The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

pH

We went through this information argument before, with J C never providing us with a way of measuring the value of 'information', making his claim that information can never increase on shaky ground.

Anyway it's trivial to show that for any measure of information if mutations are symmetric (ie for mutation X be it an insertion/deletion/alteration there is an equivalent mutation that in theory reverses it) then if a mutation can decrease information then mutation can increase information.

J C then went on to obfuscate this point by claiming God had designed a very efficient repair mechanism, which is not the point here, the point is that for any random mutation X there exists another random mutation X' which is the reverse of X, say X is a deletion then X' would be an insertion etc.

For what J C is claiming to be true, he would need to show there are a set of mutations that are impossibilities, this has nothing at all to do with DNA repair.

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

We went through this information argument before, with J C never providing us with a way of measuring the value of 'information', making his claim that information can never increase on shaky ground.

Anyway it's trivial to show that for any measure of information if mutations are symmetric (ie for mutation X be it an insertion/deletion/alteration there is an equivalent mutation that in theory reverses it) then if a mutation can decrease information then mutation can increase information.

J C then went on to obfuscate this point by claiming God had designed a very efficient repair mechanism, which is not the point here, the point is that for any random mutation X there exists another random mutation X' which is the reverse of X, say X is a deletion then X' would be an insertion etc.

For what J C is claiming to be true, he would need to show there are a set of mutations that are impossibilities, this has nothing at all to do with DNA repair.

Also, there is no reason why DNA repair would work only upon "information increasing" mutations but not on all of those detrimental mutations that J C is so quick to highlight. We can assume that on average the repair mechanisms work equally on both and so the information symmetry is preserved.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

So you can't say what "new information" is in a genetic sense but you can say that "kinds" exist and that species cannot evolve into a different "kind" because that would involve new information, which evolution cannot produce.

Brilliant :rolleyes:

If a mutation or series of mutations produces physical genetic in coding (a new gene for example) that was not present in the DNA of the previous non-mutated organism, how is that not new information?

The latter bit first:
If it merely involves a modification of an existing gene - a deletion, for example - then I can't see how that can be regarded a new information in the sense we have used it. Wicknight becoming Wicknit would be new, but not new information.;)

First bit:
I can say all the above because I base it on the Bible - as I've said before. I'm a Creationist primarily because I'm a Bible-believing Christian. I welcome the scientific arguments in support of that, that the creation science movements provide - but that does not determine my belief in creationism.

wolfsbane

Gaviscon wrote: »

Oh how I laughed when I read that statement!

Let me get this straight. Of all the scientists in the world you regard the opinion of the one whose claim to being an actual scientist is most HIGLY dubious in the highest regard? Not to mention the fact that he can't seem to write with proper grammer. If one can't even grasp the basics of the english language what hope does one have at figuring out complex scientific theories.
It would seem the only reason you source him is because he is telling you what you want to hear, utter nonsense which vaguely supports your own warped world view. Sounds a little bit too selective if you ask me.
No wonder the Creationists are regarded so lowly in the realms of the scientific community, not to mention right thinking members of society.

JC seems to be at least as articulate as the rest of us, and his grammar has not been noticably deficient to me. Even if it were, coming from the science end of knowledge, I would think his grammar and spelling would not need to be high to be normal.

I respect JC's science because it is confirmed by many other fine scientists, whose character I trust. It is refuted by many more scientists whose character I have no grounds to trust.

Creationists are happy to be reviled by the godless, and saddened when their brethren cave in to peer pressure and join with the baying mob.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't mean to sound harsh about this Wolfsbane, but if you cannot tell me what "new information" actually constitutes in some manner that we can measure then I don't think you can really use it as a point of argument.

This any help?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5279

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You don't believe in the Big Bang, but in a sort of steady-state universe?
No.

Then please explain what you meant by:
Originally Posted by Flamed Diving
The entire universe continued as always, much the same way as it does now, and as it will after I'm gone.
Are you confining this to after mankind's appearance and shortly after your demise? I took it you meant always in the wider sense.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The latter bit first:
If it merely involves a modification of an existing gene - a deletion, for example - then I can't see how that can be regarded a new information in the sense we have used it. Wicknight becoming Wicknit would be new, but not new information.;)

So, shortening Night to Nit is not "new information"? Despite the fact that they mean very much distinct things?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I respect JC's science because it is confirmed by many other fine scientists, whose character I trust. It is refuted by many more scientists whose character I have no grounds to trust.

Why would you assume that conventional scientists are untrustworthy? You are willing to accept "science" presented to you based upon authority rather than your own reason. Yet contradictory science you reject. Under what circumstances would you reject the word of J C or another creationist? Do you think it is reasonable to assume that all creationists are honorable and unbiased? It really appears that you are accepting that science which fits your assumptions, or your wishes, and rejecting that which contradicts these. There is none of your own God-given reason in there.

wolfsbane wrote: »

This any help?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5279

Not really. Argument from lack of imagination does not interest me.

In particular, this is utter crap:

An organism that has to manufacture, maintain, and drag around with it a mountain of useless information while waiting for a chance correlation of relevance to occur so that something useful can happen, is an organism that natural selection is going to select against, not favour!

A blissfully simplistic black-and-white view of natural selection. Were the above actually true, the considerable burden of non-coding DNA in the human genome would not exist at all.

sdep

wolfsbane wrote: »

I respect JC's science because it is confirmed by many other fine scientists, whose character I trust. It is refuted by many more scientists whose character I have no grounds to trust.

Let's take an example. JC told us the other day that horses were probably tetraploid:

J C wrote: »

....I agree that tetraploidy is extremely rare........but it is the most likely explanation for the speciation of the Horse. Robertsonian translocations, tandem fusions and inversions may have been involved in the speciation of the Donkey allright.

This may seem esoteric, and entirely tangential to the evolution vs. creationism issue, yet its relevance to your claim is that it goes against all the available science.

Of roughly 5,400 mammal species, only two have been suggested to be tetraploid - a pair of closely-related South American rodent species (original paper here). Subsequent research, however, says this is incorrect (see here), leaving us not one proven tetraploid mammal species.

This paper uses a technique for identifying corresponding parts of the genomes of the horse, zebras and related species. If the horse (32 chromosome pairs) resulted from a doubling-up of the mountain zebra genome (16 pairs), for each stretch of zebra DNA, you'd expect two in the horse. Instead, you find just one.

We now have a near complete horse genome sequence (here). Analysis shows that it consists of 32 distinct pairs of chromosomes, not 16 quartets.

So, as you see, JC's assertion that horses are probably tetraploid is obviously and pointlessly wrong. What does this say for JC's other contested assertions? You decide.

Steviemak

How can you argue with the logic of a creationist when this is their own Statement of Faith -

- No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

ie no matter how strong the evidence against creationism it can never be true if it contradicts the Scriptures.

Thats what you are dealing with guys!! you could be here for a million years and never win the arguement.

AtomicHorror

Steviemak wrote: »

How can you argue with the logic of a creationist when this is their own Statement of Faith -

- No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

ie no matter how strong the evidence against creationism it can never be true if it contradicts the Scriptures.

Thats what you are dealing with guys!! you could be here for a million years and never win the arguement.

But how many uncertain Christians will we convince by merely fighting the good fight? This thread has many more views than it has posts. People are reading, and for now at least, I'm happy to convince them.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The latter bit first:
If it merely involves a modification of an existing gene - a deletion, for example - then I can't see how that can be regarded a new information in the sense we have used it. Wicknight becoming Wicknit would be new, but not new information.;)

And if Wicknight becomes Wickdarwinnight

Would that not be new information (please please please say it would be new information but that this would never happen :P)

wolfsbane wrote: »

First bit:
I can say all the above because I base it on the Bible - as I've said before.

Funny I don't remember the Bible being a science book, strange that you could devise an entire biological system from it.

And in fact I remember being told that it isn't a large number of times (normally when I or someone is pointing out that Pi isn't 3, the world doesn't have "four corners" and that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth)

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

And if Wicknight becomes Wickdarwinnight

Quiet, Wicknit. :pac:

robindch

Steviemak wrote: »

you could be here for a million years and never win the arguement.

Can't speak for anybody else, but I'm not here to win the argument. Just to see what's going on really, and to try to understand the hilariously hemmed-in thinking that helps to make somebody a good creationist.

At times, it's necessary to remind oneself that some posters, against all reality, really do appear to believe what they are writing.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

I respect JC's science because it is confirmed by many other fine scientists, whose character I trust. It is refuted by many more scientists whose character I have no grounds to trust.

You trust their character because they tell you what you want to hear. Unfortunately that is not science.
I trust the scientists with the most data on their side.

Zombrex

Gaviscon wrote: »

You trust their character because they tell you what you want to hear. Unfortunately that is not science.

QFT

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......so a stinger.....could arise from a modified set of genitals.....
.....another reason, I guess, for evolutionist women to keep their knickers on......and for evolutionist men to keep their their 'flies' tightly zipped!!!!

........on the other hand, Creationist women can relax and confidently look forward to multiple orgasmic convulsions...........rather than being stung to death by their husbands!!!!!!!!!

PDN
Grow up! Yellow card awarded for being unbelievably stupidly annoying, even by this thread's standards.

......OUCH!!!!

........I WAS only discussing how sex is related to evolutionary theory......as well as pointing out that it is perfectly OK for husbands and wives to fully enjoy sex .......even when they take (great) pleasure from it!!!!

This whole section of the debate was triggered by the Evolutionist claim that sexual appendages could have been the precursors of venomous stings (in insects)......and I have merely pointed out the illogicality of such a belief.....by using Human Anatomy as an example!!!!!!!

.......I would therefore respectfully request that you remove the yellow card from me......as I was 'on topic' at the time......and replying to an issue raised by my opponents.

I do love you all.......in a purely Christian way.....I might add!!!

Steviemak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=related

Essential viewing for people that think creationism has any foundation - i think there are 12 videos in all.

Beware fundementalist creationists though - it may make you doubt creationism:). But don't worry evolution has nothing to do with believing in God.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

[/B]

......OUCH!!!!

........I WAS only discussing how sex is related to evolutionary theory......as well as pointing out that it is perfectly OK for husbands and wives to fully enjoy sex .......even when they take (great) pleasure from it!!!!

This whole section of the debate was triggered by the Evolutionist claim that sexual appendages could have been the precursors of venomous stings (in insects)......and I have merely pointed out the illogicality of such a belief.....by using Human Anatomy as an example!!!!!!!

.......I would therefore respectfully request that you remove the yellow card from me......as I was 'on topic' at the time......and replying to an issue raised by my opponents.

I do love you all.......in a purely Christian way.....I might add!!!

When you said 'another reason', what pray tell was the first and subsequent reasons?

Also, arguing with the referee is a good way to get sent off. Just ask Javier Mascherano.

Galvasean

Steviemak wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=related

Essential viewing for people that think creationism has any foundation - i think there are 12 videos in all.

Beware fundementalist creationists though - it may make you doubt creationism:). But don't worry evolution has nothing to do with believing in God.

Watched the first one. Very good. I'll point people towards that if they ever ask for evolution v creationism in a nutshell.

AtomicHorror

I like the video, but I have to wonder if we really need to bait the creationists with clips from Aladdin...

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztejNZIZdsU

AtomicHorror

Saturn. Is there anything it can't do?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

JC seems to be at least as articulate as the rest of us, and his grammar has not been noticably deficient to me. Even if it were, coming from the science end of knowledge, I would think his grammar and spelling would not need to be high to be normal.

Good spelling and grammar are just as necessary for science as they are for the arts. If J C ever submitted a thesis in his usual style, it would be thrown back at him.

His arguments are usually so weak that it's quite clear the full stops and exclamation marks are just padding.

His rejection of evolutionary theory might hold some water if he could at least learn to type properly - for instance learning that an elipsis contains exactly three full stops. Then it would at least be clear that he can at least accept some facts - as you can - and is not a troll.

bonkey

pH wrote: »

We went through this information argument before, with J C never providing us with a way of measuring the value of 'information', making his claim that information can never increase on shaky ground.

We also went through this point before where I asked Wolfsbane to clarify what his understanding of the term was.

The end result was that Woslfbane couldn't define what this information is, that he believes cannot be increased. In addition, he linked to an article where the author also failed to provide a meaningful and complete definition, and suggested that this may answer the question.

The reality is that "Wicknit" does supply new information in comparison to "Wicknight". For example, the information which is "what letter comes after the second i has changed. Its old value was "g", and its new value is "t". Thats new information.

Now, lets not get excited, here. This is where we should await the inevitable switch from "new information" to "increase of information"....at which point we introduce the concept of mutation causing repetition of existing information, so we have (for example) "Wickniight". Now we have the new information of what comes after the third instance of "i" - information which never existed before.

At that point, we can expect some more obfuscation about how we've only introduced a new copy of information which was already existant, so although we have no information, its still not an increase.

So then we talk about copy-followed-by-mutation, where we end up with "wichnioght", where we have new and increased information.

At that point...some other excuse will be used to explain it all away.

santing

Steviemak wrote: »

But don't worry evolution has nothing to do with believing in God.

And that's precisely your problem - the evolution/creation question has everything to do with believing God. (note the omission of "in"!)

We believe in one God, the great living Creator and Sustainer of all things.

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

And that's precisely your problem - the evolution/creation question has everything to do with believing God. (note the omission of "in"!)

Creationism is about believing that a being with unimaginable intelligence, vast creative and imaginative power and absolute control over the fabric of reality itself would work in a manner that stone age people could literally interpret as a story. That this astounding being never mastered the concept of "metaphor". And that this being decided for some reason to make the universe, down to the finest detail we can discern, to appear as if his word is is false.

santing

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Creationism is about believing that a being with unimaginable intelligence, vast creative and imaginative power and absolute control over the fabric of reality

You got it nearly right.
Faith (Christianity) is believing a Being with unimaginable intelligence, vast creative and imaginative power and absolute control over the fabric of reality...
Creationism is an attempt to square the direct revelation of God (the Bible) with his indirect revelation (Creation).

Steviemak

Santing - What God? Creationism covers most religions.


I believe in God just not the God in Genesis.

Believing in Creationism means believing that God wrote and edited the bible - not man. He put stuff in and took stuff out. He contradicted his own laws over and over again. A supreme being couldn't have written such a sloppy document. He didn't write the bible - man did. God left clues everywhere to show us how he designed the world and how we developed. Why would he do this if it wasn't true - for a joke? But you choose to believe that Genesis (a summary document amalgamating fables from various traditions written by primitive man as a methophor thousands of years ago) is the word of God.

But I know you are just trying to wind people up .

Further viewing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o

AtomicHorror

santing wrote: »

You got it nearly right.
Faith (Christianity) is believing a Being with unimaginable intelligence, vast creative and imaginative power and absolute control over the fabric of reality...

Complete my quote and you have a definition of Christianity that many would disagree with.

santing wrote: »

Creationism is an attempt to square the direct revelation of God (the Bible) with his indirect revelation (Creation).

Yes, which essentially entails accepting the stuff I already wrote which you reduced to "...". In other words, assuming the quite vague word of God to be literal rather than metaphorical. I'd rephrase you slightly though:

not santing wrote: »

...an attempt to crowbar his indirect revelation (Creation) into the direct revelation of God (the Bible)

Our observations of the world and the universe simply don't tally with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Our observations of the world and the universe simply don't tally with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

That is the heart of the matter.

Its funny when faced with the world around them and a book about the world around them some people take the book and throw out the world.