The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C · 08-12-2009 9:52pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Of course he wasn't. If he actually went and researched these papers it would become much more difficult to claim they don't exist.

...nobody claims that evolution papers don't exist ... unlike Evolutionists who are in denial over the existence of Creation Science papers!!!

...the only problem is that none of the papers provide any evidence that supports the spontaneous production of CSI ... and we shouldn't be surprised ... because the spontaneous production of CSI is impossible!!!

:eek:

J C · 08-12-2009 9:59pm

.....any chance that you could respond to my postings on the Sight Cascade, the Hearing Ear or my Post #19201 (in your own words) and without resorting to posting links to evolution papers that don't explain how CSI could be spontaneously generated or how irreducibly complex cascades could arise in a step by step fashion ??:eek::rolleyes:

marco_polo · 08-12-2009 10:06pm

marco_polo wrote: »

I found a ton of other non subscription papers you can read as well so I don't have to do any more homework for you. I eagerly await your critique of them.

J C wrote: »

...and not the slightest evidence available for any of these speculations!!!

Impressive, has this devestating rebuttal been published in any major scientific publication yet?

J C · 08-12-2009 11:16pm

marco_polo wrote: »

Impressive, has this devestating rebuttal been published in any major scientific publication yet?

...like I have said ....the papers cited don't explain how CSI could be spontaneously generated or how irreducibly complex cascades could arise in a step by step fashion !!!
...any chance that you could respond to my postings on the Sight Cascade, the Hearing Ear or my Post #19201 (in your own words)

liamw · 08-12-2009 11:21pm

J C wrote: »

...like I have said ....they don't explain how CSI could be spontaneously generated or how irreducibly complex cascades could arise in a step by step fashion !!!

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

marco_polo · 08-12-2009 11:50pm

J C wrote: »

...like I have said ....they don't explain how CSI could be spontaneously generated or how irreducibly complex cascades could arise in a step by step fashion !!!

It doesn't explain it because it is not irreducibly complex and you have provided no evidence to the contrary. The visual signaling system is simply one of hundreds of similarG protein coupled receptor signal transduction pathways, and I would love to know what is what is irreducibly complex about Rhodopsin, which meerly consist a binding of the protein Opsin (of which there are over 1000 know varients) and retinal, a vitimin A derivitive.

Sam Vimes · 09-12-2009 1:09am

The problem here J C is that you want a direct answer to the question "how can irreducible complexity arise in a step by step fashion?". I can tell you now that you will never find anyone who will explain to you how that can happen because it can't happen, it's a contradiction.

The answer to your question is: these things are not actually irreducibly complex. You are making an invalid assumption in your question so, just as creationists like it, you will never get an answer.

You operate in this thread as if IC is an accepted fact but it's not. The mathematics of CSI only work if IC is true, the whole of creationism only works if IC is true but IC is nonsense and it has been consistently shown to be nonsense so any points you make based on the assumption of it being true will equally be nonsense.

You keep asking us to reply to that post but we have all replied, you just keep ignoring our answers because our answer is that you're asking the wrong question

monosharp · 09-12-2009 6:14am

J C wrote: »

...like I have said ....they don't explain how CSI could be spontaneously generated or how irreducibly complex cascades could arise in a step by step fashion !!!
...any chance that you could respond to my postings on the Sight Cascade, the Hearing Ear or my Post #19201 (in your own words)

Irreducible complexity has been disproven hundreds of times.

JohnnyBoyDub · 09-12-2009 7:00am

If ever a discussion of points of view were ever pointless, its this.

If you choose to believe in Creationism, you lack the mental tools with which to understand the scale, significance and support for the idea of evolution. Creationism is a component of a religious view of the world. To have this view of the world requires that a person forgoes personal preference in favour of according with their church's view. This apparently makes them better believers. If you are to 'believe' in creationism you do so as a declaration of your belief in religion and dogma over science and post renascence thinking. The reason that the arguments for creationism are so varied and abstract is that they are only the pretext for touting the belief. Some drifting souls can find this irrational certainty almost comforting in times of strangeness.

To those of a Darwinian turn of mind, please consider these words when choosing to condemn or think irrational these people or their beliefs. In any case, the scale and use of creationism compared to its discussion and appearance in news items is more to do with using a handy wedge issue to rile the rational and rise the religious.
As to prophesy, here’s one: – we all will live in interesting times.
All the old standards of church and state are now gone, the veneer of civilisation is coming off and the makeup looks blotched and worn. What we have is a notional government presiding over a status quo where the merchant class graze on the waged while the important ply new methods of streamlining the route between our desire and their bank accounts.

monosharp · 09-12-2009 7:06am

JohnnyBoyDub wrote: »

If you choose to believe in Creationism, you lack the mental tools with which to understand the scale, significance and support for the idea of evolution. Creationism is a component of a religious view of the world. To have this view of the world requires that a person forgoes personal preference in favour of according with their church's view. This apparently makes them better believers. If you are to 'believe' in creationism you do so as a declaration of your belief in religion and dogma over science and post renascence thinking.

J C · 09-12-2009 9:04am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem here J C is that you want a direct answer to the question "how can irreducible complexity arise in a step by step fashion?". I can tell you now that you will never find anyone who will explain to you how that can happen because it can't happen, it's a contradiction.

The answer to your question is: these things are not actually irreducibly complex. You are making an invalid assumption in your question so, just as creationists like it, you will never get an answer.

You operate in this thread as if IC is an accepted fact but it's not. The mathematics of CSI only work if IC is true, the whole of creationism only works if IC is true but IC is nonsense and it has been consistently shown to be nonsense so any points you make based on the assumption of it being true will equally be nonsense.

You keep asking us to reply to that post but we have all replied, you just keep ignoring our answers because our answer is that you're asking the wrong question

...the maths of CSI works for TWO reasons :-

1. Irreducible Complexity is true - if you remove ANY molecule in a critical Amino Acid sequence the biomolecule becomes non-functional and if you remove (or even put any molecule in the 'wrong' place) in a biochemical cascade it breaks down!!!

2. The non-functional permutations are effectively infinite for ANY biomolecule ... and it would therefore take an effective infinity of time to produce a specific protein to perform a specific function using non-intelligently directed processes ... and it is therefore impossible to produce ANY functional protein without an input of intelligence!!!!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem here J C is that you want a direct answer to the question "how can irreducible complexity arise in a step by step fashion?". I can tell you now that you will never find anyone who will explain to you how that can happen because it can't happen, it's a contradiction.

... and THEREFORE Spontaneous Materialistic Evolution ALSO cannot happen!!!:D

J C · 09-12-2009 9:38am

JohnnyBoyDub wrote: »

If ever a discussion of points of view were ever pointless, its this.

If you choose to believe in Creationism, you lack the mental tools with which to understand the scale, significance and support for the idea of evolution. How do you explain an Evolutionist (who knows all there is to know about Evolution) becoming a Creationist then?

Creationism is a component of a religious view of the world. ...as is Evolutionism (which is a vital component of the Materialist/Atheist/Humanist religious worldview)!!!

To have this view of the world requires that a person forgoes personal preference in favour of according with their church's view. This apparently makes them better believers...there are many Christians and other Theists who are Evolutionists ... but NO Materialists/Atheists/Humanists who are Creationists ... so Creationists AREN'T Creationists because it is a religious imperative ... they are Creationists because science proves Creation to be true!!!!
Materilalists/Atheists/Humanists are Evolutionists because it is the 'only game in town' if they are to have any modicum of intellectual support for their unfounded materialistic BELIEFS.

If you are to 'believe' in creationism you do so as a declaration of your belief in religion and dogma over science and post renascence thinking. The reason that the arguments for creationism are so varied and abstract is that they are only the pretext for touting the belief. Some drifting souls can find this irrational certainty almost comforting in times of strangeness...the 'strangeness' is all on the Evolutionists side!!!
...and the scientific proofs for Creation are comprehensive and mathematically proven ... while the arguments for Evolution amount to little more than "trust me I'M an Evolutionist" !!!"

To those of a Darwinian turn of mind, please consider these words when choosing to condemn or think irrational these people or their beliefs. In any case, the scale and use of creationism compared to its discussion and appearance in news items is more to do with using a handy wedge issue to rile the rational and rise the religious.
...what is rational about believing that muck can pull itself up by it's own bootstraps to become man in defiance of the laws of science and logic???

.

monosharp · 09-12-2009 10:18am

J C wrote: »

How do you explain an Evolutionist (who knows all there is to know about Evolution) becoming a Creationist then?

HAHAHAHA

JC, you have shown time and time again that you know almost nothing about Evolution.
You can't even define it.
You can't even tell the difference between Evolution and Abiogenesis.
You can't even understand the most basic biological classifications.

