Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

1717718720722723822

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...if you are asking if all faith positions are as well founded in logic and science as others ... I must tell you that the Creationist position is fully supported by logic and the physical evidence of the involvement of an inordinate intelligence in the creation of the CSI found in life.

    No it isn't. If it was, we'd all believe the crap that comes out of your mouth :)
    J C wrote: »
    Equally the physical evidence contained in the sedimentary rocks of the world confirms that a massive extinction event of worldwide proprtions did occur in the recent past!!!

    So? There was an extinction event, great. What's your point? That because an event happened, your quaint little story to explain it must be true? That's not even logical. You can't just make up explanations, you have to give evidence for them.
    J C wrote: »
    Evolution' is little more than Natural/Sexual Selection acting on the genetic unfolding existing CSI

    How did those slugs get algae genes? How do bugs develop the ability to eat nylon?
    J C wrote: »
    ... and the idea that Ponslime could spontaneously arise 'from goo to you' is about as evidentially challenged as the 'Tooth Fairy' !!!:eek::D

    Agreed. Which is why none of us here propose it.

    Although to be honest, I have some evidence for the tooth fairy because he or she left 50p under my pillow at regular intervals when I was a child. That's a world of evidence compared to what I observe for a god.

    And nice that you ignored the basic points of my post, thanks.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    J C wrote: »
    ...if you are asking if all faith positions are as well founded in logic and science as others ... I must tell you that the Creationist position is fully supported by logic

    Saying it doesn't make it so! Look: 1+1=3 is fully supported by logic. There! see?
    and the physical evidence of the involvement of an inordinate intelligence in the creation of the CSI found in life.
    different argument.The whole CSI thing seems waffly but I leave others deal with it.
    Equally the physical evidence contained in the sedimentary rocks of the world

    Yes fossils that are MILLIONS of years old and rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old.
    http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/impact/zfigures/ird.GIF

    confirms that a massive extinction event of worldwide proprtions did occur in the recent past!!!

    Not alone that but they happen AT REGULAR INTERVALS!
    "Recent" in geological terms being in the last 50 million years

    http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/impact/zfigures/per.GIF
    Raup and Sepkoski
    found an apparent periodicity of 26 MY for increased extinction rates
    'Evolution' is little more than Natural/Sexual Selection

    which is why it is called "natural selection" by scientists

    i.e. the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations as moderated by the natural environment.
    the idea that Ponslime could spontaneously arise

    Has nothing to do with evolution (the changing of species over time) and is in fact a TOTALLY DIFFERENT scientific topic called "abiogenesis" or the spontaneous creation of life. That has been pointed out to you several times.

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ...I await the ultimate logic of the 'liberal' positon ... the deeming of the entire Bible to be metaphorical!!!
    ...and as if on cue, here it comes!!!

    ISAW wrote: »
    Midrash Interpretation: The writers of the Hebrew Scriptures appear to have employed Midrash extensively. .....

    .....Near the end of the first century CE, friction between the early Christians and mainline Judaism mounted. At the same time, Paul and his followers were evangelizing the Gentiles (non-Jews). .....

    Christian theologian Michael Goulder pioneered the Midrash interpretation of the Gospels in the mid-1970's. Bishop Spong widely introduced Midrash to the public.


    Folklore interpretation: Ancient stories were circulated for decades or centuries via an oral tradition before being fixed in written form. Some were legends and myths; others were accounts of real events. Various groups within a religion or culture passed on different versions of the story. By the time that multiple versions of the same story were written down, many discrepancies -- mostly minor -- had developed.
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_intee.htm

    http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/cauthen-bibleinterpret.shtml
    ...typical pseudo-liberal stuff ... and ironically presented as 'religious tolerance' ... which means tolerance of anybody EXCEPT Bible-believing Christians ... whom you prejudicially refer to as 'fundamentalists' and 'crackpots' ... with more than a hint that they are also 'terrorists' and 'suicide cultists'!!!!:(
    ... and no problem with crass discrimination against them.

    However, if I were a bat-worshipping alcoholic with a belief in the divinity of weasels and a penchant for putting my head between my legs and humming for inspiration ... I'm sure that the pseudo-liberals would be all over me like a rash ... defending my right to be 'different' ... and organising workshops to savor the product of my 'creative juices' ... and they would hang onto every banal meaningless word that I might utter!!!!:eek:

    However, because I am a Saved Christian who proclaims the Word of God ... which is a reproach to those who are on the way to perdition ... I am rejected.

    1Ti 4:9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
    10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ...if you are asking if all faith positions are as well founded in logic and science as others ... I must tell you that the Creationist position is fully supported by logic and the physical evidence of the involvement of an inordinate intelligence in the creation of the CSI found in life.

    doctoremma
    No it isn't. If it was, we'd all believe the crap that comes out of your mouth
    ... your rejection of Creation is fundamentally a spiritual issue ... because the physical evidence for a Creator of inordinate intelligence is all around you.
    Ro 1:19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


    Equally, the Word of God tells us that such people will put the creature in the place of its Creator and Evolution does precisely that ... effectively worshipping the forces of nature for their supposed abilities to spontaneously produce CSI and thereby worshipping all living organisms for their supposed role in the Evolution of life.

    Ro 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Equally the physical evidence contained in the sedimentary rocks of the world confirms that a massive extinction event of worldwide proprtions did occur in the recent past!!!

    doctoremma
    So? There was an extinction event, great. What's your point? That because an event happened, your quaint little story to explain it must be true? That's not even logical. You can't just make up explanations, you have to give evidence for them.
    ...billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth ... I'd say that was pretty compelling physical evidence for a worldwide catastrophic extinction event caused by water AKA Noahs Flood.

    The idea that all these fossils are a record of life over billions of years (rather than a record of catastrophic death) is patent nonesense ... and can really only be believed in by somebody in total denial of reality!!!
    Equally, the fact that supposed 300 million year old rocks contain fossils of creatures that are still alive today (and who haven't changed one iota from their fossils) proves that they haven't 'evolved' (even in 300 million evolutionist years) ... and the rocks aren't 300 million years old either!!!:eek:

    wrote:
    doctoremma
    How did those slugs get algae genes? How do bugs develop the ability to eat nylon?
    ...they developed these abilities using the original massive levels of CSI infused into their genomes at their Creation ... it's like asking how your computer is able to download Word and run it on your dektop ... it was intelligently designed with the ability to do so ... and ditto with all of the amazing properties of life!!!:D

    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... and the idea that Ponslime could spontaneously arise 'from goo to you' is about as evidentially challenged as the 'Tooth Fairy' !!!

    doctoremma
    Agreed. Which is why none of us here propose it.

    Although to be honest, I have some evidence for the tooth fairy because he or she left 50p under my pillow at regular intervals when I was a child. That's a world of evidence compared to what I observe for a god.
    ... the 50p should have been a bit of a giveaway that a Human Intelligence (within the Sterling Money Zone) was involved ... rather than something from 'fairyland'!!!

    ...anyway, doctoremma, you still seem to be just as gullible today, as when you were a child ... only now you believe in the evidentially challenged 'Evolution Fairy' ... instead of the 'Tooth' variety of Fairy of your childhood!!!:eek:

    ... the idea that some unknown force is responsible for the ultimate generation of the CSI in life is common to both Evolutionism and Creationism ... Evolutionists attribute this unknown force to nature which objectively doesn't possess such powers ... while Creationists postulate the source of the CSI in living creatures to be a Being of inordiante Intelligence AKA God.
    The Creationist 'suspect' has the capacity, opportunity and motive for producing life ... while the Evolutionist 'suspect' has none of these capacities ... and it only exists in the ever-hopeful minds of Evolutionists!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    J C wrote: »
    ...billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth ... I'd say that was pretty compelling physical evidence for a worldwide catastrophic extinction event caused by water AKA Noahs Flood.
    Or any of the other flood myths.
    J C wrote: »
    The idea that all these fossils are a record of life over billions of years (rather than a record of catastrophic death) is patent nonesense ... and can really only be believed in by somebody in total denial of reality!!!
    Equally, the fact that supposed 300 million year old rocks contain fossils of creatures that are still alive today (and who haven't changed one iota from their fossils) proves that they haven't 'evolved' (even in 300 million evolutionist years) ... and the rocks aren't 300 million years old either!!!:eek:

    You disagree with one dating method used to date these rocks and creatures, you have yet to show why the 5/6 other dating methods are also wrong and also point to the same millions of years timescale.
    J C wrote: »
    ...they developed these abilities using the original massive levels of CSI infused into their genomes at their Creation ... it's like asking how your computer is able to download Word and run it on your dektop ... it was intelligently designed with the ability to do so ... and ditto with all of the amazing properties of life!!!:D

    More CSI, which you still have to show us any published papers on.
    J C wrote: »
    ... the 50p should have been a bit of a giveaway that a Human Intelligence (within the Sterling Money Zone) was involved ... rather than something from 'fairyland'!!!
    Or an alien intelligence that knew that she couldn't buy Smiley bars (Holy Hell I miss Smiley bars) with fairy dust and gave her something she could use.

