The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

ISAW

def wrote: »

Cannabis is pretty well researched now at this stage, from what i can see there is two options as to why it is, how it is :
1.It was created by god to meet mans needs ,cloths/sails/tents,oils/lamp feul/deisel,food,concrete/press board, rope/nets,plastics,paper and of course smoking and healing/help deal with pains of the mind,body and soul.

It could easily be the tree of life ,healing of the nations ,if only people would listen.

or 2.Man has evolved to live in a symbiotic relationship with the plant , in theory this plant could be responsible for civilisation as we know it , think for a moment , where and why do we belive civilisation first occured ,as in towns and citys? The middle east ,because of farming.

1. commercial and industrial use is wholly apart form the drug use. I suggest you do some research. It is grown in parts of ireland (im not tellin you where) under EU grants for industrial use e.g. rope and sail making. The "tree of life" nonsence is just "tacked on" to the resp of this point and unrelated to it.

2. is waffle! You have NOT shown the basis for civilization is the cultivation of cannabis in the Middle east, that it was the fiorst plant cultivated! LOL! Hunter gatherers somehow said "look eating this plant makes me feel good. Let us all plant all of these instead of planting food crops" By the same reasoning they could have stated "flowers look pritty lets us all plant flowers instead of things we can eat"!

But the most interesting part about cannabis is the way it effects the mind.

Exactly! which has NOTHING TO DO with other uses! People want it for a recreational drug! By the wa the cannibis of today is far stronger in content then that of ancient times and even than that of Woodstock. compare Superskunk to the "grass2 of woodstock and you have at least ten times the level of THC.

average THC levels in cannabis samples between 1975 and 2007 have increased although I am suspicious of authoritarian manipulation of statistics for their "drug war"
http://www.slate.com/id/2074151

How or why would this plant cannabis evolve to produce 200 or more cannabinoids ?Which serve no desernable use to the plant ,Only to the human who uses it to relax /meditate ,or remove a mole or wart or to treat pains etc .

This can and does happen in all sorts of species. However if Cannibis has 40 carcenogenic compounds tobacco has 400! See how difficult it is to ban tobacco?

It seems that SMOKING cannabis doesnt cause lung cancer .Maybe it even prevents lung,throat and mouth cancer .

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link

which begins:
The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke.

You didn't read it did you? The point being made seems to be to be smoking cannabis causes no more cancer when compared to smoking tobacco!
They found that 80 percent of those with lung cancer and 70 percent of those with other cancers had smoked tobacco while only roughly half of both groups had smoked marijuana.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

SAME STUDY as the one above!

The holy anointing oil is apparently supposed to contain cannabis ,lots of cannabis ,

Can you prve this? and if it is true so what?

heres are a few links for consideration

snipped since you make no argument based on anything from them.

oh ,you should do a bit of reading up on the first pope to declare cannabis the stuff of heathens ,pope Innocent VIII , he was scummy to the core from what i can make out, innocent......what a name.

Care to point out how he was the first Pope to attack recreational cannabis?

So long as you dont worship the golden cow treat your fellow man with respect , love your work ,family and enemys and give thanks for being here you'll be alright , better to be a loving peacefull heathen than a vicious man with a collar ,

Actually you basically quoted the Golden Rule of Christ "love god and love you fellow man"

It doesn't say "love recreational drugs"

ISAW

def wrote: »

Sorry but whats OT ?origional thought?

Off topic I would thin and not original topic or on this group Old Testament.

OP by the way is orginal poster

ISAW

def wrote: »

For all the "evolutionists" what exactly do you belive ? That its survival of the fittist? Do you include the possible lucky freaks? Is it solely chance and nothing more? No will power involved?

I suggest yo go and read something on the subject .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution
But you do point to some things of interest.

For example strict Darwinian evolution is gradualist but Punctuated evolution is catastrophist. I would be of the latter school of thought.

BOTH however still maintain it happened over thousands of millions of years.

"Survival of the fittest" is a cliché. the idea as Darwin put it is that if you have a population of birds and on one island ther are worms under the sand and on another ther are fruit trees that the birds with the pointy beaks will survive on one island and the noes with beaks more suitable for fruit say scimitar shaped on others. Now and again an even more pointy beak may emerge by accident and the descendents of that one are more sucessfull at reaching food than others so they survive and breed more and beaks in the long run tend to get longer there. "Long run" is millions of years.

When I think of how could an orchid develop so only a specific type of bee can pollinate it or how some look and smell like female wasps, luring males over for an unsatisfing quicky,that will leave the FLOWER fertilised (so long as the wasps been tricked before) theres gotta be somthing more at play.

that is a different question but science does also offer a mechanism for that. Look up false negatives and false positives. Of the millions of orchids this one just happened at random to produce this "advantage" over others at that time.

Let us say there were a million other orchids elsewhere that did not attract that bee or that did have the ability but it was in a place without that bee. what happened to them? they either became extinct or at random some OTHER feature (like having a longer beak)
enabled them to attract a different bee. there isnt just ONE single species that depends on another there are a myriad symbiotic relationships.

When I was younger I thought god or somthing must have had somthing to do with this,

Again that is a different subject! whether God had to do with it is different to whether science can explain it.

but lately ive been reading about experiments done with plants attahed to lie detectors.

Really? Plants can lie now can they?
do you mean electroencephalograms?
What experiments?

It seems that not only do plants have emotion but can sense intent! As in when you genuinely intend on causing a plant damage there will be a measurable reaction , this is inline with the talking with your plants ,playing them music etc

It seems you are reading pseudo science and waffle!
Scientists do not attribute emotion and cognition to plants!

Apparently when any form of life is extinguished be it fungus or a spider the plant reacts "dispairs" ,

First I don't believe you and second calling it "dispair" is projection.

It IS true that some plants such as a fly trap react to death but it is more akin to "digestion"

it could be that plants could react to sexual intents of wasps and the hunger driven wants etc of other insects and animals.

YEs . Or it could be that random genetic mutation in plants facilitated the behavioural characteristics of insects in a way that benefited the propagation of the plant.

Its a good idea to warn your grass and bushes there about to be trimmed so they can prepare and go into a non responsive state.

It might be a good idea to stop smoking all that weed if you are and you think it is giving you scientific ideas.

I have yet to aquire the equipment cause this i gotta see,

No you dont you can actually go and read the published research!

But it seems you haven't located the actual research yet.

Now when I hear someone saying stuff like fossils are planted to test faith I put my head in my hands.

Fair enough but this is unconnected to anything before it!

The notion of ID is very vauge ,

and I suspect sometimes purposfully so!

The idea is that The Bible is literally true and that God made everything in the unioverse about 6,000 or so years ago and placed all species there at that time and that science must be wrong because it suggests million and even thousands of millions of years. But you should look up "young Earth Creationist" and their "old Earth" counterparts.

I would suggest you begin with the talk.origins archive

The planet was here for a long time before us so was a lot of stuff,

Yep but creationist would not think "long time" can be more than say 6,000 years.

energy cant be destroyed or created

Yep a physical law

(thought=energy)

And just when you were going good you lapse back into waffle and pseudoscience?

probably all life and everything that it does ,on this planet came indirectly or directly from the sun ,

Hydrogen and Helium and tiny amounts of Lithium were created in the Big Bang. Everything else on earth up to Iron can be attributed to star (although much more massive than out Sun and now extinct). We have the publication to explain this stellar neucleosynthesis.
Anything heavier was made in Supernovas.

our planet was formed by the gentle pull/spin of the sun,

Our SOLAR SYSTEM was! the planet was formed by tis own gravity!
And iof you call 98.5 per cent of all the mass in the system "gentle" who am I to argue.

the suns pull also gave us astroid impacts and the moon , lots of suff ,

No the sun pulled then inward but the Earth also has its own gravity. Anything with mass has.

but what gave us the sun ?

Accretion from stellar nebula leftover form the above supernovae over a period of hundreds of millions of years.

the super massive black hole a the center of the universe?

The universe has no centre unles that centere is everywhere i.e. wherever any observer is.
And the black hole is postulated in our GALAXY!

Its not who did it, its how it got done.

HES GOT IT! BY GEORGE I THINK HES GOT IT!
Yes.
Science explains how and not who or why.
Teleology is what goes beyond that.

It doesnt matter who did it,or if it was intentional at all, so long as your thankfull it happened.

a teleological position. But it does matter. It is just that the science of explaining the mechanism doesn't relate to it. If you hold a gun to my head and i have never seena gun and don't know what it is then it won't change ny behaviour. If I can scientifically explain ballistics I recognise the threat but it still matters whether you are a criminal or say just protecting yourself my understanding of how a bullet will kill me won't have any bearing on whether you shoot me.

What happens when at the end of the day it turns out you were wrong and the big boss is piss*d cause you made fun of all his/her/its/their other kids on the playground that is earth and didnt bother figuring out how he did all this cool stuff. He might make you go again. Fixed religion/set beliefs about the unknown(prejudice) .... risky buisness.

LOL God reincarnating atheists as Biblical fundamental creationists and vice versa! Is God so callous?

def

J C wrote: »

... one is tempted to ask how the Hemp plant feels when it is told that it is going to be 'smoked' ... rather than living out an exciting life as a bag on some beautiful woman's shoulder!!!!:eek::):D

...if you keep on like this, you will give the vegetarians on the thread such pangs of conscience ... that they will turn into anorexics!!!!:):eek:

... and BTW, have you been smoking that stuff YOURSELF ... and are your current postings the result???:(:D

It may be hard to comprehend but a plant that is grown by a human for a purpose be it food ,flowers or other is flattered to help, which makes sense , for if a plant is cultivated for a purpose by people on a mass scale it jumps out of the "natural" game of chance , it now has people making sure it has children and it can now go places it never could have before and in numbers it probably wouldnt have reached "naturaly" also through breeding by people new varietys are created that would never have existed otherwise.These ID cultivars may not do well back out in the wild, but they wont have to worry about that any time soon.

This selective breeding of plants by humans is ID .Humans are the orchestrator.

Naw I havnt been smoking recently. Ive recently (couple weeks) took up the bible.

doctoremma

def wrote: »

This selective breeding of plants by humans is ID. Humans are the orchestrator.

And the same is true for any of the multiple selective breeding programmes humans have enforced for their own ends, be it juicy meat, sweet tomatoes or the good old green.

However, this in no way means that we are the result of an ID process.

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

No. I just know you don't have any evidence for any god. Certainly not any that would be deemed scientific. Therefore, your claim that you have "evidence greater than any scientific speculation" is incorrect - you don't.

You 'just know'. It's not omniscience, it's not telepathy - is it female intuition then, Emma?

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

You 'just know'. It's not omniscience, it's not telepathy - is it female intuition then, Emma?

...or just plain denial of the evidence before her ... every time she looks in the mirror!!!!

J C

Its not just all those missing links in the Evolution Fossil Record Story that are still missing ...
... there is also the Great Unconformity in Geology to also contend with ... where up to 1.2 Billion Evolutionist years are ALSO ... er ... MISSING!!!!:eek:

Let me quote from the following Wiki Link:-
"At Frenchman Mountain in Nevada, there is a gap of about 1.2 billion years where the rock jumps from 500 million years old to 1.7 billion years old. In the Grand Canyon, the clearly visible discontinuity represents a time gap that varies from about 250 million years to 1.2 billion years. The Great Unconformity's missing 1.2 billion years represents about 25% of the earth's history."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformity
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/treiman/greatdesert/workshop/greatunconf/index.html

It is a mystery to Evolutionists ... and they use 'handwaving' excuses like 'erosion' ... it was some almighty continuous 'erosion' over vast areas all over the World to last 1.2 billion Evolutionist years ... without any permanemt deposition phase!!!!
Creation science easily accounts for the Great Unconformity ... which was the once off massive erosion phase within the Noahs Flood Event ... that lasted less than ONE sidereal year!!!:):D

def

ISAW wrote: »

1. commercial and industrial use is wholly apart form the drug use. I suggest you do some research. It is grown in parts of ireland (im not tellin you where) under EU grants for industrial use e.g. rope and sail making. The "tree of life" nonsence is just "tacked on" to the resp of this point and unrelated to it.

Im going to be refering you all to wiki because it reduces the amount of googleing i have to do. If you want information verified or discredited do your own google trawling. Sorry.

If were discusing that cannabis was "created" to serve the needs of man by a loving creater or that is is the tree of life then ,the textile ,fabric ,food ,fuel , cordage ,sealent,medicinal, recreational and spiritual uses are all just uses ,or in the case of the tree of life seperate "fruits".

I have done a lot of learning and research on the matter.

Yes it is grown on the holy ground, not just recently either. It also grows incredibly well in Ireland ,cannabis sativa L (hemp) fairs better than "drug" cultivars ,with the drug cultivars unless grown on hills or mountain sides or in a glasshouse it wont retain the high cannabinoid contents through many generations and quickly through natural selection the flowers become smaller and spaced further apart(less suseptible to mold) and because of high winds wide branchy plants disapear and are replaced by plants resembling the typical "industrial" cultivars.

To this day the Rastifari ,consider Ganja to be the tree of life, many religions consider it sacred, and use it in worship including early jews and christians. Keep in mind that the title Christ means anointed one ,the sacred oil discribed by moses is what you must be anointed with(moses drenched himself head to toe with this before talking to god in his tent) contained about 3 kilos of cannabis flower tops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_spiritual_use_of_cannabis#Ancient_Hebraic_use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(etymology)

this is a good aul read ,i just found it there it should get you in the mood,

"might anoint them with the ointment. The ointment is the mercy of the Father. . . those whom he has anointed are the ones who have become perfect."

http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc11/christ.html

2. is waffle! You have NOT shown the basis for civilization is the cultivation of cannabis in the Middle east, that it was the fiorst plant cultivated! LOL! Hunter gatherers somehow said "look eating this plant makes me feel good. Let us all plant all of these instead of planting food crops" By the same reasoning they could have stated "flowers look pritty lets us all plant flowers instead of things we can eat"!

"Cannabis, called má 麻 or dàmá 大麻 (with "big; great") in Chinese, was used in Taiwan for fiber starting about 10,000 years ago."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#History

"Agriculture was developed at least 10,000 years ago"

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

The origins of agriculture and origins of cannabis do have a geographical corrilation. There is incredible resistance to cannabis when ever its sujested with regards anything, talking about cannabis in a positive or non damning way could end your carrier no matter what that maybe. A lot of people have been brainwashed by tabloids their whole lives and as a result they hold aggressive attitudes and a mental wall to it regardless of facts.

Id say the huntergathers first said hey can you smell that? This plant is huge , hey its got seeds ,these seeds taste good , then later on they said hey im not hungry? all we ate were some of those seeds ,its like eating meat! lets go back and get more ,hey sounds good to me ,I couldnt be botherd picking the seeds out im just gona eat the flowers ,an hour later the whole tribes laughing and eating cannabis flowers.

If you had read my previous posts you would know cannabis seeds are an excellent souce of food ,this was probably the first reason for its use , cannabis seeds are one of the best foods a human can eat ,they contain omega 3 and 6 fatty acids ,very good for the digestive system and the oil from the seeds has anti-imflamitory properties ,even though they contain no cannabinoids! Most people forget this when they talk about medicinal use , a well balenced diet has great "medicinal" value.

Cannabis one the most perfect foods known or available to man ,another fruit on the tree of life.

You should do some research.

Exactly! which has NOTHING TO DO with other uses! People want it for a recreational drug! By the wa the cannibis of today is far stronger in content then that of ancient times and even than that of Woodstock. compare Superskunk to the "grass2 of woodstock and you have at least ten times the level of THC.

It has everything to do with the other uses , its just another use. If you have read the links above you would know that "recreational drug" use , would be called meditative aid , spiritual use ,healing of the mind and soul , ritual use or indeed smoking for leisure or to make hard labour easier.

This is an old wives tale cannabis has not gotten stronger. Firstly back in the woodstock days the cannabinoid percentage was measured as a percentage of the total plant matter as in the whole plant, this was because its the most logical choice and the measurements would have been taken by forensic experts and so on.
Today its a percentage of the flowers(flower bracts ,petistils etc),and the flowering tops only ,this is because the people measuring are cannabis breeders and seed companies and 27% looks a whole lot better than 3%.

But then people will look at the website of a seed company and compare the percentage with a study from the seventies ,yes they say state THC% but it means two differnt things.

The best cannabis on the market(for genetics) is grown by peasent farmers on hill sides around the world ,they have been growing and selecting cultivars long before the 60s , in the past hashish and oils of any where up to 80% cannabinoids were consumed ,and favoured over raw herb.

THC converts (oxidises) into CBN when exposed to light and fluctuating heat by the time grass ,hash or oil made it to europe it would have some what degraded ,reducing theTHC content.
To day its grown in a house down the road or in amsterdam and exported either way its a whole lot fresher than 30 years ago.
Thus it has a higher THC content.

Cannabis which is bred for highTHC content always gains THC at the expense of CBD ,CBD is the anti phycotic cannabiniod or at least the only known one. When cannabis with high THC is consumed heavily and regularly it can ,depending on other life factors ,produce transient psychosis ,this is often misdiagnosed as schizophrenia. But is not perminant and should not be treated with schizophrenia medication ,some CBD would probably do the trick.

