The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

monosharp wrote: »

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." .

Sounds clever. Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

equivariant

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

So your test consists of two stages

1. 'Test that the string forms part of a functional language'
2. Compute "Log 2(a x a x a ... n)".

Let's examine this to see if there is anything. I will start with the second part. I presume that you meant to write "log_{2}(a^n)" (or do you really mean 2 times( a times a times a ... times n) - if so this does not even bear a passing resemblance to Dembski's formula - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity)

The only interpretation of what you wrote that bears some resemblance (only a little, mind) is "log_{2}(a^n)". For the non qualified mathematicians out there "_" is the shorthand for subscript and ^ is the shorthand for superscript - these are universally accepted conventions among mathematicians. However, I guess that J C prefers to write things like a x a x a x a x a x a instead of a^6. I digress.

Lets consider the quantity "log_{2}(a^n)". This is equal to n(log_{2}a). In other other words your mysterious measurement of "CSI" amounts measuring the length of the expression and mutlipying by a constant that depends only on the number of letters in the available alphabet. Hmmm, so really its just the length (up to a constant factor). Why don't you just talk about the length? Well I guess that "length" doesn't sound as mysterious and as technical as "complex specified information". People are more likey to be confused by the latter so it serves the "creation science" purpose admirably.

Of course if you actually meant to write "Log 2(a x a x a ... n)" then your formula is not well specified as you have (in that case) not indicated the number of times that the factor a is repeated. Pretty dodgy stuff for a "qualified mathematician". (I actually think that you have no idea what formula you were trying to write. This is typical of the way that people with a poor grasp of some elementary mathematics courses write about mathematics. Of course, you have not clarified you level of mathematical qualification, so I can only speculate that that is the case for you. However the resemblance between your writings and that of the typical struggler in 1st year calculus is striking)

Finally on this point I observe that your formula is completely different from the one proposed by Dembski (who is "credited" with proposing the notion of 'CSI'). For example, your 'formula' takes no account of the Kolmogorov complexity of the pattern - this appears explicitly in Dembski's expression. But still, this is creationism we're talking about, so no need for accuracy or consistency.

Now lets consider point 1. Having established that the measurement of the 'amount of CSI' is really just measuring how long the expression is, it seems that the real meat must be in point 1. Here is what you have to say about that

... with written code it can be somewhat more difficult

That's it. Essentially this is an admission that the entire concept is nonsense. You have offered no useable and useful definition of functionality that can be applied to languages, organisms, genetic code, whatever.

You have not responded to any of the criticisms of Dembski's "CSI" outlined in http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

You continue to appeal to 'CSI' even though it is an utterly nonsensical, discredited concept. I have no doubt that you will continue to do so in the face of all reason and evidence - you are a YEC after all.

Ghost Buster

Now I've been watching this from day one and am thoroughly enjoying it. I've learned more than a little to boot.
I have come to a conclusion.
JC is definately pulling the collective leg of everyone here. He must be. The only other explanation is one which if expressed would result in my receiving an infraction or ban so it shall remain unwritten.:eek:

Sam Vimes

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Now I've been watching this from day one and am thoroughly enjoying it. I've learned more than a little to boot.
I have come to a conclusion.
JC is definately pulling the collective leg of everyone here. He must be. The only other explanation is one which if expressed would result in my receiving an infraction or ban so it shall remain unwritten.:eek:

You'd hope so but he's been at it for five years so if anyone's being made a fool of it's him. What kind of gobsh!te dedicates hundreds of hours to a practical joke over 5 years?

Turtwig

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Now I've been watching this from day one and am thoroughly enjoying it. I've learned more than a little to boot.
I have come to a conclusion.
JC is definately pulling the collective leg of everyone here. He must be. The only other explanation is one which if expressed would result in my receiving an infraction or ban so it shall remain unwritten.:eek:

His knowledge of bible verses is scarily good for that to be true though.

iUseVi

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Now I've been watching this from day one and am thoroughly enjoying it. I've learned more than a little to boot.
I have come to a conclusion.
JC is definately pulling the collective leg of everyone here. He must be. The only other explanation is one which if expressed would result in my receiving an infraction or ban so it shall remain unwritten.:eek:

I think hes a troll, possibly one of the most successful and dedicated ever. Kudos to him on a very successful trolling - 5 years now.

iUseVi

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You'd hope so but he's been at it for five years so if anyone's being made a fool of it's him. What kind of gobsh!te dedicates hundreds of hours to a practical joke over 5 years?

I dunno but I still think it is. The trouble is that the joke can now never be revealed as in: "tada! kidding guys!", because its gone too far for that.

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

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

Not exactly, CSI is supposed to be a way to demonstrate mathematically that some object is likely designed based on the idea that it is too complex to have formed naturally and that its structure is based on a pattern that occurs independently to the object.

The flaws in CSI and the dodgy maths behind it were being pointed out almost as soon as the idea was first put forward. Good summary here

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/the-evolution-o-2.html

For all the maths Dembski jumps around when trying to make CSI look scientific the unescapable conclusion is that CSI relies on a judgement call that something is probably designed rather than naturally occurring. This was shown by Dembski using Behe's assertion that the flagium is Irreducibly Complex as a starting point in his maths. It was taken as an axiom, which is frankly ridiculous as Behe can't demonstrate this mathematically, and as such Dembski's CSI becomes pointless.

And as such it becomes pointless.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

Not exactly, CSI is supposed to be a way to demonstrate mathematically that some object is likely designed based on the idea that it is too complex to have formed naturally and that its structure is based on a pattern that occurs independently to the object.

Thanks, I didn't mean that CSI=IC but rather that CSI is built on the axiom that IC is true for the function that your are applying CSI maths to. So we should just go back a step and argue that the function is not IC.

It's kind of like saying that the probability that the Resurrection actually happened increases if God actually exists. So the Christian God is the axiom, and we have to go back up to assess the validity of the existence of this God. There's no point in assessing the probablility of the Resurrection until we show that the axiom is true.

Ghost Buster

iUseVi wrote: »

I dunno but I still think it is. The trouble is that the joke can now never be revealed as in: "tada! kidding guys!", because its gone too far for that.

I dunno.
Andy Kaufman once read an entire novel to an audience just to p*ss them off and then went "tah dah!!!!!" to the last member remaining. Its either that or..... my other suggested option which I wont say:eek:

J__C

Just kidding guys. Ha ha ha ha fooled yous all. And you thought I was serious about all that stuff. It's amazing what some people will believe. :rolleyes::eek::pac::eek::):rolleyes::p;):D

__________________
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." Prof Stephen J Gould, (Life-long Materialistic Evolutionist) "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86, page 14

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" Acts 16:31

liamw

lol JC's clone

iUseVi

J__C wrote: »

Just kidding guys. Ha ha ha ha fooled yous all. And you thought I was serious about all that stuff. It's amazing what some people will believe. :rolleyes::eek::pac::eek::):rolleyes::p;):D

__________________
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." Prof Stephen J Gould, (Life-long Materialistic Evolutionist) "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86, page 14

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" Acts 16:31

Nice try. The Chuck Norris lines were a nice touch I must say.

Sam Vimes

J__C wrote: »

Just kidding guys. Ha ha ha ha fooled yous all. And you thought I was serious about all that stuff. It's amazing what some people will believe. :rolleyes::eek::pac::eek::):rolleyes::p;):D

__________________
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." Prof Stephen J Gould, (Life-long Materialistic Evolutionist) "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86, page 14

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" Acts 16:31

...you forgot to INCLUDE the leading and trailing dots and RANDOM BoLdInG aNd CAPITALISATION ...

Otherwise I'd have been convinced

PDN

The imposter has been permabanned (and a strong IP match with a regular poster has been noted).

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...so you are 'copping out' ... and you are unable to substantiate your allegation that any of maths is invalid!!!!!:(:)

...when you are in a hole stop digging ... and when there are up to 20 of you digging furiously ... and little old me on top, throwing most of your excavated material back in on top of you ... I would respectfully suggest that you STOP DIGGING!!!!:):D

...but then again you may be a bunch of masochists who enjoy being acutely embarassed !!!:):D

Why was that a cop out? You asked for a statement about maths that any qualified mathematician would instantly recognised as wrong. I tendered one.

Don't get me wrong, all your other statements are instantly recognisable as nonsense by any qualified mathematician, (If you disagree then feel free to tender a contention you feel particularly confident about). That was just the most obvious and hilarious one.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

...of course the CSI can be determined precisely and mathematically ... once functionality is established.

...and functionality is something that science is particularly good at establishing. Indeed a large amount of scientific endeavour involves the establishment of 'cause and effect' ... which is basically the establishment and description of functionality!!!;):)

J C

equivariant wrote: »

I did not make a fuss and accepted that you have an NUI degree as soon as you claimed it. However, you on the other hand, have used this "detail" to avoid answering my question as to how much mathematics this degree actually contained. Well?

I have told you I am a qualified mathematician.;)

Its been some time since I qualified and I'm a bit 'rusty' on some stuff ... but quite proficient on other stuff!!!!

J C

equivariant wrote: »

Define "functionality"

Functionality is an established cause and effect.

...I think that I'm going to have to charge for these Creation Science tutorials!!!:eek::)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...of course the CSI can be determined precisely and mathematically ... once functionality is established.

...and functionality is something that science is particularly good at establishing. Indeed a large amount of scientific endeavour involves the establishment of 'cause and effect' ... which is basically the establishment and description of functionality!!!;):)

You have yet to justify why establishing functionality and calculating the odds against a pattern forming spontaneously indicates design. A string could be two characters long and contain more meaningful information than a random string a million characters long but your maths has the former as containing almost no information and the latter as almost a certainty of having been designed

And besides that no one is saying that these patterns formed spontaneously, except creationists straw manning evolution of course. CSI only works if irreducible complexity works and it doesn't, as has been demonstrated at great length on this thread and for example in US courtrooms

J C

token56 wrote: »

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.

...the bottom line is that the only way that a Creationst will not be discriminated against is by NOT revealing that s/he is a Creationist ... so amazingly in the 21st century the ONLY love that dare not speak its name openly is the love of Creation Science. Indeed, this discrimination effectively prevents a Bible-believing Christian from (openly) holding scientific positions for which they are eminently (and conventionally) qualified.
The intensity of this persecution is because Creation Science is valid and completely supported by the PHYSICAL evidence ...
Like all great power bases 'on their last legs' ... Evolutionism has turned to naked discrimination and persecution to try and 'muzzle' its nemesis (Creation Science)...
Evolutionism does this to temporarily 'shore up its crumbling fascade' while its tacticians try desperately to find a viable materialistic alternative to the current hopelessly inadequate Darwinian explanation for the arrival of the fittest!!!.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

...CSI is Complex Specified Information that is functional.

You must first establish that it is functional and/or specified ... and then you must establish how many 'characters' are used to express the CSI and how many 'characters' are available to choose from at each point on the information string!!!

...when you have scientifically established all these factors you can calculate the CSI using the formula Log 2 (a^n) where a is the number of 'characters' available to choose from at each point on the information string and n is the number of characters in the string. Established CSI levels in excess of 330 bits are regarded as statisitical impossibilities for non-intelligently drected processes (even if operating on the scale of the 'Big Bang' Universe).

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

...EVERY biochemical process known to science is irreducibly complex ... and even minor changes causes them to COMPLETELY lose functionality!!!!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You'd hope so but he's been at it for five years so if anyone's being made a fool of it's him. What kind of gobsh!te dedicates hundreds of hours to a practical joke over 5 years?

...YOU GUYS!!!!:):D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...you forgot to INCLUDE the leading and trailing dots and RANDOM BoLdInG aNd CAPITALISATION ...

Otherwise I'd have been convinced

...the 'join date' of Jan 2010 was also a bit of a giveaway ... and that is why the TRUTH is nearly always verifiable when you closely examine the facts.

...and even a cursory examination of the 3 billion base pairs in our genome should instantly dissuade everyone, except the most deluded of materialists, to reject the completely implausible idea that such a concentration of CSI could EVER be spontaneously generated using non-intelligently directed processes!!!!

J C

J__C wrote: »

Just kidding guys. Ha ha ha ha fooled yous all. And you thought I was serious about all that stuff. It's amazing what some people will believe. :rolleyes::eek::pac::eek::):rolleyes::p;):D

__________________
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." Prof Stephen J Gould, (Life-long Materialistic Evolutionist) "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86, page 14

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" Acts 16:31

...IMITATION is the best form of flattery!!!!!

J C

PDN wrote: »

The imposter has been permabanned (and a strong IP match with a regular poster has been noted).

...GO ON ... tell us who did it????

...or was it just a spontaneous coming-together of random electrons on the Boards.ie ???

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You have yet to justify why establishing functionality and calculating the odds against a pattern forming spontaneously indicates design. A string could be two characters long and contain more meaningful information than a random string a million characters long but your maths has the former as containing almost no information and the latter as almost a certainty of having been designed

And besides that no one is saying that these patterns formed spontaneously, except creationists straw manning evolution of course. CSI only works if irreducible complexity works and it doesn't, as has been demonstrated at great length on this thread and for example in US courtrooms

...establishing and describing its functionality and/or specificity (or lack thereof) provides the basis for calculating the CSI in any information string.

J C

PDN wrote: »

Definition of TV Evangelism - A case of the bling leading the blind.

....I like it !!!:)

... you're a poet and you don't know it!!!:D

token56

J C wrote: »

...the bottom line is that the only way that a Creationst will not be discriminated against is by NOT revealing that s/he is a Creationist ... so amazingly in the 21st century the ONLY love that dare not speak its name openly is the love of Creation Science. Indeed, this discrimination effectively prevents a Bible-believing Christians holding scientific positions for which they are eminently (and conventionally) qualified.
The intensity of this persecution is because Creation Science is valid and completely supported by the PHYSICAL evidence ...
Like all great power bases 'on their last legs' ... Evolutionism has turned to naked discrimination and persecution to try and 'muzzle' its nemesis (Creation Scientists)...
Evolutionism does this to temporarily 'shore up its crumbling fascade' while its tacticians try desperately to find a viable materialistic alternative to the current hopelessly inadequate Darwinian explanation for the arrival of the fittest!!!.

This is not about whether or not creation science is valid, or that creationists think evolution is wrong. You are trying to muddle the point being discussed by throwing in statements which are not relevant at all. The point is that creationists are discriminated against by the conventional scientific community.

The conventional scientific field has a particular set of rules and rigors associated with what is acceptable within the discipline. This is very different from the creationist scientific field. If a creationist is to work in a conventional scientific job they have to work withing these rules and rigors (Do you honestly think a creationist scientist could do this no matter the task at hand?). If they can agree to this then why is it even necessary to bring up that one is a creationist. When does it become part of the discussion? I dont think it would be something that comes up at an interview, have you ever been asked this directly before? Do you want to bring it up purely to test what would happen if your peers knew, "oh by the way I'm a creationist is that a problem"? In a professional environment, personal believes etc rarely come up unless, someone purposely brings them, here there is no real reason to bring it up. Or unless it becomes a problem with them being able to fullfil their duties, this may be the case here depending on how true to their word they are about being able to work within the confines of conventional science. I'm not trying to say you shouldn't be bringing it up, but that it should never come up professionally if the conditions stated are accepted and adhered to. Again I ask why would it come up?

Now lets say you had been working somewhere for a while and people start talking about religion over lunch or something, you mention you are a creationist, is this automatically going to get you fired if you have been working perfectly fine thus far. I certainly doubt it and it would probably be illegal to do so, maybe you can provide me an example where such a case has happened. Are your peers now going to have less respect for you because of this, probably but who knows, it wont matter if you continue to do the proper work.

If it somehow came up before a job had been awarded that one of the applicants was a creation scientist is it discrimination to pick a non creationist over them if both have the same conventional scientific degrees purely because they are a creation scientist, well not at all really. Its a job, the employer is looking for whoever appears to them to be best suited for the post. There is an inherent risk in employing a creationist scientist in a conventional scientific post even if they insist it wont be a problem. So of course the employer would go for the less risky option if all other aspects are equal, its not fair but its not discrimination. This is just the world of business I'm afraid. I'm sorry to disappoint you JC but there is not a scientific wide consiparcy against creationists as much as you would like to believe it.

I also see you didn't respond to the other part of my post, but I do hope you took note of the key point that you are the only one insisting on this spontaneous evolution story.