The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

But if it is not intelligently designed and/or guided then what else can it be but a chance accidental and purposeless happening? Those are the only choices and the evidence does not point to the latter I'm sorry.

If it's not intelligently guided it could be guided by natural selection, which is the opposite of "chance accidental and purposeless happenings" so you're right that the evidence doesn't point to that and you really should look into what the theory actually says before dismissing it. What you hear from creationists are ridiculous straw men of evolution.

If it's not natural selection it could be any number of other things that we don't yet understand. The point is that the only way to determine if an intelligent agency did something is to verify unequivocally that an intelligent agency did it. It's not enough to just find something we can't explain and declare that it must have been done by such an agency. That is "I don't know so it must be god" logic and it's not science. If we can't explain something it means nothing more than we can't explain it. What you're actually saying is "I can't explain it, therefore I can explain it"

Soul Winner wrote: »

That intelligence does not need to be explained in order for the inference that intelligence must be involved to stand.

Actually yes it does

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

What does it matter? Darwin was a fine writer. So what? Does the fact that he was a fine writer make him immune to the fact that he was a plagiarizer, if he was one? No, I don't think so.

What is the point that you're making? As you say, so what if Darwin plagiarised the idea? Contrary to creationist lies we don't worship Darwin and I don't particularly care if it turns out that he plagiarised the idea. I wouldn't care if it turned out the guy was a mass murderer because that in no way effects the fact that the theory of evolution by natural selection has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...please show me WHERE I misrepresented or ignored anything in these quotes?

Why?

What will you do if I do? Will you admit you were misrepresenting the quote and other quotes like it, pack up your pseudo-science nonsense and leave this thread never to darken it again with your nonsense?

I doubt it.

So explain to me again why exactly I should waste time trying to prove to you that you were doing something that me, you and everyone else here knows you were doing?

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

But if it is not intelligently designed and/or guided then what else can it be but a chance accidental and purposeless happening? Those are the only choices and the evidence does not point to the latter I'm sorry.

If I said to you "The Bible does not support Christian claims about Jesus I'm sorry." you would be rightly taken by surprise. Similarly, when you say the evidence does not point to the latter I am equally taken by surprise. We have reams upon reams of research into evolutionary biology, all supporting the hypothesis that life develops through the natural selection of random mutation. No purpose or intelligence is implied by any of this data.

But even if evolution failed to explain some biological phenomenon, then that lends to weight to the claim of intelligent design. I have spent many posts discussing teleological arguments tendered by philosophers, and they are all boil down to assumptions stemming from incredulity.

doctoremma

Soul Winner wrote: »

But if it is not intelligently designed and/or guided then what else can it be but a chance accidental and purposeless happening? Those are the only choices and the evidence does not point to the latter I'm sorry.

Morbert +1. All the evidence points to the latter.

And just to add, what's all this need for "purpose"?

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

Morbert +1. All the evidence points to the latter.

And just to add, what's all this need for "purpose"?

Be careful now doctoremma, look at his use of the word chance. Soul Winner's understanding is that evolution is completely random but as everyone who understands evolution knows it's not. It's probably best described the way Dawkins described it in an interview once: The non-random selection of random mutations. Just look at this link that J C provided before:

http://www.randommutation.com/index.php

It's supposed to model evolution and devastatingly show how mutation + selection can't produce anything useful but the select button doesn't actually do anything other than refresh the page :rolleyes:

doctoremma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Be careful now doctoremma, look at his use of the word chance. Soul Winner's understanding is that evolution is completely random but as everyone who understands evolution knows it's not.

So why do they keep lying about what we are saying? It's almost as if they can only put up a decent argument by misrepresenting our position...

Oh wait.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's probably best described the way Dawkins described it in an interview once: The non-random selection of random mutations. Just look at this link that J C provided before:

http://www.randommutation.com/index.php

It's supposed to model evolution and devastatingly show how mutation + selection can't produce anything useful but the select button doesn't actually do anything other than refresh the page :rolleyes:

Lol, I hadn't noticed the "select" function before.

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

So why do they keep lying about what we are saying? It's almost as if they can only put up a decent argument by misrepresenting our position...

Oh wait.

:eek: Could it be????!?!?!?!?!?

doctoremma wrote: »

Lol, I hadn't noticed the "select" function before.

If you "click to learn more" it says this load of nonsense:

If you play with the Random Mutation Generator for about 10 minutes, you begin to see that in order to get your sentence to evolve in any useful way at all, the mutations would HAVE to focus on individual words and leave the other words alone. But maddeningly, the mutation generator doesn't do that. It just randomly destroys the stuff that was already good. Random mutation is blind and has no respect for what is already working fine.

He's absolutely right that random mutation has no respect for what's already working fine but natural selection most certainly does and that's the bit he left out of his simulator

ISAW

Soul Winner wrote: »

What does it matter? Darwin was a fine writer. So what? Does the fact that he was a fine writer make him immune to the fact that he was a plagiarizer, if he was one? No, I don't think so.

What do you think the fact of whether or not Darwin plagiarised anything has to do with the discussion of biblical creationism? why is it relevant tot the discussion? You already stated it had nothing to do with it so why keep harping on about it if it has nothing to do with evolution as a theory being correct?

darjeeling

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well for lay people like me for instance I was always under the impression that it was Darwin who came up with the concept of Natural Selection. But if I find out that he merely stole the idea from someone else, well that sort of throws a spanner into the works in terms of me respecting such a person as an orignial thinker.

Curators and students of Darwin's notebooks and manuscripts tell us that he had developed a theory of evolution through natural selection around 1838, not long after his return from the Beagle voyage, and had produced a substantial book draft by around 1844. However, he held back publishing until 1858, when his correspondence with Wallace impelled him to act so as not to be scooped.

Darwin's 'Origin', published in 1859, was much more substantial than the essay Wallace had sent to Darwin the previous year. Knowing that the idea of evolution through natural selection would be controversial, Darwin had sought to collate evidence from many different fields of natural history, and to build this evidence into a very detailed and persuasive argument.

Darwin's work wasn't limited to evolution. He figured out how coral atolls form, and spent years on a comprehensive study of barnacles. His last book was a summation of his years of work on earthworms; Darwin was keen to ensure he had published on these creatures, as he put it, "before joining them".

.

optogirl

BTW did you know that God doesn’t BELIEVE in Atheists?!!!!

In fact, Jesus Christ died so that YOU TOO could spend eternity with Him in Heaven. All you need to do is to stop believing in the plainly ridiculous idea that people are ultimately descended from muck, repent of your sins and believe on the ONLY person who can save you, Jesus Christ.

1. What age are you?
2. Don't you believe that God CREATED Atheists?
3. Seriously?

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

http://www.randommutation.com/index.php

It's supposed to model evolution and devastatingly show how mutation + selection can't produce anything useful but the select button doesn't actually do anything other than refresh the page :rolleyes:

The 'Select' button along with the 'Revert...' button acts just like Copy/Paste. Not sure why it's called select, as I don't see how it has anything to do with selection of any sort.

Anyway we know why sentences are a bad analogy, because we start the process with a specific target in mind. In Dawkin's 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' example, he admits that having a target is wrong, although his example worked OK for basic demonstration purposes.

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

Anyway we know why sentences are a bad analogy, because we start the process with a specific target in mind. In Dawkin's 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' example, he admits that having a target is wrong, although his example worked OK for basic demonstration purposes.

Having one specific specific target is a poor simulation but in order for natural selection to work there has to be some way for the relative fitness of a mutation to be determined and to have that mutation chosen over the less fit ones. In Dawkins' example the "fittest" one was the one that had the most letters the same as the METHINKS sentence but in nature the fittest is the one that can run the fastest or swim the farthest or see the best or reproduce the most etc etc etc.

Creationists tend to think of the entire sentence as an irreducible unit but it would be better to think of each letter as an "attribute" of an organism and the entire sentence as the fastest, strongest, longest living, healthiest, most fertile etc etc combination possible for that organism. Every sentence other than the target one represents an organism that has some function but not the ideal function of the target. So the word METHINKS represents an eye like ours but the word METINS represents an eye that's missing the iris or the colour receptive cones, still functional but not ideal. You could even think of a lot of the letters as representing devastating mutations that result in instant death and the process still works because these ones aren't selected, leaving behind the ones that don't have those mutations

J C

optogirl wrote: »

1. What age are you?
2. Don't you believe that God CREATED Atheists?
3. Seriously?

...God Created the CSI that is in Atheist's Genomes ... but He doesn't believe in Atheists and their 'whacky' ideas!!!!

equivariant

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

What will you do if I do? Will you admit you were misrepresenting the quote and other quotes like it, pack up your pseudo-science nonsense and leave this thread never to darken it again with your nonsense?

I doubt it.

So explain to me again why exactly I should waste time trying to prove to you that you were doing something that me, you and everyone else here knows you were doing?

Best post in the last 2000 at least

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...please show me WHERE I misrepresented or ignored anything in these quotes?


Wicknight
Why?

What will you do if I do? Will you admit you were misrepresenting the quote and other quotes like it, pack up your pseudo-science nonsense and leave this thread never to darken it again with your nonsense?

I doubt it.

So explain to me again why exactly I should waste time trying to prove to you that you were doing something that me, you and everyone else here knows you were doing?

...because if you don't you will have proven yourself to be a liar !!!

I asked you to 'stand up' your allegations that I misrepresented these quotes ... and you have now shown yourself unable to do so!!!!

...if you were a person of integrity you would now withdraw your scurrilous unfounded allegations!!!!

J C

equivariant wrote: »

Best post in the last 2000 at least

... you must have very low standards ... if this is the best post that Evolutionists can come up with!!!!

J C

ISAW wrote: »

WHERE? Give me the example of the dating of them and the contradictory radiometric dating from PUBLISHED scientific data.

Examples? sources? and care to demonstrate how this invalidat4es radiometric dating?

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm
http://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth
http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/polystrate_fossils.htm
http://images.google.com/images?q=polystrate+fossils&rls=com.microsoft:en-ie:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GPEA_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=4daCS9H9DZO7jAfS2NywBA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CCkQsAQwBA
http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil%20Trees%20of%20Nova%20Scotia.htm
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html

ISAW wrote: »

From inside stars. there is a famous paper by Burbridge and his wife and fred Hoyle and Fowler explaining stellar neucleosynthesis of the periodic table called b squared F H.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C2%B2FH
http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v29/i4/p547_1

That's where the carbon and calcium and oxygen in Calcium carbonate originated.

By the way the stars take millions of years to manufacture such mass of elements.

... I didn't ask you where the elements that make up limestone come from ... I already know that the Atheists and 'their fellow travellers' believe that the elements are all 'stardust' ...
... I asked you where the limestone came from, in such vast quantities all over the world ... like was all the Calcium Carbonate suspended in water or something before it settled to form vast quantities of limestone all over the world

... and how did the Calcium Carbonate just happen to infiltrate and cement all other sedimentary rock as well? Specifically, how were large quantities of cementing agents (usually limestone and silica) produced, transported, and deposited, often quite uniformly, between sedimentary grains worldwide? Especially perplexing has been finding the source of so much silica and the water to distribute it.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

... you must have very low standards ... if this is the best post that Evolutionists can come up with!!!!

Well I do have low standards. I have chosen to debate with wilfully ignorant (young earth) creationists, and you can't get much lower than that.

Anyway, Wicknights observation is a good one. Ultimately, there is little pointing out to a YEC, the errors and facllacies of their arguments, They just repeat the same old rubbish again and again.

In my particular case, I have pointed out huge embarassingly infantile errors in your attempt at mathematical reasoning. One of your responses was to tell me to 'consult a mathematician' or something to that effect.

Well, J C, I am a mathematician. I have a PhD (in mathematics) from a respected university and have published original mathematical research in peer reviewed journals and spoken at international mathematical conferences. So it seeme that there are 3 basic possibilities.

1. I could just be ignorant of basic properties of logarithms. Despite having studied mathematics for most of the last 20 years, I could be in error about this elementary aspect.

2. I am part of the vast conspiracy to supress creation 'science', As part of this conspiracy, I am attempting to mislead people about elementary mathematics.

3. You are completely mathematically incompetent and are trying to cover your ignorance with bluster and lies.

I'll let anyone who cares decide for themselves which of these possibilities is most likely true. There is (as Wicknight observed) little point in pointing out your mistakes yet again, as you will never acknowledge any error on your part.

doctoremma

Well, J C, I am a mathematician. I have a PhD (in mathematics) from a respected university and have published original mathematical research in peer reviewed journals and spoken at international mathematical conferences. So it seeme that there are 3 basic possibilities.

1. I could just be ignorant of basic properties of logarithms. Despite having studied mathematics for most of the last 20 years, I could be in error about this elementary aspect.

2. I am part of the vast conspiracy to supress creation 'science', As part of this conspiracy, I am attempting to mislead people about elementary mathematics.

3. You are completely mathematically incompetent and are trying to cover your ignorance with bluster and lies.

Equi, you can't see it but I am doing that shaking-hand-downwards-so-that-your-fingers-snap-together movement. I might follow it with a two-handed-stir-the-bowl and finish with a Naboo-stylee turn-my-back-on-you move.

J C

ISAW wrote: »

Actually you are WRONG about that! The Inquisition DID take the information on board. Galileos fight was with academics not Popes! the Holy Inquisition were aware of Thyco's system and knew galileo was proposing a false dichotomy. but let me ask you based on naked eye observation even today - how would you prove the Earth moves or goes around the Sun?

... very easily, due to the tilt in its axis ... the seasonal day shortening and lengthening throughout the year proves that the Earth orbits the Sun ... and you can prove this with a watch (and the naked eye)!!!
It is also easy to prove (with the naked eye) that the Earth is rotating versus the Sun and all the stars in the Galaxy ...
... the only alternative explanation is that the entire Galaxy rotates about the Earth every 24 hours ... and ONLY a Medieval Inquisitor with an axe to grind ... or a quick burning at the stake to attend, would swallow that one!!!!

...BTW ... where did you come up with the term 'Holy Inquisition' ... I can think of many more appropriate words that could be used to describe that particular example of man's inhumanity to, and intolerance of, his fellow man!!!

ISAW wrote: »

Galileo was NOT CONVICTED of heresy. He was convicted od suspiction of minor heresies. The heresies being geokeneticism and heliocentrism.

.... and for the mere suspicion of minor heresies he had to publicly recant his 'heresy' and was then locked up under house arrest for the rest of his life!!!:eek:
...what would they have done to him if he had committed a major heresey ... like continuing to maintain that the obvious was true ... I wonder????!!
... these guys were some mixed up dudes ... with no sense of proportionality!!!

... the persecution of Galilelo for exposing the truth has uncomfortable 'echoes' with the dispropotionate way that teachers in America are currently treated for the 'heresy' of mentioning the OBVIOUS existence of ID, within earshot of an Atheist or their 'fellow travellers'!!!!

...and you thought that the 'Inquisition' was consigned to the 'dustbin' of history!!!:eek:

ISAW wrote: »

But you are saying that a fertilised egg even in a freezer therefore should derive ALL the human rights that a newborn child has for example? so how would you deal with adopting an egg or inheritance of title or property or shares? what if the egg was frozen for a century. How would you deal with a tontine? Or what about the debt owed by a 200 year old egg when it is implanted and born? There are all sorts of implications?

... It is a Human Being ... with all of the potential of any other Human Being to live to 70!!!
The legal and moral issues need to be seriously considered before embarking on creating the fertilised egg, in the first place. People cannot murder their newborn children just because they find them an inconvenience or didn't plan for them ... and when it comes to deliberately fertilising a Human egg the 'unplanned' excuse is even removed!!!

ISAW wrote: »

Irrelevant, but the theological position of most Christians AFAIK is this : that some stage AFTER conception a soul comes into the body. The only way of being 100 percent certain that you are correct in it being human is to take time zero - the moment of conception. This is not to say a fertilised egg is a human being but it is the point after which you cant be sure. Other legal opinion says six weeks or eight or even up to 26 weeks.

....how very convenient if you want to experiment on them!!!!

ISAW wrote: »

that is a simplistic analysis. Aquinas adopted Greek rationality into Christianity. it was the Socratic/Platonic/Aristotlean REASONING that became the rational basis for Christianity, just as it became the basis of science. this is not to say that science and religion insisted Aristotle was always right just that God and science was founded in rationality.

... where was Jesus Christ ... and His Word in all of this 'Pagan Fest' within the Medieval Church???
... and then they had the audacity to go hunting 'Heretics' ... whose only offense was to look at the Universe and conclude that it was the Earth ... and not the rest of the Universe that rotated every 24 HOURS!!!!???

ISAW wrote: »

The point was not what have theologists come up with regarding science ethics etc. but that it is considered a field worthy devoting their effort to.

... the point very much is WHAT they are concluding in relation to these matters!!!!

ISAW wrote: »

WHAT rights are inalienable? When is someone human? what additional rights can be given, taken away or become inalienable when given? That is the point I was making.

... the ultimate inalienable right is the right to life ... and from this all other rights follow!!!!

ISAW wrote: »

... your tiny minority who claim that the Universe must be no more than 6000 years old. Why should they have their beliefs enforced equally over the vast majority of humanity?

....I don't want anything enforced ... all I want is my God-Given right to proclaim His Word to anybody who will listen ... and to not be discriminated against because of my faith!!!!

... pretty basic stuff really in any society that claims to respect 'diversity'!!!

J C

equivariant wrote: »

Well I do have low standards. I have chosen to debate with wilfully ignorant (young earth) creationists, and you can't get much lower than that.

Anyway, Wicknights observation is a good one. Ultimately, there is little pointing out to a YEC, the errors and facllacies of their arguments, They just repeat the same old rubbish again and again.

In my particular case, I have pointed out huge embarassingly infantile errors in your attempt at mathematical reasoning. One of your responses was to tell me to 'consult a mathematician' or something to that effect.

Well, J C, I am a mathematician. I have a PhD (in mathematics) from a respected university and have published original mathematical research in peer reviewed journals and spoken at international mathematical conferences. So it seeme that there are 3 basic possibilities.
1. I could just be ignorant of basic properties of logarithms. Despite having studied mathematics for most of the last 20 years, I could be in error about this elementary aspect.

2. I am part of the vast conspiracy to supress creation 'science', As part of this conspiracy, I am attempting to mislead people about elementary mathematics.

3. You are completely mathematically incompetent and are trying to cover your ignorance with bluster and lies.

I'll let anyone who cares decide for themselves which of these possibilities is most likely true. There is (as Wicknight observed) little point in pointing out your mistakes yet again, as you will never acknowledge any error on your part.

...now that you have confirmed that you are a Mathematician ... you obviously are NOT ignorant of the basic properties of logarithms ...
... so can I ask you to confirm the veracity of the following ... and remember other mathematicians are watching ... if you are tempted to bluster and lie yourself!!!!

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 ...

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... it's the reason WHY 'mount improbable' RAPIDLY becomes 'mount impossible' with increasing chain-length in the functional biomolecules involved!!! This is basic Maths ...

JC, you really are suggesting that a longer sequence of amino acids must be the result of a higher "amount of CSI" simply because it is a longer sequence of amino acids, aren't you?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, you really are suggesting that a longer sequence of amino acids must be the result of a higher "amount of CSI" simply because it is a longer sequence of amino acids, aren't you?

...Equivarient has a question to answer FIRST!!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

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 ...

Oh mother of mercy!
Please explain how I should add this :

and

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh mother of mercy!
Please explain how I should add this :
[latex]e^2+e^3[/latex]
and
[latex]\log_10{5}+\log_10{2}[/latex]

...Equivarient has a question to answer FIRST!!!!

...and Wicknight has to 'stand up' his allegations against me ALSO!!!

... so please give them the time and space to do so.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...because if you don't you will have proven yourself to be a liar !!!

No, it has already been demonstrated to everyone else that you have been misrepresenting quotes.

I would be only be trying to "prove it" to you, and since you undoubtly don't care that would seem to be a completely pointless task, given that the last number of times I or others went to the trouble of pointing out that you were misrepresenting quotes you simply ignored us.

J C wrote: »

I asked you to 'stand up' your allegations that I misrepresented these quotes ... and you have now shown yourself unable to do so!!!!

I think I have, since everyone else seems to be pretty convinced you misrepresent quotes.

Should we go for a show of hands?

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

I think I have, since everyone else seems to be pretty convinced you misrepresent quotes.

Should we go for a show of hands?

300 say he did. One says he didn't.

Hey, I guess he was right about something!

darjeeling

Galvasean wrote: »

300 say he did. One says he didn't.

Hey, I guess he was right about something!

This seemed oddly appropriate.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

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.

That doesn't make any sense. You said "the sum of the CSI" but you're not summing CSIs, you're summing probabilities. I think it's amazing that this has to be pointed out to you but if I have 6 fruit bowls each containing a certain number of apples and I want the total number of apples then I add up the apples in each bowl. Similarly if I have 6 words each containing a certain amount of CSI and I want the total amount of CSI then I add up the CSI in each word. I don't get some other related measure and add that up because that's like getting the total number of pips in the apples and then saying that the pip total is the same as the apple total

Apples +apples = more apples
Pips + pips = more pips
Pips + pips =/= more apples


CSI + CSI = more CSI
Probability + probability = more probability
Probability + probability =/= more CSI

J C wrote: »

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.

I fully agree. That's what I've been doing. The total CSI in the sentence is equal to the sum of the CSI of each individual word (plus the spaces). The total CSI in all of the words of the sentence is not equal to the sum of the probabilities of each word because that doesn't make any sense. Total CSI is got by adding CSIs, not by adding probabilities. And it's definitely not got by adding the inverse of the probabilities which is what you're doing.