The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

bmoferrall

bmoferrall wrote:

For what it's worth, I agree with him. If you question the 'miracle of creation' then, surely, you have to question all other miracles recorded in scripture.
If there are no miracles (and I'm not talking about moving statues and holes in hands :v: ), where's the evidence of divinity?
If there's no evidence of divinity, I'm off to join Tom Cruise and his band of merry scientologists

Why wouldn't you question it anyway?

bmoferrall

bluewolf wrote:

Why wouldn't you question it anyway?

John 10:34-38

34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[a]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.

So you don't question the scripture because the scripture says not to?

Wibbs

bmoferrall wrote:

Why jump to such conclusions? You could just ask.
Or are you just trying to confirm your prejudices about genuine Christians?

What prejudices? That fundamentalists of all hues take things a tad too far? If so, guilty as charged.

For what it's worth, I agree with him. If you question the 'miracle of creation' then, surely, you have to question all other miracles recorded in scripture.
If there are no miracles (and I'm not talking about moving statues and holes in hands :v: ), where's the evidence of divinity?

That's true, only if you consider non coroborated, repeatedly edited, ancient fables, that go against all the observable evidence to hand, evidence of divinity.

For me, if I examine the life and sayings of someone like Jesus, I find more "divinity" in the simple messages of hope, peace, forgiveness and loving fellowship, than any tale of some bloke in a big zoo boat could ever muster and I'm an agnostic at best.

Maybe it's me, but when you have people arguing over whether Noah existed, while there are fellow humans dying now, for want of clean water and the very things jesus talked about, you lose me, you really do.

If there's no evidence of divinity, I'm off to join Tom Cruise and his band of merry scientologists

Why not? even their nuttier, non scientific ramblngs may prove more attractive if left for a few thousand years.

bmoferrall

Wibbs wrote:

For me, if I examine the life and sayings of someone like Jesus, I find more "divinity" in the simple messages of hope, peace, forgiveness and loving fellowship, than any tale of some bloke in a big zoo boat could ever muster and I'm an agnostic at best.
Maybe it's me, but when you have people arguing over whether Noah existed, while there are fellow humans dying now, for want of clean water and the very things jesus talked about, you lose me, you really do.

I know where you're coming from. Even Paul touched on this:

2 Timothy 2:23: Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

1 Titus 3:9: But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless

But, when God incarnate (Jesus) says "that scripture (OT) cannot be broken", any Christian worth his/her salt is beholden to defend it (in its entirety) when challenged.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

a) ID is a valid scientific theory with testable hypotheses is proclaimed by valid scientists. You might not like what they say, but that doesn't mean they haven't said it. I'm not a mathematician nor a biologist, so I can't present the details myself. You have Behe, etc. for that.

Where? Where has Behe or any others provided testable hypotheses? You have claimed valid scientists have provided valid testable hypotheses. Now back up this claim with evidence.

b) There is debate within the scientific community is proved by a) above.

Again... I'll need to see evidence to back up this claim.

Regarding c) There are valid ID arguments that haven't been addressed. They have been addressed, but not refuted.

Again.. I need examples.

d) Scientists are mean people. Not all scientists. Mainly those in control of the institutions. The example of the Smithsonian is backed by the testimony of other creationists who tell of the same treatment in lesser institutions.

Where is the evidence for this claim? I.e. Findings from an indeependant investigation.

wolfsbane wrote:

I thought you would have gathered that some genuine Christians have accepted evolution as the mechanism God used to bring us here. So I was addressing them with the points that show how inconsistent with Christianity evolution really is.

*hands the mike to Exelcior*

Excelsior

Thanks Morbert but there is no point in me retracing my observations on what the Bible actually consists of. In the face of Creation Science it is clear that some Christians are more interested in regurgitating fallacious probabilities than finding out what the Pentateuch means to say.

If I ever met these fellow brothers in Christ who deny (or are not certain of) my salvation based on all those years spent studying Gould's amazing essays in person, I would challenge them. But over the internet, as these 41 pages attest to, there is no point.

Genesis was never intended to answer questions inspired by Darwin. From a theological position, Creation Science is an anachronism. As a Christian who believes that there is an evil stalking each of us, I can't help but think Satan rubs his hands with glee at the prospect of all this time wasted on a whole heap of nothing.

Also, I am sad to see that except for Morbert, no one has responded to my offer to post a sticky informing people of sources for the different perspectives commonly held on this issue. If people would like to pm me their propoganda, I am happy to advertise it.

J C

Quote Scofflaw

Where do you get this rubbish from?

1. There can be no such "OBSERVATION" - it's absolutely impossible that a 21-acid peptide is not a 20-acid peptide with one more acid!

2. 20 + 1 = 21 therefore 21 - 1 = 20 so a 21-acid peptide minus 1 acid is a 20-acid peptide!

3. If you have a problem with that arithmetic, please stop posting and go back to school.

4. My example shows the probability of producing ANY particular amino acid sequence. Necessarily, that will account for ANY 20 acids in ANY 21-acid sequence. It cannot do otherwise, and you may not pretend that it does (I would say 'cannot', but it's pretty clear you just have), because it is a lie!

I can assure you that I am not wrong.

The number of permutations in a 20 amino acid chain choosing from 20 amino acids is 1.05E+26 while the number of permutations in a 21 amino acid chain choosing from 20 amino acids is 2.10E+27.
The difference between these two numbers is 1.99E+27 i.e. the ADDITIONAL ‘useless combinatorial space’ that must be ‘crossed' between ALL 20 amino acid Peptides and a particular useful 21 amino acid Peptide is actually 1.99E+27 and NOT the much smaller number of 21 as you have claimed!!!

If you don’t believe me consult a mathematician of your acquaintance – who will undoubtedly confirm my figures.


Quote Scofflaw
We can go over it again and again until you understand that 20+1=21, and that 21 amino acids is therefore 20 amino acids plus one other amino acid.

Please do so – but please consult a mathematician first.


Quote Scofflaw
I did it to show how you could actually calculate these sorts of numbers, instead of dragging in the number of electrons in the universe.

But actually, your maths really is irrelevant, because two peptide chains may react as well as two amino acids.

You only need to involve every electron in the Universe to account for ALL Proteins with chain lengths in excess of 64 amino acids, as the number of permutations in a 64 amino acid chain choosing from 20 amino acids is 1.84E+83 - and the number of electrons in the Known Universe is 2.17E+82. However, please bear in mind that there are important Proteins with chain lengths and indeed critical sequences that are hundreds of Amino Acids in length.

The Maths would ONLY be irrelevant if you believe that an External Intelligence WAS DIRECTING the process and DELIBERATELY CHOOSING specific sequences.

If you believe that ONLY natural UNDIRECTED processes were involved (as Materialistic Evolutionists would contend) then the permutations are indeed VERY relevant – and they are absolutely devastating to the case for undirected evolution.


Could I also point out that there are many essential Amino Acids that have never been observed to spontaneously generate and indeed there are massive issues about HOW many hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids could form outside of a cell in free water.
Equally, the systems that are observed to be required to assemble proteins are irreducibly complex and many of the bonds in protein chains can only be achieved by the use of amazingly specialised enzymes whose use is synchronised in nano-seconds with exact sequential cascades of reactions catalysed by other equally complex and specific enzymes. That is why protein molecules that are split into short chains of amino acids are NEVER observed to spontaneously re-form into useful proteins


However, in fairness, the purposes of this exercise, is confined to examining the probability of the SEQUENCES for specific proteins arising using undirected processes.

Quote Scofflaw
once you've stuck any two amino acids together (call them AB for the moment), your possible reactions have to include AB+A/B/C/D etc and AB+AA/AB/AC/AD/BB etc as well as A+A/B/C/D etc.

Given a supply of amino acids, you can simply go:

1+1=2
2+2=4
4+4=8
8+8=16
16+16=32
32+32=64

in 6 probability steps, rather than the 64 you claim are needed

The problem is that AB (as you call it) MIGHT only be found AT THE START of one useful 7 chain Peptide and NO other one – so you cannot ‘build up’ from a base of Peptides starting with AB because NO other useful 9,10,11, 12 etc. Peptide will be formed with AB at the start of the chain. It is an ‘all or nothing’ problem – and a really useful Peptide becomes totally useless with any small changes to it – thereby effectively making it a ‘prisoner’ of it’s own sequence – if it starts blindly 'searching around' in it’s immediate ‘combinatorial space’ it is unlikely to EVER ‘discover’ another useful Peptide chain by undirected processes such is the vastness of the 'combinatorial space' and the observed rarity and specificity of useful Peptides.
There is no simple stepped advantage between one useful Peptide and another one – so undirected processes can never follow some ‘yellow brick road’ of increasing utility to reach the next really useful Peptide. The possible number of intermediates are literally ‘astronomical’ and because the intermediates are ALL equally useless, they can offer no signal of progress or 'advantage' towards the next useful Polypetide for Natural Selection to ‘follow’ or select. It is like a lost useful Peptide bobbing about in an ocean of useless Polypeptides but trying to blindly locate another useful Peptide on the far side of the ocean. It is like trying to find a 'needle in a haystack the size of the Earth' while blindfolded.

It is also like trying to blindly 'crack' a Safe – you have to try every possible combination. You could be within one digit of the right combination and never 'know' it or you might have none of the digits. Either way, the result is phenotypically identical (i.e.useless) – and so Natural Selection CANNOT help – when faced with a whole series of billions of equally useless intermediaries with NONE of them conferring any advantage.

Scofflaw

Well, JC, I certainly don't feel like repeating myself here. Clearly there is no point in arguing with someone who has believe that you can't get from a 20-acid chain to a 21-acid chain by adding 1 more acid.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Well, JC, I certainly don't feel like repeating myself here. Clearly there is no point in arguing with someone who has to believe that you can't get from a 20-acid chain to a 21-acid chain by adding 1 more acid.

Just in case, let's imagine you have a useful peptide with this 21-acid sequence (where A,B, etc, stand for amino acids):

A-B-C-D-E-F-H-I-G-J-K-A-M-O-P-D-E-G-G-A-S-T-B

How is it that you claim that you cannot get this chain from the reaction below, or that there is somehow a 'vast combinatorial space' between them?

A-B-C-D-E-F-H-I-G-J-K-A-M-O-P-D-E-G-G-A-S-T plus B

regards,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

That a handful of people believe the Earth is flat does not mean that there is a debate about it.

If they were reputable scientists, as the creationist scientists are, there would be a debate. So you cannot dismiss the weight of creationist scientific argument by throwing in Flat-earthers. I could just as well throw in the belive in Moon-men to discredit evolutionary science.

I've disputed your figures (as have others), and you simply repeat them. I now have to consider you flat-out lying on this point.

...

I'll be blunt. In terms of the world-wide numbers of scientists, and the numbers of creationists, 'a couple of crazies' is exactly what it is.

Have you checked the sites I listed? A formidable list even of Phds.

To JC, Scofflaw said:

Where do you get this rubbish from?

Here we have a scientist presenting you the maths and this is your response. OK, but it seems to a layman like me that you are confusing arthimetic and mathematics. What JC has raised is a crucial test of ID versus evolution. I will strain my brain to keep up with the arguments.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Where? Where has Behe or any others provided testable hypotheses? You have claimed valid scientists have provided valid testable hypotheses. Now back up this claim with evidence.

Try Behe's Darwin's Black Box, for example.

I need examples.

You won't accept the one I offer - that bona fide scientists do hold to creationist scientific arguments. You won't accept that evolutionist rebuttals of creationist arguments have not removed them - what more can I give you? You won't give any credibility to the accusations of Sternberg and others without an independent inquiry - OK, but do you apply that to every area of life? I think we can make some judgements without a Saville Inquiry. Always welcome investigation, of course, but some things seem worthy of making a provisional (no pun intended) judgement on.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

In the face of Creation Science it is clear that some Christians are more interested in regurgitating fallacious probabilities than finding out what the Pentateuch means to say.

For example, JC's mathematical argument on probabilities? You are sure this is 'fallacious'? I wait with interest for the scientists on the list to thrash that out.

Let me turn you to what for Christians is the more important proof of creationism - the Bible. You claim to know the Pentateuch is saying something different about creation and the Flood than has been understood by the Church since the beginning. You claim that death and suffering are not the result of sin but are part of God's 'very good' creation. You claim there never was a world-wide flood that killed all humans but those in the Ark. Great claims indeed.

Let me ask you: Are God's people to be saved? If so, how can you be sure? Because God has promised it? Certainly. I agree. But what if God's promises can't be taken at face value? What if they may have some unkown metaphorical meaning? Example: Isaiah 54:9 “ For this is like the waters of Noah to Me;
For as I have sworn
That the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth,
So have I sworn
That I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.
10 For the mountains shall depart
And the hills be removed,
But My kindness shall not depart from you,
Nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,”
Says the LORD, who has mercy on you.

His promise of ultimate salvation for His people is as good as His promise that the waters of Noah would never be repeated. If one was mythical, why not the other? If the Flood was a local disaster, then God is a liar, for floods with massive loss of life are common-place.

What do you say?

robindch

> Also, I am sad to see that except for Morbert, no one has responded to
> my offer to post a sticky informing people of sources for the different
> perspectives commonly held on this issue.

Do try the website which I linked to time after time months ago in this thread -- it's:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

But, as the last 820 posts magnificently show, you can lead a creationist to the healing waters, but you can't make 'em think.

Morbert, Scofflaw, the recently-departed Son Goku, myself and just about anybody else could all sit here posting away until doomsday, pointing out that one creationist belief after another is not supported by evidence, or it's a contradiction in terms, or it's a flat-out falsehood, or it's meaningless or it's been so clearly yanked out of a penguin's ass that it *must* be visible to anybody with a brain bigger than a peanut. But it's not. And you could point out that the small handful of wealthy guys who cheerlead for the creationist movement are a bunch of authoritarian cheap-ass frauds, ideological buffoons and fourth-rate tub thumpers, out to make a sackload of quick bucks from the lame at the expense of their betters.

And not so much as a single word will sink in.

So we get -- after one year -- the Christ-like "JC" still banging on with his wildly and witlessly incoherent "mathematical deduction" that life is impossible, while avoiding facts and questions he doesn't like. And we have wolfsbane thinking that five guys with a bagful of hundred-dollar PhD's in scroll-rolling from the Baptist University of Sadass, Kansas, are competent to comment upon molecular biology, paleontology, genetics and any of the thousand other areas of knowledge which point, indisputably, to one thing -- that the Theory of Evolution is an elegant, thoughtful, deceptively simple and thoroughly accurate description of why we are the way we are.

And does it make any difference? Not a bit.

To a few people, the basic tenets of christianity are that you should go out and do "good works", help your fellow human beings a bit if you can, be nice to people. And instead, they're out there somewhere on the internet, shovelling hour after hour of their little time on this earth into a dismal furnace made of shabby and second-hand propaganda, flag waving for somebody else's flat earth and the return of the time, long past, when every tribesman thought like they do.

A bit sad, isn't it?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

For example, JC's mathematical argument on probabilities? You are sure this is 'fallacious'? I wait with interest for the scientists on the list to thrash that out.

Oh it most certainly is.
He is not only using the wrong branch of probability theory, but in the limiting case where Bernoullian probability can be applied to molecules, he is actually using it incorrectly.

robindch wrote:

Morbert, Scofflaw, the recently-departed Son Goku, myself and just about anybody else could all sit here posting away until doomsday, pointing out that one creationist belief after another is not supported by evidence, or it's a contradiction in terms, or it's a flat-out falsehood,

I'm still waiting to be wowed by the predictive power of Creationism. Even just one prediction which can be tested would get it on the road to challenging evolutions millions of confirmed predictions.
Although robindch, I think that should doomsday come, I still won't have it.

Asiaprod

wolfsbane wrote:

His promise of ultimate salvation for His people is as good as His promise that the waters of Noah would never be repeated. If one was mythical, why not the other? If the Flood was a local disaster, then God is a liar, for floods with massive loss of life are common-place. What do you say?

I got something to say. Are you familiar with Irelands Saint Patrick? Well it would seem that their may be a slight misunderstanding between Patrick and God. You see Patrick, obliging chappy that he was, drove all the snakes ouit of Ireland. Now granted he missed a few , but the point is that he, as gods representative, and a Saint do not forget, promised the people of Ireland that before the last day I reland would not suffer the torments of the final days but would instead be covered in water, i.e we would all drowned. How does this fit with your above statement, since I do not see just Ireland sinking into the sea leaving England high and dry, and it would be pretty hard to just have a localized flood bearing in mind Ireland s an island.

Scofflaw

A further note with respect to JC's assertions re. amino acid sequences. In case anyone is tempted to believe what appears to be a claim that no two peptides/proteins share the same amino acid sequence, I invite you to look at this page:

234 Vertebrate Amino Acid Sequences

These are tyrosine phosphatase proteins. Note the blocks of amino acid sequences. All of these proteins, despite being in different animals, share common sequences, and then diverge slightly from each other.

A search of any protein sequence database will show the claim that all proteins have entirely unique sequences to be factually inaccurate.

That useful peptides/proteins can share amino acid sequences, and that therefore adding one amino acid to a useful molecule therefore certainly does not mean that you somehow have to 'start over'. This in turn means that the chances of deriving one useful molecule from another by addition of a couple of acids or another peptide chain are in no way what JC claims them to be.

Being kind, I will assume that the misunderstanding arises when someone states that every protein has a unique amino acid sequence. This is certainly true, because it's how you differentiate between them. Just like telephone numbers. Every telephone number is unique, but you centainly cannot claim that one number cannot be turned into another by changing or adding a digit, because telephone numbers are not entirely unique, and neither are proteins.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Let me turn you to what for Christians is the more important proof of creationism - the Bible. You claim to know the Pentateuch is saying something different about creation and the Flood than has been understood by the Church since the beginning. You claim that death and suffering are not the result of sin but are part of God's 'very good' creation. You claim there never was a world-wide flood that killed all humans but those in the Ark. Great claims indeed.

Let me ask you: Are God's people to be saved? If so, how can you be sure? Because God has promised it? Certainly. I agree. But what if God's promises can't be taken at face value? What if they may have some unkown metaphorical meaning?

His promise of ultimate salvation for His people is as good as His promise that the waters of Noah would never be repeated. If one was mythical, why not the other? If the Flood was a local disaster, then God is a liar, for floods with massive loss of life are common-place.

What do you say?

I say I made the point to you earlier in this thread that you insisted on a literal reading of Genesis because not reading it literally led to people disbelieving other parts of the Bible.

You denied it.

coldly,
Scofflaw

Excelsior

I say you are wasting your time. I say you have not read or paid attention to what I have to say. Your last post was obviously directed at your idea of a "Theistic Evolutionist" and not to me. I say that I believe Jesus to be the creating force in the world and that all truth is his truth. Evolution is true. Therefore, Jesus and evolution are not in conflict.

No one I have ever met (remember that I work with Christian students) rejected Christianity on the basis of evolution theory. Plenty have left it because of intransegience over irrelevancies though. No one I have ever heard of has become a Christian because of Ken Ham or any other liars and propagandists.

I have no difficulty with your believing creation science and trying to convince others of it. But your own certainty (in something that is dubious) hs become arrogance. You are fighting to prove yourself right instead of seeking the truth. 820+ posts later I think you (and especially JC) would have been better off in any number of a million more productive things.

I have tried my best to be impartial but my patience is pushed to breaking point after this latest preposterous display of uncharity when you question the salvation of your brothers and sisters who disagree with you. This is an irrelevancy, a theological travesty and an intellectual shambles that you are perpetuating.

Once again I hope the saner participants hear me and at least register it for future contemplation when I say that Christians generally do not hold this disregard for truth. The pursuit of truth in all its forms is a primary preoccupation of anyone who claims to follow the God who defines himself in part as truth. There is no conflict between being a Christian and being capable of assessing evidence, even evidence that might threaten you.

Please hear me: You don't have to be ignorant to believe in Jesus!



(In fact, it doesn't even help)

bus77

wolfsbane wrote:

Isaiah 54:9 “ For this is like the waters of Noah to Me;
For as I have sworn
That the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth,
So have I sworn
That I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.
10 For the mountains shall depart
And the hills be removed,
But My kindness shall not depart from you,
Nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,”
Says the LORD, who has mercy on you.

lol I was wondering why Robin did'nt like the king james version. It's been on my mind for ages. He would'nt have told me If I'd asked though, hence, ''shutup''

Here's some Longfellow anyway...

http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/song-01.html

bmoferrall

Excelsior wrote:

I have tried my best to be impartial but my patience is pushed to breaking point after this latest preposterous display of uncharity when you question the salvation of your brothers and sisters who disagree with you

I don't see where he said anything like that

Excelsior wrote:

I say you have not read or paid attention to what I have to say. Your last post was obviously directed at your idea of a "Theistic Evolutionist" and not to me. I say that I believe Jesus to be the creating force in the world and that all truth is his truth. Evolution is true. Therefore, Jesus and evolution are not in conflict.

Masochist that I am, I read back over earlier pages of this thread last night, in particular to see your take on all this.
To be honest, I didn't get the logic of your thinking at all. That's not to say that it isn't perfectly logical...just that I couldn't personally see it .
On the other hand, JC and Wolfbane's logic, specifically on the subject of theistic evolution, was clear and consistent to me.
(It's not just creationists that those naughty atheists poke fun at.)

Is there something about the origins/history of the Pentateuch, and Genesis in particular, that requires us to read it in a different way to the rest of the bible? Robert Beckford's C4 documentary "Who wrote the Bible" springs to mind. He had some thought-provoking things to say about the 'multi-sourced/multi-edited' Pentateuch, in the process somewhat undermining its claim to divine inspiration. As someone who is obviously well-read in theology, and the associated history, I wonder is that where you are coming from? If so, is there an authoritative web source (or book) that might shed some light on it (I'm pretty new to all this)?

Anyway, it appears that noone on this thread has perceptibly shifted their position amidst all the toings-and-froings. Probably best to let the scientists beaver away in their labs for a couple more years and see if some white smoke emerges.

robindch

> [bus77] I was wondering why Robin did'nt like the king james version. It's been
> on my mind for ages. He would'nt have told me If I'd asked though

It must be a touch of masochism which has me posting on these boards since I've said exactly the opposite quite a few times. And, btw, if you have a question, do feel free to ask me.

FYI - the KJV translation, as poetic prose, is beautiful and, for its wonderful ebb and flow, it knocks the socks off the dumbed-down modern efforts. That's not to say that the modern stuff is bad -- they're generally more accurate translations, at the loss of most of the poetry of the older and far more elegant KJV English. However, as a piece of comprehensible text from which one can derive only one meaning, the KJV is hopeless.

bus77

Apologies Robin, I remember you said somthing awhile ago about the KJV and it looks like I put 2+2 and got 5.

J C

Quote Scofflaw
Clearly there is no point in arguing with someone who has to believe that you can't get from a 20-acid chain to a 21-acid chain by adding 1 more acid.

You clearly accept the mathematical fact that 20 plus one equals 21 – and so do I.

Why do you not accept the equally valid mathematical fact that the number of permutations in a 20 amino acid chain choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on the chain is 1.05E+26 while the number of permutations in a 21 amino acid chain choosing from 20 amino acids is 2.10E+27 – and the difference between these two numbers is 1.99E+27.

Equally, a 64 chain Polypeptide increases the ‘combinatorial space’ to an order of magnitude of 10E+83, which is greater than the number of electrons in the known Universe.
Could I suggest that it is therefore an impossibility for undirected processes to achieve the tightly specified Polypeptide chains observed in living systems within what is effectively an infinite ‘combinatorial space’.

The appliance of external intelligence is logically required to explain how this occurred – and such an ‘Intelligence’ would have to be effectively infinite itself.


Quote Scofflaw
Just in case, let's imagine you have a useful peptide with this 21-acid sequence (where A,B, etc, stand for amino acids):

A-B-C-D-E-F-H-I-G-J-K-A-M-O-P-D-E-G-G-A-S-T-B

How is it that you claim that you cannot get this chain from the reaction below, or that there is somehow a 'vast combinatorial space' between them?

A-B-C-D-E-F-H-I-G-J-K-A-M-O-P-D-E-G-G-A-S-T plus B

You could, of course, add on B at the end, like you have proposed.
However, it would be likely to be a USELESS 21 amino acid Peptide – even though the original 20 amino acid chain was useful.

Useful Peptides are observed to be distinctly DIFFERENT from each other at most, if not all, points along their amino acid chains – and they are also observed to be tightly specified with even one amino acid change causing them to lose function. Could I also point out that whether it is one or ten changes that occurs on the chain, the chance of achieveing another useful Peptide is statistically ZERO with odds of 1.99E+27 stacked against it doing so!! This figure rises to 10E+130 when trying to 'improve' a 100 chain Protein by adding or substituting amino acids to it's chain.

To give you some idea of the ADDITIONAL permutations possible between your 20 chain and another 21 chain, you could add on B at the end and replace the A at the start with a D
or you could replace the ABC with PPP and add on an M, etc, etc with up to 1.99E+27 NEW possible permutations.
It is like being in a vast spare parts store and searching randomly for a specific spare part to perform a specific function – if there were 1.99E+27 possible parts and you had no way of ‘homing in’ on the part that you needed – you would NEVER get the part that you were looking for.


What the maths is MEASURING is something that we already know intuitively – that complex, tightly specified machines are the result of Intelligent Design – and the more complex and tightly specified, the more intelligence is required to design them.
What the astronomical figures for even small 60-70 amino acid proteins are indicating, is that living systems are approaching infinite specificity, infinite density of information and infinite probability of design by an infinitely Intelligent Designer.

To go to the other extreme, if you came across something as basic a steel nail you would immediately identify it as an artefact of the appliance of Human Intelligence. The nail exhibits tight specificity by having a formed head and a sharpened point as well as a cylindrical smooth wire linking both ends. In addition it is made of steel, which has never been observed to be spontaneously generated, nor indeed could a mechanism for an undirected wire forming and nail manufacturing process be even theoretically postulated.

What IS amazing however, is that many scientists who would stoutly defend the Intelligent Design of a steel nail, refuse to countenance the Intelligent Design of the infinitely more complex and tightly specified, Intelligent Designer of the nail!!!

There are two levels of applied intelligence operating here:-

The first level shows an ability to SPECIFY specific sequences to order, so to speak. A 10 year old can specify any particular 100 amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on the chain – yet all of the electrons in the known Universe would fail to produce enough permutations to do this by undirected processes in an effective infinity of time.

The second level of intelligence shows an ability to CHOOSE and GENERATE specific sequences coherently and to assemble these sequences to perform precisely co-ordinated functions. This would require an intelligent and creative power approaching infinity and therefore it is proof of Direct Divine Creation.

The relatively simple task is SPECIFYING the order of the amino acids.
The intelligent ability to know WHAT sequences to specify is even more important. Your sequence A-B-C-D-E-F-H-I-G-J-K-A-M-O-P-D-E-G-G-A-S-T-B might specify a really useful Peptide that would be critical to producing a vital structural protein, for example, or it could be totally useless. However, merely examining the sequence superficially wouldn’t give us any idea as to whether it was useful or not.
Undirected processes wading through an endless ocean of useless sequences wouldn’t have any plausible chance of developing any useful sequence for a Poly-Peptide beyond a chain length of about 40 amino acids long – and other issues in relation to assembly mechanisms would frustrate even this modest achievement. This leaves us with no undirected expanation for the interlinked complexity and the long functional Protein chain lengths that we observed in even the simplest cell.

bus77

J C wrote:

The second level of intelligence shows an ability to CHOOSE and GENERATE specific sequences coherently and to assemble these sequences to perform precisely co-ordinated functions. This would require an intelligent and creative power approaching infinity and therefore it is proof of Direct Divine Creation.

But who make's it rain?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

And we have wolfsbane thinking that five guys with a bagful of hundred-dollar PhD's in scroll-rolling from the Baptist University of Sadass, Kansas, are competent to comment upon molecular biology, paleontology, genetics and any of the thousand other areas of knowledge

Just to show how woefully misinformed you are, here are five examples selected alphabetically from a list of creationist scientists:

Austin, Steven A., Ph.D. Creationist Geology Professor (USA)
B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

Kenneth B. Cumming - Professor of Biology (United States)
B.S., Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1956
M.A., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1959
Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1965

Bryan Dawson, Ph. D. Mathematics (USA)
B.S., Mathematics and Computer Science, Pittsburg State University, 1986
M.S., Mathematics, Pittsburg State University, 1987
Ph. D., Mathematics, University of North Texas, 1992

Englin, Dennis L.—Professor of Geophysics (United States)
B.A., Westmont College, Santa Barbara, CA, 1968
M.Sc., California State University, Northridge, CA, 1970
Ed.D., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 1975

To a few people, the basic tenets of christianity are that you should go out and do "good works", help your fellow human beings a bit if you can, be nice to people. And instead, they're out there somewhere on the internet, shovelling hour after hour of their little time on this earth into a dismal furnace made of shabby and second-hand propaganda, flag waving for somebody else's flat earth and the return of the time, long past, when every tribesman thought like they do.

A bit sad, isn't it?

Er, If I'm wasting my time debating here, doesn't that mean you are doing the same? Your concern for the needy is commendable, but you will find Christians are able to both feed the poor and preach the truth. We have our Master as example of doing good in every way, not just one. We find your contempt for the God of the Bible, His truth and His people very sad. But we leave God to sort that out with you.

wolfsbane

Asiaprod said:

I got something to say. Are you familiar with Irelands Saint Patrick? Well it would seem that their may be a slight misunderstanding between Patrick and God. You see Patrick, obliging chappy that he was, drove all the snakes ouit of Ireland. Now granted he missed a few , but the point is that he, as gods representative, and a Saint do not forget, promised the people of Ireland that before the last day I reland would not suffer the torments of the final days but would instead be covered in water, i.e we would all drowned. How does this fit with your above statement, since I do not see just Ireland sinking into the sea leaving England high and dry, and it would be pretty hard to just have a localized flood bearing in mind Ireland s an island.

Yes, I'm familiar with Patrick. A fine Brit.:)

I know of myths concerning him and snakes and floods, but as far as I recall from reading his writings, nothing of that is from him.

Whoever did say it is obviously ignorant of the Bible's teaching on the last days:
2 Peter 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. [emphasis mine].

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I say I made the point to you earlier in this thread that you insisted on a literal reading of Genesis because not reading it literally led to people disbelieving other parts of the Bible.

You denied it.

There is obviously some misunderstanding here: please quote that to me, as I can see nothing of the sort.

Thanks.

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

I say you are wasting your time.

Whether they hear or whether they refuse, all I'm called to is to bear the witness. They will give account.

I say you have not read or paid attention to what I have to say. Your last post was obviously directed at your idea of a "Theistic Evolutionist" and not to me. I say that I believe Jesus to be the creating force in the world and that all truth is his truth. Evolution is true. Therefore, Jesus and evolution are not in conflict.

Oh, I have, sadly, heard what you have to say. You accommodate Jesus to evolution at the expense of the Biblical record and testimony, and call His people liars and propogandists.

You refuse to justify your position when confronted by the Scripture: example, Isaiah 54:9 on the waters of Noah covering the earth.

No one I have ever met (remember that I work with Christian students) rejected Christianity on the basis of evolution theory.

We must move in a different world, for that is a big part in the reasoning of many unbelievers I meet with.

Plenty have left it because of intransegience over irrelevancies though.

Obviously not following the Lamb wherever He goes, then.

No one I have ever heard of has become a Christian because of Ken Ham or any other liars and propagandists.

I've heard many testimonies to the contrary, that evolution was a great stumbling block to their taking Christ seriously.

I have no difficulty with your believing creation science and trying to convince others of it. But your own certainty (in something that is dubious) hs become arrogance.

I have no certainty in any scientific arguments. Various mechanisms may account for any particular aspect of the history of man. Vapour canopies, plate tectonics, etc. What I can be certain of is the record of the Bible. That there was a recent creation; that Adam and Eve were the first humans; that Noah and his family were the only survivours of a world-wide flood. All plainly stated in the Bible and not at all dubious.

You are fighting to prove yourself right instead of seeking the truth.

I am seeking to show what the Bible says. I am seeking to point out that not all scientists have swallowed the anti-Biblical evolutionary theory of origins.

820+ posts later I think you (and especially JC) would have been better off in any number of a million more productive things.

Defending the gospel is one of the very best things to do. And as I pointed out to robindch, does that logic not suggest discussion groups should be abandoned for famine relief, etc?

I have tried my best to be impartial but my patience is pushed to breaking point after this latest preposterous display of uncharity when you question the salvation of your brothers and sisters who disagree with you.

Bmoferrall once again gets to the reality:

I don't see where he said anything like that

Thanks, my friend.

Once again I hope the saner participants hear me and at least register it for future contemplation when I say that Christians generally do not hold this disregard for truth. The pursuit of truth in all its forms is a primary preoccupation of anyone who claims to follow the God who defines himself in part as truth. There is no conflict between being a Christian and being capable of assessing evidence, even evidence that might threaten you.

Please hear me: You don't have to be ignorant to believe in Jesus!

I entirely agree with this on the pursuit of the truth. But real Christians are those who have found the supreme Truth, so they should know that any other truth will not be found in opposition to that. 'Let God be true but every man a liar', as the apostle says.

wolfsbane

bus77 said:

lol I was wondering why Robin did'nt like the king james version.

That was the modern New Kings James Version I used. Of course it is just as clear in the other modern versions and in the old King James: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2054:9;&version=31;49;47;9;

Here's some Longfellow anyway...

Hmmmm. Loved that. Thanks.