Darwin's theory

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus
That is actually not that complicated. The mistake that Dembski makes is assuming that to get from one sequence to another requires the entire genome to be disassembled and then re-assembled randomly. But this is simply not what happens.

It doesn't happen because it's an impossibility.

wrote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus What does happen is that the original sequence is copied and multiplied, with some mistakes in it. Some of these mistakes are bad and cause death. Others cause reduced fitness, and will be selected against. Still others will be neutral and have no effect on fitness. A rare few improve fitness and get favored by selection.

This also doesn't happen because it's an impossibility.

wrote:

Vivisectus
Improvements that take a small amount of steps will happen earlier, and then fix themselves in the population. Bigger steps will often be dependent on neutral intermediate steps: the number of evolutionary avenues possible is not limitless.

You're confusing the selection of pre-existing genetic CFSI diversity with the origin of the CFSI diversity itself.

wrote:

VivisectusIf you model a 300 position, 20 option string of acids, and set a mutation rate of 1 in 100 and a spawn rate of 10, and then set some combinations as lethal, some as neutral, and some as beneficial, and apply selective pressure to weed out lethal ones (0 survivial chance), and increase the offspring for beneficial ones, we can see that while it takes thousands of generations and lots of organisms to get to the beneficial ones, but it DOES happen.

The problem is that this doesn't match what real biomolecules are like. They have specific chains of amino acids ... and even one change in a critical sequence causes functionality to be destroyed.
Many evolutionists accept the odds against such systems being spontaneously generated, as being beyond the UPB ... but they hang onto their beliefs that it happened spontaneously, by inventing an infinity of multiverses acting for an infinity of time to try and mathematically overcome the massive odds against living systems spontaneously arising.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

You've missed Brian's point, again. Yes, Jesus was coming to uphold god's law. But god's law as laid down in the old testament, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, amongst other places.

... Jesus came to fulfill the legal i.e. justice requirement for an adequate atonement for sin.
Humans have always tried to enforce Human justice for wrongs done. It has been an imperfect 'hit and miss' affair sometimes corrupted to the ends (or the pet phobias) of the powerful (often bizarrely so, with some of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy being good examples of this).

God's justice is based on His perfect Law ... and it will be perfectly and universally applied at the Last Judgement ... with the only amnesty from it being Salvation.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

*Waffle Removed*


Many evolutionists accept the odds against such systems as being beyond the UPB ... but they hang onto their beliefs by inventing an infinity of multiverses acting for an infinity of time to try and overcome they massive odds against living systems spontaneously arising.

Since when does the theory of evolution say anything whatsoever about a multiverse ?

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

God's justice is based on His perfect Law.

As laid down in the old testament.

Stone rape victims? Stone gays?

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

As laid down in the old testament.

Stone rape victims? Stone gays?

These were the Human Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... and they were very imperfect indeed.

J C

Saganist wrote: »

Since when does the theory of evolution say anything whatsoever about a multiverse ?

The idea of multiverses is being used to try and overcome the statistical impossibility of a universe the size of our Universe having enough matter and time to overcome the odds against the spontaneous production of CFSI.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/multiverses/

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

unfortunately for JC and his ilk, there seem to be no (Jewish, Greek or Roman) writers/scribes/historians who lived in the middle east during the time of Jesus' ministry etc., that mention him.

The ones that did, and are frequently cited as non christian evidence for his existance, wrote well after his crucifixion, and were solely based on hearsay.
Josephus: born 37CE, antiquities written in 93CE. Testimonium Flavianum acknowledged to have been tampered with, even by Christian scholars...
Tacitus: born 64CE, mentioned a Jesus in 109CE...
Seutonius:born 69CE...

Philo Judaeus, a historian living in Jerusalem around this time doesn't even mention him.

So other than hearsay and third hand account, and the bible itself, there isnt really much to go on.

Christians were persecuted and their faith was proscribed by the state right up to the time of Constantine. It is little wonder that all contemporaneous accounts of Jesus Christ should have been suppressed and destroyed, in so far as possible.
The accounts in the New Testament books are accurate and Jesus Christ lives ... and will Save you, if you ask.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

These were the Human Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... and they were very imperfect indeed.

Any other part of the bible imperfect?

Or just the bits you find inconvenient?

Brian Shanahan

Pherekydes wrote: »

You've missed Brian's point, again.

He has a habit of missing other people's points, and trying to turn them into straw-men he can safely attack. The sign of a coward that.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Any other part of the bible imperfect?

Or just the bits you find inconvenient?

There are plenty of accounts of Human imperfection and sinfulness in the Bible.

For example, all of the accounts of the imperfect behaviour of imperfect Human Beings ... ranging from King David's murderous adultery to the murder of Abel by Cain.:)

Dan_Solo

J C wrote: »

These were the Human Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... and they were very imperfect indeed.

As ever, when something in the bible becomes just too laughable for the faithful to ever begin to defend it ceases to be god's word.

J C

Dan_Solo wrote: »

As ever, when something in the bible becomes just too laughable for the faithful to ever begin to defend it ceases to be god's word.

It is the Word of God as its writing was divinely inspired and is a true account of what happened in Old and New Testament times ... 'warts and all'.:)

Brian Shanahan

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Josephus: born 37CE, antiquities written in 93CE. Testimonium Flavianum acknowledged to have been tampered with, even by Christian scholars...

Actually his "Jesus" piece is an obvious fake. It is written in a laconic style, which is the exact opposite of the rest of his writing. The passage mentioning Jesus first appears in 325CE when Eusebius, a man well known for inserting passages which mentioned christ into writings, "found" it. Such major figures as Photius I, Patriarch of Constantinople in the 10th century CE have said that it was an obvious fake and all known Jewish (unfortunately no Jewish texts are extant) and Arabic texts have no mention of Jesus, at all.

Tacitus: born 64CE, mentioned a Jesus in 109CE...

Actually he didn't. In a passage of highly disputed authenticity it is mentioned that Nero had "followers of chrestus" killed for the burning of Rome. All other surviving accounts say Nero went after the Jews of Rome, or had few people killed.

Seutonius:born 69CE...

Seutonius references to a Chrestus. Chrestus was a common name at the time which translates to "the Good" and many prophets or messiahs got appended with that name, and many children given it. It could mean almost anyone and is most definitely not evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

The first truly authentic mention we have for Jesus was Pliny looking for authorisation to kill christians c.111CE.

Read the Historicity of Jesus thread over in A&A, and you'll see bannasidhe comprehensively shredding any claim christians make to having non bible mentions of Jesus until well after his supposed death.

Dan_Solo

J C wrote: »

It is the Word of God as its writing was divinely inspired and is a true account of what happened in Old and New Testament times ... 'warts and all'.:)

You don't even know who wrote it!

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Read the Historicity of Jesus thread over in A&A, and you'll see bannasidhe comprehensively shredding any claim christians make to having non bible mentions of Jesus until well after his supposed death.

... yes the Atheists and Agnostics forum would be somewhere to find objective opinion on God (that they don't believe in) and Jesus Christ (that they also don't believe in).:rolleyes:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

... and you'll see bannasidhe comprehensively shredding any claim christians make to having non bible mentions of Jesus until well after his supposed death.

... yes the Roman's and Jews did an even more comprehensive job of shredding any non-biblical mention of Jesus until well after His death as well.:eek:
Jesus was 'persona non grata' for both the Jewish and Roman establishments ... and they would have used all of the mechanisms available to them to suppress and censor any mention of Him.

J C

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You don't even know who wrote it!

Jesus Christ AKA God wrote it.

Dan_Solo

J C wrote: »

Jesus Christ AKA God wrote it.

What did he write it on? When? Who did he give the book to, the Jerusalem public library?

Dan_Solo

J C wrote: »

... yes the Roman's and Jews did an even more comprehensive job of shredding any non-biblical mention of Jesus until well after His death as well.:eek:

Do source this. I would like to read on it further.

J C

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What did he write it on? When? Who did he give the book to, the Jerusalem public library?

Quote:-
"Many people contributed to the writing of the Bible. Actually, the Bible is a collection of writings from about forty contributors, thirty in the Old Testament and ten in the New Testament.
For example, the Psalms are a collection of the works of several authors, of whom David, the "sweet singer of Israel", is the best known. But psalms were also written by Moses, by Asaph, by a man named Ethan, and by the sons of Korah.

The accounts which have been preserved in the Old Testament date from the earliest times and were both written down and communicated orally. As time passed, they were collected together and received by the Hebrews as coming to them by God's mandate. The prophets transmit God's message to humans, while many of the Psalms articulate cries of people to God. Both types of writing are preserved in the Bible as part of God's message to mankind.

The New Testament stories and teachings were widely circulated among the early Christian churches. The letters of Paul to the Christians in several cities were likely the earliest writings now found in the New Testament. But many other letters and epistles were circulated as well. Gradually it became clear to the early churches which writings were truly inspired and which were spurious or simply edifying messages from pious authors.

It is truly amazing that all forty of these authors, spread out over 1600 years, have such a unified message in spite of their great diversity in language, culture, and time. There is a reason for that! The reason is that these forty or so writers are all secondary authors. There is actually only one primary author, the one who inspired all the human authors, the eternal God.":)

J C

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Do source this. I would like to read on it further.

Shredding of evidence tends to destroy evidence ... and I don't make up evidence that no longer exists.:)

Capt'n Midnight

more numbers with lots of zeros

23 zeros because yesterday was mole day (atoms are small) ,15 zeros because of the amount of phosphorus in the oceans, 10 zeros because 8-20 billion earth like planets , 12 zeros because 100 billion galaxies in known universe. 16 zeros is the number of seconds in 300 million years.

That's 76 zeros combinations of anything based on random self assembly of phosphorus based chemistry being a certainty of happening somewhere , sometime.

except that chemistry usually takes a lot less than a second so more zero's

And it isn't random, because of things like autocatalysis speeding stuff up and steric hinderance limiting choices because big molecules don't wizz about and contort in the way lighter gases can. And that's before you remember that RNA uses complimentary bases which means there is a degree of self organisation whereby the next base added isn't completely random.

Capt'n Midnight

or there's this , self assembling liposomes are nothing new, but the non-random concentration of molecules from a dilute solution looks interesting.

liposomes themselves are very interesting because not only do they explain cell walls but they provide many isolated areas for life to evolve , a vast number of private primordial seas if needed.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/life-on-earth-was-not-a-fluke/

Stano and his colleagues do not yet understand why this happened. It may yet be a random process that a better statistical model will explain. It may be that these particular molecules are suited to this kind of self-organization because they are already highly evolved. An important next step is to see if similar, but less complex, molecules are also capable of this feat.

Regardless of the limitations, Stano’s experiment has shown for the first time that self-assembly of molecular machines into simple cells may be an inevitable physical process. Finding out how exactly this self-assembly happens will mean taking a big step towards understanding how life was formed.

kingchess

Ahh-but J C will say that the Universal Made Up theory will over come that because -add what ever drivel takes your fancy- and so you are wrong(add smiley for effect)

J C

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

more numbers with lots of zeros

23 zeros because yesterday was mole day (atoms are small) ,15 zeros because of the amount of phosphorus in the oceans, 10 zeros because 8-20 billion earth like planets , 12 zeros because 100 billion galaxies in known universe. 16 zeros is the number of seconds in 300 million years.

That's 76 zeros combinations of anything based on random self assembly of phosphorus based chemistry being a certainty of happening somewhere , sometime.

except that chemistry usually takes a lot less than a second so more zero's

And it isn't random, because of things like autocatalysis speeding stuff up and steric hinderance limiting choices because big molecules don't wizz about and contort in the way lighter gases can. And that's before you remember that RNA uses complimentary bases which means there is a degree of self organisation whereby the next base added isn't completely random.

Ordinary chemistry is an example of a deterministic system ... and it has predictable and certain results.

However, DNA is an information containing molecule ... and it isn't a deterministic system.

SaveOurLyric

J C wrote: »

Shredding of evidence tends to destroy evidence ... and I don't make up evidence that no longer exists.:)

Which is not answering what you were asked.
Provide the source for the claim that Romans and Jews shred non biblical evidence of Jesus.

J C

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Which is not answering what you were asked.
Provide the source for the claim that Romans and Jews shred non biblical evidence of Jesus.

They suppressed and persecuted the Christians ... and fed them to the Lions in the Colosseum ... is that enough evidence of 'shredding' on the part of the Romans for you?

SaveOurLyric

J C wrote: »

... please stop unfounded personal insults ... most Atheists aren't delusional or insane ... and calling their belief that they evolved from Pondscum 'simple minded' is also going a bit far.

A deliberate misreading of a post again.
Are the creationists delusional and or insane ?

J C wrote: »

Please stick to the topic at issue - and leave your trolling abusive comments behind you, when you come here to debate.:(

You need to use bold print when you post with your Mod's hat on.

SaveOurLyric

How many atheists, considering the topic, end up thinking creationism is a correct explanation ?

SaveOurLyric

J C wrote: »

They suppressed and persecuted the Christians ... and fed them to the Lions in the Colosseum ... is that enough evidence of 'shredding' on the part of the Romans for you?

Those events seem to have written them into history. The Christian story has always loved its martyrs.

Still though, the evidence that that non biblical evidence was shredded.....

J C

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

A take this as a deliberate misreading a post again.
Are the creationists delusional and or insane ?

They are neither ... and again you are trolling and abusive in making such unfounded prejudicial personal remarks.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You need to use bold print when you post with your Mod's hat on.

I'm not a mod ... nor am I modding ... I'm just reaching objective conclusions based on your post.