The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

ISAW

J C wrote: »

...funny thing then that nearly all of the predominantly Roman Catholic Countries in Europe supported the Nazis ... to say nothing about Hitler's own 'Catholocism'!!!

Hitler rejected it!

You also ignored the following:
Catholics far and away didn't vote for Hitler but the fundamentalist Protestants and others did!

Look at the maps here if you don't believe me:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/07/catholics-and-nazi-vote-1932.html

Also it was the predominantly Protestant countries of Europe and the rest of the World that put a stop to Hitler's gallop!!!

Actually it was atheist Russia that did that!

... I wouldn't 'go there' if I were you!!!!:(:eek:

I went and you are wrong! It was not catholics who voted for Hitler but Protestants the evidence is clear about that:

Look at the maps here if you don't believe me:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/07/catholics-and-nazi-vote-1932.html

...let's just say that the Saved Christians within all of the churches (including some Roman Catholics) were appalled at what happened ... and many of the 'Sunday Christians' joined in with the Nazis!!!

No lets not. Lets just say that almost the entire public statements on any issue the Pope made when early Nazism was taking hold were against Naziism.

In 1937 Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge condemning Nazi ideology.
The massive Catholic opposition to the euthanasia programmes led them to be quietly ended on 28 August 1941, (according to Spielvogel pp. 257-258) in contrast Catholics only at some occasions actively and openly protested Nazi anti-Semitism in any comparable way,...
In 1937, just before the publishing of the anti-Nazi encyclical, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli in Lourdes, France condemned discrimination against Jews and the neopaganism of the Nazi régime. A statement by Pius XI on 8 September 1938 spoke of the "inadmissibility" of anti-semitism,...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Bernhard_Stempfle

...whatever happened to free speech ... and academic freedom?:(

Nothing as I pointed out the right to free speech does not also come with the right to a audience.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...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!!!!

Hey JC, have i misrepresented your quotes ? In my signature ?

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...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.

My point was (and is) that you seem to be unaware that exponentiation is the inverse operation to that of taking the logarithm i.e. when you say 'convert then back into real numbers' you really mean to say 'exponentiate'.

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.

This is all muddled gobbledygook. The "sum of the CSI contained in each individual word" would be obtained by simply summing the 'CSI' - no need for logarithms or exponents or any of that stuff. That would be true if anyone had ever given a proper definition of 'CSI'. Unfortunately for you, no one has ever done so. Certainly the "sum of the CSI" is not obtained by "adding the probabilites". You are confusing "probability" and "CSI".


Anyway, the point in the Shallit/Elsberry which prompted all this nonsense from you has nothing to do with what you have said. Their calculation is very clear and very correct.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

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.



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

Should we go for a show of hands?

....so you're NOT able to 'stand up' your unfounded allegations ... and you have therefore PROVEN yourself to be a liar !!!

wrote:

Galvasean

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

Hey, I guess he was right about something!

...that would ALSO make the 300 liars ... if they DO say that Wicknight didn't lie when he acused me of 'misrepresenting' these quotes ... and is now unable to 'stand up' his allegations!!!

... I don't think the 300 will say so ... but I could be wrong!!!

J C

wrote:

Origially Posted by J C

...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 ...


equivariant
My point was (and is) that you seem to be unaware that exponentiation is the inverse operation to that of taking the logarithm i.e. when you say 'convert then back into real numbers' you really mean to say 'exponentiate'.


This is all muddled gobbledygook. The "sum of the CSI contained in each individual word" would be obtained by simply summing the 'CSI' - no need for logarithms or exponents or any of that stuff. That would be true if anyone had ever given a proper definition of 'CSI'. Unfortunately for you, no one has ever done so. Certainly the "sum of the CSI" is not obtained by "adding the probabilites". You are confusing "probability" and "CSI".


Anyway, the point in the Shallit/Elsberry which prompted all this nonsense from you has nothing to do with what you have said. Their calculation is very clear and very correct.

...so you HAVE blustered and lied ... up until this post...
... about the SIMPLE mathematical matter of HOW you add ... and how you multiply probabilities!!!
... and to add insult to injury ... you then accused me of lying!!!

