The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

The Mad Hatter

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

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

FWLBVIULSBWSAFI

HDERXRMEDYUE

FTLWMYUQUHFAVCIFFWVFLGVUIUZCRN

Thanks.

They're not specified, which means they don't have specific meaning.

You have to bear in mind how simple-minded creationism really is, and equally how simple-minded their idea of evolution is.

equivariant

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

Again you demonstrate your complete failure to understand how mathematics or information theory work. If you are going to use a notion such as CSI, you must be able (when challenged) to provide a reference from the relevant literature showing that the formula you use is correct. That is what Sam has repeatedly asked for. In this case the relevant literature is Dembski's work.

As I predicted in http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64632396&postcount=21406 you will obfuscate and bull***t and try to weasel out of providing a simple reference, because of your ignorance of the literature, even of the ID 'literature'.

J C

ISAW wrote: »

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!!



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.

...that's just a 'cover story' for those who deny Noah's Flood!!!!

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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”

-log_2(m^n) where m is the number of characters and n is the total number of characters in the sentence is the amount of CSI in the total sentence.

...and it is identical to the equation -log_2( (1/m0) ^x0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^x1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^x2)......where m is the number of characters and x is the number of characters in each word / space.

Each of the above equations will give an identical answer because they each measure the total CSI in any total sentence.

... on the other hand, the equation -log_2[ ((1/m0) ^x0) + ((1/m1) ^x1) + ((1/m2) ^x2)......]measures the sum of the individual CSI of each word / space in any sentence.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

-log_2(m^n) where m is the number of characters and n is the total number of characters in the sentence is the amount of CSI in the total sentence.

...and it is identical to the equation -log_2( (1/m0) ^x0) -log_2( (1/m1) ^x1) -log_2( (1/m2) ^x2)......where m is the number of characters and x is the number of characters in each word / space.

Each of the above equations will give an identical answer because they each measure the total CSI in any total sentence.

... on the other hand, the equation -log_2[ ((1/m0) ^x0) + ((1/m1) ^x1) + ((1/m2) ^x2)......]measures the sum of the individual CSI of each word / space in any sentence.

Yes J C you've already said that three times. I asked you to give a reference to where you got the second equation and give an example using the first so could you do that please?

Also, you say that the first calculates the TOTAL CSI and the second calculates the SUM of CSI but if I have a number of apples and I SUM them, what do I get if not the TOTAL number of apples

As I said you don't seem to understand basic addition. The result of a sum is a total. That's why you get the same answer with the first equation whether you do it in one go or SUM each word separately. The first equation is the only one to use, the only one that makes any sense (if CSI can be said to make sense). The other you made up, as evidenced by the fact that you refuse to provide a reference for it

J C

equivariant wrote: »

Again you demonstrate your complete failure to understand how mathematics or information theory work. If you are going to use a notion such as CSI, you must be able (when challenged) to provide a reference from the relevant literature showing that the formula you use is correct. That is what Sam has repeatedly asked for. In this case the relevant literature is Dembski's work.

As I predicted in http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64632396&postcount=21406 you will obfuscate and bull***t and try to weasel out of providing a simple reference, because of your ignorance of the literature, even of the ID 'literature'.

...I don't need to refer to the Maths Literature to tell you that 2+2=4

... and I also don't need to to refer to the Maths Literature to tell you that the equation -log_2[ ((1/m0) ^x0) + ((1/m1) ^x1) + ((1/m2) ^x2)......]measures the sum of the individual CSI of each word / space in any sentence.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...I don't need to refer to the Maths Literature to tell you that 2+2=4

... and I also don't need to to refer to the Maths Literature to tell you that the equation -log_2[ ((1/m0) ^x0) + ((1/m1) ^x1) + ((1/m2) ^x2)......]measures the sum of the individual CSI of each word / space in any sentence.

yes, you do. The equation doesn't seem to make any sense and you have made no effort to explain it, you've just kept repeating it over and over. You keep saying that this is how CSI is calculated so as someone who is supposed to know all about it you should be able to provide a reference to Dembski's book where he says that this is indeed how CSI is calculated. Even if you don't think you need a reference you should provide one anyway just to shut us up. Repeating the equation ad nauseum and refusing to provide a reference makes it look an awful lot like you made it up

I really do want to see a reference because if you find one it'll show that neither you nor Dembski understand basic addition but since you can't provide one it looks like it's just you

def

ISAW wrote: »

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



"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."

The "does god support cannabis use" as you put it , I would put as "did Paul prophecise cannabis prohibition" ,this thread is the "bible, creationism and prophecy thread.

I put forward that cannabis is is in the Bible as well as early christian and jewish texts and was created for man ,Jesus used cannabis to heal and it was a major ingredient in the anointing oil, and that Paul prophecised cannabis prohibition.

The answer to every unanswered question is we dont know. And for a lot of things we do "know" are ,I feel , better discribed as "this our best guess ,until someone makes a better guess as new things are discovered".

Im also saying both Moses and Jesus used cannabis ,
because kaneth bos(m) in hebrew is cannabis flowers ,not fragrent cane or sweet calamus.
This means that the annointing oil all christians (anointed ones) are supposed to be christned with is supposed to contain kaneth bos.

Also that cannabis is the is the tree of life, the leaves of witch are "the healing of the nations.-revelation 22:2"

Can you disprove any of it?

Could you hazard a guess at the benificial evoulutionary advantages growing cannabinoid filled resin drops and an increidably stong sweet smell would have, apart from attracting humans?

Possibly the probability that a hops plant (very close relative) one day randomly mutates to produce 200 molecules that just happens to fit onto a cannabiniod receptor in the human brain and they just happen to have anti biotic properties and cause defective cells (cancers,moles etc) to self terminate and be absorbed into the body ,reduce pain , prevoke a sense of happyness and well being the list just keep gettin longer ...

....and the list of dangers ,or "negative effects" gets shorter by the day each one eventualy ticked away , the best though ive got to say was "Marjuana causes men to grow breasts".

But seriously if pot was consumed the way its advised in the bible , moderation in consumption and holy oil for healing ,cancer would be a thing of the past. If it was fully utilised the world would be a cleaner ,healthier more relaxed place, it could also be the solution to global warming ,its highly reflective one of the most ,thats how cops spot it .The carbon burned off with hemp diesel is then in a closed carbon cycle(grows gets burnt grows gets burnt...) and slowly useing hemp and lime for concrete more carbon would be taken out of the atmosphere and locked up in structures also there would be a lot of surplus hempseeds because only hurds are needed for concrete so it builds and feeds or makes diesel and all the wealth diverted from peotrolium based products is spread out widely amongst the farmers growin it. Plastics could be hemp and hemp paper would save the forests and the rest of this lovely little garden were living in .

Hemp paper is the best, makes the best diesel ,hemp rope is the best ,hemp is one of the safest recreational pastimes ,hemp cloth lasts so long you'll be handing your grandkids a t-shirt you got at twenty ,theres 700 hundred year old bridges in france made of hemp concrete its ,it also makes very good press board ,it can be used for paints ,sealents did I mention eating those seeds is more or less the best food a human can eat , is there somthing it cant do ? Perfect ,when they said 12 fruits of the tree of life I think it was just back then , weve learned a thing or to more since ,saying it bears fruit every month this could be interpreted as prophecy to modern growing techniques, or perhaps that it gets used every month ,or its many fruits are used frequently ,because I dont speak antient hebrew or antient aramaic or any of the languages these early christians spoke or the "slang" they would have used. Lots of parables, you know?

"The secret of the kingdom of god has been given unto you. but those on the outside everything is said in parables so that

"they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven

equivariant

J C wrote: »

... and I also don't need to to refer to the Maths Literature to tell you that the equation -log_2[ ((1/m0) ^x0) + ((1/m1) ^x1) + ((1/m2) ^x2)......]measures the sum of the individual CSI of each word / space in any sentence.

Quite simply, yes you do.

Since in any account of CSI by Dembski, there is nothing that agrees with this formula. So either you don't have clue (my guess is this is the correct option) or you are proposing a completely new notion of CSI, different to the one that Dembski uses. In the latter case, you then have no basis even in the ID literature for any of your wild claims about CSI. Still, I don't suppose that will stop you from making them

PS I should also point out that even if you provide a reference that does not end the debate, it merely shows that your ideas have some connection to the rest of ID 'theory'. As it stands, without providing a reference, not only are you flying in the face of conventional science, you are also kicking sand in the face of your delusional pals in creation 'science'.

ISAW

J C wrote: »

...that's just a 'cover story' for those who deny Noah's Flood!!!!

you posted the original ling don't blame me:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
***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!!



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.

J C

wrote:

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

FWLBVIULSBWSAFI

HDERXRMEDYUE

FTLWMYUQUHFAVCIFFWVFLGVUIUZCRN

Thanks.


The Mad Hatter
They're not specified, which means they don't have specific meaning.

The Mad Hatter is correct that meaningless random nonfunctional sequences have no Complex Specified Information ... because, although they can be complex, they lack specificity and information!!!:)

This is where CSI differs from Shannon Information. CSI measures the quality of information ... whereas Shannon Information measures its quantity and therefore any old gobbledy-gook will be measured by Shannon.
They are both useful ... Shannon is important in measuring data loads on communication systems, for example, where the quantity of information (and not its quality) is important. Gobbledy-gook requires just as much 'bandwidth' as high quality Creation Science papers, for example.:D
CSI measures information in living systems and other intelligently created phenomena ... where quality is the key issue.

Great to see that TMH is now a 'budding' Creation Scientist!!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

This is where CSI differs from Shannon Information. CSI measures the quality of information ... whereas Shannon Information measures its quantity and therefore any old gobbledy-gook will be measured by Shannon.

No it doesn't. I gave you several examples of sentences a few weeks ago that were very complex and specified and you failed to find any information in them because I made it difficult for you to just look at the sentence and know that it was specified.

CSI cannot be used to determine if something is designed, all it does is take something you've already decided is designed and gets the odds against it forming spontaneously, even though evolution very specifically says these things did not form spontaneously

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

The Mad Hatter is correct that meaningless random nonfunctional sequences have no Complex Specified Information ... because, although they can be complex, they lack specificity and information!!!:)

JC, how can you happily ignore how subjective and circular this is? How do you KNOW those letter strings are meaningless? Because they don't make words in any of the languages you can read? How do you KNOW that nobody can gain any informative meaning from those letter strings?

And yet your whole argument rests on the ability to recognise specific information. As Sam pointed out many many pages ago, both your subjective assessment and your calculations absolutely failed to recognise the very specific and meaningful information contained in a sentence written in (I think) Hungarian (?).

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it doesn't. I gave you several examples of sentences a few weeks ago that were very complex and specified and you failed to find any information in them because I made it difficult for you to just look at the sentence and know that it was specified.

CSI cannot be used to determine if something is designed, all it does is take something you've already decided is designed and gets the odds against it forming spontaneously, even though evolution very specifically says these things did not form spontaneously

...Sam you must first establish that the information is functional and specified. As I have previously said, this can be difficult with something that looks like a language or a code ... such as a putative SETI transmission.
Of course, if you break the code ... or get to understand the language, then you have established functionality ... and then you can establish the CSI of a particular word, sentence or paragraph.

With DNA and its specified biomolecules we have already established that the information is functional and specified ... and we understand how the information is structured ... so we can also establish the CSI of the genetic information used to produce any particular biomolecule.:)

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

As Sam pointed out many many pages ago, both your subjective assessment and your calculations absolutely failed to recognise the very specific and meaningful information contained in a sentence written in (I think) Hungarian (?).

and welsh

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Sam you must establish that the information is functional and specified.

And that's what makes CSI a load of nonsense. It's nothing more than an assumption that anything that has function must have been designed. The maths is just waffle that proves nothing other than longer sentences contain more bits (no sh!t). If the maths of CSI could be used to establish that something is in fact specified it would have some value but it can't, you just decide that with a judgement call, then calculate the length of the sentence expressed in bits and go OMG THIS WAS DESIGNED!!!!! Nonsense

looksee

Quote JC on page 1 of this thread: Jesus Christ confirmed both the veracity and the importance of EVERY WORD in the Bible in Mt 4:4 when He said “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.” (NIV)

Isn't that a totally circular argument?

I got to about page three then skipped to the last few pages, but I could not figure out all the CSI business. Could anybody give me a brief resume of what it is about. I know this is very lazy, but while I am mildly interested I also have some washing up to do.

The Mad Hatter

looksee wrote: »

Quote JC on page 1 of this thread: Jesus Christ confirmed both the veracity and the importance of EVERY WORD in the Bible in Mt 4:4 when He said “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.” (NIV)

Isn't that a totally circular argument?

I got to about page three then skipped to the last few pages, but I could not figure out all the CSI business. Could anybody give me a brief resume of what it is about. I know this is very lazy, but while I am mildly interested I also have some washing up to do.

It's complicated, therefore evolution doesn't exist.

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

Do you have a Nobel Prize?

No. Would having one enable me to know what was in someone else's mind?

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

No. Would having one enable me to know what was in someone else's mind?

A Nobel Prize would be the least recognition I would expect for someone who has "stronger than science" evidence that god exists. As you don't have a Nobel prize, I feel utterly confident to extrapolate that your claim to have evidence for the existence of god is false.

wolfsbane

doctoremma wrote: »

A Nobel Prize would be the least recognition I would expect for someone who has "stronger than science" evidence that god exists. As you don't have a Nobel prize, I feel utterly confident to extrapolate that your claim to have evidence for the existence of god is false.

Now I get your drift. But I did not know Nobel prizes were awarded for spiritual knowledge, knowledge that is intrinsically internal to the possessor. Where do I apply?

Note: I did not claim I could show you this evidence, and I specifically said it was other than science. Perhaps you believe that anything other than science cannot be real?

Genghiz Cohen

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now I get your drift. But I did not know Nobel prizes were awarded for spiritual knowledge, knowledge that is intrinsically internal to the possessor. Where do I apply?

You would completely re-write everything we currently know in every field of science.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And that's what makes CSI a load of nonsense. It's nothing more than an assumption that anything that has function must have been designed. The maths is just waffle that proves nothing other than longer sentences contain more bits (no sh!t). If the maths of CSI could be used to establish that something is in fact specified it would have some value but it can't, you just decide that with a judgement call, then calculate the length of the sentence expressed in bits and go OMG THIS WAS DESIGNED!!!!! Nonsense

...CSI is used to measure the amount of Complex Specified Information ... once you have objectively established that the information is functional and how it is specified ... then the CSI can be established and any information module containing more than 330 Bits is regarded as having a statistical certainty of being intelligently produced.

No assumptions, no circularity ... just cold objective Creation Science in action!!!:):D

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You would completely re-write everything we currently know in every field of science.

...we would not need to re-write anything from current operative scince (the stuff that puts Men on the Moon and saves lives in hospitals) ...
... the only things that must be completely re-written are the scientifically invalid stories that Evolutionists confuse themselves (and their 'fellow travellers') with!!!!:eek::)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, how can you happily ignore how subjective and circular this is? How do you KNOW those letter strings are meaningless? Because they don't make words in any of the languages you can read? How do you KNOW that nobody can gain any informative meaning from those letter strings?

And yet your whole argument rests on the ability to recognise specific information. As Sam pointed out many many pages ago, both your subjective assessment and your calculations absolutely failed to recognise the very specific and meaningful information contained in a sentence written in (I think) Hungarian (?).

... see my answer here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64671090&postcount=21465

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It's complicated, therefore evolution doesn't exist.

If it's complex and specified ... and with a CSI in excess of 330 Bits, then it was produced by an ultimate input of intelligence!!:)
It may also have 'evolved' since then ... utilising it's intelligently infused CSI!!!!:D

...like I have previously said, it is quite clear that many Kinds were Intelligently Designed to 'evolve' to adapt to their environments ... as a key part of their 'going forth and multiplying'!!!!!:)

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...we would not need to re-write anything from current operative scince (the stuff that puts Men o the Moon and saves lives in hospitals) ... the only things that must be completely re-written are the scientifically invalid stories that Evolutionists confuse themselves (and their 'fellow travellers') with!!!!:eek::)

You mean like creating antibiotics to fight ever evolving viruses?

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You mean like creating antibiotics to fight ever evolving viruses?

...antibiotics fight bacterial infections ... and they have no effect on viruses ...
... anyway, like I have previously said, it is quite clear that many Kinds (including Viruses and Bacteria) were Intelligently Designed to 'evolve' to adapt to their environments ... as a key part of their 'going forth and multiplying'!!!!!

... after The Fall, many Bacteria and viruses turned nasty, just like many other aspects of the rest of Creation ... and instead of always being life supporting (through various symbiotic relatonships) ... some bacteria and viruses are now the purveyors of disease and death!!!

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

it is quite clear that many Kinds (including Viruses and Bacteria) were Intelligently Designed to 'evolve' to adapt to their environments

How do they "evolve"? Because if it's by acquiring advantageous genetic units that weren't originally part of the "kind" and you are simply saying that god ensured such genetic plasticity was part of his creation, then there's not much left to argue about. Evolution happens, we will simply be left with the primary cause.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

How do they "evolve"? Because if it's by acquiring advantageous genetic units that weren't originally part of the "kind" and you are simply saying that god ensured such genetic plasticity was part of his creation, then there's not much left to argue about. Evolution happens, we will simply be left with the primary cause.

...that is the point ... the primary cause is an intelligence of omnipotent and omniscient proportions ... and any 'evolution' is confined within Kinds and over less than 10,000 years, using inherent CSI ... apart from these issues ... we seem to be in agreement, Emma.

Does this mean that Creation Science will now make it onto the Science Curriculum? ... or does the Religious 'Sensitivities' of Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' mean that they will engage in old-fashioned religious suppression and sectarianism that would make a Medieval Inquisitor blush ?