The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

sdep

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Perhaps I could set the creation scientists a little project. Firstly, give me a hypothesis that would support creationism specifically. A testable, falsifiable and above all simple hypothesis. Secondly, propose an experiment which might test the hypothesis.

If the positive outcome of either would be an equally good fit for the theory of evolution then it's no good. This needs to be something unique to Creation.

Given the history of this thread, I wouldn't expect an answer any time soon. You can go back two years and find the same question, with no satisfactory answer. Usually the question gets ignored.

Jan 2006:

Son Goku wrote: »

JC, look just give me a single prediction of Creation Science.
Don't give one of the hypotheses, give me even a single predictive framework and one of its predictions.

Let me be double clear, don't give me a hypothesis.

Just one framework with one prediction. Thats all you have to do.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would also like to see this done. Stripped of technical language, I assume that what Son Goku is asking for is a single testable prediction, and the reason for making that prediction, so that:

If God made the world according to Genesis, x is true (your prediction), because it says y in Genesis (your framework).

If God did not make the world according to Genesis, x is not true.

All we need is an 'x', and you have at least a start on falsifiability. We would like a Creationist to supply an example of x. The framework is necessary to avoid predictions like 'God would make oranges orange', which are tautological, and have no justification in Genesis.

March 2008:

sdep wrote: »

So has Creation science actually come up with a single distinctive model that makes specific, testable, reliable predictions, or is it purely reactionary?

September 2008:

sdep wrote: »

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'.

AtomicHorror

Yes, but I'm all about asking the question to demonstrate the lack of answers.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Perhaps I could set the creation scientists a little project. Firstly, give me a hypothesis that would support creationism specifically. A testable, falsifiable and above all simple hypothesis.

I'm surprised that no creationist has produced something like "God loves his humans, so he will ensure that his finest creation, humanity, will survive no matter what happens".

Conveniently, if this turns out to be false, nobody will be around to explain to any remaining creationists that they were wrong.

I think this fits in fairly well with creationism's undisprovable omnipotent god.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

AtomicHorror

I would actually really love to hear J C or Wolfie explain away that video.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I would actually really love to hear J C or Wolfie explain away that video.

Why would I want to? For a start Hovind is not my idea of a true creationist.

But more importantly, the video established that C14 dating has pitfalls, as creationism warned of, in presuming uniformity of conditions. You accept that special conditions drastically alter the levels of C14 - marine enviroment, for example - but deny us the possibility of such special conditions in ancient times (the global Flood for example).

Don't you see the hypocrisy?

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

(the global Flood for example).

Which, there has never been a shred of evidence for?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why would I want to? For a start Hovind is not my idea of a true creationist.

But more importantly, the video established that C14 dating has pitfalls, as creationism warned of, in presuming uniformity of conditions. You accept that special conditions drastically alter the levels of C14 - marine enviroment, for example - but deny us the possibility of such special conditions in ancient times (the global Flood for example).

Don't you see the hypocrisy?

And you assume that such conditions are undetectable. Clearly not, since the problems with C14 dating were identified. The modified reservoir effect can be detected. Evidence of ancient floods and of water damage have been found many times, so these phenomena are also detectable. Besides, how would a global flood around 4000BC affect samples from 17,000BC? There'd be little or no contact between the samples and the flood waters (and if there were that would leave detectable signs too) and such simple contact would not actually compromise the results since that would not create the reservoir effect.

Based on knowledge of that effect, re-analysis of various samples confirmed that the error was on the scale of hundreds of years, rather than the thousands that creationists need. So, tree ring analysis and C14 dating gives us a world at least 25,000 years old. This falsifies the hypothesis that the world is 6000 years old.

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So, tree ring analysis and C14 dating gives us a world at least 25,000 years old. This falsifies the hypothesis that the world is 6000 years old.

This is worth repeating.

Anyway, what say the creationists on the unicorn issue? Seriously.

Galvasean

The tags on this thread are quite interesting.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

For a start Hovind is not my idea of a true creationist.

What's wrong with him?

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

"Oh Hovan, there's no **** carbon in this"

nearly wet myself at that part :pac:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But more importantly, the video established that C14 dating has pitfalls, as creationism warned of, in presuming uniformity of conditions. You accept that special conditions drastically alter the levels of C14 - marine enviroment, for example - but deny us the possibility of such special conditions in ancient times (the global Flood for example).

So do you admit that Carbon dating (and other radiometric dating) can and have dated things older that 10,000 years old some of the time?

This is the crux of the matter.

Creationists argue that because they processes can get the answer wrong then the results are all wrong all the time. Nothing is old than 10,000 years so nothing can be dated to be older than 10,000 years.

Can you see the problem there?

btw unless you are suggesting that plant life started living and breathing under water during the flood the Flood would not effect the dating of plant life.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So a general round up.

Any chance of responses (again) on the following points, J C?



How do we measure the above?



I really promise.



Any comments on the above?

Perhaps I could set the creation scientists a little project. Firstly, give me a hypothesis that would support creationism specifically. A testable, falsifiable and above all simple hypothesis. Secondly, propose an experiment which might test the hypothesis.

If the positive outcome of either would be an equally good fit for the theory of evolution then it's no good. This needs to be something unique to Creation.

Hypothesis......that NEW functional information ALWAYS has an ultimate intelligent source.

Falsify.....by finding one repeatably observable example of NEW functional information being produced WITHOUT a demonstrable ultimate intelligent source.


Hypothesis....the production of specific functional biomolecules with chain lengths in excess of 100 is statistically impossible using non-intelligently directed means.

Falsify....demonstrate how a specific functional 100 chain biomolecule could be produced using non-intelligently directed processes and without consuming the supposed 'Big Bang Universe' in the process!!!

jackdaw

Danno wrote: »

Dear Mods and fellow Boards Members.

I wish to open this thread to discuss the Bible and Creationism, and to hear peoples opinions on what can be viewed as the most fundamental part of the origins of man, and also to tease out what prophecy has to offer in where we came from and where we are going.

I hope that with enough interest that this thread becomes a sticky.

I also wish to ask everyone who posts here not to personally attack any person contributing. I look forward to a good debate...

Where creationism is concerned there is no debate ... it didn't happen ..

and you're a fool if you believe otherwise ... the Earth 6,000 years old !!! give me a break!!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Hypothesis......that NEW functional information ALWAYS has an ultimate intelligent source.

Falsify.....by finding one repeatably observable example of NEW functional information being produced WITHOUT a demonstrable ultimate intelligent source.

Well leaving aside that that is a nonsense hypothesis/falsifiabilty assertion ("ultimate intelligent source", how do you falsify that, you would just claim everything is "ultimately" down to God), such examples have been given to you ages ago.

Any increase in the genetic structure of an organism due to mutation is new functional information, because it always does something. It always has a function in how the organism develops. That function can be bad, indifferent, or good.

The example being "Wicknight" mutating into "WickPPnight". The mutation produces new information. And because the new information will produce a new design it produces functionality, it is new functional information.

You dismissed this by simply mading up a different definition of "functional information" any time someone demonstrates this and you move on.

:rolleyes:

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I would actually really love to hear J C or Wolfie explain away that video.

....TRY explaining THIS away...IF you can!!!!:eek::eek:

"I am prepared to fight and die for my cause, . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident . . . . It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!"
These are the words of a self-proclaimed Nihilist who took part in a shooting rampage in Jokela High School about 40 miles from Helsinki, Finland.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/i-will-eliminate-all-disgraces-of-the-human-race/2007/11/08/1194329328728.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1568631/Biography-of-a-teen-killer.html
BTW this was the other Finnish School shooting last November....and the guy last Tuesday is said to have been an admirer of the first shooter...and with similar nihilistic beliefs!!!!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24397941-38200,00.html


..and they weren't the only school shooters that used "Natural Selection" to justify their outrages
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1536

"On 20 April, 1999, two students at the Columbine High School in the U.S. state of Colorado, 18-year-old Eric Harris and 17-year-old Dylan Klebod, arrived at their school carrying guns and bombs, slaughtering 12 students and a teacher in 30 minutes before killing themselves. Harris was wearing a T-shirt with the words “NATURAL SELECTION” on it. The majority of the documents seized by police from Harris’ home in the wake of the attack referred to natural selection and feelings of superiority. In video tapes previously uploaded onto the internet, Harris and Klebold constantly spoke of their being “more evolved” and of what it felt like to be “superhuman.”

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Well leaving aside that that is a nonsense hypothesis/falsifiabilty assertion ("ultimate intelligent source", how do you falsify that, you would just claim everything is "ultimately" down to God), such examples have been given to you ages ago.

Any increase in the genetic structure of an organism due to mutation is new functional information, because it always does something. It always has a function in how the organism develops. That function can be bad, indifferent, or good.

The example being "Wicknight" mutating into "WickPPnight". The mutation produces new information. And because the new information will produce a new design it produces functionality, it is new functional information.

You dismissed this by simply mading up a different definition of "functional information" any time someone demonstrates this and you move on.

:rolleyes:

....ANY non-living examples of NEW functional information being produced WITHOUT a demonstrable ultimate intelligent source is acceptable as falsifying my hypothesis!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Well leaving aside that that is a nonsense hypothesis/falsifiabilty assertion ("ultimate intelligent source", how do you falsify that, you would just claim everything is "ultimately" down to God), such examples have been given to you ages ago.

Any increase in the genetic structure of an organism due to mutation is new functional information, because it always does something. It always has a function in how the organism develops. That function can be bad, indifferent, or good.

The example being "Wicknight" mutating into "WickPPnight". The mutation produces new information. And because the new information will produce a new design it produces functionality, it is new functional information.

You dismissed this by simply mading up a different definition of "functional information" any time someone demonstrates this and you move on.

:rolleyes:

...."Wicknight" mutating into "WickPPnight" is a DEGRADATION of information...and a few more 'mutations' like that one, and the words would lose ALL meaning...and become functionless!!!

.....ditto with biological mutations!!!:D

....and BTW 'functional information' is FUNCTIONAL...i.e it provides a USEFUL function for the organism.....otherwise it is non-functional 'gobbledy-gook'!!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....ANY non-living examples of NEW functional information being produced WITHOUT a demonstrable ultimate intelligent source will be equally acceptable as falsifying my hypothesis!!!:D

you think /dev/urandom is an intelligent source?

you don't know much about computers do you?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...."Wicknight" mutating into "WickPPnight" is a DEGRADATION of information...and a few more 'mutaions' like that and the words would lose ALL meaning...and become functionless!!!

Not if any combination of letters produces some function, as in the case of genetic code. Genetic code doesn't have "meaning", it isn't a language. It is a blue print. And any blue print will produce an organism.

Do you not understand the difference between a language and a blue print?

J C wrote: »

....and BTW 'functional information' is FUNCTIONAL...i.e it provides a USEFUL function for the organism.....otherwise it is non-functional 'gobbledy-gook'!!!!:D

How "USEFUL" a new function is is determined by the environment the mutated organism finds itself in, as you well know.

But again you have been given plenty of examples already where a mutation produced new genetic information (by your own definition) which produced new functionality in the organism (by your own definition) functionality which proved to be useful to the organism in terms of fitness (by your own defintions)

So would you agree that your hyopthesis has been falsifed? Great, lets all go home.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Not if any combination of letters produces some function, as in the case of genetic code. Genetic code doesn't have "meaning", it isn't a language. It is a blue print. And any blue print will produce an organism.

Do you not understand the difference between a language and a blue print?

...but any combination of letters DOESN'T produce the same function, in the case of the genetic code....
..just like in all other languages, there are LIMITED numbers of different words with roughly the same meaning.....for example 'very damp' and 'wet' have different letter combinations....but roughly the same 'meaning'....and that's just about it...when it comes to specifying 'wetness'....similarly, in genetics, different VERY limited and VERY distinct combinations of Nucleic Acids specify certain functions.....and the useless combinatorial space between them is statistically and effectively infinite!!!!!:pac::):D


.....your distinction between languages and blueprints is entirely fallacious!!!!:D

......functional information is functionally useful....whether it is transmitted via a language or a blueprint.:cool::)

Wicknight wrote: »

How "USEFUL" a new function is is determined by the environment the mutated organism finds itself in, as you well know.

But again you have been given plenty of examples already where a mutation produced new genetic information (by your own definition) which produced new functionality in the organism (by your own definition) functionality which proved to be useful to the organism in terms of fitness (by your own defintions)

So would you agree that your hyopthesis has been falsifed? Great, lets all go home.

.....not so quick....the ultimate origin of the information present in living things HASN'T been scientifically established....so, as I have already said, I am prepared to accept ANY non-living examples of NEW functional information being produced WITHOUT a demonstrable ultimate intelligent source as falsifying my hypothesis!!!:D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I would actually really love to hear J C or Wolfie explain away that video.

....I am currently away from a broadband connection...so I am unable to play the video.....so if you would like me to comment on anything in it please post the relevant quote(s).

....and BTW ye complained about Creationists posting document links on this thread....at least the documents can be downloaded on a narrowband connection....so I would ask that ye refrain from posting video clips without putting up the quotes that you would like people to respond to.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...but any combination of letters DOESN'T produce the same function, in the case of the genetic code....

i didn't say it product the same function.. but any combination will produce a function

how useful the new function is if determined afterwards. It might simply kill the organism. or it might all the organism to digest nylon.

J C wrote: »

.....your distinction between languages and blueprints is entirely fallacious!!!!:D

It appears that way because you don't understand the subject you are discussing very well.

Languages convey conceptual meanings through the use of symbols or representations. It is necessary for the communication of these concepts that an agreed syntax is held to, otherwise the meanings of the different representations could be lost.

That is not what genetic code does. In fact it is nothing like genetic code. Genetic code is not a language. There are no conceptual ideas stored in the genetic code.

J C wrote: »

......functional information is functionally useful....whether it is transmitted via a language or a blueprint.:cool::)

Functional information is information that results in some function. Whether or not that function is useful or not is determined later by the environment function finds itself it. The code itself has no concept of how "useful" it is or isn't

This is kindergardan stuff JC, that we have been over hundreds of times already

J C wrote: »

.....not so quick....the ultimate origin of the information present in living things HASN'T been scientifically established

The "ultimate origin" is not something that can be estabished because what ever origin is found (the chemical laws for example) you can simply claim that that isn't actually the "ultimate" origin

which is why I said your so called "falsifiable" hypothesis was nonsense.

Explain how one scientifically tests the "ultimate" origin of something :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

....so, as I have already said, I am prepared to accept ANY non-living examples of NEW functional information being produced WITHOUT a demonstrable ultimate intelligent source as falsifying my hypothesis!!!:D

You have already been given one, an evolution simulator using /dev/urandom

you claim that this is an intelligent source ... that is because you (again) don't understand what /dev/urandom is

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....I am currently away from a broadband connection...so I am unable to play the video.....so if you would like me to comment on anything in it please post the relevant quote(s).

....and BTW ye complained about Creationists posting document links on this thread....at least the documents can be downloaded on a narrowband connection....so I would ask that ye refrain from posting video clips without putting up the quotes that you would like people to respond to.

Only because they have a such a low information density. :pac:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

i didn't say it product the same function.. but any combination will produce a function

.....but any combination will NOT produce a function.....functional biomolecules are ALSO observed to have VERY limited and VERY distinct combinations of Nucleic Acids to specify each function.....and the useless combinatorial space between them is ALSO statistically and effectively infinite

Wicknight wrote: »

how useful the new function is if determined afterwards. It might simply kill the organism. or it might all the organism to digest nylon.

.....the ability to digest Nylon was pre-existent to the arrival of Nylon.....and is testament to the genetic diversity of the original Creation....there are examples of a/b resistant bacteria recovered from ice cores which were last exposed to external contamination thousands of years ago....long before these antibiotics were synthesised by Man....this indicates that the resistance is INNATE...and NOT developed by selection/mutation feedback!!!
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c1x1k073u5558154/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14319342.300-science-ancient-bacteria-are-frozen-in-time-.html

Wicknight wrote: »

It appears that way because you don't understand the subject you are discussing very well.

...touché!!!:D

Wicknight wrote: »

Languages convey conceptual meanings through the use of symbols or representations. It is necessary for the communication of these concepts that an agreed syntax is held to, otherwise the meanings of the different representations could be lost.

That is not what genetic code does. In fact it is nothing like genetic code. Genetic code is not a language. There are no conceptual ideas stored in the genetic code.

....there are no conceptual ideas stored in computer code.....BUT there is intelligently produced functional information in there.....ditto with genetic code!!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

Functional information is information that results in some function. Whether or not that function is useful or not is determined later by the environment function finds itself it. The code itself has no concept of how "useful" it is or isn't

This is kindergardan stuff JC, that we have been over hundreds of times already

......the main point is that functional information occupies a tiny fraction of possible combinatorial space.....and so it is statistically impossible to produce by non-intelligently directed processes!!!!!

...and this is certainly 'kindergarten stuff'!!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

The "ultimate origin" is not something that can be estabished because what ever origin is found (the chemical laws for example) you can simply claim that that isn't actually the "ultimate" origin

which is why I said your so called "falsifiable" hypothesis was nonsense.

Explain how one scientifically tests the "ultimate" origin of something :rolleyes:



You have already been given one, an evolution simulator using /dev/urandom

you claim that this is an intelligent source ... that is because you (again) don't understand what /dev/urandom is

....perhaps you might explain /dev/urandum....and HOW you believe that it can generate functional information without any ultimate intelligent input.:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....and BTW ye complained about Creationists posting document links on this thread....at least the documents can be downloaded on a narrowband connection....so I would ask that ye refrain from posting video clips without putting up the quotes that you would like people to respond to.

marco_polo
Only because they have a such a low information density. :pac:

.....you are confusing the quality of the carrier medium ....with the quantity/quality of actual information itself!!!!!

....for example a high definition Evolution video.....can have the same functional information content as a blank sheet of paper!!!!!:pac::):D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....but any combination will NOT produce a function.....functional biomolecules are ALSO observed to have VERY limited and VERY distinct combinations of Nucleic Acids to specify each function.....and the useless combinatorial space between them is ALSO statistically and effectively infinite

That isn't true. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you

J C wrote: »

.....the ability to digest Nylon was pre-existent to the arrival of Nylon.....

That is correct, which is why I keep explaining to you that the usefulness of the new function is determined by the environment independently of the function itself. The "nylon bugs" were mutating this function long before Nylon was invented. Back then it was a pretty useless function that imparted no fitness advantage to the bacteria so it was not selected by natural selection. Then nylon comes along and means that the mutation does now produce a useful function and natural selection selects the bacteria with the new function.

but your assertion that the ability to digest nylon was always present in the bacteria species is a Creationist lie. It wasn't, it was a new function produce by new genetic information produced by mutation. Evolution as it were. Your claim that the mutation didnt produce new information it just rearranged old information in a new way is a lie. That is a form of producing new information, in the same way that "bat" rearranged to produce "tab" is new information.

J C wrote: »

there are examples of a/b resistant bacteria recovered from ice cores which were last exposed to external contamination thousands of years ago....long before these antibiotics were synthesised by Man....this indicates that the resistance is INNATE...and NOT developed by selection/mutation feedback!!!

What?

Do you understand what a mutation is? Mutations are not caused by the functions they provide. Nylon didn't cause the Nylon bug to mutate the ability to digest Nylon ...

J C wrote: »

....there are no conceptual ideas stored in computer code

Yes there are. Genetic code is not like computer code.

But we are not talking about computer code. We are talking about computer simulations. The genetic model is not the computer code, in the same way that a computer simulates the weather without the computer's CPU being feed a whole lot of weather statistics. The HIRLAM weather program is not made up of a lot of weather codes. It is made up of computer code, computer code that then creates a simulation of the weather code. The two codes are seperate.

I think you need to read up a bit on computer code, learn the difference between the actual code itself and the data the code works with.

J C wrote: »

......the main point is that functional information occupies a tiny fraction of possible combinatorial space.....and so it is statistically impossible to produce by non-intelligently directed processes!!!!!

Except it isn't as has been demonstrated to you. It is possible, and relatively easy, to produce it using a non-random natural process such as Darwinian evolution.

J C wrote: »

....perhaps you might explain /dev/urandum....and HOW you believe that it can generate functional information without any ultimate intelligent input.:D

/dev/urandom is a stream of random information produced on a UNIX operating system. The random information is produced by the "noise" of various I/O inputs and outputs

it is a non-human, non-intelligent source as you asked for. if you apply darwinian selection process you can and will produce functional information without any ultimate intelligent input

i'm betting you did not understand any of that ...

robindch

J C wrote: »

....there are no conceptual ideas stored in computer code

Wow. I was going to say that your post invoking the Columbine massacre in support of creationism was the silliest one I've seen for a while, but saying that software is a concept-free zone really does take the biscuit.

Off to /dev/null with you!

marco_polo

I will give you a bonus point JC if you can name a single person who designed one of the major spoken natural languages in the world today and passed it around for everyone else to learn.

I am looking forward greatly to reading you answer and in particular how you manage to avoid using the phrase 'language evolves over time'.