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
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Son Goku
So which area first:
1. QFD's account of the weak force, technical calculations included.
or those other ones you seem to have forgotten about:
2. Could you also do some real science and give me an answer to my question with regard to Riemannian Geometry I asked earlier?
3. Could you prove that DNA formation is mathematically impossible and strictly define genetic information?
4. Show an error in my calculations on the effects of a supernova.
1. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with the current theories, which explain the Weak Force.
However, there are many examples of known recently formed rocks being radiometrically dated at millions of years old.
For example, rock samples taken from submarine lava flows from Kilauea volcano in Hawaii, which are known to have occurred in the 1950’s, have been radiometrically ‘dated’ at 4 million years old.
One of the reasons why nuclear decay rates in rocks can be ‘apparently altered’ dramatically is because the radioactive component being measured in the rock is differentially water soluble. For example, the leaching of water soluble Potassium salts within a rock can confound the Potassium/Argon test.
2. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry itself. Indeed it is used in many practical situations on Earth by engineers.
However, the problem arises when it is applied to astronomical calculations.
The ASSUMPTIONS made in establishing the direction in which a star is actually travelling, it’s position relative to other stars (and their actual positions/distances) or indeed the star’s actual rate of speed (which are all critical to the calculation) are just that (assumptions).
Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry cannot definitively determine the ABSOLUTE distances to these objects.
3. Genetic information is the specific instructions necessary to produce a living organism as found in the DNA of the cells of that organism.
These instructions are highly specific, even one nucleotide misplaced along a critical sequence will have catastrophic consequences for the organism.
They are also NOT chemically / physically pre-determined, patterned, repetitive or random as one would expect if they were derived by undirected processes, such as those postulated by gradual Evolution.
There are about 3 billion base pairs in the Human Genome and their sequences are observed to be tightly specified.
For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old. It would appear that life is a complex “perfect” system running ‘down-hill’ and not a simple “imperfect” system running ‘up hill’ as evolutionists would have us believe.
The genetic information is stored by means of the Precise order of the base pair ‘rungs’ in the DNA ‘ladder’.
Just FOUR base pair combinations are used A-T, T-A, C-G and G-C.
The number of possible combinations in the 3 billion base pair Human Genome (if undirected processes were used to produce it are a binomial expansion of ¼ x ¼ x ¼ …..3 billon times which is approximately 1/10^^1,800,000,000.
These are the approximate odds AGAINST getting the correct base sequence for a Human Being. If we consider that the number of atoms in the conventionally hypothesised Universe is only 10^^82 I think that it is reasonable to conclude that Mankind (or indeed any other life form) was NOT produced by undirected processes. The above figures prove that such an eventuality is mathematically impossible.
4. A distance of 300 light years (which is 380,000 times the distance from the Sun to Pluto) should protect us from any effects of a Supernova.
300 Light Years IS an enormous distance – to put this distance into perspective we should remember that the diameter of our own Solar System - as measured by the orbit of Pluto is only14 Light HOURS – and our Sun is like an ordinary star when ‘viewed’ from the distance of Pluto.
Equally, we should remember that Novae and Supernovae are NOT the complete release of ALL of the energy potential of a star – on a fraction of the total energy is released in all cases.
A Supernova results in the explosive dispersal of up to 10% of a star’s mass as hot gas – and NOT the nuclear transformation of the entire star into energy. The energy yield is therefore only one 345 BILLIONTH of what would be released by complete nuclear transformation into energy.
In addition, the energy burst will decline by the inverse square of the distance travelled through spatial dilution and therefore the practical effects of a supernova become negligible at distances in excess of one LY.
Originally Posted by Scofflaw
Some of you may enjoy this, if you haven't already seen it:
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060702
cordially,
Scofflaw
So what have we got here?
1. An incorrect caricature of Creationists as resistant to scientific progress when some of the brightest and best scientists ARE Creationists.
2. A suggestion that Creationists should receive inferior medical treatment based upon (a misinterpretation) of their religious beliefs?
3. The admission that the drugs necessary to fight TB are intelligently designed – thereby ironically accepting that the target organism itself must ALSO have been originally intelligently designed!!!
4. The caricature of “The Creationist” as an old man and “The Evolutionist” as a young Doctor – when the reverse is often the case.
Could I also point out that Creation Scientists DON’T deny that antibiotic resistance occurs or the need for new drugs to fight disease. They merely believe that antibiotic resistance occurs through natural selection and/or the loss of EXISTING genetic information in bacilli.
For further scientific proof see the following peer reviewed scientific paper on this subject:-
http://trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
Scofflaw
The Bible is a book. It contains a record of events. That record may be materially true or materially false. If that record is materially true, then it will be shown to be true, by ordinary materialistic scientific methods, without evoking the supernatural.
I agree, that the supernatural origins of all life can be shown to be true, by ordinary materialistic scientific methods, and that is what Creation Science does day in and day out.
Scofflaw
Creationists cannot prove even major features of the Biblical account from the evidence without evoking the supernatural at every hands-turn to account for this or that, without limitation or reason. This should not have to be the case, if the Biblical account is materially true.
I disagree. Creation Science ONLY invokes the actions of the supernatural during Creation Week and Noah’s Flood.
It fully accepts that the EVENTS of Creation Week and Noah’s Flood are strictly OUTSIDE of science.
However the resulting evidence produced by these supernatural events, IS material in nature – and so it IS within the competence of science to evaluate it.0 -
You have just said exactly what you said before.J C wrote:What he said.
My original question was what are these assumptions and the manner in which they enter the calculations. You still haven't shown this. In fact none of my points have been addressed in a direct manner.There is nothing ‘wrong’ with Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry itself. Indeed it is used in many practical situations on Earth by engineers.
However, the problem arises when it is applied to astronomical calculations.
The ASSUMPTIONS made in establishing the direction in which a star is actually travelling, it’s position relative to other stars (and their actual positions/distances) or indeed the star’s actual rate of speed (which are all critical to the calculation) are just that (assumptions).
Riemannian multi-dimensional Geometry cannot definitively determine the ABSOLUTE distances to these objects.
What are the assumptions and how do they enter the calculations?
Explain this to me or do I have to ask again and again only to have you repeat your assertion that there are assumptions without backing it up.
What are the assumptions and how do they enter the calculations?
In fact the above is nearly a carbon copy of the original statment you made a few pages back.
You are a master at deflecting the point.
Correct, although this is independant of it's cause.The number of possible combinations in the 3 billion base pair Human Genome is a binomial expansion of ¼ x ¼ x ¼ …..3 billon times which is approximately 1/10^^1,800,000,000.
Incorrect.These are the approximate odds AGAINST getting the correct base sequence for a Human Being.
1/10^^1,800,000,000 is the amount of possible combinations, of which ours is one. That is not equivalent to the probability of its emergence.
Ensemble density and probability are only the same in a Bayesian scenario.
Your figures are wrong. The simple use of E = MC^2 and the definition of a Foe (unit of energy) shows the energy release to be about 1/5 of the Stars rest mass, when collapsing to a neutron star.The energy yield is therefore only one 345 BILLIONTH of what would be released by complete nuclear transformation into energy.
I have calculations that say other wise.A distance of 300 light years (which is 380,000 times the distance from the Sun to Pluto) should protect us from any effects of a Supernova.
You just keep saying this stuff, but you still haven't backed it up. Will I show you my calculations and have you tell me what is wrong with them?
Show how that distance is enough.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:On the contrary, I find much to rejoice in. The food, shelter, family, job, music, etc. Not to speak of the greater joy in knowing God.
Well, I'm glad to hear that!wolfsbane wrote:But life brings sorrow and suffering too. Many of our fellowmen know hardship we have never experienced. When one is faced with that and no possibility of it getting better, the Christian has a reason to go on. The logical thing for the atheist is to end it all.
Even life itself has a guarantee of death at the end, often involving indignities and suffering. Why does the atheist bother? Why should he not his quietus make with a bare bodkin?
It's an interesting question, of course, and suicide rates appear to be distributed without reference to religion. The fundamental answer is that it is often a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Death is inevitable, why hasten it?wolfsbane wrote:Yours can only be delusional, if all we are is intelligent chemicals.
Do you mean subjective? If I look at something, and find meaning in it, and you do not, is my meaning delusional? What would that mean? How is it possible for meaning to be delusional?
I can only presume that you think that only God can give meaning, which is rather to beg the question...wolfsbane wrote:Making the most of a pointless life? The best would be hedonism. There would be no place for compassion, justise, etc.
But the latter are the things Christians have sacrificed even their lives for. Their choice makes sense, of course, if Christianity is true. For the atheist to endure hardship for the sake of others makes no sense - just shows how subconsciously he knows better.
Imagine I am in a station waiting room - somewhere, let us say, that I have never been before, and will never be again. There are other people waiting there. If I chose to try and help one of my fellow passengers to sort out a problem, is this meaningless, given I will never see this person again, never be in this waiting room again? I do not think so, and neither do you, although we interpret it differently. You require the "external" validation provided by religion - I know that both of us are providing our own validation.
That the atheist does suffer for the sake of others (and many have) rather gives the lie to what you say. In your world, the atheist is someone who has turned his back on God - therefore the atheist, or indeed any non-Christian, who acts in a goodly way is a contradiction, since he cannot be inspired by God.
Your worldview is so narrow! Tell me, wolfsbane - how many will be saved?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
wolfsbane wrote:To my knowledge, it is not fundamentalists who are at greatest risk. It is those who sleep around. (Not their faithful partners, of course, who get infected by their unfaithful spouses). The 'Christian' African countries contain millions of those who sleep around - something not on the Christian agenda.
Do you really think it is ignorance of the cause of AIDs that accounts for its spread? Or the cause of lung cancer in smokers? Or pregnancy among unmarried girls? It is the willingness to take the risk to get the pleasure.
Yes, wolfsbane, these are the direct causal agents, as mosquitos are to malaria. Ignorance is a well-understood contributory factor. The rules are not different simply because genitalia are involved. Fundamentalist prejudice against education and availability of contraception kills people.
No society has ever been so perfectly Christian as to make enforced ignorance acceptable.wolfsbane wrote:So you would have no trouble with paedophiles publishing novels of their fantasies, so long as they did not act them out? Or of them arguing for legalisation of consentual sex with under12s? Or making animated movies of paedophilia?
As long as no-one is harmed, none of these are a problem.wolfsbane wrote:Only if He made murderers, thieves, etc.
Tch tch, wolfsbane. He made everybody. Either he did, or there was another Creator.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
Letter publication is not peer-review, JC.
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp
In the following quote the editor of the Journal is quite frank in his opinion:-
“I'm torn by your request to submit a (thoughtful) response to critics of your non-evolutionary (ID) theory for the origin of complexity. On the one hand I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is counterproductive. But on the other hand we have fixed page limits for each month's issue, and there are many more good submissions than we can accept. So, your unorthodox theory would have to displace something that would be extending the current paradigm.”
I agree with the Editor that the rejection of a thoughtful letter by a highly qualified and distinguished conventional scientist like Dr Behe is indeed counter productive.
Indeed I know of many fair-minded Evolutionists (apparently even including the Editor above) who believe that ID should be scientifically examined – and not rejected a priori.
The space limitations excuse is very weak – especially in view of the fact that the Journal had plenty of space to previously criticise ID.
Surely they should then provide the space to print the response. Equally, last time I checked, the availability of paper and ink wasn’t a constraint on scientific publication.
The admission by the editor that this Scientific Journal is not willing to publish anything that doesn’t extend “the current paradigm” (of Evolution) is quite ‘jaw dropping’ indeed.
The statement by the editor that he is “painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy (ID)” is also a quite revealing comment.
Could I suggest that best practice by the Journal concerned would have been to publish the letter and a further response to the letter, if it felt there were any inaccuracies in it.
And still, letter publication is not peer-review, JC. Quibble all you like.JC wrote:I too am a 'mainstream Christian' – and I don’t find it to be in the least tedious!!!
You're not, I'm afraid. Sorry to rain on your very small parade.JC wrote:I’d say that Prof Collins is well on the way to becoming a Creation Scientist – it generally starts with questions about the lack of evidence for an evolutionary origin of life - and when evolutionary answers aren’t found, the inevitable conclusion that ‘God created it’ suddenly dawns.
Doubts about the entire macro-Evolutionary edifice then rapidly emerge – and voila, you become a Creation Scientist!!!
Er, yes, I'm sure you would say that. Funnily enough, though, every time you've cited someone as a "converted evolutionist" it's taken very little digging to find out that they were Creationists first, scientists later.JC wrote:Far be it for me to tell Evolutionists how to further their cause – but don’t you think that a ‘statement on the validity of evolution’ would carry more weight if it provided some scientific evidence for such a position?
Of course, the fact that this evidence DOESN’T exist may have been somewhat of a constraint to providing it.
Gosh. Where can we hide our faces? Imagine failing to include evidence in a PR statement for something accepted by 99.99% of all scientists!
Frankly, JC, this is just wind. Not a single Creationist would accept any evidence, as has been shown repeatedly even on this thread, and everyone else has looked at it and been convinced.JC wrote:Scofflaw wrote:Your claims are now so wide as to be unsupportable by anyone but a top-range polymath
A “top-range polymath” no less!!
You will give me a ‘big head’ if you keep going on like that Scofflaw!!!
I thank you for the generosity of your praise though – and I accept it with humility!!!:o
JC, you are the opposite of a polymath - perhaps a monotreme? Don't worry about me swelling your head, though.JC wrote:Information is the virtual expression of INTELLIGENCE using an encoded language that is capable of being decoded by the recipient.
Both computer code and DNA code are examples of purposeful information.
The fact remains that ALL ultimate sources of information that have been identified, have been observed to be intelligent.
Where the source has been identified, the quality of the intelligence applied is also always observed to be directly proportional to the quality of the resultant information created.
Circular. If information is always an expression of intelligence then all information must be produced by an intelligence - OK, now prove the first bit.JC wrote:The source of the purposeful information in living systems HASN’T been identified by Science but it is of such an effectively infinite quality (as indicated by the enormous complexity and density of the information in living systems) as to be of God.
Sigh. If it was infinite you couldn't store it on a computer. You can, it isn't.JC wrote:Mutations DON’T produce new additional genetic information – which is the critical problem that must be explained by all ‘origins’ theories.
Except that they don't have to explain it, because it isn't true.
deriding, as ever, your ridiculous claims to scientific credentials
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw
(eg "tiny invisible demons are responsible for what appears to us to be erosion - so that the rate and form of erosion depends entirely on the humour of the demons") as by materialistic cause and effect.
It is simply not possible to disprove any of these explanations - for example, I would like you to disprove the one I suggest (invisible demons do all the work of erosion).
The test that we would apply here is the MOST LIKELY cause of the phenomenon.
The fact that we observe erosion to be directly caused by VISIBLE frost, wind and rain means that this is the most likely explanation for erosion.
However, if we were to observe matter to disappear without any apparent natural cause and in contravention of the Laws of Physics, then supernatural forces could plausibly be suggested as an explanation.
Robin
Out of interest -- if you brought your car down to your mechanic and he said that the clunking sound was caused by bad spirits, would you be happy with that explanation?
I certainly wouldn’t be happy with that explanation – unless the car was fully examined and found to be mechanically perfect by a qualified mechanic.
In that eventuality, alternative explanations for the clunking sound MIGHT be valid.
Originally Posted by JC
The source of the purposeful information in living systems HASN’T been identified by Science but it is of such an effectively infinite quality (as indicated by the enormous complexity and density of the information in living systems) as to be of God.
Scofflaw
Sigh. If it was infinite you couldn't store it on a computer. You can, it isn't
Please read what I said!!
I said that the information was “effectively infinite QUALITY”.
It is therefore perfectly possible to store it’s finite QUANTITY on a computer.
As proof of the enormous complexity and density of information in living systems could I point out that the analysis of the folding pattern of just one small protein takes the most powerful super-computer in the world ONE YEAR and a living cell can do this in ONE SECOND.
I’d say that was approaching infinite QUALITY – wouldn’t you?
Originally Posted by JC
I too am a 'mainstream Christian' – and I don’t find it to be in the least tedious!!!
Scofflaw
You're not, I'm afraid. Sorry to rain on your very small parade.
I actually am a 'mainstream Christian' – when it comes to Creation.:)
The Eastern Right Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Churches and the Anglican Communion ALL subscribe to the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed as required Articles of Faith.
Could I remind you that the first sentence in the Nicene Creed is :-
“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible.”
Could I equally remind you that the first sentence in the Apostles Creed is :-
“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son , our Lord.”
Equally, most independent and non-conformist churches also hold Special Direct Creation as Biblically endorsed doctrine.
My Creationist ‘parade’ as you have called it is actually VERY, VERY BIG indeed.:D0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
(eg "tiny invisible demons are responsible for what appears to us to be erosion - so that the rate and form of erosion depends entirely on the humour of the demons") as by materialistic cause and effect.
It is simply not possible to disprove any of these explanations - for example, I would like you to disprove the one I suggest (invisible demons do all the work of erosion).
It is actually quite EASY to disprove these explanations.
What we are dealing with here is the MOST LIKELY cause of the phenomenon.
The fact that we observe erosion to be directly caused by VISIBLE frost, wind and rain means that this is the most likely explanation for erosion – thereby ruling out INVISIBLE demons as the cause.
However, if we were to observe matter to disappear without any apparent natural cause and in contravention of the Laws of Physics, then supernatural forces could plausibly be suggested as an explanation.
Once again, JC, you have rushed in where wise men fear to tread. Sure , we can see the frost or whatever, but they're not what causes the erosion - it's the little demons frantically scouring in bad weather. It's obvious that frost, wind and rain merely incite the demons to greater efforts, possibly because this work has been imposed on them as a penance - they hate the cold and wet and it makes them keener to finish up their time.
That there is an alternative explanation is not, you see, the same as disproof - but it's fine, don't tax yourself.J C wrote:Robin
Out of interest -- if you brought your car down to your mechanic and he said that the clunking sound was caused by bad spirits, would you be happy with that explanation?
I certainly wouldn’t be happy with that explanation – unless the car was fully examined and found to be mechanically perfect by a qualified mechanic.
In that eventuality, a non-natural explanations for the clunking sound MIGHT be valid.
The Demonic Host can manifest their presence in both animate and inanimate objects.
Which is exactly why you wouldn't take the car to a fully qualified mechanic who believed strongly in bad spirits, if you had the offer of a fully qualified mechanic who didn't. Wait...are you, perchance, such a qualified mechanic, amongst your other skills?
deeply amused,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:It is actually quite EASY to disprove these explanations.
What we are dealing with here is the MOST LIKELY cause of the phenomenon.
The fact that we observe erosion to be directly caused by VISIBLE frost, wind and rain means that this is the most likely explanation for erosion – thereby ruling out INVISIBLE demons as the cause.
However, if we were to observe matter to disappear without any apparent natural cause and in contravention of the Laws of Physics, then supernatural forces could plausibly be suggested as an explanation.
Preposterous!!!! how could FROST cause erosion in a DESERT?
I myself tested a NUMBER of rocks with your WIND theory (rock to dust) and after 10 minutes I found NO TRACE of erosion. Wind is AIR and is far softer than a rock.
WATER - In a desert? - I think NOT!
In no way does your water/rain/frost 'rocks to dust' theory EXPLAIN erosion - and anyhow DOES it explain HOW THE ROCKS came to be? NO!!!!!
You've disproved NOTHING - THE TID (tiny invsible demons) theory must therefore be true. The demons make rocks and erode them away - see it works perfectly.
All good things come to those who lurk,
pH0 -
Hey, JC!! While I'd like to be the first to welcome you back again, I must say that the first two in your latest clutch of postings has me wondering whether or not your recent conversion to evolution might have come a bit unstuck. Hope not!!!!!
> 1. An incorrect caricature of Creationists as resistant to scientific progress
I agree! Creationists are not so much "resistant" to scientific progress, they're actually unaware of it!
> 2. A suggestion that Creationists should receive inferior medical
> treatment based upon (a misinterpretation) of their religious beliefs?
A bit unfair, you'll agree. Creationists should really stick to the truth of the bible and use some of that good old-fashioned biblical medicine. Things like Leviticus' "cleansing from infectious skin diseases" which involves killing birds and lambs, spraying and rubbing their blood everywhere! Why do teenagers have lousy acne these days, when the bible never even talks about it? Easy! Today's teenagers aren'd following Leviticus any more!
> The admission that the drugs necessary to fight TB are intelligently
> designed – thereby ironically accepting that the target organism
> itself must ALSO have been originally intelligently designed!!!
Ooops, creationist-think mistake! If this was so, then you'd have to admit that liferafts protect against intelligently-designed deep water and seatbelts save lives by protecting against intelligently-designed momentum.
> The caricature of “The Creationist” as an old man and “The Evolutionist”
> as a young Doctor – when the reverse is often the case.
Here's where I think you've come unstuck. In all of the caricatures that I've seen, creationists are depicted as morons, illiterates or baboons. Here's a sample of a few, just to clarify the point for you:
I hope this clears up any confusion!0 -
Ah, JC, I see you had to edit your post to cast out the Demonic Host. Well, never mind the changes, let's look at the additions...J C wrote:Originally Posted by JC
The source of the purposeful information in living systems HASN’T been identified by Science but it is of such an effectively infinite quality (as indicated by the enormous complexity and density of the information in living systems) as to be of God.
Scofflaw
Sigh. If it was infinite you couldn't store it on a computer. You can, it isn't
Please read what I said!!
I said that the information was “effectively infinite QUALITY”.
It is therefore perfectly possible to store it’s finite QUANTITY on a computer.
As proof of the enormous complexity and density of information in living systems could I point out that the analysis of the folding pattern of just one small protein takes the most powerful super-computer in the world ONE YEAR and a living cell can do this in ONE SECOND.
I’d say that was approaching infinite QUALITY – wouldn’t you?
Er, no, I wouldn't. How long does simulation of weather take? Of nuclear explosions? How long do the events themselves take? Do you realise that random systems are impossible to simluate, because they contain too much information?
By the way, infinite and finite are actually two different concepts, as indeed are quality and quantity. Really, really, hand on heart, not the same thing.
Do you just use these words because they sound awe-inspiring? Perhaps you're genuinely dazzled by the magnitude of these things? Ah well, some days it seems you'd be dazzled by any number over 10.
Strikingly reminiscent of the Monty Python prayer "Oh God you are so big".J C wrote:Originally Posted by JC
I too am a 'mainstream Christian' – and I don’t find it to be in the least tedious!!!
Scofflaw
You're not, I'm afraid. Sorry to rain on your very small parade.
I actually am a 'mainstream Christian' – when it comes to Creation.:)
The Eastern Right Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Churches and the Anglican Communion ALL subscribe to the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed as required Articles of Faith.
Could I remind you that the first sentence in the Nicene Creed is :-
“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible.”
Could I equally remind you that the first sentence in the Apostles Creed is :-
“I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son , our Lord.”
Equally, most independent and non-conformist churches also hold Special Direct Creation as Biblically endorsed doctrine.
My Creationist ‘parade’ as you have called it is actually VERY, VERY BIG indeed.:D
Er, no, again. You're in the very small minority that believes in Biblical inerrancy (not the Catholic Church or the Orthodox, who together form the mainstream of Christianity) and a Young Earth Creation. You're virtually a poster child for them.
Your parade is in the bit at the end there - "most independent and non-conformist churches". Claim away though - I know you can't tell the difference, because it's over 10, and therefore effectively infinite - at least, going on your usage above.
Really, I'm sorry to be so derisive, but the things you say are so silly, and your grasp of science so unerringly wrong, that it's hard not to laugh. You may take that as an ad hominem, if you wish, it's on special offer today*.
deriding, as ever, your so-called "scientific credentials",
Scofflaw
*actually a real ad hominem is almost impossible online in conditions of anonymity, no matter how much everyone claims other people are using them.0 -
Advertisement
-
And yet the catholic church seem to quite happily accept evolution, insisting instead that god created souls directly, if not bodies, and that the evolution was god's doing in the first place. You're not mainstream. Unless you're in America, perhaps...jc wrote:The Eastern Right Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Churches and the Anglican Communion ALL subscribe to the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed as required Articles of Faith.0 -
Moderation note:
The cartoons were a reasonable response given that caricatures of creationism came into the debate, but I think we can all foretell the possible results if we had some more, and a few more and so on, so let that be the last of them.0 -
JC I have reviewed your threads (a lot of them mind you) and have found that you have no ground to stand on you have no solid proof of creation:p0
-
Professional wrote:JC I have reviewed your threads (a lot of them mind you) and have found that you have no ground to stand on you have no solid proof of creation:p
Of course, it's always nice to have a professional opinion...(sorry!)
contritely,
Scofflaw0 -
lolScofflaw wrote:Of course, it's always nice to have a professional opinion...(sorry!)
contritely,
Scofflaw
Scofflaw that was terrible, you should be ashamed ;P0 -
Scofflaw said:
The Creationist one works in all respects, whereas the materialistic one fails to account for the origin of the material universe. The Creationist model of a self-existing supernatural Being who creates the material universe is much more sensible than the materialist model that inconsistently asks us to belief in things we do not observe.Well, the materialistic evolution one works, you see, without requiring any intervention. I don't see why any of the others would be in any way silly, as such - there's nothing inherently more ridiculous about the world being created out of the body of a dead giant than any other supernatural explanation.
If it asked us only to believe in what we see, it would make no pretensions at explaining origins. But it asks us to believe that some things had no beginning, contrary to what we know about the material world we see around us. It asks us to believe that something is infinitely big, or that the universe does end and nothing is beyond it - both of which we do not observe in what we see around us.
The Creationist can face these problems by acknowledging another dimension, an eternal one not constrained by the laws of the material universe. A dimension that gave rise, in fact, to the material universe.
So it is the materialist explanation that is deficient, not the Creationist one.
The evidence can support what the Creationist/Evolutionist model says, or not. It can hardly prove them correct in all they assert, but it can disprove particular aspects.There is no meaningful evidence that can prove the supernatural, because there is no limit to what the supernatural can do. Any piece of evidence can equally well be explained as the work of a supernatural entity (eg "tiny invisible demons are responsible for what appears to us to be erosion - so that the rate and form of erosion depends entirely on the humour of the demons") as by materialistic cause and effect.
I couldn't - but it would be up to the one supporting the demonic model to show how he came to that conclusion and why rain and wind are not the cause, as they appear to be.It is simply not possible to disprove any of these explanations - for example, I would like you to disprove the one I suggest (invisible demons do all the work of erosion).
What this has to do with the Creation model is beyond me. Evolution offers an explanation of how things got to be as they are. It offers no explanation of how the universe came to be. It bases its tale on life originating from non-life and increasing complex organisms developing by mutation and natural selection. Creationism says the universe came into being by God's command; that life came from non-life by His power; that life has not increased in complexity but rather all the information needed for all the variations of types was there at the start and this genetic pool has declined over the years rather than increased.
Both Creationism and Evolutionism have natural forces at play in the day to day running of the universe. Erosion is caused in both models by rain and wind.
What has that to do with Creationism? Creation Science deals with the aspects of nature we may examine, not with supernatural activities. We do not say one can test how God spoke and it was so. We do say one can examine the geological record and see evidence of a world-wide Flood. A Flood ordered by God certainly, but brought about by material means - water from the sky and water from under the earth. We say we can examine the physical evidence for a young earth. Nothing supernatural about that.So, to make this point for the nth time - the supernatural lacks all explanatory force. It tells us nothing useful, because what God decided to do here may have no relation to what God decided to do somewhere else.
We don't implicitly recognise this - we do so explicitly. Except for the cases where it seems God acted without means - water into wine? - the acts of God involve the forces of nature.Even Creationists implicitly recognise this - they seek naturalistic explanations for the work of God - that is, they ascribe a naturalistic mechanism such as water-borne sorting to explain how fossils are layered, whereas it is quite sufficient to say that God chose to have it that way, for reasons that he did not choose to make known.
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 8:1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.
We are not asking for God's fiats to be tested. It is the natural effects they produce that can be tested.They're not testable. The Biblical account seems testable, but it doesn't require that the mechanisms actually be scientifically testable (because God can do anything), so it's not really testable.
It doesn't say there were or were not such heaps. Would heaps of exposed fish have fossilized? Would they not be the last life to expire in receding waters and be on the surface? Whereas heaps of mammals would be buried in sediment as it was laid down by the receding waters and so stand a much better chance of fossilization.Look at it this way. The Bible doesn't mention heaps of stranded fish after the flood waters receded, whereas any natural flood does strand fish. You might infer from this that the floodwaters receded very slowly (although even if that is the case, fish still get stranded in pools that become puddles), or you might conclude that God tidied up, possibly out of regret, or you mght conclude that they simply weren't mentioned. Which one is true? We don't know, and can't know.
Nothing more than what evolutionary science offers. No prayer-driven cars nor cars ex-nihilo. Just what ordinary science offers - Christian men who use the design and laws of nature to produce so many wonderful inventions, e.g:Well, the latter are unscientific, and the former evolved....what were you offering as an example of the triumphs of Creation Science?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/babbage.asp0 -
Wicknight said:
That is what is being disputed: that the 'independent' testing is based on the same assumptions. Truly independent dating would involve other types of dating, some of which clearly indicate a much younger earth. Here's one example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/landforms.aspIt is of course nonsense, the "assumptions" are based on sound, tested, and well understood scientific theory, and independent testing have been used to prove the assumptions are correct. If you test a object in 10 different ways and 9 ways come up with the exact same answer you can be pretty sure the 9 tests are working correctly, and the inital assumptions you made are in fact correct.0 -
robindch said:
No. I'd ask how he knows this and why it is not some mechanical reason that has accounted for all my previous repair bills. I'd be looking for evidence.Out of interest -- if you brought your car down to your mechanic and he said that the clunking sound was caused by bad spirits, would you be happy with that explanation?
I would also be very unhappy if he tried to tell me my car was not designed by Vauxhall but came to be from the forces of nature working on the air and earth around me, slowly evolving by natural selection to become the car I bought. I'd be pointing out the evidence for Intelligent Design.0 -
I can not understand how you think this is a valid arguement.wolfsbane wrote:The Creationist one works in all respects, whereas the materialistic one fails to account for the origin of the material universe. The Creationist model of a self-existing supernatural Being who creates the material universe is much more sensible than the materialist model that inconsistently asks us to belief in things we do not observe.
Science is not about telling complete stories.It is about predicting and explaining things.
Can Creationism account for the distribution of galaxies and explain why their sigma value is what it is?
No.
Can Creationism explain why the Sun is so metallic?
No.
Do Creationist scientists have numerical models which can simulate any large scale structure?
No.
The biggest flaw of Creation Science is that all its papers read like a story. With no explicit derivation of currently observed values.
To demonstrate this, here are two papers in the same subarea of physics.
One is Creationist paper, the other is not. You don't have to understand the terminology, but I think anybody who looks at these will see a difference.
Creationist Paper
Mainstream Science Paper
One has explicit calculations requiring a fairly advanced knowledge of Topology and GR. The other is a polemic requiring some English.0 -
Scofflaw said:
The evolutionists Steven Brush seems to find the prediction uncomfortable:'Yes. Stephen Brush, a fairly well known anti-creationist in the United States, wrote to me after the first prediction came true and I had mentioned this in an ICR Impact article. He said he was basically trying to find some way around the fact that I had made a prediction, and I wrote him a polite letter back and tried to explain things to him. He wrote another letter back and that was the end of the correspondence.OK, wolfsbane, I've read it. Essentially, Humphreys agrees with himself, and the ICR interviewer thinks he's great. That's nice, but I fail to see how it applies.
The predictions he made remain vague, alternately explicable, and derived from Genesis in a vague and easily disclaimed manner. How would an interview change that?
But about six months later, an article by him appeared in Science magazine. The gist of it was that ‘Well, predictions are not really a way to do good science’, so he was basically backing down from the classical scientific view that predictions are a good way to validate a theory.'
That is not the Creationist model, but a strawman. We do not say God created the world as we see it today. We say it has undergone the Flood, an event that will have left material evidence that can be tested. It will also bear some marks of its creation c.6000 years ago: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.aspI've said this before, but....it is perfectly possible to explain the entire world as God's creation, completed 6000 years ago, and examine every piece of evidence and find that to be true. I don't, and can't, deny that this is so. It is perfectly possible for God to have created the world, as it now appears, at any point. So this remains entirely plausible as an explanation of the world.
Creation Science is all about normal science being the normal way things happen. It also asserts that God brought the universe into existence ex nihilo. The latter is beyond scientific proof, just as is the materialistic explanation of the origin of the universe.Science is an alternative explanation, not involving the supernatural. It works too. Nearly everyone uses it, because it has far more explanatory and predictive power in the material world than the alternatives. It has no spiritual value, nor any pretensions to such, but is entirely plausible as an explanation of the world. I know you don't accept that, but you're in a tiny minority.
Creation Science is not about supernatural immediate causes for everything that happens. God uses means. That means normal science is indeed the norm, and Creation Science predicts natural behaviour just the same way as does evolutionary science.
Science does indeed provide a plausible explanation for the world: Intelligent Design. Science tells us that the complexity we see in life is astronomically unlikely to have just happened.
Your error again, of equating Creationism with the purely supernatural. Creationism holds that there are two spheres, the natural and the supernatural. The natural originated in the supernatural and from time to time is directly modified by it, but the normal course of life is the natural.What is not possible is to combine the two explanations - they are alternatives, arising from different assumptions that are entirely incompatible. Science assumes materialism, Creationism assumes God - these are opposites, as you keep pointing out. Science does not work without its assumptions, and Creationism does not work without its assumptions - science and Creationism therefore cannot be combined.
If it worked - creating things out of nothing - then I would indeed be concerned. But as it doesn't, and can offer no explanation for the origin of the universe, nor of life on earth even, then it must be you who are worried.I can only presume that you are actually scared that a materialistic explanation of the world works, because fundamentally you're a reasonable person, and you know that means that God is not necessary. But it is not necessary for God to be necessary.0 -
Advertisement
-
Diogenes said:
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't speaking of proof of the ancient longevity, only of the likelihood of ageing being increased by harmful radiation. It is speculation on my behalf, as the Bible reveals no mechanism for the dramatic reduction. It does seem humanity has a genetic limiter on how long we last, and a dramatic reduction seems more likely to be accounted for by genetic degradation than likestyles, etc.I'm sorry what? What modern discovery suggests that humanity used to have a 700 year old plus life span, but was reduced due to increased exposure to solar radiation?0 -
Scofflaw said:
Well, the growing natural disasters prophecied to occur before the End would be another indication. The earth being subjected to trouble on man's account is part of the Biblical assertion.So, just the record of the lifespan of the Biblical patriarchs? And the recent increase in life expectancy means what then?
The recent increase - in the West - is down to nutrition, I expect. And the obverse is true, in many lands lack of nutrition means very few reach the 70 year mark. So we can say 70yrs seems to be a mean about which mankind varies. I would also wonder if the change of nutrition were removed and a study done over a 100 years, would it show rather a decrease in longevity, due to increased exposure to radiation?0 -
Son Goku said:
I doubt I can. There are no pre-Fall fossils.Holy ****! That's a bit agressive isn't it?
However can you actually show that the above sequence of events is truthful using the scientific method?
Wasn't meant to be a scientific record. Just factual. Yes, I can accept that one could not be too precise about the nature of the Designer. As it turned out, it was indeed a plurality of Persons behind it all. The evidence pointed to a magnificent Designer, team or otherwise.Your reasons are poetic and emotive. This is not scientific reasoning. Another person could come to the conclusion that the universe was created by a team of Gods, as it is so complex and varied. You have no evidence-based reason to conclude this.
Some of it can be grasped at, some is hidden deeper in the spirit/mind. The obvious is that such magnificence and design demands a magnificent designer, as observation of life shows us only disorder if we allow things to develop of themselves. A sculpture, for example.However even going by emotive standards, you still haven't explained yourself. Why did you feel it wasn't enough? You haven't shown any reasoning.
Interesting. So their is no design, just random bits thrown together? Everything can behave in any old way; one way today, another way tomorrow? No order, just different levels of disorder? No complexity, let alone irreducible complexity?I don't see it because from studying physics, I think that the universe has too much freedom in how it could have ended up as it did. Everything follows from the level beneath it and the deeper you go the more tightly it is constrained. I can't see anywhere to put design and I've actually tried on occasion just to see if I could, as a mental exercise.0 -
Scofflaw said:
To stop the hardship?It's an interesting question, of course, and suicide rates appear to be distributed without reference to religion. The fundamental answer is that it is often a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Death is inevitable, why hasten it?
Any meaning is delusional if not based on reality. If all we are is intelligent chemicals, justise, etc. is a delusion.Do you mean subjective? If I look at something, and find meaning in it, and you do not, is my meaning delusional? What would that mean? How is it possible for meaning to be delusional?
If God is real, there is meaning. If matter is all there is, how can we have any more meaning than the excrement on our shoes?I can only presume that you think that only God can give meaning, which is rather to beg the question...
But you have no REASON to attribute meaning to it. It is just something you do.Imagine I am in a station waiting room - somewhere, let us say, that I have never been before, and will never be again. There are other people waiting there. If I chose to try and help one of my fellow passengers to sort out a problem, is this meaningless, given I will never see this person again, never be in this waiting room again? I do not think so, and neither do you, although we interpret it differently.
What is your validation?You require the "external" validation provided by religion - I know that both of us are providing our own validation.
On the contrary, I said before that the atheist may be self-sacrificial, but not logically so. His action is motivated by either a desperate imposition of delusional meaning or his conscience bearing witness that there is indeed more to life than matter.That the atheist does suffer for the sake of others (and many have) rather gives the lie to what you say. In your world, the atheist is someone who has turned his back on God - therefore the atheist, or indeed any non-Christian, who acts in a goodly way is a contradiction, since he cannot be inspired by God.
A great number: Revelation 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”Your worldview is so narrow! Tell me, wolfsbane - how many will be saved?
But relatively few: Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.0 -
Scofflaw said:
It must be my privileged unbringing or great intellect.:rolleyes: I grew up a son of working-class parents, in a poor area. I attended ordinary primary school and went on to non-grammar education.Yes, wolfsbane, these are the direct causal agents, as mosquitos are to malaria. Ignorance is a well-understood contributory factor. The rules are not different simply because genitalia are involved. Fundamentalist prejudice against education and availability of contraception kills people.
But when I was 10 or 11 I knew how babies were made; a year later I knew about some of the finer details and the purpose of condoms. So did all my friends. If any of us got a girl pregnant, it was not because we did not know how it happened. Some of this knowledge was from school; some from our mates; a lot from furtive reading of books and magazines.
I started smoking seriously at about 14. By 16 I smoked 40 a day. I knew from the start that cancer was a real threat. I was not deterred, for the pleasure was worth the risk, in my then foolish opinion.
Today's youth are much more exposed to the facts of life; of STDs; of smoking and cancer; of drug-abuse. Some hill-billy girl may not have read a book or magazine and will be exposed to pregancy - but it is incredible to me that the boat-loads of girls going to England from Ireland for abortions or the greater number having the baby as single mums did not know the facts of life.
Ignorance of the facts of life would be non-Christian. Recommendations how to have promiscuous sex without bad consequences is also non-Christian. It is the latter sort of propaganda Christians oppose.No society has ever been so perfectly Christian as to make enforced ignorance acceptable.
I appreciate the honesty. Society is moving your way. We will soon see the consequences of this liberty.As long as no-one is harmed, none of these are a problem.
Yes, He made the person, but not what the person did. Sodomy, theft, murder - all action words.Tch tch, wolfsbane. He made everybody. Either he did, or there was another Creator.0 -
Talliesin
The cartoons were a reasonable response given that caricatures of creationism came into the debate
The cartoons were a desperate response to Evolution being roundly defeated on this thread!!
Scofflaw
you are the opposite of a polymath - perhaps a monotreme?
I can confirm that I am NOT a Duckbilled Platypus!!!
BTW namecalling DOESN’T bolster the case for Evolution!!
Robin
In all of the caricatures that I've seen, creationists are depicted as morons, illiterates or baboons.
Wow!!
Namecalling and cartoons TOGETHER!!!
BTW how does the description of “morons, illiterates or baboons” apply to the following eminent conventional scientists who founded the modern Creation Science movement?
Professor Thomas G Barnes, D.Sc., Professor of Physics, University of Texas, El Paso, Texas.
Professor Edward Blick, Ph.D., Professor of Aerospace, Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Professor David R Boylan, Ph.D., Dean of the College of Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Professor Larry Butler, Ph.D, Professor of Biochemistry, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Dr. Kenneth B Cummings, Ph.D., Research Biologist, US Fisheries Service, LaCrosse, Wisconsin.
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
Professor Donald Hamann, Ph.D., Professor of Food Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Dr. Harold R Henry, Ph.D., Chairman, Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, University of
Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Dr. John R Meyer, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Louisville, Kentucky.
Professor John N Moore, Ed.D, Professor of Natural Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Scofflaw
How long does simulation of weather take? Of nuclear explosions? How long do the events themselves take? Do you realise that random systems are impossible to simluate, because they contain too much information?
SIMULATION of random systems is very EASY – just incorporate a random number generator into the Model.
PREDICTING a truly random system is IMPOSSIBLE – otherwise I could predict next weeks Lotto numbers.
Weather Forecasting is somewhere in-between in difficulty, as weather patterns are NOT fully random – but follow complex interactive patterns as well as having a considerable amount of random impactors.
Could also I point out that the accuracy of long range weather forecasting rapidly declines beyond a few days – even with the use of supercomputers due to the increasing impact of random phenomena over time.
Living systems are NOT observed to be random – they are tightly specified and therefore predictable, with enough knowledge and data.
The enormous size of the computing power required to ANALYSE living processes IS a measure of their complexity and QUALITY – whereas the use of super computers in weather forecasting is merely a measure of the effort required to push out the timeframe over which accurate PREDICTIONS can be made – before random impactors confound the forecast (as well as the super-computers).
Scofflaw
You're in the very small minority that believes in Biblical inerrancy (not the Catholic Church or the Orthodox, who together form the mainstream of Christianity) and a Young Earth Creation.
Could you please then tell me what the words “Maker” and “Creator” mean in the first sentences of the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds?
These Creeds take absolute precedence within all ‘mainstream churches’ over any musings that Theistic Evolutionists may make from time to time.
NO ‘mainstream church’ has ever repudiated the Nicene or Apostles Creeds – and these Creeds are evoked as a required part of their liturgies right up to the present time.
Indeed, I am actually unaware of ANY Christian Church (either ‘mainstream’ or otherwise) that has adopted a Creed that states that God was the ‘Evolver of Heaven and Earth’.
Unless and until these churches do so, Creationism remains the official position of ALL ‘mainstream churches’.
Could I also point out that the Nicene and Apostles Creeds are legally binding declarations and they are therefore written in a LITERAL style.
These Articles of Faith unambiguously ‘say what they mean and mean what they say’ using the most deliberate and carefully chosen words.
The Nicene and Apostles Creeds are unanimous in their declarations that God is the Maker/Creator (and not the Evolver) of all things.
So as I have previously said, I am actually a 'mainstream Christian' – when it comes to Creation.:D
Bluewolf
the catholic church seem to quite happily accept evolution
Does it really?
The Roman Catholic Church hasn’t repudiated the Nicene or Apostles Creeds – and unless and until it does – it will continue to be officially Creationist on the ‘Origins Issue'.
Professional
JC I have reviewed your threads (a lot of them mind you) and have found that you have no ground to stand on you have no solid proof of creation:p
I guess that you can take a horse to water but you can’t make him drink - even when he is 'drowning in the evidence'. :eek:
Scofflaw
some days it seems you'd be dazzled by any number over 10.
Not really – although I must admit that I am IMPRESSED by the number 10^^1,800,000 – which is the odds AGAINST the Human Genome sequence developing via undirected processes.
To put this number into perspective - the number of electrons in the postulated 'Big Bang' Universe is ONLY 10^^82 !!!
What modern discovery suggests that humanity used to have a 700 year old plus life span, but was reduced due to increased exposure to solar radiation?
Although adverse environmental factors following Noah’s Flood undoubtedly contributed to declining longevity, the latest thinking indicates a significant genetic component to the phenomenon as well.
See the following for further discussion on the topic.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/years.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i2/lifespans.asp0 -
Only a sentient being can randomly throw things together. Without an overarching intelligence the universe just is. Randomness is a human concept of which the universe has no knowledge, it simply exists.wolfsbane wrote:Interesting. So their is no design, just random bits thrown together?
Where did I say this? How would you even gather this based on what I said?wolfsbane wrote:No complexity
This kind of characterisation of everything the rest of us say is getting tiring.
The universe has neither disorder or order. How would one define such things with regard to an "inert omnium".
There is some extremely complicated things in the universe, such as chaotic systems.
No, look at what I just said:Everything can behave in any old way; one way today, another way tomorrow?
I.e., it has no freedom. The complete opposite of acting in any old way.Everything follows from the level beneath it and the deeper you go the more tightly it is constrained.
If you're going to talk with us, read what we say. Instead of applying a caricature on top of everything.
Just because no Designer implies randomness and no complexity to you, does not mean we're saying the universe is totally random and simple when we say we can't see a Designer.
I'll try saying what I said again in different phrasing.
From studying physics I observe that the universe divides into different levels. A hierarchy of arenas with different characteristics, although the higher levels are basically special cases of the lower levels.
However the laws of the level below force the common place nature of the level above. For instance the laws of Quantum Mechanics force/require Quantumness to die out and Classicality to take precedence.
Just as Quantum Field Theory requires that QFT effects die out, to be replaced by Quantum Mechanical effects.
In fact the Big Bang's aftermath can be viewed as the progressive "hiding" of wierd physics as time marched on. However this does not speak of design to me as it is basic consequence of the laws.
Similar to the fact that throwing water on to a fire will cause the fire to go out. Simply because the conditions of the situation force it to occur.
When one finally gets to the lowest levels things practically become mathematics.
(By the way I don't mean something trivial or philosophical, I mean something that would be very hard to express in less than an essay to somebody with no formal training in this stuff.)
Where the conditions are forced by nothing but simple tautological facts.
A poor explanation, but it's the best I can do.0 -
JC, what you just said is false. Weather Simulations are millions of times (literally) more complicated than any DNA computations. The most introductory computational complexity course would tell you that.J C wrote:Weather Forecasting is somewhere in-between in difficulty, as weather patterns are NOT fully random – but follow complex interactive patterns as well as having a considerable amount of random impactors.
Could also I point out that the accuracy of long range weather forecasting rapidly declines beyond a few days – even with the use of supercomputers due to the increasing impact of random phenomena over time.
Living systems are NOT observed to be random – they are tightly specified and therefore predictable, with enough knowledge and data.
The enormous size of the computing power required to ANALYSE living processes IS a measure of their complexity and QUALITY – whereas the use of super computers in weather forecasting is merely a measure of the effort required to push out the timeframe over which accurate PREDICTIONS can be made – before random impactors confound the forecast (as well as the super-computers).
Your reasons for what makes Weather simulations complex is totally erroneous. They are difficult because they obey the Navier-Stokes equation.0 -
> I'd ask how he knows this and why it is not some mechanical reason
Wouldn't you be satisfied when he tells you that his holybook says that bad spirits caused cars to break down? What more evidence do you need?
> I'd be pointing out the evidence for Intelligent Design.
Presumably if the car was designed by a perfect intelligence, then it wouldn't break down. Or, if humans were designed by one, then they wouldn't either?0 -
Advertisement
-
wolfsbane wrote:The evolutionists Steven Brush seems to find the prediction uncomfortable.
Yes, that's what Humphreys says. I don't know Steven Brush, and I can't see why I should be concerned by what does, or does not, make him uncomfortable. I do not require a "Steven Brush" to interpret science for me - I have a BSc and an MSc, the product of 10 years study all told, followed by over a decade working as a scientist. Science is a methodology, so anyone who has been trained to do it can use it, and see where it is not being used.wolfsbane wrote:Creation Science is all about normal science being the normal way things happen. It also asserts that God brought the universe into existence ex nihilo. The latter is beyond scientific proof, just as is the materialistic explanation of the origin of the universe.
Creation Science is not about supernatural immediate causes for everything that happens. God uses means. That means normal science is indeed the norm, and Creation Science predicts natural behaviour just the same way as does evolutionary science.
Then, frankly, wolfsbane, all we're arguing about is the evidence, and we could do that in an entirely scientific way. We don't need to, though, because it's been done already. Virtually every western science grew out of Creationism 150 years ago. Creationism was resurrected in the 1960's by a handful of religious fundamentalists, and remains a doctrinal position based on Biblical inerrancy. It has no credibility within science - only amongst the handfuls of scientists who are Christian fundamentalists. That you choose to believe this tiny minority is a tautology, given your religious position - it does nothing to make Creationism more credible.
Really, wolfsbane, if the evidence supported your position as you say it does, non-fundamentalist Christian scientists would be discovering that in droves and flooding into the Bible-worshipping sects (and please, JC, don't bother making a claim that that's happening). The oil and mineral industries would be sitting through seminars on Flood geology.
None of these things are happening, because the evidence simply does not support your position. You are fighting a PR war simply to persuade people that Creationism is science, and you can't win in the long run, because science is simply too important to modern economies for a handful of fundamentalists to be allowed to drag it back into the Middle Ages.
Intelligent Design, in turn, has been fully outed as the thin end of the Creationist wedge. Why bother pretending the two things are different when even the ID sites have published material showing they aren't?wolfsbane wrote:Your error again, of equating Creationism with the purely supernatural. Creationism holds that there are two spheres, the natural and the supernatural. The natural originated in the supernatural and from time to time is directly modified by it, but the normal course of life is the natural.
If it worked - creating things out of nothing - then I would indeed be concerned. But as it doesn't, and can offer no explanation for the origin of the universe, nor of life on earth even, then it must be you who are worried.
Frankly, no. The origin of the Universe doesn't concern me in the least. Attempting to work out what happened that far back is an academic exercise of primarily intellectual interest. As I've said before, with respect to our different beliefs, I find yours more comforting than mine - I just can't believe it, because it's a load of old rubbish. Please do not attempt to portray me as a frightened soi-disant atheist frantically trying to persuade myself that there will be no final reckoning, and I will in turn not make any comments about the utter ridiculousness of a grown man believing stories for children.
With respect to the invisible demons of erosion, the point is that you cannot disprove them if I choose to claim them. It is a demonstration of how science cannot operate with supernatural explanations. You've said that God produced the Flood through naturalistic mechanisms, and that therefore there's nothing supernatural about it. In that case, you must drop your complaint that science should consider the supernatural, since neither you nor I need it.
As to whether God created the Universe, or whether it was created acausally, is not treated of in science teaching. Science has never ruled out God, and indeed, cannot do so. It can, however, rule out a Book, and has done so.
Scofflaw0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement