The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Son Goku
My word!!, several pieces of plagrised material presented out of context with a few non-sensical claims.

‘Get a grip’ Son!!!
It would also help if you learned how to spell PLAGIARISED before you start throwing such ‘big words’ around - and using them invalidly, in view of the fact that I was directly responding to a Wikipedia reference that YOU had already given.:eek:

I never gave a Wikipedia reference.

Also, your post has several sections that are exactly as wikipedia states them, copying and pasting a wikipedia page, isn't a response to a wikipedia page.

And I spelled something wrong?
Wow, what a fantastic way to tackle my points, I mean if I occasionally spell words incorrectly it must mean that your points are rock solid. You certainly kicked my ass there man. I'll never mess with you again.

Oh, I thought that Evolutionists accorded the ‘lofty honour’ of ‘the single most successful theory in all of science’ to Evolution – at least that was what ye were saying earlier, on this thread!!!

I notice you haven't actually addressed my question.
(You also didn't address most of my post, could this be because it is too technical for you.)

Anyway:
How does the Creationist model account for electroweak symmetry breaking?
If you don't have a period of expansion and cooling in your cosmology then how do you account for electroweak symmetry breaking.

It is not enough to say "It isn't inconsistent with direct creation".

Put up or shut up JC, stop with the lame jokes, the excessive capitals and making fun of minor errors in people's posts and answer our questions.

bonkey

In any event, QT is not inconsistent with Direct Creation

It would appear that we have a Quantum Theorist asking you to clarify how that can be, when there are aspects of QT which DC most clearly doesn't account for no matter how you try and pretend otherwise.

No matter how you bluff and bluster, its abundantly clear that you are out of your depth and have refused even the simple admission that this isn't your field so you're not fully qualified to answer it.

as electroweak symmetry breaking isn’t inconsistent with Direct Creation

Electroweak symmetry breaking is as a result of a process which is inviolably bound to the Big Bang theory.

No Big Bang == no electroweak symmetry breaking.....unless you can provide an alternate scientific model for how such symmetry-breaking could come about.

So either it is inconsistent, or you can show this alternate model (because as we all know, you insist the Big Bang theory is incompatible with DC).

To date, you refuse that its inconsistent whilst clearly demonstrating that you have no alternate model. This is, in a word, unscientific. You're a scientist, apparently, so if I'm wrong here, perhaps you can explain how not presenting a theory or model which explains your position is considered a valid position.

You can believe what you like, but its not a scientifically valid position until you can actually offer an explanation, which do date you haven't done.

nd now bonkey, would you ‘take a stab at’ answering my question

I'd be delighted to.

wrote:

How does The Big Bang, which claims that EVERYTHING is the result of NOTHING exploding, account for ANYTHING (including electroweak symmetry breaking)?

I don't know, but only because there is no scientific Big Bang theory which claims that everything came from nothing exploding - with or without random capitalisation added for emphasis.

There is a Big Bang theory, and it can account for a quite a lot, but as has been repeatedly pointed out here, it doesn't claim that everything came from nothing. Being a scientist, you are of course aware that its impossible to prove a negative, so I can't prove the Big Bang theory doesn't make this claim. So I leave it to you to demonstrate by counter-example that I am wrong.

So, if you'd care to provide a reference to an established and scientific version of the Big Bang theory which backs up your assertions, I'll reconsider my position.

Until then, you're asking a loaded question which I'd be a fool to try and answer in any manner other than how I already have.

Son Goku's and pH's questions, in comparison, do not state assumptions as part of the question.

If nothing else, it is telling that your only response to being asked unloaded questions is to respond with a loaded one.

So...like I asked Son Goku...

How'd I do?

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

‘Get a grip’ Son!!!
It would also help if you learned how to spell PLAGIARISED before you start throwing such ‘big words’ around - and using them invalidly, in view of the fact that I was directly responding to a Wikipedia reference that YOU had already given.

You're actually compounding your offence here, JC. In future, please quote Wikipedia or other sources as necessary. Particularly, I would urge you not to tack your own sentences onto Wikipedia's paragraphs to make it look like your own work.

bonkey wrote:

It would appear that we have a Quantum Theorist asking you to clarify how that can be, when there are aspects of QT which DC most clearly doesn't account for no matter how you try and pretend otherwise.

No matter how you bluff and bluster, its abundantly clear that you are out of your depth and have refused even the simple admission that this isn't your field so you're not fully qualified to answer it.

Scientifically, JC is out of his depth in a teaspoon. We're well past the stage where that's an ad hominem attempt to discredit him, sadly.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

I can't believe I missed this on a first reading:

QT is not inconsistent with Direct Creation – so I HAVEN’T ‘bet’ either way on this Theory.

You are actually admitting that you accept a scientific theory on the basis of whether or not it is consistent with Direct Creation.

Poor scientific reasoning JC, very poor.

J C

Son Goku
I notice you haven't actually addressed my question.
(You also didn't address most of my post, could this be because it is too technical for you.)

I confirmed that I have an ‘open mind’ about QT as a speculative explanation for the existence and actions of sub-atomic particles.

Your questions about the finer points of QT aren’t ‘too technical’ - they are ‘red herrings’ in the context of the Creation v Evolution debate, and that is why I didn’t address them.

Could I say that when it comes to Electromagnetism and indeed Quantum Electrodynamics, Creation Scientists have no particular difficulties with the current theories which explain these phenomena.

Magnetism and electricity are not separate entities; they are related manifestations of an underlying electromagnetic force that was originally created by God - probably on Day 1 of Creation Week.
Experiments in the early 19th century by Creation Scientists such as Michael Faraday revealed the intimate connection between electricity and magnetism and how one can give rise to the other. The results of these experiments were synthesized in the 1850s by the Scottish Creation Scientist James Clerk Maxwell in his Electromagnetic Theory. Maxwell's theory predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves--undulations in intertwined electric and magnetic fields, travelling with the velocity of light.
Planck's work in the early 1900’s, in which he explained the spectrum of radiation from a perfect emitter, led to the concept of quantization and photons. In the quantum picture, electromagnetic radiation has a dual nature, existing both as Maxwell's waves and as streams of particles called photons. The quantum nature of electromagnetic radiation is encapsulated in quantum electrodynamics, the quantum field theory of the electromagnetic force.
BOTH Maxwell's classical theory and the quantized version contain gauge symmetry, which appears to be a basic feature of the four fundamental forces created by God.
The gauge boson of electromagnetism is the photon, which has zero mass and a spin quantum number of 1. Photons are exchanged whenever electrically charged subatomic particles interact. The photon has no electric charge, so it does not experience the electromagnetic force itself – and therefore, photons cannot interact with one another. Photons do carry energy and momentum, however, and, in transmitting these properties between particles, they produce electromagnetism.
In these processes, energy and momentum are conserved overall (the totals remain the same in accordance with the basic laws of physics); but, at the instant one particle emits a photon and another particle absorbs it, energy is not conserved. Quantum mechanics allows this imbalance provided that the photon fulfils the conditions of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This rule, described in 1927 by the German scientist Werner Heisenberg, states that it is impossible, even in principle, to know all the details about a particular quantum system. For example, if the exact position of an electron is identified, it is impossible to be certain of the electron's momentum - and visa versa.


Son Goku
How does the Creationist model account for electroweak symmetry breaking?
If you don't have a period of expansion and cooling in your cosmology then how do you account for electroweak symmetry breaking.

Electroweak symmetry breaking is just that – and the fact that the weak force does not respect parity isn’t inconsistent with the Direct Creation of matter or a Creationist Model
…….and I am not the only scientist who believes this!!!!!!!:D

In the context of the Creation v Evolution debate on this thread it is interesting to note that a number of Scientists operating at the ‘cutting edge’ of QT and QM have publicly dissented from Darwinian Evolution at:-
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

These scientists include:-
Dr. Henry Schaeffer, Director, Centre for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia;
Prof. David Snoke, Assoc. Professor of Physics & Astronomy, University of Pittsburg;
Prof. Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics, Tulane University;
Prof. Pablo Yepes, Research Assoc, Professor of Physics & Astronomy, Rice University;
Prof. Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics, University of North Carolina;
Prof Wesley Allen, Professor of Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia;
Prof. James Pierre Hauch, Professor of Physics & Astronomy, University of San Diego;
Dr Gary Dilts, Department of Mathematical Physics, University of Colorado.
Prof. Lee Eimers, Professor of Physics & Mathematics, Cedarville University;
Prof. Danielle Dalafave, Assoc. Professor of Physics, The College of New Jersey;
Dr. John Garth, Physics Department, University of Illinois;
Dr. Jennifer Cohen, Mathematical Physics Department, New Mexico IMT
Prof. Lawrence Johnston, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Idaho;
Dr. Robert Kaita, Nuclear Physics Department, Rutgers University;
Dr. Douglas Kiel, Department of Plasma Physics, University of North Texas.
Dr. Nancy Swanson, Department of Physics, Florida State University;
Dr. Bijan Nemati, Department of High Energy Physics, University of Washington;
Dr Robert Newman, Department of Astrophysics, Cornell University;
Prof. Wesley Nybore, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Vermont;
Prof. Maurice Strauss, Assoc. Professor of Physics, University of Oklahoma;
Dr. Philip Page, Department of Theoretical Particle Physics, Oxford University;
Dr. Barbara Helmkamp, Department of Theoretical Physics, Louisiana State University;
Dr. James Rankin, Department of Relativity Studies, Yeshiva University


Bonkey
Electroweak symmetry breaking is as a result of a process which is inviolably bound to the Big Bang theory.

You are confusing the question of whether electroweak symmetry breaking exists…..
– ANSWER, IT PROBABLY DOES

…….with the question of how it arose in the first place
– ANSWER, BY DIRECT CREATION!!!:cool:


pH
In your 6,000 year old universe, where do the heavier elements (like iron) come from?
You see the current 'theory' proposed by scientists (yes that's scientists not evolutionists!) is that they're created by Nucleosynthesis in stars. Do creation scientists have an alternative theory?

I see – so you accept Nucleosynthesis – a theory that was originally proposed by Professor Fred Hoyle in the context of a Steady State Universe!!!!!
So, do you ALSO accept that the odds against producing the biochemical sequences for an Amoeba using undirected processes is 1 to 10E+40,000 as also calculated by Professor Hoyle??

Anyway the Big Bang has just ‘gone up in smoke’ (amongst Evolutionists) and here is the link from a recent edition of Science Daily on the matter:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm:D

The University of Alabama scientists are obviously scratching their heads at a finding that may see the big bang “blown away” in the minds of scientists. Big bang advocates believe the cosmic explosion is responsible for the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation we observe. However, scientists have long predicted that galaxy clusters in the universe would deflect the CMB radiation, creating “shadows” in the observable radiation. But when the Alabama scientists measured this effect, they did not find any strong “shadows” as expected.
Equally last year, the same researchers published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have also been seen, but weren't, if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant.

This indicates that the CMB radiation may not be “behind” distant galaxies, but is much closer instead. Since the big bang interpretation REQUIRES the CMB radiation to be behind the farthest galaxies, this new discovery is a devastating blow to the Big Bang Model, and indicates that the CMB radiation cannot be leftover radiation from a Big Bang. Of course, this isn’t the only evidence against a big bang.”
…..and you can read up on the accumulating scientific evidence AGAINST the Big Bang here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang

Very soon there will be as much scientific evidence against the Big Bang as has currently been assembled against macro-Evolution!!!! :eek:

.....and as I haven’t received an answer to my question
How does The Big Bang, which claims that EVERYTHING is the result of NOTHING exploding, account for ANYTHING (including electroweak symmetry breaking)?

I will answer it myself – it doesn’t …………
…….and you can read the proof on the above link!!!!!!!!!!!:)


Son Goku
You are actually admitting that you accept a scientific theory on the basis of whether or not it is consistent with Direct Creation.

It doesn’t HAVE to be consistent with Direct Creation – but I have found that every theory that isn’t, eventually turns out to be invalid!!!!.

