The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Equivariant, a thanks from me is not enough. I am in full support of everything you say above. I find it outrageous that lying appears to be overlooked. JC is lying, randomly making up stuff to try and defend his increasingly-ridiculous point of view. This is not an attractive trait nor one that should be condoned.

...THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS ... I have NEVER lied ... and I would ask you to cease using such 'unparliamentary' language.

The bottom line is that I am a qualified scientist and mathematician ... and I spent several pages trying to show you guys how to add the underlying numbers in a log expression (CSI)!!!

iUseVi

'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.' -- in Eric

'Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.' -- in Reaper Man

'And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head.' -- in Maskerade

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

They only manage to get published in establishment journals if they do not point to YEC conclusions, and just let the readers draw their own conclusions about where the evidence takes them.

I would like to see a single example of creation science (minus the forbidden YEC conclusions) in an 'establishment' journal. Can you provide one, or is this just wishful thinking, or maybe even a guess? :pac:

equivariant

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Before typing up this analogy you should have asked yourself the following.

Question 1: Am I saying anything new?
Question 2: Am I saying anything that Fanny hasn't considered of before?

Indeed. I might reply with the same comment to yourself. Of course, I shouldn't because you are a mod and I wouldn't want to get in trouble.

I read your original warning and have observed your rules in the ensuing posts. My recent post was not an attempt to reverse your opinion (I'm sure that won't happen) - it was merely any explanation of why I disagree. However, I am not a mod so I must follow your rules whether I disagree or not.

Fanny Cradock

equivariant wrote: »

Indeed. I might reply with the same comment to yourself. Of course, I shouldn't because you are a mod and I wouldn't want to get in trouble.

I read your original warning and have observed your rules in the ensuing posts. My recent post was not an attempt to reverse your opinion (I'm sure that won't happen) - it was merely any explanation of why I disagree. However, I am not a mod so I must follow your rules whether I disagree or not.

They are the rules of the charter, equivariant. But thank you, nevertheless.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS ... I have NEVER lied ... and I would ask you to cease using such 'unparliamentary' language.

The bottom line is that I am a qualified scientist and mathematician ... and I spent several pages trying to show you guys how to add the underlying numbers in a log expression (CSI)!!!

What is outrageous is your claim that 'CSI' has any credibility as a real mathematical concept. Sam Vimes asked you to apply 'CSI' to some string of letters a few pages ago. I see no reply from you.

I posted a link to a detailed debunking of Dembski's concept of 'CSI' some time ago (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf )

You have answered none of the criticisms pointed out therein.

I think it is far more outrageous that you continue to appeal to an utterly discredited notion to back up your claims.

Since you have again claimed to be a qualified scientist and mathematician, I would like to know what particular courses you have taken at university level in biology and mathematics in particular? Clearly I cannot ask you to reveal any personal information in a boards forum. However, I don't think that it is asking to much to know to what level you have studied biology and mathematics.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolutionists and OEC of course dispute YEC material. I could just as well point out Ross and co. rebutt evolutionist arguments.

So what? Each is arguing for their scientific analysis. One expects them to rebut all else.

But the thing is that he's not arguing scientific analysis. He's pulling something out of his arse with absolutely no supporting evidence and writing a book about it because if he wrote it in a science journal it would be torn to shreds. Not because anyone is biased against him but because he's talking nonsense. But of course there's no point in me telling you this over and over because you admit yourself you don't know what either side is talking about, you just accept what the YEC's say because they're telling you what you want to hear, the same thing you accuse us of

Sam Vimes

iUseVi wrote: »

'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.' -- in Eric

'Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.' -- in Reaper Man

'And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head.' -- in Maskerade

Terry tells it like it is

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm sorry JC but I don't believe you are a biological scientist. This phrase just typifies how little you understand natural selection.

...you are entitled to believe anything you like ... and as an Evolutionist, you have already proven yourself to believe in all kinds of 'flights of fancy' ... including the denial of my qualifications.
Look, you guys deny the right to KNOWN qualified scientists to hold key science jobs ... so denying my qualifications falls into a general pattern of Evolutionist DENIAL!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

Neither companies nor nature select "mistakes" randomly, companies because they would lose money and populations because they would lose reproductive fitness. In fact, while companies would have the power to actively select negative "mistakes" if they choose to do so, it's very difficult to conceive of a mechanism by which nature can actively select for negative "mistakes".

... companies use intelligently designed systems to AVOID and PREVENT mistakes ... because the possiblity for mistakes is literally endless ... while the manufacture of a functional 'widget' often has only ONE WAY to successfullly produce it!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

How do you think the manufacturing process as we see it today has come about, if not through trial and error? How about the slow "evolution" of the internal combustion engine that powers some of the most beautiful machines ever built? Do you think it was an always positive, steadily increasing process or do you think there might have been a few wrong turns along the way. Wrong turns ("mistakes") which were quickly lost from the final product...

(And let's not get hung up on the fact that manufacturing is a "designed" process - it's irrelevant for this point)

...the 'trial and error' used in manufacturing is intelligently directed experimentation to produce a desired result that is specified in advance ... none of which applies to Spontaneous Evolution!!!!

...and the fact that manufacturing is a "designed" process - is the point!!:)

doctoremma wrote: »

X-rays and penicillin were both "mistakes". "Mistakes" which have radically changed our lives for the better and have been "selected for" in our society. I made a full-on, dizzy-headed "mistake" in the lab the other day and found I could knock about 30 mins off a 2 hour process and get a higher product yield. Was it a mistake? Yes. Will the people who I teach to repeat it consider it a mistake? No. Will it be viewed as a beneficial alteration to the process? Yes.

The discovery and development of Penicillin was made by intelligent deduction and observation by three (very) intelligent Human Beings ... Alexander Fleming, Howard Florey and Ernst Chain ... who were joint recipients of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their roles in what is considered to be one of the most important medical breakthroughs ever made.

Alexander Fleming was a Roman Catholic and in 1945, during his Nobel Prize speech acceptance, he gave credit to the Creator and Providence for leading him in to this “serendipitous” discovery. Fleming saw Providence directing him through life and suggested that an “Angel” had “stirred up the waters” for the Penicillium mould to mix with S. aureus on the Petri plate that August (1928) day (Maurois 1959).

Ernst Chain was an open opponent of Darwinian Evolution ... and you can read about this remarkable man here:-
http://www.icr.org/article/ernst-chain-antibiotics-pioneer/

...the following extract is particulary relevant to this thread:-

One of Chain's lifelong professional concerns was the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution, which he concluded was a "very feeble attempt" to explain the origin of species based on assumptions so flimsy, "mainly of morphological and anatomical nature," that "it can hardly be called a theory."

"This mechanistic concept of the phenomena of life in its infinite varieties of manifestations which purports to ascribe the origin and development of all living species, animals, plants and micro-organisms, to the haphazard blind interplay of the forces of nature in the pursuance of one aim only, namely, that for the living systems to survive, is a typical product of the naive 19th century euphoric attitude to the potentialities of science which spread the belief that there were no secrets of nature which could not be solved by the scientific approach given only sufficient time."

A major reason why he rejected evolution was because he concluded that the postulate that biological development and survival of the fittest was "entirely a consequence of chance mutations" was a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."

"These classic evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

Chain concluded that he "would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation" as Darwinism. Chain's eldest son, Benjamin, added: "There was no doubt that he did not like the theory of evolution by natural selection--he disliked theories...especially when they assumed the form of dogma. He also felt that evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation--and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view."

....so go deny Ernst Chain's scientific qualifications and call him a liar when you have stopped denying my qualifications and calling me a liar ... because I am say exactly what Ernst Chain has said about 'muck to man' Evolution!!!!:eek::D

doctoremma wrote: »

Basically, your analogy was bobbins.

... but not half as big a 'pile of bobbins' as Evolution is!!!!:D:)

Genghiz Cohen

Wonder what he would have thought of Dark Matter and Dark Energy...

token56

J C wrote: »

...you are entitled to believe anything you like ... and as an Evolutionist, you have already proven yourself to believe in all kinds of 'flights of fancy' ... including the denial of my qualifications.
Look, you guys deny the right to KNOWN qualified scientists to hold key science jobs ... so denying my qualifications falls into a general pattern of Evolutionist DENIAL!!!

JC, as far as I'm aware you have never exactly stated what your qualifications are, so its a bit silly to say "you quys deny my qualifications" when you have never actually provided any detail. It might be a bit easier to accept them if you could actually tell us what they are. I can come here and say I'm a qualified scientist or engineer, it means very little. You say you are a qualified scientist, what area exactly, science is a very broad discipline, what level is your qualification, are you current active in any particular field at the moment? You say you are a qualified mathamatican, again a very broad field, what area does your speciality lie, what level is your qualification? Also were these qualifications obtained in a creationist institute, just curious?

It may seem a bit unfair to ask all these questions, but you make the very broad claims and use them to indicat your level of competence on all the subjects being discussed (lets forget your level of competence in many areas has been called into question many, many times, in particular by emma, someone who has stated her level of qualfications, given details about the areas she studies, even indicated the area of research of her thesis).

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

So basically a conspiracy theory?

...the discrimination against Creation Science is not a conspiracy theory ... it is open and there for all to see!!!

fatmammycat

equivariant wrote: »

What is outrageous is your claim that 'CSI' has any credibility as a real mathematical concept. Sam Vimes asked you to apply 'CSI' to some string of letters a few pages ago. I see no reply from you.

I posted a link to a detailed debunking of Dembski's concept of 'CSI' some time ago (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf )

You have answered none of the criticisms pointed out therein.

I think it is far more outrageous that you continue to appeal to an utterly discredited notion to back up your claims.

Since you have again claimed to be a qualified scientist and mathematician, I would like to know what particular courses you have taken at university level in biology and mathematics in particular? Clearly I cannot ask you to reveal any personal information in a boards forum. However, I don't think that it is asking to much to know to what level you have studied biology and mathematics.

+1, I too would like to hear/read straight answers to these questions.

Ghost Buster

token56 wrote: »

JC, as far as I'm aware you have never exactly stated what your qualifications are, so its a bit silly to say "you quys deny my qualifications" when you have never actually provided any detail. It might be a bit easier to accept them if you could actually tell us what they are. I can come here and say I'm a qualified scientist or engineer, it means very little. You say you are a qualified scientist, what area exactly, science is a very broad discipline, what level is your qualification, are you current active in any particular field at the moment? You say you are a qualified mathamatican, again a very broad field, what area does your speciality lie, what level is your qualification? Also were these qualifications obtained in a creationist institute, just curious?

It may seem a bit unfair to ask all these questions, but you make the very broad claims and use them to indicat your level of competence on all the subjects being discussed (lets forget your level of competence in many areas has been called into question many, many times, in particular by emma, someone who has stated her level of qualfications, given details about the areas she studies, even indicated the area of research of her thesis).

+2 I would be delighted to see JC state his qualifications and put you in your place. Go on JC. Show em.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I have little concern that those engaged in the debate here are able to dismantle JC's arguments. However, to those lurking, perhaps looking to learn something, it might appear very confusing. If JC is making inaccurate and unsupportable mathematical leaps but claiming to be a qualified mathematician, a lurker/learner might be tempted to take what he says as true*. Why would you accept the argument of a biologist over the argument of a mathematician when the subject is maths? JC is trying to evoke an argument from authority when it's apparent that he isn't qualified to do so, either because his maths qualifications are bogus or woefully inadequate. I believe my feelings on the adequacy of his biological training are clear throughout my posts. While many of us may try to also use arguments from authority, there is ample evidence that we are qualified to do so and people are happy to admit when they are not.

If he tried to teach my children any of this, I'd have him sacked for incompetance. I'm aware this is a public forum and isn't necessarily bound by truth but it's quite annoying

*I don't mean to suggest that lurkers cannot independently work through the arguments and make their own mind up.

...more unadulteratred advocacy of job discrimination against Creationists ... and the Evolutionists have the temerity to ask me to identify current Creation Scientists ... so that they can have them sacked (not for incompetence) ... but for being Creationists ... such crass discrimination would make some of the worst religious biggots blush with embarassment ... but apparently campaigning Atheistic Evolutionists have no such qualms!!:eek:

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

J C, could you apply the principles of CSI to the below strings and tell me which of them is simplicity, which is non-specified complexity and which is specified complexity and why:


hasdfkõlfasòEd'sdfHafjkăëlsadf'sdfjsd'as
aaabbbaaaaaabbbaaaaaabbbaaa
bbbbbbbttttbbbbaaaaaaabbbbbbbbaaaaaahhhhdddddd
sutydychchiheddiwRwy'nteimlo'ndda
J C is not really a professional mathematician
ézyefla'ădijfaìézyefla'ădijfaì
létrehozásátatudományegyrakáshülyeség
dfhasdfnlskTsGhbCdnéèëEĉhiheddiw

...I never said I was a professional mathematician ... I said I was a qualified mathematician.

liamw

Ghost Buster wrote: »

+2 I would be delighted to see JC state his qualifications and put you in your place. Go on JC. Show em.

I don't see what this is going to achieve. Anybody could post anything here. I think it's best to just continue the discussion without assuming anyone is an expert in anything and just argue their points.

del88

J C wrote: »

...I never said I was a professional mathematician ... I said I was a mathematician.

How are you qualified??? whats your qualification??

How old do you think the earth is?

J C

token56 wrote: »

JC, as far as I'm aware you have never exactly stated what your qualifications are, so its a bit silly to say "you quys deny my qualifications" when you have never actually provided any detail. It might be a bit easier to accept them if you could actually tell us what they are. I can come here and say I'm a qualified scientist or engineer, it means very little. You say you are a qualified scientist, what area exactly, science is a very broad discipline, what level is your qualification, are you current active in any particular field at the moment? You say you are a qualified mathamatican, again a very broad field, what area does your speciality lie, what level is your qualification? Also were these qualifications obtained in a creationist institute, just curious?

It may seem a bit unfair to ask all these questions, but you make the very broad claims and use them to indicat your level of competence on all the subjects being discussed (lets forget your level of competence in many areas has been called into question many, many times, in particular by emma, someone who has stated her level of qualfications, given details about the areas she studies, even indicated the area of research of her thesis).

...I have already confirmed that my qualifiations were conferred by the National University of Ireland.

None of my qualifications were obtaiined from a Creation/ID Institution.

Morbert

JC you are saying things any qualified mathematician would instantly recognise as entirely wrong.

J C

token56 wrote: »

JC, as far as I'm aware you have never exactly stated what your qualifications are, so its a bit silly to say "you quys deny my qualifications" when you have never actually provided any detail. It might be a bit easier to accept them if you could actually tell us what they are. I can come here and say I'm a qualified scientist or engineer, it means very little. You say you are a qualified scientist, what area exactly, science is a very broad discipline, what level is your qualification, are you current active in any particular field at the moment? You say you are a qualified mathamatican, again a very broad field, what area does your speciality lie, what level is your qualification? Also were these qualifications obtained in a creationist institute, just curious?

It may seem a bit unfair to ask all these questions, but you make the very broad claims and use them to indicat your level of competence on all the subjects being discussed (lets forget your level of competence in many areas has been called into question many, many times, in particular by emma, someone who has stated her level of qualfications, given details about the areas she studies, even indicated the area of research of her thesis).

..Emma is lucky enough to live in a world where she will not suffer discrimination for openly proclaiming her Atheism and Materialism and I am happy for her that this is the case.
Unfortunately, I do not live in a world where it is 'safe' to proclaim my Creationism.
...so feel free to treat me as a scientifically unqualified person ... and then suffer the embarassment of having all of your spurious pseudo-scientific Evolutionist arguments utterly defeated by somebody you regard as scientific lay-person!!!!:eek::D

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...I have already confirmed that my qualifiations were conferred by the National University of Ireland.

None of my qualifications were obtaiined from a Creation/ID Institution.

Fair enough. But in order to establish your status as a qualified mathematician, I would ask, what was the topic of the most advanced mathematics course that you passed?

As someone who lectures mathematics in an Irish University, I assure you that not all University graduates who have taken some courses in mathematics are entitled to call themselves qualified mathematicians.

I would assume that is also true for graduates who have taken a biology course.

J C

iUseVi wrote: »

'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.' -- in Eric

'Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.' -- in Reaper Man

'And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head.' -- in Maskerade

...how was a scientifically verifiable link established between the use of exclamation marks and insanity???
...more Evolutionist pseudo-science no doubt!!!!

fatmammycat

J C wrote: »

..Emma is lucky enough to live in a world where she will not suffer discrimination for openly proclaiming her Atheism and Materialism and I am happy for her that this is the case.
Unfortunately, I do not live in a world where it is 'safe' to proclaim my Creationism.
...so feel free to treat me as a scientifically unqualified person ... and then suffer the embarassment of having all of your spurious pseudo-scientific Evolutionist arguments utterly defeated by somebody you regard as scientific lay-person!!!!:eek::D

You haven't managed to do that thus far, what makes you think you might the capacity might evolve within you?

token56

liamw wrote: »

I don't see what this is going to achieve. Anybody could post anything here. I think it's best to just continue the discussion without assuming anyone is an expert in anything and just argue their points.

I appreciate that anyone can come in and say they hold "x" qualification in whatever, and it was probably wrong of me to go into too much detail, but even knowing something like one's field of qualification can help in understanding the level of competency you should award them. I feel this is important in a discussion which is mainly about scientific topics.

J C wrote: »

...I have already confirmed that my qualifiations were conferred by the National University of Ireland.

None of my qualifications were obtaiined from a Creation/ID Institution.

Fair enough, thanks for that. Also I probably shouldn't have try to go into so much detail, but as I've said above in order to decided what level of competency one should be awarded on a subject its good to know exactly what sort of qualifications we are talking. Can I ask what particular area of science did you specalise in?

J C

Morbert wrote: »

JC you are saying things any qualified mathematician would instantly recognise as entirely wrong.

...like what?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...more unadulteratred advocacy of job discrimination against Creationists ... and the Evolutionists have the temerity to ask me to identify current Creation Scientists ... so that they can have them sacked (not for incompetence) ... but for being Creationists

The term "creation scientist" is synonymous with incompetence and sacking someone for incompetence is not discrimination.

J C wrote: »

...I never said I was a professional mathematician ... I said I was a qualified mathematician.

So can you apply the mathematics of CSI to those strings please and tell me which is simplicity, which is non-specified complexity and which is complexity, showing your work please?

J C wrote: »

...I have already confirmed that my qualifiations were conferred by the National University of Ireland.

There are four institutions that are called National Universities of Ireland. Which one?

token56

J C wrote: »

..Emma is lucky enough to live in a world where she will not suffer discrimination for openly proclaiming her Atheism and Materialism and I am happy for her that this is the case.
Unfortunately, I do not live in a world where it is 'safe' to proclaim my Creationism.
...so feel free to treat me as a scientifically unqualified person ... and then suffer the embarassment of having all of your spurious pseudo-scientific Evolutionist arguments utterly defeated by somebody you regard as scientific lay-person!!!!:eek::D

First of all, you can throw all the snide little remarks you want about you "defeating" evolution, but that doesn't make it reality.

This all stems from trying to equate creation science with normal science. They are not and never will be the same and they are not resovable. The academic qualifications you say you have would be accepted by any normaly scientific institue etc, thats not the problem. The problem arises when you try to use views which are acceptable in the creationist field, but not in the normal scientific field, such as using faith in God as evidence for example. The scientific community has strict confines on acceptable evidence, it is your personal views that are in conflict with this, but this does not mean the science community discriminates against you.

The medical field has a strict set of rules as to what is acceptable. I could have the necessary qualifications but believe that the evidence about smoking being dangerous is rubbish and is not my personal view about smoking. However if I then started recommending smoking to someone of course I could be fired or worse. This is not discrimination, its because my personal view would be against what is accepable in a strict discipline. Just because in your case your view also happens to be related to your religion does not make it different.

equivariant

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There are four institutions that are called National Universities of Ireland. Which one?

To be fair, I don't think that it is necessary for J C to give such specific information. All four of those institutions have roughly the same level of credibility.

Sam Vimes

equivariant wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think that it is necessary for J C to give such specific information. All four of those institutions have roughly the same level of credibility.

I was pointing out that he said he got his qualification from "The National University of Ireland" but there is no university by that name. I for example got my degree from The National University of Ireland Maynooth