The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Turtwig

WB,

What does creation science explain and predict that evolution already doesn't?
Secondly, why does creation science consistently (and possibly deliberately) confuse evolution with abiogenesis?

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You may well show it to be better thought through than some other - but can you show how yours is better than an equally well developed morality that condones what you condemn?
How can two different moralities be equally well developed if they come to two different conclusions?

If they start with different presuppositions, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
An atheistic society may argue that homosexuality is degenerate, a threat to public health and order, an evolutionary liability that should be excised from society.
A theistic society may argue against homosexuality on public health and order grounds and on their religious principles.

Another society may argue for the acceptance of homosexuality as just another natural form of sexuality and treat the public health and order aspect as not intrinsic to it.

Who is to say which morality is correct, if materialism is true?
Which ever morality can actual give evidence to support its position will be the one thats true.

What if the evidence is not beyond dispute? Homosexuality can be shown to be detrimental to the family, for instance. It is also linked to practices that are dangerous to the public health. And for the communist, such minority practice is non-conformist.

On the other hand, diversity of sexuality might be argued as good for society, contra the conformist idea.

But on balance, it seems the anti-homosexual morality has the weight on their side. So do you support it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So you exchange the effectiveness of a morality for an individual for that of the society. And I imagine that of a society for that of the world. So only what works for the world as a whole is right, even if it goes against many individuals and societies?
Depends on why it goes against the moralities of those individuals and societies

You mean your opinion could invalidate the morality of both an individual and society? That true morality is not in fact the determination of them, but is a self-existing truth. Seems we agree then - things are moral or they or not, regardless of any man's view on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Let's say the majority of the world were Muslim. The forced conversion or dhimmitude of the religious minorities and atheists would be effective for the peace of the world. Would that be the moral thing to do?
I fail to see how forced conversions would lead to a peaceful world.

OK, for argument's sake, let's say all the dissidents are either killed or reduced to dhimmitude. Would that be a moral thing to do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Good, we are further forward. The is no ought in materialism.
There is an "ought" in materialism, its just the same "ought" that is there when you are told you "ought" to eat your vegtables-there are logical and sensible reasons to do so, but the is no magic judge there to catch if you even think about not doing so (thats the problem you seem to have, not that there is no ought, just no eternal punishment for not doing so)

No, I'm not asking about practical reasons for any action ( eating your vegetables, for instance), but about a moral imperative to do so. That is the 'ought' that is absent from materialism. It is good sense to eat your vegetables, but it is hardly immoral if you do not.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

WB,

What does creation science explain and predict that evolution already doesn't?
Secondly, why does creation science consistently (and possibly deliberately) confuse evolution with abiogenesis?

For example, an explanation of:
The greater biological diversity of mammals and birds, and the lesser biological diversity of reptiles
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/08/news-to-note-08082009

Some predictions:
Successful Predictions by Creation Scientists
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

If evolution is true, it could have been initiated by God or any intelligent agent some time after the earth was formed. Or basic life could have arrived from outer space.

But the most common suggestion is that life arose from non-life by a materialistic, chemical process. It is that popular concept that Creationists attack, rather than taking issue with the more fanciful ones. But we do give them their share of criticism when they arise. Theistic Evolution has been addressed on this forum from time to time and the Creationist sites deal with it as it requires.

But we have agreed before that both Creation and Evolution as explanations of what we see before us need not account for what brought life into being. Life's development can be the narrow focus of our dispute.

ironingbored

Debating a creationist is akin to debating someone who believes the Earth is flat or Someone who believes the Earth is the centre of the universe. Utterly pointless and downright tedious.

I will ask you one thing though. If your god knows everything and has a distinct plan for you will you give up seeking medical advice and taking medicine? Surely God will look after you and if you are to succumb to swine flu or the like then it will have been His will.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the most common suggestion is that life arose from non-life by a materialistic, chemical process. It is that popular concept that Creationists attack, rather than taking issue with the more fanciful ones. .

Your battle is not against evolution then...evolution mainly explains the diversity of the species on this planet.

J C

ironingbored wrote: »

Debating a creationist is akin to debating someone who believes the Earth is flat or Someone who believes the Earth is the centre of the universe. Utterly pointless and downright tedious.

I will ask you one thing though. If your god knows everything and has a distinct plan for you will you give up seeking medical advice and taking medicine? Surely God will look after you and if you are to succumb to swine flu or the like then it will have been His will.

...God gives us free-will ... and we live in a Fallen World. So Christians become Medical Doctors to help protect and cure people from the effects of disease. God will sometimes intervene with a miracle, in extremis. However, God expects us to use the talents that He has given us for our own good and the good of our fellow man.

...stop whinging ... and give Prof Dawkins a 'dig out' by answering the question put to him in the video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
....so ... Can you give us an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

wolfsbane

ironingbored wrote: »

Debating a creationist is akin to debating someone who believes the Earth is flat or Someone who believes the Earth is the centre of the universe. Utterly pointless and downright tedious.

I will ask you one thing though. If your god knows everything and has a distinct plan for you will you give up seeking medical advice and taking medicine? Surely God will look after you and if you are to succumb to swine flu or the like then it will have been His will.

God has ordained we normally use means to accomplish His ends.

We are to work for our daily bread, not just sit back and expect God to send it to us. But in exceptional circumstances He will provide for us without our effort - just as He sent food to Elijah when he was hiding out.

So too with sickness. We pray for His intervention, and it normally comes in blessing the medicine we take. Sometimes it comes in a direct, non-medical intervention.

Not to use the means He has provided is a tempting/testing of God, something forbidden by Him:
Matthew 4:5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6 and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:


‘ He shall give His angels charge over you,’
and,


‘ In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’”

7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God.’”

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Your battle is not against evolution then...evolution mainly explains the diversity of the species on this planet.

...we scientifically challenge all unfounded Materialistic explanations for both the origins and the supposed development of life ... because neither process has ever occurrred ... and they are both physical and logical impossibilities!!!:):D

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not to use the means He has provided is a tempting/testing of God, something forbidden by Him:
Matthew 4:5

(my bold)
Excellent response. That will be useful in future.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Your battle is not against evolution then...evolution mainly explains the diversity of the species on this planet.

We oppose both abiogenesis and evolution, as both contradict the revealed Word of God. It teaches a recent creation of a mature biosphere in 6 days.

The diversity of species flows from those original kinds as natural selection, isolation and mutation had their effects.

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

We oppose both abiogenesis and evolution, as both contradict the revealed Word of God. It teaches a recent creation of a mature biosphere in 6 days.

The diversity of species flows from those original kinds as natural selection, isolation and mutation had their effects.

...and rapid initial speciation as well!!!!:):D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

give Prof Dawkins a 'dig out' by answering the question put to him in the video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
....so ... Can you give us an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

Ahh JC I thought you knew better than that,

Dawkins is a terrier he can dig himself out

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

We oppose both abiogenesis and evolution, as both contradict the revealed Word of God.

How does it contradict God's word??

Abiogensis, does not know, evolution merely evolved species???

The Mad Hatter

Malty_T wrote: »

Ahh JC I thought you knew better than that,

Dawkins is a terrier he can dig himself out

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

Ah, you haven't been playing for long enough. Next come the repeated assertions that there's no increase in information, and the subject-change/mockery if you ask what information means.

Nearly 2,000 pages in, and we still have to get that little from her.

So, J C - what do you mean by information?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Ahh JC I thought you knew better than that,

Dawkins is a terrier he can dig himself out

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

...Did you read the article?

It is a review of the Shannon measure of information ... but no example was given of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process that increases the functional information in the genome.

...so anybody want to give Prof Dawkins a 'dig out' ... by answering the question?

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ah, you haven't been playing for long enough. Next come the repeated assertions that there's no increase in information, and the subject-change/mockery if you ask what information means.

Nearly 2,000 pages in, and we still have to get that little from her.

So, J C - what do you mean by information?

...we have been repeatedly over this before!!!

....at its most basic, information is a message that is composed, transmitted, received and understood. It requires a language that is common to the composer and the receiver and it is made up of patterns that are both complex and specific.

All useful information is complex and specified. To give you an example qwbbdshhsakkl is complex ... BUT it isn't specified and therefore isn't useful information.

All intelligible writing is BOTH complex and specified - and that is why it is meaningful functional information.

Similarly the genetic information found in living organisms is BOTH complex and specific .... and any change degrades the information - sometimes with dramatic consequences -as with mutations, for example.

....functional information is specified according to the rules that make it functional information ... the rules of grammar in the case of language ... the rules of mathematics in the case of data and the rules of biochemistry in the case of living systems!!!

Where the ultimate source is known, information is always observed to be a product of intelligence.
The fact that it is both complex and specified, mathematically rules out random or spontaneous origins for functional information.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

....at its most basic, information is a message that is composed, transmitted, received and understood. It requires a language that is common to the composer and the receiver and it is made up of patterns that are both complex and specific.

At its most basic ?

I'm not even going to answer you here and waste screen space, I am going to point you to a dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information

To give you an example qwbbdshhsakkl is complex ... BUT it isn't specified and therefore isn't useful information.

Isn't useful to whom for what ? qwbbdshhsakkl could be an Alien societies word for "Help" or could be a code to pass secrets or ...etc etc etc.

Similarly the genetic information found in living organisms is BOTH complex and specific .... and any change degrades the information - sometimes with dramatic consequences -as with mutations, for example.

Which is why newts, one among many species have much more genetic information than humans ? Because all that information is useful to them ?

See heres the first problem. You define something "information" in a particular way that suits yourself and your argument and then ask a half-scientific question using your definitions.

I can tell you for example that many animals have more genetic "information" then human beings and then you'll tell me 'thats not information because information is ....'.

Its a no-win scenario.

As for your 'specific and complex' = information argument, to quote Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2%

So God's pen must have leaked quite a bit when he was designing us since 98% of our genetic material isn't actually used.

Where the ultimate source is known, information is always observed to be a product of intelligence.

So I'm interested in your response now. Is the 98% of our genetic information that scientists say isn't used, A. A evolutionist/scientific/materialist/whatever lie ? B. A mistake ? C. Beyond our knowledge D. Its actually a coded version of the Bible.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

At its most basic ?

I'm not even going to answer you here and waste screen space, I am going to point you to a dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information

..there are several different meanings to the word 'information' ... but the basic definition is a message that is composed, transmitted, received and understood. It requires a language that is common to the composer and the receiver and it is made up of patterns that are both complex and specific.

monosharp wrote: »

Isn't useful to whom for what ? qwbbdshhsakkl could be an Alien societies word for "Help" or could be a code to pass secrets or ...etc etc etc.

...to be classified as 'Complex Specified Information' it must perform a useful function or be otherwise intelligible to someone or something - otherwise it is just meaningless, useless 'gobbledy-gook'...something like Materialistic Evolution actually!!!

...and if 'qwbbdshhsakkl' means 'Help' on the Planet Zog then this word is Complex Specified Information in the language of Zog ... and therefore is useful functional information ... otherwise (and to anybody who doesn't understand 'Zoganese') ... it is 'gobbledy-gook'!!!!

monosharp wrote: »

Which is why newts, one among many species have much more genetic information than humans ? Because all that information is useful to them ?

...Evolutionists apparently think so, because they use the Shannon Information definition (which erroneously defines information as 'any old gobbledygook')... but Creation Science uses the concept of Complex Specified Information which is functional ... and as functionality is measured by the result ... Human CSI is therefore quite clearly much greater than Newt CSI.

monosharp wrote: »

See heres the first problem. You define something "information" in a particular way that suits yourself and your argument and then ask a half-scientific question using your definitions.

I can tell you for example that many animals have more genetic "information" then human beings and then you'll tell me 'thats not information because information is ....'.

....Evolutionists are the ones using a self-serving (and meaningless definition) of Information, because they use the Shannon Information definition (which erroneously defines information as 'any old gobbledygook')... but Creation Science uses the concept of Complex Specified Information which is functional ... and as functionality is measured by the result ... Human CSI is quite clearly much greater than Newt CSI.

monosharp wrote: »

Its a no-win scenario.

As for your 'specific and complex' = information argument, to quote Dawkins.
Originally Posted by Richard:eek::eek: Dawkins
Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2%

So God's pen must have leaked quite a bit when he was designing us since 98% of our genetic material isn't actually used

...so according to Evolutionists, Human Beings contain 2% of Newt Genetic information and only use 2% of even this small amount!!!
...did you ever think that there is a possibility (I would say a certainty) that there is something radically wrong with the definition of 'Information' which evolutionists are using????:eek::eek:
Hint ... this is a replay of the 'vestigial' organ controversy of the early 20th Century, when ignorance of function led the Evolutionists to conclude that it must have no function ... the latter day 'vestigial organ' is 'junk DNA' ... where ignorance of function decides to deem it to have lack of function!!!!

monosharp wrote: »

So I'm interested in your response now. Is the 98% of our genetic information that scientists say isn't used, A. A evolutionist/scientific/materialist/whatever lie ? B. A mistake ? C. Beyond our knowledge D. Its actually a coded version of the Bible.

...I'll be generous and call it a 'mistake' by the evolutionists/materialists/whatever !!!!:pac::D:eek:

monosharp

...to be classified as 'Complex Specified Information' it must perform a useful function or be otherwise intelligible to someone or something - otherwise it is just meaningless, useless 'gobbledy-gook'...something like Materialistic Evolution actually!!!

Who said anything about complex specified information. First you asked for 'information', now its 'complex specific information'. :rolleyes:

...Evolutionists apparently think so, because they use the Shannon Information definition (which erroneously defines information as 'any old gobbledygook')... but Creations Science uses the concept of Complex Specified Information which is functional ... and as functionality is measured by the result ... Human CSI is quite clearly much greater than Newt CSI.

And thus my point is proven.

Creations Science uses the concept of Complex Specified Information which is a definition designed for their own use. You have defined something to suit your views, science defines something from the evidence.

...so according to Evolutionists Human Beings contain 2% of Newt Genetic information and only use 2% of even this small amount!!!

If by Evolutionists you mean every biological scientist currently alive with a speck of credibility then yes.

...I'll be generous and call it a 'mistake' by the evolutionists/materialists/whatever !!!!:pac::D:eek:

And yet you still haven't answered a single question or even so much as made a comment about the questions brought up.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I did not suggest you accepted the evolutionist scientists on their word. Only that it is claimed 'real scientists' have no prejudice toward their own view or against creationism when they come to interpret the evidence before them.

No one has claimed that. What they have claimed is that if you are doing real science it doesn't matter what your prejudices are, the science speaks for itself.

I do reject your nonsensical view though that all biologists are prejudice and biased against the "truth" of Creationism. Out of the millions of biologists, many of which are religious, that claim just doesn't stand up.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the article I posted shows that is not so. It is not the evidence that is driving them to be so dogmatic and dismissive.

It doesn't matter. Science has build up safe guards against the personal beliefs of scientists.

During the early days of quantum mechanics there where huge and often bitter arguments between scientists, such as Einstein, over the research.

Einstein turned out to be wrong. He was a good scientists and eventually admitted he was wrong, but even if he hadn't it wouldn't have mattered. The science speaks for itself

A wrong theory can't do anything, because by definition it's predictions are going to be inaccurate. Einstein's theories couldn't do anything.

Creationist theories can't do anything. You can't find oil, or do medical research, with creationism. You can with geology and evolution. The predictions from these theories can be used to actually do stuff, which is a sign of a good theory.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So when I hear them - and you - dismiss the scientific arguments of creationism, I am no longer amazed that scientists can be so narrow-minded.

That is ridiculous, you are complaining about the very thing Creationism does, hold on to scientific theories they cannot demonstrate as being accurate.

The science speaks for itself.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creation scientists do demonstrate their case; your prejudice prevents you from objectively examining it.

They don't. Where are the creationist oil rigs. Where are the creationist biotech firms. Where are the practical useage of creationist predictions

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

If they start with different presuppositions, for example.

How do you measure or define developed? If two moralities start with different presuppositions and end with two different conclusions, how do you measure that development between the start and end? What is it measured in (what are the units of development)?

wolfsbane wrote: »

What if the evidence is not beyond dispute?

No evidence is beyond despute.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Homosexuality can be shown to be detrimental to the family, for instance. It is also linked to practices that are dangerous to the public health. And for the communist, such minority practice is non-conformist.

On the other hand, diversity of sexuality might be argued as good for society, contra the conformist idea.

But on balance, it seems the anti-homosexual morality has the weight on their side. So do you support it?

No, because it doesn't have weight on its side. The evidence does not support its position.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You mean your opinion could invalidate the morality of both an individual and society? That true morality is not in fact the determination of them, but is a self-existing truth.

Wow, talk about non sequitor. I can say that society has been building houses wrong and that my idea of a house is better and I can demonstrate that that is so. It does not follow that there must exist some universal, defined-outside-of-human-existence, ideal idea of a house.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems we agree then - things are moral or they or not, regardless of any man's view on them.

No we are net in agreement. Things are not just moral or not, regardless of view. There are better ways of deciding whats is moral though. A morality based on usubstansiated ideologies created by the insecure is a poorer morality than one that is based on evidence and requires of itself do have actual explanations for its moral points.

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, for argument's sake, let's say all the dissidents are either killed or reduced to dhimmitude. Would that be a moral thing to do?

(I fail to see how dhimmitude would lead to peaceful world either:rolleyes:). Moral to who? Me? I wouldn't consider it moral. I'm sure the muslims who support it would though and thats the point. Subject to the muslims who enact such a thing, it would be moral, subject to me (or anyone on the recieving end) it would not because morality is subjective.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I'm not asking about practical reasons for any action ( eating your vegetables, for instance), but about a moral imperative to do so. That is the 'ought' that is absent from materialism. It is good sense to eat your vegetables, but it is hardly immoral if you do not.

The practical reasons are the moral imperative. If a moral has no practical reason, then what is the purpose of it?

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Who said anything about complex specified information. First you asked for 'information', now its 'complex specific information'. :rolleyes:

...genetic information is observed to be both complex and specified.

Shannon Information is any old 'gobbledy-gook'.

wrote:

Originally Posted by JC
...Evolutionists apparently think so, because they use the Shannon Information definition (which erroneously defines information as 'any old gobbledygook')... but Creations Science uses the concept of Complex Specified Information which is functional ... and as functionality is measured by the result ... Human CSI is quite clearly much greater than Newt CSI.

monosharp
And thus my point is proven.

Creations Science uses the concept of Complex Specified Information which is a definition designed for their own use. You have defined something to suit your views, science defines something from the evidence.

...our definition is produced from our observations!!
...and if Evolutonists wish to continue examining any old 'gobbledy-gook' and confusing themselves with it ... who am I to ask them to stop???

...on the other hand, Creation Scientists and ID Proponents will continue to logically and scientifically evaluate the Complex Specified Information present in the genomes of life ... and that must be why there are so many ID and Creation Scientists employed in Genetic Sequencing and Research!!!!:D:)

wrote:

Originally Posted by JC
...so according to Evolutionists Human Beings contain 2% of Newt Genetic information and only use 2% of even this small amount!!!
...did you ever think that there is a possibility (I would say a certainty) that there is something radically wrong with the definition of 'Information' which evolutionists are using????

monosharp
If by Evolutionists you mean every biological scientist currently alive with a speck of credibility then yes.

...they won't have much credibility if they continue to use a clearly defective definition of 'information' that accords a greater information content to the genome of a Newt than to that of a Human Being...
...if Evolutionists continue to follow this logic, they will soon be claiming that a Child's ABC Book contains more information than 'The Greatest Show on Earth'!!!!:D;)

monosharp wrote: »

And yet you still haven't answered a single question or even so much as made a comment about the questions brought up.

...must have been wasting my time for the past four years on this thread!!!

...which questions have I not exhaustively and repeatedly answered???

..you may not have liked the answers ... and their implcations for your 'worldview' ... but I did answer all questions put to me ... unlike some people who haven't answered the question "Can you give us an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

a Child's ABC Book contains more information than 'The Greatest Show on Earth'

Isn't that true though??:p

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...if Evolutionists continue to follow this logic, they will soon be claiming that a Child's ABC Book contains more information than 'The Greatest Show on Earth'!!!!

'Malty_T
Isn't that true though??:p

...do you really think so???:eek::P

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Where are the creationist oil rigs. Where are the creationist biotech firms. Where are the practical useage of creationist predictions

...there are many, many Creation Scientists and ID Proponents working in the oil and bio-tech industries...but I'm not going to trigger a 'witch hunt' by naming any of them!!!

...and could I ask what possible use, could a theory (Evolution) be to anybody? ... when it states that everything is the result of multiple mistakes ... to say nothing of either its logic or validity, in the first place.

If everything really is a result of haphazard happenstasnce, no useful prediction could EVER be made about anything ... as we would be living in a chaotic unpredictible Universe ... with about as much predictibility as next weeks Lotto result!!

The fact that we are living in an ordered predictible Universe which is objectively operating under Laws discovered by science actually makes operative science possible ... and because there are laws there must be a 'Lawgiver' ... and He is God!!!:eek:

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...do you really think so???:eek::P

Yep:p

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Yep:p

..I'm sure Prof Dawkins would not be amused!!!:eek::)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

..I'm sure Prof Dawkins would not be amused!!!:eek::)

Maybe not...:p:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

because there are laws there must be a 'Lawgiver' ... and He is God!!!:eek:

Interesting conclusion there
Why not one lawmaker for each?
Why not females?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Interesting conclusion there
Why not one lawmaker for each?
Why not females?

There is objectively a single unified approach which indicates an individual God ... and He has confirmed that He is one God and of the masculine gender!!!:D