The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Turtwig

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, for dramatic effect!!!:)

Does it?
Many of the technologies or principles used are grossly exaggerated or even made up.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

...horse-load of pen drawings ...

...are you an artist or an evolutionist???

...oops ... I forgot the Evolutionists on this thread are all :Dartists!!!!

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...are you an artist or an evolutionist???

...oops ... I forgot the Evolutionists on this thread are all :Dartists!!!!

Interesting that you don't recognise (even a comical representation of) real science when you see it. Of course, everything you do is a comical representation of real science.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Does it?
Many of the technologies or principles used are grossly exaggerated or even made up.

...like I said, mostly real forensic science ... but sexed up for dramatic effect!!!!

...there is also some science fiction ... but a lot of science fact.

... anyway why are you so negative towards the guys in CSI??

... or is it a pavlovian reflex due to CSI also meaning Complex Specified Information???

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Interesting that you don't recognise (even a comical representation of) real science when you see it. Of course, everything you do is a comical representation of real science.

...but I do ... I fully recognise how comical (in every sense of the word) that Evolutionist Science really is!!!:D:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

... anyway why are you so negative towards the guys in CSI??

It has provided many people in the general public with a false perception of evidence for criminal cases. Most evidence is circumstantial but juries tend, nowadays, to have a ridiculously high expectations for forensic evidence. This results in many cases being falsely perceived. Add to this the jury's rubbish understand of statistics when it comes DNA (or similar) based evidence and the lovely way that most criminals are instructed in how to cover up their rare physical evidence with pure ease and maybe you might begin to start seeing why.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...like I said, mostly real forensic science ... but sexed up for dramatic effect!!!!

...there is also some science fiction ... but a lot of science fact.

....

I really don't know what to say to that. CSI has as much in common with real forensic science as Astrology has with Astrophysics.

The Mad Hatter

monosharp wrote: »

....

I really don't know what to say to that. CSI has as much in common with real forensic science as Astrology has with Astrophysics.

Remember who you're talking to...

monosharp

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Remember who you're talking to...

Ah .... yes.

Well in that case I'm sure JC and co will find the scientific practices in CSI perfectly accurate and full of nonsense.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

It has provided many people in the general public with a false perception of evidence for criminal cases. Most evidence is circumstantial but juries tend, nowadays, to have a ridiculously high expectations for forensic evidence. This results in many cases being falsely perceived. Add to this the jury's rubbish understand of statistics when it comes DNA (or similar) based evidence and the lovely way that most criminals are instructed in how to cover up their rare physical evidence with pure ease and maybe you might begin to start seeing why.

...so you're saying it bears no resemblance to real Crime Scene Investigations and it is 'tipping off' criminals on how to avoid detection at real Crime Scene Investigations.

... there is a logical non-sequitur in there somewhere ... but such logical inconsitencies seem to be 'hard wired' into Evolutionists' brains!!!:D

... like I said, CSI is mostly real forensic science ... but sexed up for dramatic effect!!!!

... there is also some science fiction ... but a lot of science fact.

... and your negative reaction towards the guys in CSI ... seems to be a pavlovian reaction to the fact that CSI also means Complex Specified Information???

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...you are correct about the MRSA ...

When did Staph. aureus acquire the ability to be resistant to antibiotics?

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientist!!!!

No such person.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

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

Whatever. It often bears little resemblence to the actual stuff one does in a lab.

J C wrote: »

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

Except when it results in gain of "information". What about all those types of genetic changes? Where DNA/genes/functions are gained?

J C wrote: »

...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

I'll refrain from telling you what you have confirmed for me...

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

When did Staph. aureus acquire the ability to be resistant to antibiotics?

...some individuals ALWAYS had it ... or the potential to produce it ALREADY within the CSI in their genes!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

No such person.

...No such person ... no such number ... no such phone!!!!

... you hum it ... and I'll sing it!!!!:eek::pac::):D

BTW are you a doctor ... or an emma ... or both???

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... the Staphylococcus has been around for thousands of years ... with the genetic potential to develop all kinds of interesting characteristics ...

So Staph IS evolving, yes?

J C wrote: »

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!!!!

I know of no evolutionist that would claim that a Staph strain we see now is destined to become man in a few billion years. How are you possibly in a position to assess the likelihood of the bacteria we observe today "evolving" into man in a few billion years? We know bacteria can pick up new genes, can demonstrate altered survival capacity in the face of new environmental pressure. I'm pretty certain that if you suddenly has a bacteria develop an eye, the whole law of evolution would collapse. If you think we can detect significant observable shifts in our lifetimes, you are simply underlining your lack of knowledge about how evolution "works". Furthermore, you are assuming a linear evolutionary path, which is nonsensical.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...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????:)

Sorry, can you be patient with me and explain what you mean by CSI? If you can limit yourself to accepted biological terms, that would be brilliant. Because I've looked it up and it's a load of tripe. Not only that, but the person (I assume) who is behind it has been widely and thoroughly discredited as a "scientist" and his theories dismissed as mumbo-jumbo, left in the realm of people who simply ignore the wealth of sound, verifiable data which contradicts all he proposes.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Whatever. It often bears little resemblence to the actual stuff one does in a lab.
...whatever!!!


Except when it results in gain of "information". What about all those types of genetic changes? Where DNA/genes/functions are gained?
... this information isn't 'gained' ... it is 'expressed'!!!!


I'll refrain from telling you what you have confirmed for me...
...ah, go on ... go on ... go on ... you will ... you will .......... YOU WILL !!!

.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

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

How big was Noah's ark?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...some individuals ALWAYS had it ... or the potential to produce it ALREADY within the CSI in their genes!!!

How? What is this potential? So the bacteria always had the gene conformation necessary to resist the effects of a range of antibiotics?

J C wrote: »

BTW are you a doctor ... or an emma ... or both???

Both.

doctoremma

Whatever. It often bears little resemblence to the actual stuff one does in a lab.
...whatever!!!

Have you visted a lab?

Except when it results in gain of "information". What about all those types of genetic changes? Where DNA/genes/functions are gained?
... this information isn't 'gained' ... it is 'expressed'!!!!

So, when I can sequence the DNA of Mum and Dad (with no paternity issues) and find that Baby has an extra piece of DNA that neither Mum or Dad have, you are defining this how? Although I would never use the term, how does this not comprise a "gain of information" by your definition?

Also, please define "expression". In biological terms, "expression" has a very strict meaning and if you are hijacking it, I will severely object.

liamw

doctoremma wrote: »

Although I would never use the term, how does this not comprise a "gain of information" by your definition?

Would you agree that speaking of 'gains' or 'loss' of information in resultant genetic mutations is essentially meaningless?

Evolution by natural selection, as a blind process, knows nothing about 'gains' or 'losses'. Mutations just result in a different sequence of nucleotides, which in turn may lead to phenotypic behaviour that is advantageous to survival / reproduction.

When we speak of 'gains of information' what we are really saying is that a particular genetic mutation is advantageous. I think this is where J.C. fails. He draws an invisible line between gains and losses. I know he has shown fundamental misunderstanding of evolution on several occasions.

doctoremma

liamw wrote: »

Would you agree that speaking of 'gains' or 'loss' of information in resultant genetic mutations is essentially meaningless?

In the context of this discussion, I agree it's meaningless. Unless JC is willing to define it and then we can debate whether the meaning is appropriate. My experience of creationists is that they are unwilling to define the pseudo-biological terms they use because it leaves them open to dissection, which is always successful.

For interest (in case you don't know): in terms of describing a mutation, there are defined biological meanings for "gain" and "loss", although always in relation to function. A "loss-of-function" mutation is fairly self-explanatory; a "gain-of-function" mutation means one that causes the protein to be super-good at what it does or to take on a different function altogether (neither necessarily good for the host organism). I think this is where various misunderstandings happen. Biologists will be approaching the argument with these meanings while creationists hijack them for their own ends and then act like we are the ones who don't get it! These meanings could be clarified if creationists would give us some definitions of what they mean

liamw wrote: »

Evolution by natural selection, as a blind process, knows nothing about 'gains' or 'losses'. Mutations just result in a different sequence of nucleotides, which in turn may lead to phenotypic behaviour that is advantageous to survival / reproduction.

On another forum, I have just read an apparently genuine post asking "How do plants get feedback about whether their method of seed dispersal is good so they can repeat it again?" (or words to that effect). This lack of understanding of natural selection (sometimes genuine, sometimes contrived) only adds to the confusion. And it's sometimes difficult to spot the loaded questions from the genuine.

