such evidence to exist, the current scientific theory of evolution would be manifestly wrong.


  • Options
    #23176
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    Iraqi Information Minister in 2003 re the American invasion (among many, many wonderful quotes).

    "I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have
    started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We
    will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."


    You.

    "......Darwinian Evolution has become scientifically untenable!!!!"
    There is no possible link between an established fact (that Darwinian 'Big Picture' Evolution has become scientifically untenable) ... and the ramblings of Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
    ... but when it comes to the incoherent ramblings of some Evolutionists about Darwinian Evolution ... Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf might well feel flattered ... on the basis that imitation is the best form of flattery!!!


  • Options
    #23177
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Ah, my dear SleepDoc, JC's interpretation and definition of evolution is so utterly misguided and convolutely wrong that there exists no evidence of any shape or form for what he hypothesises evolution to be. So, alas, he is actually telling the truth. Indeed, were such evidence to exist, the current scientific theory of evolution would be manifestly wrong.
    ... I am always willing to listen to any alternative definitions ... and indeed any supporting evidence for Evolution ... but so far, the silence has been deafening on these issues ...
    ... plenty of wind and bluster ... but so far, no new definitions ... and no evidence at all, at all!!!


  • Options
    #23178
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,473 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    J C wrote: »
    ... I am always willing to listen to any alternative definitions ... and indeed any supporting evidence for Evolution ... but so far, the silence has been deafening on these issues ...
    ... plenty of wind and bluster ... but so far, no new definitions ... and no evidence at all, at all!!!

    Thought you supported ID?

    I see your thing is just tripping over yourself every second post.


  • Options
    #23179
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Thought you supported ID?

    I see your thing is just tripping over yourself every second post.
    ... I do support ID ... but I am not a Theistic Evolutionist IDer ... I am a Creationist IDer!!!


  • Options
    #23180
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,473 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    J C wrote: »
    ... I do support ID ... but I am not a Theistic Evolutionist IDer!!!

    But you said there is no evidence for evolution. ID supports evolution and agrees with the evidence for it.


  • Options
    #23181
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Militant Agnosticism : " I don't know and you don't either!" .
    ... now here's the thing ... I do know that 'Big Picture' Evolution is defunct ... and the fact that you don't know (or don't want to know) actually decides the debate in my favour!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #23182
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Ush1 wrote: »
    But you said there is no evidence for evolution. ID supports evolution and agrees with the evidence for it.
    ID supports NS and the evolution of species using the initial (or possibly repeated) infusions of Intelligently Designed Information found in living organisms.

    I have always said that I accept the validity of the Evolution of populations of organisms via NS acting on the Intelligently Designed genetic diversity found in living genomes but I don't accept that the genetic diversity found in living genomes arose in the first place via some form of 'Evolution'.

    My position is analagous to the fact that radically different processes are used to manufacture a train in comparison with the processes that are used to drive a train!!!


  • Options
    #23183
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,473 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    J C wrote: »
    ID supports NS and the evolution of species using the initial (or possibly repeated) infusions of Intelligently Designed Information found in living organisms.

    I have always said that I accept the validity of the Evolution of populations of organisms via NS acting on the Intelligently Designed genetic diversity found in living genomes but I don't accept that the genetic diversity found in living genomes arose in the first place via some form of 'Evolution'.

    My position is analagous to the fact that radically different processes are used to manufacture a train in comparison with the processes that are used to drive a train!!!

    Are you utterly oblivious to the fact you're saying one thing in one post and contradicting it completely in the next?

    EDIT: You're actually now doing it all in one post.


  • Options
    #23184
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Are you utterly oblivious to the fact you're saying one thing in one post and contradicting it completely in the next?
    Where have I done this?

    ... and are you utterly oblivious to the fact that you have left Materialistic Evolution evidentially 'naked and unloved' ... and hanging by a thread ... on this thread???


  • Options
    #23185
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ID supports NS and the evolution of species using the initial (or possibly repeated) infusions of Intelligently Designed Information found in living organisms.

    I have always said that I accept the validity of the Evolution of populations of organisms via NS acting on the Intelligently Designed genetic diversity found in living genomes but I don't accept that the genetic diversity found in living genomes arose in the first place via some form of 'Evolution'.

    My position is analagous to the fact that radically different processes are used to manufacture a train in comparison with the processes that are used to drive a train!!!
    Ush1 wrote: »
    Are you utterly oblivious to the fact you're saying one thing in one post and contradicting it completely in the next?

    EDIT: You're actually now doing it all in one post.
    ... please look at my emphasis in my quote above ... and everything will be seen to be clear ... and coherent!!!

    Please bear in mind that a fundamentally different process is required to Intelligently Design the complex specified genetic information for a living organism ... than is required to spontaneously select between different phenotypical expressions of the said genetic diversity.
    The former requires huge inputs of intelligence ... while the latter can be a spontaneous/naturalistic ... 'autonomous' process (like NS), without any requirement for an intelligent input.


  • Options
    #23186
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,473 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    J C wrote: »
    Where have I done this?
    J C wrote: »
    any supporting evidence for Evolution ... but so far, the silence has been deafening on these issues ...
    J C wrote: »
    I have always said that I accept the validity of the Evolution

    Right there.


  • Options
    #23187
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,473 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    J C wrote: »
    ... please look at my emphasis in my quote above ... and everything will be seen to be clear ... and coherent!!!

    No it isn't clear, it's just as contradictory as before.

    You open with "ID supports NS".:rolleyes:

    It clearly doesn't.


  • Options
    #23188
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Ush1 wrote: »
    No it isn't clear, it's just as contradictory as before.

    You open with "ID supports NS".:rolleyes:

    It clearly doesn't.
    ID certainly does support NS ... because without Intelligently Designed functional genetic diversity, NS would have nothing to select from in the first place!!!


  • Options
    #23189
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Where have I done this? (contradicted myself)
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    any supporting evidence for ('Big Picture' Materialistic) Evolution ... but so far, the silence has been deafening on these issues ...
    wrote:
    I have always said that I accept the validity of the Evolution of populations of organisms via NS acting on the Intelligently Designed genetic diversity found in living genomes but I don't accept that the genetic diversity found in living genomes arose in the first place via some form of 'Evolution'.
    Ush1 wrote: »
    Right there.
    Right WHERE?

    Please stop distorting my quotes by truncation and mis-emphasis!!!


  • Options
    #23190
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭SleepDoc


    J C wrote: »
    Right WHERE?

    Please stop distorting my quotes by truncation and mis-emphasis!!!

    Good. Hopefully if you quote yourself enough you'll argue yourself to a standstill.

    Ironic too that you should complain of "mis-empahsis" when you use exclamation marks like you're on commission.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #23191
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    J C wrote: »
    Please stop distorting my quotes by truncation and mis-emphasis!!!

    That's quite funny.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement