The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...does this mean that you have checked your parchment and are taking my advice to stop digging????

No that's not what it means. Anyway,

J C wrote: »

... with living organisms functionality is easily established ... with written code it can be somewhat more difficult.

What you're telling us is that in order for the maths of CSI to work you have to establish functionality but by the rules of CSI, if something has functionality it contains CSI by definition.

The maths you gave don't actually take into account the particular structure of the sentence, you just take the number of letters in the sentence and get the probablity against them falling in that order spontaneously. You'd get the same answer regardless of whether the sentence had functional information or not. So the whole of CSI essentially amounts to a baseless declaration that anything that functions must have been designed and you then do some bogus maths to try to "prove" this which would get the same answer whether it was designed or not

If my assessment is inaccurate prove me wrong by telling me which of the strings contain CSI and which don't

J C

token56 wrote: »

Creation science is a particular discipline with its own rules and rigors, a completely different one from conventional science which also has its own rules and rigors. To say a creation sciencist is discriminated against by conventional science is just not true because they are two completely indepedant disciplines.

...a Creationist is being discriminated against, if Evolutionists demand that they shouldn't be employed in conventional science positions that they are conventionally qualified to hold ... or if there are instructions not to award conventional science degrees to any student who reveals that they are a Creationist ... this would be about as blatant and crass as it gets!!!:(

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...a Creationist is being discriminated against, if Evolutionists demand that they shouldn't be employed in conventional science positions that they are conventionally qualified to hold ... or if there are instructions not to award conventional science degrees to any student who reveals that they are a Creationist ... its about as blatant and crass as it gets!!!:(

If someone had a biology degree but was an advocate of the stork theory of reproduction and attempted to teach this idea as science to colleagues and students, would it be discrimination to sack him?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You've just told us that the first step before using the maths of CSI to determine design is to establish design, making the whole thing circular. If you can't determine whether any of the strings I gave you are designed using the maths what's the point of CSI?

....I told you that you needed to establish functionality and then the CSI content, in order to establish design.:D

equivariant

J C wrote: »

....I told you that you needed to establish functionality and then the CSI content, in order to establish design.:D

Define "functionality"

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....I told you that you needed to establish functionality and then the CSI content, in order to establish design.:D

So you cannot determine mathematically if something is designed or not?

What happens if I try to get the CSI content of a string that contains no CSI? It looks to me like I'll get exactly the same answer so it looks to me like the only actual measure taking place is to look at something, see that it has function and declare it to be designed

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If someone had a biology degree but was an advocate of the stork theory of reproduction and attempted to teach this idea as science to colleagues and students, would it be discrimination to sack him?

...the evolutionists don't even believe that a stork was our progenitor ... they think it was Pondslime!!!

...and no, I don't believe that THEY should be discriminated against because they hold this unfounded bizzarre theory ... they deserve their academic freedom to pursue it!!!

...I have no doubt that they will make useful discoveries during their pursuit of this idea ... not because it is valid but because they may investigate aspects of biology that nobody else would ... and achieve important new insights as a result!!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the evolutionists don't even believe that a stork was our progenitor ... they think it was Pondslime!!!

...and no, I don't believe that THEY should be discriminated against because they hold this unfounded bizzarre theory ... they deserve their academic freedom to pursue it!!!

...I have no doubt that they will make useful discoveries during their pursuit of this idea ... not because it is valid but because they may investigate aspects of biology that nobody else would ... and achieve important new insights as a result!!!!

So you're saying that it's acceptable for qualified scientists to hold ideas that have already been disproven hundreds of years ago in the face of overwhelming evidence, that this is not an indication of incompetence and that they should be allowed waste their employer's time and money investigating already disproven ideas?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you're saying that it's acceptable for qualified scientists to hold ideas that have already been disproven hundreds of years ago in the face of overwhelming evidence, that this is not an indication of incompetence and that they should be allowed waste their employer's time and money investigating already disproven ideas?

I didn't say that ... obviously if Creationists are employed as conventional scientists, they must conscientiously do conventional scientific work for their employers ... but what they do outside working hours should be their own business!!!!

Creation Science is valid ... the stuff that has been disprove is all this Spontaneous Evolution stories that Evolutionists confuse themselves with!!!

monosharp

J C wrote: »

....I told you that you needed to establish functionality and then the CSI content, in order to establish design.:D

Hey JC, I'm not a qualified mathematician but I did take mathematics during my time in University. Lowly as my qualifications are in this subject, perhaps you could help me out by solving this equation for me ?

{x,y:E N|x < 3 ^ y < x ● (x,y)}

p.s > yes I'm aware its pretty basic and he can google it, but I don't think he can do it quickly. Lets see how long it takes. P.S I posted this 3 minutes after he posted something so lets assume he has seen it already.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I really don't. Assuming he's not just trolling, which is a distinct possibility, his antics show just how people are capable of twisting themselves up into believing anything when they think they've got god on their side. This danger is most clearly visible with religious morality because it's not based on reason, it's just an argument from authority. It doesn't matter if you think something is wrong or if there is no actual reason for thinking something is wrong (eg homosexuality), what god says goes, whether he really said it or you're mistaking the ancient superstitions of primitives for the word of god

Mercy! I see your favouring the wide paintbrush for this post.

On numerous occasions you have used attitudes towards homosexuality as an example of religious irrationality, yet tellingly you fail to acknowledge that people in the secular world can often be stridently homophobic. You also misrepresent the opinions of many religious believers by lumping us all in together. It seems that you just can't help venting your disdain for religion even at inappropriate moments. And though you may not be able to conceive of such a thing, we actually find ourselves arguing on the same side for once. So your ill timed axe-grinding against religion and God really doesn't help relations.

Finally, before you next decide to lecture me on something I said perhaps you should consider the spirit of my words, which were intended to be taken by JC in a light-hearted manner.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Hey JC, I'm not a qualified mathematician but I did take mathematics during my time in University. Lowly as my qualifications are in this subject, perhaps you could help me out by solving this equation for me ?

{x,y:E N|x < 3 ^ y < x ● (x,y)}

p.s > yes I'm aware its pretty basic and he can google it, but I don't think he can do it quickly. Lets see how long it takes. P.S I posted this 3 minutes after he posted something so lets assume he has seen it already.

Let's try be mature and sensible about this. Posting equations for JC to solve and then setting time limits is neither.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's try be mature and sensible about this. Posting equations for JC to solve and then setting time limits is neither.

I didn't set a time limit, I said "Lets see how long it takes him".

I also am not a mathematician and the above equation is not advanced maths, its undergraduate stuff.

So anyone who is a qualified mathematician should have no problem with it whatsoever.

Anyone who studied maths as a subject in University regardless of their course (assuming its not that long ago and they remember it) also shouldn't have a problem with it.

Fanny, JC is consistently lying through his teeth, its time he was called out on it.

He has been called out on his Biological and mathematical qualifications before but he has simply ignored the facts or mostly sprouted complete nonsense in response.

My question leaves no room for nonsense, he can either solve the equation in a timely manner or he is not a qualified mathematician. He can make up all sorts of rubbish when it comes to the natural sciences and even theoretical maths and some people will be fooled by his pseudoscience simply because of big words. He cannot do that with the formal sciences, at least not in the same way.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

I didn't set a time limit, I said "Lets see how long it takes him".

I also am not a mathematician and the above equation is not advanced maths, its undergraduate stuff.

So anyone who is a qualified mathematician should have no problem with it whatsoever.

Anyone who studied maths as a subject in University regardless of their course (assuming its not that long ago and they remember it) also shouldn't have a problem with it.

Then why inform us of the time between posts if time is not a factor? You said it yourself that he could Google it, so I don't see the point in your challenge.



While the last few pages have been an unusual diversion, is there any possibility that we can all get back to the business at hand?

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Then why inform us of the time between posts if time is not a factor? You said it yourself that he could Google it, so I don't see the point in your challenge.

The point is, I believe its not easy to google it so it will take time.

If he is a qualified mathematician he won't need to google it and could answer it in minutes.

He hasn't answered it so I am going to assume he can't. Of course he could just be gone to bed or .. etc.

This is far from proof but I'm interesting in his response. Is he going to continue to pretend he is a qualified mathematician or will he admit the truth.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Fanny, JC is consistently lying through his teeth, its time he was called out on it.

He has been called out on his Biological and mathematical qualifications before but he has simply ignored the facts or mostly sprouted complete nonsense in response.

I take it you operate somewhere in bio-science then?

I suggest you knock your heads together and come up with some sort of unified challenge - a definitive set of questions that covers all the bases. If JC agrees to answer them as best he can then maybe we can all make some headway.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

The point is, I believe its not easy to google it so it will take time.

If he is a qualified mathematician he won't need to google it and could answer it in minutes.

He hasn't answered it so I am going to assume he can't. Of course he could just be gone to bed or .. etc.

This is far from proof but I'm interesting in his response. Is he going to continue to pretend he is a qualified mathematician or will he admit the truth.

It's 5 am in Ireland, Monosharp. You pointed out yourself that JC hasn't been on since 3 minutes before you posted your question. I think it is safer to say that he is fast asleep counting smilies.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's 5 am in Ireland, Monosharp. You pointed out yourself that JC hasn't been on since 3 minutes before you posted your question. I think it is safer to say that he is fast asleep counting smilies.

I didn't say he hadn't been on. I didn't notice if he was off or online but he did post 3 minutes before me.

By the way where r u that your up at this time ?

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

I didn't say he hadn't been on. I didn't notice if he was off or online but he did post 3 minutes before me.

Well now you do! So let's leave the assumptions aside.

monosharp wrote: »

By the way where r u that your up at this time ?

Not in Ireland thankfully. Though that will soon change.

Turtwig

Well, I never thought I'd be doing this, but I'm going to side with JC on this one.

*Get's ready to run.*

The whole goal to debating is communication, not winning. You are rarely ever going to convince someone to change their mind mid debate. If they do change their mind it will be at their own doing and usually on private reflection away from the actual conversation. I know that many posters here feel that JC is being dishonest, that's fine feel that way all you like, but making such accusations doesn't help communicate with him. It does help to push him away, though.

If JC is being dishonest then let him be so, that's his choice. All you can do is keep correcting him on his mistakes and avoid getting into personal qualifications malarky. By all means call the ideas rubbish or lies, but not the actual poster. Afterall, this is the internet we have to take each other at our words. When I say I am atheist you have nothing more than my word to go on.

Now to JC and Wolfy, it would help your cause alot if you guys showed demonstrably that ye are understanding the counter points of mainstream science that are being showed to you. I asked JC before to take part in a role swap and I'm going to ask again: Guys can ye produce accurate arguments other than strawmen that come from creationist websites of what evolution actually is?


In the ideal debate both sides win they have been understood.:)

*Runs*

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well now you do! So let's leave the assumptions aside.

I think you have completely misunderstood me. JC has ALREADY proven he is not a qualified mathematician/biologist to us because of the psuedo science babble.

The problem is, he continues to claim the opposite and while most people here know its nonsense, others, who have little scientific or mathematical knowledge may be fooled.

I have tried to rectify the situation by asking him a basic mathematical question to which there is only the correct answer or a wrong answer.

So while he can continue to use real language nonsense in his replies regarding CSI, he cannot do so with this simple equation.

Think of it like this.

Imagine if I said;
"The tachyon emissions are interfering with the casual reality of the flux capacitors matrix causing a stream of anti-protons to feed back into the teratogenic buffer." This is the kind of nonsense JC is sprouting.

And some people see such language and some of these people will actually think theres something 'clever' going on there which they can't understand.

In actual fact the sentence is complete utter nonsense.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

I didn't say that ... obviously if Creationists are employed as conventional scientists, they must conscientiously do conventional scientific work for their employers ... but what they do outside working hours should be their own business!!!!

I fully agree. As long as they do it on their own time they can sacrifice chickens to the sun for all I care

J C wrote: »

Creation Science is valid

No it's not, as I've just shown by pointing out that CSI is nothing more than a baseless declaration that anything that has function must have been designed followed by some irrelevant maths that give the same answer with or without design

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Mercy! I see your favouring the wide paintbrush for this post.

On numerous occasions you have used attitudes towards homosexuality as an example of religious irrationality, yet tellingly you fail to acknowledge that people in the secular world can often be stridently homophobic.

Not at all, a distaste for homosexuality is one of our many evolved instincts so it's visible everywhere but religion gives this irrational instinct its only possible rational justification. Thousands of years ago people wrote down that god doesn't like homosexuality so they wouldn't have to justify why they don't like it

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You also misrepresent the opinions of many religious believers by lumping us all in together.

Again, not at all. Despite their claim to objective morality religious opinion is almost as variable as non-religious. I would say most Irish christians either don't have this instinct very strongly and/or have chosen to overrule it because they've realised it's irrational despite what their religion says

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems that you just can't help venting your disdain for religion even at inappropriate moments. And though you may not be able to conceive of such a thing, we actually find ourselves arguing on the same side for once. So your ill timed axe-grinding against religion and God really doesn't help relations.

Finally, before you next decide to lecture me on something I said perhaps you should consider the spirit of my words, which were intended to be taken by JC in a light-hearted manner.

I'm sorry if you felt it was inappropriate but I honestly think it shows the major problem with basing your beliefs on an argument from authority instead of reason. Maybe it was inappropriate

Sam Vimes

monosharp wrote: »

And some people see such language and some of these people will actually think theres something 'clever' going on there which they can't understand.

That's creationism in a nutshell. All bluster and no substance. It doesn't matter that they're talking nonsense because their target audience can't tell the difference. All that matters is that an illusion is created of a controversy in science. Wolfsbane is a prime example of this

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the first test is that it is functional language ... once this is established the CSI content can be established by the formula Log 2(a x a x a ... n) where n is the number of characters in the sentence/string and a is the number of possible characters at each point on the string/sentence.
For example, the CSI content of the 46 character string/statement "J C is not really a professional mathematician" has a CSI content of 263.48 ... which is approaching mathematical certainty that it was intelligently generated!!!!!:eek::D

You didn't give your working out so I've determined that you used a figure of 53 possible characters because -log2(53^46)=263.48

And you didn't give the units so I'm assuming that's bits. Let's apply that to the rest of our strings shall we? I'll be generous and use the same figure of 53 possible characters even though mine include characters with accents etc and some punctuation


hasdfkõlfasòEd'sdfHafjkăëlsadf'sdfjsd'as
40 characters, 229.11 bits of CSI. Almost as certain of being designed as the string you calculated

aaabbbaaaaaabbbaaaaaabbbaaa
27 characters. 154.65 bits of CSI. Not nearly as certain


bbbbbbbttttbbbbaaaaaaabbbbbbbbaaaaaahhhhdddddd
46 characters. 263.48 bits just like the one you calculated therefore also approaching mathematical certainty that it was intelligently generated


sutydychchiheddiwRwy'nteimlo'ndda
33 characters. 189 bits. Not nearly as certain as the one you calculated

ézyefla'ădijfaìézyefla'ădijfaì
30 characters. 171.83 bits. Not very certain at all.

létrehozásátatudományegyrakáshülyeség
37 characters. 211 bits. Not very certain


dfhasdfnlskTsGhbCdnéèëEĉhiheddiw
32 characters. 183 bits. Not very certain


Now:

1. The first string is a random series of letters, it has no meaning but your maths has is almost a mathematical certainty of being designed
2. In the second string the a's represent dots and the b's represent dashes in Morse code. That's SOS in Morse code three times but your maths has it as the least likely to be designed
3. The third string is again a random string of characters but your maths has it "approaching mathematical certainty that it was intelligently generated", even though it looks like what you previously described as simplicity
4. The fourth string is "hellohowareyouIamfeelingfine" in Welsh. Perfectly recognisable as intelligently designed once it's in English but your maths has it nowhere near as certain as a random string
5. The fifth string has the same string twice, "ézyefla'ădijfaì". It's an intelligently designed coded representation of the number 11 but your maths has it considerably less certain than a random string
6. The fifth string is "creationscienseisaloadofnonsense" in Hungarian. Again recognisable in English but less likely to be due to design than a random string according to your maths.
7. The last string is again a random string and the only random one that actually gives a somewhat lower measure of CSI

Even though I was generous in my calculations CSI has failed miserably. So, as suspected, CSI is not a reliable indicator of design at all. The only thing it's a reliable indicator of is which sentence is longer.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...the 'trial and error' used in manufacturing is intelligently directed experimentation to produce a desired result that is specified in advance

JC, the list of "accidental" dicsoveries in science and engineering is long. And if you think that accidentally inventing Teflon when you're actually trying to generate a new type of refrigerant is an example of a "specified design process", we aren't in the same ball park.

J C wrote: »

...more unadulteratred advocacy of job discrimination against Creationists

No JC, removing from a position someone who is unfit through lack of knowledge about even the things that aren't in dispute. If you are unable to teach a science class because you don't know what "mutation" or "expression" means, too right I'd ask for your notice.

Sam Vimes

This is the process of CSI:

1. Decide in advance if a pattern performs a function.
2. Assert that the longer a pattern is the less likely it is to form spontaneously. (Not in dispute)
3. Do some maths that make no distinction of the type of information in the pattern. All the maths show is that the longer a pattern is the more bits it contains (no sh!t) and the less likely it is to form spontaneously (again, not in dispute)
4. Assert that because the pattern is long (and therefore unlikely to form spontaneously) and because it performs a function, it must have been designed.

You assert something that is not in dispute, use some maths to prove this thing that's not in dispute and then declare that you have proven your case. All you've proven is something we both already agree on. Our dispute is that we say these patterns did not form spontaneously so an argument that assumes they did is irrelevant no matter how well it proves itself. CSI is useless until the irreducible complexity that it's based on is proven and even then it's irrelevant because once that happens the maths just prove what's already known.

liamw

The way I see it CSI just boils down to irreducible complexity...

token56

J C wrote: »

I didn't say that ... obviously if Creationists are employed as conventional scientists, they must conscientiously do conventional scientific work for their employers ... but what they do outside working hours should be their own business!!!!

I agree with you on this if the creationist views do not interfere with their work. But I'm not sure this could be the case, inevitably conflict would arise if you were asked to do some piece of work which you firmly believed against because they are in direct conflict with your creation scientific view. Indeed some posts may require this type of work very often and an employer would feel that it would not be suitable to have a creationist scientist in this post because of the anticipation of such conflict. Should it be the case that you could ignore these sort of issues no matter what the problem then fair enough I dont think it should be a problem. However creationist scientists are normally very rigid in their views, as you are, which is fair enough and I dont see how such conflict would not arise.

I'm not exactly sure how often it is that a creationist scientist is refused a conventional scientific position if it is not known that they are a creationist. Are they well known for their creationist views before they apply. If one applies for a job do they have to say they are creationist if they are already willing to whatever conventional scientific work is put their way? It seems to be unnecessary that it would come up, unless it was the cause of some conflict in the job or line of work.

Creation Science is valid ... the stuff that has been disprove is all this Spontaneous Evolution stories that Evolutionists confuse themselves with!!!

Creation science is only valid in the creation scientific discipline, not that conventional scientific one. Again they are different but I'm sure you already know that.

The only one confusing themselves here is you. No evolutionist has put forward the stories of "Spontaneous" evolution that you time and time again refer to. You are the only one putting forward this view. I'm not sure whether you are just trying to convince yourself that is what evolutionists believe, but it is not. This has been explained to you oh so many times already, but of course you have ignored this.

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

The way I see it CSI just boils down to irreducible complexity...

It is. It's pointless maths based on the assumption that irreducible complexity is true. It says it in the wiki article on specified complexity:

These methods assume that all of the constituent parts of the flagellum must have been generated completely at random, a scenario that biologists do not seriously consider. He justifies this approach by appealing to Michael Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" (IC), which leads him to assume that the flagellum could not come about by any gradual or step-wise process. The validity of Dembski's particular calculation is thus wholly dependent on Behe's IC concept, and therefore susceptible to its criticisms, of which there are many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity#Calculation_of_specified_complexity