Evolution is blind. And even worse, it doesn't care

liamw wrote: »

When we speak of 'gains of information' what we are really saying is that a particular genetic mutation is advantageous.

That seems to be the obvious compromise between biology and creationism around which we can debate.

liamw wrote: »

I think this is where J.C. fails. He draws an invisible line between gains and losses. I know he has shown fundamental misunderstanding of evolution on several occasions.

I don't understand how, in anybody's definition of "information", an organism which by random mutation of a gene can suddenly have the capacity to (for example) digest a previously undigestible molecule, gain energy from it, survive longer/survive in a wider niche/reproduce more than those without the mutation, can be construed as a "loss" of information.

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

Would you agree that speaking of 'gains' or 'loss' of information in resultant genetic mutations is essentially meaningless?

Evolution by natural selection, as a blind process, knows nothing about 'gains' or 'losses'. Mutations just result in a different sequence of nucleotides, which in turn may lead to phenotypic behaviour that is advantageous to survival / reproduction.

When we speak of 'gains of information' what we are really saying is that a particular genetic mutation is advantageous. I think this is where J.C. fails. He draws an invisible line between gains and losses. I know he has shown fundamental misunderstanding of evolution on several occasions.

Very well put, it has never been about gains or losses of information, any DNA sequence will produce something and whether that something is an adaption or not depends on the environment that the organism finds itself in at that particular moment.

It is a Creationist straw man, based on deception and in some cases (as I suspect with JC and Wolfsbane) general ignorance to argue about information in this context.

To compare DNA to language is a false analogy because language has fixed syntax, and thus a change in the sequences of characters can be compared to this fixed sequence to see if the change has made a nonsense sentence.

But evolution doesn't work like that because there is no such thing as a nonsense sentence, or at the very least what is or is not a nonsense sentence is defined on a case by case basis based on the environment.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

How? What is this potential? So the bacteria always had the gene conformation necessary to resist the effects of a range of antibiotics?

...yes because they needed such an array of CSI to survive close encouters with natural 'antibiotic' chemicals in their environment. Indeed, most antibiotics, even today are natural defense products of other living organisms like fungii.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
BTW are you a doctor ... or an emma ... or both???

doctoremma
Both.

... good ... so are you an MB/MD or a PhD?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

How big was Noah's ark?

... Noah's Ark was very very BIG!!!:D

... it was actually ENORMOUS!!!!:eek:

... a Creation Scientist I once knew, suggested that Noah was 'compensating' for something!!!

... I told her that Noah was 'compensating' for the 'displacement' weight of all of the animals that were brought aboard the Ark!!! :eek::D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Sorry, can you be patient with me and explain what you mean by CSI? If you can limit yourself to accepted biological terms, that would be brilliant. Because I've looked it up and it's a load of tripe. Not only that, but the person (I assume) who is behind it has been widely and thoroughly discredited as a "scientist" and his theories dismissed as mumbo-jumbo, left in the realm of people who simply ignore the wealth of sound, verifiable data which contradicts all he proposes.

...and after reading all that ... I must ask if you really want to know what CSI is?

...or will I be wasting both my time and yours explaining it to you? ...
...because you seem to be in considerable denial of the existence of CSI!!!!;):D

liamw

Go ahead J.C. please enlighten us with your definition of CSI

J C

liamw wrote: »

Go ahead J.C. please enlighten us with your definition of CSI

...I have already exhaustively defined and explained CSI ... but I guess you can never hear about any aspect of Creation Science too often ... so here it is again:-

Complex Specified Information or CSI is a "non-random independent pattern of functional information."

Complex Specified Information (CSI) consists of informational units exhibiting Specified Complexity (SC).
The presence of CSI in a system reliably indicates that the system was designed by an intelligent agent.
According to Dembeski, Specified Complexity (SC) is "a dual-pronged criterion for objectively detecting the effects of certain types of intelligent activity without first hand evidence of the cause of the event in question. It consists of two important components, both of which are essential for inferring design reliably.
The first component is the criterion of complexity or improbability. The second is the criterion of specificity, which is an independently given, detachable pattern."

And you can read all about SC here:-
http://www.researchintelligentdesign...ied_Complexity

The concept of CSI has a whole host of uses outside of ID research.
It is used, for example by Astronomers as the test for Alien radio transmission, by the SETI group of researchers. It is also used by Archaeologists in assessing whether some artefacts discovered during excavations are of Human or natural origins – and it is used in setting tests for measuring animal behaviour and learning abilities.
It can also be used for more mundane applications like detecting cheating at cards in casinos.

Complex Specified Information is the ‘signature’ of the appliance of Intelligence. It is a pattern of information that produces a functional result. It is also non-random and independent of it’s result.
For example, writing is a pattern of information that produces a functional result in a person with the ability to read it. Writing is a non-random arrangement of alphanumeric characters and each character has meaning independent of the final arrangement chosen by the author to express their idea.
If letter characters meant different things to different people, and so weren’t independent of the author, no useful CSI would result. Equally, if an author were to use a random pattern of letters to express themselves, no useful CSI would be produced either.

In the case of DNA, it contains non-random patterns of functional information that is independent of it’s result – and so it is CSI, and therefore an unmistakable ‘signature’ of applied intelligence.

As I have said before, the presence of CSI doesn’t identify the author – but it does definitively prove that there WAS an author (or authors).

……..and that is why Atheist Evolutionists are ‘freaking out’ about the implications of the latest ID research which is objectively proving that life could ONLY originate via a (massive) input of intelligence!!!

BTW Evolutionary Biologists were the first to identify and describe genetic CSI. At the time they thought that they could identify materialistic mechanisms by which the CSI arose – but they went ‘rapidly into reverse’ and into denial of CSI when they discovered that CSI could only be generated by intelligence. :eek:
Further reading on the topic of Evolutionists and CSI can be done here:-
http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...complexity.php

….and if you’re still finding it difficult to understand CSI look here:-
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...to-understand/

and here is an interesting paper on the inherent CSI in Evolutionary algorithms:-
http://metanexus.net/Magazine/Articl...8/Default.aspx

………and the following quote from the above article indicates that God’s original Creation Design synergistically included provision for future evolutionary changes within the original created CSI !!!!

“for evolutionary algorithms to output complex specified information they had first to receive a prior input of complex specified information. And since complex specified information is reliably linked to intelligence ... evolutionary algorithms, insofar as they output complex specified information, do so on account of a guiding intelligence. The lesson, then, for evolution is that any intelligence evolutionary processes display is never autonomous but always derived. On the other hand, evolutionary algorithms do produce remarkable solutions to problems -- solutions that in many cases we would never have imagined on our own. Having been given some initial input of complex specified information, evolutionary algorithms as it were mine that complex specified information and extract every iota of value from it. The lesson, then, for design is that natural causes can synergize with intelligent causes to produce results far exceeding what intelligent causes left to their own abstractions might ever accomplish.”

liamw

J C wrote: »

Complex Specified Information or CSI is a "non-random independent pattern of functional information."

One quick question on this. So CSI, in the case of DNA, is a sequence of nucleotides that would build a specific function in the host organism? Does this function need to be advantageous to the host's survival?

J C

liamw wrote: »

One quick question on this. So CSI, in the case of DNA, is a sequence of nucleotides that would build a specific function in the host organism? Does this function need to be advantageous to the host's survival?

...doesn't have to be ... but usually does aid survival.

Of course, there is considerable quantities of 'silent' genotype CSI in each individual that isn't phenotypically expressed in that particular individual ...
... and there is also genotype CSI that is uniquely expressed in each individual through their particular quantum of recombinant DNA.:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

The first component is the criterion of complexity or improbability.

Fails because irreducible complexity is nonsense as has been shown exhaustively

J C wrote: »

It is used, for example by Astronomers as the test for Alien radio transmission, by the SETI group of researchers. It is also used by Archaeologists in assessing whether some artefacts discovered during excavations are of Human or natural origins – and it is used in setting tests for measuring animal behaviour and learning abilities.

Firstly the idea of CSI is not used in any of those areas because it's creationist nonsense that is used nowhere but creationist websites and secondly, none of those things undergo evolution by natural selection, which can produce complexity without the requirement of a designer. The animal's brains did of course but that's a separate issue to testing their already evolved cognitive capabilities. If CSI was actually used in such tests, the animals would not be using evolutionary mechanisms in answering them

We used to believe that complexity required a designer but 150 years ago a guy called Darwin showed us that that was not the case. Unfortunately some people's religious beliefs have meant that they have had to stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la in the hopes that it will all go away