The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

Honestly, I've spoken with 14 year olds who understand things like recombination better than you.

It's unlikely J C is 14. He claims to be a professional mathematician, a former evolutionist and a "creation scientist" and while it's unlikely that any of that is true, I'll at least give him credit for being old enough to have actually held some of those positions

doctoremma

Sorry to everyone else, but I'd like to ask a few questions of JC. I'm sure you've gone through it all before but I hope you'll humour me a little longer.

JC: let's start with a gene, a sequence of DNA that encodes a protein.

1. Do you understand that the DNA sequence can be changed?

2. Do you understand the various changes in DNA that can be observed (deletions, substitutions, additions, translocations etc)?

3. Do you understand the mechanisms that can result in changes of DNA sequence (mutations introduced by mistakes during replication, environmental damage etc)?

4. Do you accept that changes in DNA can arise from natural processes?

5. Do you understand that recombination and independent segregation simply mixes up existing DNA in the gametes during meiosis?

6. Do you understand that phenotypic traits are largely polygenic i.e. the result of the action of many different gene/s proteins, and that new traits are far more likely to emerge in an offspring by different combinations of genes (generated by recombination and independent segregation) rather than gene mutations?

7. Do you understand that the emergence of new traits in an offspring does not therefore require changes in any gene sequence from parent to child?

8. Do you understand that a random mutation in a specific gene may alter the function of the encoded protein?

9. Do you understand that the altered function of the protein may aid organism survival and be subject to natural selection?

10. Do you understand that the altered gene sequence may enable the organism to survive in a place or time when other members of the same species cannot?

11. Do you understand that population resulting from Q10 will all possess the "novel" gene sequence?

12. Do you understand the process of natural selection to be cumulative?

13. Do you understand that, given time, the phenotype of an organism can change signficantly, as result of a series of small changes?

14. Do you understand that for a child to have a piece of DNA that neither parents have, it must have been created by a random change during the embryogenic process?

15. Do you understand the processes of DNA sequencing/analysis whereby even if either parent had the extra piece of DNA hidden in their genome somewhere away from the gene under investigation, it would be detectable?

I truly hope you will humour me and answer these. But drop the smileys, they make you look mental

equivariant

Emma, your energy in compiling the list of questions above is admirable. However, it will not cause J C to reconsider anything. People like J C have no interest in the truth, or in real understanding. He (and many young earth creationists like him ) is only interested in cherry picking certain facts and interpretations that suit his particular religious agenda. They (YECs) start from the assumption that biblical account of the creation is literally true and then any evidence that contradicts that (of which, of course, there is a mountain) is ignored. Rational argument has no effect on a mind like this. This has been demonstrated with respect to J C hundreds of times in this thread.

However, I take issue more with outright lying and dishonesty e.g. J C's claim to be a 'qualified mathematician', or his claim the CSI is a concept that is used in real scientific disciplines like archaeology or information theory.

I find it more interesting to speculate why people like J C insist on adopting and promoting this ludricous view of reality. The most charitable (to them) answer that I can speculate is that they feel threatened by the complexity of the real world. Many (most?) religious people find no conflict between their religious views and the insight into the nature of reality that is provided by modern science. However, I guess that YEC types seek refuge in the simplicity of the bible story. Perhaps the complexity of reality is overwhelming to them and they find comfort in believing in a simple story (depsite all the evidence).

A less charitable possibility is that they are religious zealots who want to force their particular view of morality on the rest of us, and the YEC stuff just goes along with that (a la Orwell's 1984).

One of the thing that I find most repugnant about young earth creationism (apart from its insistent denial of reality) is how boring and intellectually sterile it is. The real world is infinitely more interesting and beautiful to behold than the biblical version. Why anyone would want to spend their time contemplating some nonsense that was written by some bronze age tribesman rather than contemplating the real world baffles me

Sam Vimes

equivariant wrote: »

People like J C have no interest in the truth, or in real understanding. He (and many young earth creationists like him ) is only interested in cherry picking certain facts and interpretations that suit his particular religious agenda. They (YECs) start from the assumption that biblical account of the creation is literally true and then any evidence that contradicts that (of which, of course, there is a mountain) is ignored. Rational argument has no effect on a mind like this. This has been demonstrated with respect to J C hundreds of times in this thread.

Indeed. The quote in his sig is from a guy who posed a slightly different mechanism for evolution in the 1970's that went against some of the more accepted ideas and while it's now widely accepted to be a useful model in many cases creationists to this day quote mine the guy to try to imply that he supported their nonsense.

He's seen this quote from the guy:

Stephen J. Gould wrote:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

but he doesn't care. The mined quote remains in his sig along with a fantasy that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is "suppressed with almost as much vehemence as creationism"

Genghiz Cohen

I always loved how J C was an evolutionist for like 50 years, and yet shows no understanding of the topic.

PDN

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I always loved how J C was an evolutionist for like 50 years, and yet shows no understanding of the topic.

To be fair, we get a number of atheist posters who claim that they used to be Christians and yet show no understanding of the topic. Adherence to a position does not necessarily imply understanding.

doctoremma

equivariant wrote: »

Emma, your energy in compiling the list of questions above is admirable. However, it will not cause J C to reconsider anything

Lol, I've been picking pages at random to try and catch up a little. Just read several pages devoted to "irreducible complexity" which has brightened my afternoon considerably And as always, I have picked up a few good arguments/examples which I will disseminate elsewhere...

Also, I feel a little shamed at imagining I might be bringing anything new here with a "bottom up" policy of questioning. I always try to hope that people simply lack the requisite scientific knowledge and I guess I'm an "educator" at heart However, it seems that there's a fair amount of deviousness going on... which I'm beginning to see. Also a Oops I used a word the mods don't like load of bible quotes...

doctoremma

doctoremma wrote: »

Also a Oops I used a word the mods don't like load of bible quotes...

Shed load...

equivariant

equivariant wrote: »

Why anyone would want to spend their time contemplating some nonsense that was written by some bronze age tribesman rather than contemplating the real world baffles me

I apologise for referring to the bible in such a disparaging way. That was not appropriate for this forum. I'll keep that stuff to A&A in future. Sorry!

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

To be fair, we get a number of atheist posters who claim that they used to be Christians and yet show no understanding of the topic. Adherence to a position does not necessarily imply understanding.

People tend to be brought up with a religion and essentially labelled with it from birth it so it's quite easy to be a christian and not know anything about it. You don't tend to be born an evolutionary scientist

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

To be fair, we get a number of atheist posters who claim that they used to be Christians and yet show no understanding of the topic. Adherence to a position does not necessarily imply understanding.

None of them are claiming to have been preachers, though.

token56

I've followed this thread closely for the past while but have had no input until recently, mainly because everyone else is making valid points but JC like most creationists just seems to dance around them and still does not put forward any concrete examples (which have not already been debunked time and time again) of how any of the work creationist science puts forward is in some way representative of the modern world and this has been going on for quite too long to be honest.

But I am really hoping he either owns up that he doesn't know what he is talking about or tries to put together some form of coherent answer to emma's questions, and not his usual dribble about CSI and trying to dance around the topic. This is a very unlikely situation but maybe, just maybe. I'm beginning to think maybe creationists are just trolling science.

doctoremma

token56 wrote: »

tries to put together some form of coherent answer to emma's questions

Just to clarify, the list of questions was not meant to be particularly incisive, more to make an assessment of how to proceed

J C

equivariant wrote: »

[font=CMR12~1d]

I would like to point out that Dembski's so called 'CSI' has been conclusively debunked by genuine Scientists. See for example

[/font]

[font=CMR12~1d]http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf[/font]

[font=CMR12~1d]I would particularly draw attention to the following passage on page 14..[/font]

[font=CMR12~1d]"Although Dembski claims that CSI is increasingly coming to be regarded as a reliable marker of purpose, intelligence, and design" [19, p. xii], it has not been defined formally in any reputable (Materialist) peer reviewed mathematical journal, nor (to the best of our knowledge) adopted by any (Materialist) researcher in information theory. A 2002 search of MathSciNet, the on-line version of the review journal [/font]Mathematical Reviews[font=CMR12~1d], turned up 0 papers using any of the terms "CSI", "complex specified information", or "specified complexity" in Dembski's sense."[/font]

[font=CMR12~1d]No doubt J C will continue to base his arguments on this totally discredited notion. To do so when he is aware that it is nonsense is completely dishonest.[/font]

...red words added for clarity!!!

... both Dembski and the guys on this thread are Evolutionists ...
... the only diffference between them is that the Evolutionists on this thread are 'Moronic Designers' - who claim that they are products of time and selected mistakes ... without any intelligence applied ...
...while Dembski is an 'Intelligent Designer' who claims to be the result of applied intelligence!!!!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... the only problem with it is from an Evolutionist perspective!!!
... although paralell probabilities are additive the actual probabilities themselves are serial probabilities and are therefore multiplicative to the point of being effectively zero ... so adding a billion billion billion (or whatever) zeros is STILL zero!!!

...and ZERO is the effective probability of even one specific functional protein 'evolving' using non-intelligently directed processes!!!!

equivariant
that would be a yes then?

...that would be a NO!!!"

J C

PDN wrote: »

Congratulations to everyone for taking this thread past the 20,000 post mark. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few

...never in the field of Human Knowledge expansion was so much owed by so many to so few Creationists ... and so many Evolutionists!!!!:D;)

... there is a lesson here for all of the Christians out there, who timidly came onto the thread and equally timidly went off it 'with their (metaphorical) tails between their legs'!!!!

... Jesus does say in Mt 18:20
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

... gather in the name of Jesus Christ and His infallible Word ... and nobody can prevail against you!!!:)

fatmammycat

Typical, loads of waffle and nothing of substance to add. Biblical quotes, the last fall back of the intellectual charlatan.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Shed load...

... Emma, Emma ... Emma ... and I thought we were getting along so well!!!!:D:):eek:

...or at least as well as any Evolutionist can be expected to get along with a Creationist ... like a bag of screaming cats!!!!:):D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Sorry to everyone else, but I'd like to ask a few questions of JC. I'm sure you've gone through it all before but I hope you'll humour me a little longer.

JC: let's start with a gene, a sequence of DNA that encodes a protein.

1. Do you understand that the DNA sequence can be changed?

2. Do you understand the various changes in DNA that can be observed (deletions, substitutions, additions, translocations etc)?

3. Do you understand the mechanisms that can result in changes of DNA sequence (mutations introduced by mistakes during replication, environmental damage etc)?

4. Do you accept that changes in DNA can arise from natural processes?

5. Do you understand that recombination and independent segregation simply mixes up existing DNA in the gametes during meiosis?

6. Do you understand that phenotypic traits are largely polygenic i.e. the result of the action of many different gene/s proteins, and that new traits are far more likely to emerge in an offspring by different combinations of genes (generated by recombination and independent segregation) rather than gene mutations?

7. Do you understand that the emergence of new traits in an offspring does not therefore require changes in any gene sequence from parent to child?

8. Do you understand that a random mutation in a specific gene may alter the function of the encoded protein?

9. Do you understand that the altered function of the protein may aid organism survival and be subject to natural selection?

10. Do you understand that the altered gene sequence may enable the organism to survive in a place or time when other members of the same species cannot?

11. Do you understand that population resulting from Q10 will all possess the "novel" gene sequence?

12. Do you understand the process of natural selection to be cumulative?

13. Do you understand that, given time, the phenotype of an organism can change signficantly, as result of a series of small changes?

14. Do you understand that for a child to have a piece of DNA that neither parents have, it must have been created by a random change during the embryogenic process?

15. Do you understand the processes of DNA sequencing/analysis whereby even if either parent had the extra piece of DNA hidden in their genome somewhere away from the gene under investigation, it would be detectable?

I truly hope you will humour me and answer these. But drop the smileys, they make you look mental

Emma...do you question all of the men in your life so closely???

... did anybody ever tell you that you had a 'one track' mind???:D:)

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

Emma...do you quetion all of the men in your life so closely???

... did anybody ever tell you that you had a 'one track' mind???:D:)

Answer the questions, or prove your ignorance on the subject forever.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Answer the questions, or prove your ignorance on the subject forever.

... if I answer the questions what will that achieve????

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

... if I answer the questions what will that achieve????

The opposite of ignorance?

Sam Vimes

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Answer the questions, or prove your ignorance on the subject forever.

That ship has sailed a very long time ago. It was called the Beagle

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Sorry to everyone else, but I'd like to ask a few questions of JC. I'm sure you've gone through it all before but I hope you'll humour me a little longer.

JC: let's start with a gene, a sequence of DNA that encodes a protein.

1. Do you understand that the DNA sequence can be changed? ... yes

2. Do you understand the various changes in DNA that can be observed (deletions, substitutions, additions, translocations etc)? ... yes

3. Do you understand the mechanisms that can result in changes of DNA sequence (mutations introduced by mistakes during replication, environmental damage etc)? ... yes ... but, as the terms 'mistakes/mutations' and 'damage' imply ... these 'changes' always degrade genetic information.

4. Do you accept that changes in DNA can arise from natural processes? ... yes ... 'bad' stuff as per Q 3 and 'good' stuff via recombination, isolation, transocation, frame shifts, etc.

5. Do you understand that recombination and independent segregation simply mixes up existing DNA in the gametes during meiosis? ...it is a good deal more sophisticated than that ... using very sophisticated transcription and gentic switches, homeotic genes, ncRNA, etc.

6. Do you understand that phenotypic traits are largely polygenic i.e. the result of the action of many different gene/s proteins, and that new traits are far more likely to emerge in an offspring by different combinations of genes (generated by recombination and independent segregation) rather than gene mutations? ... yes ... I have already made the point that mutations are mostly deleterious and always degrade genetic information ... while recombination, segregation, expression, etc all produce novel traits, using the enormous levels of very sophisticated CSI infused at Creation!!!

7. Do you understand that the emergence of new traits in an offspring does not therefore require changes in any gene sequence from parent to child? ... yes ... because such is the sophistication of the multiple layers of CSI present in living organisms!!!

8. Do you understand that a random mutation in a specific gene may alter the function of the encoded protein? ... yes ... usually in a 'terminal' direction ... always involving the degradation of CSI!!!

9. Do you understand that the altered function of the protein may aid organism survival and be subject to natural selection? ... sometimes it can ... but always involving the degredation of CSI ... which is NOT the direction you want to be going if you are trying to explain how 'Pondkind became Mankind'!!!!

10. Do you understand that the altered gene sequence may enable the organism to survive in a place or time when other members of the same species cannot? ... yes it could possibly survive as a 'scrawny' CSI-challenged thing ... only to be replaced by 'fitter' specimens when whatever is causing the selection pressure, abates.

11. Do you understand that population resulting from Q10 will all possess the "novel" gene sequence? ... yes, they will be all equally 'scrawny' and CSI-challenged things!!!

12. Do you understand the process of natural selection to be cumulative? ... it can be ... but sometimes it runs up a 'dead end'!!!

13. Do you understand that, given time, the phenotype of an organism can change signficantly, as result of a series of small changes? ... yes ... but always within the genetic limits of its inherited CSI ... AKA its 'selection wall'

14. Do you understand that for a child to have a piece of DNA that neither parents have, it must have been created by a random change during the embryogenic process? ... if it was created at random it is a mutation ... or possibly even a carcinoma 'trigger'!!!

15. Do you understand the processes of DNA sequencing/analysis whereby even if either parent had the extra piece of DNA hidden in their genome somewhere away from the gene under investigation, it would be detectable? ... yes ... if it was as described by you.

I truly hope you will humour me and answer these. But drop the smileys, they make you look mental

....and after that I think I will have to go for a pint !!!!:eek::):D

...all this talk about DNA and reproduction ... is giving me palpitations!!!!:eek:

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That ship has sailed a very long time ago. It was called the Beagle

...was that Darwin's DOG????:D

Genghiz Cohen

On Eden right now (Sky Channel 532) a show called The Incredible Human Journey is just after showing human tracks dated at 20,000 years ago. These actually are human, unlike the ones posted by J C a few pages back.

Bones found have been dated at between 40,000 to 60,000 years old.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

On Eden right now (Sky Channel 532) a show called The Incredible Human Journey is just after showing human tracks dated at 20,000 years ago. These actually are human, unlike the ones posted by J C a few pages back.

Bones found have been dated at between 40,000 to 60,000 years old.

...did they show the Dinosaur tracks running alongside the Human footprints????

....or did they point out that Crocodiles, for example, pre-dated the Dinosaurs ... and remain the EXACT same TODAY as their suposed mega-hundred million year old fossils !!!!!:)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... if I answer the questions what will that achieve????

Genghiz Cohen
The opposite of ignorance?

....for YOU ... presumably!!!!!:):D

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

....for YOU ... presumably!!!!!:):D

Such wit!
And in one so young!?

J C wrote:

...did they show the Dinosaur tracks running along with the Human footprints????

Link
No dinosaur prints, couple of kangaroo and emu prints though.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

....or did they point out that Crocodiles, for example, pre-dated the Dinosaurs ... and remain the EXACT same TODAY as their suposed mega-hundred million year old fossils !!!!!:)

And what dates would these be?

(Also, for the geeks among you, first post on page 1337! Eat it!)