Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
I understood that Evolutionists believe that the first life only really got going about 1 billion (Evolutionist) years ago ..and not 3.5 billion years ago as you claim!!
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/Stromatolites.htm#Warrawoona
3,430-million-year-old Strelley Pool Chert within the Warrawoona Group in Western Australia
...remain equivocal regarding biological origins, those of the 2 Bya Gunflint Chert in Canada is not.
Archaean, 2.6 Bya Campbell Group in Cape Province, South Africa (Altermann, 1995)
...13 are in the age range of 3.2 to 3.5 Bya (Schopf, 2006).
...hypothesis is consistent with geology that finds isotopic fractionation of sulfur compounds becomes large, followed by the sudden increase in oxygen in the atmosphere and surface water environments at about 2.2 or 2.3 Ba.
No it is a matter of reading the above works and getting about not long after the Hadean Era for the earliest life but certainly lots by 2,200 million years ago....so Emma honey bunch ... which is the correct Evolutionist time for the 'arrival' of 'Pondkind' ... is it 3.5 billion (Evolutionist) years, as you say ... or some time between 680 and 1300 million (Evolutionist) years ago i.e. about 1 billion years, as I have said?
...or is it a matter of picking a figure ... any figure, as long as it has the word 'billion' after it???:eek:
http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/life-3.htm
It isn't just her opinion it is broadly published in geology Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology.0 -
...from Prof Michael Ruse Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series in the Philosophy of Biology
" If God (perhaps) does not exist, wherein lie the guarantees of knowledge and of truth? Possibly all is subjective illusion. If God does not exist, wherein lies the force of morality? Why should we not do precisely what we please, cheating and lying and stealing, to serve our own ends? Dry answers by philosophers aiming for purely secular answers tended not to convince.
This actually relates to teleology which Is apart of the philosophy of science. But asking "so what" and wondering about philosophy of the absurd still isn't dealing with other parts of science such as EMPIRICISM which through:
radiometric dating, chrons in the Earth shifting magnetic fields, the geological column, petrified trees, and one might even hazard the density of impact craters on Moons
all the above can be used to give ages of millions up to thousands of millions of years for fossils.
In addition there is evidence in particle physics and cosmology which enable us to explain stellar birth and evolution based on nuclear reactions particle theory and theory of gravity and these lengths of time for stars and galaxies are confirmed by observation and experiment and they are of the order of hundreds of millions to tens of billions of years.
the idea of a six thousand year old Earth just doesn't fit with that. On the Biblical fundamentalist side the literal interpretation of the Bible says the earth must be about 6,000 years old.Evolution destroyed the final foundations of traditional belief. To many people, it was evolution that would provide the foundations of a new belief-system. Evolution would lead to a deeper and truer understanding of the problems of knowledge. Evolution would lead to a deeper and true understanding of the nature of morality. Thus were born (what are known now as) 'evolutionary epistemology' and 'evolutionary ethics'." Taking Darwin Seriously (1986) p.30
Probably really "evolutionary teleology" Ontology and Epistemonlgy are more to do with what we know and how we know what we know as opposed to whether it has any value.
But in my opinion this isn't for science it is for the philosophy of science or for religion.I find it inconceivable that it is irrelevant to the foundations of philosophy whether we are the end result of a slow natural evolutionary process, or made miraculously in God’s own image on a Friday, some 6,000 years ago." Taking Darwin Seriously (1986) p.274-275
Of course the question "is the Bible literally true and the Eartyh 6,000 years old?" is an important question for both science and religion . And IT HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED!! Both Science and religion believe the Earth is thousands of millions of years old. Only a few Biblical fundamentalists still hold the unscientific belief like the Earth not moving or being flat or only being 6,000 years old!... the Atheists are taking Evolution very seriously ... and I would respectfully suggest that the Christians should ALSO do so!!!!:D:)
They do. In fact the question of "what is a human being" is on the cutting edge of theological discussion. In fact many clerics are cosmologists medical doctors etc.0 -
...
...the Atheists have 'nipped in' to effectively become a new 'Legally Protected Religion' ... in Science Class ... and in America they are sacking Christian teachers who don't recite their 'Evolution Creed' perfectly every time!!!!:eek:
...if that isn't religious persecution and discrimination ... I don't know what is????
Just because state atheism caused bad things in history is no reason or basis to insist that the theory of Biblical Creationism of a 6,000 year old Earth should be accorded equal time with the scientific theory of evolution! Nor does a teacher have to be an atheist. It is just that we can't have classrooms where a French or Maths teacher says IN EVERY LESSON that numbers or language were given to us by god and DEVOTE EQUAL TIME to telling pupils about how god created French or set Theory or animals as they do to the actual lesson itself!
It is a nonsensical idea and it is even more nonsence to suggest that such systems are anti God and are an atheistic religion.
having said that, I believe there ARE problems with anti religious atheists in Science. And these problem people are fuelled by the type of religious fundamentalist creationist arguments you have been making!
It is a bit like Nazis and Stalinists mutual hatred of each other while the people in the middle suffer.0 -
-
The only person who has embarassed themselves is yourself.equivariant wrote: »I note that yet again you have studiously avoided discussing any detail, preferring to make completely unsupported and false claims like "it didn't invalidate CSI in any way". Since the paper claims to do precisely that, and since you seem to think otherwise, it should be a simple matter to point out some specific flaws that back up your claim. But, of course, you can't do that, can you? (The one time you tried, you embarssed yourself further by exposing the fact that you didn't even understand the basics identities satisfied by logarithms.) I also note that you seem quite intimidated by the length of the paper. You keep repeating the fact that it has 54 pages, as if you could hardly be expected to read such a long paper. As I pointed out before, real scientific papers are often a bit longer than the typical 4 or 5 page bits of drivel produced by creation 'scientists'.
You still don't seem to appreciate ... the BASIC MATHS LAW that, when you want to add probabilities, this cannot be done by adding their Logs, (and the probabilities must be converted back to real numbers FIRST, before adding them) ...
... while multiplying probabilities is done by adding their Logs (without any need to convert them to real numbers first). Go back to school ... and learn all about Logs AGAIN ... and stop embarassing YOURSELVES on something so BASIC!!!:eek:
...the Generic Chance Elimination Argument doesn't apply to KNOWN Languages and Codes ... because there isn't any GCEA in relation to known Languages and Codes.equivariant wrote: »If you have read the paper (I doubt it), could you enlighten us by taking even one of the many criticisms therein and explaining why you disagree. For examle on page 13 we have "[FONT=CMR12~1d]The generic chance elimination argument (GCEA) requires the elimination of [/FONT]all [FONT=CMR12~1d]relevant chance hypotheses. If all such hypotheses are eliminated, Dembski concludes design is the explanation for the event in question. The weakness of this approach seems self-evident, because this method will consistently assign design to events whose exact causal history is obscure,precisely the events Dembski is most interested in."[/FONT]
[FONT=CMR12~1d]How do you answer this point?[/FONT]
GCEA applies only to unknown sequences that are postulated to be a language or a code. In other words, if somebody is arguing that "#~~~'>>>,<<<????////\\\Z||||***----" is a language or code then GCEA applies!!!
Could I gently point out that DNA is KNOWN to be a (very sophisticated) Functional Code ... and therefore GCEA doesn't apply to it!!
...you don't need to know the causal history ... only the fact that the information is functional and specified ... and in the case of DNA, this is objectively the case!!!:)equivariant wrote: »[FONT=CMR12~1d]Or on page 21 - " [FONT=CMR12~1d]Because Dembski offers no coherent approach to his choice of probability distributions,we conclude that Dembski's approach to complexity through probability is very seriously flawed, and no simple repair is possible."[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=CMR12~1d][FONT=CMR12~1d]So which is it? When calculating 'CSI', do you assume a uniform probability distribution, or do you need to know the complete causal history of the event in consideration?[/FONT][/FONT]
Amongst other things, page 21 of the Wesley Elsberry paper is looking at SETI and how to assess potential CSI 'inbound' from some putative extra-terrestrial intelligence. The main problem with such CSI is to be able to identify it, in the first place if some completely 'alien' language or code is being used and, as far as I am concerned, SETI has indeed got a big problem in this regard. :eek:
Indeed, unless a putative 'alien' broadcast sent a series of prime numbers or something similarly 'universal', the CSI might never be identified. For example, if "#~~~'>>>,<<<????////\\\Z||||***----" is the the Klingon for "Did you know that Creation is a Scientific Fact?" ... it might never be even identified as a message, if we had never come across the characters before and we certainly wouldn't know what it means, without meeting a Klingon and working out their linguistics.
However, no such problems exist with the CSI in DNA ... where we ALREADY worked out how it is specified and thereby we have been able to work out that the CSI in just ONE short 100 chain protein is greater than the number of electrons that would fit into the putative total volume of the Big Bang Universe (before the 'inflation' to infinity theory came along) ... and thus it is an effective IMPOSSIBILITY for non-intelligently directed systems to produce even ONE specific protein!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
...if the cap fits.....:eek:Originally Posted by J C
...I should have said that it is always the Atheists (and their 'fellow travellers') who go 'running back to their mammies' to 'lick their wounds' and complain about ME!!!
ISAW
Not really. either yu are expressing a tautology i.er. "the people who claim about me are always those who complain about me"
Or you are saying that
ONLY atheists or people who agree with atheists complain
which I believe is probably not true and can't be shown true by you and needs only one non atheist complainant to prove you wrong.
If you reclassify ALL people who complain about you as "fellow travellers" using some form of "only true scotsman" argument then you are back to the tautology problem.0 -
...and on and on the story goes!!!!http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Life/Stromatolites.htm#Warrawoona
3,430-million-year-old Strelley Pool Chert within the Warrawoona Group in Western Australia
...remain equivocal regarding biological origins, those of the 2 Bya Gunflint Chert in Canada is not.
Archaean, 2.6 Bya Campbell Group in Cape Province, South Africa (Altermann, 1995)
...13 are in the age range of 3.2 to 3.5 Bya (Schopf, 2006).
...hypothesis is consistent with geology that finds isotopic fractionation of sulfur compounds becomes large, followed by the sudden increase in oxygen in the atmosphere and surface water environments at about 2.2 or 2.3 Ba.
No it is a matter of reading the above works and getting about not long after the Hadean Era for the earliest life but certainly lots by 2,200 million years ago.
http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/life-3.htm
It isn't just her opinion it is broadly published in geology Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology.
one bunch of evolutionists date the first (reproducing) cellular life (and therefore the supposed start of evolution from Pondkind to Mankind) as between 680 and 1300 million Evolutionist years (which I approximated at 1 billion Evolutionist years).
Emma then said that it was 3.5 billion years since Evolution began and now you are throwing about figures ranging from 2.2 to 3.5 billion evolutionist years!!!
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html
...the above link has this to say about the timing of the first 'Pondkind' life:-
"About 1.3 billion years ago the first eukaryote (a single cell organism with a complex inner structure) which contained many internal organelles such as mitochondria appeared, having evolved from the prokaryote. From the eukaryote, the multicellular metazoa ('Pondslime') evolved about 680 million years ago. All modern complex life developed from these."
so ... which is the correct Evolutionist time for the 'arrival' of 'Pondkind' ... is it 2.2 or 3.5 billion (Evolutionist) years, as you say ... or some time between 680 and 1300 million (Evolutionist) years as the Evolutionists in the above link says?
When it comes to Evolution, it does indeed seem to be a matter of picking a figure ... any figure, as long as it has the word 'billion' after it???0 -
...WHO has told you this???This actually relates to teleology which Is apart of the philosophy of science. But asking "so what" and wondering about philosophy of the absurd still isn't dealing with other parts of science such as EMPIRICISM which through:
radiometric dating, chrons in the Earth shifting magnetic fields, the geological column, petrified trees, and one might even hazard the density of impact craters on Moons
all the above can be used to give ages of millions up to thousands of millions of years for fossils.
In addition there is evidence in particle physics and cosmology which enable us to explain stellar birth and evolution based on nuclear reactions particle theory and theory of gravity and these lengths of time for stars and galaxies are confirmed by observation and experiment and they are of the order of hundreds of millions to tens of billions of years.
the idea of a six thousand year old Earth just doesn't fit with that. On the Biblical fundamentalist side the literal interpretation of the Bible says the earth must be about 6,000 years old.
...and WHAT assumptions have they made????
... can you name any Christian who believes that the Earth is not moving or is flat? ....Probably really "evolutionary teleology" Ontology and Epistemonlgy are more to do with what we know and how we know what we know as opposed to whether it has any value.
But in my opinion this isn't for science it is for the philosophy of science or for religion.
Of course the question "is the Bible literally true and the Eartyh 6,000 years old?" is an important question for both science and religion . And IT HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED!! Both Science and religion believe the Earth is thousands of millions of years old. Only a few Biblical fundamentalists still hold the unscientific belief like the Earth not moving or being flat or only being 6,000 years old!
...the Medieval Popes may have believed that the Earth is static ... and censured anybody who disagreed with them .. but the arrival of the first Creation Scientists on the scene, put an end to these 'Old Greek Tales'!!!:eek:
...so this is the pathetic position in which 'cutting edge of theological discussion' now finds itself ... trying to work out 'what a Human Being is'!!!They do. In fact the question of "what is a human being" is on the cutting edge of theological discussion. In fact many clerics are cosmologists medical doctors etc.
... what happens if they 'decide' that foetal Humans or people with physical of mental incapacity or Creationists aren't 'Human Beings'???
... surely a 'Human Being' is any Human Person from the moment of conception to the point of Natural Death?
... why should there be any 'theological discussion' on this obvious FACT???0 -
... a more accurate analogy would be the sacking of teachers for pointing out that 2+2=4 ... when they are required by law to say that 2+2=6.:(Just because state atheism caused bad things in history is no reason or basis to insist that the theory of Biblical Creationism of a 6,000 year old Earth should be accorded equal time with the scientific theory of evolution! Nor does a teacher have to be an atheist. It is just that we can't have classrooms where a French or Maths teacher says IN EVERY LESSON that numbers or language were given to us by god and DEVOTE EQUAL TIME to telling pupils about how god created French or set Theory or animals as they do to the actual lesson itself!0 -
...and on and on the story goes!!!!
one bunch of evolutionists date the first (reproducing) cellular life (and therefore the supposed start of evolution from Pondkind to Mankind) as between 680 and 1300 million Evolutionist years (which I approximated at 1 billion Evolutionist years).
First of all a sidereal year is a clearly defined amount of time. Ther are no "evolutionists years"!
There are also geological time brackets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Stratigraphy
Now WHAT scientist says no life existed on Earth more than 680 million years ago as you claim they say?Emma then said that it was 3.5 billion years since Evolution began and now you are throwing about figures ranging from 2.2 to 3.5 billion evolutionist years!!!
Why didn't you READ the actual source provided? The algal mats which lie at the extreme end are about 3.8 billion years ago. But there is ARGUMENT about these as the source says then it later points out ones which the all fairly much agree on from 2.2 Giga years. NOT 680 Mega Years!http://www.onelife.com/evolve/cellev.html
...the above link has this to say about the timing of the first 'Pondkind' life:-
It isn't a science site! It has tracts on the evils of socialism. All the same it does say
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/darwin.html
Very last paragraph on that page :
"Where did that first living fragment come from, some 4 billion or more years ago?"
So your idea about 680 years as earliest life on this site is wrong!
It has this to say on evolution: This series is not written by an academic in the field of genetics and evolution. It is instead written by a trained and experienced electromechanical engineer after researching the literature. The viewpoint then is one of mechanisms and processes, based on provable premises.so ... which is the correct Evolutionist time for the 'arrival' of 'Pondkind' ... is it 2.2 or 3.5 billion (Evolutionist) years, as you say ... or some time between 680 and 1300 million (Evolutionist) years as the Evolutionists in the above link says?
The above link actually puts the earliest life at about 4 billion years ago!
Mammals are not 4 billion years old and homo sapiens maybe between 100,000 and a half million old. the point is some species evolved from something earlier, lasted hundreds of millions of years and then died out. Ammonites for example survived several mass extinctions up to 250 million years ago before dying out only recently.When it comes to Evolution, it does indeed seem to be a matter of picking a figure ... any figure, as long as it has the word 'billion' after it???
not for mammals no! They evolve AFTER dinosaurs become extinct 64 million years ago! And the quaternary period only covers the last million and a half years or so.
http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/earth/sub1-2.htm0 -
Advertisement
-
..yes indeed when it comes to Evolution, it does seem to be a matter of picking a figure ... any figure, as long as it has the word 'billion' after it ...First of all a sidereal year is a clearly defined amount of time. Ther are no "evolutionists years"!
There are also geological time brackets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Stratigraphy
Now WHAT scientist says no life existed on Earth more than 680 million years ago as you claim they say?
Why didn't you READ the actual source provided? The algal mats which lie at the extreme end are about 3.8 billion years ago. But there is ARGUMENT about these as the source says then it later points out ones which the all fairly much agree on from 2.2 Giga years. NOT 680 Mega Years!
It isn't a science site! It has tracts on the evils of socialism. All the same it does say
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/darwin.html
Very last paragraph on that page :
"Where did that first living fragment come from, some 4 billion or more years ago?"
So your idea about 680 years as earliest life on this site is wrong!
It has this to say on evolution: This series is not written by an academic in the field of genetics and evolution. It is instead written by a trained and experienced electromechanical engineer after researching the literature. The viewpoint then is one of mechanisms and processes, based on provable premises.
The above link actually puts the earliest life at about 4 billion years ago!
Mammals are not 4 billion years old and homo sapiens maybe between 100,000 and a half million old. the point is some species evolved from something earlier, lasted hundreds of millions of years and then died out. Ammonites for example survived several mass extinctions up to 250 million years ago before dying out only recently.
not for mammals no! They evolve AFTER dinosaurs become extinct 64 million years ago! And the quaternary period only covers the last million and a half years or so.
http://www.yorku.ca/esse/veo/earth/sub1-2.htm
... and apparently the latest Evolutionist fashion is to have the word 'Giga' written after it???0 -
...WHO has told you this???
...and WHAT assumptions have they made????
AS far as i know I am the only person to have published about more then four methods of dating geological time in the one publication.
All of the methods are VALID and RELIABLE. the geological column, radiometric isotope dating, dendrochronology, crater density, and shifts in the magnetic domains.
It makes no difference who told me anything. They are independently verifiable.... can you name any Christian who believes that the Earth is not moving or is flat? ....
I didn't claim it ever was a christian Belief did I? I only claimed that if people take the bible literally then they can claim the earth does not move or the Earth is flat....the Medieval Popes may have believed that the Earth is static ... and censured anybody who disagreed with them .. but the arrival of the first Creation Scientists on the scene, put an end to these 'Old Greek Tales'!!!:eek:
That isnt true. greeks were aware the Earth was round. Peloponesian greeks of the broader greek culture in particular has written about it. the difference in shadows at different places on the Earth such a Aswan and Alexandria enabled the calculation
of the circumference of the Earth.
Copernicus didn't prove anything he just proposed a theory. his main argument was "God would have made it this way"...so this is the pathetic position in which 'cutting edge of theological discussion' now finds itself ... trying to work out 'what a Human Being is'!!!
In that partular part of theology yes.
So you believe a fertilised egg is a human being do you? It has a soul does it?... what happens if they 'decide' that foetal Humans or people with physical of mental incapacity or Creationists aren't 'Human Beings'???
It isn't for theologists to make laws - that is for legislatures. The Vatican - a soverign state- could however pass laws declaring the abortion all potential handicapped people legal. It is the most unlikely thing that could happen in law. It is in the "freedom " loving US that such laws are upheld.
But yes theologists are concerned with when someone becomes human and what rights should be accorded to fertilised eggs or to the "parents" of such eggs and laws are being made about that and they try to inform law makers.... surely a 'Human Being' is any Human Person from the moment of conception to the point of Natural Death?
depends on where you go actually. Even after birth we accord DIFFERENT rights to different human beings. WE used to have slavery or deny women the vote. We still deny it to children or to most teenagers or even to all teenagers in parts of the US for example where it is 21. We also have laws which relate to people who are old infirm etc. and allow others to have their power of attorney for example when they can't make a decision themselves.
And even non humans may have rights. Corporations or animals can be given rights under law. But just sticking with humans they may have different rights whether they are born unborn infirm young old women etc.... why should there be any 'theological discussion' on this obvious FACT???
well can an old Human decide to kill themselves and should they be allowed to do it? does a fertilised frozen embryo have rights? how do you judge whether the state should decide who the recipient is or should it be the "mother" or the "father" of the fertilised egg who can make or have input into such a decision?
Just WHAT rights other then right to life should such an egg have? Obviously the right to vote and right to drive a car or have a bank account don't make much sense but right to inherit might.0 -
..yes indeed when it comes to Evolution, it does seem to be a matter of picking a figure ... any figure, as long as it has the word 'billion' after it ...
WRONG!
You just ignored what has been clearly pointed out to you!
There is CONVERGENCE in relation to dating particular fossils. The oldest ones are of the order of billions of years, nearly as old as the Earth.
More recent fossils such as dinosaurs date from hundreds of millions to 64 Ma.
The youngest fossils are the likes of petrified trees which at the top end may go back to 1Ma but can be of the order of tens of thousands of years.
Dendrochronology then brings us into prehistory and even historical time.... and apparently the latest Evolutionist fashion is to have the word 'Giga' written after it???
It is standard nomenclature in geology to write "Ga" before year number to indicate billions of years. I wrote it to introduce this since "billion" can be misleading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year#SI_prefix_multipliers0 -
JC
Where does the site you claim (and which isnt a science site by the way) say about 680 Ma being the oldest living things?0 -
...anybody who believes in freedom of speech ... which is the 'foundation stone' of any truly free society should watch this:-
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/academicfreedom.php
...please play the trailers here to see what is happening to academic freedom in America!!!!
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php
...The 'How Life Began' clip provides a summary of the Darwinian view on how life originated ...
...The 'Religion and Science' clip describes the reason behind the "knock 'em down and drag 'em out" 'Faith Fight' that the Evolution/Creation debate has become ... and a good summary of this thread to date!!!!
... The 'Darwinian Gospel' clip provides an update on how the Darwinian Gospel is eclipsing the True Gospel throughout America .. and elsewhere!!!!0 -
...look, there are polystrate fossil trees that run up through over 30 metres of rock layers that supposedly took tens of millions of years to lay down ... yet the tops of the trees are just as perfectly preserved as the bottoms ... thereby indicating RAPID sedimentation ... completely invalidating the radiological methods used to date these and every other rock!!!AS far as i know I am the only person to have published about more then four methods of dating geological time in the one publication.
All of the methods are VALID and RELIABLE. the geological column, radiometric isotope dating, dendrochronology, crater density, and shifts in the magnetic domains.
It makes no difference who told me anything. They are independently verifiable.
...and WHERE do you think that ALL of the Calcium Carbonate that is present in the vast Limestone rocks of the world came from?
... and where did the Calcium Carbonate that is cementing every other sedimentary rock also came from?
...equally, rocks of KNOWN age such as recent lava flows have been radiometrically dated at several million years.
... you DID say "Only a few Biblical fundamentalists still hold the unscientific belief like the Earth not moving or being flat..."I didn't claim it ever was a christian Belief did I? I only claimed that if people take the bible literally then they can claim the earth does not move or the Earth is flat.
... so you are claiming it to be a belief currently held by Christians!!!!
...anyway, where does the Bible say that the Earth is Flat ... or not orbiting the Sun?
...it was a pity that the Popes didn't take this information on board ... instead of taking the Greek Geocentric story of both Aristotle and Ptolemy at face value ... and embarsssing themselves for several hundred years as a result!!!That isnt true. greeks were aware the Earth was round. Peloponesian greeks of the broader greek culture in particular has written about it. the difference in shadows at different places on the Earth such a Aswan and Alexandria enabled the calculation
of the circumference of the Earth.
...he was right on both counts ... that the Earth orbited the Sun ... and God did it!!:)Copernicus didn't prove anything he just proposed a theory. his main argument was "God would have made it this way"
... it would appear so.In that partular part of theology yes.
So you believe a fertilised egg is a human being do you? It has a soul does it?
... when do you think that a person gets a soul ... or do you still believe in the idea that female foetuses get their souls much later than male ones????
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that the female provided the menstrual blood as the passive material from which the active male semen generated the new form.
According to Aristotle, the hotter male embryos were ensouled around the fortieth day of pregnancy while the cooler females took twice as long!!!:eek:
For Christians, the soul had a different meaning and purpose. Saved Christians believe that ensoulment, or the acquisition of a God-given immortal soul, takes place at conception.
Yet from the late Middle Ages the Aristotelian view dominated - especially within the Roman Catholic Church - which deferred to Aristotle on all matters philosophical, at the time ... a bit like they now appear to be deferring to Darwin on all things Evolutionary!!!:eek:
...so what have they come up with?In It isn't for theologists to make laws - that is for legislatures. The Vatican - a soverign state- could however pass laws declaring the abortion all potential handicapped people legal. It is the most unlikely thing that could happen in law. It is in the "freedom " loving US that such laws are upheld.
But yes theologists are concerned with when someone becomes human and what rights should be accorded to fertilised eggs or to the "parents" of such eggs and laws are being made about that and they try to inform law makers.
...these are all side issues ... the central issue is the principle that all Humans have inaleinable rights because they are Human....depends on where you go actually. Even after birth we accord DIFFERENT rights to different human beings. WE used to have slavery or deny women the vote. We still deny it to children or to most teenagers or even to all teenagers in parts of the US for example where it is 21. We also have laws which relate to people who are old infirm etc. and allow others to have their power of attorney for example when they can't make a decision themselves.
And even non humans may have rights. Corporations or animals can be given rights under law. But just sticking with humans they may have different rights whether they are born unborn infirm young old women etc.
...you are confusing capacity with rights. Obviously how the rights are exercised depends on the capacity of the individual ... but the rights should exist and be honoured universally....well can an old Human decide to kill themselves and should they be allowed to do it? does a fertilised frozen embryo have rights? how do you judge whether the state should decide who the recipient is or should it be the "mother" or the "father" of the fertilised egg who can make or have input into such a decision?
Just WHAT rights other then right to life should such an egg have? Obviously the right to vote and right to drive a car or have a bank account don't make much sense but right to inherit might.
...and BTW age related rules started out to protect and vindicate young peoples rights by preventing their exploitation by less scrupulous adults.0 -
The only people who have embarassed themselves were yourselves.
Ye didn't know ... and still don't seem to appreciate ... the BASIC MATHS LAW that, when you want to add probabilities, this cannot be done by adding their Logs, (and the probabilities must be converted back to real numbers FIRST, before adding them) ...
... while multiplying probabilities is done by adding their Logs (without any need to convert them to real numbers first). Go back to school ... and learn all about Logs AGAIN ... and stop embarassing YOURSELVES on something so BASIC!!!:eek:
...the Generic Chance Elimination Argument doesn't apply to KNOWN Languages and Codes ... because there isn't any GCEA in relation to known Languages and Codes.
GCEA applies only to unknown sequences that are postulated to be a language or a code. In other words, if somebody is arguing that "#~~~'>>>,<<<????////\\\Z||||***----" is a language or code then GCEA applies!!!
Could I gently point out that DNA is KNOWN to be a (very sophisticated) Functional Code ... and therefore GCEA doesn't apply to it!!
I would have thought that you would have known this, if you have any scientific training on this issue ... or are you just cutting and pasting from the paper??
...you don't need to know the causal history ... only the fact that the information is functional and specified ... and in the case of DNA, this is objectively the case!!!:)
Page 21 of the Wesley Elsberry paper is looking at SETI and how to assess potential CSI 'inbound' from some putative extra-terrestrial intelligence. The main problem with such CSI is to be able to identify it, in the first place if some completely 'alien' language or code is being used and, as far as I am concerned, SETI has indeed got a big problem in this regard. :eek:
Indeed, unless a putative 'alien' broadcast sent a series of prime numbers or something similarly 'universal' the CSI might never be identified. For example, if "#~~~'>>>,<<<????////\\\Z||||***----" is the the Klingon for "Did you know that Creation is a Scientific Fact?" ... it might never be even identified as a message if we had never come across the characters before and we certainly wouldn't know what it means, without meeting a Klingon and working out their linguistics.
However, no such problems exist with the CSI in DNA ... where we ALREADY worked out how it is specified and thereby we have been able to work out that the CSI in just ONE short 100 chain protein is greater than the number of electrons that would fit into the putative total volume of the Big Bang Universe (before the 'inflation' to infinity theory came along) ... and thus it is an effective IMPOSSIBILITY for non-intelligently directed systems to produce even ONE specific protein!!!
As I suspected, you haven't got a clue wgat the paper is about. the post above is complete nonsense. You repeat your idiotic mistake about logarithms. Even the way you write about logarithms is revealing. No one who knows even the first thing about logarithms (e.g. a 1st year maths student) talks about "converting them back into real numbers". The phrase you are looking for is "exponentiating them". Of course, your attempt to point out an error in their calculation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do what the calculation that actually appears in the paper.
As for all your rubbish on the GCEA, I am quite sure that you do not know the meaning of many of the words that you are using - yet another form of LYING. Prove me wrong for example, by defining the word "code" as used by information theory (which CSI proponents claim to be using). Of course you admitted a while back that you cannot define "functional" in this context. But, surprise surprise, here you go throwing in that old red herring again.
So you admit that 'CSI@ has absolutely no application in any area other than creationist lying (oops meant to say creationist 'science')? That' progress if you do.
Next time, at least try to make it difficult to debunk your nonsense.0 -
...once again you're the one who doesen't know what you are talking about ... an occupational hazard, I guess, for anyone who believes in the mythical powers of Pondkind to spontaneously become Mankind ... despite all evidence and logic denying such a conclusion!!!equivariant wrote: »As I suspected, you haven't got a clue wgat the paper is about. the post above is complete nonsense. You repeat your idiotic mistake about logarithms. Even the way you write about logarithms is revealing. No one who knows even the first thing about logarithms (e.g. a 1st year maths student) talks about "converting them back into real numbers". The phrase you are looking for is "exponentiating them". Of course, your attempt to point out an error in their calculation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do what the calculation that actually appears in the paper.
Exponentiation is the raising of a quantity to a power i.e. the expression of a number using a base x and an exponent n as in x^n ... which you still CANNOT add ... IF you wish to add the underlying numbers ... you MUST convert them back into real (or natural) numbers, like I have already repeatedly said.
The sum of the CSI contained in each individual word in the sentence 'Methinks it is like a Weasel' is got by adding the probabilities of each individual word (and space) ... which requires them to be converted into real numbers in order to do so.
The total CSI in the sentence is got by multiplying the individual probabilities of each word and space ... which CAN be done by adding the Logs.
... it's the reason WHY 'mount improbable' RAPIDLY becomes 'mount impossible' with increasing chain-length in the functional biomolecules involved!!! This is basic Maths ...
... please consult a Mathematician before embarassing yourself any further on this issue.:(:eek:
On second thoughts ... please feel free to continue claiming the equivalent of 2+2=6 ... it like 'shooting fish in a barrel' for me on this one!!!!
... so you ask me to explain something to you ... and I do so to the best of my ability ... and all you can do in response is to make unfounded allegations of lying against me!!!!equivariant wrote: »As for all your rubbish on the GCEA, I am quite sure that you do not know the meaning of many of the words that you are using - yet another form of LYING. Prove me wrong for example, by defining the word "code" as used by information theory (which CSI proponents claim to be using). Of course you admitted a while back that you cannot define "functional" in this context. But, surprise surprise, here you go throwing in that old red herring again.
... and I NEVER said that 'functional' couldn't be defined ... of course it can ... a functional DNA genetic information sequence is one that gives rise to a functional biomolecule (often via complex precise inter-actions with other functonal genetic information sequences and their functional biomolecular products) ... and a functional biomolecule is one that performs a useful and/or essential action within a biochemical process!!!
...equally, the following Wiki definition of Code also applies to the Genetic Code:-
"In communications, a code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type. In communications and information processing, encoding is the process by which information from a source is converted into symbols to be communicated. Decoding is the reverse process, converting these code symbols back into information understandable by a receiver."
The Genetic Code is used to store and facilitate the conversion of genetic information into functional biomolecules and their precisely specified assembly to produce and sustain functional living organisms.
... more unfounded accusations of lying ... which is bearing false witness against me ... and therefore breaching the Nineth Commandment ... which APPLIES to all people still under Law (including Unsaved Atheists and their 'fellow travellers')equivariant wrote: »So you admit that 'CSI@ has absolutely no application in any area other than creationist lying (oops meant to say creationist 'science')? That' progress if you do.
Next time, at least try to make it difficult to debunk your nonsense.
...it might be no harm, at this stage, to remind you all of the Commanments under which ye shall be Judged by God ... unless you go and get Saved FIRST.
Ex 20:1 ¶ And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 ¶ Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.0 -
...I wasn't talking about the 'oldest living things' ... I was talking about the length of time that it took 'Pondkind' to supposedly evolve into 'Mankind'.JC
Where does the site you claim (and which isnt a science site by the way) say about 680 Ma being the oldest living things?
The production of 'Pondkind', in the first place is reckoned by the Evolutionists to be a long-drawn out (and totally separate) process over billions of years called 'Abiogenesis'.
Again, the time periods suggested vary dramatically, but you are unlikely to draw any 'flack' from Evolutionists once you follow their convention of adding the word 'billion' to any number that you choose to use ... BTW pick a number between 1 and 5 ... and you will generally be OK!!!:D0 -
...anybody who believes in freedom of speech ... which is the 'foundation stone' of any truly free society should watch this:-
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/academicfreedom.php
...please play the trailers here to see what is happening to academic freedom in America!!!!
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php
Expelled? Really J C? That film has been proved to be factually and intellectually dishonest by so many independant sources before. A very bad choice.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
...says WHO ... about WHAT?
I'm pretty sure it came up on this thread before and I'm not bothered repeating the points. However, there are lots of websites which contain said points. Here is just one of then:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Worth a read if you have the time.0 -
Oh dear JC, even me, a lay person knows 'Expelled' was found to be sadly lacking in science and roundly trounced.
But here, have a gander for yourself.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer0 -
...anybody who believes in freedom of speech ... which is the 'foundation stone' of any truly free society should watch this:-
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/academicfreedom.php
...please play the trailers here to see what is happening to academic freedom in America!!!!
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php
...The 'How Life Began' clip provides a summary of the Darwinian view on how life originated ... and it appears to be narrated by the guy from the 'Twilight Zone'!!!!
...The 'Religion and Science' clip describes reason behind the "knock 'em down and drag 'em out" 'Faith Fight' that the Evolution/Creation debate has become ... and a good summary of this thread to date!!!!
... The 'Darwinian Gospel' clip provides an update on how the Darwinian Gospel is eclipsing the True Gospel throughout America .. and elsewhere!!!!
Time for T-man.:)
Btw, I've seen the film and nothing sickens me more than to say it was better than Martin Durkin's Swindle film of filth. Stein's was shyte but, Durkins'...........0 -
...all anybody needs to do is read the 'tone and tenor' of what has been said on this thread in relation to the fitness of Creationists and ID Proponents to hold science positons to see that the advocacy (and presumably the actuality) of job discrimination against Creation and ID Scientists is deeply ingrained in the Evolutionist psyche.I'm pretty sure it came up on this thread before and I'm not bothered repeating the points. However, there are lots of websites which contain said points. Here is just one of then:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Worth a read if you have the time.
... they are now trying to undo the damage that such overt advocacy of discrimination could cause for them with 'mealy-mouthed' verbiage that amounts to little more than "Who me? ... I wouldn't hurt a fly Gov!!" ... as they unashamedly SACK Christian teachers (on their own admission) for using the words 'ID' in class.
...come on lads ... you can't have it both ways ... you cannot defend this discrimination one minute on the basis that it is there to 'protect the Holy Grail of Science' ... and the next minute deny that the discrimination is happening at all !!!
... it reminds me of the bully at my school (before I had a word in his ear).
...whenvever another child complained about him, his initial reaction was to deny that the child was beaten up ... and when the marks of the attack were drawn to his attention ... his next line of defense was that it was somebody else who did it ... and when witnesses said it was him ... he then used to claim that the victim had attacked him first ... and therefore deserved all he got!!!
... it is what is known as a cascade defense!!!
... and amounts to 'I didn't do it ... but even if I did ... s/he deserved it'!!!!0 -
the fitness of Creationists and ID Proponents to hold science positons to see that the advocacy (and presumably the actuality) of job discrimination against Creationists is deeply ingrained in the Evolutionist psyche.
Nearly everyone has said that if their unfounded/unscientific beliefs are left out of the classroom, then it's fine. A few here may well express doubts about the ability of a creationist to teach evolutionary theory objectively. This is fine. Not one person has said that they would not hire/sack a teacher for anything less than incompetence.as they unashamedly SACK Christian teachers (on their own admission) for using the words 'ID' in class
In science class, yes.0 -
... they are now trying to undo the damage with verbiage that amounts to little more than "Who me? ... I wouldn't hurt a fly Gov!!" ... as they unashamedly SACK Christian teachers (on their own admission) for using the words 'ID' in class.
You bitch and moan about teachers being fired for trying to teach ID, when it is in fact their job to teach what is on the curriculum. If they can teach Id why not anything else, why not Alchemy?
Why not Computer Programming?
Why not Survival in the Wilderness?
Because J C these things are not being tested, if the teacher wastes their classes time with stuff that they don't need to know then they should be punished. If they waste time teaching irrelevant subjects because of personal beliefs, they should be fired.
Until ID is the generally accepted theory of the origins of life and speciation or at the very least is being tested on, it has no place in the classroom.
If a teacher taught you child about the truth of Islam and how it was the one true faith, you'd be (or should be) up in arms demanding that teacher be let go!
Now drop that inane point or face me, with one more reason to have no respect for any point you ever make.0 -
...this is a classical 'set up' which amounts to nothiing more than 'I wouldn't discriminate against you because you are a Jew ... but I am going to sack you now that I have found out that you won't eat the nice cocktail sausages that my wife makes!!!"doctoremma wrote:Nearly everyone has said that if their unfounded/unscientific beliefs are left out of the classroom, then it's fine. A few here may well express doubts about the ability of a creationist to teach evolutionary theory objectively. This is fine. Not one person has said that they would not hire/sack a teacher for anything less than incompetence.
Originally Posted by J C
as they unashamedly SACK Christian teachers (on their own admission) for using the words 'ID' in class
doctoremma
In science class, yes.
...and will they also sack science teachers who point out the scientific weaknesses in the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled - and Causes Creation Scientists to Laugh' ... on the basis that ONLY complete and absolute adoration and worship at the Darwinian Shrine is allowed in school ... BY LAW??!!!!
...and are they going to expel any student who questions this baloney in science class ... on the basis that they are interrupting a Religious Worship Service ... and they must be silent before the 'God of Darwinism' ... or suffer the consequences??:(:(0 -
...so you ADMIT that Darwinism is a Religion just like Islam???Genghiz Cohen wrote: »You bitch and moan about teachers being fired for trying to teach ID, when it is in fact their job to teach what is on the curriculum. If they can teach Id why not anything else, why not Alchemy?
Why not Computer Programming?
Why not Survival in the Wilderness?
Because J C these things are not being tested, if the teacher wastes their classes time with stuff that they don't need to know then they should be punished. If they waste time teaching irrelevant subjects because of personal beliefs, they should be fired.
Until ID is the generally accepted theory of the origins of life and speciation or at the very least is being tested on, it has no place in the classroom.
If a teacher taught you child about the truth of Islam and how it was the one true faith, you'd be (or should be) up in arms demanding that teacher be let go!
Now drop that inane point or face me, with one more reason to have no respect for any point you ever make.
...anyway, if I were a Muslim I would have no problem with my children being taught that Islam was the one true faith...
...and I guess, if I were a Darwinist, I also would have no problem with my children being taught that Darwinism was the one true faith....
...because I am NOT a Darwinist I DO have a problem with my children being 'brainwashed' by a one-sided presentation on how best to worship Darwin !!!!
...if you want to give a balanced and factual presentation on Evolution 'warts and all' I have no particular problem with it!!!
Your argument that ... evolution should be taught exactly as per the curriculum ... gleefully ignores the fact that the curriculum has been devised, in many cases, by Darwinists for Darwinists !!!0 -
Advertisement
-
...this is a classical 'set up' which amounts to nothiing more than 'I wouldn't discriminate against you because you are a Jew ... but I am going to sack you now that I have found out that you won't eat the nice cocktail sausages that my wife makes!!!"
I don't know what this is meant to illustrate. If someone is unfit for the job, you can refuse to hire them or sack them if their incompetence becomes apparent at a later date. In your scenario, the most salient point to be made is that it would be highly unlikely that eating cocktail sausages made by the boss' wife is a necessary part of a job and were you to be sacked for such a thing, I would strongly receommend a lawsuit. It may be worth noting at this stage that, as a vegetarian, this would be the action I would take.
Kinda loses it's impact when you switch the scene from religious discrimination, huh?...and will they also sack science teachers who point out the scientific weaknesses in the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled - and Causes Creation Scientists to Laugh'
I doubt you understand what the first part of that sentence means. You can't address perceived weakenesses in theory with anything less than a set of maniacal grins and some brightly coloured text stating that it must have been "My Imaginary Friend what dunnit"....and are they going to expel any student who questions this baloney in science class
Don't be so f*cking ridiculous. Pupils don't get expelled for asking questions.... on the basis that they are interrupting a Religious Worship Service ... and they must be silent before the 'God of Darwinism'??:(:(
I retract my first response to this statement.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement