The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

MrPudding

Morbert wrote: »

You have been corrected on this before. I'm tempted to report this kind of behaviour.

Don't waste your energy.

MrP

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Which, aside from being nonsense, is also irrelevant to the point Mark was making or the discussion he was having with Jakkass about entropy.

Please keep up :rolleyes:

...I was answering your question!!!!

...YOU need to 'keep up with the programme' ... and your OWN questions!!!!:eek:

J C

Morbert wrote: »

You have been corrected on this before. I'm tempted to report this kind of behaviour.

...what kind of behaviour are you talking about???:(:(

...challenging the fallacious arguments of assorted Materialists, perhaps???

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with entropy

Both are ordered structures, which take their order through the laws of chemistry by using energy, energy that is converted from useful "hot" energy into useless "cold" energy, thus fulfilling the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Energy that comes from the sun, thus turning the suns energy from a hot state to a cold state.

If Creationists weren't lying about what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says then it would be impossible for a crystal to form. It is possible for a crystal to form without breaking the universe, ergo Creationists are lying to you guys about what the 2nd law states.



Again nothing to do with entropy.

This helps clear up why my comment on you guys denying biology has any thing to do with entropy. You are of course accepting that everything in the universe, including biology, operates under entropy in the sense of ultimate heat loss - but you are denying entropy applies to the relentless gain of specified complexity evolution requires. Or rather, you claim that gain is off-set by the heat loss of the sun: gain in biological complexity comes at cost of entropy of the sun.

Which is nonsense.

Back to the example of my car sitting in the sun - no amount of heat gain will increase its specified complexity. Yes, its iron will turn to iron oxide, but as a car it will devolve, not evolve. How much more living organisms.

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

Right, apologies in advance if this sounds harsh (it's been a long day)
This thread seems to be going nowhere, just attacking other viewpoints and not rigorously discussing anything..dodging questions and unclear definitions seems to be order of the day.

JC, Wolfsbane, it seems pretty simple to me, ye want creationism to be classed as a science. I have no problem with this if it can prove itself as a form of science. So the requirement is simple.

Show us that it is science.

Show us some technical papers ( I understand none can be published peer reviewed, but show us the non published ones)
Discuss these papers. Explain the theory and why the paper is relevant. Outline your views on the data and the definitions presented. Discuss the possible sources of errors and try to quantify them. Outline where you think future studies could go, where you think they should go next, or whether you think they've reached a dead end.

Until that time, I'm out of this thread.

Regards,
Malt

I have shown you some technical papers. Alas, I am not able to do more than pick out some of the central arguments, as I'm not a scientist. But I am also not interested in spoon-feeding you - I bring you to the water and it up to you to drink. If you are truly interested in finding the facts, then you will be able to from the sites I mentioned and the more detailed argument there - and here from JC. If you are only interested in denying creationism, then you will remain in your ignorance.

A scientist friend looked at some of the evolutionist comment on this thread. His assessment was: I think they're playing games! Show them a study published in a creationist journal, and no matter how well constructed, data-rich, or tightly argued, it fails because it's in a creationist journal. Show them a study published by a creationist in a secular scientific journal and they deny that it has anything to do with creationism. They did this with Leonard Brand's published research, even though it was directly inspired by it's author's commitment to a creationist model of earth history. (I can also assure them that Leonard is not inactive as they claimed -- he has a very busy research programme, especially in taphonomic studies, and a good publication record. I think the critics have fallen into the fallacy of thinking that if it's not reported on Wikipedia then it isn't happening!)

It seems to me that your critics are not wanting to think rationally or objectively about any of this -- they're just trying to look clever in a "fight"!


Yes, this thread keeps going around in circles, but I hope some of the truth has penetrated. That's why I keep posting. I'm under no illusion that everyone here is after the truth - but those who have ears to hear will hear.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...I was answering your question!!!!

I didn't ask you a question.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

This helps clear up why my comment on you guys denying biology has any thing to do with entropy. You are of course accepting that everything in the universe, including biology, operates under entropy in the sense of ultimate heat loss - but you are denying entropy applies to the relentless gain of specified complexity evolution requires. Or rather, you claim that gain is off-set by the heat loss of the sun: gain in biological complexity comes at cost of entropy of the sun.

Which is nonsense.

Back to the example of my car sitting in the sun - no amount of heat gain will increase its specified complexity. Yes, its iron will turn to iron oxide, but as a car it will devolve, not evolve. How much more living organisms.

...

...

...

Wow. Just wow.

Edit to clarify: J C, i'm stunned by the inappropriateness of the analogy, so don't even start.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

This helps clear up why my comment on you guys denying biology has any thing to do with entropy. You are of course accepting that everything in the universe, including biology, operates under entropy in the sense of ultimate heat loss - but you are denying entropy applies to the relentless gain of specified complexity evolution requires.

Well it is hard to deny something that is utter nonsense, but sure if it makes you feel better I deny what ever crazy Creationist mumbo jumbo you just said. It has nothing to do with entropy or the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Entropy is a measurement of the total information required to specify the state of a system.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe (the information required to specific it) will increase as time goes by.

This is understood as the flow of heat (energy) from hot bodies to colder bodies until the universe reaches equilibrium because everything is the same temperature. At this point the entropy of the system (the universe) is at maximum, this system requires the maximum amount of information to describe it.

No where in the 2nd law of thermodynamics does it ever state that entropy cannot decrease on a local scale. Steam cooling to water is a decrease of the entropy of the water.

But because the condensing of steam to water gives off energy to the surrounding molecules, the entropy of these molecules increases, producing a greater entropy of the entire system.

As Lord Kelvin put is

It is impossible to convert heat completely into work in a cyclic process.

Notice he didn't say "...unless you are intelligent" :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Or rather, you claim that gain is off-set by the heat loss of the sun: gain in biological complexity comes at cost of entropy of the sun.

Which is nonsense.

It is not nonsense, it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, a law you apparently have no clue about.

All chemical reactions increase the entropy of the of the over all system (the universe). This includes life. The fact that the molecules in the chemical reaction become more ordered is irrelevant because in doing so they greatly disorder the molecules around them.

If you look only at life itself you are committing the cardinal sin of physics, treating an open system as if it was a closed system.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, its iron will turn to iron oxide, but as a car it will devolve, not evolve. How much more living organisms.

And yet when you put a plant out in the sun it doesn't dissolve.

Again notice that Lord Kelvin didn't say "unless you are intelligent, or made by something intelligent"

The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't just apply to natural things. It applies to everything

The plant sits there quietly cobbling up the heat from the sun, amazingly not braking the universe. It strings together complex sequences of molecules, again amazingly not breaking the universe.

God isn't stopping the laws of the universe to allow this plant to construct complex sequences of molecules. The 2nd law is working away just fine while the plant is doing this. The entropy of the entire system is increasing because the energy from the sun is, through the chemical reactions of the plant, effecting all the molecules around it, thus increasing the information required to specify the state of these molecules.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have shown you some technical papers.

Show me, please.

Yes, this thread keeps going around in circles, but I hope some of the truth has penetrated. That's why I keep posting. I'm under no illusion that everyone here is after the truth - but those who have ears to hear will hear

Except those committed to their religious beliefs who can only hear what agrees with their particular brand of nonsense.

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

Show me, please.

This is, to be honest, some what of a dead end because our version of "technical papers" is a proper scientific study and Wolfsbanes is any Creationist nonsense that Answers in Genesis will publish that has columns and graphs.

So we really aren't talking about the same thing. Wolfsbane has never been able to demonstrate where the actual science is in any of the papers he has copied and pasted, but it gives him an excuse to say we are ignoring him.

monosharp

Wicknight wrote: »

This is, to be honest, some what of a dead end because our version of "technical papers" is a proper scientific study and Wolfsbanes is any Creationist nonsense that Answers in Genesis will publish that has columns and graphs.

Right, like the scientific studies which stated smoking was good for pregnant women ? :pac:

kiffer

Wolfsbane: I direct your attention to post number 17971...
I would appreciate a response.


My favorite thing about that post is that 17971 is a palindromic number... and a prime too! oooh and 179 and 71 are both primes! the number just gets better and better (as are 79, 797, 97 and 971... squee!)


J C: How far did we get with our spontaneous processes line of conversation before we got distracted?

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't ask you a question.

...I was certainly responding to your posting here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62409537&postcount=17995

....whether or not there was a question in it is anybody's guess!!!:eek:

....keep with the programme, Wicknight ... and your OWN postings/questions!!!:eek::D

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

...

...

...

Wow. Just wow.

Edit to clarify: J C, i'm stunned by the inappropriateness of the analogy, so don't even start.

...what analogy ... I didn't give an analogy ... it was Wolfsbane!!!!

...keep up with the programme!!!:D

...indeed Wolfsbane is pointing out a unique aspect to living organisms which their intelligently designed processes confer - the ability to use their Specified Complexity to create additional Specified Complexity (which is the 'hallmark' of applied intelligence) ... while the direct application of basic chemistry and physics by inanimate processes yields only Complexity ... and often catastrophic complexity, at that (as in Wolfsbane's rusty car example)!!!

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...what analogy ... I didn't give an analogy ... it was Wolfsbane!!!!

I'm aware of that. But a statement like "Wow. Just wow." in response to an analogy as bad as wolfsbane's (unless your car is alive, wolfsbane) is just the kind of thing you like to cherry-pick and claim as victory.

In any case, do you have any response to the recent postings on entropy, or are you going to jump away from that again until you think we've all forgotten about it?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...I was certainly responding to your posting here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62409537&postcount=17995

....whether or not there was a question in it is anybody's guess!!!:eek:

Well I think the complete lack of a question should have indicated to you that there was no question "in it" JC. :rolleyes:

kiffer

modification of the car analogy: every morning you pull out the blueprints for the car, make 1000 copies, make a different tiny change to each set of plans, build a car from each set of plans. Pick the car that works best or you like the look of best and use it for a while ... Then repeat the process based on the new car... Having of course recycled the materials from the other 1000 cars that didn't make the cut...

Only then does the car analogy come anywhere near an analogy for evolution...

Heck, once your making copies, modifying them and selecting from the copies all you need is time...
You could throw a handful of rocks at the car, make loads exact copies of shape of the damaged car, throw a hand full of rocks at each car, select the two you think look most like a fancy sportscar... Make a 1000 copies of the combined shape of those cars and repeat... The mating will soothe out the harshness of some of the edges... After a few (read many) generations you'll end up with something that looks totally different from your starting volvo (it may look like a sportscar that some one has pebbledashed and sand blasted I'll admit but the mating should smoothe that out also smaller gravel would help)... You can't just keep beating mutating the same horse car... Once it's dead you need a new one.


As for the leaving a car slowly rusting in the sun... If you leave a horse in a field it too will slowly degrade. No matter what you do your horse will age... You need a new horse... Horses can make more horses... Cars can not yet make more cars...


Hmmm should read over this but the bus has reached town.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...what kind of behaviour are you talking about???:(:(

...challenging the fallacious arguments of assorted Materialists, perhaps???

The kind where you say the same thing over and over, without any progressive dynamic or interaction between those who have corrected you. Wolfsbane might be wrong, but at least he engages people.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I think the complete lack of a question should have indicated to you that there was no question "in it" JC. :rolleyes:

...what is it with Evolutionists and nit-picking???

...I guess if you have no substantive evidence for your position, then nit-picking over irrelevancies is the best that you can do!!!:eek::D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Morbert
You have been corrected on this before. I'm tempted to report this kind of behaviour.

Originally Posted by J C
...what kind of behaviour are you talking about???

...challenging the fallacious arguments of assorted Materialists, perhaps???

Morbert
The kind where you say the same thing over and over, without any progressive dynamic or interaction between those who have corrected you. Wolfsbane might be wrong, but at least he engages people.

...on that basis, most of you guys on this thread should be reported for nonesensical repetition ... and boredom - for good measure!!!:D:)

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm aware of that. But a statement like "Wow. Just wow." in response to an analogy as bad as wolfsbane's (unless your car is alive, wolfsbane) is just the kind of thing you like to cherry-pick and claim as victory.

In any case, do you have any response to the recent postings on entropy, or are you going to jump away from that again until you think we've all forgotten about it?

...more nit-picking and downright erroneous statements ... and please go read my entropy responses here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62408784&postcount=17993

..and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62411958&postcount=17998

...and Wicknight's contribution in relation to entropy ... that "when you put a plant out in the sun it doesn't dissolve" doesn't deserve to be dignified by a response !!!!:eek::D

kiffer

J C: any chance you could respond to my question? I know it's probably not as much fun as getting the others all riled up over order/disorder/entropy or calling their rational faculties sub par but it wont take much time...

J C

kiffer wrote: »

J C: How far did we get with our spontaneous processes line of conversation before we got distracted?

....nowhere ... as far as I can recall !!!:eek::D:)

kiffer

J C wrote: »

....nowhere ... as far as I can recall !!!:eek::D:)

I was kind of hoping that you would remind me of what the last process you agreed was 'spontaneous'... Of course if rather avoid answering even simple questions...
You seem to have responding down, as for answering you've got a way to go.

J C

kiffer wrote: »

modification of the car analogy: every morning you pull out the blueprints for the car, make 1000 copies, make a different tiny change to each set of plans, build a car from each set of plans. Pick the car that works best or you like the look of best and use it for a while ... Then repeat the process based on the new car... Having of course recycled the materials from the other 1000 cars that didn't make the cut...

...that sounds like a process of INTELLIGENT DESIGN by INTELLIGENT EXPERIMENTATION to me!!!:eek::D

kiffer wrote: »

Heck, once your making copies, modifying them and selecting from the copies all you need is time...

...that is time and the appliance of INTELLIGENCE!!!

kiffer wrote: »

You could throw a handful of rocks at the car, make loads exact copies of shape of the damaged car, throw a hand full of rocks at each car, select the two you think look most like a fancy sportscar...

...after all that rock throwing ... it will look more like a wreck ... than a sportscar!!!!

kiffer wrote: »

Make a 1000 copies of the combined shape of those cars and repeat... The mating will soothe out the harshness of some of the edges... After a few (read many) generations you'll end up with something that looks totally different from your starting volvo (it may look like a sportscar that some one has pebbledashed and sand blasted I'll admit but the mating should smoothe that out also smaller gravel would help)... You can't just keep beating mutating the same horse car... Once it's dead you need a new one.

...and it will look like a total wreck!!!!!

....and Wolfsbane... don't let Kiffer near your 'vintage' Peugeot...or he will turn it into a total 'rust bucket' in double-quick time!!! :eek::D:)

kiffer wrote: »

As for the leaving a car slowly rusting in the sun... If you leave a horse in a field it too will slowly degrade. No matter what you do your horse will age... You need a new horse... Horses can make more horses... Cars can not yet make more cars...

...like I have already said on a previous posting, the unique aspect to living organisms is their ability to use their Specified Complexity to create additional Specified Complexity (which is the 'hallmark' of applied intelligence) ... while the direct application of basic chemistry and physics by inanimate processes yields only Complexity ... and often catastrophic complexity, at that (as in Wolfsbane's rusty car example)!!! :eek::)

kiffer wrote: »

Hmmm should read over this but the bus has reached town.

...Evolutionists need to read over everything they write...

...and BTW, speaking as a former Evolutionist, I can confirm that Creation Scientists are operating about 20 years ahead of Evolutionists in cutting edge research terms!!!

...i.e. the scientific insights gained by Creation Science, twenty years ago are just beginning to 'dawn' on a minority of top Evolutionists ... but they dare not admit it ... because the 'hive minds' of some of their fellow evolutionists could result in instant (career) death for any Evolutionist foolhardy enough to 'excrete' even a tiny drop of Creationist 'pheromone' within an Evolutionist 'swarm' !!!!!!!:D

...every time I enter an Evolutionist 'hive' I have to wear white overalls and create plenty of Evolutionist 'smoke' to protect myself from their stings!!!:eek::D

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...that sounds like a process of INTELLIGENT DESIGN by INTELLIGENT EXPERIMENTATION to me!!!:eek::D

Thats not INTELLIGENT?!:pac::eek::):D:p thinking.

...all you need is time and the appliance of INTELLIGENCE!!!

If there was an intelligence that designed us hes a complete idiot and a rubbish engineer.

...and BTW, speaking as a former Evolutionist, I can confirm that Creation Scientists are operating about 20 years ahead of Evolutionists in cutting edge research terms!!!

Pathetic.

Are you ever going to answer questions put to you ?

Show me 1 single example of this research.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Thats not INTELLIGENT?!:pac::eek::):D:p thinking.

...WHY?

monosharp wrote: »

If there was an intelligence that designed us hes a complete idiot and a rubbish engineer.

...WHY?

monosharp wrote: »

Are you ever going to answer questions put to you ?

...I keep anwering every question put to me to the best of my ability ... and the Evolutionists simply say 'Computer says no!!':eek::D:)

monosharp wrote: »

Show me 1 single example of this research.

...why should I bother????:eek::)

Turtwig

Brilliant Video:)

kiffer

Sterling work J C... Sterling.

J C

kiffer wrote: »

Sterling work J C... Sterling.

...thanks Kiffer!!!

...but I'm in the Euro-zone!!!!:D:)