The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Only as long as your brilliance is an obvious and clearly observable fact like the superiority of human over club moss. We would need, I suppose, to feel your brilliance "in our bones" as it were.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well I think we should all agree here at least that my brilliance is an obvious and clearly observable "fact". Anyone who is in doubt of my brilliance can simply just observe my brilliance. They cannot argue with that, it is an observable fact.

Anyone who disagrees with that conclusion is clearly biased and attempting push there anti-"Wicknight is brilliant" agenda on the rest of the world. A conspiricy if you will.

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

Maybe we really should just lock this, it's never going to go anywhere...

No way, it's keeping wicknight, scofflaw, JC, wolfsbane and to some extent myself and Robin off the streets and away from the video games.

I consider this thread then a boon to all of humanity.:D

Son Goku

Wicknight wrote:

Anyone who disagrees with that conclusion is clearly biased and attempting push there anti-"Wicknight is brilliant" agenda on the rest of the world. A conspiricy if you will.

Unlikely. If there is one thing we've learnt from this thread it's that conspiracies involve lesbians and the Smithsonian Museum.

EDIT:And dinosaurs or even a combination of all the above.

robindch

> If there is one thing we've learnt from this thread it's that conspiracies
> involve lesbians and the Smithsonian Museum.

I'm familiar with the world-wide, politically-correct, anti-christian, anti-god, atheist, secularist, grinning-skull, jack-booted, totally totalitarian toothbrush moustache-toting, whatever-yer-having-yerself-guv Smithsonian agenda, but the lesbian one is new to me. Must have been dead or something when it drifted past.

Care to tell us more? I'm fascinated. Platonically, of course.

Scofflaw

When analysis of the draft human genome sequence was published by the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium on February 15, 2001, the paper estimated only about 30,000 to 40,000 protein-coding genes, much lower than previous estimates of around 100,000. This lower estimate came as a shock to many scientists because counting genes was viewed as a way of quantifying genetic complexity. With around 30,000, the human gene count would be only one-third greater than that of the simple roundworm C. elegans at about 20,000 genes.

Consortium researchers have confirmed the existence of 19,599 protein-coding genes in the human genome and identified another 2,188 DNA segments that are predicted to be protein-coding genes.

....and another one bites the dust. Could roundworms also be the pinnacle of God's Creation?

pre-emptively,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

I don't know what that actually means. How has God revealed it to them?

By His Spirit applying His word to their hearts and minds, convincing them of its truth.

Also, if God is not in fact a moral being then His revelation is surely either a lie or trick (just as Christians would say Satan's promises are a trick)? Therefore assuming the truthfullness of the revelation from the thing you are trying to test in the first place is quite ill-adviced. There must be some external logic one uses to test if what God reveals is actually what one thinks it is. To me God fails that external test by the acts described in the Old Testament.

If God is lying, it is all hopeless - nothing can be known. Just as if your existence is only my imagination, then you need not read this! But no one can live with such a futile presupposition.

As to testing the reality, your morality test fails because it denies to the Creator any greater rights than the creatures have. Yet you would concede that the State has rights to do to men what you or I do not. Is God inferior to the State?

That is correct, but I would not call that an error. I would call it a principle. God has no more right to inflict immoral, evil, pain and suffering on his creations than we as his creations have right to inflict it on each other. If something is immoral it is immoral. If God was truly a being of perfect morality he would not do something that would be considered immoral if a human did it.

See my comments on the State. It punishes criminals in a way not permitted to us. God punishes sinners likewise. Your problem is seeing mankind as at least morally neutral, rather than guilty sinners.

He isn't entitled to do as he will, at least not from a position of morality. You can claim he is but that claim is an immoral position. God cannot morally create a 5 year old girl and then have her gang raped and brutally tortured just because he wants to.

He may permit that if He wishes. It does not make the action moral nor excuse the perpetrators, but sin has consequences in this life as well as the next. To live among sinners is a dangerous thing.

Any claim that he could do that and still be on the moral side of the line is ridiculous. You can claim he never would do that, but that is not the same thing. He is described as doing horrificly immoral acts in the Old Testement, that you claim are moral ONLY because God is doing them. That is not a plausable argument.

Give me an example of such an immoral act and I will respond.

Does it? Logic and reason speak to my conscience. The Bible is lacking in both.

That is your rebellion against your conscience speaking. You know you are the sinner described in the Bible, and you know God is the One to whom you must answer - but you don’t want to know it and so you suppress it. But Truth will out.

That isn't an "answer" .... if the person is mistaken that is only make them more mistaken. If the path to God is the wrong path then running down the path will only get you to the wrong place faster.

The answer is to challange what they think they know, what they think they believe. To walk the path carefully, no matter what direction, and be always questioning the direction you are heading.

I constantly wonder "does God exist?" I try and work out how he would exist, how that would happen, what it would mean if he does, how that would fit with my ideas of morality, who it fits with science, and reason. I continue to return to the result that he doesn't exist, but I won't stop considering the questions.

As I said, it is your rebel heart that distorts your ideas of morality, science and reason. You are searching only for a god of your own making, and you won’t find him in the Bible.

Do you seriously consider he doesn't exist, or seriously consider taht if he does exist he is not perfect morality and is not something that should be followed? From your posts, and from what I know of Christianity, you probably don't, since doing so goes against your religion.

I have, both before and after conversion. God continues to convince me of His identity as the One True God, perfectly holy, just and good.

While the fool may not ever realise he is the fool, he should still always ask "am I the fool?"

A good place to start, but not to end. Psalm 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
A good understanding have all those who do His commandments.
His praise endures forever.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
Stop making Evolution look even sillier than it already is!!!

……..although it probably doesn’t matter at this stage – as Evolution has ‘maxed out’ in the ‘Unbelievability Stakes’ already!!!

Scofflaw
Don't be so humble! You're leading us by streets.

As a Christian I must proclaim the truth with HUMILITY!!!!:D


Scofflaw
And that's why it isn't "logically impossible".

You’re obviously not a DISASTER – so therefore it IS a logical impossibility that you are the end result of several billion MISTAKES !!!!!


Scofflaw
Here - a little experiment you can try for yourself. Take the labels off the DVDs, so that you don't know which is which by looking at them. Insert them one after another into your computer. Now, without actually running them, which one has the program on it? Look in "My Computer", check the Properties. You can see that one has several Mb or Gb of data on it, the other doesn't. The one with data on it is the one with the program on it! Amazing!

Now, you tell me how we would have measured the "quality" difference instead.

Ok, so you've established that you know how to find the space utilisation on a DVD !!!

Firstly, could I point out that the total volume of information on a carrier like a DVD isn’t related to the SIZE of the DVD – only the LIMIT of it’s capacity is related to it's size.

Secondly, the QUALITY of the information, ISN’T related to the volume of the information – you could have a DVD with 4GB of ‘doodles’ on it - or it could contain 2GB of the blueprints for the Space Shuttle!!!!

Of course, an Evolutionist would probably conclude that the SIZE of the doodles meant that this DVD had the most ‘information’ on it – but the blueprints for the Space Shuttle would have the vastly greater QUALITY of information – as well as the greater QUANTITY of FUNCTIONAL information or CSI!!!:D


Scofflaw
Suddenly there's a primary, secondary, and tertiary Complex Specified Information in a genome. We've never heard of this before, never seen it in any literature, it can't be found on Google


I’m not surprised that you have never heard of pCSI, sCSI or tCSI as they are new ‘cutting edge’ terms – and still not used in the published literature!!!!


Scofflaw
how is it that you, who clearly know sweet fanny adams about club mosses, suddenly "know" that "the information in the Club Moss Genome is largely contained in the primary CSI"?

I can assure you that the information in the Club Moss Genome is largely contained in the pCSI – but I must leave you in suspense as to why this is!!!

As a qualified Evolutionist Scientist, I’m sure that you will work it out for yourself!!!:D


Scofflaw
Do we actually know how much information it takes to specify a human or a club moss independently of their genome?

YES, we can measure the Functional Information content of genomes – but I must leave you in suspense as to how this is done !!!!


Scofflaw
The maximum amount of interactions between units of the DNA in any genome is the square of the number of units. So even if interactions are the measure of quality, the club moss genome still contains far more potential for interaction than the human genome

The maximum number of POSSIBLE interaction combinations between y units is a binomial expansion of y/1 * y/2 * y/3 ……* y/y ……… which is a number approaching infinity in the case of BOTH genomes.

The ACTUAL number of interactions and their levels of sophistication are much greater in Human Beings than in Club Moss – and that is why I am having this ‘conversation’ with you Scofflaw, rather than a Club Moss!!!!!

Even though they are in denial, Evolutionists INTUITIVELY know this to be the case – but Creation Scientists ACTUALLY know that Human Beings contain vastly more CSI than Club Moss.:eek:


Scofflaw
This is a very silly thing you've done JC. Not a trivially silly thing, either.
Could I suggest that the silliest thing that anybody can do is to refuse salvation – and it is NOT a trivially silly thing, either!!!


Scofflaw
Again, how do we measure this quality?

This is cutting edge, knowhow information!!!


Wicknight
JC, you are still a very special little boy,

You’re beginning to sound like me Mammy!!!:)

J C

Wicknight
If a child offspring has lost an entire chromosome that there parents had I think one would classify that as a "replication error"

If they had arbitrarily lost it (as distinct from using the pre-programmed potential to lose it) they would be DEAD!!!!:D

Speciation potential was pre-programmed by God.
Something that speciates as it is DESIGNED to do, cannot be considered to be having ‘replication errors’ when speciation occurs!!!!
It is analogous to moving to a different 'level' on a computer game – which DOESN'T occur via errors – but along pre-programmed tightly specified paths.

In fact, Creationist Speciation is actually REAL Punctuated Equilibrium in action!!!!:cool:


Originally Posted by J C
...........and speciation doesn't occur in some species, like Human Beings, at all

Wicknight
Care to explain why? (I would imagine you don't)

No problem!!!!
Human Beings were specially Created by God as the pinnacle of His creation and in His own image and likeness – if we Speciated we would no longer be the pinnacle of Creation or in the image and likeness of God!!!!:cool:


Wicknight
How the black box works internally is not important to understanding the output, you only need to know that it does work.

So Evolution and Abiogenesis are ‘Black Boxes’ i.e. nobody has a clue how they could actually occur – but rejecting all logic and evidence to the contrary, the Evolutionist believes that he evolved, because the alternative means that 'God did it'!!!!


Wicknight
From my point of view as a software developer this network component is a black box. I have no idea how it works …………………. I get the component pre-compiles as a library, that is all. That doesn't mean no one knows how it works, obviously the people who made it know how it works.

……..and the origins of life are a similar Black Box because NOBODY knows how it was done - but the God who did it has told us that He did it – yet the Evolutionist still claims that it ‘did itself’!!!!

So, do you believe that the network component also ‘did itself’????


Wicknight
Why did a perfect intelligent designer stuff a moss with vastly more genetic information that us,

….but He clearly DIDN’T do so.

Hint – have a look at the Moss - and then at yourself!!!!
………and that is all I am going to say, for now!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
Stop making Evolution look even sillier than it already is!!!

Wicknight
Evolution explains it perfectly. Once again evolutionary theory does fit the evidence.

Leaving all jokes aside, a Club Moss doesn't contain more CSI than a Human.

Have you ever looked at a Club Moss, Wicknight? – and surely you are not even remotely INFERIOR to it!!!


Wicknight
But being a natural process the replication does not happen with the efficiency of say a car factory robot. Environmental factors can cause the production of the new genetic material to not be quite like the original material it is copied from.

Sexual reproduction ALWAYS results in NEW genetic combinations – but these combinations are NOT copying errors. Ditto for frame shifts, hybridisation, and speciation !!!!

……….and as for your ‘Fishy Tale’ – the 'thick-skinned fish' ended up a fish – with a genome somewhere along the normal spectrum of pre-programmed genetic variety for a FISH!!!


Wicknight
Actually they both contain exactly the same amount of "information" JC. A "blank" single side DVD hold 4.3GB worth of bits. So does a completely full DVD.

You must save yourself a ‘horse load’ of money by buying all your software needs on blank DVDs.

.....or do you always just end up with a ‘horse load’ of ………..….blank DVDs!!!

Evolutionists must have big problems trying to figure out why their blank discs don’t do anything when they try to ‘load’ them onto their computers!!!!:rolleyes:


Wicknight
Club moss DNA contains more information that human DNA.

If you want to claim that the information stored in human DNA is "better" than the information stored in club moss DNA JC, go ahead.

I am claiming that Human CSI is ‘better’ quality AND there is vastly more of it, than the (relatively) puny amount of CSI in a Club Moss.

Wicknight, I would suggest that you pick something with a little more credibility to build your case in favour of Evolution on.
We all make mistakes - and genome size isn't massively critical to either the Creationist or Evolutionist case:D


Wicknight
If you have a 600x400 PNG image stored on your DVD of your mother, and you have a 1000x800 PNG image on your DVD that is of a night sky, there is more "information" (bits and bytes) in the large image, than the image of your mother. You can claim that the image of your mother is of more value to you. You can claim that the image of your mother is of better QUALITY than the image of the night sky. You can calm that the picture of your mother contains more CSI (which doesn't mean anything anyway).

Once again you are confusing quantity and quality as well as confusing the carrier with the information!!

To illustrate the quantity/quality issue.
If the 1000x800 PNG image of a night sky was mostly blank darkness and if you had a 1000x800 PNG image of your mother in glowing Technicolor, there would be vastly more CSI in the image of your mother.


To illustrate the carrier issue.
If you had a 1000x800 PNG image of your mother and an identical image at a resolution of 600x400 PNG there would be more CSI in the a 1000x800 PNG image of your mother – but EITHER images would have vastly more CSI than the1000x800 PNG image of the (mostly blank) night sky!!!


Wicknight
why would a perfect intelligence use vastly more genetic material in club moss to express vastly less information than the human genome?

You are confusing the SIZE of the carrier with the quantity and functional quality of the information.
It is analogous to questioning why somebody would use a 4.5 GB DVD to send an important 10MB document to a friend. The carrier is so physically small and so 'cheap' that it’s percentage utilization is unimportant.

The fact that Materialist Evolutionists continue to claim that their genomes contain less Complex Specified Information than a Club Moss, would make a cat laugh at the irony of it all!!!!:D


Wicknight
Please for the record define how one scientifically determines the QUALITY of information stored in DNA?

It CAN and IS being done by Creation Scientists !!!


Wicknuight
Problem: to prove that humans are better than club moss.

1. compare genome sizes.

2. club moss genome larger.

3. since humans are better than club moss, larger cannot be better.

4. there must be some other measure.

5. humans are better than club moss, so it stands to reason that their genome is also better.

6. better = higher quality.

7. humans have a higher quality genome than club moss.

8. therefore, humans are better than club moss, because they have a higher quality genome.

You have framed the question fairly well – now go answer it!!!!:D


Scofflaw
What? We now have JC accepting speciation, mutation, intergenerational changes in the genome, natural selection.....a far cry from his earlier position.

What you mean is that Evolutionists THOUGHT that was my original position – but Creation Scientists were the FIRST TO DISCOVER speciation, mutation, intergenerational changes in the genome, natural selection, etc - in many cases over 100 years ago!!!

Such OBSERVED PHENOMENA have always been accepted by Creation Science – it is the mistaken belief that they lead to the spontaneous production of all of Human CSI that we observe, that Creationists disagree with.:cool:


Wicknight
So the "observed fact" that I'm brilliant supports my original "theory" that I'm brilliant.

A repeatable observation of ‘brilliance’ on your part would indeed provide evidence in support a theory that you are ‘brilliant’ ……….
………….and visa versa!!!:D

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

If God is lying, it is all hopeless - nothing can be known.

But God didn't write the bible. Men did. The best we can say is that we believe they accurately reflected a truth that God gave them and that we have in turn accurately interpreted those writings through the ages.

God could have been telling the truth, and man misinterpreted it, or misrecorded it, or chosen to say something else.

We also know that God didn't edit the bible and decide which books were to be included and which not. Again, that was man's work.

In short, the bible can be wrong without God having ever misled anyone.

jc

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Indeed, at no time has the majority of Christianity believed the things you believe - I am sure, therefore, that while your book may be written as the Bible, it is interpreted by you in such a way as to render the identification with the book normally so designated moot at best.

I believe a lot of things which nearly all brands of 'Christianity' hold to or have held to. If you are refering to the doctrine of predestination, most of the Reformed Church held to that, as did elements of the Roman. But the issue under discussion here is more to do with the nature with which man is born . On that you comment:

Hmm. No. The Orthodox Church does not. The early Christians do not appear to have believed it. Its intellectual dominance seems to have arisen as a result of the Augustinian triumph over Pelagianism in the sixth century.

Yes, the Orthodox Church does not hold to original sin. Like the debates over other errors down the ages, the official Church wrestled with it and the plain statements of Scripture prevailed. Prejudice and philosophy have no answer to so clear a case. I wonder how they account for every single person becoming a sinner? I mean, all born without sin, like Adam before the Fall, yet they all turn out bad?

Judaism rejects it - which is interesting, given it's supposed to be OT canonical.

Even in the time of Christ, Judaism had departed from the OT. Since then even more doctrines of men have been added. Not that Judaism is one entity; there are various doctrinal strands as with Christianity, some more authentic than others.
Matthew 15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 ‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
Andhonor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

If we are evil as you describe, then we can never gain the urge to do righteousness except through the grace of God.

Correct.

If we cannot, then it is clear that God's grace descends on the evil man, since it must already have descended on the good. If God's grace descends on the evil man, then there is neither the capacity, nor any rational reason, for a man to seek righteousness until God's grace has descended on him.

Man has no capacity for righteousness, true. It is God who must give him that. But the reason man should seek righteousness is that it is the means God has commanded him to use. The elect sinner will obey, will seek until he finds; the reprobate sinner will continue to reject God's command and offer of salvation. Both will be acting freely according to their nature - the former has had his heart softened to hear God, the latter remains as hostile as ever.

Man will not seek righteousness unless God's grace changes him: but that does not make him any less guilty of being a God-hater.

Now, clearly, God's grace is not imparted through man, or automatically through some object, but through God, as His gift - and so all the preachings of man I have heard are not that grace, nor any reading in the Bible.

Correct.

And so, I remain, until such a time as God's grace might choose to descend upon me, evil through no fault of my own.

No, you remain evil because that is what you are.

If I die without God's grace ever having descended on me, then I die evil, and will go to Hell, having been born evil and God never having chosen to save me through grace.

Yes.

Therefore, unless we assume that God's grace descends on us all at some point in our lives (and in the case of infant deaths, this seems unlikely and pointless), it is obviously guaranteed that a proportion of all people are fore-doomed to Hell.

Yes, except the bit about the infants, which I will deal with below.

Depending on the view one takes, either they have been doomed since the moment of Creation, or they are doomed through God's free choice - or indeed both, in the more sophisticated view.

Correct. But your implication is not valid: the reprobate are not innocents unjustly doomed, they are wicked and justly condemned.

Those most likely to be so doomed are in fact those who we normally consider the most innocent - newborns. All those tombstones with "little angel, gathered unto Jesus" are sadly untrue - the correct inscription is "little sinner, gathered unto the fires to burn".

I don't know what those who hold to man's absolute free-will can say about those who die as infants, but Calvinists hold that God is free to save whom He will, and that applies to infants. He is not limited to waiting for a conscious adult response, but can impart saving faith to babies or the mentally incompetent. Indeed, Christ's dealings with children supports the view that all who die as infants are elect.

Those who, at the end of a long life of preying on their fellow men, are "born again" in retirement through the grace of God - those souls are the ones that will be saved,

True, but it is not any insincere 'death-bed' conversion that counts. Those who leave conversion till then often end up even harder of heart than they once were. But it is true, salvation depends on God's grace, not on how good a person we are. Salvation makes one good, not the other way around.

Hmm. I do hope you are a little more encouraging if you're asked to comfort someone who has lost a child.

I have brought them the comfort of the Scriptures, as outlined above.

Omar Khayyam - the Rubiayat. Hard to see how God's "justice" is different from that of any other tyrant.

Only because you fail to see the wickedness of man.

That's not actually briefer - but I quibble. Paul and Augustine - sinners they certainly were - but such a pity to drag so many into their foolishness.

Paul is one of the Spirit-inspired definers of authentic Christianity. To reject his teaching is to reject true Christianity. You sort of make my point about Biblical Christianity and the deviant types.

A good summary of the opposite position is actually in Wikipedia:

"Judaism rejects the concept of the original sin altogether and stresses free will and men's responsibility of their actions rather than religious obedience or faith. Why, they ask, would God, who is, by dogma, universal unconditional Love, create sentient and sapient beings, then intentionally let them become corrupt - and then punish them from generation to generation with eternal torture for simply just being born in the world and for nothing else - and judge people not on their actions but by their faith or its lack - and then by whim save the beings from nothing else but from his very own wrath."

Yes, a good summary of the opposing position. But that position errs in thinking Christianity teaches man is not judged by his actions. Man's lack of faith is in fact a conscious refusal to heed both their conscience and the message of the gospel. That rebellion then leads them to desires of wickedness and ultimately acts of wickedness - theft, adultery, murder, etc.

God's judgement is based on those thoughts and actions and the aggravating circumstances - how much light they had, how much opportunity:
Matthew 11:22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”

The condemnation I express for them should not, of course, be taken to extend to you personally except as a holder of those beliefs (although I do, as you know, worry about the mental conditions that lead you to favour these beliefs over others - although mostly I ascribe it to an Ulster background).

I appreciate your affability. As to my Ulster ethnicity, I don't think it has any deciding effect upon my theology. Free-willism of the Arminian kind would be the majority view among my fellow-Christians in Ulster, as far as I can tell. And being a Baptist, I don't just swallow anything Calvin or Luther said. I learned my doctrine of election from the Bible. Likewise with that of original sin.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

But God didn't write the bible. Men did. The best we can say is that we believe they accurately reflected a truth that God gave them and that we have in turn accurately interpreted those writings through the ages.

God could have been telling the truth, and man misinterpreted it, or misrecorded it, or chosen to say something else.

We also know that God didn't edit the bible and decide which books were to be included and which not. Again, that was man's work.

In short, the bible can be wrong without God having ever misled anyone.

What Christians know is that the Bible is true, and the word of God. Therefore its testimony of itself is true. Men certainly wrote the Bible, but it was God who moved them to do so, to record the message He gave them, to preserve those parts of His messages that He wanted kept for us all.

If God was at the mercy of man's whims or errors, the Bible would be no more relevant to us than any other ancient book. But the witness of the Spirit tells the Christian that this is God's inspired, infallible word. Those who are of God hear Him, those not of God do not hear Him:
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

Sangre

So essentially we know its the word of God because its the word of God?

wolfsbane

Sangre said:

So essentially we know its the word of God because its the word of God?

No. We know it's the word of God because the Spirit of God tells us so.
1 Corinthians 2:10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

No. We know it's the word of God because the Spirit of God tells us so.

The following guide may be of some assistance in differentiating between the promptings of the holy spirit, the human spirit, and the devil:

The Divine Spirit
The following are some general signs:

1. Truth: Jesus himself called the Holy Spirit the "Spirit of Truth", and he praised Nathaniel as "a man without guile". Hence, a person who is devoted to the truth, even when he/she must pay the price for it ("speaking the truth in love" - Eph.4:15), and who habitually tries to be an honest and transparent person, is someone moved by the Spirit.

2. Docility: Persons moved by the Holy Spirit accept with true peace the advice and counsel of those with authority over them. They manifest sentiments of humility and self-effacement.

3. Discretion: The Holy Spirit makes the person discreet, prudent, and thoughtful in all his/her actions. There is nothing of precipitation, frivolity, exaggeration or impetuosity; all is well balanced and edifying.

4. Peace: The person experiences a profound and stable serenity in the depths of his/her spirit.

5. Purity of intention: The person sincerely seeks only that God's will be done and that God be glorified in all that he/she does, without human interest or motivation out of self-love.

6. Patience in suffering: No matter whether or not such suffering is justly received, the person bears it with equanimity.

7. Simplicity: Together with veracity and sincerity, this is never lacking in those who are truly motivated by the Spirit. Any duplicity, arrogance, hypocrisy, or vanity must be attributed rather to the devil.

8. Freedom of spirit: First of all, there is no attachment to any created thing, even to the gifts received from God. Second, all is accepted from the hands of God with gratitude and humility, whether it be a question of consolation or trial. (The opposite would be true in the case of those with a rigid and unyielding will, who are controlled be self-love).

The human spirit
There is a constant struggle between grace, and the human spirit wounded by sin and thus inclined to self-love. The human spirit is always inclined to its own satisfactions; it is a friend of pleasure and an enemy of suffering of any kind. It readily inclines to anything that is compatible with its own temperament, its personal tastes and caprices, or the satisfaction of self-love. It will not hear of humiliations, penance and renunciation, but seeks success, honours, applause and pastimes.

The diabolical spirit
Normally, diabolical influence on the individual is restricted to simple temptation; sometimes however, the devil may concentrate his power on an individual by means of diabolical obsession or even possession. (Detailed study of this is beyond our scope here). The various signs are:

1. Spirit of falsity: The devil is the father of lies, but he cleverly conceals his deceit by half-truths and pseudo-mystical phenomena, by hypocrisy, simulation and duplicity. Also, if a person maintains opinions that are manifestly against revealed truth, the infallible teaching of the Church, or proven theology, or philosophy, or science, it must be concluded that he/she is deluded by the devil or is the victim of excessive imagination or faulty reasoning.

2. Morbid curiosity: This is characteristic of those who eagerly seek out the esoteric aspects of mystical phenomena or have a fascination for the occult or preternatural.

3. Confusion, anxiety, and deep depression: Also, despair, lack of confidence, and discouragement - a chronic characteristic that alternates with presumption, vain security, and unfounded optimism.

4. Obstinacy: Seen in disobedience and hardness of heart.

5. Constant indiscretion and a restless spirit: Those who constantly go to extremes (in penitential exercises/apostolic activities), or neglect their primary obligations to do some other personally chosen work.

6. Spirit of pride and vanity: Very anxious to publicize their gifts of grace and mystical experiences.

7. Uncontrolled passions and strong inclination to sensuality: Also, excessive attachment to sensible consolations, particularly in prayer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Son Goku

If there is one thing we've learnt from this thread it's that conspiracies involve lesbians and the Smithsonian Museum.

EDIT:And dinosaurs or even a combination of all the above.

“a combination of all the above” – the mind boggles at such a thought!!!:eek:

I know this is a long thread – but I think I wouldn’t have missed THAT!!!:D


Scofflaw
When analysis of the draft human genome sequence was published by the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium on February 15, 2001, the paper estimated only about 30,000 to 40,000 protein-coding genes, much lower than previous estimates of around 100,000. This lower estimate came as a shock to many scientists because counting genes was viewed as a way of quantifying genetic complexity. With around 30,000, the human gene count would be only one-third greater than that of the simple roundworm C. elegans at about 20,000 genes

I remember the shock at the time – not only was the number of protein coding genes small in absolute terms – they were also very small in relatively terms, in comparison with for example, ‘primitive’ creatures, like Roundworms !!!:cool:

The result WASN’T expected by Evolutionists who had long predicted a very large Human Genome, due to the putative build-up in genetic information that was supposedly necessary to ‘Evolve’ from primitive cells to Humans over 3 billion years.:cool:


Scofflaw
Could roundworms also be the pinnacle of God's Creation?

No, but Roundworms seem to be up there with the Club Moss as the pinnacle of EVOLUTION – and I don't know were Humans now fit into the Evolutionist Worldview!!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
The following guide may be of some assistance in differentiating between the promptings of the holy spirit, the human spirit, and the devil: .........

Mmmm .......where did you find all of this information - and don't Materialist Evolutionists have very broad interests indeed??:D

Sangre

wolfsbane wrote:

Sangre said:

No. We know it's the word of God because the Spirit of God tells us so.
1 Corinthians 2:10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

I don't see the difference.

We know its the word of God because it is the word of God and God told us this? Many sources have claimed the word of God, we can only know this is the true word of God because it is the word of God.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Stop making Evolution look even sillier than it already is!!!

……..although it probably doesn’t matter at this stage – as Evolution has ‘maxed out’ in the ‘Unbelievability Stakes’ already!!!

Scofflaw
Don't be so humble! You're leading us by streets.

Thanks Scofflaw, but as a Christian I must proclaim the truth with HUMILITY!!!!:D

I admire your humility in proclaiming the truth.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
And that's why it isn't "logically impossible".

I assume that you’re not a DISASTER – so therefore it IS a logical impossibility that you are the end result of several billion MISTAKES !!!!!

Tchah. If you were to mistake the time of your plane, and miss it, and it crashed, that's hardly a disaster to you. If your parents did not intend to have a child, but had you, that was a mistake, but surely your descendants would be hard pushed to declare it a disaster.

In other words, the outcome of mistakes is sometimes good, sometimes bad - it is not "logically" a disaster.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Here - a little experiment you can try for yourself. Take the labels off the DVDs, so that you don't know which is which by looking at them. Insert them one after another into your computer. Now, without actually running them, which one has the program on it? Look in "My Computer", check the Properties. You can see that one has several Mb or Gb of data on it, the other doesn't. The one with data on it is the one with the program on it! Amazing!

Now, you tell me how we would have measured the "quality" difference instead.

Ok, so you know how to find the VOLUME of information on a DVD – well done Scofflaw!!!

Firstly, could I point out that the total volume of information on a carrier like a DVD isn’t related to the SIZE of the DVD – only the LIMIT of it’s capacity is related to it's size.

Do you know nothing? The size of the data on the DVD represents the amount of information on it. The capacity of the DVD is irrelevant. We'll come to quality in a moment, but the amount of data on the DVD is simply measurable.

J C wrote:

Secondly, the QUALITY of the information, ISN’T related to the volume of the information – you could have a DVD with 4GB of ‘Evolutionist doodles’ on it - or it could contain 2GB of the blueprints for the Space Shuttle!!!!

Of course, the Evolutionist would probably conclude that the SIZE of his doodles meant that his DVD had the most ‘information’ on it – but the blueprints for the Space Shuttle would have the vastly greater QUALITY of information – as well as the greater QUANTITY of FUNCTIONAL information or CSI!!!:D

Sigh. The DVD with 4Gb of data on it does indeed contain more data than the DVD with 2Gb on it - just like a bottle with 200ml of water in it contains more water than a bottle with 100ml of water in it.

However, as you correctly point out, there is the question of "quality" - after all, a DVD with 4Gb of random data is of relatively little use to most people, whereas 200Kb of a program that defragments your hard drive would be pretty useful.

Unfortunately, "quality" is a slippery concept, and difficult to measure. Objectively, which is of "higher quality" - Microsoft Office or OpenOffice? How would one tell?

One can do QA based on things like lack of error, but once you move away from that it becomes extremely difficult to measure in any objective way.

Let's say we have 2 DVD's - one with the blueprints for the Space Shuttle on it, 4Gb of information, the other with the blueprints for a Jumbo Jet, 3.6 Gb of information.

Which of these is "higher quality"? If the Shuttle blueprint were error-free, and the Jumbo blueprint contained serious errors, then the former is clearly a higher-quality blueprint.

However, say they are both error-free. Which then is "higher quality"? The answer cannot be determined objectively - both are high-quality blueprints.

So, again, we have to ask - how can we say that the human genome is "higher quality" than the club moss genome, without assuming that humans are "higher quality" than club mosses? Judging from the answers you've given so far, we can't.

JC, you assume that humans are higher quality than club mosses - a fact that you feel is "self-evident". It is entirely rational, therefore, to posit that the human genome will be found to be "higher quality" than the club moss genome, since it codes for something that is higher quality itself.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Suddenly there's a primary, secondary, and tertiary Complex Specified Information in a genome. We've never heard of this before, never seen it in any literature, it can't be found on Google


I’m not surprised that you have never heard of pCSI, sCSI or tCSI as they are new ‘cutting edge’ terms – and still not used in the published literature!!!!

'Cutting edge', eh? As in 'recently made up', I think. Come on - where's the research? Or the researchers?

You see, cutting edge terms in science are usually findable - do a search for "exoplanet", or "microRNA", and you'll get results. Try your terms, and nothing. That doesn't suggest cutting edge science, it suggests cutting edge marketing or snake oil.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
how is it that you, who clearly know sweet fanny adams about club mosses, suddenly "know" that "the information in the Club Moss Genome is largely contained in the primary CSI"?

I can assure you that the information in the Club Moss Genome is largely contained in the pCSI – but I must leave you in suspense as to why this is!!!

As a qualified Evolutionist Scientist, I’m sure that you will work it out for yourself!!!:D

Given your intention of persuading people that Creationism actually knows what it's talking about, this seems a funny thing to do.

Of course, if you haven't yet worked out what you've decided to claim, then I shall wait with bated breath for the appropriate revelation.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Do we actually know how much information it takes to specify a human or a club moss independently of their genome?

YES, we can measure the Functional Information content of genomes – but I must leave you in suspense as to how this is done !!!!

Wow. I'd be impressed.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
The maximum amount of interactions between units of the DNA in any genome is the square of the number of units. So even if interactions are the measure of quality, the club moss genome still contains far more potential for interaction than the human genome

The maximum number of POSSIBLE interaction combinations between y units is a binomial expansion of y/1 * y/2 * y/3 ……* y/y ……… which is a number approaching infinity in the case of BOTH genomes.

The ACTUAL number of interactions and their levels of sophistication are much greater in Human Beings than in Club Moss – and that is why I am having this ‘conversation’ with you Scofflaw, rather than a Club Moss!!!!!

Even though they are in denial, Evolutionists INTUITIVELY know this to be the case – but Creation Scientists ACTUALLY know that Human Beings contain vastly more CSI than Club Moss.:eek:

But won't say how. I think you might be dressing up your intuition as science.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
This is a very silly thing you've done JC. Not a trivially silly thing, either.
Could I suggest that the silliest thing that anybody can do is to refuse salvation – and it is NOT a trivially silly thing, either!!!

Suggest away.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Again, how do we measure this quality?

This is cutting edge, very important knowhow information!!!

Yes, it would be.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
What has low self esteem got to do with biological evolution? Are you saying you have low self esteem because of evolution?

I am saying that somebody who continues to believe that they are the error-ridden product of billions of random mistakes, despite all logic and evidence pointing to the contrary – could be suffering from low self esteem!!!


Wicknight
JC, you are still a very special little boy,

You’re beginning to sound like me Mammy!!!:)

I'm sure she doesn't think you're a mistake, though.

Flim-flam rating of your post: Extremely High.
Mysterious Claims Rating: Extremely High.
Scientific Content: Zero.

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Wicknight
If a child offspring has lost an entire chromosome that there parents had I think one would classify that as a "replication error"

If they had arbitrarily lost it (as distinct from using the pre-programmed potential to lose it) they would be DEAD!!!!:D

Don't tell me, don't tell me - I know this one! The way we tell the difference between those two events is - if they're dead, it was 'arbitrary', if they're not, it was 'pre-programmed'!

Sometimes I amaze myself.

J C wrote:

Speciation potential was pre-programmed by God.
Something that speciates as it is DESIGNED to do, cannot be considered to be having ‘replication errors’ when speciation occurs!!!!
It is analogous to moving to a different 'level' on a computer game – which DOESN'T occur via errors – but along pre-programmed tightly specified paths.

In fact, Creationist Speciation is actually REAL Punctuated Equilibrium in action!!!!:cool:

Another step.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...........and speciation doesn't occur in some species, like Human Beings, at all

Wicknight
Care to explain why? (I would imagine you don't)

No problem!!!!
Human Beings were specially Created by God as the pinnacle of His creation and in His own image and likeness – if we Speciated we would no longer be the pinnacle of Creation or in the image and likeness of God!!!!:cool:

Well, apart from degenerating, of course. By the way, if some of us speciated, then it would only be those ones that were no longer in the "image of God".

J C wrote:

Wicknight
How the black box works internally is not important to understanding the output, you only need to know that it does work.

So Evolution and Abiogenesis are ‘Black Boxes’ i.e. nobody has a clue how they could actually occur – but rejecting all logic and evidence to the contrary, the Evolutionist believes that he evolved, because the alternative means that 'God did it'!!!!

Oh dear. Ah well. Let's say it again - evolution is a black box from the point of view of biogenesis, biogenesis is a black box from the point of view of evolution.

An internal combustion engine is a black box from the point of view of most drivers. A radio is a black box from the point of view of most listeners. That does not mean that radios and car engines are not understood by radio engineers and car mechanics - merely that their internal workings are not of interest or relevance.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
From my point of view as a software developer this network component is a black box. I have no idea how it works …………………. I get the component pre-compiles as a library, that is all. That doesn't mean no one knows how it works, obviously the people who made it know how it works.

……..and the origins of life are a similar Black Box because NOBODY knows how it was done - but the God who did it has told us that He did it – yet the Evolutionist still claims that it ‘did itself’!!!!

Actually, Creation is the ultimate black box - no-one actually knows how God did it. For your argument, as a Creationist, that is irrelevant, because it is not necessary to know such details.

J C wrote:

So, do you believe that the network component also ‘did itself’????

.....

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Why did a perfect intelligent designer stuff a moss with vastly more genetic information that us,

….but He clearly DIDN’T do so.

Hint – have a look at the Moss - and then at yourself!!!!
………and that is all I am going to say, for now!!!:D

Ah. Now you're making it very clear indeed how you "measure" quality.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Stop making Evolution look even sillier than it already is!!!

Wicknight
Evolution explains it perfectly. Once again evolutionary theory does fit the evidence.

Leaving all jokes aside, a Club Moss doesn't contain more CSI than a Human.

Have you ever looked at a Club Moss, Wicknight? – and surely you are not even remotely INFERIOR to it!!!

And clearer.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
But being a natural process the replication does not happen with the efficiency of say a car factory robot. Environmental factors can cause the production of the new genetic material to not be quite like the original material it is copied from.

Sexual reproduction ALWAYS results in NEW genetic combinations – but these combinations are NOT copying errors. Ditto for frame shifts, hybridisation, and speciation !!!!

……….and as for your ‘Fishy Tale’ – the 'thick-skinned fish' ended up a fish – with a genome somewhere along the normal spectrum of pre-programmed genetic variety for a FISH!!!

Woah! You've adopted "frame shifts" all of a sudden? How soon can we expect to see the retroactive claim that Creation Science predicted the frame shift mutation that produced the nylon digestion enzyme? One post? Two?

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Club moss DNA contains more information that human DNA.

If you want to claim that the information stored in human DNA is "better" than the information stored in club moss DNA JC, go ahead.

I am claiming that Human CSI is ‘better’ quality AND there is vastly more of it, than the (relatively) puny amount of CSI in a Club Moss.

Wicknight, I would suggest that you pick something with a little more credibility to build your case in favour of Evolution on.
We all make mistakes - and genome size isn't massively critical to either the Creationist or Evolutionist case:D

OK - muddying the waters a bit there. Still pretty clear where you're going, though.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
If you have a 600x400 PNG image stored on your DVD of your mother, and you have a 1000x800 PNG image on your DVD that is of a night sky, there is more "information" (bits and bytes) in the large image, than the image of your mother. You can claim that the image of your mother is of more value to you. You can claim that the image of your mother is of better QUALITY than the image of the night sky. You can calm that the picture of your mother contains more CSI (which doesn't mean anything anyway).

Once again you are confusing quantity and quality as well as confusing the carrier with the information!!

To illustrate the quantity/quality issue.
If the 1000x800 PNG image of a night sky was mostly blank darkness and if you had a 1000x800 PNG image of your mother in glowing Technicolor, there would be vastly more CSI in the image of your mother.

To illustrate the carrier issue.
If you had a 1000x800 PNG image of your mother and an identical image at a resolution of 600x400 PNG there would be more CSI in the a 1000x800 PNG image of your mother – but EITHER images would have vastly more CSI than the1000x800 PNG image of the (mostly blank) night sky!!!

Hold up. How is this information "specified", or "complex"? It's a bunch of pixels. It takes x bits to specify the colour of a pixel. Case closed.

I know what you're doing, and I think it's hilarious. You are basically suggesting here that Wicknight's picture of his mother partakes of the nature of Wicknight's mother.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
why would a perfect intelligence use vastly more genetic material in club moss to express vastly less information than the human genome?

You are confusing the SIZE of the carrier with the quantity and functional quality of the information.
It is analogous to questioning why somebody would use a 4.5 GB DVD to send an important 10MB document to a friend. The carrier is so physically small and so 'cheap' that it’s percentage utilization is unimportant.

The fact that Materialist Evolutionists continue to claim that their genomes contain less Complex Specified Information than a Club Moss, would make a cat laugh at the irony of it all!!!!:D

Well, we're all about making the cats laugh, us.

You've broken the DVD analogy at this stage - the club moss genome is not an "empty carrier" as a blank DVD is. Nice try, though.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Please for the record define how one scientifically determines the QUALITY of information stored in DNA?

It CAN and IS being done by Creation Scientists – but there could be ethical issues about sharing such know how!!!

Sure - you'd have to lie to us. Which would be unethical.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Problem: to prove that humans are better than club moss.

1. compare genome sizes.

2. club moss genome larger.

3. since humans are better than club moss, larger cannot be better.

4. there must be some other measure.

5. humans are better than club moss, so it stands to reason that their genome is also better.

6. better = higher quality.

7. humans have a higher quality genome than club moss.

8. therefore, humans are better than club moss, because they have a higher quality genome.

You have framed the question fairly well – now go answer it!!!!:D

Sometimes, even when you basically put a big sign on a trap saying "TRAP", some people will still fall in. Later, they will claim they haven't.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
What? We now have JC accepting speciation, mutation, intergenerational changes in the genome, natural selection.....a far cry from his earlier position.

What you mean is that Evolutionists THOUGHT that was my original position – but Creation Scientists were the FIRST TO DISCOVER speciation, mutation, intergenerational changes in the genome, natural selection, etc - in many cases over 100 years ago!!!

Well, in our defence, we were taken in by you claiming it as your position. Silly us.

J C wrote:

Such OBSERVED PHENOMENA have always been accepted by Creation Science – it is the mistaken belief that they lead to the spontaneous production of all of Human CSI that we observe, that Creationists disagree with.:cool:

It's true that you are forced, from time to time, to accept things, and that you then claim to have invented them.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Suddenly science becomes so easy!

It can indeed be relatively ‘easy’ to prove something that is objectively true.

And what can one say to that? Fuller agreement one could hardly ask for.

delighted,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Wicknight said:
By His Spirit applying His word to their hearts and minds, convincing them of its truth.

What argument or logic does God use to convince people of this?

wolfsbane wrote:

If God is lying, it is all hopeless - nothing can be known.

Er, no that isn't true. The only thing that can't be known for sure is what God "reveals" to you. Of course if God is lying then you shouldn't be listening anyway.

wolfsbane wrote:

But no one can live with such a futile presupposition.

What?? You appear to be saying that if you didn't believe in God you would have no reason to live? Is that not a little worrying to you?

wolfsbane wrote:

As to testing the reality, your morality test fails because it denies to the Creator any greater rights than the creatures have. Yet you would concede that the State has rights to do to men what you or I do not. Is God inferior to the State?

Some things are immoral no matter how is doing them. While I agree there are different standards of morality (it is moral for the state to imprision someone, but not moral for you or I to do so), there is not a level at which anything becomes moral. As I said, it would not be moral for God to rape and torture of a 5 year old girl, under any circumstances.

wolfsbane wrote:

Your problem is seeing mankind as at least morally neutral, rather than guilty sinners.

Again what ever the sin of the 5 year old girl, it would never be moral, under any circumstances, for God to punish her with raped and torture.

If we agree with that then we agree that there are some things that it is not moral for God to do.

Morality applies to God as it applies to anything, the only question is the standards of morality. God, according to the Old Testament, causes immoral suffering on the people precieved as enemies or threats to His people. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for humans, it is unacceptable for a god.

wolfsbane wrote:

He may permit that if He wishes.

No, he may not (see the rape and torture of the 5 year old).

Put it this way wolfsbane. Think of the most immoral and horrific act of cruelty and pain (to most people this would involve serious damage and assult to a child). Think of the worst crime you can imagine, such as the rape and torture of that child in America in the 90s who was kept as a sex slave by a pedophile and raped over and over for about a year. Now think could God do that and that would be ok? Could God rape and torture a child over and over for years on end?

wolfsbane wrote:

Give me an example of such an immoral act and I will respond.

He orders that the women of the fallen soldiers to be given as sex slaves to His warriors.

wolfsbane wrote:

That is your rebellion against your conscience speaking. You know you are the sinner described in the Bible, and you know God is the One to whom you must answer - but you don’t want to know it and so you suppress it. But Truth will out.

I know I am a flawed human. I know I have caused pain and hurt to other people. I know I have regrets in my life. I feel guilt over this. I know I try to not repeat the same mistakes. I know I can be a better person. I know I should try and be a better person.

I know your god, if he exists, won't grant me what you hope he grants you. I will not worship him, I will not proclaim him worthy of worship, and as such he will not reward me. So be it.

wolfsbane wrote:

As I said, it is your rebel heart that distorts your ideas of morality, science and reason.

No, it is my empathity and compassion for others (something I dare say you seem a little lacking in).

I know that what is described in the Old Testament is immoral because I imagine how the people who suffer in the Bible would suffer. I imagine if the women sold into sex slavery were my sister, my mother, my friends, my girlfriends. I imagine how a rape victim might feel, how someone who is tortured might feel. I imagine how those children out on the street tonight in cities around the world, from Dublin to Hong Kong, who are forced to have sex with adults feel. I think do they deserve to suffer like this. Is that fair, is that justice?

I imagine how I would feel if your god gave my sister to an invading soldier to be raped. I imagine how I would feel if your god told his invading soldiers to kill my mother, to kill my father. I imagine how I would feel if your god gave my brother to be conscripted into his army, to fight and kill for him, to die for him.

Scared, terrified, in pain, suffering.

You say that they are your gods property, that he can do with them as he wishes. You say they deserve this, you say that they have all sinned, because of the sin of Adam, that through Gods wish is passed from generation and generation, and that anything that God wishes to do with them is fair game. You say this because he rewards for saying this with the temptation of eternal life in heaven.

You of course are free to say that, but I reject that. It is immoral. Every fiber of my being tells me this is true, and I would rather die than to accept as moral the suffering, the pain, the inhumanity described by you as "justice". I am a weak flawed person. But I am not yet that weak, that flawed.

wolfsbane wrote:

I have, both before and after conversion. God continues to convince me of His identity as the One True God, perfectly holy, just and good.

Wolfsbane you aren't getting this - If you rely on him as his own witness then you will never know if he is lying to you

Zombrex

Wow, I can be quite dramatic when I've had a few glasses of sparkling white wine from New Zealand (oh yeah!)

All of the above stands, but possibility not in such a melodramatic fashion. The acts described in the Old Testament as either being carried out by or sanctioned by God are immoral. Wolfsbane will no doubt say that that is the blackness in my heart talking (or some such), but is it not rather odd that blackness in my heart (I assume from Satan) would make me have a higher standard of morality, a greater disgust for suffering and pain, than if I followed the Old Testament?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Wow, I can be quite dramatic when I've had a few glasses of sparkling white wine from New Zealand (oh yeah!)

Don't knock it - it was good to read!

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw
I admire your humility in proclaiming the truth.

Thanks Scofflaw, you may of course admire my humility……..
……….. unfortunately my humility, prevents me from admiring my own humility !!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
If you were to mistake the time of your plane, and miss it, and it crashed, that's hardly a disaster to you.

That would indeed be a fortuitous error, on my part – and fortuitous errors sometimes occur. However, the vast majority of errors result in disaster – like the error(s) that caused the plane to crash, in your example!!!!

……………so one would logically expect something that is the result of a billion errors to be in pretty ‘poor shape’ indeed!!!!:D


Scofflaw
the outcome of mistakes is sometimes good, sometimes bad - it is not "logically" a disaster.

The outcome of mistakes is predominantly BAD – and that is why ‘mistake proof’ systems are used routinely today by business to prevent safety and financial DISASTERS.


Originally Posted by J C
Firstly, could I point out that the total volume of information on a carrier like a DVD isn’t related to the SIZE of the DVD – only the LIMIT of it’s capacity is related to it's size.

Scofflaw
The size of the data on the DVD represents the amount of information on it.

Yes, the volume of DATA is measurable in bits and bytes.
However, the point I was making is that the physical SIZE of the DVD bears no relationship to the amount of data on the DVD – there might be nothing on it, 10 MB of data or 3GB of data – but the DVD would still be the same size !!! .

Equally, the volume of data bears no relationship to the volume of CSI on the disc – the data could be garbled rubbish – or a copy of The Bible – and BOTH could occupy 3GB on the DVD!!!:cool:


Scofflaw
The capacity of the DVD is irrelevant

...The capacity of a 4.5GB DVD as a carrier would be relevant if you want to store 6GB of data on it.


Scofflaw
Let's say we have 2 DVD's - one with the blueprints for the Space Shuttle on it, 4Gb of information, the other with the blueprints for a Jumbo Jet, 3.6 Gb of information.

Which of these is "higher quality"? If the Shuttle blueprint were error-free, and the Jumbo blueprint contained serious errors, then the former is clearly a higher-quality blueprint.

However, say they are both error-free. Which then is "higher quality"? The answer cannot be determined objectively - both are high-quality blueprints.

To make a decision on the relative amounts of CSI in each DVD you would need to compare the resultant product of the information on each DVD. Let’s say that you had two DVD’s each with no errors. One DVD had the complete blueprints for a Space Shuttle contained in 2GB of data while the other had the complete blueprints for a Wheebarrow contained in 4GB of data.

You would have to conclude that the Space Shuttle DVD had the more compressed data – as well as by far the most CSI!!!

One thing that is good about this section of the debate is that Evolutionists are taking their first ‘baby steps’ into the realm of Creation Bioinformatics. :cool:


Scofflaw
how can we say that the human genome is "higher quality" than the club moss genome, without assuming that humans are "higher quality" than club mosses?

Quality is in the definition of the beholder.
I would prefer to talk about CSI. The observed CSI is the expressed CSI – and the expressed CSI is vastly greater in Humans than Club Mosses – and that is objectively and repeatably (i.e. scientifically) observable.

So, it is NOT because I am a Human and NOT because I am ‘Speceist’ that I say that the Human Genome contains the greatest CSI.
The fact that it smaller in SIZE makes it of even higher in quality due to the relative compression of the data involved in the Human Genome.:cool:


Scofflaw
Don't tell me, don't tell me - I know this one! The way we tell the difference between those two events is - if they're dead, it was 'arbitrary', if they're not, it was 'pre-programmed'!

Sometimes I amaze myself.

Such enthusiasim to learn!!!

You are indeed an amazing product of God’s Creation, Scofflaw.

Wonders will never cease, last year you were an Evolutionist confusing yourself and trying to prove something that didn’t exist – today, you are reaching objective conclusions based on Creation Science!!!!:D


Scofflaw
By the way, if some of us speciated, then it would only be those ones that were no longer in the "image of God".

Are you thinking of speciating, scofflaw?


Scofflaw
evolution is a black box from the point of view of biogenesis, biogenesis is a black box from the point of view of evolution.

An internal combustion engine is a black box from the point of view of most drivers. A radio is a black box from the point of view of most listeners. That does not mean that radios and car engines are not understood by radio engineers and car mechanics - merely that their internal workings are not of interest or relevance.

………and the only ‘person’ who knows how life was created is it’s creator, God.

As for Evolution, I herewith quote from a paper on AIG:-

“Dembski, like many in the Intelligent Design movement, believes evolutionary theory can be rejected on strictly its lack of scientific merit.
‘Indeed, the following problems have proven utterly intractable not only for the mutation-selection mechanism but also for any other undirected natural process proposed to date: the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines … (p. 113).
Design is characterized by three things: contingency, complexity and specification. Contingency ensures that the object in question is not the result of an automatic and therefore unintelligent process … (Dembski 1998, p. 128). The principle characteristic of intelligent agency is choice’”


Scofflaw
Actually, Creation is the ultimate black box - no-one actually knows how God did it. For your argument, as a Creationist, that is irrelevant, because it is not necessary to know such details.

The difference between the Creation and Evolution Black Boxes is that an omnipotent and omniscient God has the ability to Create all life – but chemistry and physics don’t have any such ability – without a massive input of intelligence!!!!


Scofflaw
You've adopted "frame shifts" all of a sudden? How soon can we expect to see the retroactive claim that Creation Science predicted the frame shift mutation that produced the nylon digestion enzyme? One post? Two?

I have ALREADY said that the Nylon bug used pre-existing genetic information – and the mechanism was a ‘frame shift’!!!!:cool:


Scofflaw
How is this information "specified", or "complex"? It's a bunch of pixels. It takes x bits to specify the colour of a pixel. Case closed

Case very much open!!
The carrier capacity is identical for ALL 1000x800 PNG images – but the CSI can vary depending on the amount of functional information present – and a blank image will have no CSI.:)


Scofflaw
You are basically suggesting here that Wicknight's picture of his mother partakes of the nature of Wicknight's mother.

No, the image of the picture of Wicknight’s mother partakes of the CSI in the picture of Wicknight’s mother!!!


Scofflaw
You've broken the DVD analogy at this stage - the club moss genome is not an "empty carrier" as a blank DVD is.

The Club Moss genome is a ‘partially filled carrier’ like all other ‘genome carriers’. Some are more full than others, some have higher levels of internal interactions than others, etc., etc.,!!


Scofflaw
Problem: to prove that humans are better than club moss………….

………….even when you basically put a big sign on a trap saying "TRAP", some people will still fall in

But your question wasn’t a TRAP – although you seem to believe that it was.

Intuitively, we know that Humans are much more complex and highly organised organisms than Club Mosses – so how do we objectively measure this complexity and organisation.
Evolutionists seem to be happy to not bother – but this is a very important area in Creation Bioinformatics.


Originally Posted by J C
It can indeed be relatively ‘easy’ to prove something that is objectively true

Scofflaw
And what can one say to that? Fuller agreement one could hardly ask for.
Fair enough.

However, trying to prove something that is LOGICALLY PREPOSTEROUS, like chemicals spontaneously ‘lifting themselves up by their own bootstraps’ to form Man, can be very frustrating indeed.

It is the same frustration that afflicts people who try to invent perpetual motion machines – and for many of the same reasons!!!!:D

Fallen Seraph

J C wrote:

The outcome of mistakes is predominantly BAD

This is undeniable, the outcome of mistakes are predominantly bad. So any creature which had a error which was "bad" would surely die. But there is still the small percentage of beneficial errors. They're beneficial by definition, so this creature will be better able to feed and reproduce, so the beneficial error gets propogated while countless other harmful ones are lost. So we have a clear mechanism by which good errors are preserved and bad ones disposed of. This logical algorithm if you will would lead one expect the result of a billion errors to be in pretty damn good shape, since they're a billion beneficial ones !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Speciation potential was pre-programmed by God.

Says who? That has never been shown, you have no idea how that would even work, and there is absolutely no evidence of that this pre-programming happens. What part of the DNA, or other biological construct, contains the God-inspired "program" detailing how an organism successfully loses a chromosome during reproduction? Creationists have never observed this pre-programming happening and have never even bother formulating a theory of how it could happen or where it is stored in the species.

If you don't have a theory for how this happens, or you cannot show where this mechanism is in the reproduction cycle, or even that this does happen but you don't understand it, then put simply, you are just making that bit up. Which you are.

J C wrote:

Human Beings were specially Created by God as the pinnacle of His creation and in His own image and likeness – if we Speciated we would no longer be the pinnacle of Creation or in the image and likeness of God!!!!:cool:

No, I mean why as why does it not happen, not why would God not want this to happen. What part of the cycle is missing from, or added to, the human reproduction cycle that stops this from happening. What part of non-human species causes it to happen. Because as far as biology is concerned human reproduction works pretty much on the same principles as non-human reproduction.

I doubt you will be able to answer this, since you have never been able to identify what part of non-human reproduction causes this to happen, so you won't be able to tell the difference between human and non-human reproduction, or explain what this doesn't happen in human reproduction.

I expect I will get a "Creationists are working on it" answer. But then the question is why do you think this completely unidentifiable process takes place in the first place. You don't have an answer for that beyond "we made it up because it fits with the Bible". So once again it is clear that you are not working from a scientific basis, but from a religious basis.

J C wrote:

So Evolution and Abiogenesis are ‘Black Boxes’ i.e. nobody has a clue how they could actually occur

You don't understand this at all :rolleyes:

Lots of people know how evolution work. Lots of people know how abiogenesis works. It is not necessary to know how abiogenesis works to work with evolution theory, therefore from the POINT OF VIEW of evolution abiogenesis is a black box, and vice versa. The term "black box" does not mean no one knows how something works. It means it is not necessary to know how something works to understand the outputs.

If I am using a black box network component in my software design I don't need to know how that black box network component works. But someone does, the people in the other software firm will. People who study abiogenesis know how abiogenesis works. People who study evolution know how evolution works. People who study abiogenesis don't need to know how evolution works. TO THEM evolution is a black box, it is only the output they are concerned with. People who study evolution don't need to know how abiogenesis works. TO THEM it is a black box, it is only the inputs into evolution that concern them.

This is a quite simple concept JC. Please bother to read over the explanation of what a black box is again before you respond with another nonsense post :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

– but rejecting all logic and evidence to the contrary, the Evolutionist believes that he evolved, because the alternative means that 'God did it'!!!!

The alternative isn't "God did it" We have already shown (with you help I might add) that either way God did not design life on Earth. So evolution could be shown to be completely wrong tomorrow, God still didn't design life on Earth. You yourself have already proven that, a few times already (the most recent example being that fact that club moss requires more information in its blue print that humans, which makes no sense if God made life)

J C wrote:

- but the God who did it has told us that He did it – yet the Evolutionist still claims that it ‘did itself’!!!!

Well men in a desert 3000 years ago wrote down that they think God said how he did it. But they were wrong about so many other things it makes sense they were wrong about this too. So the question is do you trust a bunch of cave dwellers in the middle east who knew nothing about science and the natural world, and who claimed that God spoke to them (ie nut jobs), or do you trust the modern scientific community, with peer review and other high standards.

You want to believe the Bible is perfect so I imagine you will pick the cave dwellers. But that is not a logical scientific choice. It is emotional one, because it is important to you that your religion is correct.

J C wrote:

….but He clearly DIDN’T do so.

Hint – have a look at the Moss - and then at yourself!!!!
………and that is all I am going to say, for now!!!:D

Have a look at club moss DNA. It is BIGGER than human DNA. The blue print is BIGGER than the blue print needed to make a human. If life was designed by a perfect intelligence this inefficency would make no sense. The only explanation for this inefficency is that this circumstance developed by a natural process.

J C wrote:

Leaving all jokes aside, a Club Moss doesn't contain more CSI than a Human.

JC CSI might as well mean Crime Scene Investigation. It is a nonsense concept that doesn't mean anything. Creationists just made it up because the evidence was contradicting what they wanted to believe.

Club Moss contains MORE DNA. It contains MORE "ATCG" strings. It contains MORE information. If you read out the DNA string from club moss it would take you longer than the DNA string from a human, because there is more information there.

Yet this more information, this much bigger blue print, makes an organism that is less complex in structure than a human.

You can claim all you like that the human DNA is better "quality" information, but that still doesn't make any sense. Why would a perfect intelligence make bad quality information in a club moss DNA, would (being God and being able to do anything He likes) it would have been just as easy to make club moss DNA to the same standard and made the DNA much smaller.

It is nonsense to say that this was the work of a perfect intelligence. It is nonsense to say that this was the work of an intelligence, perfect or otherwise. Not even humans would not have designed this, with our limited intelligence. I don't use a digital file format to store a photography that takes up much more size but with less detail than a rival format. I'm not stupid.

The only explanation is that a natural, blind, process made this, ie evolution. There was no overall design or master plan, so these systems developed as they did. That is the only explanation that makes sense. God didn't design this, because (using your definition) God isn't stupid.

The biggest argument against Intelligent Design is life itself.

J C wrote:

Sexual reproduction ALWAYS results in NEW genetic combinations

Those combinations are predictable based on the parent DNA, except where mutation occurs. Please bother to read up on basic biology because you attempt to comment on it JC.

J C wrote:

You must save yourself a ‘horse load’ of money by buying all your software needs on blank DVDs.

Nice "non-answer". You are getting good at this. I notice you didn't say I was wrong :rolleyes:

A "blank" DVD contains 4.3 GB of information. That information is tagged as "blank" by the computer (ie the computer understand the information on the DVD) and tells the user it can write over this information if it wishes to. The computer could just as easily understood the information as "green", or the word "idiot".

The information is still there, the only difference is how the computer understands this information. In the cast of a "blank" DVD the computer understand this information as "blank", and available to be over written.

J C wrote:

I am claiming that Human CSI is ‘better’ quality AND there is vastly more of it, than the (relatively) puny amount of CSI in a Club Moss.

So you are claiming that human DNA has more of the "nonsense-concept that I just made up", that club moss. Ok, fair enough.

I will claim that club moss DNA has more strings of information, more "AGTC" DNA strings. I can claim this because it does.

So the question is why does God, a perfect intelligence, need to make a much longer DNA string to build an organism that is not as complex as a human. That makes no sense. It is almost as if God didn't design this AT ALL.

J C wrote:

To illustrate the quantity/quality issue.
If the 1000x800 PNG image of a night sky was mostly blank darkness and if you had a 1000x800 PNG image of your mother in glowing Technicolor, there would be vastly more CSI in the image of your mother.

JC JC JC (shakes head). You might as well say there is vastly more "love" in the picture of your mother. You are talking scientific nonsense. From the point of view of the computer displaying the image on the screen there is exactly the same amount of information in both images.

J C wrote:

You are confusing the SIZE of the carrier with the quantity and functional quality of the information.

You haven't answered the question.

Why would a perfect intelligence design a system that has much large information strings to design a much smaller simpler organism?

J C wrote:

It is analogous to questioning why somebody would use a 4.5 GB DVD to send an important 10MB document to a friend. The carrier is so physically small and so 'cheap' that it’s percentage utilization is unimportant.

If someone had a CD (640MB) and a DVD (4.5 GB) (and lets face it God has anything he wants), why would someone send the 10MB document using the much large DVD, rather than the smaller CD? Both are available, yet for some dumb reason the idiot picked the DVD, and wasted 8 times the storage space. That would be a dumb thing do to, it is unnecessary waste. If someone I know did that I would go "that was a bit dumb"

So the question is "Is God a bit dumb?"

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Please for the record define how one scientifically determines the QUALITY of information stored in DNA?

It CAN and IS being done by Creation Scientists !!!

Again with the non-answers, to quite simple questions.

Please define how one scientifically determines the QUALITY of information stored in DNA.

Do you not know?

Scofflaw

Irresistible:



cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Originally Posted by J C
The outcome of mistakes is predominantly BAD

Fallen Serpah
This is undeniable, the outcome of mistakes are predominantly bad. So any creature which had a error which was "bad" would surely die. But there is still the small percentage of beneficial errors. They're beneficial by definition, so this creature will be better able to feed and reproduce, so the beneficial error gets propogated while countless other harmful ones are lost. So we have a clear mechanism by which good errors are preserved and bad ones disposed of.

As the outcome of mistakes is PREDOMINANTLY bad, a system using such a mechanism would be so manifestly inefficient that it would be overwhelmed by the 'bad' mistakes and so could never work.

……..and that is why ‘mistake proof’ systems are routinely used today by business to prevent safety and financial disasters

Equally, we DON’T have a clear mechanism to eliminate errors in biological systems. Granted, the ‘big’ errors would result in the death – but even then, the error might not be eliminated – as it could ‘live on’ in a heterozygous state in the afflicted individuals siblings.

In addition, semi-lethal and debilitating errors might ‘live on’ in the afflicted individual itself as well as it’s offspring and siblings.

You see, NS can only select on the basis of each ‘package’ of good and bad that each individual is.
A 'predominantly bad mistake mechanism' is likely to result in an increasing ‘load’ of 'bad' problems sprinkled across a population and as two individuals with a different non-lethal ‘bad’ trait mate the offspring are likely to develop BOTH 'bad' traits thereby building up ‘bad’ traits in the population, rather than eliminating them.
It would be a ‘World of the Damned’ with the ‘bar’ for survival being lowered in each succeeding generation. The reason that such a ‘runaway’ situation doesn’t develop currently, is because sophisticated auto-repair mechanisms eliminate most replication mistakes – but such systems show foreknowledge of what the ‘correct’ information is – akin to a computer's auto recovery and rebooting system – and this strongly indicates the intelligent design of living systems!!

Because mistakes are PREDOMINANTLY bad, such a mechanism is logically going to produce a ‘race to the bottom’ towards simpler systems (with less to go wrong) rather than an ‘upwards’ evolution of increasing complexity and levels of organisation – which ‘muck to man’ or ‘big picture’ evolution postulates.

In a world of 'predominantly bad' mistakes, the organism that makes no/fewest mistakes and/or with the simplest systems will be the ultimate winner.

Any ‘mistake mechanism’ would therefore be selected AGAINST by Natural Selection and, in any event it shows no potential to account for the development of the Complex Specified Information observed in life.



Fallen Serpah
This logical algorithm if you will would lead one expect the result of a billion errors to be in pretty damn good shape, since they're a billion beneficial ones
The TRILLIONS of ‘bad’ mistakes would permanently ‘bog down’ such a putative process - so that it would go nowhere fast!!!!:D


Wicknight
What part of the DNA, or other biological construct, contains the God-inspired "program" detailing how an organism successfully loses a chromosome during reproduction?

It can lose or GAIN chromosomes in the process. Equally, many speciation events are a result of geographic or behavioural isolation – and much less dramatic genetic perturbance occurs during these processes.:cool:


Wicknight
as far as biology is concerned human reproduction works pretty much on the same principles as non-human reproduction.

Yes, but we don’t, have other species with which we can hybridise, like for example, members of the Equidae Family do – even in spite of chromosome number differences between different Equidae.

This is a strong scientific indicator that we didn’t speciate in the past – and we are therefore unlikely to do so naturally in the future either.:cool:


Wicknight
What part of the cycle is missing from, or added to, the human reproduction cycle that stops this from happening. What part of non-human species causes it to happen.

There are probably a number of different mechanisms responsible for it. The research work by Evolutionists into Punctuated Equilibrium mechanisms provides a useful starting point for research into this phenomenon.


Wicknight
If I am using a black box network component in my software design I don't need to know how that black box network component works. But someone does, the people in the other software firm will. People who study abiogenesis know how abiogenesis works. People who study evolution know how evolution works.

There is a fundamental difference between the black box that is a software component and the black box that is Abiogenesis.
The people who created the software component know how it works – and it therefore ISN’T a black box to them – and so isn’t ultimately a black box to science either.
However, the people researching Abiogenesis didn’t Create Abiogenesis itself and haven’t succeeded in Creating life artificially either – so Abiogenesis IS a black box to them as well as science!!!:D


Wicknight
God still didn't design life on Earth. You yourself have already proven that, a few times already (the most recent example being that fact that club moss requires more information in its blue print that humans, which makes no sense if God made life)

The conclusion that club moss requires more information in its blue print than humans would make no sense IF evolution was the mechanism either.

Such a conclusion is also clearly at variance with the fact that the expressed CSI in Humans is vastly in excess of the Club Moss.:D


Wicknight
So the question is do you trust a bunch of cave dwellers in the middle east who knew nothing about science and the natural world, and who claimed that God spoke to them (ie nut jobs), or do you trust the modern scientific community, with peer review and other high standards.

……..but Evolutionists HAVEN’T any valid scientific explanation for the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines.

………..i.e. just about anything to do with ‘origins’!!!!

........and Creationists DO!!!:D


Wicknight
Have a look at club moss DNA. It is BIGGER than human DNA. The blue print is BIGGER than the blue print needed to make a human. If life was designed by a perfect intelligence this inefficency would make no sense. The only explanation for this inefficency is that this circumstance developed by a natural process.

Look, I hope that we all agree that the Human is vastly more complex than Club Moss.
If I accept for the sake of argument that both organisms developed via ‘copying mistakes’ – then surely the number of ‘copying mistakes’ required to produce a Human would be in ratio to the vastly greater complexity observed in a Human – and therefore their DNA volume should reflect this difference i.e. be vastly greater.

This isn’t observed and so the conclusion that DNA volume = information is wrong for BOTH the Evolutionary and the Creationist Models.


Wicknight
It is nonsense to say that this was the work of an intelligence, perfect or otherwise. Not even humans would not have designed this, with our limited intelligence.

I would say that it isn’t conclusive either way. On this issue we simply don’t know enough yet to make a decision – but the spontaneous production of the massive quantity of CSI in both genomes is mathematically and logically impossible.


Wicknight
I don't use a digital file format to store a photography that takes up much more size but with less detail than a rival format. I'm not stupid

……….but, I’m sure that you don’t fill every 4.5 GB DVD with 4.5 GB of data - that would also be stupid.

Equally, I’m sure that you don’t particularly care whether it is a 4.5 GB DVD or a 700 MB CD that you use to store a particular presentation.

Similarly, God probably wasn’t particularly bothered which carrier He used for the Club Moss – and He is probably having endless fun at the ‘lather of sweat’ that the Evolutionists have gotten themselves into on this one – and especially the repeated claim by evolutionists that they are ‘more informationally challenged than a Club Moss’!!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
Sexual reproduction ALWAYS results in NEW genetic combinations

Wicknight
Those combinations are predictable based on the parent DNA, except where mutation occurs. Please bother to read up on basic biology because you attempt to comment on it JC.

Touché, Wicknight.

Could I gently point out the average ejaculation contains several hundred million sperm – and each sperm will produce a DIFFERENT genetic combination – so go PREDICT how that will turn out!!!:D

Yes, Population Genetics can predict overall trends in a few selected traits, but the actual individual genetic combinations cannot be predicted.

……and my point remains valid that Sexual reproduction ALWAYS results in NEW genetic combinations – but these combinations are NOT copying errors. Ditto for frame shifts, hybridisation, and speciation:cool:


Wicknight
The information is still there, the only difference is how the computer understands this information. In the cast of a "blank" DVD the computer understand this information as "blank", and available to be over written.

I thought that you were only joking when you claimed that a Blank DVD had 4.5 GB of information – but you obviously weren’t!!!:eek:

Look, a blank DVD is no different to a blank sheet of paper – NEITHER has ANY information on it until you WRITE something on it!!!

The blank DVD has the POTENTIAL to store vast amounts of information – usually much more than is ever stored on it - ditto the Club Moss genome!!!!:cool:


Wicknight
So the question is why does God, a perfect intelligence, need to make a much longer DNA string to build an organism (Club Moss) that is not as complex as a human. That makes no sense.

I’ll go with the theory that it was to confuse Evolutionists to the point where they start thinking like a Club Moss – the evidence is mounting by the minute for this idea!!!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
If the 1000x800 PNG image of a night sky was mostly blank darkness and if you had a 1000x800 PNG image of your mother in glowing Technicolor, there would be vastly more CSI in the image of your mother.

Wicknight
You are talking scientific nonsense. From the point of view of the computer displaying the image on the screen there is exactly the same amount of information in both images

Do you always issue blank cheques then, Wicknight, on the basis that they contain ‘exactly the same amount of information’ as ones with the figures filled in??!!!!


Wicknight
Please define how one scientifically determines the QUALITY of information stored in DNA.

Do you not know?

I do, but I’m not saying ………shhhs……….

Do YOU not know????

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

Problem: to prove that humans are better than club moss.

1. compare genome sizes.

2. club moss genome larger.

3. since humans are better than club moss, larger cannot be better.

4. there must be some other measure.

5. humans are better than club moss, so it stands to reason that their genome is also better.

6. better = higher quality.

7. humans have a higher quality genome than club moss.

8. therefore, humans are better than club moss, because they have a higher quality genome. QED.

Wicknight wrote:

Scofflaw you aren't suggesting that a Creationists would start with the answer they want and then work backwards are you!!

JC wrote:

You have framed the question fairly well – now go answer it!!!!

Scofflaw wrote:

Sometimes, even when you basically put a big sign on a trap saying "TRAP", some people will still fall in. Later, they will claim they haven't.

JC wrote:

But your question wasn’t a TRAP – although you seem to believe that it was.

Intuitively, we know that Humans are much more complex and highly organised organisms than Club Mosses – so how do we objectively measure this complexity and organisation.
Evolutionists seem to be happy to not bother – but this is a very important area in Creation Bioinformatics.

JC wrote:

It can indeed be relatively ‘easy’ to prove something that is objectively true

A summary, or comment, seems superfluous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Son Goku

If there is one thing we've learnt from this thread it's that conspiracies involve lesbians and the Smithsonian Museum.

EDIT:And dinosaurs or even a combination of all the above.

