The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Jesus loves you all!!!:D

Jesus hates liars

liamw

In case anyone is new to this thread and confused by the term CSI (a.k.a. creationist jibberish), here is the debunk of the concept:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

And here is debunk of J.C's interpretation of it:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64185114&postcount=20396

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... 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


gosplan
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.


The Mad Hatter
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.

... lads look at the above exchanges ... and blush!!!!
I said that CSI cannot be produced by random non-intelligently directed processes ... The Mad Hatter confirmed that this is effectively the case ... and gosplan say that it most definitely hasn't been proven!!!

... lads please talk to each other ... and try and get your 'story' straight!!!

... it won't ultimately help your invalid arguments ... but it will help to stop you looking like complete 'prats'!!!:eek::D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus hates liars

... Jesus doesn't hate anybody ... but if He did hate liars ... then you would be in deep manure yourself ... for your consitent bare-faced and deliberate denial of reality on this thread!!!

J C

gosplan wrote: »

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.

... the RLN works perfectly well and it is only 'inefficient' in the way that every intelligently designed artistic 'flurry' is 'inefficeint'!!!!
However, it does prove that Evolutionary processes are actually incapable of 'rewiring' the RLN over the shortest possible distance ... something that is claimed for evolution for other features of living systems that are designed to the tightest possible specification!!!

... I also pointed out a more fundamental problem with your argument (which you have chosen to ignore) ... and that is that evolution doesn't possess the capacity to produce even one cell in the RLN ... never mind the entire RLN itself ... and the larynx ... and the speech and language centres in the brain ... all of which consist of highly complex tightly specific combinations of highly integrated inter-acting biomolecules.:):D

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... lads look at the above exchanges ... and blush!!!!
I said that CSI cannot be produced by random non-intelligently directed processes ... The Mad Hatter confirmed that this is effectively the case ... and gosplan say that it most definitely hasn't been proven!!!

... lads please talk to each other ... and try and get your 'story' straight!!!

... it won't ultimately help your invalid arguments ... but it will help to stop you looking like complete 'prats'!!!:eek::D

Apologies, when I said random, I simply meant non intelligently directed. poor choice of word though.

Still I thought that it was clear from my comment what I was trying to say (which you managed to avoid answering).

gosplan

J C wrote: »

However, it does prove that Evolutionary processes are actually incapable of 'rewiring' the RLN over the shortest possible distance ... something that is claimed for evolution for other features of living systems that are designed to the tightest possible specification!!!

Please explain further.

Also any sign of your claimed scientific model of creation and mathematical proof of an intelligent creator?

We've been asking over and over for about 4-5 days now.

gosplan

liamw wrote: »

In case anyone is new to this thread and confused by the term CSI (a.k.a. creationist jibberish), here is the debunk of the concept:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

And here is debunk of J.C's interpretation of it:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64185114&postcount=20396

Ah thanks.

I'm getting the feeling that this thread is the world's biggest waste of time.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... Jesus doesn't hate anybody ... but if He did hate liars ... then you would be in deep manure yourself ... for your consitent bare-faced and deliberate denial of reality on this thread!!!

yeah how about you tell us what the model of God is

or retract the statement

Jesus hates lies.

J C

liamw wrote: »

In case anyone is new to this thread and confused by the term CSI (a.k.a. creationist jibberish), here is the debunk of the concept:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

And here is debunk of J.C's interpretation of it:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64185114&postcount=20396

... and here is where I debunked the above posting
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64196677&postcount=20423

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

yeah how about you tell us what the model of God is

or retract the statement

Jesus hates lies.

... I have already provided details of the basic Creation Science model here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66521877&postcount=22586

... and I have also told you that Jesus doesn't hate anybody ... however, your your bare-faced and deliberate denial of this fact indicates that you would be in the manure yourself if Jesus did, in fact, hate liars!!!! :eek::):D

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Ah thanks.

I'm getting the feeling that this thread is the world's biggest waste of time.

... 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution' is actually the world's biggest waste of time!!!!:eek::)

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... I have already provided details of the basic Creation Science model here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66521877&postcount=22586

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

Don't you mean based on the argument/assumption/theory?

J C wrote: »

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.

If it's already a fact, why are you wasting time testing it?

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.

Which is generally taken as incorrect in the academic world.



Tell me something JC. Since you seem to actually believe you have proof of God - solid undoubtable mathematical proof. Do you think that the very vast majority of all the mathematicians and scientists of the world are either:

a) to stupid to understand you
b) liars

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Don't you mean based on the argument/assumption/theory?
no ... its based on observable fact.



If it's already a fact, why are you wasting time testing it?
You can't have too much evidence when faced with the levels of denial shown on this thread


Which is generally taken as incorrect in the academic world.
Which is generally denied by the Materialists!!!

Tell me something JC. Since you seem to actually believe you have proof of God - solid undoubtable mathematical proof. Do you think that the very vast majority of all the mathematicians and scientists of the world are either:

a) to stupid to understand you
b) liars
c) just guys in deep denial and rejection of the God that made them!!!:)

.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... and here is where I debunked the above posting
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64196677&postcount=20423

You didn't debunk anything JC. You just repeated the basic theory of CSI and didn't address Sam Vimes response is any way.

See below.

J C wrote: »

...the first test is that it is functional language ... once this is established the CSI content can be established by the formula Log 2(a x a x a ... n) where n is the number of characters in the sentence/string and a is the number of possible characters at each point on the string/sentence.
For example, the CSI content of the 46 character string/statement "J C is not really a professional mathematician" has a CSI content of 263.48 ... which is approaching mathematical certainty that it was intelligently generated!!!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You didn't give your working out so I've determined that you used a figure of 53 possible characters because -log2(53^46)=263.48

And you didn't give the units so I'm assuming that's bits. Let's apply that to the rest of our strings shall we? I'll be generous and use the same figure of 53 possible characters even though mine include characters with accents etc and some punctuation


hasdfkõlfasòEd'sdfHafjkăëlsadf'sdfjsd'as
40 characters, 229.11 bits of CSI. Almost as certain of being designed as the string you calculated

aaabbbaaaaaabbbaaaaaabbbaaa
27 characters. 154.65 bits of CSI. Not nearly as certain


bbbbbbbttttbbbbaaaaaaabbbbbbbbaaaaaahhhhdddddd
46 characters. 263.48 bits just like the one you calculated therefore also approaching mathematical certainty that it was intelligently generated


sutydychchiheddiwRwy'nteimlo'ndda
33 characters. 189 bits. Not nearly as certain as the one you calculated

ézyefla'ădijfaìézyefla'ădijfaì
30 characters. 171.83 bits. Not very certain at all.

létrehozásátatudományegyrakáshülyeség
37 characters. 211 bits. Not very certain


dfhasdfnlskTsGhbCdnéèëEĉhiheddiw
32 characters. 183 bits. Not very certain


Now:

1. The first string is a random series of letters, it has no meaning but your maths has is almost a mathematical certainty of being designed
2. In the second string the a's represent dots and the b's represent dashes in Morse code. That's SOS in Morse code three times but your maths has it as the least likely to be designed
3. The third string is again a random string of characters but your maths has it "approaching mathematical certainty that it was intelligently generated", even though it looks like what you previously described as simplicity
4. The fourth string is "hellohowareyouIamfeelingfine" in Welsh. Perfectly recognisable as intelligently designed once it's in English but your maths has it nowhere near as certain as a random string
5. The fifth string has the same string twice, "ézyefla'ădijfaì". It's an intelligently designed coded representation of the number 11 but your maths has it considerably less certain than a random string
6. The fifth string is "creationscienseisaloadofnonsense" in Hungarian. Again recognisable in English but less likely to be due to design than a random string according to your maths.
7. The last string is again a random string and the only random one that actually gives a somewhat lower measure of CSI

Even though I was generous in my calculations CSI has failed miserably. So, as suspected, CSI is not a reliable indicator of design at all. The only thing it's a reliable indicator of is which sentence is longer.

J C wrote: »

...CSI is Complex Specified Information that is functional.

You must first establish that it is functional and/or specified ... and then you must establish how many 'characters' are used to express the CSI and how many 'characters' are available to choose from at each point on the information string!!!

...when you have scientifically established all these factors you can calculate the CSI using the formula Log 2 (a^n) where a is the number of 'characters' available to choose from at each point on the information string and n is the number of characters in the string. Established CSI levels in excess of 330 bits are regarded as statisitical impossibilities for non-intelligently drected processes (even if operating on the scale of the 'Big Bang' Universe).

And here we are six months later and you're still claiming mathematical proof of God.

In addition, you have the nerve to say a few pages back that you've never been proven wrong in this thread :rolleyes:

gosplan

gosplan wrote: »

a) to stupid to understand you
b) liars

J.C. wrote:

just guys in deep denial and rejection of the God that made them!!!

No, many academics have studied Dembski's work and have said it's mistaken. So they either lied when they saw it added up, or they got it wrong.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... I have already provided details of the basic Creation Science model here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66521877&postcount=22586

Once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what the fubar you are talking about

A scientific model cannot be based on something being impossible, nor can a scientific model prove anything.

What you said in that post is, from a scientific point of view, nonsense.

You also claimed to have a model of the either the designer or the act of design which, since this would require you to have a model of God which is not possible, was obviously a barefaced misrepresentation. I'll give you the decency of putting that down to you again not having a clue what you are talking about, rather than a deliberate lie.

Well done, you have given Creation "science" an even worse image than it already had

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what the fubar you are talking about

A scientific model cannot be based on something being impossible, nor can a scientific model prove anything.

What you said in that post is, from a scientific point of view, nonsense.

You also claimed to have a model of the either the designer or the act of design which, since this would require you to have a model of God which is not possible, was obviously a barefaced misrepresentation. I'll give you the decency of putting that down to you again not having a clue what you are talking about, rather than a deliberate lie.

Well done, you have given Creation "science" an even worse image than it already had

... strong words from somebody who believes that his brain (and by extension his mind) has been 'moronically designed' through the interaction of random mistakes and death upon Pondslime!!!!:):D:eek:

J C

gosplan wrote: »

You didn't debunk anything JC. You just repeated the basic theory of CSI and didn't address Sam Vimes response is any way.

I did debunk Sams comments with pure science!!!!:):D

gosplan wrote: »

And here we are six months later and you're still claiming mathematical proof of God.

In addition, you have the nerve to say a few pages back that you've never been proven wrong in this thread :rolleyes:

... and I have never been wrong about any substantive issue on this thread!!!:):D

munsterdevil

Apologies to everyone editing this post, but I just had a look through the last few pages and it's worse than a three ring circus, no intention of getting involved.

Morbert

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You didn't give your working out so I've determined that you used a figure of 53 possible characters because -log2(53^46)=263.48

And you didn't give the units so I'm assuming that's bits. Let's apply that to the rest of our strings shall we? I'll be generous and use the same figure of 53 possible characters even though mine include characters with accents etc and some punctuation


hasdfkõlfasòEd'sdfHafjkăëlsadf'sdfjsd'as
40 characters, 229.11 bits of CSI. Almost as certain of being designed as the string you calculated

aaabbbaaaaaabbbaaaaaabbbaaa
27 characters. 154.65 bits of CSI. Not nearly as certain


bbbbbbbttttbbbbaaaaaaabbbbbbbbaaaaaahhhhdddddd
46 characters. 263.48 bits just like the one you calculated therefore also approaching mathematical certainty that it was intelligently generated


sutydychchiheddiwRwy'nteimlo'ndda
33 characters. 189 bits. Not nearly as certain as the one you calculated

ézyefla'ădijfaìézyefla'ădijfaì
30 characters. 171.83 bits. Not very certain at all.

létrehozásátatudományegyrakáshülyeség
37 characters. 211 bits. Not very certain


dfhasdfnlskTsGhbCdnéèëEĉhiheddiw
32 characters. 183 bits. Not very certain


Now:

1. The first string is a random series of letters, it has no meaning but your maths has is almost a mathematical certainty of being designed
2. In the second string the a's represent dots and the b's represent dashes in Morse code. That's SOS in Morse code three times but your maths has it as the least likely to be designed
3. The third string is again a random string of characters but your maths has it "approaching mathematical certainty that it was intelligently generated", even though it looks like what you previously described as simplicity
4. The fourth string is "hellohowareyouIamfeelingfine" in Welsh. Perfectly recognisable as intelligently designed once it's in English but your maths has it nowhere near as certain as a random string
5. The fifth string has the same string twice, "ézyefla'ădijfaì". It's an intelligently designed coded representation of the number 11 but your maths has it considerably less certain than a random string
6. The fifth string is "creationscienseisaloadofnonsense" in Hungarian. Again recognisable in English but less likely to be due to design than a random string according to your maths.
7. The last string is again a random string and the only random one that actually gives a somewhat lower measure of CSI

Even though I was generous in my calculations CSI has failed miserably. So, as suspected, CSI is not a reliable indicator of design at all. The only thing it's a reliable indicator of is which sentence is longer.

That's all just theoretical maths. JC uses real maths!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... strong words from somebody who believes that his brain (and by extension his mind) has been 'moronically designed' through the interaction of random mistakes and death upon Pondslime!!!!:):D:eek:

if you thin the brain as a biological system is perfectly designed you know nothing about the brain.

We can add it to the list of things you know nothing about such as the scientific method and evolutionary biology :rolleyes:.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

That's all just theoretical maths. JC uses real maths!

rofl :P:pac:

J C

Morbert wrote: »

That's all just theoretical maths. JC uses real maths!

... you said it!!!:):D

... and I comprhensively dealt with Sams erroneous conclusions in relation to CSI here ...

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...CSI is Complex Specified Information that is functional.

You must first establish that it is functional and/or specified ... and then you must establish how many 'characters' are used to express the CSI and how many 'characters' are available to choose from at each point on the information string!!!

...when you have scientifically established all these factors you can calculate the CSI using the formula Log 2 (a^n) where a is the number of 'characters' available to choose from at each point on the information string and n is the number of characters in the string. Established CSI levels in excess of 330 bits are regarded as statisitical impossibilities for non-intelligently drected processes (even if operating on the scale of the 'Big Bang' Universe).

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

if you thin the brain as a biological system is perfectly designed you know nothing about the brain.

We can add it to the list of things you know nothing about such as the scientific method and evolutionary biology :rolleyes:.

... and if you think that the brain could ever be produced from Pondslime and cumulative mistakes ... let me suggest that you should think again!!!:):D:eek:

... and you can add that to the list of things that Evolutionary Biology completely fails to explain!!!:):D:eek:

Morbert

J C wrote: »

... you said it!!!:):D

... and I comprhensively dealt with Sams erroneous conclusions in relation to CSI here ...

..CSI is Complex Specified Information that is functional.

You must first establish that it is functional and/or specified ... and then you must establish how many 'characters' are used to express the CSI and how many 'characters' are available to choose from at each point on the information string!!!

...when you have scientifically established all these factors you can calculate the CSI using the formula Log 2 (a^n) where a is the number of 'characters' available to choose from at each point on the information string and n is the number of characters in the string. Established CSI levels in excess of 330 bits are regarded as statisitical impossibilities for non-intelligently drected processes (even if operating on the scale of the 'Big Bang' Universe).

Where is the justification for tacking on the "functional" requirement? I.e. A genetic sequence and its phenotype might be completely non-functional in one environment, partially functional in another, and fully functional in another still.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... you said it!!!:):D

... and I comprhensively dealt with Sams erroneous conclusions in relation to CSI here ...

Originally Posted by J C
...CSI is Complex Specified Information that is functional.

You must first establish that it is functional and/or specified ... and then you must establish how many 'characters' are used to express the CSI and how many 'characters' are available to choose from at each point on the information string!!!

...when you have scientifically established all these factors you can calculate the CSI using the formula Log 2 (a^n) where a is the number of 'characters' available to choose from at each point on the information string and n is the number of characters in the string. Established CSI levels in excess of 330 bits are regarded as statisitical impossibilities for non-intelligently drected processes (even if operating on the scale of the 'Big Bang' Universe).

I'll tell you what J C, at liamw's request we'll get into this nonsense one more time. Answer me some questions please:

1. what does specified mean?
2. 330 bits is regarded by whom as statistical impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes? What is the basis for this figure? For example, what if something is designed but contains less than 330 bits? How can CSI determine that this is designed?
4. Is "non-intelligently directed" the same as spontaneous/random?

Overheal

J C wrote: »

... and I have never been wrong about any substantive issue on this thread!!!:):D

I feel I should make my first ever contribution to this megathread of sorts, just to say: That's an extremely bigoted statement to make.

To say that you are right, when a) God is a Theory b) Atheism is a Theory c) Creationism and Evolution are *drumroll* Theories.

The simple fact of the matter is nobody can be Right about something that is ultimately still Theory, Belief, and Opinion.

By all means strive to prove your belief, but I feel it worthy to point out that you haven't won the Theological debate, probably won't win in your lifetime. A Theological debate, I should add, that has been going on for Hundreds, even Thousands of years.

So yes, self-flattery and all that.

PS. :eek::rolleyes:

J C

Overheal wrote: »

I feel I should make my first ever contribution to this megathread of sorts, just to say: That's an extremely bigoted statement to make.

To say that you are right, when a) God is a Theory b) Atheism is a Theory c) Creationism and Evolution are *drumroll* Theories.

The simple fact of the matter is nobody can be Right about something that is ultimately still Theory, Belief, and Opinion.

By all means strive to prove your belief, but I feel it worthy to point out that you haven't won the Theological debate, probably won't win in your lifetime. A Theological debate, I should add, that has been going on for Hundreds, even Thousands of years.

So yes, self-flattery and all that.

PS. :eek::rolleyes:

... to that I will simply add that there are theories ... and ... 'drumroll' ...
... there are Creation Science Theories!!!!:eek::):D
... as well as amazing Creation-supportive facts!!!

... even your admission that the time that theological debate has been going on is measured in hundreds or thousands of years (rather than the hundreds of thousands or indeed the millions of years that Evolutionists talk about) is an interesting fact supporting the 'Young Earth' Theory!!!:eek::):D

... the truth will out ... in spite of all efforts to suppress it!!!!

Genghiz Cohen

Overheal wrote: »

To say that you are right, when a) God is a Theory b) Atheism is a Theory c) Creationism and Evolution are *drumroll* Theories.

Atheism is not a theory.

/pedantic