The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

sdep

marco_polo wrote: »

I will give you a bonus point JC if you can name the 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'.

Yes, a good analogy.

We can pick any pair of Indo European languages - say English and German - and note how much 'combinatorial space' lies between them, and the lack of functional intermediates. Does this prove they have no common root?

Did a single intelligent organising mind direct the evolution of these languages? Did they pass through 'useless' periods, where everyone spoke utter gibberish to each other without understanding a word?

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

if you apply darwinian selection process you can and will produce functional information without any ultimate intelligent input

JC, like many creationists and indeed religionists in general, suffers from the belief that she lives in a dualistic world in which mind and body are separate, largely unrelated entities.

The intentionally-muddy and useless term "information" implies something that can only be understood by a conscious mind, so it's a short step to conclude that only a conscious mind could have created it. The fallacy inherent in that argument is embarrassingly easy to uncover, but pointing it out does no good -- the fundamental error here is not related to the nature of information, but the mistaken belief that the universe is dualistic.

FWIW, in most philosophical circles, acceptance of dualism has died out almost as completely as it has within neurological and psychological circles. Religious philosophers, of course, still hold to the belief, since they'd be out of a job if they didn't.

robindch

marco_polo wrote: »

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 [...]

Been done already, waaaaay back, but good to see it surface again

Another almost-useful analogy is the question of who designed the world's economy.

marco_polo

robindch wrote: »

Been done already, waaaaay back, but good to see it surface again

Another almost-useful analogy is the question of who designed the world's economy.

Must have missed that page. Better start at the beginning again .

The best feature of this thread is that it is rather like the luas, if you miss a debate, you can be damn sure another one heading off in the same direction will be along in 5 minutes.

sdep

J C wrote: »

Hypothesis......that NEW functional information ALWAYS has an 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.

Yet don't you believe that the whole of nature has an intelligent source, and that it is intelligently directed? You believe that God created and guided nature. Why then do you want to deny His creation the capacity to evolve life? That's what you're doing when you refuse to believe that one gene could evolve into another or one species into another. Why do you need to restrict God to acting in one particular way when it seems contradicted by all the evidence of His world?

I'm sure a Christian could put this better than me - perhaps they have on a previous trip round the Luas line.

2Scoops

I see the Georgia Guidestones have mysteriously appeared in the thread tags. :eek:

Also, do actual unicorns exist/used-to-exist or is the Bible wrong? J C? Wolfsbane?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....TRY explaining THIS away...IF you can!!!!:eek::eek:
*JC links the recent Finland school shootings to Evolution*

Part of your repeating cycle.

AtomicHorror wrote:

8. Dismantlement of semantics as irrelevant by evolutionists, requests to return to main point

9. "Evolution is immoral"

10. Evolutionists request to return to main point

Just because evolution may be unpalatable does not make it untrue. Just because we were born of evolution does not mean that we are bound to it as a moral philosophy. Even Dawkins rejects the idea of any social theory being based on evolution.

I am frankly disgusted that you would use this recent tragedy to attack a scientific theory. Grow the hell up please.

J C wrote: »

...."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!!!

Yes but "Wicknit", on the other hand, contains "new information". The rarity of functional information from randomness does not equal its impossibility. Also, you are assuming that meaning and functionality are absolutes. They are not. "WickPPnight" makes no sense to you. That does not mean it does not make sense to someone. Genes have meaning or function based on environmental and whole-organism context, not based on your assessment of "function".

J C wrote: »

....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.

Embedding a video is not the same as linking to yet another essay, or in some cases, a link to a list of 40 essays.

J C wrote: »

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

Who said mutation needed to produce the same function? Unless this is one of your "critical" genes then redundancy will preserve survival. Also the codon system is partially redundant, so some nucleotide substitution mutations will not actually result in a change in translated protein sequence.

J C wrote: »

.....the ability to digest Nylon was pre-existent to the arrival of Nylon.....and is testament to the genetic diversity of the original Creation....

No, it isn't. The nylon mutation would have been "non-functional" by your definition at the time. The "functionality" of genes is actually rubbish. It's open to your interpretation. Genes promote survival or reduce it. What we are talking about is utility. The nylon gene you claim was a part of some perfect genome during creation, had either no utility or alternative utility until humans were good enough to invent nylon and turn a dubious gene into an advantage.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror: 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.

Not unique to creationism.

J C wrote: »

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

This does not falsify your hypothesis as is essentially just an "absence of proof" argument. You'd still be able to argue that an intelligent source started the process a few steps before our observation.

For what it's worth, we have observed your falsification numerous times:

Lenski et al 2008
Genetic algorithms
Dozens of directly observed speciation events
Disease mutations, in particular influenza and HIV

Of these, only the first has yet to be repeated as to do a full repeat would take several decades.

J C wrote: »

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

Not specific to creationism. Also does not falsify evolution. Remember, evolution does not deal with the origins of the first biomolecules.

J C wrote: »

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!!!

Genetic algorithms once again. Simulated complex functional information from simple components. Also genetic comparisons showing existing and extinct intermediate forms.

Got anything unique to creationism that has not already been falsified?

You're still ignoring the following:

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C:Evidence for such an Act of Creation would include the instantaneous emergence of all basic life-forms with full PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity. Such genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards.
Oh good, some predictions. So, in biological terms, in genetics, what does "genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards" mean? How would you measure this?

How do we measure the above?

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C, still waiting on examples of people in the creationist leadership/PR arm also working in high profile science jobs. I promise I won't use my connections to the Atheist Conspiracy to get them sacked.

I really promise.

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C:.....you are BOTH dogmatic and changing!!!
.....you cling onto anything that props up your Atheistic Dogma!!!!

...and if something new comes along that you can use to support your dogma....you run with it....and if it doesn't you will reject or ignore it!!!

Were that the case then we would have expected the scientific community to be atheistic first and then to find the evidence for it, disregarding that which did not fit the model. Rather as the creationist community has started from the assumption that scripture is infallible and has disregarded or "re-interpreted" whatever does not fit their framework.

However, quite to the contrary, science was primarily the preserve of the religious for many centuries before a series of scientific findings, and the refinement of scientific philosophy, resulted in most scientists coming to the conclusion that to assume any given religion to be correct is irrational. Quite a gradual process.

Any comments on the above?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Wicknight
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


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


Robin
…….. saying that software is a concept-free zone really does take the biscuit.

Conceptual ideas are the product of a mind……for example the abstract word ‘Apple’ generates the concept of an Apple in the mind of the person reading the word 'Apple'.

….in that sense conceptual ideas are ONLY generated and stored in minds.

Computer and Genetic Codes are both forms of ‘machine code’….and neither the Genome nor the Computer actually conceptualises the information that is stored by them……as I have said, only a Human Mind is capable of conceptualisation.:D

However, Computer Code can store the blueprint for a bridge…..and Genetic Code can store the blueprint for a person….so they BOTH store INTELLIGENTLY produced functional INFORMATION.:D

wrote:

Robin
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....

ALL of the school shooters in BOTH Columbine and Finland were extreme nihilists who followed through on their invalid twisted ideas with dreadful consequences for both their victims ……and themselves.

The Columbine Murderers were also first rate Antichrists and they deliberately targeted Christian and minority students.
By the time the shooting stopped three Born Again Christian student lay dead.
……here is the memorial site of one such brave young Christian woman, Cassie Bernall, who died rather than deny God:-
http://www.johnnyleeclary.com/cassie_bernall.htm

Cassie Bernall, 18, was known for carrying her Bible to school every day and wearing a 'What Would Jesus Do?' bracelet, She was in the library when one of the gunmen broke in and walked straight towards her.
One of the killers pointed a shotgun in Cassie's face and asked her the life-or-death question: "Do you believe in God?" She paused. The gun was still there. "Yes, I believe in God," she said. "Several of the students at Columbine High have recalled being with this girl when a gunman demanded of the group whether any of them believed in Jesus Christ. The girl hesitated a minute, and then said "yes." The gunman said "for what?" --and killed her" That was the last thing this 18-year-old Christian woman would ever say. The gunman asked her "Why?" She had no time to answer before she was shot to death.

Cassie Bernall entered the Columbine High School library as a Christian student, to study during lunch on 20th April 1999.....and she left the library as a Christian martyr.

Though lots of fellow Columbine students already were strong, vocal Christians, Cathy Bernall's confession in the face of death has inspired them to keep the faith no matter how bad it gets. "She did something that one of the thieves did when Jesus was on the cross. She admitted she believed in Jesus Christ before she died," said Joshua Lapp, a 16-year-old Columbine sophomore and member of St. Philip Lutheran Church.

...and Jesus Christ's loving answer is the same to everyone who witnesses to Him when they die "this day you will be with me in Paradise".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Scott
Christian student, Rachael Scott, 17 was also in the Library when the shooters walked in. Students at Columbine High School knew the active and strong witness for Jesus Christ that emanated from Rachael. "She attended Orchard Road Christian Church, an Assemblies of God congregation. Rachael led a weekly prayer and Bible study group of fellow teens at the church.

Another Christian student John Tomlin, 16, who was also killed in the attack, attended a Baptist church twice a week and participated in a youth ministry, He had traveled to a small town in Mexico the year before the shooting as part of a ministry that helped build housing for poor families.
.
…..he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." [Matthew 10:39]

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

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.

.....God was the person!!:)

.....and Babel was the place!!!!:D

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

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

....yes, languages as used by INTELLIGENT people, DO evolve over time.....but the basics were put in place by God in Babel......why do you think that distinct unique languages exist within a few miles of each other throughout Europe, for example?

....surely if language evolved then when you cross the border between Finland and Sweden you would get some intermediate dialect.....but instead you SUDDENLY get Finnish.....whose nearest related language group is found only in the Middle East!!!:D

Equally, the Basque language in Spain has NO near equivalents within Europe AT ALL!!!!:D

J C

sdep wrote: »

Yes, a good analogy.

We can pick any pair of Indo European languages - say English and German - and note how much 'combinatorial space' lies between them, and the lack of functional intermediates. Does this prove they have no common root?

Did a single intelligent organising mind direct the evolution of these languages? Did they pass through 'useless' periods, where everyone spoke utter gibberish to each other without understanding a word?

.....as I have said languages as spoken by intelligent people WILL 'evolve' with use......but distinct diverse languages like the Romanesque Languages, the Scandanavian Languages, Finnish, the Celtic Languages, the Slavic languages and Basque ALL had DIFFERENT 'roots'!!!!:D

J C

sdep wrote: »

Yet don't you believe that the whole of nature has an intelligent source, and that it is intelligently directed? You believe that God created and guided nature. Why then do you want to deny His creation the capacity to evolve life? That's what you're doing when you refuse to believe that one gene could evolve into another or one species into another. Why do you need to restrict God to acting in one particular way when it seems contradicted by all the evidence of His world?

....God COULD have 'created' life by 'evolving' it.....but He said that He Created it DIRECTLY....and at roughly the same time....and any objective evaluation of the physical evidence supports the Biblical account!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

ALL of the school shooters in BOTH Columbine and Finland were extremist Social Darwinists who followed through on their twisted, invalid nihilistic ideas with dreadful consequences for both their victims ……and themselves.

So what?

If you can't explain what this has to do with the scientific veracity of evolution then kindly drop this crap. Your tendency to dwell on the moral implications of evolution is bad enough without you dragging these very sad stories into the mix to suit your frankly halfwitted agenda.

Back on topic please.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Just because evolution may be unpalatable does not make it untrue. Just because we were born of evolution does not mean that we are bound to it as a moral philosophy. Even Dawkins rejects the idea of any social theory being based on evolution.

....'Big Picture' Evolution is BOTH unpalatable and untrue......

...equally, if it really was true, WHY would Evolutionists reject Social Darwinism....if Darwinian Evolution WAS how Human Beings came to exist????

....surely something so supposedly 'magnificent' as a force of nature that could spontaneously 'move' molecules to become Man should have equally 'magnificent' effects in the social sphere IF IT IS TRUE that we evolved in the first place?????

......Darwinian Evolutionists ALSO avoid the PHYSICAL mechanism which they claim to have propelled 'molecules to become Man'....namely mutation.....
......they show a perfectly reasonable aversion to mutagenesis....concluding (logically) that it will seriously damage or even kill them.....
........yet they (emotionally) cling to the notion that this same (deadly/damaging) mutagenesis was what ultimately produced them.....with nothing added but time!!!!!:eek::):D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I am frankly disgusted that you would use this recent tragedy to attack a scientific theory. Grow the hell up please.

....I am merely reporting on the apparent motivation of the killers.

......I also wish to state that every Evolutionist that I know personally, is equally horrified by these attacks as well.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

No, I'm not saying C14 establishes a >10Kyr age. I'm saying the conditions at the Flood drastically altered the C14 levels, and hence the dating problem.

The Flood being global meant it affected all plant life.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

This is worth repeating.

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

See:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1954/

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....'Big Picture' Evolution is BOTH unpalatable and untrue......and if it really was true, WHY would Evolutionists reject Social Darwinism....if Darwinian Evolution WAS how Human Beings came to exist????

The matter that now constitutes our being was formed in a supernova. Should we build a moral theory out of that also? Should we build a moral theory around the theories of gravitation? What goes up should morally come down? Please.

Why should anyone accept a moral or social philosophy built around evolution? Science should inform us with the truth, but leave us our choices. We what we were and how we came to be is set in stone. What we can be is entirely up to us.

J C wrote: »

......Darwinian Evolutionists ALSO avoid the PHYSICAL mechanism that supposedly propelled 'molecules to become Man'....namely mutation.....
......they show a perfectly reasonable aversion to mutagenesis....concluding (logically) that it will seriously damage or even kill them.....
........yet they (emotionally) cling to the notion that this same mutagenesis was what ultimately produced them.....with nothing added but time!!!!!:eek::):D

What simple-minded nonsense. Mutations are more likely to be detrimental than helpful. That is well known. On a single-person basis it is only natural to not want to undergo mutagenesis.

This has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

J C wrote: »

....I am merely reporting on the apparent motivation of the killers.

......I also wish to state that I believe that ordinary descent Evolutionists are equally horrified by these attacks as well.

What you are doing is painfully clear and entirely dishonest. A low, even by your standards. Where are the answers to my scientific questions J C? They grow in numbers every day while you try to pin Columbine on a scientific theory.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I'm not saying C14 establishes a >10Kyr age. I'm saying the conditions at the Flood drastically altered the C14 levels, and hence the dating problem.

The Flood being global meant it affected all plant life.

And how did the flood alter samples from before the flood? Even if there were contact between the flood waters and the samples this would firstly be detectable and secondly would not cause the reservoir effect as the samples would already be dead prior to contact.

We know the limitations of C14 dating, we know the error level. Taking all of this into account, the world is still over 20,000 years old.

sdep

J C wrote: »

....God COULD have 'created' life by 'evolving' it.....but He said that He Created it DIRECTLY....and at roughly the same time

I shall take a leaf from Wolfsbane and say:

The evolutionary theological position you reject is supported by many clergymen and women whose integrity I have no reason to doubt. The Archbishop of Canterbury supports it, and he's clearly a decent man:

The Sunday Times, 3rd Aug 2008
"Oh, Rowan Williams – what a sweet man," says Dawkins, a smile breaking over his face. [...] "I’ve met him socially, and he is delightful."

I have no interest in becoming a clergyman - that's not my calling. Where religion is alleged to contradict science, I respond. I point out that such claims are disputed by other theologians, who advance doctrine in support of their case. When experts differ, and I am not qualified to test them, I accept there is a debate going on.

sdep

J C wrote: »

.....as I have said languages as spoken by intelligent people 'evolve' with use......but distinct diverse languages like the Romanesque Languages, the Scandanavian Language, Finnish, the Celtic Languages, the Slavic languages and Basque ALL had DIFFERENT 'roots'!!!!:D

And this answers none of the questions.

The people contributing to the development of their language operate quite differently to your conception of an intelligent designer. Are you suggesting that each animal that ever lived had its own small intelligent designer who received the blueprint from another, made a few changes - perhaps in collaboration with a few colleagues - then handed it on? That's closer to what happened with languages.

Also, the lack of 'intermediates' between pairs of languages, and the large differences in vocab and grammar between them don't rule out evolution from a common root, as deduced by linguists. Why should the large differences and lack of existing intermediates between certain genes and species rule out common descent?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

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.

No, I assume that such conditions are detectable. It is just that you choose to ignore one that encompassed all life. Your samples from 17,000 BC merely invokes the question in dispute.

As to tree ring analysis, it too is known not to be uniformitarian:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441

wolfsbane

sdep wrote: »

I shall take a leaf from Wolfsbane and say:

The evolutionary theological position you reject is supported by many clergymen and women whose integrity I have no reason to doubt. The Archbishop of Canterbury supports it, and he's clearly a decent man:


I have no interest in becoming a clergyman - that's not my calling. Where religion is alleged to contradict science, I respond. I point out that such claims are disputed by other theologians, who advance doctrine in support of their case. When experts differ, and I am not qualified to test them, I accept there is a debate going on.

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I thank you.

As you say, there certainly is a debate amongst the religious on creation/evolution. JC, myself and Creationists in general stand on the historic Christian position. Others have moved to various positions in an attempt to reconcile with the modern scientific consensus understanding. Some retain a belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible, and take the Genesis account as metaphor. Many modern religionists decribing themselves as 'Christian' have long ago abandoned the idea that the Bible is infallible or inerrant.

Just to point out that the Archbishop may or may not be a decent man, but he certainly is not a Christian in the original sense of the word. He would be on the Zadducean side of formal religion.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

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

See, for example:
How landscapes reveal Noah’s Floodhttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5916/

New evidence of Noah’s Flood from Mexicohttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5639/

And remember the Lake Missoula Flood controversy, of which Victor Baker states:

‘Bretz’ flood theory was so despicable that even circular reasoning could be employed to erect an alternative hypothesis. … One cannot but be amazed at the spectacle of otherwise objective scientists twisting hypotheses to give a uniformitarian explanation to the Channeled Scabland. Undoubtedly these men thought they were upholding the very framework of geology as it had been established in the writings of Hutton, Lyell, and Agassiz.’
Baker, V.R., The Spokane Flood controversy; in: Baker, V.R. and Nummedal, D. (Eds.), The Channeled Scabland, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C., pp. 11,15, 1978, quoted in:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5066/

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I'm not saying C14 establishes a >10Kyr age. I'm saying the conditions at the Flood drastically altered the C14 levels, and hence the dating problem.

The Flood being global meant it affected all plant life.

Think about that for a minute

How did a global flood effect the carbon land planet life consumed while alive

In case you didn't realise that is how radio carbon works. It is the carbon that the planets ingest during photosynthesis that is later measure.

It certain does effect planet life that lives under water, and the animal life that live of them. But a flood that kills the land planet life would have no effect.

So, again, are you arguing that ALL radiocarbon dating is wrong or just some of it?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I assume that such conditions are detectable. It is just that you choose to ignore one that encompassed all life. Your samples from 17,000 BC merely invokes the question in dispute

But they weren't alive during the flood. So the reservoir effect is not relevant there. Can you suggest an alternate means by which the results we get from such samples would be misleading?

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Think about that for a minute

How did a global flood effect the carbon land planet life consumed while alive

Or plants that died prior to the flood, which is the question I've now asked three times with no answer.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Conceptual ideas are the product of a mind……

As are languages, including computer code.

J C wrote: »

Computer and Genetic Codes are forms of ‘machine code’….and neither the Genome nor the Computer actually conceptualise the information that is stored by them

Humans conceptualise the information that is stored in computer "machine code" because they came up with them and make CPU units that match these conceptual ideas. Have ever heard of binary? The binary codes (eg. 01110011 being a code to add to numbers) are choosen by humans and incorporated into the design of the CPU. The voltage that corresponds to 01110011 does nothing in of itself. Otherwise your computer would not work.

That is not how genetic code works.

I really am at a loss at how to explain this to you because along with genetic you apparently don't understand how computers work.

J C wrote: »

However, Computer Code can store the blueprint for a bridge…..and Genetic Code can store the blueprint for a person….so they BOTH store INTELLIGENTLY produced functional INFORMATION.

And a computer can also store weather information. It can also use this information to run detailed weather forecast models.

So naturally this proves beyond all reasonable doubt that weather is intelligent designed.

Oh wait, no it doesn't. :rolleyes:

An intelligently designed computer program can run simulations of naturally occurring weather systems without it implying that weather systems themselves are intelligently designed

Likewise an intelligently designed computer program can run simulations of naturally occurring evolutionary processes without implying that the evolutionary systems are intelligently designed.

J C wrote: »

followed through on their invalid ideas with dreadful consequences for both their victims

How Christian of them ...

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Or plants that died prior to the flood, which is the question I've now asked three times with no answer.

Ah don't you see Atomic, there were no plants before the flood ... or they were all genetically perfect ... or ummm .... ahhh ....Cain married his sister ... ahhh .... oohhh ..... God did it!!!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

And remember the Lake Missoula Flood controversy, of which Victor Baker states:

Why exactly?

The Channeled Scabland formations require fast water flowing over the area. A world wide flood would not have done that (if the water could flow away some where it would be a world wide flood). It would have sat on the land up to 10km high for over a year, and also effected the surrounding land as well.

So not only does it not explain the formations, but you have to then also explain why the "world wide flood" some how ended up being localised in a small area in the state of Washington.

wolfsbane

sdep said:
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?

This prediction was for rapid magnetic reversals of the earth's field - necessary for creationism to account for the many reversals observed in the rocks, but contrary to the needs of evolutionary time:
Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.

Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it.9 And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal.10 This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model. from:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/760

Likewise in this:
Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5976/

And here's a comparison of the Evolutionary and Creationist expectations regarding dinosaurs:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/