Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
For those who doubt that the genome of two people (Adam and Eve), could contain all of the racial diversity of Mankind – here is a modern example of just such diversity.
Two British parents of mixed colour gave birth to twin girls, one white and the other dark-skinned on 07/04/2005.
Read all about this amazing latter day “Adam and Eve” story here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kian_and_Remee_Hodgson
The Bible and genetics proves that we are all one blood – and so racism is both sinful and scientifically unfounded. We are all members of ONE race – the Human Race!!!!
……and you can read all about how the Human Race actually arose here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter4.asp
Son Goku
Except the exponent is only 2 when the body isn't rotating and the objects it interacts with are slow moving, since Newton's Law is a restriction of the equation for Schwarschild geodesics. The equations of GR have to reduce to a r^2 law because of gauss' theorem and the fact that space is three dimensional.
Rational exponents would actually be difficult to achieve in a non-relativistic theory.
……so there IS essentially no reason why gravity should behave in this way, and I am correct that the exponent is 2.00000 – and not some random number like 2.156, for example!!!!
The inverse-square nature of the equation F = (G m1 m2)/r 2 is indeed amazing.
In a chance, evolving universe, some random exponent like r2.156 would be much more likely.
......and we can therefore validly conclude that the Gravity Force WAS Intelligently Created. :eek:
Son Goku
You said there are creationist scientists who work on quantum gravity. I don't care if they don't have a problem with Quantum Mechanics, I want to see proof that these guys work on real open questions in science.
What I have said is that Quantum Gravity is a possible, but highly speculative explanation for Gravity.
I have also said that QG has no particular implications for the Evolution v Creation debate – and Creationists happily work alongside their Evolutionist colleagues on it.
I am not in a position to accede to your request to identify individual Creationists currently working on Quantum Gravity for reasons of confidentiality.
……..and for those of you who say there is no need for such confidentiality, let me quote Kevin Myers’ article in the Irish Independent 09/03/07 pp 31 on the current situation for ID scientists :-
“Some American states have actually made it illegal to mention ID in science class, even as a possible alternative to evolution. Now, when I hear a set of ideas being protected by the law, almost like copyright, I get the odd tingle in my brain as I sense the word ‘inquisition’ taking shape. Today’s inquisitions are conducted with the weapons of distain, scorn and dismissive stereotyping: ‘Intelligent Design,’ goes the mantra, ‘is the brainless creation of scientifically illiterate rednecks from Nebraska. We evolutionists know better, haw, haw, haw.”
Wicknight
You don't have an answer. This scares you ........
I have exhaustively and repeatedly answered all of your questions on the personhood of God, even though it is 'off topic' for this thread.
Wicknight
my last few posts weren't about evolution. So one can only assume you are rushing back to the topic of evolution because you are completely unequipped to deal the logical problems your own religion's dogma presents.
It is great to see your interest in the personhood of God – and I have addressed ALL of your questions on this matter.
Could I also point out that this thread is actually about ‘origins’ – and that is why I returned to the Creation and Evolution debate.:D
Wicknight
God doesn't have emotional changes as we do for the reasons I've outlined in my previous posts.
The God of the Bible is a personal God and He DOES have different emotional reactions to different people’s behaviour simultaneously – and to individual people’s behaviour over time.
Wicknight
God's emotional state cannot change, it is a logical impossibility, because God exists in the same state in all aspects of time. The state that God is in at the moment of time is the same state he is in at the very end of time. God's state cannot change because there is nothing for it to change into.
Why do you believe that God is LIMITED to only one emotional state at all points in time and space?
Surely such an unchanging condition could only apply to some kind of unchanging impersonal force – and not to the LIVING (i.e dynamic/changing) PERSONAL (i.e. emotional) God that is revealed in the Bible and by His historical interaction with Mankind?:D
Wicknight
But God does exist in the future as he exists in the present and the past. As such there is nothing for God to move into, since he is already in the future. His state therefore does not change, since there is nothing for it to change into. He is already in the future, in the same state as he is in now, and was in in the past.
I think that the mistake you are now making is to claim that God (currently) ‘exists’ in the future. Whilst God knows everything about the future He does so through His Omniscience – and not through some kind of ‘time travel’.
God exists outside of time (and this time-related Universe) as well as within time and this Universe.
God has set time in motion in an exclusively forward direction – and God The Holy Spirit ACCOMPANIES Mankind on their journey through time – and God therefore has different emotional states simultaneously in regard to different people’s different behaviour.
Thus God can, for example, visit His loving grace on different individuals over time.:cool:
Wicknight
Emotions are characterised by a humans passage through time. Our emotions reflect what we are currently experiencing at the moment, what we have experienced in the past, and the anticipation of what we will experience in the future.
...but different emotions are NOT derived from our passage through time – they are a function of our personhood. Indeed we can experience a whole array of DIFFERENT emotions towards different people and events SIMULTANEOUSLY.
God also operates within time and He therefore ACCOMPANIES us on our journey through time. He therefore CAN have different emotional states - both simultaneously and over time. :cool:
Wicknight
since we have established that a photocopier can make a copy of something that is intelligently designed, and a photocopier can just as easily make a copy of something that isn't intelligently design, one has to wonder why you keep using this analogy for Intelligent Design.
Of course, a photocopier is able to copy something that is intelligently designed (i.e. complex AND specified) as well something that isn’t intelligently designed (i.e. complex BUT NOT specified)!!!
However, the point that I was originally making is that COPYING Ducks Feet, whether two feet on one duck or four feet on another duck, doesn’t result in any NEW complex specified information – just like photocopying a written page doesn’t result in NEW complex specified information.
…………but the ORIGINAL written information on a page and the ORIGINAL genetic information for a duck’s feet is the result of applied intelligence.:eek:
Wicknight
I'm talking about copying something that isn't intelligently designed. I myself photocopied rain fall data for the East coast a few days ago. This was information, but it was certainly not intelligently designed
Rainfall data or the lotto numbers are complex information – but they are NOT specified information – and neither rainfall data nor the lotto result is therefore intelligently designed information.
However, all genetic information exhibits both specificity and complexity – and it therefore was originally Intelligently Designed!!!!
Wicknight
God doesn't exist within time and therefore the laws of time do not apply. In fact that is the basis for my over all point.
The laws of time don't apply to God because He is transcendent.....
…..but God The Father is imminent and so He DOES exist within time. Jesus Christ is also God and He existed within time while here on Earth.
Equally, The Holy Spirit is also God and He indwells all Christians - so He also exists within time.
.......and therefore the basis for your overall point is INVALID!!!!:D
Wicknight
Evolution. Its real. Get over it.
Evolution. It’s disproven. Get over it!!!! :eek:
0 -
Eh, yes there is a reason, can you read english? The fact that Newton's theory deals with slow moving non-rotating objects interacting with eachother through gravity combined with Gauss' Theorem and the fact that space is 3-dimensional.J C wrote:……so there IS essentially no reason why gravity should behave in this way, and I am correct that the exponent is 2.00000 – and not some random number like 2.156, for example!!!!
The inverse-square nature of the equation F = (G m1 m2)/r 2 is indeed amazing.
In a chance, evolving universe, some random exponent like r2.156 would be much more likely.
......and we can therefore validly conclude that the Gravity Force WAS Intelligently Created. :eek:
Any non-relativistic approximation to a relativistic theory of gravity in 3-dimensions will have an r^n law, with n=2 because of Gauss' theorem, that's the reason. Something like 2.156 is impossible, even in a chance universe.
What you are doing is equivalent to remarking that the fact that a circle's circumference is Pi*diameter, is amazing and profound evidence of design because in a chance universe it would have probably been something like 2.156*diameter.
Aside from that it isn't even r^2 in real life, because if it was mercury's perihelion wouldn't precess.
Oh, lol. Cop out of the year. There's no creationist working on it and even if there was you'd have no idea.J C wrote:I am not in a position to accede to your request to identify individual Creationists currently working on Quantum Gravity for reasons of confidentiality.
Well then give me a Creationist paper dealing with the Weak Force. That has direct relevance to the creationist-evolution debate, it being the force responsible for radioactive decay.0 -
-
No, you have simply said over and over "The Bible says this .... the Bible says that ...." Which is, as I've said, ridiculous, because the whole point of this is that the Bible has been proven wrong.J C wrote:I have exhaustively and repeatedly answered all of your questions on the personhood of God, even though it is 'off topic' for this thread.
See above. Your replies are along the lines of Vicky Pollard from Little Britain "But no, but no but no"J C wrote:It is great to see your interest in the personhood of God – and I have addressed ALL of your questions on this matter.
Your entire argument, for this and evolution, hinges on the Bible being completely correct. As I've shown, and to which you have no proper reply, the Bible makes an error about the fundamental nature of God, so why should be used as an infalliable source for the creation of the universe is beyond me.J C wrote:Could I also point out that this thread is actually about ‘origins’ – and that is why I returned to the Creation and Evolution debate.:D
The God described in the Bible doesn't exist because it is a logical impossibility. The Bible might as well claim that God got lost one Sunday on his way to work.J C wrote:The God of the Bible is a personal God
You can call God as "personal" as you like, that does not change the fact that a God that is transcendent throughout all time cannot change emotional states as this time moves. God, no matter how "personal" (do you even know what that means or is it along the lines of "pre-existing diversity" :rolleyes) he is cannot, and does not, EVER change emotional states.J C wrote:and He DOES have different emotional reactions to different people’s behaviour simultaneously
Again you can say that over and over JC it doesn't make it any less of an impossibility.
God cannot and does not EVER change emotional states, for reasons I have outlined in my previous post.
Do you understand what "state" is JC in turns of logic? By definition one thing only has one state. What ever the condition of the thing at a position in time that is the state it is in.J C wrote:Why do you believe that God is LIMITED to only one emotional state at all points in time and space?
You can claim if you wish that God's state includes a wide range of different emotions that he feels all at the same time through out all time. But considering most emotions have a mutually exclusive counter part (happy, sad) claim God was happy and sad at the same time would be getting a bit stupid, even for you.
That is exactly what it would apply to, and that is exactly what your Bible describes when it says that God exists outside of time. As such God does not change based on the current position of the present in the universes time line because there is nothing for God's state to change into.J C wrote:Surely such an unchanging condition could only apply to some kind of unchanging impersonal force
What part of THE BIBLE MUST BE WRONG AT LEAST ONCE do you not understand.J C wrote:– and not to the LIVING (i.e dynamic/changing) PERSONAL (i.e. emotional) God that is revealed in the Bible
If God is a "personal" thing that changes emotional states as time effects him based on what is happening in the present then one must suppose that God is effected by the present. Therefore he cannot have already established states in the future (ie he cannot be present in the future at the same time as the present or past)
But then the Bible says that God exists outside of time and exists at all points in time at the same time, so clearly God is not effected by time, he is above time, and he has a presence in the future.
Therefore the state of God in the present cannot over write the state of God in the future, he must state exactly the same. Otherwise what happens to the state of God that exists in the future? It just vanishes into a puff of faulty logic?? Nonsense.
The Bible describes two things that are mutually exclusive. God is either be one or the other, he cannot be both by definition
Its your Bible JC. Not my fault it is describing something that is logical nonsense.J C wrote:and by His historical interaction with Mankind?:D
Read your Bible.J C wrote:I think that the mistake you are now making is to claim that God (currently) ‘exists’ in the future. Whilst God knows everything about the future He does so through His Omniscience – and not through some kind of ‘time travel’.
"But God's existence before and after time is simultaneous with His present existence"
http://www.christian-oneness.org/chapter1.htm
God is omnipresent not only in the present but in the future and the past too. He transcends the present. How do you think he knows everything about the future? What he just guesses?
Is that twinkle in your eye JC a realisation that what is describe in the Bible cannot work? If God simply knew what was going to happen, but did not exist in the future at all, and simply existed in the present, as we do, then that would not be a problem, as I explained already.
But that isn't what Christians believe or are taught. God transcends the present and doesn't just know the future, he exists in the future. Which as I'm sure you have realised now would mean his state could never change.
This isn't my religion JC. Its yours. I am simply going on what your religion claims God is and does.J C wrote:God has set time in motion in an exclusively forward direction – and God The Holy Spirit ACCOMPANIES Mankind on their journey through time – and God therefore has different emotional states simultaneously in regard to different people’s different behaviour.
Only if God exists only in the present, and does not exist in the future. Which your Bible says he does. So your argument isn't with me JC, its with the Bible that, as you seem to be realising, contains nonsense logic.
Do you even understand what "personhood" means in a philosophical sense?J C wrote:...but different emotions are NOT derived from our passage through time – they are a function of our personhood.
Our emotions are derived from our passage through time. Our personhood, the rights and status of an individual as a person, is rather irrelevant to that.
A person experiences emotions because they move through time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/abortion/philosophical/moralperson.shtml
But we cannot experience a whole array of different emotions towards the same thing without moving through time. Can you be both happy and sad about the exact samething (not different aspects of the same thing, the exact same thing) at a single point in time? No you cannot. You may say that you were both happy on your birthday because it was your birthday, but sad at the same time because your dog had died two days ago and you wanted to spend your birthday with your dog. But you could not be happy and sad on your birthday over the single instance of your dog being dead. That wouldnt make sense.J C wrote:Indeed we can experience a whole array of DIFFERENT emotions towards different people and events SIMULTANEOUSLY.
And that is before we bring time into it. Could you be both happy and sad that your dog was killed on the day you were born, and this emotion never changes as your entire life goes by.
As you can see we very quickly move into the realm of nonsense. Our emotions only make sense because of the passage of time and our ability to change our emotions based on what is happening. God, as he exists in all points in time at the same time cannot as to him nothing does change.
Not according to your Bible. God does not accompany anyone. He is already there when you get there, and he is always already there. The exact same God that is beside you today is in South America tomorrow. Not a different version of God that is a day older, but the exact same God. Well according to your Bible JCJ C wrote:God also operates within time and He therefore ACCOMPANIES us on our journey through time. He therefore CAN have different emotional states - both simultaneously and over time.
I know. So WHY did you say it can only make a copy of something that is intelligently designed, and then rather foolishly (you clearly didn't think this through) use that as an analogy of a biological organism being only able to copy something that is already intelligently design. A photocopier can make a copy of information that is not intelligently designed, and so can a biological organism. And both do.J C wrote:Of course, a photocopier is able to copy something that is intelligently designed (i.e. complex AND specified) as well something that isn’t intelligently designed (i.e. complex BUT NOT specified)!!!
And as I've explained, yes it does. Otherwise the duck would simply have 2 feet. This should be blindingly obvious to anyone JC who bothers to think about it. How else does the duck produce two new feet.J C wrote:However, the point that I was originally making is that COPYING Ducks Feet, whether two feet on one duck or four feet on another duck, doesn’t result in any NEW complex specified information
There must be new information in the ducks genetic material SOMEWHERE telling the ducks cells to form into a second par of legs, otherwise the duck would end up exactly like all the other ducks with just 2 legs. SOMEWHERE in the ducks genetic material is new information ("Create 4 legs" information), created by mutation, that is telling some process in the duck to create an extra two legs.
Except when it isn't, in the case of rain fall data, and DNA. Didn't we already go over this JC.J C wrote:…………but the ORIGINAL written information on a page and the ORIGINAL genetic information for a duck’s feet is the result of applied intelligence.:eek:
Well as you have never defined "specified information", and as I imagine you cannot actually define it since it is subjective concept (as Dembski himself admitted), I'm going to call your bluff and say that both rain fall data and lotto numbers ARE specified information.J C wrote:Rainfall data or the lotto numbers are complex information – but they are NOT specified information
Why? Because I say so. Which is apparently good enough for Dembski.
I look forward to you trying to explain how they aren't actually specific information, since I sincerely doubt you will be able to this.
This, as they used to say in ancient Rome, should be fun :rolleyes:
You appear to have no idea JC what "transcendent" actually means :rolleyes:J C wrote:The laws of time don't apply to God because He is transcendent.....
He can exist within time all he likes. If he also exists outside of time then that over rules this.J C wrote:…..but God The Father is imminent and so He DOES exist within time.
It is the difference between someone under the sea and someone with their feet in a puddle. One is completely in water. The other is a bit in water, but mostly not in water. :rolleyes:J C wrote:Evolution. It’s disproven. Get over it!!!! :eek:
Well JC your basis for that claim is that the Bible is correct. Since, as I've shown, the Bible cannot even manage to get the fundamental properties of God correct, it doesn't inspire much hope that it has gotten creation right either, does it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw wrote:JC quotes Kevin Myers. Well, that should earn one of them some kind of prize, I can't help but think.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Well Kevin Myers also thinks that Intelligent Design, a concept JC holds very close to his heart, is nonsense too.
So once again JC finds himself in one of his, by now, common a rock and a hard place situations.
The choice? Accepting what Mr. Myers says about evolution would mean he should also accept what Mr. Myers says about intelligent design. Which he cannot do, since he needs intelligent design.
If he rejects Mr. Myers opinion on intelligent design what basis does he hold Mr. Myers up as someone qualified to judge evolution?
I think he found himself in a similar situation over Hoyle and his probability of evolution. Possibly unknown to JC at the time he quoted him (the words "research" and "JC" don't tend to go hand in hand) Hoyle had also completely ruled out a deity as the creator of life on Earth (Hoyle believed it was probably aliens).
When JC was confronted with this fact he rather quickly back tracked in his customary fashion, away from using Hoyle to support his arguments, and since then I'm not sure Hoyle has been mentioned (though he does still mention the his theory on probability of life, despite the fact that it has been shown to be riddled with flaws).
Its all rather amusing isn't it
0 -
Wicknight wrote:Well Kevin Myers also thinks that Intelligent Design, a concept JC holds very close to his heart, is nonsense too.
So once again JC finds himself in one of his, by now, common a rock and a hard place situations.
The choice? Accepting what Mr. Myers says about evolution would mean he should also accept what Mr. Myers says about intelligent design. Which he cannot do, since he needs intelligent design.
If he rejects Mr. Myers opinion on intelligent design what basis does he hold Mr. Myers up as someone qualified to judge evolution?
I think he found himself in a similar situation over Hoyle and his probability of evolution. Possibly unknown to JC at the time he quoted him (the words "research" and "JC" don't tend to go hand in hand) Hoyle had also completely ruled out a deity as the creator of life on Earth (Hoyle believed it was probably aliens).
When JC was confronted with this fact he rather quickly back tracked in his customary fashion, away from using Hoyle to support his arguments, and since then I'm not sure Hoyle has been mentioned (though he does still mention the his theory on probability of life, despite the fact that it has been shown to be riddled with flaws).
Its all rather amusing isn't it
I think that quoting operates by entirely different rules when you're sure you're right. All that's important is the bit where they agree with you, not the bit where they're wrong. You show the quote to show the obviousness of what you're saying, and how people who are otherwise entirely wrong can nevertheless see how obviously true it is...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
Wicknight said:
Exactly, so how can you insist that God cannot have emotions, since He is not governed by the laws of time? You want Him to be governed by the laws of Wicknight's imagination.I assume you mean the laws governing time, since eternity isn't a "thing", it is a measurement of time. And as we have already established God doesn't exist within time and therefore the laws of time do not apply. In fact that is the basis for my over all point.
Only by your idea of logic.That isn't a fault of my argument Wolfsbane, that is my argument. That fault of your argument (and I use the term losely) is that you do yet realise what you are proposing. You have not considered the actual logistics of the God you define. If you did you would realise that what your religion proposes is a logical impossibility.
You know that, do you? You have experienced eternity and can speak of how it affects our thinking? Or has a spirit -guide told you? Or have you had a bump on the head?It is only because God is aware of everything, past present and future, that he does not and cannot experience emotions as we do, since a fundamental aspect of our emotional systems is that fact that we are not experiencing the past and the future at the same time as experiencing the present. If we did then we would experience emotions like we do either.
Is Elvis with you?His emotional state cannot change, because the exact same emotional state exists at every point in time. Something can only change if in the future it is empty and the change itself fills that void.
The definition of God is that which Scripture reveals, and that includes His wrath, compassion, love, etc. His changing attitudes to man's changing actions. It is your strange definition of God's nature that you are arguing with, not the Christian one.An apple in the present (time point A) because it does not exist yet at time point B in the future. So when time point B finally comes around the apple can exist at that point as anything. But if the apple already existed at time point B then the apple at time point A cannot over ride this existence, and the only logical conclusion is that all instances of the apple are the same.
If the state of the object already exists in the future then it cannot change because it would be over righting its future self. God cannot change because of the properties defined in the definition of God himself.
Your logic has its own premises - which are not inclusive of those the Bible reveals of God. All JC and I are pointing out is that your argument does not apply to our God. It may well to the one of your imagination - I couldn't possibly comment.To me it simply highlights that neither yourself nor JC know or understand how either argue your position properly, or show that my logic is wrong. So instead you simply choose to ignore it.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wicknight
Your replies are along the lines of Vicky Pollard from Little Britain "But no, but no but no"
Such abject 'denial of the obvious' is actually the preserve of the Materialist!!!!!
Famous Philosopher of Science, Sir Karl Popper, confirms that 'denial' is an occupational hazard for the Evolutionist:-
“What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA.
Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics."
(Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T., eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270).
Just like the eminent Sir Karl Popper, Kevin Myers has come to realise that the theory of ‘Muck-to-Man Evolution’ is scientifically invalid – and most objective observers of this thread would ALSO share this conclusion.
It is patently obvious that the tightly specified complexity of even the simplest living cell completely rules out any possibility that life could have arisen without a Creator. :eek:
It is equally obvious that the Materialists are compelled by their own beliefs to deny Creation IN SPITE OF the evidence………
…….. in the following quote, one of the top Evolutionary Biologists in the world, Prof. Richard Lewontin openly admits that Materialists believe in and defend Evolution IN SPITE OF all of the evidence to the contrary, because their commitment to materialism is ABSOLUTE:-
“We take the side of (Evoutionist) science in spite of the patent absurdities of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Professor Richard Lewontin, “Billions and billions of demons”. The New York Review, January 9, 1997 pp 28.
Wicknight
Your entire argument, for this and evolution, hinges on the Bible being completely correct.
My argument actually DOESN'T depend on the veracity of the Bible - although I do believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God.
Science is ALSO capable of examining the evidence for Direct Divine Creation – but using Science to objectively evaluate Direct Creation is anathema to Materialists because it would “allow a Divine Foot in the door” !!!!!
Indeed, it might even allow God to come right in through the door - and save them!!!!:eek:
Wicknight
Read your Bible.
Great to see an atheist advocating the undoubted wisdom of reading the Bible!!!!
Wicknight
"But God's existence before and after time is simultaneous with His present existence"
God is omnipresent not only in the present but in the future and the past too. He transcends the present. How do you think he knows everything about the future? What he just guesses?
God transcends time – but the reason that He knows everything is because He is omniscient – and not because He is ‘omnipresent’ in the future – whatever that may mean!!!!.:D
Wicknight
I'm going to call your bluff and say that both rain fall data and lotto numbers ARE specified information.
Specified Information must have ALL of the following four characteristics :-
1. Meaningful / Utilitarian.
3. Precise / Unique
4. Non-random.
5. Non-repetitive.
Rainfall data ISN’T PRECISE or UNIQUE – i.e. every possible combination of figures can validly occur and one set of arbitrary data is just as useful as the next.
Lotto numbers ARE RANDOM.
So neither Rainfall data nor Lotto numbers are specified information.:D
Genetic information IS specified information because:-
1. It produces MEANINGFUL, UTILITARIAN results - in the form of living creatures.
2. It is PRECISE and UNIQUE - as even small changes causes it to become rapidly degraded and useless.
3. It ISN’T RANDOM – but is observed to be tightly defined.
4. It ISN’T REPETITIVE or patterned.
Wicknight
The choice? Accepting what Mr. Myers says about evolution would mean he (J C) should also accept what Mr. Myers says about intelligent design. Which he cannot do, since he needs intelligent design.
If he (J C) rejects Mr. Myers opinion on intelligent design what basis does he hold Mr. Myers up as someone qualified to judge evolution?
Mr. Myers, is an intelligent rational Human Being, and so he is amply qualified to judge the concept of ‘Muck to Man Evolution’.
……..and he resoundingly rejects ‘Big Picture Evolution’ for the manifestly preposterous notion that it is.
He hasn’t publicly professed a belief in ANY other replacement for Evolution – and that is reasonable as far as I am concerned.
Wicknight
I think he (J C) found himself in a similar situation over Hoyle and his probability of evolution. Possibly unknown to JC at the time he quoted him (the words "research" and "JC" don't tend to go hand in hand) Hoyle had also completely ruled out a deity as the creator of life on Earth (Hoyle believed it was probably aliens).
I have always known that Sir Fred Hoyle believed in ‘panspermia’.
However his calculations ARE accurate – and they completely rule out the Evolution of Man being ‘directed’ by non-intelligent mechanisms like NS.
I do not need to ask about somebody’s religious beliefs when I assess their mathematical calculations – and Sir Fred Hoyle was one of the leading Mathematicians and Astronomers of his day.
He did correctly conclude that an input of intelligence was necessary to overcome the overwhelming odds of 10^^40,000 against the production of the biomolecules of an Amoeba via NS.
Unfortunately, because of his particular outlook, he attributed this intelligent input to ‘Aliens’.
However, even a moments contemplation would have told him that the odds of 10^^40,000 against producing the Amoeba without an intelligent input would ALSO rule out the production of any ‘Aliens’ in a Universe that contains only 10^^130 electrons!!!!:eek:
I admire Sir Fred Hoyle as a Mathematician and Astronomer – but I am sad that he didn’t accept the logic of his OWN figures – which indicated that life could only arise in the UNIVERSE via the actions of an external and transcendent intelligent entity AKA God!!!!:D
Wicknight
Well that is certainly true if your God isn't the God described in the Bible.
Which is what JC seemed to be stating in his previous when he said that his God is simply is aware of what will happen in the future, but does not actually exist in the future itself.
…………I've no objection to yourself or JC saying that the God defined in the Bible cannot exist, and therefore God must be different, if only slightly (aware of future, not actually in it, for example). That is in fact what most Christians who have thought about it conclude.
We can only know what God chooses to reveal about Himself.
God is FULLY aware of everything that will happen in the future – however, the MECHANISM by which God knows this, is ‘known only onto God’!!!!!
We know that God exists in the present as the Holy Spirit indwelling all Christians and as Jesus Christ and The Father in Heaven.
We know that He is omnipotent and omniscient.
We also know that God is transcendent and imminent simultaneously as well as being a doubly eternal entity.
God has NOT chosen to reveal how He achieves these phenomena – other than to confirm that these are aspects of His nature.
He is the great ‘I AM’ – which would indicate that He simply wants us to accept that He just IS – and that is all we need to know about His actuality in time and space!!!
God has also revealed that He is a combination of three PERSONS – and as a perfect person, He has the full range of virtuous emotions – and these Divine emotions AREN’T dependent upon time – because God Himself ISN’T dependent upon time.:cool:
First it was a blood infused ‘200 million year old’ T Rex fossil……..
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
….and now there is ANOTHER ‘10 million year old’ amphibian fossil with bone marrow so perfectly preserved that it could almost be used in a transplant!!!!!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060725-fossil-bone.html
…..and here is an extract from the report in National Geographic:-
“many other fossil bones may contain well-preserved remnants of bone marrow, the scientists say.
Although fossil remains of muscles, skin, and internal organs have been found, they are rare because soft tissues usually decay before they can be fossilized.
And when traces of such tissues are found, the original organic matter has usually been replaced by minerals during fossilization.
Not so with the Spanish amphibians.
"The marrow is organically preserved," McNamara said. "The original colour of the marrow is preserved."
Like modern frogs, she says, the bones show an inner zone of yellow, fatty marrow, encircled by an outer zone of red marrow.
The find will allow "incredible insights" into the makeup of ancient animals”
………and the most obvious 'incredible insight’ is that these salamanders with their ‘organically preserved’ blood-infused bone marrow lived very recently indeed!!!!:D
Happy St. Patrick’s Day!!!:D
Wicknight
Evolution. Its real. Get over it.
Evolution. It’s IMPOSSIBLE. Get over it!!!! 0 -
-
A universe with that many electrons would require Galaxies to not just be "swirls of dust".J C wrote:in a Universe that contains only 10^^130 electrons!!!!:eek:0 -
Well I just thought it was funny that you claim it is the infallible word of God when it is clear you have never actually read it (or if you did you didn't understand it)J C wrote:Great to see an atheist advocating the undoubted wisdom of reading the Bible!!!!
Again, read your BibleJ C wrote:God transcends time – but the reason that He knows everything is because He is omniscient – and not because He is ‘omnipresent’ in the future – whatever that may mean!!!!.:D
DNA is neither meaningful, precise, non-random or non-repetitive.J C wrote:Specified Information must have ALL of the following four characteristics :-
1. Meaningful / Utilitarian.
3. Precise / Unique
4. Non-random.
5. Non-repetitive.
Yes it is. You will never get the same rainfall data, and it is very precise.J C wrote:Rainfall data ISN’T PRECISE or UNIQUE
That isn't what precise means :rolleyes:J C wrote:– i.e. every possible combination of figures can validly occur and one set of arbitrary data is just as useful as the next.
Under your definition (even though you don't seem to understand it yourself, I imagine it was lifted from a web site somewhere) neither is DNAJ C wrote:So neither Rainfall data nor Lotto numbers are specified information.:D
So you have, once again, done our work for us and ruled out design.
Keep up the good work JC
As he resoundingly rejects Intelligent Design as religious nonsense... as I said rock/hard placeJ C wrote:Mr. Myers, is an intelligent rational Human Being, and so he is amply qualified to judge the concept of ‘Muck to Man Evolution’.
……..and he resoundingly rejects ‘Big Picture Evolution’ for the manifestly preposterous notion that it is.
As they do a deity.J C wrote:I have always known that Sir Fred Hoyle believed in ‘panspermia’.
However his calculations ARE accurate – and they completely rule out the Evolution of Man being ‘directed’ by non-intelligent mechanisms like NS.
He also said you were wrong. So again, rock/hard placeJ C wrote:– and Sir Fred Hoyle was one of the leading Mathematicians and Astronomers of his day.
He did actually. Which is why he ruled out God and concluded it must have been aliens.J C wrote:I admire Sir Fred Hoyle as a Mathematician and Astronomer – but I am sad that he didn’t accept the logic of his OWN figures
As he is supposed to have done in the Bible yet you reject this and substitute your own version. Isn't there a law in your religion against that?J C wrote:We can only know what God chooses to reveal about Himself.J C wrote:God is FULLY aware of everything that will happen in the future – however, the MECHANISM by which God knows this, is ‘known only onto God’!!!!!
I see your lack or understand extends to your own religion JC
Not according to your Bible. God exists in the future. That is how he is aware of the future. Back to the paradox...J C wrote:Evolution. It’s IMPOSSIBLE. Get over it!!!!
You can watch it happen JC. People do all the time.0 -
I must say JC, after your last post I've lot what little respect I had for your position.
I assumed that you were just completely ignorant of science, choosing to come from a purely religious position. You appeared on the surface to at least seem to know what the religious position you were arguing was.
But it now seems clear that you don't even understand the religious position you claim to be defending. Have you actually read the Bible, the book you claim is your inspiration for rejecting evolution and most of current scientific theories. Your statements above demonstrate that the answer is "clearly not"
This is unfortunate. One must now simply dismiss you as simply a troll, someone who argues from a made up position simply for the fun of it. If you cannot even argue from a proper Christian position then the point of all this seems to be lost.
Good day
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Wicknight said:
Wickie, you are not only a master of logic and metaphysics - knowing the rules that govern eternity - but it now emerges you are a theologian also.But it now seems clear that you don't even understand the religious position you claim to be defending. Have you actually read the Bible, the book you claim is your inspiration for rejecting evolution and most of current scientific theories. Your statements above demonstrate that the answer is "clearly not"
This is unfortunate. One must now simply dismiss you as simply a troll, someone who argues from a made up position simply for the fun of it. If you cannot even argue from a proper Christian position then the point of all this seems to be lost.
I'm sure your skills in hermenuetics is as good as that in your other fields.
Can we expect a Bible commentary anytime soon?
In the meantime, JC can content himself with the knowledge that the great Christian leaders of history shared his ignorance of what the Bible actually said.0 -
Wicknight
"When the chromosomes of an organism such as wheat or pine is dissected at the molecular level, stretches of nucleotide sequence that occur once or only a few times - including the genes - represent as little as 5% of the DNA. Most plant and animal genomes consist largely of repetitive DNA - perhaps 30 sequence motifs, typically one to 10 000 nucleotides long, present many hundreds or thousands of times in the genome, which may be located at a few defined chromosomal sites or widely dispersed."
This is the so-called ‘junk DNA’ – or DNA for which no function has been established.
It’s preponderance is such that it may have important functions that we haven’t yet established – or it could be just God showing His Omnipotence and Omniscience – by producing a complex living organism while specifying Functional Genetic Information on less than 5% of the genome!!!!:cool:
Originally Posted by J C
in a Universe that contains only 10^^130 electrons!!!!
Son Goku
A universe with that many electrons would require Galaxies to not just be "swirls of dust".
It would indeed – and it does contain ten thousand million Galaxies – but still ONLY contains 10^^130 electrons!!!! :eek:
……..so HOW does an Amoeba spontaneously arise on such a Universe with odds of 10^^40,000 against it’s biochemical sequences arising by accident???
.......or as Mr Kevin Myers’ eloquent comment on Darwinian Evolution states.......
.....“it stretches the bounds of possibility to breaking point to assert that every living thing in this world was created by a series of accidents, the odds against which are to be measured in zillion trillions”.
(Page 31 Irish Independent 09/03/2007).
Originally Posted by J C
Specified Information must have ALL of the following four characteristics :-
1. Meaningful / Utilitarian.
3. Precise / Unique
4. Non-random.
5. Non-repetitive
Wicknight
DNA is neither meaningful, precise, non-random or non-repetitive.
I agree that DNA, as an information carrying chemical structure, (and analogous to a blank Videotape) is none of the above.
However, the tightly specified and highly complex genetic information CARRIED on SECTIONS of DNA (and analogous to a Videotape Recording) does indeed exhibit meaningfulness, utility and precision as well as non-random and non-repetitive characteristics !!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
(With rainfall data) every possible combination of figures can validly occur and one set of arbitrary data is just as useful as the next.
Wicknight
That isn't what precise means.
Information where every possible combination of figures can validly occur and one set of arbitrary data is just as useful as the next is indeed IMPRECISE and not UNIQUE – and so rainfall data ISN’T Specified Information.
On the other hand, Functional Genetic Information is PRECISE - because even small changes causes it to become rapidly degraded and useless!!!
Functional Genetic Information also produces MEANINGFUL, UTILITARIAN results (in the form of living creatures), it ISN’T RANDOM – but is observed to be tightly defined and it ISN’T REPETITIVE or patterned.
…….so it exhibits ALL of the characteristics of ALL Specified Information produced by intelligence from engineering blueprints to music scores!!!!:D
Wicknight
Keep up the good work JC
A word of encouragement is always appreciated – thank you, Wicknight!!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
I admire Sir Fred Hoyle as a Mathematician and Astronomer – but I am sad that he didn’t accept the logic of his OWN figures
Wicknight
He did actually. Which is why he ruled out God and concluded it must have been aliens.
But Sir Fred Hoyle obviously DIDN’T follow the logic of his calculations!!
In a Universe that contains ONLY 10^^130 electrons, events with odds in excess of 10^^100 are statistical impossibilities.
.........and events like the undirected production of an Amoeba - with odds of 10^^40,000 are TOTALLY impossible.
:
…….and the undirected production of Aliens, having odds vastly in excess of the 10^^40,000 for the Amoeba, are ALSO totally impossible in our Universe.
……….and so Sir Fred Hoyle WAS a brilliant Mathematician and Astronomer – BUT his figures actually prove that life could only arise in the UNIVERSE via the actions of an external and transcendent intelligent entity AKA God!!!!:D
Wicknight
God exists in the future.
Is this a declaration of faith in God on your part, Wicknight???
God EXISTS and is TRANSCENDENT as well as IMMINENT – the rest is sophistry, equivalent to trying to measure the number of angels who could fit on the head of a pin!!!
……..an activity I wouldn’t have expected an atheist to be engaged in ……….
…….but there you go, wonders will never cease!!!!!!:D
Wicknight
Evolution. Its real. Get over it.
Evolution. It’s PREPOSTEROUS. Get over it!!!!:D0 -
Yeah, but you said several times that galaxies were just swirls of dust and not several octillion tonnes of matter located several millions of light years apart.J C wrote:It would indeed – and it does contain ten thousand million Galaxies – but still ONLY contains 10^^130 electrons!!!! :eek:
……..so HOW does an Amoeba spontaneously arise on such a Universe with odds of 10^^40,000 against it’s biochemical sequences arising by accident???
Have you now changed your view and think that galaxies are not just swirls of dust?0 -
-
-
No it is me bothering to read the Bible, something you apparently haven't done. If find it the height of ignorance for me to argue against something that I would only pretend to understand, so I bother to read up on Christian and Creationist literature. Although clearly you don't have that problem with arguing against evolution when you don't understand it, see your comment about an amoeba arising spontaneously. I mean seriously JC please quote me the evolution paper that claimed that actually happened :rolleyes:J C wrote:Is this a declaration of faith in God on your part, Wicknight???
Is there much point in your arguing the Christian position when you aren't aware of what the Christian, Creationist or scientific positions are JC? What side do you claim to be an expert in?0 -
J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
I admire Sir Fred Hoyle as a Mathematician and Astronomer – but I am sad that he didn’t accept the logic of his OWN figures
Wicknight
He did actually. Which is why he ruled out God and concluded it must have been aliens.
But Sir Fred Hoyle obviously DIDN’T follow the logic of his calculations!!
In a Universe that contains ONLY 10^^130 electrons, events with odds in excess of 10^^100 are statistical impossibilities.
.........and events like the undirected production of an Amoeba - with odds of 10^^40,000 are TOTALLY impossible.
:
…….and the undirected production of Aliens, having odds vastly in excess of the 10^^40,000 for the Amoeba, are ALSO totally impossible in our Universe.
……….and so Sir Fred Hoyle WAS a brilliant Mathematician and Astronomer – BUT his figures actually prove that life could only arise in the UNIVERSE via the actions of an external and transcendent intelligent entity AKA God!!!!:D
You know, while we're playing envelope maths - what are the odds on God?
See, whatever the odds against primitive life arising by accident, the odds against God arising by accident are always going to be higher, by the amount that God is more complex and sophisticated than primitive life - orders of magnitude, one assumes. Of course, you can just say that God doesn't arise by accident, but you have no actual basis for the claim other than belief.
So, if you're going to bet based on the odds, you have to bet on life arising accidentally - it's much much more likely. Betting on God is too long a punt. Quite aside from the odds, at least we have definite and indisputable evidence that life exists.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement