The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

I see that we have now had over 400,000 hits since the thread started!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Just think how many minds you could have won for Christianity were you not peddling anti-science.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...the floor is yours to explain how inanimate molecules spontaneously burst into life and progressed to producing Men!!!


Sam Vimes
It's been done but you just keep repeating your questions that show you have no concept of what evolution is. You're asking us to prove things happened the way you think we're saying they did but we never said they happened that way (eg spontaneous proteins)

To be honest J C if you can't see your misunderstanding by now you're never going to.

....I see ... so you don't ACTUALLY have any idea HOW Spontaneous Evolution could ACTUALLY produce a biomolecule for a specific functon ... and thus the entire edifice of Evolution COLLAPSES!!!:D

...I feel your pain ... as I was once an Evolutionist TOO!!:)

J C

pts wrote: »

I don't see the point in waisting your time with this guy Sam. He still doesn't seem to comprehend the difference between how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter (Abiogenesis) and how we have such diversity of life (Evolution) and that Abiogenesis != Evolution.

...BOTH Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Evolution require new functional biomolecules to 'arise' ... so Spontaneous Evolution is just as invalid scientifically as Abiogenesis / Spontaneous Generation!!!!

Materialists have been 'playing for time' on this issue over the past 20 years as they desperately searched for some mechanism that could 'save the day' for them...
I think that it is about time that their bluff was called ... and that they either put up ... or shut up!!!!!:eek::D

J C

kiffer wrote: »

You keep using the words spontaneous and spontaneously... This is causing some additional conflict here... would you mind clarifying what you mean by spontaneous in this case...

...a spontaneous process is a process that produces whatever it produces without any external intelligent input - like Materialistic Evolution is supposed to do ... but DOESN'T!!!!:D

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

JC,

If someone, who followed Christianity murders someone, then s/he is no longer classed as a true Christian. Well, us non-believers have morals too, and if one of us were to murder someone in the name of our,er, non-believership(errr?) then we'd disown them from our branch of the tree, like ye do yours.

...somebody who murders somebody and repents and believes on Jesus Christ WILL be Saved ... and will therefore be a Christian!!!!

Jesus came to Save SINNERS ... it is Satan who accuses and condemns!!!

....remember who were accusing and condemning the woman caught in Adultery ... and how that particular incident ended.

Joh 8:2 Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them.
3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst,
4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.
5 "Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?"
6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."
8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
12 ¶ Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."

Malty_T wrote: »

Militant implies,vile violence,murderous,abusive behaviour : comparing some of the people who are actually trying to discuss something with you to the behaviour of IL Kim of DPRK is downright disrespectful!

It also seems to me, you are using the traditional meaning of the word atheist, well I got some bad,actually awful,perhaps terrifying news for you:

You are in fact an Atheist!
Atheist towards to the Ancient Greeks Gods,Ancient Egyptians Gods, Muslims God,Hindus Gods,Mayans Gods,Babylonians Gods etc etc

That's of course, if you continue with that archaic meaning. Surely, now you'll admit that languages evolve and words change? If you refer to some folk as militant atheist then they are equally entitled to refer to you as one too.

....Atheism is a rejection of ALL Gods ... any believer in any God is a Theist (of some description)!!!!!

...whats wrong with you guys ... and why do you have to tie youselves up in knots ... even over straightforward non-controversial issues ????:D

...of course, many Atheists are upright descent people ... but Atheist regimes provide a cautionary tale about where Atheism can lead us all!!!:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Militant implies,vile violence,murderous,abusive behaviour

...militant implies militancy ... i.e. a strong commitment to propogating and defending your ideas...without any resort to physical violence!!!

vile, violent, murderous and abusive behaviour ... is, er....vile, violent, murderous and abusive!!!

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Just think how many minds you could have won for Christianity were you not peddling anti-science.

...I'm not in the least anti-science!!!!

...and I have no desire to count converts ... all I wish to do is to present the TRUTH ... and I'll leave the convicting and converting to God!!!!:D:):eek:

kiffer

J C wrote: »

...a spontaneous process is a process that produces whatever it produces without any external intelligent input - like Materialistic Evolution is supposed to do ... but DOESN'T!!!!:D

... So lets say ... it's been a hot and dry summer, during a storm lightning hits a tree on a hill side and starts a forest fire, the fire burns down all the trees on the hill and then burns away all the undergrowth too, then it runs out of fuel and burns out... denuding the hill. The summer continues on, once again drying out the hill... The ash from the fire and the dust from the dry bare earth is all around... Then another storm comes, the heavy rain destabilises the the hillside and there is a massive landslide into the valley beside the hill ... Tonnes of ash, soil, earth and rock tumble into the river that runs through this valley, choking it with sediment killing almost all the fish... Would you say that the fish died spontaneously?

J C

kiffer wrote: »

... So lets say ... it's been a hot and dry summer, during a storm lightning hits a tree on a hill side and starts a forest fire, the fire burns down all the trees on the hill and then burns away all the undergrowth too, then it runs out of fuel and burns out... denuding the hill. The summer continues on, once again drying out the hill... The ash from the fire and the dust from the dry bare earth is all around... Then another storm comes, the heavy rain destabilises the the hillside and there is a massive landslide into the valley beside the hill ... Tonnes of ash, soil, earth and rock tumble into the river that runs through this valley, choking it with sediment killing almost all the fish... Would you say that the fish died spontaneously?

...in a word YES

...the entire process (of destruction) that you describe is a spontaneous one i.e. without any need for an intelligent input!!!!:D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

but Atheist regimes provide a cautionary tale about where Atheism can lead us all!!!:)

Em Christianity regimes have also provided many with caution throughout the centuries... that argument is a no win for either of us to be perfectly honest.

J C wrote: »

...militant implies militancy ... i.e. a strong commitment to propogating and defending your ideas...without any resort to physical violence!!!

In that light, I could call you a militant Christian but I chose not to, why? Because militant carries with it many negative connotations.

Internetzincyclupediaofnewludge wrote:

The characteristics of a militant who is aggressive and violent to promote a political philosophy in the name of a movement (and sometimes have an extreme solution for their goal) include the following shared traits:
employing force or violence directly, either in offense or in defense
justifying the use of force using the ideological rhetoric of their particular group
Persons described as militants — either individuals or groups (composed of multiple individuals) — have usually enrolled and trained to serve in a particular cause. Militants may fill their ranks either by volunteering, enlistment or by conscription.

I'm sure most users,Christian or non-Christian alike, would not like that association.

...somebody who murders somebody and repents and believes on Jesus Christ WILL be Saved ... and will therefore be a Christian!!!!

So, somebody who murders could possibly always be a Christian then?

....Atheism is a rejection of ALL Gods ... any believer in any God is a Theist!!!!!

Shot my self in the foot there:o

Anyways can we please get back on topic, please somebody show me some evidence for ID.

By evidence, I do not mean proposed flaws in evolution; that is pointless. What does it achieve in pointing out flaws in something without offering something else that fixes 'em, AND more importantly allowing that which was already fixed to remain so?

@Kiffer - first a graph, then that:eek:

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Em Christianity regimes have also provided many with caution throughout the centuries... that argument is a no win for either of us to be perfectly honest.

...yes, all men are sinners ... some are Saved ... and others aren't!!!!

Malty_T wrote: »

In that light, I could call you a militant Christian but I chose not to, why? Because militant carries with it many negative connotations.

... the word Militant, used to be a term of respect, ...the Roman Catholic Church continued to proudly proclaim itself as the 'Church Militant' right up to the 1960's.
However, the word Militant does seem to have picked up some negative baggage along the way ... so perhaps we could agree on the term Campaigning Atheist / Christian!!!!

Malty_T wrote: »

So, somebody who murders could possibly always a Christian then?

...possibly!!!:)

Malty_T wrote: »

Anyways can we please get back on topic, please somebody show me some evidence for ID.

By evidence, I do no mean proposed flaws in evolution that is pointless. What goes does it achieve in pointing out flaws without offering something fixes 'em?

Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity are the 'hallmarks' of Intelligent Design ... and they say nothing, good or bad, about Evolution!!!:)

Look, we are as certain as we possibly can be, that living organisms are Intelligently Designed ... but we don't obviously know who / how it occurred. The sterile debate between the ID people and the non-ID proponents is a waste of time and energy that could be more usefully deployed in studying the results of the Intelligent Design of life!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

but perhaps we could agree on the term Campaigning Atheist / Christian!!!!

I'm sure most will respectfully appreciate that

Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity are the 'hallmarks' of Intelligent Design ... and they say nothing, good or bad, about Evolution!!!:)

Emm, I beg your patience here but I'm afraid to say I have no clue in the nay o' Jay what you meant by that, (you lost me at Complexity:)) would it be too much to ask for you to, er, try dumbing it down abit and perhaps provide examples and/or illustrations?:o

kiffer

J C wrote: »

...in a word YES

...the entire process (of destruction) that you describe is a spontaneous one i.e. without any need for an intelligent input!!!!:D

ok. it is a destructive process... but then the sediment is carried down stream, where it is eventually deposited, helping to form a delta... a constructive result. Is the formation of the delta still spontaneous?

J C

kiffer wrote: »

ok. it is a destructive process... but then the sediment is carried down stream, where it is eventually deposited, helping to form a delta... a constructive result. Is the formation of the delta still spontaneous?

....yes...but please bear in mind that the formation of a delta doesn't result in Complex Specified Information being produced.

...any old jumble of silt and sand in any old shape will do!!!!:)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....yes...but please bear in mind that the formation of a delta doesn't result in Complex Specified Information being produced.

That old chest nut.

You know Complex Specified Information as a theory has been totally discredited. It is just something some dumb IDer made up to try and add some scientific sounding gravitas to his argument that he doesn't know how something formed so it must have been God

From Wikipedia

When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false. Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity". Yet on page 150 of No Free Lunch he claims he can prove his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." Others have pointed out that a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 10^65.

Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.

kiffer

J C wrote: »

....yes...but please bear in mind that the formation of a delta doesn't result in Complex Specified Information being produced.

...any old jumble of silt and sand in any old shape will do!!!!:)

Well now, that's not really entirely true... it won't be any old jumble of silt and sand (and in our test case here, ash) as the deposits will be sorted and deposited in ordered patterns by the flowing water, gravity and so on... but I understand what you mean... the specific order doesn't matter. one grain of sand next to another in the coarse layers is as good as any other... one imbricated clast is as good as the next, the order is not important...

but these patterns in the deposits... you would agree that they have arisen spontaneously? (by your definition of spontaneous)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

That old chest nut.

You know Complex Specified Information as a theory has been totally discredited. It is just something some dumb IDer made up to try and add some scientific sounding gravitas to his argument that he doesn't know how something formed so it must have been God

From Wikipedia

When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false. Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity". Yet on page 150 of No Free Lunch he claims he can prove his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." Others have pointed out that a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 10^65.

Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function cannot gain information. He therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). When information is replicated, some copies can be differently modified while others remain the same, allowing information to increase. These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.

CSI hasn't been discredited in the least !!!!

...if you look at what I have underlined, the criticisms of Dembeski are very tentative and NOT REFERENCED. Equally, because the Maths is distributive, branching or linear functions make no difference ... when every electron in the known universe would have to be deployed to 'search out' the sequence for just ONE specific functional protein, I think we can safely conclude that Spontaneous Processes DIDN'T produce life. The really exciting stuff is trying to figure out where the Intelligence might have come from!!!!
...I have given you (repeatedly to the point of boredom) the mathematics which PROVE that a specific simple protein cannot be produced with any degree of practicality... and literally billions of such biomolecules would have been required to be produced spontaneously at SPECIFIC points in time and space, if Materialistic Evolution and Abiogenesis are true!!!

...and BTW I disgree with Dembski (who is a Theistic Evolutionist) on many issues of science and theology ... but I recognise a genius, when I see one ... and Dembeski is a genius on a par with a Galileo or a Newton ... I only wish that he would join the ranks of Creation Scientists ... we certainly wouldn't spurn him, like his Materialist Evolutionist colleagues have done!!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

CSI hasn't in the least been discredited!!!!

Yes it has. Repeatably.

As a trained working well qualified scientist though you no doubt already knew this :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

I have given you (repeatedly to the point of boredom) the mathematics which PROVE that a specific simple protein cannot be produced with any degree of practicality

No you have given the mathematics that PROVE that it is very improbable that a protein would randomly form.

Given that no one thinks that proteins randomly form that is some what irrelevant. Evolution explains how proteins form in non-random fashion.

Like I said CSI has been totally discredited.

J C wrote: »

... and literally billions of such bimolecules would have been required to be produced spontaneously at SPECIFIC points in time and space, if Materialistic Evolution and Abiogenesis are true!!!

If you believe that then you don't understand Darwinian evolution. Though I think we established that 1113 pages ago.

CSI has been discredited. You apparently do not understand enough of what CSI actually said to understand how this theory has been discredited. Which is amusing in of itself, but some what tiresome. How about you learn the maths behind CSI and then you will see from the Wikipedia article why it doesn't work as a theory.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes it has.

... "Oh, No it hasn't!!!!":pac::):D

Wicknight wrote: »

... you have given the mathematics that PROVE that it is very improbable that a protein would randomly form.

...they PROVE that it is IMPOSSIBLE ... unless you believe that something requiring the active involvement of every electron in the known universe acting for an effective infinity of time is a possiblity!!:eek::)

J C

kiffer wrote: »

Well now, that's not really entirely true... it won't be any old jumble of silt and sand (and in our test case here, ash) as the deposits will be sorted and deposited in ordered patterns by the flowing water, gravity and so on... but I understand what you mean... the specific order doesn't matter. one grain of sand next to another in the coarse layers is as good as any other... one imbricated clast is as good as the next, the order is not important...

but these patterns in the deposits... you would agree that they have arisen spontaneously? (by your definition of spontaneous)

...I agree with you on all points!!!!

....this is a first ... three or four posts in a row where we agree totally !!!!!!!:D

...probably won't continue ... but I am enjoying it while it lasts!!!:D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...probably won't continue ...

Ahh don't say that:)

unless you believe that something requiring the active involvement of every electron in the known universe acting for an effective infinity of time is a possiblity

What if this was actually possible, by say, natural means?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

What if this was actually possible, by say, natural means?

...finding out how is the 'Holy Grail' of the Materialists ... but my honest assesment is that they are as far away as ever from doing do ... and I think the reason is becasuse it DIDN'T happen spontaneously!!!:)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...probably won't continue ...

Malty_T
Ahh don't say that:)

... please take it as my contribution to the PROPHECY part of the thread!!!:pac::):D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...finding out how is the 'Holy Grail' of the Materialists ... but my honest assesment is that they are as far away as ever from doing do ... and I think the reason is becasuse it DIDN'T happen spontaneously!!!:)

Ok, I'l entertain you on this, but you're going to have to show me where in mathematics the impossibility is proven.

please take it as my contribution to the PROPHECY part of the thread!!!

Duly noted, I can't wait to find out what is actually meant by that term

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, I'l entertain you on this, but you're going to have to show me where in mathematics the impossibility is proven.

Spontaneous processes are capable of producing complexity, even order ... but they are NOT capable of producing Specified Complexity i.e. complexity that MUST be in a SPECIFIC sequence / pattern in order to work.

Spontaneous Systems can even produce SMALL levels of Specified Complexity ... but they rapidly start to produce overwhelming amiounts of useless combinations once the Specified Complexity required exceds 10 specific units!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... "Oh, No it hasn't!!!!":pac::):D

...they PROVE that it is IMPOSSIBLE ...

No actually they don't JC. They prove that it is very unlikely to happen, which is not the same thing, something you would understand if you actually understood the maths you keep copying and pasting here.:rolleyes:

But it is also utterly irrelevant because no one ever suggested that proteins randomly form. It would be like saying you have proved that it is impossible for a river to randomly find the sea. Brilliant, but then no one ever suggested that rivers do randomly find the sea, so what would that achieve :rolleyes:

So yes well done for proving that something no one ever thought was happening isn't happening. Bravo. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Spontaneous processes are capable of producing complexity, even order ... but they are NOT capable of producing Specified Complexity i.e. complexity that MUST be in a SPECIFIC sequence / pattern in order to work.

Spontaneous Systems can even produce SMALL levels of Specified Complexity ... but they rapidly start to produce overwhelming amiounts of useless combinations once the Specified Complexity required exceds 10 specific units!!!

Specified Complexity is a nonsense term, it is been totally discredited. Stop using it please unless you can explain how it works and isn't discredited.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

I apologise if this sounds arrogant,and I apologise even more so if this proves difficult,

but could you show me where in the mathematics that Wicknight was referring to this was proved to be Impossible with SE.


Also, the deduction that exceeding ten specific units produces useless combinations,where exactly does that come from?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I apologise if this sounds arrogant,and I apologise even more so if this proves difficult,

but could you show me where in the mathematics that Wicknight was referring to this was proved to be Impossible with SE.


Also, the deduction that exceeding ten specific units produces useless combinations,where exactly does that come from?

...we observe proteins and other boimolecules of enormous complexity and interactivity. Such systems have literally astronomical numbers of useless permutations and VERY few useful ones... and even one proetein out of thousands in the 'wrong' place or missing can be fatal. It is analagous to a car with enrmously complex electical and mechanical systems ... and it ANY of the systems are non-functional the WHOLE car 'dies' or become uselsss!!!

Nobody would suggest that a car be built using undirected processes ... the scrap produced would simply be too great ... and ditto with living things.

pts

J C wrote: »

...BOTH Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Evolution require new functional biomolecules to 'arise' ... so Spontaneous Evolution is just as invalid scientifically as Abiogenesis / Spontaneous Generation!!!!

Materialists have been 'playing for time' on this issue over the past 20 years as they desperately searched for some mechanism that could 'save the day' for them...
I think that it is about time that their bluff was called ... and that they either put up ... or shut up!!!!!:eek::D

Can you explain to me why Evolution requires "new functional biomolecules to 'arise'". You might have done it before, but I'll be honest and admit that I haven't read this whole thread. Maybe you could humour me and re-explain it.

I am also curious to if you've seen this video, and if you have what you make of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

Also, in regards to irreducible complexity do you have any example of a system which is irreducible complex? That argument was tried in the Dover trial in America but faired very poorly.