…….and BTW Materialistic Evolutionists refuse a priori to accept any scientific theory that isn’t consistent with Materialism - and this includes any reference to Creation, Intelligent Design, God, etc., - even when such references are supported by observable evidence!!!:D
.......

pH

J C wrote:

I see – so you accept Nucleosynthesis – a theory that was originally proposed by Professor Fred Hoyle in the context of a Steady State Universe!!!!!
So, do you ALSO accept that the odds against producing the biochemical sequences for an Amoeba using undirected processes is 1 to 10E+40,000 as also calculated by Professor Hoyle??

I see you neatly sidestepped the question, no matter I'm sure you'll get back to it. Though your reply does seem to highlight a fundamental misunderstanding you have with how science works.

You seem to be claiming that if a scientist 'gets something right' or produces a theory that gains acceptance over time, then somehow they're anointed and everything they do or say from then on is automatically correct.

I can see how that kind of thinking would appeal to someone with your background, but I'm afraid it just isn't how science works.

Someone with a background in a field or a proven track record is going to be take more seriously than a lone nutter on the net, but let me assure you it has no direct bearing on the correctness any future work they produce.

Are you going to answer the question about the creation of heavy elements?

Son Goku

J C wrote:

That bunch of stuff.

A big chunk of stuff from here:
Link

Anyway that stuff is great JC, most of it I already know. I don't see the point in saying it.

Except:

BOTH Maxwell's classical theory and the quantized version contain gauge symmetry, which appears to be a basic feature of the four fundamental forces created by God.

Except gravity.

Electroweak symmetry breaking is just that – and the fact that the weak force does not respect parity isn’t inconsistent with the Direct Creation of matter or a Creationist Model
…….and I am not the only scientist who believes this!!!!!!!

What has this got to do with what I asked?
I didn't ask you about the weak force, I asked you about electroweak symmetry breaking.

Anyway,
How does the Creationist model account for electroweak symmetry breaking?
If you don't have a period of expansion and cooling in your cosmology then how do you account for electroweak symmetry breaking.

J C

Scofflaw
Scientifically, JC is out of his depth in a teaspoon.

I would beg to differ with you on this one!!:D

I must point out, that YOU are the one claiming that EVERYTHING is the result of NOTHING exploding in a Big Bang that is looking increasingly ‘evidentially challenged’ – to say the least !!!!:eek:

In comparison with God, we are all ‘out of our depth in a teaspoon’ (relatively speaking) – and that includes BOTH you and me, Scofflaw!!!

.......

bonkey

J C wrote:

…….with the question of how it arose in the first place
– ANSWER, BY DIRECT CREATION!!!:cool:

I thought you said that God didn't do that type of stuff? Y'know...just create things that appear to all intents and purposes to be only supportable from an expansionary model?

I thought you put forward as key to the whole thing that your belief didn't rely on the "because God made it that way" layer of explanation, but rather held that everything could be rationally understood?

Seems that you're now falling back into this bastion of "just because" explanations. Curious.

.....and as I haven’t received an answer to my question
How does The Big Bang, which claims that EVERYTHING is the result of NOTHING exploding, account for ANYTHING (including electroweak symmetry breaking)?

You've received several challenges to the validity of hte question, which you've ignored.

Is this an ostrich-technique? That if you refuse to notice these challenges, no-one else will either?

I will answer it myself – it doesn’t …………

Thats nice. What about teh scientific Big Bang theory, though? Y'know...the one that should be at the heart of things here? The one that doesn't make an "everything from nothing" assertion?

It'd be much more useful if you turned yoru attention to that Big Bang theory, rather than the Big Strawman theory your question refers to.

jc

J C

Originally Posted by J C
BOTH Maxwell's classical theory and the quantized version contain gauge symmetry, which appears to be a basic feature of the four fundamental forces created by God

Son Goku
Except gravity.

It's going off-topic - but what is your view on the Graviton - which is postulated as the quantum that is the carrier of the gravitational field?

It is analogous to the well-established photon of the electromagnetic field - which is the gauge boson of electromagnetism.

J C

Bonkey
Thats nice. What about the scientific Big Bang theory, though? Y'know...the one that should be at the heart of things here? The one that doesn't make an "everything from nothing" assertion?

Do you mean the Big Bang Theory that has just been scientifically invalidated here?:D
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm

…and here ?:D
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang

.......

J C

Originally Posted by J C
.....and as I haven’t received an answer to my question
How does The Big Bang, which claims that EVERYTHING is the result of NOTHING exploding, account for ANYTHING (including electroweak symmetry breaking)?

bonkey
You've received several challenges to the validity of the question, which you've ignored.

Saying that my question is 'wrong' isn't a challenge to it's validity - it is merely an unsupported (and invalid) assertion!!! :eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

therefore WERE designed by an infinitely Intelligent Designer

But they weren't JC, you have proved this.

It is possible that life was designed by a very intelligent alien intelligence, but the design reflects the fact that said intelligence could not see into the future, therefore this intelligence was limited and had to take certain design measures to ensure that the design still worked. God would not need to do this, as He in his infinate wisdom can see into the future and as such these certain designs would be pointless. God could design specific solutions to all specific problems life would ever face.

By pointing out these systems that you beleive must have been created by an intelligence you have in fact shown that such an intelligence, as might as it would need to be, was in an intelligence that could see into the future, and as such could not have been God.

J C wrote:

You have correctly admitted that the body does indeed have highly complex, interactive and tightly specified solutions to specific problems (the blood clotting cascade being an obvious example).
What you call “very general, not very good, solutions to other unpredictable problems” are in fact ESSENTIAL systems when designing physically autonomous entities.

Not they aren't. The human defence system works on the idea that any thing it does not recongise as being part of the human body it destroys.

This is a system that would be designed by something (an intelligence or natural selection, depending on what you think) that could not forsee ever different future diease that would attack humans (or other complex life). So this was the only way to design this system. But it is far from perfect, and often misfires and the immune system will attack something it shouldn't

Now if an intelligence that can see into the future would have absolutely no need to design a system like this, because they would know the specific problems that human life (or other life) would face from now until the end of time.

God, if He designed life, would be able to design very specific solutions to the large but ultimately finite list of potental dieases that effect humans. And this would have avoided the problem where the human immune system turns against something it should.

J C wrote:

It is not a failure on God’s part to predict the future

Its nothing to do with "failure" JC. It is to do with how one would design something based on what they know.

It would make absolutely no sense for an intelligence that could see the future to design life the way it is currently designed. The only logical explination for all the systems that attempt to deal with unpredictable events is that if any intelligence designed life it was not an intelligence that can see the future. Otherwise the way life works would make little sense. This rules God out as the designer. God would not have pretended to not be able to see the future. Why would he.

J C wrote:

These ‘general systems’ are therefore ANOTHER proof for the existence of God - and The Fall!!:D :cool:

You can believe that they are proof that an intelligence designed life on Earth, but it is also proof that such an intelligence could not see into the future, or know future problems that life would have to overcome.

This rules God out as a possible designer. God would not have needed to design life the way it is currently designed.

J C wrote:

…… or a perfect Intelligence that wished to grant autonomy (and free will) to His creatures

"Free will" has nothing to do with your genetics or your defense systems JC, and no other animals possess free will. So I fail to see why you keep bringing in free will to the conversation. Are you saying that snails and slugs have free will?

J C wrote:

A ‘control freak’ God WOULD provide tightly specified solutions to ALL future problems

Exactly. That fact that these tightly specificed solutions (such as blood clotting) do not exist for all future problems RULE GOD OUT as a possible designer of life.

J C wrote:

– but such solutions would come at the price of our free will.

No they wouldn't. Does blood clotting come at the price of our free will? Or the way the skin pushes out a foreign body (a splinter) out of the top level of the skin? No, of course not. These are all specific solutions to specific problems, that work very well and never accidently mess up (and like try and remove someones finger from their hand).

But there exists lots of other biological systems (such as the mammal immune system) that do not provide specific solutions to specific problems, they provide a general solutions to unknown and unpredictable problems that may happen in the future.

Free will has nothing to do with this. Our specific biological solutions to very specific problems don't effect our free will, so if the designer had extended these to future unknown problems neither would that have.

You have proved that even if one believes that a super intelligence designed life on Earth, you have ruled God out as that designers, because of the way life works. We can close this thread now, JC has shown that any possible designer of life would not be a god.

bonkey

J C wrote:

Bonkey
Do you mean the Big Bang Theory that has just been scientifically invalidated here?:D

That first link doesn't invalidate it.

It raises a number of possibilities, amongst which is the possibility that the theory is partially or fundamentally wrong.

There is, as you should be aware given your claims to scientific fluency, a signficant difference between this and your representation of hte same information.

…and here ?:D
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang

Oh gosh. A whole creationist site, listing all the problems they have with non-creationist theory.

Well thats an unbiased source for me to take seriously.

Saying that my question is 'wrong' isn't a challenge to it's validity - it is merely an unsupported (and invalid) assertion!!!

Actually, the unsupported and invalid assertion is your claim as to what the Big Bang theory says.

The challenge to your question is to show that your unsupported assertion is correct.

If you can do this, the question has merit. If you can't do this, the question has no merit. You've shown no difficulty copying and pasting from various sources hithertofore, and providing links left right and centre (even if we may disagree on the interpretation) that it is unfathomable that you cannot and will not back up this assertion of yours.

Those saying the question are wrong are taking the (arguably reasonable) shortcut of saying that your description of the Big Bang is flat out wrong. Unfortunately, no matter how many references they could supply, they cannot prevent you claiming to have used a definition from a "preferable source". So there is nothing to be gained by providing a reference to show the Big Bang says other than what you claim, until you establish the worth of your initial claim.

Again, as someone claiming to have a scientific basis, I would have assumed you understood the basic principles of the burden of proof. The only alternative is that you are aware of them and are being deliberately obtuse and/or disingenuous.

Given that your initial claims are unsupported, there is no need for a challenge to them to be any better supported. By arguing the challenge can be ignored because it is unsupported, you implicitly acknowledge that your question may be treated in a similar manner.

I can and will support, if you'd like, my assertion that you have previously argued that your allegedly-scientific viewpoint doesn't require any "cause God made it that way" conclusions, and that you have since resorted to exactly this answer in response to a question.

Or would you prefer just to continue ignoring that point I raised?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Could I say that when it comes to Electromagnetism and indeed Quantum Electrodynamics, Creation Scientists have no particular difficulties with the current theories which explain these phenomena.

Magnetism and electricity are not separate entities...and visa versa (sic).

An unattributed copy-paste from Britannia makes a nice change from Wikipedia, but once again you've failed to mention that this is where it's from, and stuck a couple of your own sentence endings on.

J C wrote:

Very soon there will be as much scientific evidence against the Big Bang as has currently been assembled against macro-Evolution!!!! :eek:

Ooh. Scary.

J C wrote:

I will answer it myself – it doesn’t …………
…….and you can read the proof on the above link!!!!!!!!!!!:)

Eleven asterisks. Eleven.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Scientifically, JC is out of his depth in a teaspoon.

I would beg to differ with you on this one!!

Watchglass, then, if you like.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Bonkey
Thats nice. What about the scientific Big Bang theory, though? Y'know...the one that should be at the heart of things here? The one that doesn't make an "everything from nothing" assertion?

Do you mean the Big Bang Theory that has just been scientifically invalidated here?:D
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm

…and here ?:D
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp#big_bang

Ah. Once again, we have gone from 'possible problems' to 'major scientific theory x invalidated' in only a couple of posts.

I think this works as follows: one of us challenges JC on a technical question. JC immediately claims there are problems with the theory, throws random chunks from Wikipedia et al into the discussion, while hunting around for anything that looks like an actual problem. Once that's found, it's taken as confirmation that the theory is discredited.

Interesting. We may need a new Creationist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Diogenes

Could we ban J C from using (or more accurately missusing) the headbutt smiley? As it is just bad and wrong.

J C I know I keep banging on about the steak challenged but you've not not bothered to explain how a body of meat has "naturally pickling factor" or how the massively rising oceans (or how they'd rise) would force animals to pile together to create this magical pickling pile. Furthermore could you explain how a force that could create the massive mount ranges which you claim are an aftermath of the flood, could at the same time as huge underwater geographical movements keep piles of animals together.

Oh and if you could take a moment couold you explain how ice was left over under the falling water levels. Or how the ice survived under the water.

5uspect

Diogenes wrote:

Could we ban J C from using (or more accurately missusing) the headbutt smiley? As it is just bad and wrong.

I've just blocked it with AdBlock.

robindch

Well, I'm waiting for any one of our three resident creationists to explain where enough water to bury the surface of the earth to a depth of eight kilometers came from. And where it went to.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Well, I'm waiting for any one of our three resident creationists to explain where enough water to bury the surface of the earth to a depth of eight kilometers came from. And where it went to.

Hmm. Wolfsbane's been awfully quiet recently, and I don't think BrianCalgary has dropped by in yonks. JC is singlehandedly doing battle with the forces of reason. Still, 2 out of 3 ain't bad, as they say...

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

pH
Are you going to answer the question about the creation of heavy elements? (emphasis added)

You have just answered your own question pH – the heavy elements were CREATED!!!!:D

You too are beginning to think like a Creationist and to certainly write like a Creationist – do you know what pH – I think that you HAVE become a Creationist!!!!:eek:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes
Could we ban J C from using (or more accurately missusing) the headbutt smiley? As it is just bad and wrong.

5uspect

I've just blocked it with AdBlock.

Ye guys introduced the headbanging smiley - and I think that it is very cute!!

I am not misusing it - I only use it where I am covering ground already proven without rebuttal on the thread !!
.......

Originally Posted by J C
I will answer it myself – it doesn’t …………
…….and you can read the proof on the above link!!!!!!!!!!!

Scofflaw
Eleven asterisks. Eleven.

Are the Evolutionists now reduced to counting my asterisks - as distinct from rebutting my proofs?


Robin
Well, I'm waiting for any one of our three resident creationists to explain where enough water to bury the surface of the earth to a depth of eight kilometers came from. And where it went to.

No Creationist has claimed 8 km - the figure is 15 cubits (or about 10 METRES) over the highest hills (at the time).

Where did the water go?

Please bear in mind that 70% of the surface the Earth is TODAY covered by water with depths varying up to to 11.5 Km in the Mariana Trench.

Equally, if the surface of the Earth was smooth (without any mountains or ocean trenches) water would cover the ENTIRE planet to an average depth of 2.7 Km.

.......

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

pH
Are you going to answer the question about the creation of heavy elements? (emphasis added)

You have just answered your own question pH – the heavy elements were CREATED!!!!:D

You too are beginning to think like a Creationist and to certainly write like a Creationist – do you know what pH – I think that you HAVE become a Creationist!!!!:eek:

It's been said before. Eventually you will have said it to all of us - I am uncertain what will happen then, but I have my dark suspicions...

J C wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes
Could we ban J C from using (or more accurately missusing) the headbutt smiley? As it is just bad and wrong.

5uspect

I've just blocked it with AdBlock.

Ye guys introduced the headbanging smiley - and I think that it is very cute!!

.......

It certainly expresses certain aspects of your persona...

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

J C wrote:

pH
Are you going to answer the question about the creation of heavy elements? (emphasis added)

You have just answered your own question pH – the heavy elements were CREATED!!!!:D

You too are beginning to think like a Creationist and to certainly write like a Creationist – do you know what pH – I think that you HAVE become a Creationist!!!!:eek:

I'm not sure it's that simple J C, I think that there's good evidence that there was a time when those elements didn't exist and a (later) time when they did. In that sense they were created, but by an explainable natural process.

You have once again sidestepped the question of how these elements were created in a 6,000 year old universe. You merely said 'they were created', so why not answer the question J C?

J C

Diogenes wrote:

J C I know I keep banging on about the steak challenged but you've not not bothered to explain how a body of meat has "naturally pickling factor"

Diogenes, you are certainly making an enormous fuss about feeding TWO cats!!!!:D

Here are a FURTHER two 'pickling methods' that I haven't mentioned already -

One is rigor mortis - caused by the accumulation of Lactic Acid in body tissues - which has a retardant effect on bacterial breakdown.

....and the second is salination - which converts pork into bacon - and can preserve other meats as well.

Both of these methods were used to preserve meat in the pre-freezer era - with rigor mortis preserving beef for up to a few weeks and salination being able to preserve bacon for years!!!

BTW, as I always like to please, I will restrict my use of the headbanging smiley in future.
I thought that you all LOVED the little thing - because of the earlier universal praise given to this smiley !!!

Scofflaw
copy-paste from Britannia makes a nice change from Wikipedia,

Yes. indeed it was a nice change – and a change is often as good as a rest!!!

As an added bonus, it also saved a few of my brain cells – which can be an important issue on a ‘mega-thread’ – such a this one!!!

robindch

> As an added bonus, it also saved a few of my brain cells – which can be an important issue

With so few apparently in use, I'd say it was more "vital" than "important"...

Scofflaw

Good article in New Scientist 23rd September issue - on the question of whether the 'laws of nature' are eternal and unchanging. Podcast here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> As an added bonus, it also saved a few of my brain cells – which can be an important issue

With so few apparently in use, I'd say it was more "vital" than "important"...

Wouldn't it be trivial, instead, given the little use that's made of them? Actually, I take that back - I think JC needs all the input-filtering brain cells he has, and they're doing sterling work.

cheekily,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Just another question to chuck in, on top of Wicknight's points about the apparent non-omniscience of the putative Designer, plus a point about beneficial mutations.

1. Humans pick up, very shortly after birth, a vast range of bacteria, that then live with us, on us, and in us. We rely on them for all kinds of things, many of which are only being determined now, but primarily for digestion. They outnumber our own human cells by a factor of between 10 and 20 to 1. It would be reasonable to say that we are not so much an organism as an ecosystem.

The question is, why? In the design scenario, what possible reason is there to make us a sort of bacteria-human hybrid? If the person answering wishes to cite the Fall, please explain why the choice was made there.


2. Cancer cells are mutants. The Creationist will point out that the mutations in a cancer cell are harmful. So they are, but only to the host human - they are beneficial to the cancer, and as they are the cancer cell's genes, it is the point of view of the cancer that is relevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

It's going off-topic - but what is your view on the Graviton - which is postulated as the quantum that is the carrier of the gravitational field?

It is analogous to the well-established photon of the electromagnetic field - which is the gauge boson of electromagnetism.

The graviton in my personal opinion either doesn't exist as gravity must be quantized through other means, or it is vastly different from the other bosons since its gauge is diffeomorphisms. (Which for the life of me I can't understand the physical implications of).
Where as electromagnetism is invariant under multiplication by a unit complex number, gravity is actually invariant under the exchange of the entire spacetime for a slightly different one.
So again, I just think gravity is very different from the other forces.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Just another question to chuck in, on top of Wicknight's points about the apparent non-omniscience of the putative Designer, plus a point about beneficial mutations.

The list of these is huge, and each one prove that any designer of life (be it super intelligent aliens or natural selection) could not predict the future. This rules out God as a designer.

It is amusing to watch the ID claims crumble from a Creationist when it is shown that the way life is designed totally rules out an all knowing god as the creator. Despite JCs claims life on Earth is far from "perfect". There are a large list of systems that attempt to do the best they can with certain unforseen unpredictable future events (such as the human immune system), and while these are certainly very complex very fascinating systems, if you accept the logic that "very complex = designer" then one must also accept that they are certainly not the work of a perfect all knowing intelligence.

It just shows that Creationist are prepared to throw away even their own arguments (life is so complex it must have been designed) when these arguments point to a conclusion that again does not fit into their religions ideas that God created life on earth (life is very complex, but if it was designed the designer was clearly not able to see into the future. This rules out God).

JC doesn't have an answer to this fact, prefaring to ignore it, or fall back to attacking the scientific idea that life did not have an intelligent designer in the first place. Again this shows that Creationists are more interested in attacking established science, as if that will some how magically validate their theories, that examining their own logic for these theories.

JC has made it clear that he is not interested in showing that life was designed by an intelligence, he is only interested in showing that life was designed by intelligence that was God. So even ID is ruled out by Creationists, unless that ID is God. The idea that life is so complex it must have been designed is just smoke and mirrors, because Creationists won't accept that extention of that logic that life is so complex it must have been designed but it is clear that the designer could not see into the future which rules God out as a designer.

It is just more evidence at how much nonsense is in the Creationists arguments, and how ridiculously bias Creationists are. They don't even work within their own theories and logic.