The reality is that you can ONLY add probabilities when they are converted into real numbers (and you have now admitted this above) ... and you CAN multiply probabilities by adding their Logs ... exactly like I have always said from the start of this particular 'debate' !!!

BTW, as a Christian, I forgive you ... and I would ask you to not do so again.

I also wish to compliment you for being man enough to step up to the plate and admit you error.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Hey JC, have i misrepresented your quotes ? In my signature ?

... and that makes YOU another liar ... and apparently proud of it!!!

ISAW

J C wrote: »

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

And you gave the above in reply to:

Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
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?

Now i will ask you again
Can you please show me how in each of the above URL's radiometric dating is shown to be wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution.27s_evidence_is_unreliable_or_inconsistent


Examination by geologists have found polystrate fossils to be consistent with in situ formation.
Isaak, M (2004). "Index to Creationist Claims, CC340: Out-of-place fossils"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC340.html

Woodmorappe, John, 1982. Anomalously occurring fossils. Creation Research Society Quarterly 18 (March). http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html

Even 200 anomalies is an insignificant amount compared with the estimated 250 million fossils that have been catalogued and the much larger number that have been discovered.

... 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' ...

Yes as do Christians Jews Muslims and all sorts of non atheists. If by "fellow travellers" you mean "people who go by scientific methodology"


And you DID ask me where does the calcium carbonate come from. I pointed you to a paper which showed where Calcium and Carbon the Oxygen and in fact all elements up to Iron excluding Hydrogen Helium and a trace amount of Lithium originate.

... I asked you where the limestone came from, in such vast quantities all over the world

No you didn't! You asked where Calcium Carbonate came from! And I showed you the mechanism! You did NOT ask how stratification of sedimentary rock in aqueous domains occurs!

Had you done so I would probably have pointed you here or somewhere similar:
http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/sed/sed.html#Stratificationand
http://chestofbooks.com/science/geology/Intro/Chapter-XII-The-Structure-Of-Rock-Masses-Stratified-Rocks.html

... like was all the Calcium Carbonate suspended in water or something before it settled to form vast quantities of limestone all over the world

RTFM

... 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.

RTFM
http://chestofbooks.com/science/geology/Intro/I-Aqueous-Rocks.html


and from above

The stratified rocks form more than nine-tenths of the earth's surface, and if the entire series of them were present at any one place, they would have a maximum thickness of about thirty miles, but no such place is known. The regions of greatest sedimentary accumulation are the shallower parts of the oceans, while those regions which have remained as dry land, through long ages, may not only have had no important additions to their surfaces, but have lost immense thicknesses of rock through denudation. The great oceanic abysses are also areas of excessively slow sedimentation, and thus the thickness of the stratified rocks varies much from point to point, a variation which has been increased by the irregularities of upheaval and depression and of different rates of denudation. Even with this irregularity in the formation and removal of the stratified rocks, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to investigate the entire series of them, if they had all retained the original horizontal positions in which they were first laid down.

there is an extensive body of literature on it backed up by qualitative and quantitative analysis and not just backed up by opinions about what the Bible says in one part when you rejects other parts as not applying to you.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

The reality is that you can ONLY add probabilities when they are converted into real numbers (and you have now admitted this above) ... and you CAN multiply probabilities by adding their Logs ... exactly like I have always said from the start of this particular 'debate' !!!

We don't give a crap about how you do or don't add probabilities because the way to get the sum of the CSI is to sum the CSI, not to sum the probabilities.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

... and that makes YOU another liar ... and apparently proud of it!!!

Care to explain how my quotes are incorrect but yours are fine ?

ISAW

J C wrote: »

... 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)!!!

How could you prove this isn't the Sun going round the Earth and the plane on which the sun is going round is oscillating between 23.5 degrees north and south of the Equator?

By the way:
Pre-telescope naked eye observation also implies pre the invention of the watch!

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 ...

HOW?

... 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!!!!

Not necessarily the ONLY other explaination.
Given you have only the technology of the sixteenth century HOW would you disprove this explanation.

...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!!!

I didn't come up with the term THEY DID! It would be an anachronism to call then something else. Maybe we can call then the ITALIAN Inquisition to distinguish them form the
[monty python mode] Spanish Inquisition [/monty python mode]

.... 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:

In his seventies (quite old for that time) in Medieval Europe he wasn't going to travel far. He wasn't locked up or tortured or fined! He was under house arrest in a vast estate and given the "penance" of having to say several rosaries a day - which he had commuted to his daughter who said them for him and also managed his estate and wealth from an even smaller enclosed convent.

...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????!!

Well one need only look to a similar savant Giordano Bruno for an answer to that.

The Italian version was a rather benign version of the counter reformation response.
In fact even the much more brutal Spanish Inquisition killed relatively very few people compared to wars or compared to the tens of millions killed by later atheistic regimes.

Similar to witch hunting it seems some Eastern European Protestants and Catholics steeped in ignorance and had lost the rationality of Aristotle ironically unlike the Byzantines.

... these guys were some mixed up dudes ... with no sense of proportionality!!!

some of them were quite well educated but they hung on to "this is what the book says" type thinking which was wholly out of place with new knowledge - a bit like Biblical Creationists in fact.

... 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'!!!!

Here we go again! for "athiests etc." you mean "people who adhere to a scientific world view"

Galileo was not persecuted as I just explained! and the example in an analogy only in the sense that Creationists are analogus to the Inquisition and science and now knowledge to Galileo!

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

Where did I say that? In fact with Biblical creationists around the adherence to a "received view" from the literal Bible rather then new knowledge indicate quite the opposite!

... 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.

Well then! Whay were you making fun of theologians who considered this as a "cutting edge" issue? Why were you dissing their input into the ethics surrounding powerful scientific techiques if as you now claim "what is a human being" and whether we can artificially create one in a test tube it is a serous issue?

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!!!

Now what you earlier made a joke about discussing (whether we can and should create life in a test tube and what constitutes "life" ) you compare to murder!
But of a vaunt face on that one eh?

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

How very convenient for you to moralise on what you earlier considered a ridiculous field for moral philosophers and theologian to discuss!

... where was Jesus Christ ... and His Word in all of this 'Pagan Fest' within the Medieval Church???

You sem to have lost the point here! It is a bit like another poster here who is posting (and is incorrect in the assumption) that Darwin plagarised other peoples work. But even if Darwin DID plagiarised the work or even if Darwin didn't believe in God it make NO DIFFERENCE to the validity of the theory of Evolution!

Similarly if Aristotle was a pagan or Einstein a Jew it maked NO DIFFERENCE to the trationality or validity of their work. A scientist can be a believer or a non believer. WE don't only accept Christian Scientists and it makes no difference to the validity of the science if the scientist is christian or Jew or atheist!

... 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!!!!???

As i tols you already - there were NO CLOCKS with 24 hours on them then!!!

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

No it is not just that somethins it is the journey not the destination that matters.
But earlier you rediculed the subject of "what is a human being" and theological and philosophical discussions surrounding it. Now however you have embarked into that very discussion and are making pronouncements on the sanctity of life. How ironic!

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

No they don't! A corporate concern is, like a human being is, a legal entity under law and has rights to own property etc. The right to do so does not flow from the corporation being a human being with a right to life. In fact a corporation has no right at all to prevent forced termination of the corporation by other legal entities.

....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!!!!

It seems you want MORE then that! YOU want equal time in school science for Creationism!
You have no right to that!

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

You have already been show the flaw i that argument!
School science can nor "respect diversity" by givein the science class over to equal time for Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Zoroastrans, atheists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus , Bhuddists etc.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....so you're NOT able to 'stand up' your unfounded allegations ... and you have therefore PROVEN yourself to be a liar !!!

I am able to back up my allegations

I'm simply choosing not to unless you tell me what you will do when I do.

You see everyone here already knows you do this there would be no need to convince anyone else. They already know you misrepresent quotes.

So the only person I would be demonstrating this to would be you, and you have continously ignored posts pointing this out before.

So can you explain the point of demonstrating that you misrepresent quotes?

liamw

How about if Wicknight can show that JC was misrepresenting quotes, then JC has to post a picture of himself holding a placard that says 'evolution is a fact'?

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

How about if Wicknight can show that JC was misrepresenting quotes, then JC has to post a picture of himself holding a placard that says 'evolution is a fact'?

How about if Wicknight can show that JC was misrepresenting quotes JC has to post a picture of himself holding the "science degree" he is supposed to have. :pac:

Morbert

Missed this:

J C wrote: »

....the random mutations would be so overwhelmingly deleterious (in the absence of pre-existing CSI-rich self correcting mechanisms) that they would completely overwhelm any selection system including NS.

... you should remember that very often there is a very limited number of functional permutations for any specific function and the non-functional permutations are effectively infinite.

...and here is what the fossil record ACTUALLY says (according to an Evolutionist) Dr Colin Patterson :-

"Darwin devoted two chapters of The Origin of Species to fossils, but spent the whole of the first in saying how imperfect the geological record of life is. It seemed obvious to him that, if his theory of evolution is correct, fossils ought to provide incontrovertible proof of it, because each stratum should contain links between the species of earlier and later strata, and if sufficient fossils were collected, it would be possible to arrange them in ancestor descendent sequences and so build up a precise picture of the course of evolution. This was not so in Darwin's time, and today, after more than another hundred years of assiduous fossil collecting, the picture still has extensive gaps. Evolution (1999) p.106

But there are still great gaps in the fossil record. Most of the major groups of animals (phyla) appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them. Evolution (1999) p.109

....the 'fossil record' is actually the 'drowning record' of Noah's Flood ... nothing more ... nothing less ...

....and that is why the 'fossil record' simply doesn't 'fit' with Darwins idea that it is a historical record of supposedly 'emerging' new species.:)

Mutations are not always "deleterious".

http://www.la-press.com/journal.php?pa=description&journal_id=17

Also, the fossil record is very extensive.

http://cactus.dixie.edu/jharris/Journal_Links.html

And claiming it's an account of Noah's flood is childish.

smokingman

Morbert wrote: »

And claiming it's an account of Noah's flood is childish.

Isn't is assumed that this biblical flood was the result of the Atlantic finally breaking through the land mass that seperated it from the Mediterranean?

doctoremma

smokingman wrote: »

Isn't is assumed that this biblical flood was the result of the Atlantic finally breaking through the land mass that seperated it from the Mediterranean?

As this is thought to have happened over 5 million years ago, I'm guessing you're not going to get JC on board with that one.

smokingman

doctoremma wrote: »

As this is thought to have happened over 5 million years ago, I'm guessing you're not going to get JC on board with that one.

5 Million years? ...but shur the Earth isn't even that old?!! :pac:

In fairness though, there must have been some kind of a worldwide event closer to now seeing as many different races (and religions) recorded a massive flood in their history.

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

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...so you HAVE blustered and lied ... up until this post...

No I have not. If you choose to interpret my post in that way, it is yet another example of a creationist seeing something and choosing to disregard the evidence of their own eyes in order to further some quasi religious agenda. At least that is how I interpret your nonsense commentary.

The reality is that you can ONLY add probabilities when they are converted into real numbers (and you have now admitted this above) ... and you CAN multiply probabilities by adding their Logs ... exactly like I have always said from the start of this particular 'debate' !!!

This confirms Wicknight's (and later my) point that even when yout errors are pointed out in plain English, you continue to repeat the same nonsense again and again. There is no point in me pointing again to your mistakes. Everyone else can see them already and you refuse to see them.

BTW, as a Christian, I forgive you ... and I would ask you to not do so again.

I do not seek forgiveness from you. (And on a personal note, I find this type of comment incredibly smug and arrogant. However, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.)

I also wish to compliment you for being man enough to step up to the plate and admit you error.

I have not admitted any error in this instance. However, had I made an error, and it was pointed out to me, I would, unlike the typical young earth creationist liar, be perfectly prepared to admit it.

Morbert

smokingman wrote: »

Isn't is assumed that this biblical flood was the result of the Atlantic finally breaking through the land mass that seperated it from the Mediterranean?

There are a few theories. Some are better than others. But to say that the fossil record owes its existence to a global flood is on par with saying the moon owes its existence to tiger woods.

Galvasean

smokingman wrote: »

5 Million years? ...but shur the Earth isn't even that old?!! :pac:

In fairness though, there must have been some kind of a worldwide event closer to now seeing as many different races (and religions) recorded a massive flood in their history.

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

It makes sense that these emerging cultures would be located around a fresh water source such as a river. Rivers do flood, often with catastrophic results for those located nearby. Flood myths are probably based on such events.

J C

equivariant wrote: »

No I have not. If you choose to interpret my post in that way, it is yet another example of a creationist seeing something and choosing to disregard the evidence of their own eyes in order to further some quasi religious agenda. At least that is how I interpret your nonsense commentary.



This confirms Wicknight's (and later my) point that even when yout errors are pointed out in plain English, you continue to repeat the same nonsense again and again. There is no point in me pointing again to your mistakes. Everyone else can see them already and you refuse to see them.


I have not admitted any error in this instance. However, had I made an error, and it was pointed out to me, I would, unlike the typical young earth creationist liar, be perfectly prepared to admit it.

...a cascade defense, if ever I saw one!!

...Look, Equivarient, you were caught lying yourself ... when you erroneously accused me of lying.
I have highlighted in red my claim in relation to the addition of probabilities ... which you styled as lying by myself
... and I have highlighted in red your acceptance that I was correct after all!!!!

If I were you I would 'cut my losses' on this one ... but then, of course, I am not you ... and I wouldn't have made the original unfounded allegation of lying, in the first place!!

wrote:

J C
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.


equivariant
This is all muddled gobbledygook. The "sum of the CSI contained in each individual word" would be obtained by simply summing the 'CSI' - no need for logarithms or exponents or any of that stuff. That would be true if anyone had ever given a proper definition of 'CSI'. Unfortunately for you, no one has ever done so. Certainly the "sum of the CSI" is not obtained by "adding the probabilites". You are confusing "probability" and "CSI".

... its all there on the record of this thread for anybody to read!!!

... as indeed is the support and 'red herrings' thrown in by other Evolutionists to help you to cover up your lie ... and get away with it!!!:(

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

I am able to back up my allegations

I'm simply choosing not to unless you tell me what you will do when I do.

You see everyone here already knows you do this there would be no need to convince anyone else. They already know you misrepresent quotes.

So the only person I would be demonstrating this to would be you, and you have continously ignored posts pointing this out before.

So can you explain the point of demonstrating that you misrepresent quotes?

....so you're NOT able to 'stand up' your unfounded allegations ... that I 'misrepresented' the quotes ... and you have therefore PROVEN yourself to be a liar !!!

....here is my original post ... so please point out where I 'misrepresented' anything in it ...

J C wrote: »

In regard to the issue raised by Galvasean in the last post, I have the following quotes from another Evolutionist ...
... because you don't seem to be prepared to believe me - perhaps you will believe him, on the insurmountable problems that the evidence from the 'fossil record' presents in relation to the idea of 'gradual evolution over time' ... so beloved by Darwin and modern Darwinists ...
... and the fact that the 'gradual ascent of mount improbable' ... has turned out to be the impossible task of climbing the 'cliff faces of mount impossible'!!!:eek::D

This time I am quoting from Prof David M Raup who is a Paleontologist and Paleobiologist at the University of Chicago.
Prof Raup began his academic career at Colby College in Maine before transferring two years later to the University of Chicago where he earned his Bachelor of Science degree. From there, he went to Harvard for graduate studies where he majored in geology while focussing on paleontology and biology; he earned his MA and PhD degrees there. He has received the Charles Schuchert Award in 1973 and the Paleontological Society Medal in 1997

"Darwin’s theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favour of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of the change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection , was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinain natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences. There were several problems, but the principal one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted. ... Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin January 1979 p. 22-3

...it is quite clear that the evidence shows that the 'fossil record' ... is a record of the catastrophic burial of organisms drowned by Noah's Flood ... and their 'sudden appearance' in the record is due to their 'sudden drowning' ... and their lack 'of change during their existence in the record' ... is due to the fact that they are all members of the one species that were all drowned at roughly the same time!!!!:d
... Prof Raup has confirmed that the 'fossil record' is inconsistent with the idea that it is a record of the 'evolution of life over time'!!!:D

"This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that's really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see, or 9 percent, or .9 percent." Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin January 1979 p. 26
... and it also doesn't tell us anything about how any of the CSI that was present in the fossilised organisms, when they were alive came about either!!!!

Prof Raup is indeed correct when he says that "We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of the change". Organisms do indeeed change (often very rapidly) over time ... due to the inter-action of their pre-existing genetic diversity in their Created CSI and environmental/artificial selection. The big question is where the mega-bit CSI that allows them to do so, came from in the first place. Creation Science has proven that the scale of the CSI is such that it could only have an intelligent origin ... and the Evolutionists are floundering about, handwaving and unable to come up with any reasonable explanation!!!!
One can only hope that these FACTS are also pointed out to the four year olds who are soon to be on the receiving end of the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled - and Causes Creation Scientists to Laugh'!!!:eek::D

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...a cascade defense, if ever I saw one!!

...Look, Equivarient, you were caught lying yourself ... when you erroneously accused me of lying.
I have highlighted in red my claim in relation to the addition of probabilities ... which you styled as lying by myself
... and I have highlighted in red your acceptance that I was correct after all!!!!

If I were you I would 'cut my losses' on this one ... but then, of course, I am not you ... and I wouldn't have made the original unfounded allegation of lying, in the first place!!




... its all there on the record of this thread for anybody to read!!!

... as indeed is the support and 'red herrings' thrown in by other Evolutionists to help you to cover up your lie ... and get away with it!!!:(

I was not caught lying. Does anyone, other than J C think this? The record of the thread completely contradicts your assertion that I was caught lying. It is utterly disingenuous of you to suggest that. We all know who the liar is here. I accused you of lying several times on this thread and I stand by every one of those accusations. You have never presented any evidence that you are "qualified mathematician" - having a degree with one or two basic mathematical courses does not count when you are attempting to argue about information theoretic ideas. You have lied about other people on this thread by accusing them of supporting discriminatory practises, and you have lied by quoting out of context. All of these things are matters of record. I stand by every one of those accusations.

Your red highlighted passages do not indicate what you say they do (young earth creationist reasoning if ever I saw it).

As you say "... its all there on the record of this thread for anybody to read!!!" I am quite happy to let people decide for themselves which, if either of us, has been exposed as a liar in this thread.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Hey JC, have i misrepresented your quotes ? In my signature ?
__________________
I take it a creationist experiment to prove irreducible complexity of humans would involve removing a mans lungs and seeing if he could still breath.

"ironically, ALL of the cold hard indisputable evidence supports [] Evolution" - JC

"We don't want Creation Science to be classed as science" - JC


... Care to explain how my quotes are incorrect but yours are fine ?

... firstly, you have said that you have (deliberately) 'misinterpreted' my quotes/

... secondly, you have done so by remoing key words from my sentences and therefore abridging my words.

...NONE of this applies to anything that I have done in relation to the Evolutionist quotes that I have used.

I always make it clear that the people being quoted are Evolutionists and I DON'T abridge or alter their words in any way. I also use complete sentences ... and often whole paragraphs.

I don't claim to be perfect ... but I'm certainly not a liar.

I would prefer if the debate proceeded in a civilised manner without I me having to resort to pointing out Evolutionist lies on this thread ... but I have had no option only to do so, to defend my good name ... when the mods failed to do so ... and the Evolutionists didn't 'bridle their tongues'!!!!:(

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Look, Equivarient, you were caught lying yourself ... when you erroneously accused me of lying.

Assuming he was in error as you say, if it was done erroneously then how was it a lie? An error is not a lie

J C

equivariant wrote: »

I was not caught lying. Does anyone, other than J C think this? The record of the thread completely contradicts your assertion that I was caught lying. It is utterly disingenuous of you to suggest that. We all know who the liar is here. I accused you of lying several times on this thread and I stand by every one of those accusations. You have never presented any evidence that you are "qualified mathematician" - having a degree with one or two basic mathematical courses does not count when you are attempting to argue about information theoretic ideas. You have lied about other people on this thread by accusing them of supporting discriminatory practises, and you have lied by quoting out of context. All of these things are matters of record. I stand by every one of those accusations.

Your red highlighted passages do not indicate what you say they do (young earth creationist reasoning if ever I saw it).

As you say "... its all there on the record of this thread for anybody to read!!!" I am quite happy to let people decide for themselves which, if either of us, has been exposed as a liar in this thread.

...and I am happy to let the record of the thread stand on all of these issues.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....so you're NOT able to 'stand up' your unfounded allegations ... that I 'misrepresented' the quotes ... and you have therefore PROVEN yourself to be a liar !!!

....here is my original post ... so please point out where I 'misrepresented' anything in it ...

And around the merry-go-round we go

ISAW

J C wrote: »

I have highlighted in red my claim in relation to the addition of probabilities ... which you styled as lying by myself

Where? Where do you say something about probabilities and wher doe she diorectly reply "that is a lie"?

I am not asking you whether it is mathematically valid or not . A lie is when you say something you know not to be true. Where does he say this? where does he say something you say is not true and you know it is not true and still maintain it?

... and I have highlighted in red your acceptance that I was correct after all!!!!

No you have NOT!
Where does he quote your claim and say your claim is correct?

... as indeed is the support and 'red herrings' thrown in by other Evolutionists to help you to cover up your lie ... and get away with it!!!:(

Where does he say something which is not true and which he knows not to be true.
And i am not talking about claims you are a liar. I am talking about actual factual data that can be shown not to be true. Data about evolution. Where does he maintain this is true and after being shown it isn't true through woidely accepted scientific data still maintain it is true spite of it not being true?

If you can't show that you can't support a claim anyone is a liar.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Assuming he was in error as you say, if it was done erroneously then how was it a lie? An error is not a lie

...another 'cascade defense' from one of the 'Evolutionist 300'

If you attempt to destroy somebody's good name by deliberately accusing them of lying ... and your accusation is without foundation ... that cannot be considered an error!!!

However, I have already said that I forgive Equivarient ... and all I ask is that in future we all stick to (robustly) debating the issues at hand ... including the mercilesss exposure of each other's errors ... and without calling our errors lies, when there is no foundation for such an allegation!!!

ISAW

J C wrote: »

... firstly, you have said that you have (deliberately) 'misinterpreted' my quotes/

Where? Can you supply several examples?

... secondly, you have done so by remoing key words from my sentences and therefore abridging my words.

Where? Examples?

...NONE of this applies to anything that I have done in relation to the Evolutionist quotes that I have used.

The fact that you have or have not misquoted has nothing to do with showing the claim you make about THEM!

I always make it clear that the people being quoted are Evolutionists and I DON'T abridge or alter their words in any way. I also use complete sentences ... and often whole paragraphs.

It is important that quotes are used and attributed fairly but this childish "you are a liar" stuff is distracting from the debate. Claims of "i always do x y or z" are not proof that you always do it.

I don't claim to be perfect ... but I'm certainly not a liar.

I haven't claimed you were a liar and I suggest you move on with the debate and don't get bogged down in this tete a tete. Even if you believe you are not a liar and you believe you were accused in the wrong "he called me names" doesn't make for debate. Please move on. If you think someone is calling you a liar and you don't deserve to be called that then just ignore them or report them. don't waste time with "yes you did...no you didn't" type stuff

I would prefer if the debate proceeded in a civilised manner without I me having to resort to pointing out Evolutionist lies on this thread ...

Or lack of them . i would prefer it too.

but I have had no option only to do so, to defend my good name

good for you! Consider your good name defended. now move on!

... when the mods failed to do so ... and the Evolutionists didn't 'bridle their tongues'!!!!:

I have little respect for mods on boards. IMHO they have earned that lack of respect.
Mind you you are now suggesting the mods should act but mods wont act because they dont think for you .
If you have a problem you thing the mods shguld address you have to lodge a complaint and not expect them to read you mind or ever message in every thread.

But since you didn't complain you can not expect any mods to act.