tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00CreationEvolutionDesignStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger589125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-82233159615920485832015-07-03T15:59:59.827+08:002015-07-03T15:59:59.827+08:00Bob
>Well, it only took me eight years to find...Bob<br /><br />>Well, it only took me eight years to find this great article, but thanks Stephen for writing it! I've quoted you, with a link of course, at http://rsr.org/mosasaur#keosian. Thanks again!<br /><br />Glad that someone is benefiting from my old posts.<br /><br />Before I began a biology degree in 2000 I thought that life could not have originated fully naturalistically. But during that degree I became <i>absolutely certain</i>, that because there is such a <i>vast</i> gulf between the most complex non-living molecules and the simplest living organisms, that life could not have originated fully naturalistically.<br /><br />However, I no longer blog on, or even follow, creation/evolution/deign issues, my time being fully occupied with researching and posting on my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin</a> blog. <br /><br />Because the Shroud of Turin <i>is</i> authentic, according to the <i>overwhelming</i> weight of the evidence, it bears the imprint of Jesus' beaten, crucified, dead, buried and <i>resurrected</i> body.<br /><br />Which confirms that Christianity is true and that Naturalism (nature is all there is, there is no supernatural), is false. And therefore that fully naturalistic evolution is false.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-70867720717297305682015-07-03T08:52:27.858+08:002015-07-03T08:52:27.858+08:00Well, it only took me eight years to find this gre...Well, it only took me eight years to find this great article, but thanks Stephen for writing it! I've quoted you, with a link of course, at http://rsr.org/mosasaur#keosian. Thanks again!Bob Enyarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15111325992667141534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-84094838476380151342013-10-06T14:22:28.119+08:002013-10-06T14:22:28.119+08:00[continued]
But, ignoring Dawkins' verbal sle...[continued]<br /><br />But, ignoring Dawkins' verbal sleight of hand ("roughly suitable planets", "available planets"), his "upper limit" estimate of 1 in 10^20 for the random origin of a self-replicating molecule is hopelessly unrealistic. As biophysicist Harold J. Morowitz pointed out, even with all the chemical and physical prerequisites of life available close together in a life-sustaining environment (which itself would be a miracle), the chance that the simplest form of life, a bacterium, would spontaneously form by chance is of the order of 1 in 10^100,000,000,000:<br /><br />"This probability analysis agrees with a calculation done by biophysicist Harold Morowitz. He conducted a thought experiment in which he broke every chemical bond in the bacterium <i>E. coli</i> and then let those bonds re-form randomly. He assumed that none of the relevant atoms escaped and no contaminant atoms interfered. Morowitz performed this calculation in an attempt to dimensionalize the magnitude of the problem researchers face as they attempt to account for life's beginning through natural means. He determined the likelihood that <i>E. coli</i> would randomly re-form is on the order of one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. [Morowitz, H.J., "Energy Flow in Biology," 1969, pp.5-12] If all the matter in the observable universe were somehow converted to life's building blocks and were then brought to bear on <i>E. coli</i> formation-being allowed to attempt combination a million times a second for the entire duration of the universe's existence-the odds of generating this bacterium change to about one chance in 10^99,999,999,916 (an imperceptible change). [Shapiro, R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," 1986, p.128] Such a number implies that neither enough matter nor enough time in the universe exists for even the simplest bacterium to emerge by undirected chemical and physical processes." (Rana, F.R. & Ross, H.N., "Origins of Life: Biblical And Evolutionary Models Face Off," 2004, p.164).<br /><br />>I an not a Christian but there must be a Creator of some type? !<br /><br />Agreed. <br /><br />In the mid-1960s, when I was a teenage atheist, from looking up one night at the Milky Way, an overwhelming conviction came over me that there MUST be a God. Then I later thought that if there is a God, He would likely have revealed to mankind who He is, and it seemed to me that the Bible is the best candidate. From reading the Bible I became a Christian. <br /><br />The Bible says "seek, and you will find" (Mt 7:7). The corollary is that if you don't SEEK God, you won't find Him. I sought God nearly 50 years ago and proved that His promise to be found by me was true. You can too. <br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-------------------------------<br /><b>Policies</b> Those comments I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. As this blog is now inactive (see "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">my last post to this blog</a>"), I am not debating comments under posts on it. So each individual will normally be allowed only one comment under each post and any response by me will normally be only once to that individual under that post. So further comments under that post by that individual (or if anonymous whom I assume is that individual) normally won't appear.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-56156804189117535062013-10-06T14:13:03.526+08:002013-10-06T14:13:03.526+08:00Pete
>Steven, are you saying that biochemistry...Pete<br /><br />>Steven, are you saying that biochemistry is showing, almost conclusively, that life could not have started by chance? <br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />>Common sense tells me this but it would be great if this is statistically almost certain. <br /><br />It IS. Even arch-atheist Richard Dawkins admitted that there had to be a minimum level of complexity before his `Blind Watchmaker' could work, and that would require the "random thermal jostling of atoms and molecules" which "resulted in a self-replicating molecule." But the improbability of that, Dawkins concedes, if is of the order of "1 in 100 billion billion" (1 in 10^20):<br /><br />"So, cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while single-step selection cannot. But cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection! ... in this chapter we are asking <i>how</i> improbable, how <i>miraculous</i>, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories, and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life? ... There are probably at least 10^20 (i.e. 100 billion billion) roughly suitable planets in the universe. ... Let us, for the sake of discussion, entertain the alternative assumption that life has arisen only once, ever, and that was here on Earth. ... if we assume...that life has originated only once in the universe, it follows that we are allowed to postulate a very large amount of luck in a theory, because there are so many planets in the universe where life could have originated. ... let us put an upper limit of 1 in 100 billion billion for the maximum amount of luck that this argument entitles us to assume. ... the probability that a typical planet will spontaneously generate a self-replicating molecule. Or, to put it another way, how long would we have to wait before random chemical events on the planet, random thermal jostling of atoms and molecules, resulted in a self-replicating molecule? ... even if the chemist said that we'd have to wait for a 'miracle', have to wait a billion billion years - far longer than the universe has existed, we can still accept this verdict with equanimity. There are probably more than a billion billion available planets in the universe. If each of them lasts as long as Earth, that gives us about a billion billion billion planet-years to play with. That will do nicely! A miracle is translated into practical politics by a multiplication sum." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, pp.141-145. Emphasis original)<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-45735675905311453602013-10-06T11:18:47.154+08:002013-10-06T11:18:47.154+08:00Steven, are you saying that biochemistry is showin...Steven, are you saying that biochemistry is showing, almost conclusively, that life could not have started by chance? Common sense tells me this but it would be great if this is statistically almost certain. I an not a Christian but there must be a Creator of some type? ! Pete Milnenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-50957304596489420662013-08-17T20:45:40.186+08:002013-08-17T20:45:40.186+08:00>... this my CED blog is now inactive (and has ...>... this my CED blog is now inactive (and has been for over 3 years). <br /><br />That should be "for over 2 years".<br /><br />Also, "man's "working week"" should be without quotes around "working week".<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-583750900834615302013-08-17T16:39:13.540+08:002013-08-17T16:39:13.540+08:00[continued]
>2. What do you do with Luke 3 and...[continued]<br /><br />>2. What do you do with Luke 3 and 1 Chron. 1? <br /><br />Those genealogy passages don't say anything about the "days" of Genesis 1.<br /><br />>What do you do with Ex. 20:11 (written by God's own finger) that says the earth was made in 6 days? <br /><br />I interpret God's "working week" in Genesis 1 as an ANALOGY of man's "working week".<br /><br />>And an interesting note, a book that some consider to be inspired ... 2 Enoch ... Also the Epistle of Barnabas ...<br /><br />That the authors of some ancient non-Biblical writings may have thought the "days" of Genesis 1 were ordinary days, and/or that the Earth is 6 (or 7) x 1000 years old, is IRRELEVANT.<br /><br />>I look forward to more interaction. ...<br /><br />Sorry, but as I said at the start of my comment, this my CED blog is now inactive (and has been for over 3 years). <br /><br />And as my policy below states, you have had your one and only comment under this post and I have made my one and only reply to it.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-------------------------------<br /><b>Policies</b> Those comments I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. As this blog is now inactive (see "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/7lov36z" rel="nofollow">my last post to this blog</a>"), I am not debating comments under posts on it. So each individual will be allowed only one comment under each post and any response by me will be only once to that individual under that post. Further comments under that post by that individual (or if anonymous who I assume is that individual) simply won't appear.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-15627454890972060612013-08-17T16:38:22.007+08:002013-08-17T16:38:22.007+08:00Brian
>I'm glad to have found your blog, a...Brian<br /><br />>I'm glad to have found your blog, and I hope to interact on it more in the future. Thank you for bringing these interesting topics to light.<br /><br />Sorry, but as <a href="http://tinyurl.com/7lov36z" rel="nofollow">my last post of March 8, 2011</a> now says (I thought I had said it back then), my CED blog is inactive. <br /><br />>I have two bits of input.<br />1. I have seen that Augustine quote used many times, and although I'm not an Augustine expert, I was interested enough to go back to some original sources and read his views on Genesis in context. <br /><br />Whatever else Augustine may have written, it is clear from the following excerpt from the quote above that he did not regard the "days" of Genesis 1 as ordinary days:<br /><br />"In <i>The Literal Meaning of Genesis</i>, he [Augustine] added, `But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ORDINARY DAY WITH WHICH WE ARE FAMILIAR.' ..." (Ross, H.N., 1994, "Creation and Time," pp.19-20. My emphasis).<br /><br />>This is the answer I compiled as a response: ...<br /><br />You don't cite where in Augustine's writings your compilation came from or whether he was thinking about the days of Genesis 1. <br /><br />And the key words are "a theory <i>contrary to Scripture</i>" as it is clear from the quote above that Augustine did not believe that Scripture taught the "days" of Genesis 1 were ordinary days.<br /><br />Augustine also wrote about the problem of enthusiastic but ignorant Christians pontificating on scientific issues:<br /><br />"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." (Augustine, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis," in Young, D.A., "The Biblical Flood," 1995, p.17).<br /><br />>I believe that Augustine would find the way he's been quoted on the subject to be less than accurate.<br /><br />You can "believe" whatever you want. The FACT is that Augustine STATED (see above) that he did not regard the "days" of Genesis 1 as ordinary days.<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-88880037144376393302013-08-17T13:07:09.031+08:002013-08-17T13:07:09.031+08:00I'm glad to have found your blog, and I hope t...I'm glad to have found your blog, and I hope to interact on it more in the future. Thank you for bringing these interesting topics to light.<br /><br />I have two bits of input.<br />1. I have seen that Augustine quote used many times, and although I'm not an Augustine expert, I was interested enough to go back to some original sources and read his views on Genesis in context. This is the answer I compiled as a response:<br />“...a man is not in any difficulty in making a reply according to his faith ... to those who try to defame our Holy Scripture. ... when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture ... either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. ...let us choose [the doctrine] which appears as certainly the meaning intended by the author. ... For it is one thing to fail to recognize the primary meaning of the writer, and another to depart from the norms of religious belief.” <br /><br />I believe that Augustine would find the way he's been quoted on the subject to be less than accurate.<br /><br />2. What do you do with Luke 3 and 1 Chron. 1? What do you do with Ex. 20:11 (written by God's own finger) that says the earth was made in 6 days? And an interesting note, a book that some consider to be inspired, though many don't, 2 Enoch (ch. 33) says that there would be 6 thousands and one thousand rest before the 8th thousand, wherein there is a new beginning.<br />http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe140.htm<br />Also the Epistle of Barnabas, which is also considered to be inspired by many, says the same in 8:4. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob17.htm) "Consider, my children, what that signifies, he finished them in six days. The meaning of it is this; that in 3 six thousand years the Lord God will bring all things to an end."<br /><br />I look forward to more interaction.<br />And to make that easier, is there a way to RSS to your blog through Thunderbird? Or do I have to use Yahoo!?Brian Forbeshttp://fromnoahtohercules.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-23287485565076144992013-08-15T14:13:07.141+08:002013-08-15T14:13:07.141+08:00Ben
>as for not believing that those weren'...Ben<br /><br />>as for not believing that those weren't my beliefs, let me assure you I was simply playing devil's advocate <br /><br />When you PLAY the devil's advocate, without stating upfront that is what you are doing, you ARE being the devil's advocate!<br /><br />>I.e. these are the kind of viewpoints I've heard and I wondered how would you respond to them.<br /><br />You should have stated that UPFRONT, and not misled me.<br /><br />>this prophecy is new to me and it was genuine curiosity that lead me to comment.<br /><br />OK.<br /><br />Read my post above again. In summary:<br /><br />1. Daniel's prophecy of the "seventy weeks" (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/k7gtkjp" rel="nofollow">Dn 9:24-27</a>) is in the Greek Old Testament, <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ysxfhh" rel="nofollow">the Septuagint, which was completed by the second century BC</a>. So it cannot be dismissed as a `prophecy after the event'. <br /><br />2. Taking the objectively best starting point, the decree of the seventh year of the Persian <a href="http://tinyurl.com/233gz75" rel="nofollow">King Artaxerxes I</a> (465-424 BC) in 458/457 BC, to allow <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5a7pl7" rel="nofollow">Ezra the Scribe</a> (480–440 BC), to take with him a large group of exiles "to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/kl852qm" rel="nofollow">Dn 9:25</a>); <br /><br />3. Using `weeks' of ordinary years;<br /> <br />4. Both 2. and 3. are confirmed by the latter being the first "seven weeks" (Dn 9:25), i.e. 7 x 7 = 49 years, when Jerusalem was restored and rebuilt up to the beginning of the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/m9cwhby" rel="nofollow">Intertestamental Period</a> ~ 409 BC; and <br /><br />5. It `just happens' to work out to <i>the very year that Jesus began His public ministry </i>(end of AD 26/beginning of AD 27): -458/457 + (69 x 7 = 483) +1 (no year 0) = 26/27. <br /><br />6. And Jesus, "the Messiah" (Heb "anointed one" = Gk. Christ) `just happened' to be "cut off" (Dn 9:26) in the in the midst of the 70th week (Dn 9:26), i.e. AD 27-34, i.e. AD 30;<br /><br />7. And <a href="http://tinyurl.com/gacqv" rel="nofollow">Jerusalem `just happened' to be destroyed in 70 AD</a>, only 40 years after that. <br /><br />It is only anti-Christian/anti-supernatural (i.e. naturalistic) prejudice which prevents Daniel's 70 `weeks' being accepted for what it actually is: a genuine predictive prophecy which PROVES beyond reasonable doubt that: 1) <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ynzpwh" rel="nofollow">Naturalism (the denial of the supernatural)</a> is false; and 2) <a href="http://tinyurl.com/poq7e" rel="nofollow">Christianity</a> is true!<br /><br />As I said, this can be ignored and/or denied, but only in the same way that the proverbial ostrich can deny the reality it doesn't want to face up to. But the reality is still there, irrespective of whether the ostriches refuse to see it, and that reality, Jesus: God the Son, whose coming was predicted <i>to the very year over 500 years in advance</i>, by the prophet Daniel, will <i>inevitably</i> catch up with them. <br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-6868498739633704362013-08-15T08:12:31.841+08:002013-08-15T08:12:31.841+08:00Thanks Stephen,
(my name's Ben, forgot to say...Thanks Stephen, <br />(my name's Ben, forgot to say in last post) <br /><br />as for not believing that those weren't my beliefs, let me assure you I was simply playing devil's advocate I.e. these are the kind of viewpoints I've heard and I wondered how would you respond to them.this prophecy is new to me and it was genuine curiosity that lead me to comment.<br /><br />thanks againAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-22571473485325764252013-08-14T16:38:56.243+08:002013-08-14T16:38:56.243+08:00Anonymous
>Would you accept that this 'pro...Anonymous<br /><br />>Would you accept that this 'proof' relies on the assumption that the bible is true?<br /><br />Only in the sense that any ancient historical writing which purports to give an accurate record of something that happened is true. <br /><br />>what I mean is that if someone does not believe in God, then they also will disregard the divine inspiration of the prophecy, or the divinity of jesus. <br /><br />Agreed that if someone does not WANT to accept the evidence: 1) that there is a God; 2) that the Bible contains fulfilled prophecy; and 3) that Jesus is God, who took upon a human nature to save from their sins all those who put their trust in Him (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn%201:1;%2014;%203:16&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Jn 1:1; 14; 3:16</a>); then they will not accept the proof from the precise fulfilment to the very year of the prophecy of Daniel's 70 `weeks'; that Christianity is true and Naturalism is false. <br /><br />But then they are, like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand, DELUDING themselves, and when they appear before the judgement seat of Jesus (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Cor%205:10;%20Mt%2025:31-32;%20Rom%2014:10;%20Acts%2010:42&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">2Cor 5:10; Mt 25:31-32; Rom 14:10; Acts 10:42</a>), as we all will, their punishment will be greater than it otherwise would have been (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt%2011:20-24;%20Lk%2012:48;%20Jn%209:41&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Mt 11:20-24; Lk 12:48; Jn 9:41</a>).<br /><br />>ie one ancient folk tale connects to another, big deal. It is only proof if you believe all that is written. <br /><br />See above.<br /><br />>these aren't necessarily my views, just curious. Thanks<br /><br />I don't believe you.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />-------------------------------<br /><b>Policies</b> Those comments I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. As this blog is now inactive (see "<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">my last post to this blog</a>"), I am not debating comments under posts on it. So each individual will be allowed only one comment under each post and any response by me will be only once to that individual under that post. Further comments under that post by that individual (or if anonymous who I assume is that individual) simply won't appear.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-26236831724985481842013-08-13T22:47:08.081+08:002013-08-13T22:47:08.081+08:00Would you accept that this 'proof' relies ...Would you accept that this 'proof' relies on the assumption that the bible is true? what I mean is that if someone does not believe in God, then they also will disregard the divine inspiration of the prophecy, or the divinity of jesus. ie one ancient folk tale connects to another, big deal. It is only proof if you believe all that is written. these aren't necessarily my views, just curious. thanks Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-38098640794304026382013-03-14T09:50:53.425+08:002013-03-14T09:50:53.425+08:00St Malachy's final prophecy #112 that the last...<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Malachy" rel="nofollow">St Malachy</a>'s final <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes#Popes_1590_to_present_.28post-publication.29" rel="nofollow">prophecy #112</a> that the last Pope after Benedict XVI (#111 "For the glory of the olive") will be "Peter the Roman" appears to have been falsified:<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-14/new-pope-announced/4569070" rel="nofollow">Jorge Mario Bergoglio elected Pope</a>," 14 March 2013 ...<br />The Roman Catholic Church has elected its first Latin American Pope, with Argentina's Jorge Mario Bergoglio elevated to the papacy as Pope Francis. Bergoglio, a 76-year-old Jesuit from Buenos Aires, was elected this morning on the second day of secret papal conclave in Rome's Sistine Chapel<br />...<br /><br />That is, unless there is a gap between St Malachy's prophecy #111 "For the glory of the olive", which applied to Benedict XVI, and his prophecy #112 of the last Pope, "Peter the Roman":<br /><br />"Many analyses of the prophecy note that it is open to the interpretation that additional popes would come between the "glory of the olive" and Peter the Roman" ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes#Popes_1590_to_present_.28post-publication.29" rel="nofollow">Prophecy of the Popes: Popes 1590 to present (post-publication</a>)," Wikipedia, 14 March 2013)<br /><br />I consider this possible. If Cardinal Peter Turkson (or some other cardinal whose name is Peter, or who takes the name Peter, and has a plausible claim to the epithet "the Roman"), is elected Pope in the future, I will consider St Malachy's prophecy #112 to be still true and that that "Peter the Roman" will be the last Pope in whose tenure Jesus will return and judge us all. <br /><br />Coincidentally my "The One Year Bible" reading for today, March 14, included <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2022:9-20&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Numbers 22:9-20</a> where God is to speak a true prophecy through the pagan prophet Balaam (which happens in tomorrow's reading). So the Bible says that God can speak true prophecy even through a pagan prophet. And <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Malachy" rel="nofollow">St Malachy</a> was a Christian. <br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-53820401112919624142013-02-12T16:25:25.651+08:002013-02-12T16:25:25.651+08:00As I wrote in my last comment above:
>So if Po...As I wrote in my last comment above:<br /><br />>So if Pope Benedict XVI is succeeded by Cardinal Peter Turkson, then I will consider St. Malachy's prophecy to have been fulfilled and Pope Peter Turkson (irrespective of what Papal name he chooses) to be the last Pope<br /><br />Now that Pope Benedict XVI has resigned, we won't have long to wait to see if his successor is Cardinal Peter Turkson, a resident of Rome, and hence a fulfillment of St Malachy's prophecy that the last Pope will be "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes#Petrus_Romanus" rel="nofollow">Peter the Roman</a>."<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br /><br />-----------------------------------<br />The Guardian<br /><br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/next-pope-contenders-vatican-job" rel="nofollow">Who will be the next pope? The contenders for Vatican's top job</a><br /><br />Two cardinals from Africa, a Canadian and an Italian are among those being tipped to succeed Pope Benedict XVI<br /><br />Sam Jones and Afua Hirsch <br /><br />Monday 11 February 2013 17.21 GMT<br /><br />Cardinal Peter Turkson gets his red hat from Pope John Paul II. The Ghanaian is one of the cardinals tipped to succeed Pope Benedict XVI who is stepping down.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />With Pope Benedict XVI's resignation, speculation about who might succeed him when the conclave meets in March has begun. Any baptised Roman Catholic male is eligible for election as pope, but only cardinals have been selected since 1378. Among those who have been mentioned as potential successors are the following:<br /><br /><b>Cardinal Peter Turkson</b><br /><br />A TV star, "people's person" and a "wonderful" priest, the Ghanaian cardinal emerging as a strong favourite for the papacy is described by colleagues in glowing terms. Peter Turkson, who is president of the Vatican's pontifical council for justice and peace, was made a cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 2003 after serving for almost 30 years as an ordained priest.<br /><br />[...]<br />-----------------------------------Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-24256558426061959282013-02-03T16:04:07.463+08:002013-02-03T16:04:07.463+08:00Nizam
>I noticed the link to http://www.epa.go...Nizam<br /><br />>I noticed the link to http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/nitrogen.html wasn't working <br /><br />Thanks. I have updated the Nitrogen Cycle graphic with one from Wikipedia: <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e3/The_Nitrogen_Cycle.png/400px-The_Nitrogen_Cycle.png" rel="nofollow">The Nitrogen Cycle</a> but for some reason Blogger won't or can't update the page.<br /><br />I will keep trying but if there is a permanent problem in updating a 6year old post, then it will have to stay as is.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1192342770487209442013-02-03T13:19:25.494+08:002013-02-03T13:19:25.494+08:00"Dear Webmaster,
I was reading http:..."Dear Webmaster, <br />I was reading http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2006/05/follow-nitrogen-to-extraterrestrial.html and I noticed the link to http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/nitrogen.html wasn't working but I have found it at http://www.biostim.com.au/pdf/Nitrogen.pdf if you want to update it for your readers. <br />Kind regards<br />Nizam Uddin"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13542382685947356848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-28284935017546899022013-01-02T06:43:29.076+08:002013-01-02T06:43:29.076+08:00Morgan
>I'm saying that it seems necessary...Morgan<br /><br />>I'm saying that it seems necessary from the text that the flood include all mankind. A region is fine, but all mankind seems necessary from the setting of Gen 6 (when man began to multiply...)<br /><br />Disagree. The first principles of believing Christian Biblical interpretation is that: 1) All the relevant Biblical information be considered; and 2) the Bible be assumed not to contradict itself.<br /><br />The verses I cited above about the Nephilim existing both before and after the Flood shows that the Flood was not global (either geographically or anthropologically).<br /><br />Bernard Ramm also pointed out that the Table of Nations in Gn 10 states which nations descended from those on the Ark and "no mention of the Mongoloid or Negroid races is made":<br /><br />"An examination of the Table of Nations of Gen. 10 discloses that <b>no mention of the Mongoloid or Negroid races is made</b>. Some anthropologists believe that it is impossible to make any racial distinctions among humans, others make two main divisions, but most accept with modifications and qualifications and exceptions the triadic division of Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. As far as can be determined the early chapters of Genesis centre around that stream of humanity (part of the Caucasoid race) which produced the Semitic family of nations of which the Hebrews were a member. The sons of Noah were all Caucasian as far as can be determined, and so were all of their descendants. <b>The Table of Nations gives no hint of any Negroid or Mongoloid peoples</b>." (Ramm, B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," Paternoster: Exeter UK, 1955, Reprinted, 1960, p.234)<br /><br />And "Noah certainly was not a preacher of righteousness to the peoples of Africa, of India, of China or of America-places where there is evidence for the existence of man many thousands of years before the flood":<br /><br />"The purpose of the flood was to blot out the wicked civilization of Mesopotamia, and being a local flood of a short duration we would not expect to find any specific evidence for it, especially after the minimum of another six thousand years of weathering. There are three views of the local flood: (i) Some assert that man never spread beyond the Mesopotamian valley. This is impossible to defend in that it is so well proven that men were to be found outside the Mesopotamian area long before the flood. (ii) G.F. Wright believes that the ice-age drove man into the Mesopotamian valley. (iii) A third view, and the one which we hold, is that <b>the entire record must be interpreted phenomenally. If the flood is local though spoken of in universal terms, so the destruction of man is local though spoken of in universal terms</b>. The record neither affirms nor denies that man existed beyond the Mesopotamian valley. <b>Noah certainly was not a preacher of righteousness to the peoples of Africa, of India, of China or of America-places where there is evidence for the existence of man many thousands of years before the flood</b> (10,000 to 15,000 years in America). <b>The emphasis in Genesis is upon that group of cultures from which Abraham</b> [and through Him Christ-SEJ] <b>eventually came</b>." (Ramm, 1955, p.163).<br /><br />Since I don't have the time (or inclination) for extended debate on this matter (especially now that this my CED blog is inactive) you have had your last comment on this topic.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-71281219592942801492013-01-02T06:13:16.995+08:002013-01-02T06:13:16.995+08:00My question came our poorly. I'm saying that i...My question came our poorly. I'm saying that it seems necessary from the text that the flood include all mankind. A region is fine, but all mankind seems necessary from the setting of Gen 6 (when man began to multiply...)Morgannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-74324494735103913062012-12-30T13:04:50.564+08:002012-12-30T13:04:50.564+08:00[continued]
---------------------------------
Wha...[continued]<br /><br />---------------------------------<br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/czab6ph" rel="nofollow">What I believe about Creation, Evolution, Design and Christianity</a> ... <b>Adam & Eve. </b>I regard the best fit of the Biblical and scientific data on Adam and Eve to be E.K.V. Pearce's "two `Adams'" model. That is, there was both Genesis 1 "man" (Heb. <i>'adam</i> in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%201:26-28;&version=NIV;" rel="nofollow">Gen. 1:26-28</a> is without the article and therefore is translated "man") and a Genesis 2 "Adam" (Heb. <i>'adam</i> in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gn%202:20;&version=NIV;" rel="nofollow">Gen. 2:20</a> is with the article ("the man") and therefore is translated "Adam", i.e. an individual, a name). Genesis 1 "man" (male and female-<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%201:26-28;&version=NIV;" rel="nofollow">Gen. 1:26-28</a>) were the actual and/or symbolic common ancestors of all <i>Homo sapiens</i>. But Genesis 2 "Adam" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%202:4,20;3:17,20-21;%204:1,%2025;%205:1,3-5;&version=NIV;" rel="nofollow">Gen. 2:4,20;3:17,20-21; 4:1, 25; 5:1,3-5</a>; <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hos%206:7;%201%20Tim%202:13-14;%20Jude%201:14;&version=NIV;" rel="nofollow">Hos 6:7; 1 Tim. 2:13-14; Jude 1:14</a>) was a literal individual and/or symbol ("the pattern of the one [Christ] to come"-<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom%205:14;&version=NIV;" rel="nofollow">Rom. 5:14</a>) and was/symbolised the common ancestor only of the line which led to Christ (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%203:23,38;&version=NIV;" rel="nofollow">Lk. 3:23,38</a>) and therefore <i>through Him</i>, "the last Adam" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2015:45;&version=NIV;" rel="nofollow">1 Cor. 15:45</a>) was united back through Genesis 2 "Adam" and Genesis 1 "man," to all humans as their <i>Representative</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%2015:45Rom%205:12-14;%201%20Cor%2015:22,45;&version=NIV;" rel="nofollow">Rom. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:22,45</a>).<br />---------------------------------<br /><br />>You're a studied fellow and I'm interested in your opinion on this matter.<br /><br />See above. I hope this has helped.<br /><br />>Thanks for all you do.<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />>Good shroud blog as well<br /><br />Thanks again.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-74133527183968196222012-12-30T13:04:22.225+08:002012-12-30T13:04:22.225+08:00Morgan
>Great posting, although I've alway...Morgan<br /><br />>Great posting, although I've always been confused by Ramms flood interpretation. <br /><br />from memory Ramm lists different local Flood possibilities, e.g. known world of Noah, anthropologically universal, etc. <br /><br />>Gen 6 clearly states man beginning to fan out some on the earth. <br /><br />The word "earth" [Heb. eretz] in Genesis means "land". It does not mean "globe" as we today understand "earth" to mean.<br /><br />>While I have no problem with a local flood, I do have issue with it being limited as far as humanity is concerned. <br /><br />Agreed. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/cdaarbg" rel="nofollow">Australian aborigines have been in Australia at least 50,000 years</a>, so if the Flood was anthropologically universal it would mean it had to have happened at least 50,000 years ago.<br /><br />Which in turn would stretch the Gn 5 and 11 genealogies beyond their breaking point. <br /><br />>I just don't see this allowed from the text.<br /><br />Agreed. The Bible itself rules it out because the Nephilim existed both before the Flood:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/cuonhaf" rel="nofollow">Gn 6:4</a>: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days ..."<br /><br />and after the Flood:<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/boslbgk" rel="nofollow">Num 13:33</a> "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim) ..."<br /><br />So the Bible itself indicates that the Sons of Anak's Nephilim ancestors were not wiped out by the Flood. <br /><br />Therefore the Flood cannot have been geographically global or even anthropologically universal.<br /><br />>You'd said to contact you here vs email, and so I am.<br /><br />OK. But as I said I have ceased posting on this CED blog and I am out of touch with the latest in Creation/Evolution/Design.<br /><br />My focus these days is on my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin</a> blog.<br /><br />If the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the image of His crucified, dead, buried and RESURRECTED body (which it does) then Christianity is true and Naturalism is false. In that case Naturalistic Evolution ("...God had no part in this process") is false.<br /><br />>My true question stems from looking at the old ASA ListserveArchive and good ole Glenn Morton popped up with an objection I've heard recently from the biologos bunch (Collins, Falk, Venema, Enns) that humanity has never suffered a bottleneck of only 8 survivors, nor a beginning with only 2 members.<br /><br />I have no problem with that. If you search my blog you will find that I had posted approvingly on E.K.V. Pearce's Genesis 1 Man and Genesis 2 Adam theory. E.g. "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/chrwua3" rel="nofollow">Re: snake ritual discovery in Africa</a>". <br /><br />Here is a summary of it:<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-69349983686511255232012-12-30T11:17:03.582+08:002012-12-30T11:17:03.582+08:00Great posting, although I've always been confu...Great posting, although I've always been confused by Ramms flood interpretation. Gen 6 clearly states man beginning to fan out some on the earth. While I have no problem with a local flood, I do have issue with it being limited as far as humanity is concerned. I just don't see this allowed from the text.<br />You'd said to contact you here vs email, and so I am.<br />My true question stems from looking at the old ASA ListserveArchive and good ole Glenn Morton popped up with an objection I've heard recently from the biologos bunch (Collins, Falk, Venema, Enns) that humanity has never suffered a bottleneck of only 8 survivors, nor a beginning with only 2 members.<br />You're a studied fellow and I'm interested in your opinion on this matter.<br />Thanks for all you do.<br />Good shroud blog as well.Morgannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-25985709201809590712012-12-25T21:07:19.446+08:002012-12-25T21:07:19.446+08:00Anonymous
>I read in the Catholic Documents th...Anonymous<br /><br />>I read in the Catholic Documents that there will be a Bishop that rules after Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict XVI is the last Pope so this Bishop will not be a Pope but is in fact an evil Bishop, leading me to believe he will be the False prophet.<br /><br />As I wrote in my previous comment:<br /><br />"Only time will tell whether you (and St. Malachy's prophecies) are correct. But if Benedict XVI dies and his successor an Italian already named Peter (since no Pope has taken the name Peter), then I will assume he is St. Malachy's Pope #112, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes#Petrus_Romanus" rel="nofollow">Peter the Roman, the last Pope</a>." <br /><br />But it is interesting that according to the article "<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-man-who-will-be-the-next-pope-2012-4?op=1" rel="nofollow">One Of These Men Will Be The Next Pope</a>," <i>Business Insider</i>, Michael B. Dougherty, April 19, 2012:<br /><br />"Today is the seventh anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI's election to the Papacy. And earlier this week the Pontiff celebrated his 85th birthday. He is older than his predecessor John Paul II was at the time of his death, and lately Benedict has resorted to using a cane and a moving platform to get around. So it is time to consider the candidates to succeed him."<br /><br />And one of the leading candidates to succeed Benedict XVI is "Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson" from "Ghana" who is "President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace." <br /><br />Although it would fit St. Malachy's prophecy that the last Pope would be "Petrus Romanus" or "Peter the Roman" if Benedict XVI's successor was a Roman by birth named Peter, the "Romanus" might not mean that was Roman by birth. <br /><br />It could, for example, simply mean that he is a resident of Rome:<br /><br />"Definition of ROMAN 1 a: a native or resident of Rome." ("<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roman" rel="nofollow">roman</a>," Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2012).<br /><br />And interestingly, Cardinal Peter Turkson is "resident in Rome" and a member of the "Roman Curia":<br /><br />"<b>Roman Curia</b> On 24 October 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Turkson President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.[5] Within the Roman Curia, Turkson is also a member of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church and, since 4 March 2010, the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses.[6] On 12 June 2012 Cardinal Turkson was appointed a member of the Congregation for Catholic Education[7] On 16 October 2010 Pope Benedict appointed him as a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith[8] These memberships are for five years and are renewable. Being <b>resident in Rome</b>, he is invited to attend not only the plenary meetings of those departments, which in principle are held every year, but also the ordinary meetings." ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Turkson#Roman_Curia" rel="nofollow">Peter Turkson</a>," Wikipedia, 21 December 2012).<br /><br />So if Pope Benedict XVI is succeeded by Cardinal Peter Turkson, then I will consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes#Petrus_Romanus" rel="nofollow">St. Malachy's prophecy</a> to have been fulfilled and Pope Peter Turkson (irrespective of what Papal name he chooses) to be the last Pope.<br /><br />On Biblical grounds I already "... assume that Jesus will return ... before 2037" ("<a href="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com.au/2006/11/what-i-believe-about-creation.html#JesusChristsreturn" rel="nofollow">Jesus Christ's return (second coming)</a>").<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-77782327582090937722012-12-25T01:57:07.662+08:002012-12-25T01:57:07.662+08:00I read in the Catholic Documents that there will b...I read in the Catholic Documents that there will be a Bishop that rules after Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict XVI is the last Pope so this Bishop will not be a Pope but is in fact an evil Bishop, leading me to believe he will be the False prophet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-44876179911011247812012-12-03T20:48:25.790+08:002012-12-03T20:48:25.790+08:00Anonymous
>...The fact is, the original list ...Anonymous<br /> <br />>...The fact is, the original list of Malachi's included only #111 popes remaining. The #112 was added some 400 years after the priest's death by a Benedictine monk. This is a fact. <br /><br />Thanks. As my post above says, Benedict could be the last Pope.<br /><br />>The problem with the #112 pope theory is that it makes people think they have more time than they really do... <br /><br />Most people don't know anything about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes'" rel="nofollow">St Malachy's Pope prophesies</a>, so whether Benedict XVI is the last, or second last Pope, makes no difference to them.<br /><br />>The pope in office now is the last pope according to Malachi's list. This present pope will not leave office, he will go into exile where he will later be killed. <br /><br />Only time will tell whether you (and St. Malachy's prophecies) are correct.<br /><br />But if Benedict XVI dies and his successor is an Italian already named Peter (since no Pope has taken the name Peter), then I will assume he is St. Malachy's Pope #112, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes#Petrus_Romanus" rel="nofollow">Peter the Roman, the last Pope</a>. <br /><br />>A little known fact about the Vatican. For the last decade or more, they have been secretly removing many of the priceless artifacts out of the Vatican to an undisclosed loaction. Even they know they are out of time. <br /><br />I doubt it.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com