The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Why is mutation deleterious? Surely that's context dependent?

...mutations always degrade CSI ... which is always deleterious from a long term point of view!!!:D

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...mutations always degrade CSI ... which is always deleterious from a long term point of view!!!:D

So basically, if someone is born with a birth defect, it's evolution. But if someone is born a genius, its creation science!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh dear. I've seen this many times on creationist videos but no, just no. There is conclusive proof that the mechanism of evolution through the selection of random mutations works perfectly well without anything guiding the mutations, evolutionary algorithms. These are computer simulations that model evolution where many simple units are randomly varied and then tested using a fitness function. These algorithms regularly produce the kind of complexity that ID proponents claim is imposssible and solve problems that even our most intelligently designed algorithms can't.

...ah yes, these are the CSI-rich algorithms that, in turn run on Intelligently Designed Computers!!!!:eek::):D

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So basically, if someone is born with a birth defect, it's evolution. But if someone is born a genius, its creation science!

...that kinda sums it all up ... although technically it would be best to substitute the words 'mutation' and 'Created CSI' for the words 'evolution' and 'creation science' respectively in your sentence!!!!:):D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He thinks that animals started out with all of their genetic information present and perfect because "information can only come from a mind" and that mutations can only degrade the information. Total nonsense but then that's creationism for you.

...what a terrible thing this evolutionist denial is ... they would call black white and then come back and accuse everybody else of being colourblind!!!!:D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

That god changed the gene?

So he accepts that genetic change (deletion, addition, subsitution etc) happens, that "information" can "increase" (what a meaningless phrase) and that it could be of benefit for the host organism, depending on the environmental pressure on the host organism at the time. He's not too far away now....

...ALL of the CSI potential was 'pre-packaged' at Creation ... and it has been gloriously 'unwinding' ever since!!!

...what amazing nievety, even for a materialist, to claim that 'increasing information' ... is somehow 'meaningless' ...
... try telling that to anybody on the internet, in a library, on television ... almost anywhere except apparently in an (evolutionist) biology lab !!!!:eek::D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...ah yes, these are the CSI-rich algorithms

Except that they're not and that is what makes them evolutionary algorithms. The complex "information" forms quite happily through random mutations and evaluating fitness functions

J C wrote: »

that, in turn run on Intelligently Designed Computers!!!!:eek::):D

The fact that you keep making this breathtakingly inane comment honestly makes me despair for humanity. If a computer programmer writes a program that simulates a rock falling down a hill, does that mean that rocks, hills and gravity must be intelligently designed?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Except that they're not and that is what makes them evolutionary algorithms. The complex "information" forms quite happily through random mutations and evaluating fitness functions

...they are of course tightly specified to simulate what the programmers have been led to believe that Spontaneous Evolution is like!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The fact that you keep making this breathtakingly inane comment honestly makes me despair for humanity. If a computer programmer writes a program that simulates a rock falling down a hill, does that mean that rocks, hills and gravity must be intelligently designed?

... no ... but if a programmer writes a programme that simulates the production of a widget ... the widget IS intelligently designed ... ditto with the simulation of living sytems!!!

monosharp

doctoremma wrote: »

Consider me warned

At this stage most of us think hes just pulling our legs, that he can't actually believe this rubbish but then again, nothing is impossible to believe when religions concerned is it ?

Tell that to all those dying on their arses from MRSA infections...

I believe the average creationologist would suggest that MRSA and basically all 'bad' Viruses (as well as 'bad' bacteria, parasites etc) are a result of 'the fall'. That would be the incident where some woman coerced her husband to eat a fruit because of a talking snake.

So he accepts evolution? But is hung up on species "boundaries"?

Welcome to 5+ years and nearly 20000 posts.

Apparently there's a magic boundary which prevents evolution making new 'kinds'. Although we are still waiting for a definition of what a 'kind' is and we are still waiting for any kind of evidence whatsoever there is a boundary.

I'll also save you some time and suggest you don't bother trying to point out observed instances of speciation because apparently these are all within their own 'kind'.

Creationologists refer to this as micro-evolution which some of them do accept. They refuse to accept what they call macro-evolution which is evolution which causes new 'kinds' which again, is undefined so no matter what example you show them they will deem it to be in the same 'kind'.

Actually this was posted 3 pages back by Flamed_Diving, its a basic summary of this thread so far and very accurate.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...this has nothing to do with the fact that a day has always been 24 hours in duration covering a full dark and light period.

I thought you were a mathematician ? Or was it a mathemologist ?

24 hours is the same as 23 hours and 59 minutes and 50 something seconds is it ?

...as the Earth is less than 10,000 years old ... the day has lengthened by less than 0.17 seconds since it was created ... which is a practical irrelevancy!!!!

To a mathematician ?

Or to a deity ?

Morbert

monosharp wrote: »

I thought you were a mathematician ? Or was it a mathemologist ?

24 hours is the same as 23 hours and 59 minutes and 50 something seconds is it ?

But that's all theoretical maths. JC is only interested in the other kind of maths.

monosharp

Morbert wrote: »

But that's all theoretical maths. JC is only interested in the other kind of maths.

The kind where 24 is the same as 23.9 ? Baldrick maths then ?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...ALL of the CSI potential was 'pre-packaged' at Creation ... and it has been gloriously 'unwinding' ever since!!!

CSI = Crime Scene Investigation. In a happy coincidence, a programme which spouts as much pseudo-science as you

J C wrote: »

...what amazing nievety, even for a materialist, to claim that 'increasing information' ... is somehow 'meaningless' ...

The term "information", when used by creationists*, is usually defined very strangely. "Information" is neutral in any sense of the word. If a mutation leads to loss-of-function, it isn't a loss of "information", it's a change of "information". Similarly, one shoudn't consider a gain-of-function mutation as a gain of "information". Again, it's a change.

So I'm not entirely surprised that you don't find discussions of " loss/gain of information" in evolution/biology labs - it's a term that is meaningless in this context.

* Creationists, not creationologists - think Maureen Lipman ("He gets an -ology and he says he's failed. You get an -ology and you're a scientist")

monosharp

doctoremma wrote: »

* Creationists, not creationologists - think Maureen Lipman ("He gets an -ology and he says he's failed. You get an -ology and you're a scientist")

I tend to think of them as related to scientologists, Scienmaticians if you may.

Creatamatician ... magician .... :pac:

(Yes I've drank too much coffee today)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...they are of course tightly specified to simulate what the programmers have been led to believe that Spontaneous Evolution is like!!!

Yes, that's the whole point! It simulates what you call spontaneous evolution, the thing you say say is total nonsense and that we're in denial about, and it works perfectly well and generates complexity that you say is impossible

And if you intend to say in response that it doesn't simulate the way evolution really is, all that shows is that you don't understand evolution. They simulate the scientific understanding of evolution and it works but of course it wouldn't work if they tried to simulate the creationist understanding of evolution because the creationist understanding of evolution is nonsense

J C wrote: »

... no ... but if a programmer writes a programme that simulates the production of a widget ... the widget IS intelligently designed ... ditto with the simulation of living sytems!!!

So why is it even relevant that the computers themselves are intelligently designed, since just because you can simulate something on an intelligently designed system doesn't mean that the thing being simulated is intelligently designed?

doctoremma

monosharp wrote: »

I believe the average creationologist would suggest that MRSA and basically all 'bad' Viruses (as well as 'bad' bacteria, parasites etc) are a result of 'the fall'. That would be the incident where some woman coerced her husband to eat a fruit because of a talking snake.

So MRSA was around several thousand years ago. Before the invention of antibiotics?

monosharp wrote: »

Creationologists refer to this as micro-evolution which some of them do accept. They refuse to accept what they call macro-evolution which is evolution which causes new 'kinds' which again, is undefined so no matter what example you show them they will deem it to be in the same 'kind'.

So a series of small changes from A to Z does not mean that A and Z are qualitatively different? Even if we can observe and track all 26 letters? And we can see that A and Z are different? Or are they banking on the idea that the evidence for M is incomplete?

monosharp

doctoremma wrote: »

So MRSA was around several thousand years ago. Before the invention of antibiotics?

Your preaching to the choir. And actually I don't know their response to that one.

Well JC what about it ? Where did MRSA come from ?

So a series of small changes from A to Z does not mean that A and Z are qualitatively different? Even if we can observe and track all 26 letters? And we can see that A and Z are different? Or are they banking on the idea that the evidence for M is incomplete?

If you show them transitional fossils between A and C they will want B, if you show them B they will want you to show them A.5 and B.5, if you show them A.5 and B.5 they will want you to show them A.25 and B.25, if you .... etc etc.

Perhaps if you had a camera following a species around for 100,000 years and document all the changes from A to Z then they perhaps might just maybe listen ... will claim that A and Z are members of the same kind.

doctoremma

monosharp wrote: »

Your preaching to the choir.

I don't mean to. I'm sure you've all gone over this before. Always worth repeating the process of absolute bemusement that some people believe this stuff though

monosharp wrote: »

If you show them transitional fossils between A and C they will want B, if you show them B they will want you to show them A.5 and B.5, if you show them A.5 and B.5 they will want you to show them A.25 and B.25, if you .... etc etc.

I once heard a creationist joyfully claim that every time a missing link was found, it created two more. I'm sure this is a common refrain.

monosharp wrote: »

Perhaps if you had a camera following a species around for 100,000 years and document all the changes from A to Z then they perhaps might just maybe listen ... will claim that A and Z are members of the same kind.

Lol.

The Mad Hatter

doctoremma wrote: »

I once heard a creationist joyfully claim that every time a missing link was found, it created two more. I'm sure this is a common refrain.

I'm pretty sure even if the fossil record was complete and unbroken, creationists would still claim missing links because you don't have fossils of all animals at all ages.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained this already liamw, it's getting a bit tedious now. First we need to establish the existence of a Creator, second we confirm how reliable Biblical claims are. I personally won't be doing the latter as there is absolutely no point in doing so with people who still can't get past the first hurdle if you will.

Tedious indeed, becuase, for the purposes of this conversation, it's already been explained multiple times that you are given the benefit of the doubt that the universe was created by a supernatural entity.

Just because on believes in a Creator God doesn't make them a deist. Deism, while not quite as absurd as atheism in my eyes, is rather absurd indeed. Why on earth would God create the world and tip toe away? The painting is the work of the painter, and the painter takes pride in it. If we are to truly believe that the universe is a wonderful creation, it should surely bear testament to the work of the Creator, and the Creator should care for it.

You're really anthropomorphizing here. Why are you assuming that the creator is like the human species? You think the creator started the universe so that in approximately 13.7 billion years a species would have evolved that resembled it? These are huge and quite absurd assumptions.

I've explained numerous times already liamw. There's absolutely nothing deistic about it. Deism doesn't make the concept any more reasonable than a theistic God, rather less reasonable.

Whatever, forget I used the word deist if it makes you more comfortable. We've already bypassed that bridge anyway by giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I noticed you completely ignored my main question. When you go to analyze Biblical claims and look at the Resurrection for instance, you mentioned that you can lower your requirements for evidence based on the assumption that a supernatural creator exists. Now, what I'm asking is, do you analyze all supernatural events in the same manner and not just those that are claimed through the Bible?

J C

monosharp wrote: »

I thought you were a mathematician ? .......

...24 hours is the same as 23 hours and 59 minutes and 50 something seconds is it ?

... 23 Hours and 59 minutes and 59.83 seconds actually!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...as the Earth is less than 10,000 years old ... the day has lengthened by less than 0.17 seconds since it was created ... which is a practical irrelevancy!!!!

monosharp
To a mathematician ?

Or to a deity ?

...or indeed anybody else with an ounce of common sense!!!:):D

J C

monosharp wrote: »

At this stage most of us think hes just pulling our legs, that he can't actually believe this rubbish but then again, nothing is impossible to believe when religions concerned is it ?

...yes deeply religious people, like Materialists, do believe some 'tall tales' ....like the one about 'Pondslime becoming Man' ... 'with nothing added but time and mistakes'!!!!:D

monosharp wrote: »

I believe the average creationologist would suggest that MRSA and basically all 'bad' Viruses (as well as 'bad' bacteria, parasites etc) are a result of 'the fall'. That would be the incident where some woman coerced her husband to eat a fruit because of a talking snake.

...you are correct about the MRSA ... however the woman and her husband ACTUALLY 'fell' for the occult lies of Satan ... which Occultists and Gnostics STILL continue to 'fall' for today!!!!:D:)

monosharp wrote: »

Welcome to 5+ years and nearly 20000 posts.

Apparently there's a magic boundary which prevents evolution making new 'kinds'. Although we are still waiting for a definition of what a 'kind' is and we are still waiting for any kind of evidence whatsoever there is a boundary.

I'll also save you some time and suggest you don't bother trying to point out observed instances of speciation because apparently these are all within their own 'kind'.

Creationologists refer to this as micro-evolution which some of them do accept. They refuse to accept what they call macro-evolution which is evolution which causes new 'kinds' which again, is undefined so no matter what example you show them they will deem it to be in the same 'kind'.

...Mono ... you are becoming quite an accomplished Creation Scientist!!!!

...a little less sarcasm ... and you could be a GREAT Creation Scientist!!!!:):D

J C

monosharp wrote: »

The kind where 24 is the same as 23.9 ? Baldrick maths then ?

...23.999998 actually ... and I DIDN'T say they were the same ... I said there was no practical difference!!!!

... of course to a judgemental 'nit picking' Materialist 0.000002 is apparently a REALLY BIG number ... for some weird reason only known to himself!!!!

... what 'planet' are you on Mono???:):D

... the 'Baldrick maths' is all on the Materialists side!!!:D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

CSI = Crime Scene Investigation. In a happy coincidence, a programme which spouts as much pseudo-science as you

...the correct term is forensic-science!!!:)

doctoremma wrote: »

The term "information", when used by creationists*, is usually defined very strangely. "Information" is neutral in any sense of the word. If a mutation leads to loss-of-function, it isn't a loss of "information", it's a change of "information". Similarly, one shoudn't consider a gain-of-function mutation as a gain of "information". Again, it's a change.

...mutations result in a loss of functional genetic information!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

So I'm not entirely surprised that you don't find discussions of " loss/gain of information" in evolution/biology labs - it's a term that is meaningless in this context.

...you have just confirmed what I believe ... that Evolutionary Biologists are 'light years' behind their ID counterparts when it comes to scientific research and knowledge of genetic information!!!!:D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

So MRSA was around several thousand years ago. Before the invention of antibiotics?

... the Staphylococcus has been around for thousands of years ... with the genetic potential to develop all kinds of interesting characteristics ... but ALWAYS as a BACTERIUM ... and not the least sign that it could ever become a Man ... like some evolutionists would claim, given a few billion years!!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

So a series of small changes from A to Z does not mean that A and Z are qualitatively different? Even if we can observe and track all 26 letters? And we can see that A and Z are different? Or are they banking on the idea that the evidence for M is incomplete?

...the problem is that Evolution never gets from A to B ... for Bolderick!!!!:D:)
...or Baloney!!!:eek:

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I once heard a creationist joyfully claim that every time a missing link was found, it created two more. I'm sure this is a common refrain.

...there are NO 'Missing Links' ... because the spontaneous production od CSI is a Mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY!!!

...which part of the word 'IMPOSSIBLE' do Evolutionists not understand????:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...the correct term is forensic-science!!!:)

Hate to break it to you JC, but CSI the tv show isn't even close to real life forensic science. In fact, I'd argue that Star Trek is closer.:eek::D

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm pretty sure even if the fossil record was complete and unbroken, creationists would still claim missing links because you don't have fossils of all animals at all ages.

...the fossil record IS quite complete...it is largely a record of the many species that died in Noah's Flood!!!!:D

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Hate to break it to you JC, but CSI the tv show isn't even close to real life forensic science. In fact, I'd argue that Star Trek is closer.:eek::D

...real life forensics aren't as 'cut and dried' as the CSI show would have us believe ... but it does present real forensic science ... sexed up a bit, for dramatic effect!!!:)

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...real life forensics aren't as 'cut and dried' as the CSI show would have us believe ... but it does present real forensic science ... sexed up a bit!!!:)