The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... they are different contemporaneous ways of expressing different languages .. and none of them have 'developed' from each other!!!:D:)

But they're not contemporaneous, we have evidence of pictures and ideograms long before evidence of fully functional language.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

I expect you to shut up and listen ... for once in your life!!!!

If this was the first time I'd listened, I'd probably believe you because it's a great story and you tell it so well.

Unfortunately, I've been listening for all of my life.

Nick Dolan

J C wrote: »

... you are correct that there is a bunch of Evolutionists taking me on alright ... and so far the 300 or so who have 'stepped up to the plate' ... are losing!!!!:):D

... it is indeed very hard to prove something (like Evolution) that never happened ... and relatively easy to prove that Creation happened ... because it did!!!

... please come over to the side of God and His Angels ... it it much easier ... and could just be Saved ... as an added (and very important) bonus!!!!:):D

Sorry dude, my name is Old Nick, Im the devil. Mwah ha ha! . And i think your not an ardent creationist, i reckon your a bit tongue in cheek.

P.S im responsible for the oil spill, Jedward, Parking Meters, Wasps, ingrown toenails, professional fundraisers, keith richards continuing survival, THAT handball and NAMA.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

and so far the 300 or so who have 'stepped up to the plate' ... are losing!!!!:):D

That's your judgement in fairness. Where you see 'I win', they see 'There's much better way's to spend my time'.

This is just boards.ie JC. If you're not going to listen to the vast majority of among others, historians, archeologists, palaeontologists, biologists ... and now linguists, then what difference is a thread here going to make?

I mean if you took the view that you believe in a creator because how did something come from nothing, what was before the big bang and what was before that etc etc, I'd say fair enough because there's a lot we don't know. But man walking with dinosaurs, the flood, God gave us language and so on. I mean it's really idiotic stuff.

You believe that you have real actual proof of God that holds up under scientific scrutiny, and that for some reason, the world's best and brightest are ignoring this proof.
Along with some dodgy scientific theories, you base your argument on a book, which as I said, claims the earth to be flat and a theory of a young earth which all the evidence points against.

How can one argue against that?

All we can do is indulge in sparring until undoubtedly I get bored first because there's no way I'm as tenacious as you when it comes to this.

wolfsbane

gosplan said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
JC's link on post 22641 needs an answer:
but he never asked a question

The evolutionists in the link posed the questions for you guys. Here are the key questions I see it flags up:
1. Why does anyone who questions the establishment position get it in the neck? You can't dismiss these scientists as creationist 'pseudo-scientists'. I suspect the answer is that all who question the powers are by definition 'pseudo-scientists'.

2. Which established science is wrong, the dating that puts the tool-making men at this site c20kBC or the dating that puts them at c250kBC?
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes 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, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If you guys refuse to check the objections to your dogma, you seem to be the one with the problem.

And as I pointed out, the evolutionists on JC's link also fell foul of current dogma. Maybe that explains the dismissive attitude - scared of Big Brother? But as this is an anonymous board, it is more likely you guys are just scared of uncomfortable truths.
_________________________________
The problem here is not us "not checking the objections to our dogma", it's that we have all investigated claims of AIG in the past and invariably found that everything they were saying had already been debunked many times before, often decades ago. AIG is the boy who cried wolf. Every other time I looked at an article I found it to be packed with lies so I see no reason to believe any link you give me now will be any different.

It's not even that they do what you're accusing me of by not checking the objections to their dogma, they know what they objections are because they've been told hundreds and hundreds of times. They simply ignore these objections using the method I detailed in this post. AIG are fundamentally dishonest; I would not believe them if they told me it was Wednesday and I think I can safely say that goes for every person on this thread other than J C. You are wasting your time by referring to them.

edit: only two weeks ago I responded to some nonsense J C copypasted from AIG to point out it's mind numbing stupidity. I am not afraid of these people as you seem to think, I just think they're liars and fools

OK, I accept you are not afraid of them. But are you right to say they are liars and fools? Could it be that you are just treating them as the scientific establishment treats anyone who challenges their dogma? They seem incapable of doubting their pet theories and will vilify fellow-scientists who challenge it, evolutionist or creationist. It's just that creationists are the easier touch, with built-in prejudice against their religious beliefs.

I find it very hard to reckon so many respected Christians and respected scientists, several known to me personally, are liars or fools. And when I see how evolutionists treat other evolutionists, I regard their evaluation of creationists as highly unreliable.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes 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, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

J C

gosplan wrote: »

So what's inconsistant about the other explanation?

i.e. that language slowly evolved from pictures to ideograms to fully formed languages?

... there is no evidence that this has ever happened ... if it did we should have a continuum between the supposed first pictograms right up to a fully fledged written language ... with all of the supposed intermediates in-between.

We don't have the supposed language 'missing links' ... between Grunts and Onomatopoeia just like we don't have the supposed fossil 'missing links' between Pondkind and Mankind ....
... and they are all missing ... because they never existed in the first place!!!:):D

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... there is no evidence that this has ever happened ... if it did we should have a continuum between the supposed first pictograms right up to a fully fledged written language ... with all of the supposed intermediates in-between.

But when we post Cave paintings from 30,000 years ago you deny it?

BTW, what's your evidence for all languages suddenly beginning?

J C wrote: »

We don't have the supposed language 'missing links' ... between Grunts and Onomatopoeia just like we don't have the supposed fossil 'missing links' between Pondkind and Mankind ....
... and they are all missing ... because they never existed in the first place!!!:):D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm

Which do you want to discredit first, the fact that it's a transitional fossil(of which there are many) or the fact that someone said it's more than 10,000 tears old?

J C

gosplan wrote: »

But when we post Cave paintings from 30,000 years ago you deny it?

... when you imagine such things I feel that it is incumbent upon me to point out that you are just drawing on your imagination!!!!

gosplan wrote: »

BTW, what's your evidence for all languages suddenly beginning?

... we don't have a continuum between the supposed first pictograms right up to a fully fledged written language ... with all of the supposed intermediates in-between.

gosplan wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm

Which do you want to discredit first, the fact that it's a transitional fossil(of which there are many) or the fact that someone said it's more than 10,000 tears old?

... a snake losing a pair of mating claspers ... sounds like devolution to me!!!

J C

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Sorry dude, my name is Old Nick, Im the devil. Mwah ha ha! . And i think your not an ardent creationist, i reckon your a bit tongue in cheek.

P.S im responsible for the oil spill, Jedward, Parking Meters, Wasps, ingrown toenails, professional fundraisers, keith richards continuing survival, THAT handball and NAMA.

... quite a list of stuff!!!

Nick ... don't joke about Satan ... because he takes any bargains you make with him dead seriously!!!

... please come over from the dark side ... and be Saved!!!

... and don't believe Satan if he tells you that you cannot be Saved ... just tell him that Jesus Christ came to Save sinners!!!

... that usually shuts him up!!!!:)

Overheal

J C wrote: »

... I don't have the time or the energy to be 'Mr Nice Guy'

I highly doubt that.

... I am throwing you an eternal life-jacket ... and I expect you to shut up and listen ... for once in your life!!!!

This is a Discussion Forum.

Telling other users to "Shut Up and Listen" is tantamount to Soap-Boxing.

If you want other people to simply shut up and listen: Get a Blog.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... when you imagine such things I feel that it is incumbent upon me to point out that you are just drawing on your imagination!!!!

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

J C wrote: »

... we don't have a continuum between the supposed first pictograms right up to a fully fledged written language ... with all of the supposed intermediates in-between.

What would you have people write on?

We have art from 20,000 to a few thousand years ago.

J C wrote: »

... a snake losing a pair of mating claspers ... sounds like devolution to me!!!

It doesn't matter what it sounds like to you JC, I'm asking you what it is?

I'd say it's a transitional form of which there are many.

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

J C

Overheal wrote: »

I highly doubt that.


This is a Discussion Forum.

Telling other users to "Shut Up and Listen" is tantamount to Soap-Boxing.

If you want other people to simply shut up and listen: Get a Blog.

... I should have just said listen ... the 'shut up' bit is optional!!!!:o:eek::):D

Overheal

J C wrote: »

... I should have just said listen ... the 'shut up' is optional!!!!:o:eek::):D

But you didn't. And Im calling you on it. Because its clear you're not here to actually discuss the issue. Just one sweeping generalization to the next.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

The odds of RANDOMLY producing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 …… 100 times. This happens to be odds of one over 10 to the power of 130.

Sorry JC, don't have time to go into all the maths but just wanted to highlight the above.

You do realise that you've just said that the above basically says there are odds of randomly producing a specific useful amino acid sequence.

i.e. it is possible.

My maths doesn't go too far but as I remember ...

very low probability does not equal impossible

you don't really seem to have grasped this.

J C

gosplan wrote: »

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


What would you have people write on?

We have art from 20,000 to a few thousand years ago.

... here is what your cited link above says about the dates ascribed to the Chauvet Cave drawings:-
"As of 1999, the dates of 31 samples from the cave had been reported. The earliest, sample Gifa 99776 from "zone 10", dates to 32,900±490 BP.[6]

However, some archaeologists have questioned these dates. Christian Züchner, based on his archaeological dating, is of the opinion that the red paintings are from the Gravettian period (c. 28,000–23,000 BP) and the black paintings are from the Early Magdalenian period (early part of c. 18,000–10,000 BP).[7] Pettitt and Bahn believe the dating is inconsistent with the traditional stylistic sequence and that there is uncertainty about the source of the charcoal used in the drawings and the extent of surface contamination on the exposed rock surfaces.[8][9] New stylistic studies show that some Gravettian engravings are superimposed on black paintings proving the paintings' older origins."... so the Evolutionists claim dates ranging from 32,000 to as little as 10,000 years ago!!!

... the 10,000 year date is getting close to the correct figure ... which was 6,000 years +/- 2,000 years ago!!!:):D

robindch

J C wrote: »

... a few years ago the Skeptics were blowing the breeze about Ken Ham's visit to Ireland ... and I took them on ... and blew their silly arguments out of the water ... and their response was to summarily lock the thread

JC, my dear, the thread wasn't locked "summarily" because you'd managed to "blow their silly arguments out of the water". It was locked, as davros said quite clearly, because you had stopped debating and begun soap-boxing:

davros wrote:

OK, we are back where we started. I don't think there is any point arguing against that last post - all the counter-arguments have been clearly made earlier in the thread.

Meanwhile, the day after davros posted that, Wicknight wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

JC is probably going to [...] demand that I produce links that what he says is false. You know what I couldn't be arsed because I, and everyone else on this thread has already done that about 5 times each, so I really don't want to do it again. He has simply ignored them. Like someone said, I think it is time to move on and ignore the trolls of this "trained scientist" [...]

That was in 2005 and bearing in mind that these hundreds of thousands of words posted here and elsewhere have achieved precisely nothing, I humbly propose that JC is rapidly heading -- and perhaps has already become -- one of the world's most durable single-issue trolls.(*)

A pat on the back everybody!

(*) Though I'm sure that JC will refute the 2005 date from the fossil record and claim that she only started posting on boards a few minutes ago.

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Sorry JC, don't have time to go into all the maths but just wanted to highlight the above.

You do realise that you've just said that the above basically says there are odds of randomly producing a specific useful amino acid sequence.

i.e. it is possible.

My maths doesn't go too far but as I remember ...

very low probability does not equal impossible

you don't really seem to have grasped this.

... you're clutching at straws!!!!!

... and if the number is small enough ... it is impossible ... the figure for 'impossibility' that is used by satasticians is 10^-100.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... here is what your cited link above says about the dates ascribed to the Chauvet Cave drawings:-
"As of 1999, the dates of 31 samples from the cave had been reported. The earliest, sample Gifa 99776 from "zone 10", dates to 32,900±490 BP.[6]

However, some archaeologists have questioned these dates. Christian Züchner, based on his archaeological dating, is of the opinion that the red paintings are from the Gravettian period (c. 28,000–23,000 BP) and the black paintings are from the Early Magdalenian period (early part of c. 18,000–10,000 BP).[7] Pettitt and Bahn believe the dating is inconsistent with the traditional stylistic sequence and that there is uncertainty about the source of the charcoal used in the drawings and the extent of surface contamination on the exposed rock surfaces.[8][9] New stylistic studies show that some Gravettian engravings are superimposed on black paintings proving the paintings' older origins."... so the Evolutionists claim dates ranging from 32,000 to as little as 10,000 years ago!!!

... the 10,000 is getting close to the correct figure ... which was 6,000 years +/- 2,000 years ago!!!:):D

Can you reread that again please and try to spot the problem.

Overheal

J C wrote: »

... you're clutching at straws!!!!!

... and if the number is small enough ... it is impossible ... the figure for 'impossibility' that is used by satatisticians is 10^-100.

In mathematics, a probability of an event A is represented by a real number in the range from 0 to 1 and written as P(A), p(A) or Pr(A).[6] An impossible event has a probability of 0, and a certain event has a probability of 1. However, the converses are not always true: probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain. The rather subtle distinction between "certain" and "probability 1" is treated at greater length in the article on "almost surely".

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

see also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

robindch

J C wrote: »

the correct figure ... which was 6,000 years +/- 2,000 years ago

I can see the headlines already:

Some Guy wrote:

"Inerrant Bible is About 66% Accurate, Explains Creationist"

J C

robindch wrote: »

(*) Though I'm sure that JC will refute the 2005 date from the fossil record and claim that she only started posting on boards a few minutes ago.

... and here was me thinking that you were about to start talking in evolutionist years ... which would put my first post on the Boards.ie somewhere about 50,000 evolutionist years ago!!!!:):D

Hi Robin great to hear from you again ... we have had our differences ... but I haven't taken anything you have said personally ... and I hope you will also forgive me if I annoyed you !!!

... maybe we'll have a pint sometime!!!!

... and discuss really controversial things ... like whether the French soccer squad should join their rugby team ... or take up Gaelic football ... so that they can perfect their hand-pass!!!:):D

J C

Overheal wrote: »

In mathematics, a probability of an event A is represented by a real number in the range from 0 to 1 and written as P(A), p(A) or Pr(A).[6] An impossible event has a probability of 0, and a certain event has a probability of 1. However, the converses are not always true: probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain. The rather subtle distinction between "certain" and "probability 1" is treated at greater length in the article on "almost surely".

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

see also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

... OK ... the probability that God exists is 'almost surely' ... and the probability that Spontaeous Evolution exists is zero!!!:eek::):D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... OK ... the probability that God exists is 'almost surely' ... and the probability that Spontaeous Evolution exists is zero!!!:eek::):D

Behold! J C's much vaunted mathematical proof of God!

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Behold! J C's much vaunted mathematical proof of God!

... the odds are strongly suggesting that you should go and get Saved!!!!:):D:eek:

Overheal

J C wrote: »

... OK ... the probability that God exists is 'almost surely' ... and the probability that Spontaeous Evolution exists is zero!!!:eek::):D

then you didnt read correctly:

probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain.

probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain.

probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain.

probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain.

probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain.



Just so you cant miss it.

J C

robindch wrote: »

JC, my dear, the thread wasn't locked "summarily" because you'd managed to "blow their silly arguments out of the water". It was locked, as davros said quite clearly, because you had stopped debating and begun soap-boxing:Meanwhile, the day after davros posted that, Wicknight wrote

.... have a look at the link below for a nice example of the 'skeptics' showing their gross intolerance for alternative views ... on a follow-on thread ... and threatening anybody who opened up the debate again with being banned ... seems like the skeptics can give it ... but they can't take it when their pet theory is seriously questioned!!!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2524729&postcount=65

... it seems like the skeptics are skeptical about everything ... with the exception of evolution ... which they cling to (despite all logic and evience being against it) with the tenacity of a Limpet on a rock!!!:D

... it is a short post ... and a great insight into the mind of a 'pseudo-liberal' and self-styled 'skeptic' ... who is so intolerant of anybody questioning his worldview that he simply censors all discussion on the subject!!!

... he even saw that he is behaving like a fascist ... by shutting down free speech ... and yet he still carried on and did so!!!

... and not content with shutting down free speech on their own forum ... the so-called 'skeptics' and their fellow-travellers have followed me over to the Christianity thread where they continue to get the pants further beaten off themselves on every issue that they raise ...
... and their solution is to again demand that I be 'gagged' ... so that they don't have to hear the glorious truth of God ringing in their ears and penetrating their darkened hearts!!!:eek:

wrote:

Davros
I don't care what people's views are. I care that I'm seeing the same point repeated over and over. It bothers me that it can be thoroughly demolished any number of times and still pop up again through sheer wilful ignorance. I regard it as a waste of my time to have to read an endless debate that is going absolutely nowhere because one side is completely deaf to the other.

So, this discussion is closed again. And if anyone tries to reopen it on another thread I'll regard that as an attempt to troll and ban them.
And don't complain that I'm shutting down free speech. If you can't make your point within 300 posts, tough.

J C

Overheal wrote: »

then you didnt read correctly:

probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain.

probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain.

probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain.

probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain.

probability 0 events are not always impossible, nor probability 1 events certain.



Just so you cant miss it.

... in the real world a probability of 0 is impossible ... and a probability of 1 (such as tossing a two-headed coin) will always occur ... indeed as one approaches a probability of 0 the event becomes a practical impossibility ... and as one approaches a probability of 1 it becomes a statistical certainty!!!:eek::D:)

... has it come to this for Evolution?

... that you are now arguing that 0 doesn't actually mean ZERO!!!!:eek:

... in a desperate attempt to retain your faith in a statistical impossibilty!!!

... and repeating your unfounded belief that 0 doesn't always mean ZERO ... won't make it true!!!:eek::D

gosplan

gosplan wrote: »

Sorry JC, don't have time to go into all the maths but just wanted to highlight the above.

You do realise that you've just said that the above basically says there are odds of randomly producing a specific useful amino acid sequence.

i.e. it is possible.

My maths doesn't go too far but as I remember ...

very low probability does not equal impossible

you don't really seem to have grasped this.

J C wrote: »

... you're clutching at straws!!!!!

... and if the number is small enough ... it is impossible ... the figure for 'impossibility' that is used by satasticians is 10^-100.

J C wrote: »

... in a desperate attempt to retain your faith in a statistical impossibilty!!!

Oh dear! Is this really it JC? I've looked at one part of your maths, I shudder to think what the rest will bring.

Any child that's gone beyond junior certificate mathematics will tell you that ..

the probability of an event = no of successful outcomes/no of possible outcomes

You see, you have a 1 over the line which tells us that if we run this trial a very large number of times, eventually our 1 outcome will happen.

i.e. you have just mathematically told us that the event is possible however unlikely.


But don't take my word for it, why would you? Conduct a simple experiment and find the truth.
Find a third level maths class and ask them whether an event with probability of 10^-130 of occurring is:

a: extremely unlikely
b: impossible

I should add, it's very important not to tell them what the question relates to because of your perceived bias against creationism by anyone who can read without moving their lips.


And a really interesting angle on this is that if an there is an omnipotent God, which you seem to believe, and that he can do an infinite number of things, which you seem to believe, then the mathematical probability of him creating life is

1/infinity :D:D:D:D

Ironically enough, this is the probability Overheal and you were just talking about. For example, what's the probability that you pick a specific number on the number line. There's one number from an infinite amount. Just like your idea of an omnipotent creator deciding to create life, it's the probability of one outcome from an infinite number of choices.

1/infinity .... Mathematicians would let this equal zero, so as you said yourself.

J C wrote:

that you are now arguing that 0 doesn't actually mean ZERO!!!

Brilliant, either God has limits(if so, set by whom??), or by your 'scientific proof' of him, you've actually managed to prove that evolution is more likely to have created us.



Also, the 10^-130 statistics are ripped off from a Carl Sagan book, 'communication with extra-terrestrial intelligence'. As far as I know, he was using the number to highlight how life didn't have to start with only one possible protein of a specific type but rather there were many possible types.

Another problem as well is that when you say 'stastically impossible', you're talking about a convention that statisticians use with a probability very very small. They just ignore it and treat it as if it were zero. Any statistician will however tell you that there's still a chance of it occurring.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

.... how about this for a nice example of the skeptics showing their intolerance for alternative views ... on a follow on thread ... and threatening anybody who opened up the debate again with being banned ... seems like the skeptics can give it ... but they can't take it when their pet theory is seriously questioned!!!

To be fair, he addressed both sides. And he's got a point, are the odds of this thread being resolved statistically impossible??