    J C wrote: »
    ... the idea that some unknown force is responsible for the ultimate generation of the CSI in life is common to both Evolutionism and Creationism ... Evolutionists attribute this unknown force to nature which objectively doesn't possess such powers ... while Creationists postulate the source of the CSI in living creatures to be a Being of inordiante Intelligence AKA God.
    The Creationist 'suspect' has the capacity, opportunity and motive for producing life ... while the Evolutionist 'suspect' has none of these capacities ... and it only exists in the ever-hopeful minds of Evolutionists!!!

    Wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ...if you are asking if all faith positions are as well founded in logic and science as others ... I must tell you that the Creationist position is fully supported by logic

    ISAW
    Saying it doesn't make it so! Look: 1+1=3 is fully supported by logic. There! see?
    ... and unlike you, where you have left an obviously erroneous statement 'hanging' in an unsupported manner, I went on to support my contention as follows:-
    "and the physical evidence of the involvement of an inordinate intelligence in the creation of the CSI found in life. Equally the physical evidence contained in the sedimentary rocks of the world confirms that a massive extinction event of worldwide proprtions did occur in the recent past!!!

    'Evolution' is little more than Natural/Sexual Selection acting on the genetic unfolding of existing CSI ... and the idea that Ponslime could spontaneously arise 'from goo to you' is about as evidentially challenged as the 'Tooth Fairy' !!!"

    wrote:
    ISAW
    Yes fossils that are MILLIONS of years old and rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old.
    http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/impact/zfigures/ird.GIF
    ...they are supposed to be millions of evolutionist years old due to the circular reasoning employed in their 'dating'.


    wrote:
    ISAW
    Not alone that but they happen AT REGULAR INTERVALS!
    "Recent" in geological terms being in the last 50 million years

    http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/impact/zfigures/per.GIF
    Raup and Sepkoski
    found an apparent periodicity of 26 MY for increased extinction rates
    ... the 'regular intervals' are due to waves of drownings and depositions/burials as the Flood Processes progressed during Noah's Flood!!!


    wrote:
    ISAW
    which is why it is called "natural selection" by scientists

    i.e. the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations as moderated by the natural environment.
    ...which is only capable of explaining genetic drift and speciation within Kinds using their originally created CSI ... and we all agree that this happens!!

    ...NS doesn't explain the evolution of 'Pondkind to Mankind' ... indeed nothing only Intelligent Design can explain how Mankind (or any of the other Kinds) came about!!!:cool::D


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... and the idea that Ponslime could spontaneously arise 'from goo to you' is about as evidentially challenged as the 'Tooth Fairy'

    ISAW
    Has nothing to do with evolution (the changing of species over time) and is in fact a TOTALLY DIFFERENT scientific topic called "abiogenesis" or the spontaneous creation of life. That has been pointed out to you several times.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
    ... the supposed progression from (unicellular) 'goo to you' is supposed to have been mediated by so-called Materialistic Evolution ... and it is NOT Abiogenesis (which is needed to explain the formation of the unicellular 'goo' in the first place ... but also spectacularly fails to do so)!!!:eek:


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Or any of the other flood myths.
    ... which were ALL based on the truth that a worldwide flood occurred recently and whose definitive account is recorded in Genesis!!!

    You disagree with one dating method used to date these rocks and creatures, you have yet to show why the 5/6 other dating methods are also wrong and also point to the same millions of years timescale.
    ... they're all based on the same circular reasoning and unproven and unprovable assumptions ... that no 'daughter' isotopes were present at the start, and that no 'parent' or 'daughter' isotopes were added or leached out since!!!

    More CSI, which you still have to show us any published papers on.
    ... when evolutionists start to treat Creation Scientists with respect they will get the papers.
    It would be a waste of time and trees to provide any papers to them otherwise.

    Or an alien intelligence that knew that she couldn't buy Smiley bars (Holy Hell I miss Smiley bars) with fairy dust and gave her something she could use.
    ...a 'counterfeiting alien' ... not so sure anybody caught counterfeiting currency would get very far with a judge on that one!!!:eek::):D

    ... although if s/he was an Evolutionist, like Emma ... you never know ... they might believe anything ... no matter how implausible, once it smacked of Evolution!!!

    ... and BTW do my smileys provide any consolation to you on the lack of Smiley Bars in your life ... or do they simply make you burst out in floods of tears, when they remind you of your loss??:eek::pac::cool::);):D
    Wrong.
    ...you always have the right to be wrong!!!:eek::):D


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...they developed these abilities using the original massive levels of CSI infused into their genomes at their Creation

    How? Where was this CSI contained? If the DNA wasn't there, how can the CSI be there?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by doctoremma
    How did those slugs get algae genes? How do bugs develop the ability to eat nylon?

    Originally Posted by J C
    ...they developed these abilities using the original massive levels of CSI infused into their genomes at their Creation ... it's like asking how your computer is able to download Word and run it on your dektop ... it was intelligently designed with the ability to do so ... and ditto with all of the amazing properties of life!!!

    doctoremma
    How? Where was this CSI contained? If the DNA wasn't there, how can the CSI be there?
    ...incorporating (existing) algae and breaking down compounds derived from the polymerisation of organic Hydro-carbons, like Nylon, are relatively minor abilities that have been incorporated in the original CSI in the originally created genetic potential of these Kinds.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    ...incorporating (existing) algae and breaking down compounds derived from the polymerisation of organic Hydro-carbons, like Nylon, are relatively minor abilities that have been incorporated in the original CSI in the originally created genetic potential of these Kinds.

    How do you show that these were already included as potential functions? How do you positively rule out the possibility that these functions are de novo? What is the test to determine the difference between functions already present as potential in the original information and those introduced later, say by something like a human mediated point mutagenesis or frame shift?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    How do you show that these were already included as potential functions? How do you positively rule out the possibility that these functions are de novo? What is the test to determine the difference between functions already present as potential in the original information and those introduced later, say by something like a human mediated point mutagenesis or frame shift?
    ... a Human mediated process would involve the addition of CSI ... and a 'frame shift' would be the outworking of existing CSI.

    ... all of these phenomena involve an ultimate input of Intelligent Design ... from either God or Man!!!

    BTW I came across the following list of 27 things that an Atheist should do (including some amendments) ... and they are very true of many of the Atheists (and some of their 'fellow travellers') on this thread ...
    ... some light-hearted fun for both Christian and Atheist alike ... enjoy!!!!:):D

    How to be an Atheist:

    1) Reject everything in the Bible because men wrote it.
    2) Use the opinions of other men to 'prove' that the Bible is wrong.
    3) Completely ignore the inconsistency between steps 1 & 2.
    4) Call yourself a “freethinker” and “open minded” but don’t practice such virtues when it comes to Christianity.
    5) Try to laugh out loud every time a Christian makes a statement about what they believe, even if you don’t think it’s really that funny. This helps avoid a “serious” conversation.
    6) Always bring up Zeus, Thor, Allah, The Spaghetti Monster and Santa Claus ... and say that if you believe in one God then you have to believe in all of them, otherwise it’s just not fair.
    7) When referring to the Bible use the word “myth” as often as possible and call believers whatever names you want because the goal is to frustrate the Christian so that his sinful nature comes out and he gets angry and then you can call him a hypocrite.
    8) Set your own moral standards very very low so that you’ll never look like a hypocrite yourself. Studiously police the morality of every Christian and shout it from the rooftops when you think you have discovered even the smallest indescretion ... and if you are found to be wrong, never apologise.
    9) Never answer a question directly but quickly change the subject to make a completely different point ... or ask a different question. If you’re asked why you keep changing the subject just repeat this step as necessary.
    10) Accuse Christians of not answering your questions, even when they have repeatedly and comprehensively answered them ... and never apolgise when this is pointed out to you.
    11) Be as argumentative, loud, sarcastic and verbal as possible – there is no need to make any sense or use logic in your arguments – just keep arguing. Accuse a Christian of being a 'liar' and a 'quote miner' ... even though the quotes are a fair representation of what the person quoted actually said ... and gleefully ignore the fact that it is you, as the false accuser, who is the one who is lying about the Christian using the quote!!
    12) Use words like “strawman,” “ad hominem,” “fallacy,” “red herring” and non sequiturs” against every argument even when these terms obviously don't apply.
    13) Claim that atheism is rooted in “common sense” even though less than 10% of the human population claim to be atheists.
    14) Reject all notions of faith even though you must put your faith in pilots, cars, food, doctors, evolution, and the next chair that you sit in ... and even in the non-existence of God Himself!!!
    15) Always ask for evidence for God/Creation Science but never accept anything presented to you. At the end of a discussion remind them that all you needed was some evidence for God ... even though such evidence is literally staring you in the face every time you look in a mirror.
    16) Use a self-serving definition of science that rules out the scientific evaluation of the physical evidence for God's existence and/or the historical veracity of events recorded in the Bible ... and ensure that public school systems are compelled by law to teach a one-sided account of 'Evolution' ... with none of its obvious deficiencies ever mentioned ... and sack any teacher who does mention them!!
    17) Quote only the Bible verses that make God look mean and unfair ... in the knowledge that most 'liberal' Christians won't challenge you on this ... and, if you are lucky, they may even agree with you.
    18) Say that you are a good person remembering that you are allowed to define 'good' however you would like, because there is no objective moral standard, without God.
    19) Claim that you have read the Bible and that you understand what it teaches whether or not you do.
    20) Only pick on Christians – you don’t want to get killed in a Jihad. However, be sure to say that there is no difference between Radical Muslims and Fundamentalist Christians ... in the knowledge that most 'liberal' Christians won't challenge you on this ... and, if you are lucky, they may even agree with you.
    21) Always use the crusades to make the above point ... and if that fails, start speaking darkly about the Christian Faith being equivalent to 'child abuse'!!
    22) Remember that you are looking for faults in other worldviews not trying to defend your own – do not try to prove atheism - because it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist - when He does!!
    23) Make the claim that you only have one life and you don’t want to waste it on religion...but nevertheless continue to waste your time ... and everybody elses arguing about religion.
    24) If your conscience begins to bother you because of moral guilt you can always numb it with drugs, alcohol, sex, or simply by repeating to yourself that your immorality is a result of 'Survival of the Fittest Evolution'.
    25) Interpret the Bible allegorically when debating with Creationists ... and literally when debating with 'liberal' Christians ... and never take the clear meaning of the text into account!!!! That way you'll appear to know what you are talking about ... even if you don't!!
    26) Get as many 'liberal' Christians on your side as possible ... because these 'fellow travellers' help to make Atheism look like the logical end-point for 'liberal' Christianity ...and they are a great help in allowing you to get away with using points 1-25 above!!
    27) Every day feel free to thank God that you’re an atheist – just in case ...
    :D:):eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    J C wrote: »
    I can't answer/address/understand the question, so here's a long, irrelevant, off-topic copypaste in green.

    .


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Originally Posted by J C
    I can't answer/address/understand the question, so here's a long, irrelevant, off-topic copypaste in green.
    ..and example of item 10 in action!!!!:D
    "10) Accuse Christians of not answering your questions, even when they have repeatedly and comprehensively answered them ... and never apolgise when this is pointed out to you."
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
    How do you show that these were already included as potential functions? How do you positively rule out the possibility that these functions are de novo? What is the test to determine the difference between functions already present as potential in the original information and those introduced later, say by something like a human mediated point mutagenesis or frame shift?

    Posted by J C in reply
    ... a Human mediated process would involve the addition of CSI ... and a 'frame shift' would be the outworking of existing CSI.

    ... all of these phenomena involve an ultimate input of Intelligent Design ... from either God or Man!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    You've got a nasty habit of reacting to my questions by spamming large amounts of coloured, off-topic text. Last time you got a moderator warning for it, so perhaps learn from your mistakes and leave it at that?
    J C wrote: »
    ... a Human mediated process would involve the addition of CSI ... and a 'frame shift' would be the outworking of existing CSI.

    How do you test for the addition of CSI? How do you test for the outworking of existing CSI? What tests and calculations, specifically, does one use to test these things?
    J C wrote: »
    ... all of these phenomena involve an ultimate input of Intelligent Design ... from either God or Man!!!

    We can directly observe the methods that humans use in design. By observing them in the process of design and creation, we can understand their methods, behaviour and capabilities in detail. We can thus make logical inferences regarding what humans have designed even when we have not directly observed them. Essentially we can model human design by observation and inference.

    What specific methods does God use? What are His capabilities, habits and behaviour? What are His limitations, feigned or otherwise? What is His aesthetic sense like? By what means have these characteristics been directly documented and how have we shown how they apply to His designs? Essentially, from what empirical knowledge base can we make the logical inference that this or that thing is God-designed as opposed to human-designed or, more critically, designed by some other unknown intelligence?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    breaking down compounds derived from the polymerisation of organic Hydro-carbons, like Nylon, are relatively minor abilities that have been incorporated in the original CSI

    What is the original CSI? Is it contained in the original genetic material? If so, how do you fail to recognise that the acquisition of genetic material that confers a new ability as an increase in CSI?*

    *Although as we've learned from your maths, CSI can be increased simply by increasing the length of the sequence you are looking at, with no reference to function at all.
    J C wrote: »
    in the originally created genetic potential of these Kinds.

    What has potential got to do with it? Unless you are claiming that this feature - the potential for genetic information to change - is the CSI component? I sincerely hope not, as by this token, you will be required to label anything that has potential to change by a physical/chemical mechanism as "intelligent" or "created by an intelligent agent". I refer you to my previous comment re: kettles, water and the production of steam.

    So JC, I think you've boxed yourself in here and I honestly don't see an escape route. As we can reliably determine when an organism acquires a new piece of genetic information - this truly isn't rocket science - you are saying that:
    1. this piece of genetic info was already there but hidden and therefore CSI hasn't increased?
    2. this is actually what I mean by CSI i.e. the capacity for a genome to incorporate new pieces of DNA?

    Which is it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    J C wrote: »
    ..and example of item 10 in action!!!!:D
    "10) Accuse Christians of not answering your questions, even when they have repeatedly and comprehensively answered them ... and never apolgise when this is pointed out to you."

    I won't "apolgise" - your answer didn't even approach the question, so my response is not "and example" of item ten. I know you don't like reading more than one sentence at a time, so I'll simplify it for you down here:

    How can you show that the genetic potential for these changes existed before they occurred?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    What is the original CSI? Is it contained in the original genetic material? If so, how do you fail to recognise that the acquisition of genetic material that confers a new ability as an increase in CSI?*

    *Although as we've learned from your maths, CSI can be increased simply by increasing the length of the sequence you are looking at, with no reference to function at all.
    ...it was contained in the original CSI. This phenomenon is also known as genetic diversity. For example, even though the original Dog Kind probably looked something like a Wolf ... it also contained all of the CSI / Genetic Diversity necessary to produce all modern dog breeds (from Irish Wolfhounds to Chihuahuas) and foxes, wolves, wolverines, etc!!!
    Equally, all pedigree dog have such limited genetic diversity / CSI that the are unable to produce anything other than very similar versions of themselves!!!

    doctoremma wrote: »
    *Although as we've learned from your maths, CSI can be increased simply by increasing the length of the sequence you are looking at, with no reference to function at all.
    ...the entire sentence "methinks it is like a weasel" is functional ... and I have already told you that the establishment of functionality (and how that functionality works) is central to the establishment and measurement of CSI.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    What has potential got to do with it? Unless you are claiming that this feature - the potential for genetic information to change - is the CSI component? I sincerely hope not, as by this token, you will be required to label anything that has potential to change by a physical/chemical mechanism as "intelligent" or "created by an intelligent agent". I refer you to my previous comment re: kettles, water and the production of steam.

    So JC, I think you've boxed yourself in here and I honestly don't see an escape route. As we can reliably determine when an organism acquires a new piece of genetic information - this truly isn't rocket science - you are saying that:
    1. this piece of genetic info was already there but hidden and therefore CSI hasn't increased?
    2. this is actually what I mean by CSI i.e. the capacity for a genome to incorporate new pieces of DNA?

    Which is it?
    ...see my answer above, which illustrates an example of dogs with potential (the original Dog Kind) ... and dogs with no further potential for genetic diversity ... (pedigree 'pooches') !!!:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    I won't "apolgise" - your answer didn't even approach the question, so my response is not "and example" of item ten. I know you don't like reading more than one sentence at a time, so I'll simplify it for you down here:

    How can you show that the genetic potential for these changes existed before they occurred?
    ...its a bit like an athlete who MAY have the potential to run a 3 minute mile ... the potential can really only be proven by actually running a 3 minute mile!!

    ...but once the 3 minute mile has been run we can legitimately conclude that the athlete had the potential to do so ... and proved that they had the potential, by doing it!!!

    Similarly, the Dog Kind has proven itself to have the genetic potential to produce Irish Wolfhounds and Chihuahuas as well as foxes, wolves, wolverines, etc. ... while the Poodle has proven itself to only have the genetic potential to produce ... er ... more POODLES!!!!:):D:p


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    You've got a nasty habit of reacting to my questions by spamming large amounts of coloured, off-topic text. Last time you got a moderator warning for it, so perhaps learn from your mistakes and leave it at that?
    ... "and it came to pass that one of the noodle-like appendages on The Flying Spaghetti Monster doth toucheth an Atheist in a 'sensitive place' ... and the Atheist became as 'spaghetti' in his head and in his bed!!!!

    ... and behold his girlfriend left him ... and became a Christian, saying I need a real man ... and not somebody who thinks he's a monkeys cousin ... and acts like he has spaghetti in his pants!!!"

    Chaper 1 Verse 2 of the Story of the Atheist and the Spaghetti Monster.:eek::pac::):D:p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    J C wrote: »
    ...its a bit like an athlete who MAY have the potential to run a 3 minute mile ... the potential can really only be proven by actually running a 3 minute mile!!

    ...but once the 3 minute mile has been run we can legitimately conclude that the athlete had the potential to do so ... and proved that they had the potential, by doing it!!!

    Similarly, the Dog Kind has proven itself to have the genetic potential to produce Irish Wolfhounds and Chihuahuas as well as foxes, wolves, wolverines, etc. ... while the Poodle has proven itself to only have the genetic potential to produce ... er ... more POODLES!!!!:):D:p

    No, J C, you're not being asked for a feeble analogy - you're being asked for evidence.

    How can you show that the genetic potential for these changes existed before they occurred?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    We can directly observe the methods that humans use in design. By observing them in the process of design and creation, we can understand their methods, behaviour and capabilities in detail. We can thus make logical inferences regarding what humans have designed even when we have not directly observed them. Essentially we can model human design by observation and inference.

    What specific methods does God use? What are His capabilities, habits and behaviour? What are His limitations, feigned or otherwise? What is His aesthetic sense like? By what means have these characteristics been directly documented and how have we shown how they apply to His designs? Essentially, from what empirical knowledge base can we make the logical inference that this or that thing is God-designed as opposed to human-designed or, more critically, designed by some other unknown intelligence?
    ...there are some artefacts (like the huge stoneworks in Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid in Egypt, for example) where we haven't a clue about how they were constructed ... or by whom ... but we still know that they were intelligently erected. Similarly, we also know that the CSI found in living organisms is on a vast scale and of such a high quality as to have a definitively Intelligent Origin. Scientifically, that is all we can conclude ... and it is over to the different 'Faith Communities' to take it from there!!!:D:cool:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...it was contained in the original CSI.

    What was contained in the original CSI? What is the original CSI? Is the CSI confined to that DNA and a direct function of it? What happens to the CSI when an organism acquires a new piece of DNA? Are you flatly denying the existence of insertion/duplication/horizontal transfer events at the genetic level? You are not making any sense.

    As I understand it, you are saying that the piece of DNA necessary for that slug to start producing a chlorophyll product was already there in the original slug, in the founder of the "kind"? I'd really like you to address this final question (actually I'd love you to address them all but I fear you will skip them) as I think it's critical to this debate. So I'll repeat:

    Did the CSI of the founder slug genome contain the DNA necessary to encode the algae chlorophyll product?
    J C wrote: »
    This phenomenon is also known as genetic diversity.

    No it isn't. Diversity is a result of existing sequence variation. This only works if you are asserting that the slug genome already contained the algae genetic DNA. Are you asserting this?
    J C wrote: »
    ...the entire sentence "methinks it is like a weasel" is functional ... and I have already told you that the establishment of functionality (and how that functionality works) is central to the establishment and measurement of CSI.

    Two things:
    1. You see functionality because you read English. If you show this sentence to a person who does not speak or recognise any English words, this sentence is completely non-functional. Who is correct on this issue, you who asserts that the sentence means something or the other who asserts that it is meaningless?
    2. Computer programmes have shown that this sentence can be generated from apparent gobbledygook by random mutation and selection in 43 (?) generations.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    No, J C, you're not being asked for a feeble analogy - you're being asked for evidence.

    How can you show that the genetic potential for these changes existed before they occurred?
    ...and I've told you that we can't (although there is some promising research being carried out into measuring genetic potential) ... but, at present, we can only assess the potential of the original CSI by examining the resulting diversity in each Kind.

    ...BTW, if Evolutionists didn't commandeer all of the public funding for their 'research' and were willing to share some of it ... much greater progress could be made in answrering your question!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... "and it came to pass that one of the noodle-like appendages on The Spaghetti Monster doth toucheth an Atheist in a 'sensitive place' ... and the Atheist became as 'spaghetti' in his head and in his bed!!!!

    ... and behold his girlfriend left him ... and became a Christian, saying I need a real man ... and not somebody who thinks he's a monkeys cousin ... and acts like he has spaghetti in his pants!!!"

    Chaper 1 Verse 2 of the Story of the Atheist and the Spaghetti Monster.:eek::pac::):D:p

    And you have children, you say? Because this is rather indicative of the fact that you still live in a playground. Now, it's always good to get down with your kids, but at some point, they're going to want Daddy to be a grown up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...BTW, if Evolutionists didn't commandeer all of the public funding for their 'research' and were willing to share some of it ... much greater progress could be made in answrering your question!!!

    Epic fail. You think that any biologist wouldn't be interested in research into the genetic potential of organism x or y? You think this research isn't going on? You think this isn't happening in labs around the world? I'm aware that you've probably never been into a lab but maybe you could read about what goes on, hey?

    Ahhh, sweet, you actually believe that creationists are the only ones asking questions about evolution, don't you? You actually think that we all think it's a done deal, all solved, let's pack up and go?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    And you have children, you say? Because this is rather indicative of the fact that you still live in a playground. Now, it's always good to get down with your kids, but at some point, they're going to want Daddy to be a grown up.
    ... this wouldn't be appropriate to discuss in any playground ... but, as adults, we do have to laugh sometimes, Emma ... don't you????:confused::eek::D

    Has the account of The Spaghetti Monster struck a 'sensitive spot' with you Emma????:confused::eek::D


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Epic fail. You think that any biologist wouldn't be interested in research into the genetic potential of organism x or y? You think this research isn't going on? You think this isn't happening in labs around the world? I'm aware that you've probably never been into a lab but maybe you could read about what goes on, hey?

    Ahhh, sweet, you actually believe that creationists are the only ones asking questions about evolution, don't you? You actually think that we all think it's a done deal, all solved, let's pack up and go?
    ...I'm all ears, Emma ... so what have you discovered about the CSI potential of the originally Created Kinds??


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...ah ... but you do have to laugh sometime Emma ... don't you????:confused::eek::D

    I don't think the bastardisation of hundreds of years of genuine science to suit a fundamentalist religious agenda is particularly amusing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ...I'm all ears, Emma ... so what have you discovered about the CSI potential of the originally Created Kinds??

    It's all nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Viruses remain viruses.

    And "life" remains "life" ... therefore evolution doesn't happen ... brilliant Wolfsbane
    Evolution means,say, single-celled ocean life changes over time to land-life and eventually to man. Not the same thing as mutating viruses. Or only in your dreams.
    "Virus" is such a ridiculously large classification that saying viruses don't evolve into non-viruses is utterly pointless.

    It would be like saying we don't see cellular life evolve into non-cellular life, therefore evolution doesn't happen.

    You have already been show examples where single cell life has evolved into multicellular life in a time scale that we could actually observe this. This is examples of one fundamental form of life form evolving into another fundamental form of life form.

    You simple ignored that when it was presented to you.
    No, I didn't. I asked if your example was a colony or an independent organism.
    Now you are asking to see what would be the biological equivilant of a cat evolving into a rock.

    Ridiculous
    OK, so show me a fly (any sort) evolving into a non-fly. Or any other organism you care to select, into anything other.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    So you suggest that radiation + billions of years = vast increase in complexity of life?

    Yes, given that radiation + a decade = vast increase in complexity of life
    Please refer me to the experiment.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Have you seen what radiation does to life over time in the real world?

    Have you see a PLANT? Ever? Or do they not have plants on Planet Creationism?
    Yes, I see plants die all the time. None of them increase in complexity. All function according to the genetic information they possess, and then die.

    In your world, the fittest pass on their superior abilities and not only do we get tougher flowers, we may end up with intelligent ones that will build space craft and populate the universe.

    But I expect you are just waiting to hear from some via the SETI arrangements. :pac:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement