The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Eh no it doesn't, the amount of visual information that is sent to the brain is a meer fraction of the amount that hits the eye so that sensory overload is avoided, this compression is by a factor of at least one hundred. And the amount of the information that is stored in memory is a fraction of this again.

Now I don't know the criteria by which an omnipotent 'designer' works, but one would think that he could create a system to process streaming video, without having to compress the quality to less than 1%.

...the FULL picture is sent to the brain ... which processes the information!!!

ALL of the information is stored ... it is the retrieval that is damped-down by the concious brain (to avoid information overload) ... and all of the visual information is recoverable via the sub-conscious!!!!:D

J C

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

You obviously know nothing about evolution.

...I was once an Evolutionist Scientist ... so I know everything there is to know about it ... and most of it simply doesn't add up!!!:D

Soul Winner

Buster2009 wrote: »

Just because someone has a "belief" doesn't make it true.

Yes but they have a right to hold to that belief don't they? Even if it has been proven scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is false. That is what tolerance is. To live along side others of whom you disagree.

Buster2009 wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss, but indoctrinating children into ignorance is wrong.

There are some who think atheism is false. Is indoctrinating your child into atheism therefore wrong? No. It's your child. You bring it up as best you know how. If that means not bringing them to church then so be it but don't force that on everyone else just because you believe don't hold to any religion.

Buster2009 wrote: »

We discuss politics and sport freely in society, but for some reason the discussion on religious belief is taboo, but thankfully the times times they are a-changin'.

Yes, and I for one welcome it. I have no truck with anyone who doesn't hold to what I believe in, but I'll not shy away from talking to them about it. Nor will I allow them to put me on the defensive about my beliefs. You can disagree with someone without the need to resort to insulting them. That's true for both sides of the argument.

Buster2009 wrote: »

Religion is, and always has been, a BUSINESS built on pure bull****.

And you are entitled to that belief. And for the most part you are right. Power has corrupted many religions, but that does nothing to invalidate the religion per.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...I was once an Evolutionist Scientist ... so I know everything there is to know about it ... and most of it simply doesn't add up!!!:D

You have just confirmed my suspicions. You are a troll. And sure I might as well join in.

Sam Vimes wrote:

Yes a specific functional protein is irreducibly complex, so until it becomes that specific protein it does different functions. to prove irreducible complexity there is no point proving it can't perform that very specific function, we know it can't, you must prove it can't perform any function

This is uniformitarian dogma! NOT science!! ... You say a protein could do different functions?? How would it know what functions to do? It would need the guidance of an intelligent designer obviously!! :eek::eek::D:pac:

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

There are some who think atheism is false. Is indoctrinating your child into atheism therefore wrong?

Actually, most atheists (myself included) would see indoctrination into atheism as very wrong. I would have no problem with a child of mine joining a religion. I would only really step in if the religion in question was genuinely harmful (i.e. Scientology or radical Islam).

robindch

Morbert wrote: »

Actually, most atheists (myself included) would see indoctrination into atheism as very wrong.

You can't really indoctrinate people into what is, after all, the natural state of athiestic existence they enjoy since birth. It is possible to say unpleasant things about religious people in general, but wouldn't imagine that many -- any? -- atheists do.

Morbert wrote: »

I would have no problem with a child of mine joining a religion.

I can't imagine I'd be all that happy if mu kid joined most of the world's current religions and I'd certainly wonder what was lacking in her life that organized religion appeared to be the only answer.

.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Actually, most atheists (myself included) would see indoctrination into atheism as very wrong. I would have no problem with a child of mine joining a religion. I would only really step in if the religion in question was genuinely harmful (i.e. Scientology or radical Islam).

Indoctrination is probably too strong a word. How about you just express your belief that there is no God and that you think you are right about it to your child? Chances are that your child will latch onto that belief system also for a while at least, would that be wrong in your book? I don't think it would be, you can only express your true convictions to your children and if they happen to be atheistic views then that's what they are, at least your being honest with them about it. I don't believe anyone should be put on the defensive about their beliefs. Everyone should be allowed to express them freely and within the confines of the law. Just express them in as best a manner as you can without resorting to insults and slurs on those who differ with you. If you need to resort to such tactics then it only shows up and insecurity within your own belief system and not a short falling in another's.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

...the FULL picture is sent to the brain ... which processes the information!!!

ALL of the information is stored ... it is the retrieval that is damped-down by the concious brain (to avoid information overload) ... and all of the visual information is recoverable via the sub-conscious!!!!:D

And here was me thinking that it was done by the Neurons in the retina before transmission to the brain via ganglion cell layer.

But hey you are the eminently qualified scientist so what would I know :rolleyes:

We can safely knock biologist off your list of possible qualifications anyway.

And storage is limited too.

J C

Buster2009 wrote: »

Just because someone has a "belief" doesn't make it true. Ignorance is bliss, but indoctrinating children into ignorance is wrong.

....I agree ... but Evolutionists currently are the ones who are indoctrinating children with the false, unfounded idea that 'Microbes evolved into Men' using nothing but time and MISTAKES!!!!
....so when it comes to desisting from indoctrinating children into ignorance ... you first, guys!!!!:eek::D:)

Buster2009 wrote: »

We discuss politics and sport freely in society, but for some reason the discussion on religious belief is taboo, but thankfully the times times they are a-changin'.

... I have never felt the least difficulty in discussing my beliefs!!!!

Buster2009 wrote: »

Religion is, and always has been, a BUSINESS built on pure bull****.

...any 'bull' ultimately comes from the 'Father of Lies' and the delusions of Men!!!

...the Christian Faith isn't a man-made Religion ... it is a God-given faith based on TRUTH.:D

Morbert

robindch wrote: »

You can't really indoctrinate people into what is, after all, the natural state of athiestic existence they enjoy since birth. It is possible to say unpleasant things about religious people in general, but wouldn't imagine that many -- any? -- atheists do.

The problems would arise if a child decided to reject atheism. If this was a punishable offence, or if a child was not allowed to engage in any religious practise, then I would classify that as indoctrination into atheism.

I can't imagine I'd be all that happy if mu kid joined most of the world's current religions and I'd certainly wonder what was lacking in her life that organized religion appeared to be the only answer.

I would not be happy either if my (hypothetical) kid did the same. But would you forbid your child? Would you punish them if they joined an organised religion?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

You can't really indoctrinate people into what is, after all, the natural state of athiestic existence they enjoy since birth.

Still pushing that BS I see. Tut, tut. The lengths that some will go to. LOL.

robindch

Morbert wrote: »

But would you forbid your child? Would you punish them if they joined an organised religion?

If my kid was under the age of 18, and the religion was benign -- the folks in Christchurch, Dublin for example -- then I can't imagine I'd bother doing anything.

If the religion was particularly nasty, I may well try to do something, although in practice, it often happens that there's little that one can do, especially with those religions which are skilled at getting people to make an "it's-us-or-your-family" decision. It would be playing with fire either way in this case.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Still pushing that BS I see. Tut, tut.

I take it you sang your hail holy hosannas from the cradle?

DiarmaidGNR

J C wrote: »

...I was once an Evolutionist Scientist ... so I know everything there is to know about it ... and most of it simply doesn't add up!!!:D

You are clearly a liar, or an extremely poor scientist.

DiarmaidGNR

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes but they have a right to hold to that belief don't they? Even if it has been proven scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is false. That is what tolerance is. To live along side others of whom you disagree.



There are some who think atheism is false. Is indoctrinating your child into atheism therefore wrong? No. It's your child. You bring it up as best you know how. If that means not bringing them to church then so be it but don't force that on everyone else just because you believe don't hold to any religion.



Yes, and I for one welcome it. I have no truck with anyone who doesn't hold to what I believe in, but I'll not shy away from talking to them about it. Nor will I allow them to put me on the defensive about my beliefs. You can disagree with someone without the need to resort to insulting them. That's true for both sides of the argument.



And you are entitled to that belief. And for the most part you are right. Power has corrupted many religions, but that does nothing to invalidate the religion per.

Children start out as atheists naturally, but if a parent forces them to be atheist (or religious), using indoctrination, - yes it is wrong, very wrong, it is a form of child abuse.

You must be one of very very few that does discuss religious beliefs, - when's the last time you saw a show that debated religion without putting it on a pedestal.
Also, you must remember the cartoon depicting Muhammad in Denmark a while back, - not one news paper or tv show showed the image for fear of being bombed.
And the countless number of massacres throughout history because of religion.

Yes, it does invalidate the religion. You can't corrupt something that was born out of corruption.

How can you sit their and defend religion when you know the pain it has caused and is causing in the world.

DiarmaidGNR

J C wrote: »

....I agree ... but Evolutionists currently are the ones who are indoctrinating children with the false, unfounded idea that 'Microbes evolved into Men' using nothing but time and MISTAKES!!!!
....so when it comes to desisting from indoctrinating children into ignorance ... you first, guys!!!!:eek::D:)

... I have never felt the least difficulty in discussing my beliefs!!!!


...any 'bull' ultimately comes from the 'Father of Lies' and the delusions of Men!!!

...the Christian Faith isn't a man-made Religion ... it is a God-given faith based on TRUTH.:D

wow.....

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

I take it you sang your hail holy hosannas from the cradle?

If you believe that atheism does not require a reasoned process, but is simply an ignorant position, then fine. Atheism clearly isn't that though, a point I wouldn't argue about 'again'. I personally wouldn't start trying to label kids in such a way anyway. Babies are simply babies. They haven't rationalised anything, so its quite ridiculous to start labelling them.

JimiTime

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

Children start out as atheists naturally

Not that it actually matters, but I can't believe this view is starting to propagate.


EDIT: Actually, I can believe its starting to propagate, nonsense that it is.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

If you believe that atheism does not require a reasoned process, but is simply an ignorant position, then fine. Atheism clearly isn't that though, a point I wouldn't argue about 'again'.

Last time it came up, I distinguished between default atheism (as babies have, and as you have regarding, say, the existence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter), and reasoned atheism (what people who are able to reason, are able to do). The end result is the same, though the process to reach it is different.

If you can see the difference between the two, then the position isn't quite as idiotic as you appear to think.

JimiTime wrote: »

I personally wouldn't start trying to label kids in such a way anyway. Babies are simply babies. They haven't rationalised anything, so its quite ridiculous to start labelling them.

I'm happy to see that you agree with not only myself, but our dear Lord and Leader, His Holiness, the Most High Richard Dawkins too

DiarmaidGNR

JimiTime wrote: »

Not that it actually matters, but I can't believe this view is starting to propagate.


EDIT: Actually, I can believe its starting to propagate, nonsense that it is.

How is that nonsense?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

If you believe that atheism does not require a reasoned process, but is simply an ignorant position, then fine. Atheism clearly isn't that though, a point I wouldn't argue about 'again'. I personally wouldn't start trying to label kids in such a way anyway. Babies are simply babies. They haven't rationalised anything, so its quite ridiculous to start labelling them.

It depends on what someone means by atheism.

If atheism is simply not believing theistic concepts such as gods, then naturally a baby or child that has not been exposed to the concept is an atheist by default (though it has been some what demonstrated that the children will probably create their own supernatural concepts if not given some to believe in)

If atheism though is a rejection of the belief in theistic concepts one naturally first has to be exposed to an idea before they can reject it.

As someone once asked me, if there was no meat in the world would we all be vegetarians, or is a vegetarian someone who chooses not to eat meat and thus requires that meat exists in order for there to be a choice. Can you be a vegetarian if all there is is veg?

While understanding Robin's position I would tend to come down on the second option with regard to atheism. To me atheism is a rejection of theistic belief. I've heard the beliefs, I don't think they are true, I don't believe.

But over the years I've flip flopped between positions. I used to contend that atheism is what you are, not your position. So if you do not believe in theistic beliefs such as gods, then you are an atheist, it doesn't matter if you have consciously decided to reject them.

It is an interesting question and one that I think is genuine so your annoyance at Robin's position I feel is some what misplaced.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

It depends on what someone means by atheism.

If atheism is simply not believing theistic concepts such as gods, then naturally a baby or child that has not been exposed to the concept is an atheist by default (though it has been some what demonstrated that the children will probably create their own supernatural concepts if not given some to believe in)

If atheism though is a rejection of the belief in theistic concepts one naturally first has to be exposed to an idea before they can reject it.

As someone once asked me, if there was no meat in the world would we all be vegetarians, or is a vegetarian someone who chooses not to eat meat and thus requires that meat exists in order for there to be a choice. Can you be a vegetarian if all there is is veg?

While understanding Robin's position I would tend to come down on the second option with regard to atheism. To me atheism is a rejection of theistic belief. I've heard the beliefs, I don't think they are true, I don't believe.

But over the years I've flip flopped between positions. I used to contend that atheism is what you are, not your position. So if you do not believe in theistic beliefs such as gods, then you are an atheist, it doesn't matter if you have consciously decided to reject them.

It is an interesting question and one that I think is genuine so your annoyance at Robin's position I feel is some what misplaced.

So 'atheism' is meaningless. It is simply a subjective term. I'm quite happy for people labelling themselves as atheists to vary what it means for them. When they put their subjective definition onto babies and then pretend (or truly think) that its totally logical and factual, I call shenanigans.

Anyway, this is nothing to do with whatever this thread is about these days, so I'll give it up.

J C

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

You are clearly a liar, or an extremely poor scientist.

...I'm a truthful conventional scientist ... 'beating the pants off' every Evolutionist that 'pops up' on this thread!!!:pac::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...the FULL picture is sent to the brain ... which processes the information!!!

marco_polo
And here was me thinking that it was done by the Neurons in the retina before transmission to the brain via ganglion cell layer.

And storage is limited too.

...for the 'nit pickers' amongst us let me elaborate....

....the FULL picture is sent to the brain via the neurons in the retina and the optic nerve .... where the information is further processed to produce the visual sensation of the scene being viewed!!!!:D

rbrbrb

Looks like J C on this board and the other J C are both liars

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

So 'atheism' is meaningless. It is simply a subjective term.

It is not meaningless, it is vague.

According to Wikipedia the word is from the Greek "atheos" which literally means a-theos (god), the opposite of god. An atheist is someone who believes in the "opposite of god", what ever that means. It is generally taken to mean someone who rejects God, or does not believe in God.

The question is well what does that mean in every day usage?

Christians encounter the same issues. Poster one says "I'm a Christian", poster two "Ah so you believe X Y Z", poster one "Er, no"

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm quite happy for people labelling themselves as atheists to vary what it means for them. When they put their subjective definition onto babies and then pretend (or truly think) that its totally logical and factual, I call shenanigans.

I'm not sure why. If one takes atheism to literally mean you do not believe in gods, then a baby is an atheist, as is anyone who has not encountered the concept of gods.

A baby doesn't believe in the Big Bang theory either, I'm not sure why that would annoy anyone.

J C

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

Children start out as atheists naturally, but if a parent forces them to be atheist (or religious), using indoctrination, - yes it is wrong, very wrong, it is a form of child abuse.

...the pejorative use of the accusation of Child Abuse in the context of a parent's God-given right to transmit the Christian Faith to their children is VERY SERIOUS indeed!!!:(:eek:

...and the fact that you also include 'indoctrination' into Atheism, doesn't in any way lessen the inherent danger to Christian Parents from such an allegation, given the fact that Christian Parents DO teach their children the basics of their faith, while Atheists, in general, just let the schools and the media do the job of Materialistic 'indoctrination' for them!!!

...your posting also makes the unfounded and loaded statement, from a Christian perspective, that 'children start out as atheists naturally' ... and if such a statement were to be widely accepted, this would result in the belief that an Atheist child is NEVER indoctinated into Atheism (because that is what is supposed to be their 'Natural Orientation' anyhow) ... and the corollary would be the working assumption that EVERY Christian Child must have been indoctrinated into Christianity ... to overcome their supposed 'Natural Inclination' to be Atheists!!!!

...please remember that there is a requirement on the Authorities to investigate all allegations of Child Abuse, and where proven, to remove such children from even, potentially abusive situations...and therefore the equation of religious indoctrination with Child Abuse effectively amounts to advocacy for the forced removal of all Christian children from every Christian home in the country!!!!

...so Militant Materialists seem to want to move from indoctrinating our children in school with their Evolutionary and Atheistic ideas ... to forcibly removing our children from our homes, under the spurious pretext that handing on the faith in the God that Created us, is a form of CHILD ABUSE!!!!:mad::(:eek:

....and no, I'm NOT over-reacting ... an accustion of Child Abuse, in the current environment is a VERY SERIOUS issue indeed!!!:eek::(

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

...for the 'nit pickers' amongst us let me elaborate....

....the FULL picture is sent to the brain via the neurons in the retina and the optic nerve .... where the information is further processed to produce the visual sensation of the scene being viewed!!!!:D

Yes a highly compressed full picture. Compressed because there 100 times more Photoreceptor cells than ganglion cells.

It demonstrates that the analogy in the article posted is completely inept so it is not 'nit picking' in any shape form.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Yes a highly compressed full picture. Compressed because there 100 times more Photoreceptor cells than ganglion cells.

It demonstrates that the analogy in the article posted is completely inept so it is not 'nit picking' in any shape form.

...it is nit picking because the 'compression' that you speak of is clearly a form of Intelligently Designed redundancy while also retaining the very high quality of the originally captured image.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

...it is nit picking because the 'compression' that you speak of is clearly a form of Intelligently Designed redundancy.

Usual get out of jail card played, nice try but how exactly is bandwidth limitation a form of 'redundancy'?

Since an omnipotent being had knowledge of all possible designs, I don't suppose you could enlighten us as to why he picked one that needs factor of 100 compression rates? If he was a camera designer did that he would certainly be queing outside the post office on a Friday Morning.