Lots of factors to take into acount.

This can and does happen in all sorts of species. However if Cannibis has 40 carcenogenic compounds tobacco has 400! See how difficult it is to ban tobacco?

Carcenogens are the result of burning plant matter as is tar ,these are toxic, but then again smoking oak leaves would be worse , nicotine is a poison , cannabinoids are anything but poison ,non toxic and nothing but helpfull and wholesome to a healthy adult.

The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke.

You didn't read it did you? The point being made seems to be to be smoking cannabis causes no more cancer when compared to smoking tobacco!
They found that 80 percent of those with lung cancer and 70 percent of those with other cancers had smoked tobacco while only roughly half of both groups had smoked marijuana.

tabacco does not contain cannabinoids ,the people who smoked nothing were more likely to develop cancer than the heavy cannabis smokers. There was a negetive corilation.....

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2009/04/01/hscout625697.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7098340.stm

very interesting indeed, another fruit?

Can you prve this? and if it is true so what?

read the links above ,Sula benet proved it and the hebrew universty confirmed it , this means that all followers of moses and jesus should be christened with cannabis oil .They belived it was not only sacred but a link to god and divinity.

Care to point out how he was the first Pope to attack recreational cannabis?

No if you care you can google it your self , easy ,
new tab ,google -pope innocent VIII cannabis ,then hit search.

Actually you basically quoted the Golden Rule of Christ "love god and love you fellow man"

It doesn't say "love recreational drugs"

It says love all drug users ,respect them and its not a problem if you do them so long as you excercise moderation.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

Its not just all those missing links in the Evolution Story that are still missing ...
... there is also the Great Unconformity in Geology to also contend with ... where up to 1.2 Billion Evolutionist years are ALSO ... er ... MISSING!!!!:eek:

Let me quote from the following Wiki Link:-
"At Frenchman Mountain in Nevada, there is a gap of about 1.2 billion years where the rock jumps from 500 million years old to 1.7 billion years old. In the Grand Canyon, the clearly visible discontinuity represents a time gap that varies from about 250 million years to 1.2 billion years. The Great Unconformity's missing 1.2 billion years represents about 25% of the earth's history."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformity
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/treiman/greatdesert/workshop/greatunconf/index.html

It is a mystery to Evolutionists ... and they use 'handwaving' excuses like 'erosion' ... it was some almighty continuous 'erosion' over vast areas all over the World to last 1.2 billion Evolutionist years ... without any permanemt deposition phase!!!!

OK. So your point so far seems to be that it is difficult to explain the geological history of the earth. No scientist will dispute this. Real science is difficult. Real science does not have a get out jail free card like 'god did it'. (No doubt you will quote this post back to me at some point as an acceptance that you are correct about some wild creationist claim. It is not). Note that I am not an expert in geology. I would guess that an expert in geology would give much more specific counterarguments and explanations for the points that you raise (if they are even based on fact, which given your track record and that of creationists in general is far from a given). However, what I find comical is the following...

Creation science easily accounts for the Great Unconformity ... which was the once off massive erosion phase within the Noahs Flood Event ... that lasted less than ONE sidereal year!!!:):D

Having attempted to point out a perceived flaw in real geology, you then offer the creationist explanation - Noah's flood!!!! LOL.

Whatever about gaps of understanding in real science. The idea of Noah's flood amount to one big "god did it" explanation. Completely and utterly unscientific. Why did this flood happen? Not beacause of some underlying climatic change. No, it was because god was angry. Where did the flood waters come from???? Who knows. Why is there absolutely no evidence for this flood? That doesn't matter, we're too busy trying to find some gap in the understanding of real scientists, so that we can undermine their work. Basically, it's like the movie 2012 without the cool special effects and with worse dialog. That's creation 'science' for ya.

J C

def wrote: »

Im going to be refering you all to wiki because it reduces the amount of googleing i have to do...


.... It says love all drug users ,respect them and its not a problem if you do them so long as you excercise moderation.

This is completely off-topic ... could a separate thread be set up for this stuff?

... the smoke is getting in my eyes!!!!:D

J C

equivariant wrote: »

OK. So your point so far seems to be that it is difficult to explain the geological history of the earth. No scientist will dispute this. Real science is difficult. Real science does not have a get out jail free card like 'god did it'. (No doubt you will quote this post back to me at some point as an acceptance that you are correct about some wild creationist claim. It is not). Note that I am not an expert in geology. I would guess that an expert in geology would give much more specific counterarguments and explanations for the points that you raise (if they are even based on fact, which given your track record and that of creationists in general is far from a given). However, what I find comical is the following...



Having attempted to point out a perceived flaw in real geology, you then offer the creationist explanation - Noah's flood!!!! LOL.

...only a Worldwide Flood of enormous proportions CAN account for the evidence that is the worldwide Great Unconformity!!!

equivariant wrote: »

Whatever about gaps of understanding in real science. The idea of Noah's flood amount to one big "god did it" explanation. Completely and utterly unscientific. Why did this flood happen? Not beacause of some underlying climatic change. No, it was because god was angry. Where did the flood waters come from???? Who knows. Why is there absolutely no evidence for this flood? That doesn't matter, we're too busy trying to find some gap in the understanding of real scientists, so that we can undermine their work. Basically, it's like the movie 2012 without the cool special effects and with worse dialog. That's creation 'science' for ya.

...its more like Evan Almighty ... with science added in!!!!
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2631635712/tt0413099

def

ISAW wrote: »

there isnt just ONE single species that depends on another there are a myriad symbiotic relationships.

Im not sure what you mean ,but there are many species of plants and insects that depend on ONE species to reproduce.

Really? Plants can lie now can they?
do you mean electroencephalograms?
What experiments?

http://pureinsight.org/node/1496
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(paranormal)
http://www.skepdic.com/plants.html
http://createwhatyouwant.blogspot.com/2006/03/plants-dont-lie.html

Theres a lot of resistence because it would involve a lot of rewriting.

It IS true that some plants such as a fly trap react to death but it is more akin to "digestion"

They dont react to death ,they start digesting the insect live more often than dead.

[And just when you were going good you lapse back into waffle and pseudoscience?/QUOTE]

Dont be so hasty, the brain uses up quite a large amount of energy, in thought. When your hungry (for energy) do you not lose concentration more easily? Is brain activity not electrical signals? Do we not derive our energy from animals or plants who get energy from the sun?

It might be a good idea to stop smoking all that weed if you are and you think it is giving you scientific ideas.

Come on now play nice , I havnt smoked pot recently at all, how ever it is know to increase creativity and "out side the box" style thinking, indeed stimulate nerve growth , another fruit?

No you dont you can actually go and read the published research!

But it seems you haven't located the actual research yet.

And take all the fun out of it ? Id rather read a bit then prove it to myself.

There is no such thing as havnt found the research , I have access to google and a few books on the topic.

I have "verified" it to some extent myself ,with the very simple experiment I outlined in an earlier post.

Our SOLAR SYSTEM was! the planet was formed by tis own gravity!
And iof you call 98.5 per cent of all the mass in the system "gentle" who am I to argue.

Was it not just a cloud before the suns gentle swing set the snow ball rolling?

Yes gentle , not too strong ,just what was needed no more ,carefull if you will.

No the sun pulled then inward but the Earth also has its own gravity. Anything with mass has.

yes we have our own "pull" but without the suns "help" would they have hit home?

Im not so sure about the anything with mass part ,im a skeptic ,id say spinn or movement could play an overlooked role but im no expert just a thinker...dreamer perhaps.

The universe has no centre unles that centere is everywhere i.e. wherever any observer is.
And the black hole is postulated in our GALAXY!

Typeo , my bad.

LOL God reincarnating atheists as Biblical fundamental creationists and vice versa! Is God so callous?

And then he makes you witness the life , with a sound mind and the right answers, poking fun at all your past sillyness "You thought gravity was solely due to mass!"As he rolls around ,thunder raging. "you thought plants didnt know what was going on!";) Callous no, just a learning experience ,a bit of humility is good forced or voulentary.

def

J C wrote: »

This is completely off-topic ... could a separate thread be set up for this stuff?

... the smoke is getting in my eyes!!!!:D

well there is a bit of backround knowledge required, ye know

first I must try to verify gods "yea its all good"...

and the tree of life.....

the Paul prophecy....lies ,hypocrites.....

I feel its very on topic in relation to these things ,

def

doctoremma wrote: »

And the same is true for any of the multiple selective breeding programmes humans have enforced for their own ends, be it juicy meat, sweet tomatoes or the good old green.

However, this in no way means that we are the result of an ID process.

There all just examples of ID. What about alien ape breeders that lost control of the farm? You just cant know for sure ,could be yes could be no.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...or just plain denial of the evidence before her ... every time she looks in the mirror!!!!

"Thou attend’st not; and so thou hast no frame of reference. Thou art as a child, wandering and strutting amidst the groundlings as a play is in session, heeding not the poor players, their exits and their entrances, and, wanting to know the subject of the story, asking which is the lover and which the tyrant."

From Two Gentlemen of Lebowski

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

You 'just know'. It's not omniscience, it's not telepathy - is it female intuition then, Emma?

Do you have a Nobel Prize?

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...only a Worldwide Flood of enormous proportions CAN account for the evidence that is the worldwide Great Unconformity!!

Since when is it worldwide?

Sam Vimes

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

"Thou attend’st not; and so thou hast no frame of reference. Thou art as a child, wandering and strutting amidst the groundlings as a play is in session, heeding not the poor players, their exits and their entrances, and, wanting to know the subject of the story, asking which is the lover and which the tyrant."

From Two Gentlemen of Lebowski

J C's obviously not a golfer

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...you are not just abridging or truncating quotes like monosharp ... you're 'going the whole hog' ... and making them up!!!:(:eek:

I asked you for a reference from Dembski's book to back up your equations because I think you made them up. The supporting reference you gave was one of your own posts. I then gave a quote from Demski and as a reference to back up my assertion I gave my own post. What's the difference?

Bear in mind that the only acceptable answer to this question must involve a reference to the place in Dembski's book where you got each of the equations you use. Anything else adds to the perception of you as dishonest

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I asked you for a reference from Dembski's book to back up your equations because I think you made them up. The supporting reference you gave was one of your own posts. I then gave a quote from Demski and as a reference to back up my assertion I gave my own post. What's the difference?

Bear in mind that the only acceptable answer to this question must involve a reference to the place in Dembski's book where you got each of the equations you use. Anything else adds to the perception of you as dishonest

...I don't need to quote Dembski on the fact that 2+2=4 ... and as a mathematician myself, I also don't need him or his writings to support the fact that the CSI in a sentence is :-
-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

The sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in a sentence is:-
-log_2[ ((1/m0) ^n0) + ((1/m1) ^n1) + ((1/m2) ^n2)......]

In the case of 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' the amounts of CSI are as follows:-
The CSI in the complete sentence is 133.14 Bits.
... and the sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in the sentence is 38.04 Bits

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...only a Worldwide Flood of enormous proportions CAN account for the evidence that is the worldwide Great Unconformity!!

Genghiz Cohen
Since when is it worldwide?

I have said that the Great Unconformity is worldwide ... and that should be enough for anybody!!!
Anyway, if you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe your fellow evolutionists on this topic.
Bullet point two at the top of the page below confirms that "it (The Great Unconformity) is found nearly everywhere across the globe" ... and this is from a non-Creation Science source ... the Lunar and Planetary Institute ... and the LPI is as evolutionary 'orthodox' as they come!!!

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/treiman/greatdesert/workshop/greatunconf/index.html

ISAW

def wrote: »

There all just examples of ID. What about alien ape breeders that lost control of the farm? You just cant know for sure ,could be yes could be no.

This is on topic . Please take the other arguments to a thread like "Does god support Cannibis use" or suchlike.

AS regards alien ape breeders.
First of all who created the aliens? Other alien farmenrs? and who create4d them etc. etc.
And so it is "aliens all the way down..." LOL!

"Occam's razor" or law of parsimony would suggest that even then at one stage something has to "create" or "spontaneously cause" the first alien in this long chain. so why not assume we are the first in the chain and take it from there?

"We just don't know" is an unsupported hand-waving argument.
Maybe it was the flying spaghetti monster.
WE just don't know may be true but that isn't scientific. In fact some philosophy of science suggests that "if you can't falsify it it ain't science."

ISAW

Originally Posted Originally Posted by J C
...only a Worldwide Flood of enormous proportions CAN account for the evidence that is the worldwide Great Unconformity!!

J C wrote: »

I have said that the Great Unconformity is worldwide ... and that should be enough for anybody!!!
Anyway, if you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe your fellow evolutionists on this topic.
Bullet point two at the top of the page below confirms that "it (The Great Unconformity) is found nearly everywhere across the globe" ... and this is from a non-Creation Science source ... the Lunar and Planetary Institute ... and the LPI is as evolutionary 'orthodox' as they come!!!

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/treiman/greatdesert/workshop/greatunconf/index.html

I'll come back to your ONLY comment later

The above reference you give as support for you "great unconformity" says:

The Great Unconformity is important for three reasons:

* it represents a long span of time -- 250 to 1200 million years in the Grand Canyon;
* it is found nearly everywhere across the globe; and
* it divides rocks with familiar fossils from those with no fossils or only fossil bacteria.
and:

The Great Unconformity here, marked in red, cleanly cuts off the tops of the tilted GCS rocks, which were deposited between ~1,200 and ~800 million years ago.

To be clear about what it is:
An unconformity is a surface in the rock record, in the stratigraphic column, representing a time from which no rocks are preserved. It could represent a time when no rocks were formed, or a time when rocks were formed but then eroded away.

Now, above you claim this could only be caUSED BY A WORLDWIDE FLOOD! This is in fact quite improbably since a worldwide flood (even if it could happen ) would eventually result in sedimentation and ROCK FORMATION not lack of rock formation!


i suppose that thereafter the rock could be eroded but - and here is my point- similar rocks formed by worldwide settling of dust after an extraterrestrial impact COULD be an alternative to a flood so great uniformity or not a flood it isn't the ONLY possible explanation.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...I don't need to quote Dembski on the fact that 2+2=4 ... and as a mathematician myself, I also don't need him or his writings to support the fact that the CSI in a sentence is :-
-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

The sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in a sentence is:-
-log_2[ ((1/m0) ^n0) + ((1/m1) ^n1) + ((1/m2) ^n2)......]

In the case of 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' the amounts of CSI are as follows:-
The CSI in the complete sentence is 133.14 Bits.
... and the sum of the CSI in the individual words/spaces in the sentence is 38.04 Bits

Right so you can't provide a reference for the equations you're using. Noted. Failing that, can you show me an example using the first equation

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so you can't provide a reference for the equations you're using. Noted. Failing that, can you show me an example using the first equation

yeah im not up on this maths Care to show a worked example of where the 133.14 Bits and 38.04 bits comes from?

Or better yet do it for the shorter sentence "Is this wrong"

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

yeah im not up on this maths Care to show a worked example of where the 133.14 Bits and 38.04 bits comes from?

Or better yet do it for the shorter sentence "Is this wrong"

He's done that but the equation he used for the sentence wasn't the one that he just said should be used for a sentence. He used:

log_2( m ^n)

and I can't picture any scenario where he would use the equation:

-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

So J C, an example please

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He's done that

Where? This is a long thread.

but the equation he used for the sentence wasn't the one that he just said should be used for a sentence. He used:

log_2( m ^n)

and I can't picture any scenario where he would use the equation:

-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

So J C, an example please

Using the equation he says is the right one for the sentence "Is this wrong"

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

Where? This is a long thread.


Using the equation he says is the right one for the sentence "Is this wrong"

He calculates the "CSI" in the sentence METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL as follows:

The sentence has 28 characters and there are 27 possible characters including all the upper case letters and the space character. So the equation is:

log_2(m^n)

where m is the number of possible characters and n is the number of characters in the sentence. So

log_2(27^28)=133.34 bits

and the sentence "Is this wrong" would be:

log_2(53^13)= 74.46 bits (all letters upper case and lower case plus a space=53 characters)

but he says the equation is:

-log_2( (1/m0) ^n0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^n1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^n2)......

And I can’t see any scenario where he would use m1, m2 etc. This equation is the one I use to calculate the sum of the “CSI” of the words in the sentence and I get exactly the same answer of 133.34 bits but he says that you have to use the equation:

-log_2[ ((1/m0) ^n0) + ((1/m1) ^n1) + ((1/m2) ^n2)......]

And if you add up each word that way you get 38.04 bits but he has refused three times to provide a reference from the book for this equation and he insists that it’s a “sum of CSI” when it’s actually “the CSI of a sum of probabilities”. He hasn’t explained why I should use this equation that doesn’t seem to make any sense; he just keeps repeating that that’s the one that I should use and he thinks that if he repeats it enough it’ll become true, just like all good creation “scientists”

Genghiz Cohen

Could you provide the CSI of these strings, (provided by Random.org)

FWLBVIULSBWSAFI

HDERXRMEDYUE

FTLWMYUQUHFAVCIFFWVFLGVUIUZCRN

Thanks.