“a combination of all the above” – the mind boggles at such a thought!!!:eek:

I know this is a long thread – but I think I wouldn’t have missed THAT!!!:D

What makes you think so?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
When analysis of the draft human genome sequence was published by the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium on February 15, 2001, the paper estimated only about 30,000 to 40,000 protein-coding genes, much lower than previous estimates of around 100,000. This lower estimate came as a shock to many scientists because counting genes was viewed as a way of quantifying genetic complexity. With around 30,000, the human gene count would be only one-third greater than that of the simple roundworm C. elegans at about 20,000 genes

I remember the shock at the time – not only was the number of protein coding genes small in absolute terms – they were also very small in relatively terms, in comparison with for example, ‘primitive’ creatures, like Roundworms !!!:cool:

The result WASN’T expected by Evolutionists who had long predicted a very large Human Genome, due to the putative build-up in genetic information that was supposedly necessary to ‘Evolve’ from primitive cells to Humans over 3 billion years.:cool:

Sure. Being human, we assumed that the "natural superiority" of humans would show up in the genome. Being scientists, we were forced to re-evaluate that assumption in the light of the evidence.

Of course, we could have made up some other measure to justify our assumption, instead.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Could roundworms also be the pinnacle of God's Creation?

No, but Roundworms seem to be up there with the Club Moss as the pinnacle of EVOLUTION – and I don't know were Humans now fit into the Evolutionist Worldview!!!!:eek:

Gives us a sense of humility...

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
The following guide may be of some assistance in differentiating between the promptings of the holy spirit, the human spirit, and the devil: .........

Mmmm .......where did you find all of this information - and don't Materialist Evolutionists have very broad interests indeed??:D

Goes with the territory, pretty much.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
I admire your humility in proclaiming the truth.

Thanks Scofflaw, you may of course admire my humility……..
……….. unfortunately my humility, prevents me from admiring my own humility !!!!:eek:

Well, alright. There is a small issue with that, but it's your humility.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
If you were to mistake the time of your plane, and miss it, and it crashed, that's hardly a disaster to you.

That would indeed be a fortuitous error, on my part – and fortuitous errors sometimes occur. However, the vast majority of errors result in disaster – like the error(s) that caused the plane to crash, in your example!!!!

……………so one would logically expect something that is the result of a billion errors to be in pretty ‘poor shape’ indeed!!!!:D

Not really. A billion transcription errors could turn this thread into 'Hamlet'.

Of course, you're not really equipped to view "transcription error" as a neutral term - the term should really be "accident".

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
the outcome of mistakes is sometimes good, sometimes bad - it is not "logically" a disaster.

The outcome of mistakes is predominantly BAD – and that is why ‘mistake proof’ systems are used routinely today by business to prevent safety and financial DISASTERS.

Both you and I are the results of thousands of accidents - unless you regard your genealogy as planned?

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Firstly, could I point out that the total volume of information on a carrier like a DVD isn’t related to the SIZE of the DVD – only the LIMIT of it’s capacity is related to it's size.

Scofflaw
The size of the data on the DVD represents the amount of information on it.

Yes, the volume of DATA is measurable in bits and bytes.
However, the point I was making is that the physical SIZE of the DVD bears no relationship to the amount of data on the DVD – there might be nothing on it, 10 MB of data or 3GB of data – but the DVD would still be the same size !!! .

Equally, the volume of data bears no relationship to the volume of CSI on the disc – the data could be garbled rubbish – or a copy of The Bible – and BOTH could occupy 3GB on the DVD!!!:cool:

OK - DVD = small. Gotcha.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Let's say we have 2 DVD's - one with the blueprints for the Space Shuttle on it, 4Gb of information, the other with the blueprints for a Jumbo Jet, 3.6 Gb of information.

Which of these is "higher quality"? If the Shuttle blueprint were error-free, and the Jumbo blueprint contained serious errors, then the former is clearly a higher-quality blueprint.

However, say they are both error-free. Which then is "higher quality"? The answer cannot be determined objectively - both are high-quality blueprints.

To make a decision on the relative amounts of CSI in each DVD you would need to compare the resultant product of the information on each DVD. Let’s say that you had two DVD’s each with no errors. One DVD had the complete blueprints for a Space Shuttle contained in 2GB of data while the other had the complete blueprints for a Wheebarrow contained in 4GB of data.

You would have to conclude that the Space Shuttle DVD had the more compressed data – as well as by far the most CSI!!!

I see - "by their fruits shall ye know them". Biblical, anyway.

J C wrote:

One thing that is good about this section of the debate is that Evolutionists are taking their first ‘baby steps’ into the realm of Creation Bioinformatics. :cool:

Hmm. Didn't you claim that this was such a cutting edge field that you couldn't even talk about it? It doesn't sound like there's anything more than baby steps to take - particularly since "Creation Bioinformatics" doesn't actually yield any search results either. A field so new as to have not even disseminated its name on the net?

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
how can we say that the human genome is "higher quality" than the club moss genome, without assuming that humans are "higher quality" than club mosses?

Quality is in the definition of the beholder.
I would prefer to talk about CSI. The observed CSI is the expressed CSI – and the expressed CSI is vastly greater in Humans than Club Mosses – and that is objectively and repeatably (i.e. scientifically) observable.

So, in essence you're saying that it takes more information to describe a human being than to describe a club moss.

How is this measured? What are the units? Are we referring to physiological complexity here? That is an approach that would at least make a vague kind of sense, although human beings are not the most physiologically complex organisms.

J C wrote:

So, it is NOT because I am a Human and NOT because I am ‘Speceist’ that I say that the Human Genome contains the greatest CSI.
The fact that it smaller in SIZE makes it of even higher in quality due to the relative compression of the data involved in the Human Genome.:cool:

In other words, you are claiming that the DNA of humans is magically different from other DNA. You have made this claim several different times, expressed a different way each time - so let's be clear - there is no "data compression" in human DNA.

If there is no data compression, the maximum complexity possible in the human genome is a function of its size in base pairs and genes.

You wish this not to be the case, because you believe that human beings are the pinnacle of creaiton. You also believe that this is objectively true.

To shore up your case, you now require a measure of genetic information that produces the highest scores for humans. Unfortunately, all you can do is talk about one - you can't produce it.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Don't tell me, don't tell me - I know this one! The way we tell the difference between those two events is - if they're dead, it was 'arbitrary', if they're not, it was 'pre-programmed'!

Sometimes I amaze myself.

Such enthusiasim to learn!!!

You are indeed an amazing product of God’s Creation, Scofflaw.

Wonders will never cease, last year you were an Evolutionist confusing yourself and trying to prove something that didn’t exist – today, you are reaching objective conclusions based on Creation Science!!!!:D

Cough. Thanks. One does one's best with what is on offer.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
By the way, if some of us speciated, then it would only be those ones that were no longer in the "image of God".

Are you thinking of speciating, scofflaw?

Nah - I'm definitely inter-fertile with humanity. No worries there. Mind you, I haven't tried them all, of course.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
evolution is a black box from the point of view of biogenesis, biogenesis is a black box from the point of view of evolution.

An internal combustion engine is a black box from the point of view of most drivers. A radio is a black box from the point of view of most listeners. That does not mean that radios and car engines are not understood by radio engineers and car mechanics - merely that their internal workings are not of interest or relevance.

………and the only ‘person’ who knows how life was created is it’s creator, God.

Yes. That's essentially what I said.

J C wrote:

As for Evolution, I herewith quote from a paper on AIG:-

“Dembski, like many in the Intelligent Design movement, believes evolutionary theory can be rejected on strictly its lack of scientific merit.
‘Indeed, the following problems have proven utterly intractable not only for the mutation-selection mechanism but also for any other undirected natural process proposed to date: the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines … (p. 113).
Design is characterized by three things: contingency, complexity and specification. Contingency ensures that the object in question is not the result of an automatic and therefore unintelligent process … (Dembski 1998, p. 128). The principle characteristic of intelligent agency is choice’”

Some of these are genuinely difficult - well, origin of life, anyway. The rest are not particularly problematic, whatever Dembski may think - we've been over, for example, the "transitional forms problem" - which arises because each transitional form is also a creature itself, so creationists just say that we need another transitional form between the ones we've found. Multicellular life is well-understood, and reasonably trivial. Irreducibly complex systems are pure invention.

There are also Wicknight's cogent remarks about what a poor designer the designer would have to be.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Actually, Creation is the ultimate black box - no-one actually knows how God did it. For your argument, as a Creationist, that is irrelevant, because it is not necessary to know such details.

The difference between the Creation and Evolution Black Boxes is that an omnipotent and omniscient God has the ability to Create all life – but chemistry and physics don’t have any such ability – without a massive input of intelligence!!!!

Sigh. You don't understand what 'black box' means.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You've adopted "frame shifts" all of a sudden? How soon can we expect to see the retroactive claim that Creation Science predicted the frame shift mutation that produced the nylon digestion enzyme? One post? Two?

I have ALREADY said that the Nylon bug used pre-existing genetic information – and the mechanism was a ‘frame shift’!!!!:cool:

So, one post then.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
How is this information "specified", or "complex"? It's a bunch of pixels. It takes x bits to specify the colour of a pixel. Case closed

Case very much open!!
The carrier capacity is identical for ALL 1000x800 PNG images – but the CSI can vary depending on the amount of functional information present – and a blank image will have no CSI.:)

Scofflaw
You are basically suggesting here that Wicknight's picture of his mother partakes of the nature of Wicknight's mother.

No, the image of the picture of Wicknight’s mother partakes of the CSI in the picture of Wicknight’s mother!!!

Now, the only real measure here that fits with your somewhat vague description is the compressibility of the data. On that measure, the night sky picture will be more compressible than the picture of Wicknight's mother - and without any funny metaphysics.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
You've broken the DVD analogy at this stage - the club moss genome is not an "empty carrier" as a blank DVD is.

The Club Moss genome is a ‘partially filled carrier’ like all other ‘genome carriers’. Some are more full than others, some have higher levels of internal interactions than others, etc., etc.,!!

Internal interactions between what? Genes? Base pairs? This measuring CSI business is getting ever flimsier.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I believe a lot of things which nearly all brands of 'Christianity' hold to or have held to. If you are refering to the doctrine of predestination, most of the Reformed Church held to that, as did elements of the Roman. But the issue under discussion here is more to do with the nature with which man is born .

I appreciate your affability. As to my Ulster ethnicity, I don't think it has any deciding effect upon my theology. Free-willism of the Arminian kind would be the majority view among my fellow-Christians in Ulster, as far as I can tell. And being a Baptist, I don't just swallow anything Calvin or Luther said. I learned my doctrine of election from the Bible. Likewise with that of original sin.

So, I have to ask...the full TULIP?

cordially,
Scofflaw