The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Well, we'll see if he's prepared to call me a liar

... as I am not a liar myself ... I tend to avoid such emotive and unfounded remarks about other people.

I prefer to use the term 'mistaken' when I find that somebody is in error!!!:D

J C

equivariant wrote: »

I think its ridiculous to say that science barely existed in Newton's time - many scientific insights predate Newton.

Also, by modern standards, or indeed by any reasonable standard, Newton is one of the greatest scientists who ever lived - alchemy or not.

If you seek a more contemporary example, consider the case of Eliyahu Rips. He is a brilliant and world reknowned mathematician, who spends a large part of his time seeking coded messages in the bible. I consider the latter to be an exercise in futility and stupidity (my opinion only). However, there is no doubt that Rips is one of the top mathematicians in the world for his work in abstract algebra. Examples like these show that it is possible for people to be excellent scientists while at the same time holding completely irrational religious beliefs.

...Creation Scientists are happy to confirm Sir Isaac Newton as within their number ... some Evolutionists are obviously unwilling/unable to make such a claim!!!:):D

Wicknight wrote: »

No, Newton is one of the greatest natural philosophers that ever lived. That does not make one a scientist. A scientist is one who follows the scientific method, a concept that barely existed in Newton's day

As John Maynard Keynes said, "Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians."

... here we have Evolutionist Science apparently cutting itself adrift from the 'Founding Fathers' of the Modern Scientific Method ... and floundering away with its unfounded belief in the power of matter to spontaneously produce genetic information ...
... and Modern Creation Science that proudly traces its scientific lineage right back to Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Galileo, Linnaeus, etc.!!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... as I am not a liar myself ... I tend to avoid such emotive and unfounded remarks about other people.

You have dismissed the entire scientific community as liars

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

You have dismissed the entire scientific community as liars

I have done no such thing!!!

...some scientists are mistaken about some things ... others about other things ... to err is Human!!!!

... and I don't claim to be infallible, as a scientist myself, either!!!!:D:)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I was aware of this potential response and I fear you may be correct. In getting worked up with excitement about the several conditions I have listed which are usually the outcomes of "negative mutations", he will fail to see that his statement about irreducible complexity has been proven false. And that 50 % of an eye is better than no eye.

50% of an eye is not only completely blind ... it can be a liability by increasing the risk of infection, injury, etc.:)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Adam was supposed to be the first man. We can scientifically prove that we did not all descend from one single homo sapien before which no homo sapien-like organisms existed. Whether his name was Adam or not isn't really the point

We can't prove that no one back then was called Adam but if there was more than one person alive at the time and there were people alive before him, he's not the Adam you're talking about

edit: maybe this was Adam:

...this certainly wasn't Adam!!!:eek:

...and science HAS discovered that all men today have inherited their Y chromosomes from one man!!!
The Evolutionists claim that 'Y-Chromosome Adam' lived about 60,000 years ago ... but their estimate is 'out' by an order of magnitude and the correct figure is about 6,000 years ago.

Actually, come to think of it, Evolutionists only being 'out' by one order of magnitude when dating something, is a very significant improvement from their usual margin of error !!!!:D

http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2009/12/18/international-genetic-studies-prove-all-living-men-descend-from-one-man/

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

We can all argue about how plausible "evolution" is all day but natural selection is a scientific fact. We can directly observe it in the world around us and we can test it in a petri dish. It's on a par with "gravity" as a natural force/mechanism except nobody's even arguing about how natural selection works.

So how is it forgotten so easily? How do people continually fail to account for it in these random metaphors?

...it all depends on what you are calling "evolution".

I agree that NS is a scientific fact within and between Kinds.

However, while NS may explain the 'survival of the fittest' ... it doesn't explain the 'arrival of the fittest'!!!:D

Turtwig

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
but one amazing fact is that there are hundreds of ye and only one of me

Galvasean
While I find it distasteful to accuse anyone on thread of deliberately not telling the truth, that statement is not true and I'm sure you must know it.
For starters there are not hundreds of people arguing against you. The real figure seems closer to a dozen (consisting of both athiests and Christians).
You are also not alone defending your corner. Wolfsbane is here to help you out.

...I am the ONLY Creation Scientist on the thread...and there are HUNDREDS of ye ... (for the nit pickers amongst you 'hundreds' means more than 200) ...
...last time I checked, I counted over 280 Evolutionists who have challenged me on this thread ... and this figure doesn't include all of the Theistic Evolutionists who have also challenged me!!!!

... so I would ask you to be man enough to apologise for acusing me of 'deliberately not telling the truth' (i.e. lying) ... when the plain facts of the matter (that anybody can check for themselves) is that there are contributions from HUNDREDS of people claiming to be Evolutionists on this thread and only ONE person who claims to be a Creation Scientist ... myself!!!!:eek:

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

I didn't say it did. Just pointed out Dawkins is willing to accept ID, as long as the Designer is not God. Anything but that!

He didn't say Aliens could have designed life on our planet, he said Aliens could have seeded life here.

This is because Science does NOT have an accepted theory of how life started.

This is again, why JC is talking complete rubbish when he tries to link evolution and abiogenesis togeather.

Abiogenesis is an umbrella term for many hypothesis's on how life could have started.
Evolution is the accepted theory that explains the diversity of life.

It doesn't make a smurfs snot of a difference to evolution HOW life started. Be it god or fairies or harry potter or one of the varying hypothesis's of abiogenesis.

Will you please take your fingers out of your ears and at least accept that evolution and abiogenesis are NOT the same thing and one does not depend on the other ?

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. Just because you strongly disagree with the scientific argument of creationism doesn't mean it is pseudo-science.

The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to being above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena.

By its own definition, science is incapable of examining or testing for the existence of things that have no physical effects, because its methods rely on the observation of physical effects.

Science can never say anything about god or fairies.

Its not saying that these things don't exist, its saying NOTHING about these things because by its very definition it can't!

If it does say anything about the supernatural then by this very fact, it isn't science.

How difficult is that to grasp ?

You cannot claim that X (God) is responsible for Y (the world) but X (God) is something we can never see/examine/test because that isn't science.

Fanny Cradock

What does science (or an interpretation of it) say about the multiverse? Surely other universes have no physical effects on this universe.

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What does science (or an interpretation of it) say about the multiverse? Surely other universes have no physical effects on this universe.

The very number of possible universes is limited by the observer observing them. Does that paradoxical answer answer your question? Possibly not, possibly so but it does give you a sense of how weird things are actually getting.The multiverse kinda comes along naturally from our understanding of the big bang.

Figuring out an experiment to test it will be Nobel Prize material, yet alone actually carrying out the experiment. In the meantime we've got LISA and PLANCK that should shed more light on the origins of the big bang which will help physicists in the path they pursue.

Bear in mind too that it was only in 1998 when the Multiverse that to get some attention paid to it. Take it with a pinch of salt.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What does science (or an interpretation of it) say about the multiverse? Surely other universes have no physical effects on this universe.

What your asking is a huge huge subject. Heres some interesting links;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Special attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Criticisms

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3307757/Parallel-universe-proof-boosts-time-travel-hopes.html

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/sep2/multivrs.htm

This is very far from my knowledge/expertise but AFAIK there is no scientific proof of the multi-verse.

Then again there is no scientific theory regarding multiverses the same as there is no scientific theory regarding time travel.

Would you like god to be testable ?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

I have done no such thing!!!

...some scientists are mistaken about some things ... others about other things ... to err is Human!!!!

... and I don't claim to be infallible, as a scientist myself, either!!!!:D:)

You have claimed repeatably that there is a world wide materialistic conspiracy in the scientific community to promote the false theory of evolution at the expense of other, Biblical, theories, despite them knowing it is a false theory.

What would you call that if not calling scientists liars?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What does science (or an interpretation of it) say about the multiverse? Surely other universes have no physical effects on this universe.

They possibly do, if they exist

The reason is that Gravity is a bit weird. It disperses through space in a way you wouldn't think it would.

A possible explanation for this, which would also explain why it is so weak, is that gravity from one universe disperses over multiple ones through different dimensions.

Thus the force we experience in our dimension or universe is weaker because most of it is actually spread over a number of other universes

If this is true it should be possible to detect gravity from other dimensions, and in fact that has been a theory as as to what dark matter is, that it is undetectable because it isn't actually here, it exists in another universe in another dimension but it's gravity is seeping into our universe like a bad Doctor Who plot devise.

This is just a mathematical hypothesis at the moment though detectors in Germany and America are gearing up to try and find experimental evidence that might support this (or completely contradict it thus back to the drawing board)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...this certainly wasn't Adam!!!:eek:

...and science HAS discovered that all men today have inherited their Y chromosomes from one man!!!
The Evolutionists claim that 'Y-Chromosome Adam' lived about 60,000 years ago ... but their estimate is 'out' by an order of magnitude and the correct figure is about 6,000 years ago.

Actually, come to think of it, Evolutionists only being 'out' by one order of magnitude when dating something, is a very significant improvement from their usual margin of error !!!!:D

http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2009/12/18/international-genetic-studies-prove-all-living-men-descend-from-one-man/

From the article you linked to:

‘The Y chromosome is the indicator-DNA that defines men as men, and only men can pass it on to their sons,’’ Dr Wells explained on the National Geographic website that recruits international participants. ‘’We can trace every man alive today, every Y chromosome, back to a single Y chromosome, therefore a single man, who lived in Africa 60,000 years ago. He wasn’t the only man alive at that time but he was the lucky one who left his Y chromosome lineages down to the present day.’’

That guy wasn't Adam because, as I said in the post you quoted: "We can't prove that no one back then was called Adam but if there was more than one person alive at the time and there were people alive before him, he's not the Adam you're talking about"

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

50% of an eye is not only completely blind ... it can be a liability by increasing the risk of infection, injury, etc.:)

Did you miss the bit where I listed a handful of ocular conditions where certain eye structures are absent yet people can still see?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...and science HAS discovered that all men today have inherited their Y chromosomes from one man!!!

To back up Sam, you have completely misunderstood what the genetic lineage of Y-chromosome Adam is telling you. I suspect you will be making the same error regarding mitochondrial Eve.

MrPudding

doctoremma wrote: »

Did you miss the bit where I listed a handful of ocular conditions where certain eye structures are absent yet people can still see?

No, he did not miss it, he is ignoring it because it does not fit with his belief.

MrP

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...and science HAS discovered that all men today have inherited their Y chromosomes from one man!!!

Science has also discovered that the Earth is billions of years old and that life evolved on it due to Darwinian evolution.

Funny how you only accept science when it says something you (mistakenly) think supports your position

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Anyway, the human eye does not provide perfect sight. Our vision is quite poor compared to owls and eagles.

...small rodents aren't a normal part of our diet ... so we don't NEED to see small critters at 1000 metres in order to kill them !!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually no it doesn't. We have lots of things in our bodies that are leftovers and now perform no useful function. As long as something is not seriously detrimental to survival it can live on in our genome

...you are clearly describing a 'downhill' degenerating situation ... and it is NOT a CSI increasing system ... which is required to explain how Pondkind could spontaneously evolve into Mankind!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If the process was beyond real possibility the functioning reality would disprove evolution but it would not be IC. IC is a very specific claim that is proven false by the existence of the type 3 secretory system but creationists keep repeating it anyway because they're dishonest

I don't have all of the details of how the type 3 secretory system turned into the flagellum. I don't even know if it actually did. What I do know is that creationist claims about the flagellum are demonstrably false.

...so you haven't a clue about how a HYPODERMIC NEEDLE could possibly turn into a proton-powered flagellar MOTOR via a series of steps while retaining ever increasing functionality at each step....
..yet you are SURE that it somehow happened ... in your dreams!!!!

...could I gently point out the complete LACK of any science in your statement in that you haven't even a theoretical hypothesis about how a needle can turn into a motor!!!!

Creation Science claims that the Flagellar Motor is Irreducibly Complex and so choc full of CSI that it could only be Intelligently Designed!!!!

Prof Dawkins thinks that 'Aliens could do it'....
I think that 'God did it'...
... and you think that it was the result of 'muck and magic' ... and your very fertile imagination!!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say that if certain components are missing a part will not function and an organism will die and you're right but a lineage of bacteria on it's way to forming a flagellum will have billions and billions of offspring so even if the odds are billions to one, it becomes very likely for it to happen. If things must form spontaneously as creationists say then evolution is all but impossible but if they can form in a step wise way it's merely unlikely and over 4 billion years anything, no matter how unlikely, becomes very very likely. As something becomes more complex the possibility of it forming spontaneously increases exponentially as J C attempts to show with his CSI maths but the possibility of it forming in a stepwise fashion does not

non-intelligently directed steps have just as poor a probability of success as trying to do it in one step ... and BOTH ideas are therefore equally IMPOSSIBLE.:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

J C, if I actually took you seriously you'd have given me an ulcer by now. I don't know whether to laugh at how brainwashed you are, despair that a human being can be so deluded or call you a troll when you say things like that

...Touché kind Sir!!!!:D

J C

liamw wrote: »

Hey J.C looks like science is discovering that the universe is even older than we thought. The 6-10,000 years old theory you have is just a little bit off.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/nasa-wmap-universe-age/

...science is discovering no such thing ... just some guys trying to 'invent' extra time with which to justify their invalid hypothesis that 'bacteria could became barristers' ... given enough time and wishful thinking ... and without God!!!!!!:D

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Michael Behe:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

It would be difficult for you to claim that he was somehow misunderstood because when confronted by someone who demonstrated the mousetrap-paperweight trick, he tried to argue against it rather than say "Oh sorry, that's what I meant, maybe I didn't explain it very well".

Biology does not proceed on a step-by-step upward trend. The structures or pathways we can observe today are highly unlikely to represent the maximal (or maybe even the optimal). Sometimes biology proceeds step-by-step upwards, but sometimes it goes downwards, quite a lot of the time it goes sideways and sometimes it fuses. And just because we can't lose something now, doesn't mean that was always the case.

Behe's theory fails to account for any "non-upwards" movement and how functionality of any structure can change over time (exaptation).

You are worshipping the god gaps by asking how many parts of a system you have to remove/add to get to the next functionality. And what anyone defines as functionality is likely pretty subjective. Eyes didn't evolve by adding one structure to another in a step-wise fashion. There's absolutely no reason to imagine biochemical pathways did. And just because we can't lose something now, doesn't mean that was always the case.

...the Evolutionists are the ones worshipping a 'God of the Missing Links' ... and unfortunately the links are ALL ... er.... still MISSING !!!!:eek:

.. and you're absolutely correct that "eyes didn't evolve by adding one structure to another in a step-wise fashion" ... they were directly CREATED!!!!:D


.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...you are clearly describing a 'downhill' degenerating situation ... and it is NOT a CSI increasing system ... which is required to explain how Pondkind could spontaneously evolve into Mankind!!!

No such thing is required because CSI is creationist nonsense

J C wrote: »

...so you haven't a clue about how a HYPODERMIC NEEDLE could possibly turn into a proton-powered flagellar MOTOR via a series of steps while retaining ever increasing functionality at each step....
..yet you are SURE that it somehow happened ... in your dreams!!!!

...could I gently point out the complete LACK of any science in your statement that you haven't even a theoretical hypothesis about how a needle can turn into a motor!!!!

Creation Science claims that the Flagellar Motor is Irreducibly Complex and so choc full of CSI that it could only be Intelligently Designed!!!!

In fact no that's not what I said. I said I didn't know if it in fact did happen, not that I haven't a clue how it could have happened. I'm not wasting my time giving you detailed explanations of how mutation works, the point is that you said a biological "device" made up of some but not all of the components of a flagellum cannot have ANY function and the type 3 secretory system proves you wrong.

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins thinks that 'Aliens could do it'....
I think that 'God did it'...
... and you think that it was the result of 'muck and magic' ... and your very fertile imagination!!!!

In fact no that's not what Dawkins said, he said that aliens could have seeded life, ie that they could have kicked off abiogenesis, not that they intelligently designed it

J C wrote: »

non-intelligently directed steps have just as poor a probability of success as trying to do it in one step ... and BOTH ideas are therefore equally IMPOSSIBLE.:D

In fact no they don't as you spent many days proving with your mathematics in an attempt to show that the "CSI" increases exponentially as something becomes more complex. Oh you proved it alright but what you proved is that a step-wise process is exponentially more likely to occur than a spontaneous one.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Expansion of a universe faster than light is allowed by general relativity.

...there you go then!!!!:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...there you go then!!!!:)

Where am I going?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Did you miss the bit where I listed a handful of ocular conditions where certain eye structures are absent yet people can still see?

...like I have already said ... there are several conditions that disimprove sight ... and many more that cause instant blindness ...

All of this PROVES that the Human Eye is irreducibly complex for perfect sightedness ... and in many cases for sightedness itself!!!!:)