The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

CSI Miami or CSI New York?

... both ... because they are using forensic science to interpret the Complex Specified Information evident at crime scenes, to reach conclusions that 'foul play' i.e. intelligent action was involved !!!!:D:):eek:

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

CSI Miami or CSI New York?

I prefer Las Vegas. Best not to sidetrack this thread though or it might lead to some sort of semi-meaningful conversation.

BTW I thought you showed mathematically that CSI, by JC's definition, was pure nonsense... what about 6 months ago?

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... we now have scientific proof for the existence of God ... and the fact that He Created all life ...

I think this thread should be stopped until you demonstrate this proof because it's a big big claim.

You've claimed it several times but have never demonstrated anything except your ability to pick holes in the evolution/materialist theory.

I've asked you before, if I do the reverse, i.e. pick holes in creationism, am I thereby proving evolution?

Please address these sensibly if you can, i.e. try to steer clear of the below

J C wrote: »

... I wonder how do the Evolutionists explain why they still hold to a theory that has less evidence in support of it than the hypothesis that Hens grow from feathers planted in the ground!!!

Sam Vimes

gosplan wrote: »

You've claimed it several times but have never demonstrated anything except your ability to pick holes in the evolution/materialist theory.

He's never demonstrated that either

liamw wrote: »

I prefer Las Vegas. Best not to sidetrack this thread though or it might lead to some sort of semi-meaningful conversation.

BTW I thought you showed mathematically that CSI, by JC's definition, was pure nonsense... what about 6 months ago?

I did but if JC stopped saying something just because it had been shown to be nonsense this thread wouldn't have 22,565 posts in it

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

I find it interesting that there are prophesies that appear to be targeted around this timeframe and that there are scientific studies that suggest we could lose our electrical power and satellites, and have climate changes due to solar storms in the foreseeable future.

Not interesting enough though that you would actually base an aspect of your faith on it (ie risk being wrong). This to me would suggest you don't actually believe any of this.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Your contempt for Christian prophecy was expected. Your contempt for science speaks volumes.

My "contempt" is merely for people who use prophecy simply as a risk free situation.

If it seems to come true it confirms their faith, but if it doesn't come true it does nothing to dent faith.

I see it as simply hedging bets while being careful to never actually risk belief.

J C

liamw wrote: »

I prefer Las Vegas. Best not to sidetrack this thread though or it might lead to some sort of semi-meaningful conversation.

BTW I thought you showed mathematically that CSI, by JC's definition, was pure nonsense... what about 6 months ago?

... the nonesense is all on your side ... come on lads ... and answer my question on CSI ... and stop evading the issue in relation to identifying the 'signature' of intelligent action!!!!

... and for those of you with the short-term memory of a Goldfish ... here is my question again:-
... but you still haven't answered my question as to what exactly is the 'signature' of intelligent activity????
... for example, what is the 'marker' on an electrical signal that would differentiate one that has been intelligently created from one that has been spontaneously generated by purely materialistic processes?

... you see, I suspect ... indeed I actually know, that the Atheists know what this 'signature' is ... it is CSI ... and they use it's equivalent in SETI ... but they refuse to use it (for their own agenda) when it comes to living processes!!!

... you cannot continue to hide or play one piece of evidence off against another piece of evidence ... and if you continue hiding it will be evident to everybody ...

... better still ... do what I did ... and accept that 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution' has no evidence or logic backing it up ... and start to research the alternative ... start with ID ... and, who knows, you will soon become a fully-fledged Creation Scientist ... and make your mammy proud of you!!!:eek:D

J C

gosplan wrote: »

I think this thread should be stopped until you demonstrate this proof because it's a big big claim.

... I've done it ad nauseum at this stage!!!

gosplan wrote: »

You've claimed it several times but have never demonstrated anything except your ability to pick holes in the evolution/materialist theory.

I've asked you before, if I do the reverse, i.e. pick holes in creationism, am I thereby proving evolution?

... and I told you at the time that you should go ahead and pick holes in Creation ... if you could!!!
... and so far NOTHING!!!:eek:

gosplan wrote: »

Please address these sensibly if you can, i.e. try to steer clear of the below

... the 'below' is a very appropriate (and quite devastating) analogy for spontaneous evolution!!!:);)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I did but if JC stopped saying something just because it had been shown to be nonsense this thread wouldn't have 22,565 posts in it

... I have yet to be proven incorrect on any substantive issue ... despite being outnumbered by over 300 to one!!!!!
... and if you guys weren't in such denial of the God that made ye all ... this thread wouldn't have over 22 thousand postings either!!!:D:)

... David only had ONE Goliath to fight ... sometimes it seems like I am fighting the whole Philistine army on this thread!!!!:eek::D

J C

... and here is an Evolutionist Medical student fretting that one of his lecturers may by an ID proponent (which he calls a 'creationist')

http://efildenimaxenu.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-is-retina-backwards.html

... I have news for him ... he is probably also being taught by a few real Creation Scientists as well as the ID Proponent!!!

... these peskey Creation Scientists are everywhere!!!:eek::)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by gosplan
You've claimed it several times but have never demonstrated anything except your ability to pick holes in the evolution/materialist theory.

I've asked you before, if I do the reverse, i.e. pick holes in creationism, am I thereby proving evolution?

... I have given both the evidence for Creation as well as the evidence against Evolution.
In the case of the Evolution / Creation controversy there are only two basic possibilities ... that living creatures were created by an intelligence of unknown origin or they were spontaneously produced by natural processes without any intelligent input.
The ability to demonstrate that the alternative theory is wrong is therefore is just as important as producing the evidence to support your own theory. It was this concept that led the distinguished 20th century philosopher Karl Popper to propose that science actually advances by disproof .... and boy are there plenty of disproofs for Materialistic Pondkind to Mankind evolution!!!:):D
Dr Popper pointed out that, if you had the hypothesis that 'all swans are white', it did not matter how many white swans you found, or how much evidence you gathered in support of your theory, as soon as a black swan was found, the theory becomes untenable. In the case of evolution there is a whole bevy of multicoloured swans ... and when Creationists point this out, the evolutionists then start arguing that 'red is the new white' ... and in some cases of total denial they will even claim that 'black is white'!!!!!!!:eek::pac::):D

Dr Popper pointed out that disproof is a much more potent evidential weapon than proof. One element of disproof should dispel ideas supported by volumes of positive evidence ... except in the case of Evolution, apparently ... where there is no positive evidence and volumes of disproof ... and yet the Materialists (and their fellow travellers) still hold on grimly to the idea that they are glorfied Pondslime ... with nothing added but time ... oh yes, and mistakes ... as if that somehow makes the whole thing any more credible!!!!:eek::pac::):D

wolfsbane

Soul Winner said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It comes down to whether a Christian can lose his faith entirely or not. Sinning does not remove it. Doubt does not eradicate it. Little faith is a world away from no faith.
If we define faith as acting on the promises of God then we define loosing that faith as not acting on the promises of God. Its as simple as that.

But not acting on the promises of God is not how the Bible defines being lost or apostasy. Nowhere does it suggest that every sin de-converts the saint to a lost sinner.

As soon as that happens we have lost faith and are therefore not in Christ and are therefore not His whether we sin whilst doing it or not. All we need to do is just keep that vital connection maintained daily. That is our battle. Too much of Christianity is taken up with fruit inspecting for Jesus and the eye is kept off what's more important to God - daily trusting in His promises.

Losing faith would indeed involve not trusting in His promises - but not trusting at a particular moment in a particular promise of God is not total absence of faith. Peter was not deconverted when he took his eyes of Christ and began to sink in the water.

By your definition every Christian is lost and found, lost and found, lost and found countless times in his/her life. Every sin and every doubt involve a lack of faith. But not lack of saving faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, under my understanding they did not sincerely and wholeheartedly receive it. They received it conditionally - they were glad to hear and accept, so long as it didn't cost too much. That's not true repentance and faith. That's buying an insurance policy against hell that covers one's intention to sin. Satan is the underwriter for that, not God, so its worthless.
You've made quite a lot of assumptions there Wolf. The Word plainly states that they did receive it and some with joy and gladness but other factors crowded in to choke the Word, factors that were outside of their control. You're assumption that they had intentions to sin is very judgmental and ill founded if you ask me. Unless that is made crystal clear in the parable I would give making such judgments a very wide berth. Anyway you are entitled to interpret the parable whatever way you like I suppose.

The parable is explicitly plain that they received the Word with other than noble and good hearts. What does that mean other than they were not fully committed to it, that they had reservations deep in their heart if not in their conscious thought?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
He did indeed. And what characterised that type? They had a noble and good heart for the word to enter and develop.
Luke 8:15 But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.
The key words in this verse are keep it. Suggesting that it is possible to let it go. That they don't let it go is what keeps them connected to the source of salvation. It is that keeping of the Word (or promise of God) that makes their salvation sure. But it has to be actually practiced everyday, it is not a once off event in the life of the believer, that's all I'm trying to point out.

No, the key words include with a noble and good heart as well as keep it. And it is the former that makes the latter happen. So a noble and good heart will not make it a once off event in the life of the believer. Only an ignoble and bad heart will do that. That's the unconverted heart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
In other words, God had given them a new heart, one that would gladly hear and obey. The new heart preceded their belief, and enabled it.
No, it is about another group, those who hear the Word. Some will truly repent and believe, most will not. BTW, one of the types never professed - those by the wayside, the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
Hearing and obeying are one and the same thing. Let me show you:

The word translated obedience in the New Testament is Hupakoé and the word translated hearing is Akoé. Hupakoé literal means to go towards the voice of the sayer.

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Galatians 3:2

They received the spirit by the hearing of faith, nothing else.

Even in the Old Testament the word translate obedience is Shama which also means to hear. So obeying is the same as hearing and in the parable of the sower each type of soil heard (obeyed) the Word, what differentiates the various types of soil is what caused them to stop hearing the Word, e.g. Satan, Life's worries and so forth. They failed to keep hold of the Word no matter what. It wasn't because they had intentions of sinning and weren't true receivers of the Word in the first place as you suggest, that just shows a lack of understanding of this parable on your part IMO, which means that there must be a lack of understanding for all parables. One of us is not understanding this parable and I don't think its me.

No, Hearing and obeying are not one and the same thing. In some contexts they are, for hearing is used as a shortened form of hear and obey - but in many others it is quite distinct, including the immediate context to the parable:
Matthew 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:


‘ Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
The first type are specifically said to have heard but not understood the Word. So hearing does not mean being converted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Because we might be deceiving ourselves about having true faith in the first place - like the stony ground and thorny ground hearers. Paul is challenging them to make sure they were really saved in the first place. Careless, unholy lives are an indication of weak and wayward saints, in danger of chastisement - or worse, of unsaved sinners who have deceived themselves with a cheap profession.
There is no such animal as an unholy saint, that is a contradiction in terms because the same Greek word translates both saint and holy which is Hagios. Its like calling someone a married bachelor. It (Hagios) has to do with commitment, a giving of oneself over totally to the use of the deity and it can be applied to any religion. Being a saint is not living a perfect existence, it is simply being committed to God and being faithful to that commitment.

So you say a Christian can live an un-perfect life, commit sins and still be classified as holy? Then we agree! He is holy because God has set him apart for Himself and is making him progressively pure. But his life may include episodes of impurity such as are commonly called unholy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If you had true faith, you will not lose it.
If that is the case then why does Paul exhort the Phillipians to work out their salvation with fear and trembling? Surely they had true faith? If what you say is true then why is Paul telling them to deal with their salvation in this way? Where the Philipians somehow inferior in faith quality than the other chruches? I don't think they were. Paul actually points ot them as shining examples of what a Church should be like. He says so to the Corinthians.

"And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. Out of the most severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints. And they did not do as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then to us in keeping with God's will. So we urged Titus, since he had earlier made a beginning, to bring also to completion this act of grace on your part. But just as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us—see that you also excel in this grace of giving." 2 Corinthians 8:1-7

Paul held them up as pretty high cotton. I would even venture to say that their faith was true, wouldn't you? If that's the case then according to you they would never loose it. But if that's the case then why does Paul still exhort them to work out their salvation with fear and trembling? It just doesn't make sense if what you say about true faith is correct.

Remember what I said about God using means to achieve His ends? Exhortion to holiness is one such means to accomplish the end - the salvation of His elect. The latter is never in doubt, but means must and will be used to achieve it.

Genuine faith is genuine faith no matter who has it. They key is keeping it until the end. We all have to do this until we make it over there. Having the faith of Elijah all your life and then losing it at the last hurdle is not going to do anything for you. But even if you have little faith and keep even that little faith right up to the end you will make it in.

We agree in that. What we differ on is if one can lose genuine faith. I say Christ has promised to keep all who come to Him - they cannot be snatched away by the wiles of the Devil. They may be tripped up by him from time to time, but they will always rise again.
________________________________________________________________
John 10;28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... I've done it ad nauseum at this stage!!!

So you just need to copy and past then.

J C wrote: »

... and I told you at the time that you should go ahead and pick holes in Creation ... if you could!!!
... and so far NOTHING!!!:eek:

OK. Your theory revolves around a supernatural omnipotent being which you have zero material evidence for .. like I said, faith based.

J C wrote: »

... the 'below' is a very appropriate (and quite devastating) analogy for spontaneous evolution!!!:);)

Well, at least you didn't say the hen created life and then rested.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... I have yet to be proven incorrect on any substantive issue ... despite being outnumbered by over 300 to one!!!!!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66466144&postcount=22522

Her's your response to an issue raised the other day.

Before I question it, I feel it's important to note that you later edited out the line I originally questioned - 'god did it because he could'. You can see it quoted in my post a couple of posts later.

Anyway, you haven't addressed the issue at all. You've just repeated what the video actually says and then thrown in two lines

J C wrote: »

... it works perfectly ... and is an example of a 'luxury' that only an Intelligent Designer could provide!!!!

... it's actually a 'signature' of God ... and it is not a 'defect' ... as it works perfectly!!!

....which really mean nothing.




Shortly after that, this happened:

J C wrote: »

... Creationists have all of the models that work ... when it comes to the origins question

Wicknight wrote: »

Really? You modelled God? Interesting, would love to see that. :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

... God modelled Himself !!!

gosplan wrote: »

Do you mean overall that creationists have one model for everything, a belief in God the creator, and only he knows the details?

Wicknight wrote: »

So lets be clear, when you said scientists have all the models they need to scientifically study creation you would just making stupid stuff up? Correct?

J C wrote: »

... the only crowd making it up as they go along are the Evolutionists ... indeed what else can they do except draw on their imaginations ... because neither logic nor the physical evidence is on their side!!!!:):D

So you answer to one piece of evidence for evolution was to say 'God did it because he could' and your answer to the charge that you've fabricating things was to say 'No, you're fabricating things'.


What's next JC, 'That's what you think' or 'I know you are but what am I'.

But yeah, you've never been proven incorrect.:rolleyes:

J C

gosplan wrote: »

So you just need to copy and past then.

... I will after a while ... I don't want to repeat myself too often ... and besides a delay increases the interest amongst observers!!!
... treat 'em mean and keep 'em keen ... and all that!!!!

gosplan wrote: »

OK. Your theory revolves around a supernatural omnipotent being which you have zero material evidence for .. like I said, faith based.

... but that is where you are wrong!!!
... modern science is able to discern the 'signature' of intelligence ... which is CSI ... and living creatures are 'jam packed' with the stuff!!!

... we can scientifically and mathematically prove that all life was created by an inordinate intelligence of omniscient and omnipotent proportions ... AKA God ... we only need faith to believe that this God so loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son Jesus Christ ... that whosoever might believe on Him will be Saved!!!

... you are confusing what science has established (Creation) with what must be believed in by faith ... Salvation ... and Evolution !!!!:):D:eek:

gosplan wrote: »

Well, at least you didn't say the hen created life and then rested.

... you are confusing capacity with just-so Evolutionist stories ... the feather (even though it is full of Complex Specified Biomolecules) doesn't have the information or physical capacity to generate a hen ... and Spontaneous Evolution also doesn't have the capacity to produce a hen ... not in gazillion, billion years ... or after a gazillion billion mistakes ...
... but God does possess both the omnipotence and the omniscience to do so!!!!:eek::D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... but that is where you are wrong!!!
... modern science is able to discern the 'signature' of intelligence ... which is CSI ... and living creatures are 'jam packed' with the stuff!!!

... we can scientifically and mathematically prove that all life was created by an inordinate intelligence of omniscient and omnipotent proportions ... AKA God ...

Science doesn't prove things (though what you know about science could fit in an ants lunch box so I'm hardly shocked you said this), so even if you had a model of creation of life by an intelligence that wouldn't prove such a thing happened only that it was an accurate model.

But you have already admitted that you don't have this model to being with.

So, like all of Creationism, you have zero. Nothing. Not a scientific thing.

No testable model no science. Its that simple. Can we end the thread now :rolleyes:

J C

gosplan wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66466144&postcount=22522

Her's your response to an issue raised the other day.

Before I question it, I feel it's important to note that you later edited out the line I originally questioned - 'god did it because he could'. You can see it quoted in my post a couple of posts later.

Anyway, you haven't addressed the issue at all. You've just repeated what the video actually says and then thrown in two lines

... I made a further response here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66481844&postcount=22537

... and I stand over my initial assertion that :-
... God did do it because He could ...

... and Evolution didn't do it ... because it couldn't!!!

... and I asked a question that goes to the heart of the matter here ... and still no response has been forthcoming!!!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66481612&postcount=22536

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Science doesn't prove things (though what you know about science could fit in an ants lunch box so I'm hardly shocked you said this), so even if you had a model of creation of life by an intelligence that wouldn't prove such a thing happened only that it was an accurate model.

But you have already admitted that you don't have this model to being with.

So, like all of Creationism, you have zero. Nothing. Not a scientific thing.

No testable model no science. Its that simple. Can we end the thread now :rolleyes:

... Evolutionist science certainly cannot prove that Pondkind evolved into Mankind ... because you cannot prove something that never happened!!!!

... and so Evolutionist Science is stuck with 'just-so' stories ... which it claims to be 'models'

Creation Science has mathematically proven that all life was created by an inordinate intelligence of omniscient and omnipotent proportions ... AKA God !!:eek::):D

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... Evolutionist science certainly cannot prove that Pondkind evolved into Mankind ... because you cannot prove something that never happened!!!!

You can't prove something that has happened either, a fact about science that you would know if you knew anything about science which you clearly don't

What you can do is construct a scientific model (a theory) of what you think is happening with a natural phenomena and then see how accurate that model is at predicting the observation.

Something scientists have done remarkably well with evolutionary theory.

And something Creationists have never managed to do with the few Creationist models they actually bother to try and construct.

J C wrote: »

Creation Science has mathematically proven that all life was created by an inordinate intelligence of omniscient and omnipotent proportions ... AKA God !!:eek::):D

Really? Please by all means show us this mathematical model of God.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... I made a further response here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66481844&postcount=22537

Ah, yes. What was your answer again?

J C wrote: »

... well it beats all the handwaving about the RLN having an evolutionary origiin ... when non-intelligently directed processes are mathematically incapable of generating even one simple specific protein ... never mind the hundreds of different highly specified proteins and other biomolecules required to make just one cell in the RLN !!!!

'My idea beats your idea ... which is ... '

Another non-answer to add to the list.

J C wrote: »

... and I stand over my initial assertion that :-
... God did do it because He could ...

... and Evolution didn't do it ... because it couldn't!!!

You were shown a clear non-random imperfection in a life form and a theory of how it resulted from a step-by-step evolutionary process.

I've no problem with you claiming the above as long as you stop crowing about 'never being proven wrong'.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

Creation Science has mathematically proven that all life was created by an inordinate intelligence of omniscient and omnipotent proportions ... AKA God !!:eek::):D

Are you referring to CSI here?

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

Please by all means show us this mathematical model of God.

2+2=God.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... and I asked a question that goes to the heart of the matter here ... and still no response has been forthcoming!!!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66481612&postcount=22536

Just to confirm.

Basically you're asking what would constitute a signature of intelligent life.

i.e. what would make SETI say 'we've found it'

To be honest I've no idea. They say they're looking for evidence of E.T. technology.

I get what you mean by it.

How come one very improbable sequence of information it thought to have generated randomly but another would be considered evidence of intelligence?

To be honest, I can't really answer that. I've no idea what kind of signal SETI would consider investigating (and I'm guessing you don't either). I've no idea if upon receiving said string of information they've proclaim to have found life or say 'we've found something that there is a very low probability of occurring randomly'.

gosplan

Wicknight wrote: »

Science doesn't prove things (though what you know about science could fit in an ants lunch box so I'm hardly shocked you said this), so even if you had a model of creation of life by an intelligence that wouldn't prove such a thing happened only that it was an accurate model.

But you have already admitted that you don't have this model to being with.

So, like all of Creationism, you have zero. Nothing. Not a scientific thing.

No testable model no science. Its that simple. Can we end the thread now :rolleyes:

He's got a point here JC. We're asking for a scientific model of creation of life and mathematical proof that all life was created by 'god'. You've claimed to have both these things so we really need to see them.

Please don't go on a tangent here. Just post what you were talking about when you made these claims.

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Just to confirm.

Basically you're asking what would constitute a signature of intelligent life.

i.e. what would make SETI say 'we've found it'

To be honest I've no idea. They say they're looking for evidence of E.T. technology.

I get what you mean by it.

How come one very improbable sequence of information it thought to have generated randomly but another would be considered evidence of intelligence?

To be honest, I can't really answer that. I've no idea what kind of signal SETI would consider investigating (and I'm guessing you don't either). I've no idea if upon receiving said string of information they've proclaim to have found life or say 'we've found something that there is a very low probability of occurring randomly'.

...CSI is the answer ... if complex specified information were to be found on a radio carrier signal ... that would be incontrovertible evidence of ETI.

... so evolutionists are being selective ... they look for CSI when searcing for ETI ... and so far have failed to find it ...
... and they refuse to countenace CSI when it comes to Terrestrial Life ... even though terra-bytes of the stuff is literally staring them in the face!!!!:)

... I look forward to the day when Evolutionists and Creationists can be friends. Speaking as a former Evolutionist, I can say that both disciplines can benefit from co-operation with each other.
Some of my best friends and some of the people I admire most are Evolutionists. I find them to often be exceptionally talented and intelligent people ... yet they have this one failing ... they go all 'twichy' at the mere mention of Creation. What a pity!!!

Jesus loves you all!!!:D

J C

gosplan wrote: »

He's got a point here JC. We're asking for a scientific model of creation of life and mathematical proof that all life was created by 'god'. You've claimed to have both these things so we really need to see them.

Please don't go on a tangent here. Just post what you were talking about when you made these claims.

... the scientific model for the Creation of Life is based on the fact that living systems are so complex and tightly specified that they are impossible to produce by random non-intelligently directed proceses ... and they therefore, of necessity, must have been produced by the appliance of intelligence.
The model is tested by trying to prove that CSI can be generated by non-intelligently directed processes ... or conversely ... by mathematically proving that CSI cannot be so generated.

So far we have found that CSI hasn't been generated by non-intelligently directed processes ... and we have established the maths which tells us why this is impossible.

... however, as somebody with an open, objective and enquiring mind ... I am always prepared to examine any evidence that is produced to the contrary ... but so far, none has been forthcomng!!!:):D

gosplan

J C wrote: »

...CSI is the answer ... if complex specified information were to be found on a radio carrier signal ... that would be incontrovertible evidence of ETI.

... so evolutionists are being selective ... they look for CSI when searcing for ETI ... and so far have failed to find it ...
... and they refuse to countenace CSI when it come to Terrestrial Life ... even though it is literally staring them in the face!!!!:)

So you're basing everything on Complex Specified Information. Is this also the mathematical proof of God you speak of?

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... the scientific model for the Creation of Life is based on the fact that living systems are so complex and tightly specified that they are impossible to produce by random non-intelligently directed proceses

This has most definitely not been proven!!!:D

It's an argument, that's all.

An argument that pretty much all of the CSI stuff is based on.

J C wrote: »

So far we have found that CSI hasn't been generated by non-intelligently directed processes ... and we have established the maths which tells us why this is impossible.

Really? Can you show or link please?

The Mad Hatter

gosplan wrote: »

This has most definitely not been proven!!!:D

Well, it's fairly unlikely that these things could come about by random processes. Which is why it's nice that evolution is not a random process.

J C

gosplan wrote: »

'My idea beats your idea ... which is ... '

Another non-answer to add to the list.

... my answer beats all of the handwaving about the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve having an evolutionary origiin ... because non-intelligently directed processes are mathematically incapable of generating even one simple specific protein ... never mind the hundreds of different highly specified proteins and other biomolecules required to make just one cell in the RLN !!!!:D

gosplan wrote: »

You were shown a clear non-random imperfection in a life form and a theory of how it resulted from a step-by-step evolutionary process.

there is nothing imperfect about the RLN ... it functions perfectly well and it is an interesting flourish to the signature of God as our Creator!!!

gosplan wrote: »

I've no problem with you claiming the above as long as you stop crowing about 'never being proven wrong'.

... I'm not 'crowing' ... that would be prideful and sinful!!!!
... I am merely pointing to the truth .. that the RLN and its associated larynx as well as the speech and language centres in the brain are examples of 'luxury' that only an Intelligent Designer could provide!!!!:D

... and it is also not a 'defect' ... because it works perfectly well!!!

gosplan

J C wrote: »

because non-intelligently directed processes are mathematically incapable of generating even one simple specific protein ... never mind the hundreds of different highly specified proteins and other biomolecules required to make just one cell in the RLN !!!!:D

Please stop repeating this mathematical proof claim and show us!!!!!

J C wrote: »

there is nothing imperfect about the RLN ... it functions perfectly well and it is an interesting flourish to the signature of God as our Creator!!!

So God purposefully created an inefficiency in the body as a flourish??

Good answer though, you are shown you a counterintuitive element of a living organism and clearly how it has developed through evolution.

And the answer remains - 'God created it as a luxury/flourish'.

I'm just amazed that you can talk about the need for evidence and mathematical proof without seeing the glaring contradiction in standards of argument.