Denying all evidence

[Assyrian]

The only 'calamity' that God brought into the world was the judgment He placed upon the wicked at those times of judgment mentioned in the Old Testament.

John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

 

[Calypsis4]

. Vehicles are simply a terrible analogy for living things. This is what we have been saying all along.

Cheers
S.

No they are not. Before life supposedly began in the so-called primal soup the tiny machines that made up the first living organisms were not alive. They had to be non-living chemical pieces that somehow fell together and supposedly developed into what exists today. Evolutionists never think back far enough in their scenario to see just how ridiculous such an idea is. But nature doesn't do that...ever. Nature only does what it was programed to do to begin with from Adam until Sept. 3, 2010.

One might as well expect an 85 hsp Mercury outboard motor to fall out of the sky piece-by-piece, with the power swith on(!) before life would come together of its own accord in some primal soup. It's a joke and God's Word says nothing of it.

 

[Calypsis4]

John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

So? According to Genesis 1:31 did God create an orderly or disorderly universe? Tell the readers.

The text you quoted comes under what I said in my previous post. Any chaos or calamity that God does is post-creation because of man's sin. What happened to the poor man may not have been because of his sin or even that of his parents but it was because of the fall of man (Adam in the garden) that all such problems thereafter exist.

Why can't you understand that?

 

[Calypsis4]

I think I'll just bow out now. There's clearly no fruitful discussion going on here. I've got more important things to do than to reply to endless appeals to "prove it".

Well, praise the Lord.

 

[Assyrian]

So? According to Genesis 1:31 did God create an orderly or disorderly universe? Tell the readers.

If doesn't say orderly or disorderly, it says that God saw that it was very good.

The text you quoted comes under what I said in my previous post. Any chaos or calamity that God does is post-creation

Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void.

because of man's sin.

Where does the bible say calamities and are the result of the fall?

What happened to the poor man may not have been because of his sin or even that of his parents but it was because of the fall of man (Adam in the garden) that all such problems thereafter exist.

You mean it wasn't the man's sin or his parents, it was really his great great... grandparents? Why didn't Jesus say?

But this argument, that disaster and calamity are the result of the fall, is a different argument from the one you proposed in the previous post, that if you suffer calamity it is because God is judging you for you sins "The only 'calamity' that God brought into the world was the judgement He placed upon the wicked at those times of judgement mentioned in the Old Testament." That is what the disciples thought when they smugly asked Jesus whether it was the man's sin or his parents that he was born blind. It is astounding that Jews thought that way. It should have been clear from Ecclesiastes that disasters hit the innocent as well as the guilty. Eccles 9:2 It is the same for all, since the same event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As is the good, so is the sinner, and he who swears is as he who shuns an oath. 3 This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all.

This theology that if you suffer calmity it is because you are wicked and God is punishing you, was propounded in great detail by Job's friends. God tells us what he thought of it. Job 42:7 After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: "My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.

Why can't you understand that?

Because it is bad theology?

 

[SkyWriting]

No, it is not a transitional form.
<snip>

According to their belief system, all forms are transitional forms. There are no static forms because the is nothing stopping any structure from changing into another structure. It's all fluid and every form and structure is a transitional one.

They haven't embraced their own argument yet....mostly due to lack of support that they can't yet provide. See....if they did they'd have to prove that DNA was entirely fluid. And they know it's not.

 

[Sophophile]

Vehicles are simply a terrible analogy for living things. This is what we have been saying all along.

No they are not. Before life supposedly began in the so-called primal soup the tiny machines that made up the first living organisms were not alive. They had to be non-living chemical pieces that somehow fell together and supposedly developed into what exists today. Evolutionists never think back far enough in their scenario to see just how ridiculous such an idea is. But nature doesn't do that...ever. Nature only does what it was programed to do to begin with from Adam until Sept. 3, 2010.

Calypsis, saying "No they are not" is not an argument.

I explained why vehicles are a terrible analogy for living things -- living things reproduce and they inherit traits solely from their ancestors. Vehicles do not. Therefore it is no surprise that living things form a nested hierarchy of traits, whilst vehicles do not. You have failed to rebut this.

Your comments about tiny machines and the origin of life are completely irrelevant. Please try to pay attention to what we are discussing.

Cheers
S.

 

[Sophophile]

So you presume Darwinism then place the nested hierarchy. A bird is fundamentally different than a reptile and is a nest of its own. A bird for example is warm blooded, a reptile is cold blooded, the breathing apparatus is different, bone structure is different etc.

Just so we're all clear, here are the skeletons of a theropod dinosaur, archeopteryx and a modern chicken.

Even a child can see these are not "fundamentally different" creatures:

Cheers
S.

 

[SkyWriting]

Unfortunately, that's not how errors are calculated. Scientifically, the relative error is

(Correct answer - wrong answer)/correct answer

which makes sense. After all 8 inches to the mile may not seem like much ... until you're flying in a plane.

So let's say the "spheroidal" answer is 7.9 inches to the mile, and the "spherical" answer is 8. The relative error is

(7.9 - 8)/7.9 ~= 0.1/8 = 0.0125 = 1.25%.

Pretty reasonable. But the error of the "flat" answer is

(7.9 - 0)/7.9 = 1 = 100%

which sounds like a pretty huge error to me.

If your suggesting that an 8 inch curve per mile is important to society, please explain how a book of Morals and Spiritual Truths would make it relevant. By telling every person that they are standing on the high point of a curved surface?
Just how is that going to help God's message?
What are your priorities?

 

[Greg1234]

Just so we're all clear, here are the skeletons of a theropod dinosaur, archeopteryx and a modern chicken.

I see you've joined the picture posting entourage. I'm this close to turning this thread into a car show. Beasts don't turn into men either. All tests verify this. So if you have a picture of a great ape and a human side by side, you might as well post it too.

 

[Greg1234]

Calypsis, saying "No they are not" is not an argument.

I explained why vehicles are a terrible analogy for living things -- living things reproduce and they inherit traits solely from their ancestors. Vehicles do not. Therefore it is no surprise that living things form a nested hierarchy of traits, whilst vehicles do not. You have failed to rebut this.

Thats a completely different issue and can be defended. The fact that vehicles are independently designed and still form a nested hierarchy is the whole point and the reason this argument persists. The fact that they don't even reproduce and can be placed in a nested hierarchy is the point. Your first statement veers of topic while your last attempts to finalize an on going dispute in your favor. A conclusion you have not established.

Your comments about tiny machines and the origin of life are completely irrelevant. Please try to pay attention to what we are discussing.

Cheers
S.

You brought up reproduction now we're back to "what we are discussing". The fact that reproduction is a non issue is a valid statement. The assembly of non somatic cells, the complex mechanism behind cell replication, the process of recombination, and the lines of coding and information responsible, is being attributed to chance. Therefore before reproduction even takes place, there is atheism.

 

[Assyrian]

The fact that vehicles are independently
designed and still form a nested hierarchy is the whole point and the
reason this argument persists.

Does the 5 door Ford Fiesta Mark IV belong in the same clade
as the 3 door Ford Fiesta Mark IV?

Or the 5 door Volkswagen Polo Mark III ?


If the 3 door fiesta is a diesel, does it go with five door petrol
engined hatchbacks or a three door diesel engined Land Rover?


Is a 5 door left hand drive Ford Fiesta Mark IV grouped with
a right hand drive Ford Focus, or a 3 door left hand drive Austin Metro?

What about a three door left hand drive Ford Fiesta?



Is the 6 wheel Mazda 323 closer in the hierarchy to other Mazda 323s


or other six wheel vehicles?

......................

 

[SkyWriting]

Even a child can see these are not "fundamentally different" creatures:

Lets follow the thinking that things are fundamentally the same
as long as they look alike.

People and whatever. We can go on forever on this.

 

[Sophophile]

I see you've joined the picture posting entourage.

That's just a snide comment that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is the absurdity of your claim that "[a] bird is fundamentally different than a reptile." Even a child can see that birds share many similarities with reptiles. Therefore, your claim that they are "fundamentally different" is just misleading rhetoric.

I'm this close to turning this thread into a car show. Beasts don't turn into men either. All tests verify this. So if you have a picture of a great ape and a human side by side, you might as well post it too.

Men already are beasts, Greg: Genesis 3:19.

Here is a picture of a human and chimpanzee skeleton side by side:

Cheers
S.

 

[Sophophile]

Lets follow the thinking that things are fundamentally the same
as long as they look alike.

Yes, Skywriting, why don't you join in with some more misleading rhetoric.

The theory of evolution does not state that anything is "fundamentally the same" as anything else. Nobody here has made that statement, because that would an absurd statement to make.

What was said was that even a child can see that there are similarities between reptiles and birds. A child can also see that there are differences. Therefore, birds and reptiles are neither "fundamentally the same" nor "fundamentally different" from each other. This is just common sense.

On careful examination we see that the pattern of similarities and differences between living things forms a nested hierarchy of groups within groups. And this is a mathematically necessary pattern for a branching process like evolution.

Vehicles do not form a nested hierarchy of groups within groups based on observable traits, nor do we expect them to. This is just common sense.

Let common sense prevail.

Cheers
S.

 

[Calypsis4]

That's just a snide comment that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is the absurdity of your claim that "[a] bird is fundamentally different than a reptile." Even a child can see that birds share many similarities with reptiles. Therefore, your claim that they are "fundamentally different" is just misleading rhetoric.




Men already are beasts, Greg: Genesis 3:19.

Here is a picture of a human and chimpanzee skeleton side by side:

Cheers
S.

But God Almighty told us in His word that men were specially created and have nothing to do with any kind of animal ancestry (Genesis 1:26-27) so why do you wish to argue with Him about that?

Not only so but man, far from being the offspring of some 'common ancestor' of animals, was given dominion over the animal kingdom from the very beginning. That would certainly not be true if man did indeed evolve along with the animal world from that 'common ancestry'.

Genesis 3:19 does NOT teach that man is a beast/animal.

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

He was supernaturally created from the dust of the earth, not from an animal ancestry.

 

[Calypsis4]

If doesn't say orderly or disorderly, it says that God saw that it was very good.

Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void.

Are you joking? Since when is something 'without form' (Hebrew-tohu) and 'void' (Hebrew-wabohu) disorderly?

The earth merely had not been formed yet and it lay as it were like clay yet to be fashioned. Is clay disorderly? By whose definition?

'void' merely means 'empty'.

Do NOT try and convince other Christians that an orderly God created a diosorderly universe. If on the other hand, God had made a universe, world a popping, snapping, exploding, fomenting, unstable, fluctuating, world then you would have a case. But the fact is, He did not.

By way of illustration: Hersheys chocolate bars are stamped with the Hershey name on each candy bar. But is that chocolate that is formed and fashioned by machines 'disorderly' before they are shaped and stamped? Come on! Chocolate in packages waiting to be processed and put on the market is no more unstable or disorderly than is granite rock before it is turned into tombstones.

Besides that....my theistic evolutionist counterpart....do you actually take that verse you quoted literally? Yes/no? Don't avoid the question.

If you take that verse literally then why not the rest of the chapter?

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, Skywriting, why don't you join in with some more misleading rhetoric.

The theory of evolution does not state that anything is "fundamentally the same" as anything else. Nobody here has made that statement, because that would an absurd statement to make.

I'll see your point. And raise you...reality.

Transformable bacteria use fundamentally the same machine, which in most species is assembled only in cells that are developing competence.
Trends in Microbiology - Independent evolution of competence regulatory cascades in streptococci?

But the method of reproduction of new individuals remained fundamentally the same. Each individual began, like its ancestors, as a single-cell being.
Lesson XIX. Evolution Of Man

"One of the most amazing surprises over the time I've been in science has been the finding that the genes that are involved in making animals as different as a fruit fly and a human being are fundamentally the same genes."
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...XV3k6Nxuw&sig2=Ls1hRDauIrMhgMxTh3GgFw&cad=rja

"artificial and natural selection are fundamentally the same sort of phe- nomenon." Cited by 79 - Related articles http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...DlVfafGnQ&sig2=OkN8XKFky6AtCZZAWR-zgg&cad=rja

Vehicles do not form a nested hierarchy of groups within groups based on observable traits, nor do we expect them to. This is just common sense.

Yes they do. I have no problem nesting vehicles. So you have no common sense.

 

[pgp_protector]

...sni....

Yes they do. I have no problem nesting vehicles. ....snip. removed flame....

So will you nest the vehicles from this post ?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7491517-7/#post55629971

 

[Greg1234]

So will you nest the vehicles from this post ?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7491517-7/#post55629971

Yes. The individual is using the same argument of indicating discrepancies. This was already given. I can do the same as well with animals. Is a whale classified as a fish? As it contains all the features of a fish, or is it classified with a bird as it is warm blooded. Is a bat classified as a whale since it utilizes echolocation, or is it a bird, as oilbirds are the ones who use echolocation and they both use flight. Or are they classified as animals with echolocation, with whales, shrews and the like. Is a human who has his tongue split [pic] still classified with humans or with snakes [pic]. Is a platypus classified as mammal as it lactates like a mammal or is it a reptile as it lays eggs like a reptile (there should be 0 overlapping features) Does a human with blue eyes[picture of blue eyed human] classified as a human, or a wolf with blue eyes[picture of blue eyed wolf], or a blue eyed tiger[picture of blue eyed tiger]. Are humans, birds which are biped or are they mammals where the majority is not bipedal[pics]. Anybody can do what he has done, because remember, all Mazda are to be exactly the same and no trait has to overlap. Which means that a blue eyed tiger and a blue eyed human, a six wheeled Humvee and a six wheel Mazda, breaks the hierarchy.