The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

RepublicanEagle

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you're using the same term that is used for people who blow up abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings to describe people who make fun of your arguments because they don't think they have as much substance as you think they do?

That term is open to interpretation,however I could use the terms ignorant or arrogant (perhaps both if you want).:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Is everyone who makes fun of your arguments a fundamentalist or is it just when the topic is religion?

Makes fun,I thought that was against the rules.Double standards I guess.:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Edit: personally when someone tries to ridicule an argument I've made I explain the mistake they've made in their reasoning rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks, ie calling them names

Don't know what you are suggesting,but I did not resort to name-calling.

I would love to know how EVERYTHING I said in my first post on this thread is ridiculous.

Enlighten me oh "wise" one.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you're using the same term that is used for people who blow up abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings to describe people who make fun of your arguments because they don't think they have as much substance as you think they do?

Let's not go down that nonsense route. Leave the abortion clinics and 9/11 on the shelf along with the gulags and other atrocities caused by fundamentalists of various stripes. The search function on boards.ie quickly reveals that you, Sam, have previously used the word 'fundamentalist' to refer to people who do not blow up abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings - so I suggest you heed this warning from your friendly mod and avoid calling the kettle black.

token56

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

In most cases a fundamentalist atheist is one who ridicules and sneers at another individual who has substance to his or her's opposing arguements.As I mentioned before this thread attracts A LOT of them.

Can you please point out any argument for creation which has been presented here that actually has any substance to it, because I have yet to see one.

Sam Vimes

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

That term is open to interpretation,however I could use the terms ignorant or arrogant (perhaps both if you want).:rolleyes:

while that's slightly better, you're still branding someone just for not being nice about disagreeing with you. Not being nice doesn't make them wrong.

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Don't know what you are suggesting,but I did not resort to name-calling.

You spoke of ignorant, arrogant, fundamentalist atheists. How is that not-name calling?

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Makes fun,I thought that was against the rules.Double standards I guess.:rolleyes:

Personal insults are against the rules, ridiculing someone's argument is not.

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I would love to know how EVERYTHING I said in my first post on this thread is ridiculous.

Enlighten me oh "wise" one.

I wasn't talking specifically about that post, I was speaking in general but since you asked:

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

We have no concrete proof how creation occurred,it is beyond our level of understanding and reality.

Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

It is healthy of course to discuss,but for us to try achieve total understanding now,is futile. It is beyond us.

Let's stop bothering with this science lark and go back to living in caves so

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

However I do believe that Darwin's theory is not plausible,the only line Darwinists use to support their position when someone points out the gaps within Darwin's arguements that we share the same common ancestor as the apes and states why apes have not evolved to the same extent.

You condensed 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny into two statements that show only your misunderstanding of the theory. We share a common ancestor with apes millions of years ago, we did not evolve from apes. They are our cousins, not our grandfathers. Humans are not by definition the "top" of the evolutionary ladder, apes evolved along their line and we evolved along ours. The fact that they didn't develop the same intelligence as us is not in any way an argument against evolution. We share a common ancestor with apes and we have 98% the same DNA but we also share a common ancestor with bananas and share about 50% of their DNA and you never hear anyone say that the fact that bananas aren't intelligent disproves evolution. All life shares a common ancestor.

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Then the Darwinist/Atheist or whatever,(they seem to go hand in hand)

No they don't, the vast majority of religious people in the world accept evolution, including the catholic church. Another creationist lie you've been taken in by. Here's a link to a devout catholic scientist defending evolution against creationism or intelligent design as they like to call it since the US supreme court ruled that creationism couldn't be taught in schools.

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

:Donly reply is,that is where the "missing link" comes in,or they are already "evolved to suit their enviroment".Ahem I smell BS.But also a rubbish and absurd scientific theory:cool:

As I already said, the idea of a "missing link" is creationist nonsense unfortunately perpetuated by the media. there are literally millions of "missing links" in museums all around the world.


The theory of evolution is as proven as something can possibly be in science. There is no more doubt doubt about the theory of evolution than there is about the theory of gravity. Besides that, creationists like to make out that the enemy is evolution but the reality is that it conflicts wth dozens of branches of science. One major example is that if the universe is 10000 years old as many of them claim it should be impossible to see stars that are millions of light years away because their light wouldn't have reached us yet. You might not be one of the people who think the universe is 10000 years old but you are using the arguments of those people

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Let's not go down that nonsense route. Leave the abortion clinics and 9/11 on the shelf along with the gulags and other atrocities caused by fundamentalists of various stripes. The search function on boards.ie quickly reveals that you, Sam, have previously used the word 'fundamentalist' to refer to people who do not blow up abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings - so I suggest you heed this warning from your friendly mod and avoid calling the kettle black.

I have indeed. I've also used it for people who rail against science if it conflicts with their beliefs or generally lie to support their beliefs but that would have brought in the awkward situation of tacitly calling RepublicanEagle a fundamentalist (the first type, I'm not saying he's lying). The point being made is that ridiculing an argument does not a fundamentalist make, by any definition

monosharp

santing wrote: »

For those who have time spare and live in the West of Ireland (well, the invite says everyone is welcome, so even if you live elsewhere and do not have time):
Philip Bell (CEO, Creation Ministries Int.) will speak on DEFEATING DARWINIAN DELUSIONS and GOD IS GREAT! ANSWERING AGGRESSIVE ATHEISM
Saturday 13th February @ 2pm and 4 pm
The Menlo Park Hotel, Headford Road, Galway
COME WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. EVERYONE WELCOME

If you study a well made banana :pac:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C

... you are a Child of God with free-will.
... God loves you like a Father ... and He is waiting for you with 'open arms' for you to make the decision to believe on Him

Eros_Panties
I cant stand this nonsense. PICS or GTFO.

...that is because God is making His claim upon your life ... and you are resisting!!!:)

J C

equivariant wrote: »

Waste your time??? LOL. The paper calls into doubt one of the key concepts of your argument, namely "complex specified information". Its hardly a waste of time to defend one of the central tenets of your argument.

How very typical of creationism that you can waste everyone else's time with your nonsensical criticisms of evolution, yet when someone writes a well thought out and rigourously devastating destruction of a creationist "idea", you plead that you can't be bothered to waste your time.

Of course the real reason that you won't "waste your time" is that you haven't got a clue about any of the information theory that you claim knowledge of. This exposes once again your complete lack of expertise and lack of qualification to comment on information theoretic ideas like complexity.

Your mention of the number of pages in the paper is telling. In the real world J C, scientific papers are often 50 or more pages long. Not like in the fantasy world of creationism, where the typical 'papers' are 4 or 5 pages of drivel.

You asked for a paper by non creationists on on CSI. It is ludricous to demand a paper from non creationists on "materialistic mechanisms that produce CSI" when the non creationist position is that CSI is a nonsense concept. Can you understand even that simple piece of logic?

So, I repeat my challenge - here is a paper by non creationists that discusses one of your central concepts. If you are in any way serious about defending your interpretation of science, this is precisely the type of paper that you should be willing to review. Or are you just afraid to admit your obvious ignorance of the topic at hand???

PS It seems from your comment that you didn't even bother to read the abstract. The paper is not a "critique of ID". It is a critique specifically of Dembski's writings on CSI.

...it is a critique of CSI ... and by extension ID ....
... and I am still not going to waste my time critiquing a critique ...
... I asked for a paper proposing Materialistic mechanisms to produce CSI ... not a 54 page critique of ID...that amounts to little more than 'CSI doesn't exist ... so there!!!'

...and I've already spent three pages ... and a few days pointing out the elementary mistake of adding logs when you need to add their underlying numbers (page 29) ... and I'm certainly not going to repeat the exercise!!!:D

It started here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63298610&postcount=19170

... and it went on on these pages:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566&highlight=adding&page=1279
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566&highlight=adding&page=1280
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566&highlight=adding&page=1281



...

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...it is a critique of CSI ... and by extension ID ....
... and I am still not going to waste my time critiquing a critique ...
... I asked for a paper proposing Materialistic mechanisms to produce CSI ... not a 54 page critique of ID...that amounts to little more than 'CSI doesn't exist ... so there!!!'

How can we produce a scientific paper from a non-creationist that involves a concept that's only used by creationists You might as well ask for a paper that cites genesis as evidence

J C wrote: »

...and I've already spent three pages ... and a few days pointing out the elementary mistake of adding logs when you need to add their underlying numbers (page 29) ... and I'm certainly not going to repeat the exercise!!!:D

You spent several days doing something alright


Dembski's calculation for complexity is:

-log_2(1/27^n) where n is the number of characters in the sentence and 27 is the number of possible characters in the example sentence


So his calculation for the complexity of "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" (28 characters) is:

-log_2(1/27^28)=133 bits


So his equation for "the sum of the complexities of all items in the set", his set being {METHINKS; IT; IS; LIKE; A; WEASEL} is:

-log_2(1/27^8) -log_2(1/27^2) -log_2(1/27^2) -log_2(1/27^4) -log_2(1/27^1) -log_2(1/27^6) =

38.0391 + 9.509775 + 9.509775 + 19.0195 + 4.75488 + 28.529325 = 109 bits

And he used the fact that 109 is less than 133 to say that the complexity of the sentence "exceeds the sum of the complexities of all the items in the set"

My equation on the other hand is:

-log_2(1/27^8) -log_2(1/27^2) -log_2(1/27^2) -log_2(1/27^4) -log_2(1/27^1) -log_2(1/27^6) -log_2(1/27^1) -log_2(1/27^1) -log_2(1/27^1) -log_2(1/27^1) -log_2(1/27^1)=

38.0391 + 9.509775 + 9.509775 + 19.0195 + 4.75488 + 28.529325 + 4.75488 + 4.75488 + 4.75488 + 4.75488 + 4.75488 = 133 bits

Because I didn't leave out the spaces from my set and I found that the complexities exactly matched.

It's all detailed on page 29 of the document you're refusing to look at: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf


Your equation was a very strange:

1/27^8 + 1/27^2 + 1/27^2 + 1/27^4 + 1/27^1 + 1/27^6 + 1/27^1 + 1/27^1 + 1/27^1 + 1/27^1 + 1/27^1 =
Which you then changed to:

1:27^8 + 1:27^2 + 1:27^2 + 1:27^4 + 1:27^1 + 1:27^6 + 1:27^1 + 1:27^1 + 1:27^1 + 1:27^1 + 1:27^1 =

and for some reason called it scientific notation. You then changed it to get rid of the "1:" from each and got your answer (which has no units it seems):

27^8 + 27^2 + 27^2 + 27^4 + 27^1 + 27^6 + 27^1 + 27^1 + 27^1 + 27^1 + 27^1 = 2.828x10^11

and you then said I could take the log "if I wanted". And your equation was totally different to both mine and Dembski's because you pulled it out of your arse.

You then went on to say that the complexity of the whole sentence was:

27^28 = 1.197x10^40

which you used to say that the sentence was more complex that the sum of the components. But whether you generate each word separately and the concatenate them or generate the whole sentence spontaneously you get the same sentence and therefore the same complexity so all you showed is as something becomes more complex the likelihood of it forming spontaneously decreases exponentially. And of course that shoots your whole argument in the foot because evolutionary scientists claim that complex comonponents formed separately either at different times or for different functions and only creationists claim that complex components must have formed spontanesouly so what you showed is that the method claimed by evolutionary scientists is exponentially more likely to occur than if it happened spontaneously. You later denied this of course and said:

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

despite the fact that you had spent several days proving otherwise. Well done

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...it is a critique of CSI ... and by extension ID ....

So you admit that it is actually a critque of CSI then. Good

... and I am still not going to waste my time critiquing a critique ...

Let me enlighten you J C. This is very often how real intellectual enquiry proceeds. Someone proposes an idea. Someone else comes up with well researched facts and analysis that argues against that proposal. The proposer should then either point out errors in the others analysis or, retract or modify his original claim. It is not acceptable to just ignore a correct and rigourous destruction of the concept of "CSI" just because you deem it unworthy of your time to "critique a critque". What the hell is your point? If said critique pulls the rug out from under your entire argument, you don't have the option of refusing to "critique a critique" (at least if you want to maintain even a shred of credibility.

... I asked for a paper proposing Materialistic mechanisms to produce CSI ...

Again, that is an oxymoronic request. You may as well ask for young earth creationist papers that explain why the age of the earth is 4 billion years and that this proves the existence of God. Of course you ar not going to find such papers, because yound earth creationism denies that the earth is older than a few thousand years (!!???:D;):p:):rolleyes::o:mad::(:eek:P:cool::pac: - no really, they do). Similarly, non creationist scientists recognise the fact that CSI IS NONSENSE. So they are hardly going to produce a paper explaining how it arises naturally.

not a 54 page critique of ID...that amounts to little more than 'CSI doesn't exist ... so there!!!'

Indeed they provide very specific analysis and examples that demonstrate conclusively that CSI does not exist. That is the whole point.

...and I've already spent three pages ... and a few days pointing out the elementary mistake of adding logs when you need to add their underlying numbers (page 29) ... and I'm certainly not going to repeat the exercise!!!:D

It started here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63298610&postcount=19170

... and it went on on these pages:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566&highlight=adding&page=1279
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566&highlight=adding&page=1280
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566&highlight=adding&page=1281



...

Your attempt to point out an error (which is not there) is laughably naive and erroneous. The calculation that you refer to on page 29 is completely correct (see * below). I suspect that you looked through the paper and saw something on logarithms (which is probably one of the few terms that you actually thought you knew the meaning of). Then you made up some gobbledygook in an attempt to undermine the authority of the paper.

Moroever, the calculation you refer to (which is correct) is not even central to the authors' thesis. It is merely pointing out some stupid mistakes of Dembski (there are many of these to work with, of course)

No amount of smokescreen on your part will hide the fact that you are unable to offer any serious response to a paper that destroys your central idea of "complex specified information". Now, bring on the smileys and inane jokes.


*Their calculation is simply an application of the the following straightforward derivation:

Log(Probability (event A and event ) = log(probability (event A)probability (event )
= log (probability of event A) + log (probability of event

The first equality follows from the independence of events A and B. The second equality follows from basic rule of logarithms that says that log(xy) = log(x) +log(y)

Sam Vimes

equivariant wrote: »

Indeed they provide very specific analysis and examples that demonstrate conclusively that CSI does not exist. That is the whole point.

As did I when I showed that despite the claim that CSI is a reliable indicator of design, the only thing it's a reliable indicator of is the length of a sentence and it's only used even by creationists once design has already been established:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64185114&postcount=20396

I'm not claiming any special abilities here, it's not that hard to debunk because it's so clearly nonsense. Dembski makes the assumption that anything that has a function must have been designed and then calculates the odds against a particular pattern forming spontaneously even though no evolutionary scientists claim that the patterns formed spontaneously. He basically says: "this pattern has a function and it's longer than this other pattern so it must have been designed". Nonsense

equivariant

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As did I when I showed that despite the claim that CSI is a reliable indicator of design, the only thing it's a reliable indicator of is the length of a sentence and it's only used even by creationists once design has already been established:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64185114&postcount=20396

I'm not claiming any special abilities here, it's not that hard to debunk because it's so clearly nonsense. Dembski makes the assumption that anything that has a function must have been designed and then calculates the odds against a particular pattern forming spontaneously even though no evolutionary scientists claim that the patterns formed spontaneously. He basically says: "this pattern has a function and it's longer than this other pattern so it must have been designed". Nonsense

True. Of course J C doesn't even understand what CSI is supposedly about. His version of CSI is even more simpleminded and ludicrous than Dembski's and, as you pointed out, amounts to no more than the length of a string.

Dembski attempts to formulate a definition using more sophisticated ideas of hypothesis testing. Ultimately his definition is just as nonsensical although it takes a bit longer to penetrate the clouds of waffle and pseudomathematics around Dembski's "definition" than it does with J C

RepublicanEagle

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.

No ****?I suggest you read the title of the thread if you think that is what this thread is about.

doctoremma

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

No ****?I suggest you read the title of the thread if you think that is what this thread is about.

I suggest you google the term "evolution".

RepublicanEagle

doctoremma wrote: »

I suggest you google the term "evolution".

I suggest you google "grow up",it appears that a certain doctor is incapable of a mature discussion.

doctoremma

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I suggest you google "grow up",it appears that a certain doctor is incapable of a mature discussion.

Lol.

Morbert

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

We have no concrete proof how creation occurred,it is beyond our level of understanding and reality.It is healthy of course to discuss,but for us to try achieve total understanding now,is futile.It is beyond us.However I do believe that Darwin's theory is not plausible,the only line Darwinists use to support their position when someone points out the gaps within Darwin's arguements that we share the same common ancestor as the apes and states why apes have not evolved to the same extent.Then the Darwinist/Atheist or whatever,(they seem to go hand in hand):Donly reply is,that is where the "missing link" comes in,or they are already "evolved to suit their enviroment".Ahem I smell BS.But also a rubbish and absurd scientific theory:cool:

Google "evolution". I do not say that as a rhetorical remark. I mean literally google "evolution", and read some research papers. That way you will be able to see why what you have said about evolutionary biology is wrong.

Sam Vimes

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

No ****?I suggest you read the title of the thread if you think that is what this thread is about.

I'm not following. Are you saying that evolution is related to the creation of the universe?

Or maybe that I misunderstood you and you meant that evolution has to do with the creation of life? Because it doesn't have anything to do with that either. That's called abiogenesis which is a separate area of study

RepublicanEagle

Morbert wrote: »

Google "evolution". I do not say that as a rhetorical remark. I mean literally google "evolution", and read some research papers. That way you will be able to see why what you have said about evolutionary biology is wrong.

You people are entitled to your beliefs but there are some contradictions to evolution,from what I can remember discussing with a friend of mine.
I raised the following points with him

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Sam Vimes

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Evolution has never been observed.

Yes it has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution (one of millions of examples)

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

No it doesn't. Do you seriously think it would be accepted by the entire scientific community if it was so blatantly in error?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Time.27s_arrow_and_the_origin_of_the_second_law

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

There are no transitional fossils.

There are millions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.

Evolution proceeds by natural selection, pretty much the opposite of random chance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Gravity is "only a theory", a theory is a scientific term for something that explains facts. A theory supersedes a fact in science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

As we said, please do some reading

liamw

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

You people are entitled to your beliefs but there are some contradictions to evolution,from what I can remember discussing with a friend of mine.
I raised the following points with him

As you are entitled to yours. But please keep you're absurd beliefs to yourself becuase the arguments you've presented are nonsense creationist propaganda and have been refuted thoroughly, probably even many times on this thread alone.

PDN

liamw wrote: »

As you are entitled to yours. But please keep you're absurd beliefs to yourself becuase the arguments you've presented are nonsense creationist propaganda and have been refuted thoroughly, probably even many times on this thread alone.

He has the right to express his views and beliefs in this thread. And the only people who have the right to tell him otherwise are the admins and moderators. Understood?

Blank_

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

You people are entitled to your beliefs

Creationism is a belief, evolution is facts.

liamw

PDN wrote: »

He has the right to express his views and beliefs in this thread. And the only people who have the right to tell him otherwise are the admins and moderators. Understood?

I kinda came across wrong there. I meant he should keep his beliefs to himself in certain areas of discourse like science and schools.

Galvasean

As a palaeontology enthusiast it saddens me when people keep saying there are no transitional fossils. What's worse is that many people just believe that without even looking it up and then go ahead and continue to perpetuate the myth as if it were true. All it takes is a quick google or wikipedia search to see a bunch of examples of transitional fossils.
The link Sam Vimes posted is a good place to start but there are many many more.

J C

Blank_ wrote: »

Creationism is a belief, evolution is facts.

...evolution is a 'weasel' word ... that is given whatever meaning suits the evolutionist !!!:D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...evolution is a 'weasel' word ... given whatever meaning suits by the evolutionist.!!!

No JC that's because you haven't even bothered your arse over the course of this entire thread in trying to understand what evolution actually means. Instead, you've chosen to accept point blank what creationists tells you it is because it suits your ideological position. Evolution has a precise meaning. Creationism doesn't seem to have any consistency in any of definitions it uses. As you have so clearly and kindly demonstrated to us on this thread.

J C

liamw wrote: »

I kinda came across wrong there. I meant he should keep his beliefs to himself in certain areas of discourse like science and schools.

... WHY should RepublicanEagle keep his beliefs to himself on science and schools ...
... are schools and science to become some kind of Evolutionist 'Sacred Cows' or Atheist Humanist 'Temples'?...:(

....with only Evolutionists allowed to control them or express an opinion on them????:(:)

... it seems that this is already the case in America ... and about to become the case in Britain!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

No JC that's because you haven't even bothered your arse over the course of this entire thread in trying to understand what evolution actually means. Instead, you've chosen to accept point blank what creationists tells you it is because it suits your ideological position. Evolution has a precise meaning.

... what is the 'precise meaning' of Evolution then?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Lol.

...the way to a person's heart is to get her laughing ... preferably out loud!!!!:D