You know nothing about Evolution except what you read on answeringenesis.

...as is Evolutionism (which is a vital component of the Materialist/Atheist/Humanist religious worldview)!!!

Does anyone else find it funny when the biggest insult Creationists have against Evolution is trying to insinuate that its religious ?

...there are many Christians and other Theists who are Evolutionists ... but NO Materialists/Atheists/Humanists who are Creationists ... so Creationists AREN'T Creationists because it is a religious imperative ... they are Creationists because science proves Creation to be true!!!!

wikipedia wrote:

The Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

The vast overwhelming majority of the Scientific community not only reject creationism because its religious, they reject it because it doesn't use the scientific method. It is the complete opposite of science.

...what is rational about believing that muck can pull itself up by it's own bootstraps to become man in defiance of the laws of science and logic???

Yet again proving you don't understand anything about Evolution or Abiogenesis or Science or Logic. Well done. :pac::D:rolleyes::o:p

Out of curiosity, what is rational about believing that god needed to mold us out of muck in defiance of the laws of science and logic ? I mean he is God afterall, couldn't he have just magicked us into existence ? why muck ? What kind of muck ? What kind of evidence can we find that proves God used muck ? Was it animal muck or just plain old mud or a mixture of both ? :P:confused::eek::(:rolleyes::D

Soul Winner · 09-12-2009 4:25pm

Good debate here:

Is Intelligent Design viable?

William Lane Craig vrs Francisco Ayala

Would like to here everyone's thoughts on it. As for me, I thought Craig did very well considering that this is not his field and that it was his first time debating such topics. I was expecting more from Ayala though. I don't think he prepared properly nor did he he present his points very well. That does not mean that I conclude that ID is right, but if this is the best that the most eminent Darwinian evolutionists can come up with then it at least deserves a place at the table. I would appreciate that all potential commenters actually listen to all of the debate and the Q+As first before commenting please.

Turtwig · 09-12-2009 4:35pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Good debate here:

Is Intelligent Design viable?

William Lane Craig vrs Francisco Ayala

Would like to here everyone's thoughts on it. As for me, I thought Craig did very well considering that this is not his field and that it was his first time debating such topics. I was expecting more from Ayala though. I don't think he prepared properly nor did he he present his points very well. That does not mean that I conclude that ID is right, but if this is the best that the most eminent Darwinian evolutionists can come up with then it at least deserves a place at the table. I would appreciate that all potential commenters actually listen to all of the debate and the Q+As first before commenting please.

I thought it was very poor.

Ayala went off on a waffle about evolutionary evidence and didn't really attack ID.
Craig, didn't even tell us what ID would be useful for. Ok, he mentioned Forensic science, but we're all interested in the "how" and that was a case he seeemed to completely ignore.
In short, very disappointed with debate, although the Coyne vs Craig aftermath battle online that has erupted is, well, funny.:)

Video here.

darjeeling · 09-12-2009 6:36pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Good debate here:

Is Intelligent Design viable?

William Lane Craig vrs Francisco Ayala

Is Intelligent Design necessary? Why can't an omnipotent creator create a universe in which all the complexity of life can arise through a Darwinian process of mutation and natural selection?

ID imagines God in super-human terms - a figure who comes into His universe from time to time to tinker with the clockwork, but who mostly leaves it to run on its own. If ever a god were made in human image, the ID god is it.

And why do ID supporters seem to want a scientific basis for believing in God? Have they been so seduced by the success of science that they won't believe anything unless it can be scientifically justified?

Sam Vimes · 09-12-2009 7:34pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Good debate here:

Is Intelligent Design viable?

William Lane Craig vrs Francisco Ayala

Would like to here everyone's thoughts on it. As for me, I thought Craig did very well considering that this is not his field and that it was his first time debating such topics. I was expecting more from Ayala though. I don't think he prepared properly nor did he he present his points very well. That does not mean that I conclude that ID is right, but if this is the best that the most eminent Darwinian evolutionists can come up with then it at least deserves a place at the table. I would appreciate that all potential commenters actually listen to all of the debate and the Q+As first before commenting please.

I might look at it later but the place to find out if intelligent design is viable is in the laboratory, not a debating hall. The problem there is that they don't really have any experiments other than to declare that they don't know how something could have been created without intelligence so they try to avoid labs and the scientific process in general because it's already been rejected from there

Sam Vimes · 09-12-2009 7:35pm

darjeeling wrote: »

Is Intelligent Design necessary? Why can't an omnipotent creator create a universe in which all the complexity of life can arise through a Darwinian process of mutation and natural selection?

ID imagines God in super-human terms - a figure who comes into His universe from time to time to tinker with the clockwork, but who mostly leaves it to run on its own. If ever a god were made in human image, the ID god is it.

And why do ID supporters seem to want a scientific basis for believing in God? Have they been so seduced by the success of science that they won't believe anything unless it can be scientifically justified?

Very good point. A system that runs all on its own is far superior to one where you have to keep tinkering with it to make it work as you intended

J C · 10-12-2009 12:16am

Soul Winner wrote: »

Good debate here:

Is Intelligent Design viable?

William Lane Craig vrs Francisco Ayala

Would like to here everyone's thoughts on it. As for me, I thought Craig did very well considering that this is not his field and that it was his first time debating such topics. I was expecting more from Ayala though. I don't think he prepared properly nor did he he present his points very well. That does not mean that I conclude that ID is right, but if this is the best that the most eminent Darwinian evolutionists can come up with then it at least deserves a place at the table. I would appreciate that all potential commenters actually listen to all of the debate and the Q+As first before commenting please.

...William Craig Lane did quite well, He stood on the shoulders of ID 'giants' like Dembski and Behe and he also competently visited many of the issues that have come up on this thread such as the fact that a current lack of a maximally optimum design doesn't invalidate a design inference...
... and neither does the presence of evil within a system invalidate a design inference.
He also drew attention to a common fallacy used by Evolutionists on this thread ... the raising of theological objections (by Atheists) to the design inference which are scientifically irrelevant and theologically invalid!!!

Prof Ayala is one of the leading proponents of Darwinism ... his only problem is that he is trying to defend an invalid theory ... and surprise, surprise he found it impossible to prove something that is itself impossible ... namely, the spontaneous production of CSI upon which Darwinism relies ... but which is impossible ... and is making Darwinism a scientific joke!!!:D

J C · 10-12-2009 12:22am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Very good point. A system that runs all on its own is far superior to one where you have to keep tinkering with it to make it work as you intended

...it is the Theistic ID evolution proponents who are postulating a 'tinkering intelligence' .... Creation Scientists postulate a perfect original Creation that is still 'running' on the ORIGINAL CSI infused into it at Creation!!!!

Turtwig · 10-12-2009 12:27am

Em, JC,

WLC, conceded evolution by common descent.

J C · 10-12-2009 12:44am

darjeeling wrote: »

Is Intelligent Design necessary? Why can't an omnipotent creator create a universe in which all the complexity of life can arise through a Darwinian process of mutation and natural selection?

He could ... but He didn't!!!:D

darjeeling wrote: »

ID imagines God in super-human terms - a figure who comes into His universe from time to time to tinker with the clockwork, but who mostly leaves it to run on its own. If ever a god were made in human image, the ID god is it.

....another example of the fallacy used by Evolutionists on this thread ... the raising of theological objections (by Atheists) to the design inference which are scientifically irrelevant and theologically invalid!!!
The Creator God of the Universe doesn't suffer from any of the ID God's flaws!!!!:D

darjeeling wrote: »

And why do ID supporters seem to want a scientific basis for believing in God? Have they been so seduced by the success of science that they won't believe anything unless it can be scientifically justified?

...ID Proponents don't need scientific reasons for believing in God....
...they have found that there are scientific reasons for believing in God ... and Creation Scientists are actively and scientifically evaluating the physical evidence of His Divine Word in Creation.

...the sad reality is that it is the assorted materialists who are desperately (and unsuccessfully) trying to use science to scientifically prove that God doesn't exist!!!!
...and when they fail, as fail they must, they then resort to artificially eliminating any scientific consideration of the physical evidence for God, with a self-serving definition of Science!!!!:eek::D

darjeeling · 10-12-2009 12:54am

J C wrote: »

[usual stuff]:eek::D

Sorry, JC, but in almost 3000 posts from you in this thread, I've seen nothing but soap-boxing, trollery and clowning. I have no further intention of responding to anything you write in reply to my posts.

J C · 10-12-2009 12:54am

Malty_T wrote: »

Em, JC,

WLC, conceded evolution by common descent.

...he did no such thing!!!
... he pointed out that no physical mechanism exists for evolution by common descent ... indeed, that is his major argument against Darwinism!!!

He gave the example of the rapidly mutating (single point) AIDS and Malaria organisms that nontheless haven't evolved biochemically at all ... i.e. at multiple specific points simultaneously ... which is required to generate CSI.:D

J C · 10-12-2009 12:59am

darjeeling wrote: »

Sorry, JC, but in almost 3000 posts from you in this thread, I've seen nothing but soap-boxing, trollery and clowning. I have no further intention of responding to anything you write in reply to my posts.

...a typical reaction from an Evolutionist when faced with the overwhelming evidence for Creation ... that leaves him with no place to go ... except into denial !!!

...very sad that so many are on the road to perdition because of their hardened hearts against God.

...I will pray for you darjeeling ... and I must tell you that God has great plans for you, if you would just believe on Him!!!

...I too was that soldier!!!!!

J C · 10-12-2009 1:24am

Why are ye sweating the small stuff, in denial of the obvious and 'banging your heads' against the rock that is Jesus Christ by continuing to try and prove the impossible????
...and while such behaviour may be understandable with an atheist, I am completely at a loss to explain it with a Christian!!!!
Mt 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Sam Vimes · 10-12-2009 1:30am

J C wrote: »

...a typical reaction from an Evolutionist when faced with the overwhelming evidence for Creation ... that leaves him with no place to go ... except into denial !!!

...very sad that so many are on the road to perdition because of their hardened hearts against God.

...I will pray for you darjeeling ... and I must tell you that God has great plans for you, if you would just believe on Him!!!

...I too was that soldier!!!!!

J C, I have to admit it really terrifies me that there are enough gobsh!tes in the world that are stupid enough to swallow the sh!t your shovelling to have a seriously damaging effect on the advancement of our species. They won't be taken in if they research it in any depth mind you because it's all nonsense but most people don't bother doing that anad just have a vague idea that you have to reject evolution to be a christian. People such as yourself make it so much easier for atheists to argue that religion is bad for the world, just look at the lengths people are willing to go to to protect their precious beliefs.

After 4 years you're still here spouting the same old bullsh!t. I hate to tell you but the only person you're fooling is yourself, and unfortunately wolfsbane.

J C · 10-12-2009 1:40am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

J C, I have to admit it really terrifies me that there are enough gobsh!tes in the world that are stupid enough to swallow the sh!t your shovelling to have a seriously damaging effect on the advancement of our species. People such as yourself make it so much easier for atheists to argue that religion is bad for the world, just look at the lengths people are willing to go to to protect their precious beliefs.

After 4 years you're still here spouting the same old bullsh!t. I hate to tell you but the only person you're fooling is yourself, and unfortunately wolfsbane.

...Jesus loves you Sam ... and wants to save you too!!!

....and why does LOVE terrify you ... and why do you think it is "bad for the world"?

... please don't be terrified of me ... I am only speaking the truth with love and humility.

Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

...but you will have no problems if you are Saved.

J C · 10-12-2009 1:56am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I might look at it later but the place to find out if intelligent design is viable is in the laboratory, not a debating hall. The problem there is that they don't really have any experiments other than to declare that they don't know how something could have been created without intelligence so they try to avoid labs and the scientific process in general because it's already been rejected from there

Creation Scientists and ID proponents are active scientists who perform experiments, work in labs and base their well-founded theories on the real world!!!!

...the irony is that it is the materialists who have no physical evidence for their belief that 'God didn't do it' .... while the theists have very strong physical evidence for their belief that 'God did it' ...
...so the theists have all of the scientific evidence and the materialists have none!!!!
...and the materialists solve this apparently insurmountable problem by the simple expedient of excluding all physical evidence for the actions of God from scientific consideration.

Sam Vimes · 10-12-2009 2:07am

J C wrote: »

...Jesus loves you Sam ... and wants to save you too!!!

....and why is LOVE "bad for the world"?

... please don't be terrified of me ... I am only speaking the truth with love and humility.

Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

...but you will have no problems if you are Saved.

My fear has nothing to do with love and nothing to do with any god that may exist. The problem is that people's devotion to their gods blinds them to reality and allows them to justify the unjustifiable.

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists and ID proponents are active scientists who perform experiments and base their theories on the real world!!!!

They do in their arse. Unlike real scientists they don't publish papers, they just declare over and over again that they're being censored and hope no one notices that they're not producing anything for the scientific community to censor. Your "giant" of creationism Behe wanted the definition of science itself changed to something so broad that even he admitted that under his definition astrology would be classed as science

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments