The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

[/B]
Could I gently point out that the Met Office Model is modelling something which everybody agrees as existing....namely the weather!!!

...while the aforementioned Alogorithms are modelling something which NEVER existed...namely 'Big Picture' Evolution...

The algorithms aren't modeling evolution. They're using a process of mutation and selection that is similar to evolution to generate complexity from simplicity. They demonstrate that this process is possible.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....could I gently point out that it was the Pagan Greeks who believed in an 'Unknown God'....who created the World

You could if you want to look foolish since that isn't what the "Pagan Greeks" believed :rolleyes:

As Galvasean asked though, what does this have to do with my post?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

'Big Picture' evolution, is this your new phrase for 'Goo via the zoo'?

...yes....it was the term proposed by some Evolutionists on this thread some time back!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Could I gently point out that the Met Office Model is modelling something which everybody agrees as existing....namely the weather!!!

...while the aforementioned Alogorithms are modelling something which NEVER existed...namely 'Big Picture' Evolution...

No one argues that the process of Darwinian Evolution doesn't exist, that is such a nonsense thing to claim. One can demonstrate Darwinian evolution exists using a Commodore 64 :rolleyes:

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Oh, then are you admitting that God may merely have designed Evolution itself (the algorithm) as well as the universe (the computer)? I've already explained why your point is crap- so has Wick with his comment about weather forecasting.

....He COULD have....but He DIDN'T....
.....so are you admitting that God would be required for 'Big Picture' Evolution to work???

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Who stated that evolutionary algorithms prove evolution? What they do is prove that "irreducible complexity" can arise from simplicity with only the starting conditions defined.

.......but only when the Algorithms and the computer systems upon which they are run are themselves Intelligently Designed.....so that gets the 'ID deniers' precisely nowhere with their arguments!!!!:D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

By the definition of a scientist, one who follows the scientific method, they are not scientists.



I'm sorry, when did I call anyone's qualifications into question?

....your first sentence above claims that Creation Scientists are not scientists!!!!:)

.....so I guess the debate will have to just 'bump along' at schoolyard level, for now!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

No one argues that the process of Darwinian Evolution doesn't exist, that is such a nonsense thing to claim. One can demonstrate Darwinian evolution exists using a Commodore 64 :rolleyes:

....12,277 posts on this thread alone....certainly argues that there is a debate over whether 'Big Picture' Evolution occurred....

...and 'demonstrating' Evolution on a Commodore 64......which is itself Intelligently Designed.....is actually a PROOF of Intelligent Design being an essential ingredient of Evolution!!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....which is itself Intelligently Designed.....sounds like these Algorithms are actually a great PROOF of Intelligent Design!!!!:D

Wow, deja vu :rolleyes:

And weather must be intelligently designed as well because we model it on computers ... wow JC, putting that "trained scientist" degree to good use there

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The algorithms aren't modeling evolution. They're using a process of mutation and selection that is similar to evolution to generate complexity from simplicity. They demonstrate that this process is possible.

....of course Evolution is possible .....using an Intelligent Input......on a Computer....or by God, in the case of life!!!!

....but the evidence shows that God didn't CHOOSE to use Evolution to produce (or perfect) life!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....but the evidence shows that God didn't CHOOSE to use Evolution to produce (or perfect) life!!!

The evidence does show that life developed through Darwinian evolution.

You lose, please try again :pac::pac:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

The evidence does show that life developed through Darwinian evolution.

You lose, please try again :pac::pac:

....the evidence shows that 'Darwinian Evolution' has a quite limited role in selecting viable phenotypes from the vast pre-existing genetic information WITHIN the genomes of Created Kinds......please try again for an explantion for how each Kind of life originated !!!!!

Hint....it might be a good idea to consult a Creation Scientist.....to find the answer!!!!:D

.....or you could buy the next edition of Earth Science Ireland!!!:D:)

J C

sdep wrote: »

You were right on the first bit (my underlining and emboldening).

The value of a scientific theory is in its predictive power. Evolution makes predictions that are useful because they are precise and they turn out to be true. Some months ago, I asked if the same could be said of 'creation science'. There's been no answer, so I'll ask again:

Can anyone give a single instance where 'creation science' has made a specific prediction that was counter to the predictions of evolutionary theory, and that has turned out to be true?

You can answer the same question for 'intelligent design' if you consider it distinct from 'creation science'.

As far as I can see, 'creation science' & ID have no predictive power, so are useless as scientific theories.

....to get the ball rolling, perhaps you could enlighten us with some predictions which Evolution makes "that are useful because they are precise and they turn out to be true. ":D

My learned friend Prof Philip Skell must have had a good basis for stating “None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution - it provided no support.” ....but we remain open to correction!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....He COULD have....but He DIDN'T....
.....so are you admitting that God would be required for 'Big Picture' Evolution to work???

Of course not, but I'm not the one adding 2 and 2 to get 5 here J C. The point of our algorithm discussion is that getting complexity from simplicity without no intelligent input is merely possible.

J C wrote: »

.......but only when the Algorithms and the computer systems upon which they are run are themselves Intelligently Designed.....so that gets the 'ID deniers' precisely nowhere with their arguments!!!!:D

How do the algorithms themselves and the computers on which they run relate to the real world? They represent the fabric of the universe and nothing more. You may argue that the universe is created by God all you like, I'm no physicist.

J C wrote: »

....your first sentence above claims that Creation Scientists are not scientists!!!!:)

.....so I guess the debate will have to just 'bump along' at schoolyard level, for now!!!:D

All professional scientists should be qualified for the job, but that does not mean that all qualified people are scientists. Creationists may have science degrees and doctorates, but unless they follow the scientific method they are not scientists. I ask again, when did I call anyone's qualifications into question? Quote me please.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....of course Evolution is possible .....using an Intelligent Input......on a Computer....or by God, in the case of life!!!!

An algorithm is not intelligent input. It is a repeating sequence of events. Designed, sure, but only to repeat a simple task or to mimic the conditions we have observed. It is analogous to the natural forces in real evolution. The input is what the algorithm works upon, in this case individual mechanical components which are analogous to the genetic material.

So here we have something like your broken analogy of the whirlwind and the engine parts. Guess what? When we put the parts into this algorithm, we get a jet engine. And not just that, we get lots of them with variations that humans would not have previously imagined. With irreducibly complex systems that were not designed by any intelligence.

sdep

J C wrote: »

....to get the ball rolling, perhaps you could enlighten us with some predictions which Evolution makes "that are useful because they are precise and they turn out to be true. "

If you want to find the sequence of a given a gene in particular species, you can do so by amplifying it using the technique known as 'PCR'. First, though, you need to know a short bit of sequence from the start and end of your gene. How do you get these? You look at a species that has been sequenced and that evolution tells you is a close relative. This technique has been routinely used in thousands of biology labs around the world, and it works. Every time it's used, it's testing a small but useful prediction of evolution.

When you get the sequences, evolution predicts that species considered closely related due to morphological similarity and similar current and fossil distribution will also share more features at the DNA sequence level. This is what we generally see.

The prediction of the Tiktaalik fossil previously mentioned (here) is another example. Evolution correctly predicted that a never-seen species with a mix of fish and reptilian characteristics would be found in a specific rock formation.

What can 'creation science' offer that is comparable?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....to get the ball rolling, perhaps you could enlighten us with some predictions which Evolution makes "that are useful because they are precise and they turn out to be true. ":D

My learned friend Prof Philip Skell must have had a good basis for stating “None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution - it provided no support.” ....but we remain open to correction!!!:D

Skell is not a medic or a biologist. He's entitled to his opinion, but let's not pretend it is more than that. The theory of evolution drove the development of genetics, resulting in the emergence of the field of molecular genetics. The impact in medicine is unprecedented since the development of germ theory. If that is not enough, natural selection is now used as a model for artificial selection in genetic engineering and of course, animal breeding. These cover such a broad range of topics in medicine and agriculture that we hardly need state more.

However there is more. Genetic algorithms, of the sort we have mentioned before, are fully expected to have revolutionary implications for design in all fields. These are directly inspired by the theory of evolution.

Were we to disregard all of the above, what would it mean for the veracity of evolution? Nothing at all. In its purest form, science is the pursuit of knowledge. In the real world, funding bodies want results, but for the dedicated scientist, knowledge is the reward.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Skell is not a medic or a biologist. He's entitled to his opinion, but let's not pretend it is more than that. The theory of evolution drove the development of genetics, resulting in the emergence of the field of molecular genetics. The impact in medicine is unprecedented since the development of germ theory. If that is not enough, natural selection is now used as a model for artificial selection in genetic engineering and of course, animal breeding. These cover such a broad range of topics in medicine and agriculture that we hardly need state more.

However there is more. Genetic algorithms, of the sort we have mentioned before, are fully expected to have revolutionary implications for design in all fields. These are directly inspired by the theory of evolution.

....none of these things are driven by Evolution per se....and they are employed just as successfully by Creationists....for example, Artificial Selection has been practiced for thousands of years....long before Darwin and his Theory of Natural Selection.
Molecular Genetics is actually one of the biggest 'nails in the coffin' of Materialistic Evolution....because it shows just how complex and interactive the genetic information in living organisms is....and therefore the mathematical impossibility of its production via spontaneous, non-intelligently controlled mechanisms!!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....none of these things are driven by Evolution per se....and they are employed just as successfully by Creationists....for example, Artificial Selection has been practiced for thousands of years....long before Darwin and his Theory of Natural Selection.

Molecular genetics was driven by the desire to test evolution. So it is a direct result of the theory. Artificial selection is informed by genetics, and has been revolutionised by developments since. It is certainly an old practice, but I was actually referring to it's applications in genetic engineering.

J C wrote: »

Molecular Genetics is actually one of the biggest 'nails in the coffin' of Materialistic Evolution....because it shows just how complex and interactive the genetic information in living organisms is....and therefore the mathematical impossibility of its production via spontaneous, non-intelligently controlled mechanisms!!!!:D

Algorithms are not intelligently controlled and we can generate complex and meaningful results from simple input. And once again you speak of "impossibility" but provide no evidence.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....the evidence shows that 'Darwinian Evolution' has a quite limited role in selecting viable phenotypes from the vast pre-existing genetic information WITHIN the genomes of Created Kinds......please try again for an explantion for how each Kind of life originated !!!!!

No it doesn't. You lose, try again :pac:


until you present this "evidence", I can do this all day

robindch

PDN wrote: »

if we go by your definition then every Christian is indeed a Creationist, for we all believe that God's intervention produced life by one means or another, even if it was by evolution.

Nope, not right.

There are certain strands of christianity which take a position named "Theistic Evolution" which, in broad terms, states that the universe was bigbanged into existence by god and humanity eventually evolved according to rules which the deity had instituted before the start and had not subsequently interfered with.

Christians with such beliefs are not creationists according to the normal definition of the term.

studiorat

J C wrote: »

Molecular Genetics is actually one of the biggest 'nails in the coffin' of Materialistic Evolution....because it shows just how complex and interactive the genetic information in living organisms is....and therefore the mathematical impossibility of its production via spontaneous, non-intelligently controlled mechanisms!!!!:D

This is the most irritating things about creationists and the ID crowd. Just because something cannot be explained does not mean there is a consciousness behind it. Ask to see the scientific evidence in support of creationism, all you get given is facts about why evolution is false.

I presume this talk of "mathematical impossibility" is a referral to irreducible complexity blah blah. Well the problem with IC is that it is just as likely that it is merely "very complex" or "misunderstood" as to be created by an intelligent being.

I'm sure there's all the usual talk about airplanes and watches buried in this DNA-like thread, but lets not forget that we can remove elements of the organism and it still work. :pac::pac::pac::pac:;):rolleyes::):p:o:mad::eek::cool:

Evolutionary science is a work in progress. And in this respect, evolution is just like all other sciences. You cannot prove creation by picking holes in evolution.

Since I'm here I'll also agree with the Gould quote about the about the gaps in the fossil record. I'm sure it is nagging but all it does is present a problem to Evo science it disproves nothing. If it did the fossil record would start at a specific point and have no gaps at all...

Now would anyone care to comment on Abiotic Oil...

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Nope, not right.

There are certain strands of christianity which take a position named "Theistic Evolution" which, in broad terms, states that the universe was bigbanged into existence by god and humanity eventually evolved according to rules which the deity had instituted before the start and had not subsequently interfered with.

Christians with such beliefs are not creationists according to the normal definition of the term.

Not by the normal definition. But at the heart of it - and excuse me if this point has been made already - all Christians are creationists. It's just that many of us happen to concur with scientific theory on matters such as the big bang and evolution. However, at the same time, as someone who subscribes to theistic evolution, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that God saw fit to 'interfere' at opportune moments.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Nope, not right.

There are certain strands of christianity which take a position named "Theistic Evolution" which, in broad terms, states that the universe was bigbanged into existence by god and humanity eventually evolved according to rules which the deity had instituted before the start and had not subsequently interfered with.

Christians with such beliefs are not creationists according to the normal definition of the term.

As FC has pointed out, you appear to be misunderstanding theistic evolution. Maybe you should google it, starting with wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

wikipedia wrote:

The major criticism of theistic evolution by non-theistic evolutionists focuses on its essential belief in a supernatural creator.

Some adherents of theistic evolution hold that the deity both designed the universe and has a continuing part in its development, and feel that a term they favour has been hijacked by the proponents of the viewpoint called "Intelligent design". One notable proponent of theistic evolution, Francis Collins is a critic of Intelligent design.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

As FC has pointed out, you appear to be misunderstanding theistic evolution.

Not at all -- I think that you perhaps missed out the phrase "in broad terms" from my previous post. As the wiki article correctly points out, there are indeed some christians who believe that god does interfere with the process of evolution, though I'm not sure what percentage of christians in general hold this view.

Then there are other christians who believe that god does not interfere with the process of evolution. As I wrote above, Christians with such beliefs are not creationists according to the normal definition of the term.

I think you just need to read my posts more carefully!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Molecular genetics was driven by the desire to test evolution. So it is a direct result of the theory. Artificial selection is informed by genetics, and has been revolutionised by developments since. It is certainly an old practice, but I was actually referring to it's applications in genetic engineering.

...Molecular Geneticists my be driven by many desisres....including the desire to prove their unfounded faith in Evolution ...but it is all just wishful thinking in the face of the overwhelming evidence for Creation!!:D

....as I have already said Molecular Genetics is actually one of the biggest 'nails in the coffin' of Materialistic Evolution....because it shows just how complex and interactive the genetic information in living organisms is....and therefore the mathematical impossibility of its production via spontaneous, non-intelligently controlled mechanisms!!!!:):D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Algorithms are not intelligently controlled and we can generate complex and meaningful results from simple input. And once again you speak of "impossibility" but provide no evidence.

...algorithms ARE Intelligently Devised....and they run on Intelligently Designed Computers using Intelligently Designed programmes......how much more Intelligent Design do you want???:eek::)

The alternative of using non-intelligently produced algorithms running on non-intelligently assembled computers using non-intelligently designed programmes.....would result in 'gobbledy-gook'.....or most likely NOTHING AT ALL!!!!:pac::):D

The Mad Hatter

Here's a little analogy, because I know how much J C likes them.

A man goes to college, and he studies how to cook. He progresses to a masters in fine cuisine, from which he qualifies with first class honours.

He then proceeds to a career writing books proclaiming how much better McDonalds is than 'restaurantist' food.

Does this make him a chef?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....BOTH of the concepts of 'Evolution' and an 'Unknown God' are of Pagan origin.....and therefore their conjunction in Wicknight's Post is very significant indeed.

I don't see how evolution is of Pagan origin. Considering Paganism involves worshiping Gods. Evolution does not require belief in any Gods at all.
So it would seem that your babbling had nothing to do with Wicknight's post at all.

Galvasean

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Here's a little analogy, because I know how much J C likes them.

A man goes to college, and he studies how to cook. He progresses to a masters in fine cuisine, from which he qualifies with first class honours.

He then proceeds to a career writing books proclaiming how much better McDonalds is than 'restaurantist' food.

Does this make him a chef?

Depends, does he ever practice in any cooking? Has he ever cooked a meal which was peer reviewed by other chefs?

2Scoops

Galvasean wrote: »

Has he ever cooked a meal which was peer reviewed by other chefs?

Yeah, but it was difficult to swallow. :pac:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...Molecular Geneticists my be driven by many desisres....including the desire to prove their unfounded faith in Evolution ...but it is all just wishful thinking in the face of the overwhelming evidence for Creation!!:D

Then that's settled, evolution at least partially drove the development of molecular genetics. One of the most significant developments in medicine in the last century. This answers your request for examples of practical implications of evolution and also shows Skell to have been talking outside of his comfort zone.

J C wrote: »

....as I have already said Molecular Genetics is actually one of the biggest 'nails in the coffin' of Materialistic Evolution....because it shows just how complex and interactive the genetic information in living organisms is....and therefore the mathematical impossibility of its production via spontaneous, non-intelligently controlled mechanisms!!!!:):D

For at least the fourth time, show me your calculations.

J C wrote: »

...algorithms ARE Intelligently Devised....and they run on Intelligently Designed Computers using Intelligently Designed programmes......how much more Intelligent Design do you want???:eek::)

You'tr just repeating yourself without addressing my point. You maintain that the very structure of life itself, not just the "algorithm" nor the conditions nor the medium upon which all of this is generated, is intelligently designed. The algorithms show that these parts at least, the structure and "irreducible complexity" do not need to be specifically designed. Are you now conceding that your creator might just have set up the pattern of evolution, then set up the environment and left it at that?

J C wrote: »

the alternative of using non-intelligently produced algorithms running on non-intelligenly assembled computers using non-intelligently designed programmes.....would result in 'gobbledy-gook'.....or most likely NOTHING AT ALL!!!!:pac::):D

You're having an unreasonably difficult time grasping the concept of "modeling".

MrPudding

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Here's a little analogy, because I know how much J C likes them.

A man goes to college, and he studies how to cook. He progresses to a masters in fine cuisine, from which he qualifies with first class honours.

He then proceeds to a career writing books proclaiming how much better McDonalds is than 'restaurantist' food.

Does this make him a chef?

I thought it would be more along the lines of he went to college and studied sports science or childcare and then started writing about how McDonalds food was better?

MrP