"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

Distance has nothing to do with Creation ... many Creation Scientists believe that the Universe is infinite!!

Presumably less infinite that God though.

keppler

Malty_T wrote: »

Presumably less infinite that God though.

well that depends on what his creationist scientist's interpretations are of an infinite universe;)

but good point though:D

Turtwig

keppler wrote: »

well that depends on what his creationist scientist's interpretations are of an infinite universe;)

but good point though:D

Well cosmologists believe the universe is finite but unbounded. Creation Scientists, as is the norm with these caps, disagree with mainstream science.
Russell Humphreys, believes in a universe where the "waters" described in the bible are actually out there and they invoked a reverse time dilation of sorts that causes the universe to appear old. He may right..
(Basically everything out of the singularity first aged much faster than those things inside it.
*Awaits Morbert's thorough debunking )

keppler

ColmDawson wrote: »

Lads, I don't know if it's worth it. I don't think J C has a properly formed concept of what truth is. He's decided that the highest authority on this matter is the text of the Bible, and as such it doesn't matter to him how much evidence is heaped before him or how many of his crackpot ideas are debunked.

Sure, he'll argue the creationist case for the sake of it, but no matter what is said, the Bible exists for him in a different realm of truth to anything else — something in the Bible could be shown to be false in reality, where everyone else operates, but for J C the Bible wins every time. Something as trivial as reality can't compete with the Bible.

Has anyone ave thought of what would happen to jc if we did finally convince him of the truth?
Like would his brain just explode or something:D

jayzusb.christ

Malty_T wrote: »

Presumably less infinite that God though.

An infinite god in an infinite universe. Doesn't leave much space for the rest of us

CiaranMT

Been lurkin' on this thread for a while and noticed that there's a free-read section from the book. He's misspelled 'differentiation' as 'differenciation' in one heading.

Oh dear. :pac:

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Presumably less infinite that God though.

... just a reflection of His infinity.

J C

jayzusb.christ wrote: »

An infinite god in an infinite universe. Doesn't leave much space for the rest of us

As God is transcendent ... and we are within said infinite universe ... there is plenty of space for all of us.

J C

CiaranMT wrote: »

Been lurkin' on this thread for a while and noticed that there's a free-read section from the book. He's misspelled 'differentiation' as 'differenciation' in one heading.

Oh dear. :pac:

... and this is your only comment????

... do all Evolutionists 'nit pick' over complete irrelevancies ... or is it just the ones who post on this thread?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Just in case anyone isn't getting the point and so that JC doesn't need to repeat this quote again..He's already done it
more times than I have....:D:)
..

So we have established two things....

1. The number of possible permutations in a 100 chain protein is vastly greater than the number of seconds that it would take a snail to move every electron in the Universe over and back across it's 93 billion light year diameter moving one electron at a time.

2. I am mathematically competent.

J C

keppler wrote: »

Has anyone ave thought of what would happen to jc if we did finally convince him of the truth?
Like would his brain just explode or something:D

You mean if you were to provide some scientifically valid evidence that 'Molecules to man Evolution' ever happened?

... if you did I would probably become a Theistic Evolutionist ... or maybe even a Materialistic one!!!

equivariant

J C wrote: »

So we have established two things....

1. The number of possible permutations in a 100 chain protein is irrelevant

2. I am mathematically incompetent.

FYP

jayzusb.christ

Originally Posted by jayzusb.christ
An infinite god in an infinite universe. Doesn't leave much space for the rest of us

As God is transcendent ... and we are within said infinite universe ... there is plenty of space for all of us.

It was a joke. I can see that there is plenty of space. Why, I even managed to get to work today without God blocking the roads.

You mean if you were to provide some scientifically valid evidence that 'Molecules to man Evolution' ever happened?

Again, there is absolutely loads of evidence - please read the rest of this thread. you simply choose to ignore it. Show me some evidence that God is transcendent, other than you just saying it is true.

magicbastarder

keppler wrote: »

we have been discussing redshift and your apparent indecisiveness as to what causes it for many pages now

[mythbusters]well THERE'S your problem[/mythbusters]

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

You mean if you were to provide some scientifically valid evidence that 'Molecules to man Evolution' ever happened?

... if you did I would probably become a Theistic Evolutionist ... or maybe even a Materialistic one!!!

We've also established that you have no idea what evolution means, how it works, or what said evidence could be.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

So we have established two things....

1. The number of possible permutations in a 100 chain protein is vastly greater than the number of seconds that it would take a snail to move every electron in the Universe over and back across it's 93 billion light year diameter moving one electron at a time.

No we haven't.

J C wrote: »

2. I am mathematically competent.

Except of course when you use the wrong numbers and can't tell the difference between millions and billions.
And since you where copying that crap from some inane site, you've a long way to go before you can be considered "competent".

Also you're ignoring an assload of points people have made against you.
Can you explain how exactly you can consider this honest behaviour?

Improbable

J C wrote: »

So we have established two things....

1. The number of possible permutations in a 100 chain protein is vastly greater than the number of seconds that it would take a snail to move every electron in the Universe over and back across it's 93 billion light year diameter moving one electron at a time.

Ok, if that was what the mathematical proof was for, then I have to tell you that you are simply wrong in this case. Many people use that argument and as a biochemist I can tell you that the argument is just wrong. Proteins do not fold by a simple random search pattern. They fold cooperatively. I don't expect you to understand the significance of that as you're not a biochemist, so I found a paper for you that explains it very well. I hope that it will help clear things up for you a little bit. It really is an extremely interesting field of study.

http://www.pnas.org/content/92/24/10869.full.pdf+html

This is a paper by Alan Fersht, one of the biggest names in the world of protein folding. His (and other biochemists') experiments show that the most likely method for which proteins fold correctly with only sequence information is through cooperative optimisation of the energies of interaction.

sponsoredwalk

Improbable wrote: »

Ok, if that was what the mathematical proof was for, then I have to tell you that you are simply wrong in this case. Many people use that argument and as a biochemist I can tell you that the argument is just wrong. Proteins do not fold by a simple random search pattern. They fold cooperatively. I don't expect you to understand the significance of that as you're not a biochemist, so I found a paper for you that explains it very well. I hope that it will help clear things up for you a little bit. It really is an extremely interesting field of study.

http://www.pnas.org/content/92/24/10869.full.pdf+html

This is a paper by Alan Fersht, one of the biggest names in the world of protein folding. His (and other biochemists') experiments show that the most likely method for which proteins fold correctly with only sequence information is through cooperative optimisation of the energies of interaction.

"There are many theories"

"But my abuse of probabilities is right, because I said so!"

"out-of-date quote from creationist website"

"pond scum to man invocation"

"!!!"

"hows your mother?"

I feel we're going to get a barrage of similar comments in increasing
rapidity until his head explodes and the little internal leprachaun runs
back into the shadows...

I'm awaiting responses to questions I asked over 10 pages ago J C btw...
Even a response to the video on how the flagellum self-assembled based
on work done in 2003 (quoted in the message) would be good.
Remember, this has nothing to do with probability theory

J C

keppler wrote: »

JC here you go trying to change the subject again.
did you honestly think that you could just throw 'steady state theory' in your attempt at an answer and i would run at it like a retriever dog?
NO NO NO JC
now we have been discussing redshift and your apparent indecisiveness as to what causes it for many pages now (for some reason you still think this has a bearing on whether it can be used for calculating distance or not).

And you still havnt given me a straight answer to my question:mad:
DO YOU THINK ITS INACCURATE AT CALCULATING DISTANCE AND THEREFORE HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE ESTIMATED AGE OF THE UNIVERSE AND THEREFORE IMPLY THAT GOD DID CREATE THE EARTH 6000YEARS AGO?

Not particularly ... like I have said, the Universe is indeed vast ... but that has no correlation with it's age ... or the rate at which certain parts are expanding away from each other.

Redshifts aren't a reliable indicator of distance, irrespective of whether one believes in an 'old' or a 'young' Universe.

J C

Zillah wrote: »

This thread must die.

Burn the witch.

Lock this shit.

Ban everyone.

*copy/pastes five pages of creationist drivel*

... you do use very colourful language!!!:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Well cosmologists believe the universe is finite but unbounded. Creation Scientists, as is the norm with these caps, disagree with mainstream science.
Russell Humphreys, believes in a universe where the "waters" described in the bible are actually out there and they invoked a reverse time dilation of sorts that causes the universe to appear old. He may right..
(Basically everything out of the singularity first aged much faster than those things inside it.

Did anybody ever tell you that you would make a right good Creation Scientist?

jayzusb.christ

... you do use very colourful language!!!

Got to admit, JC, that's a good 'un!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

Did anybody ever tell you that you would make a right good Creation Scientist?

You did before actually. I'm not that desperate for money yet tho.;)

J C

Improbable wrote: »

Ok, if that was what the mathematical proof was for, then I have to tell you that you are simply wrong in this case. Many people use that argument and as a biochemist I can tell you that the argument is just wrong. Proteins do not fold by a simple random search pattern. They fold cooperatively. I don't expect you to understand the significance of that as you're not a biochemist, so I found a paper for you that explains it very well. I hope that it will help clear things up for you a little bit. It really is an extremely interesting field of study.

http://www.pnas.org/content/92/24/10869.full.pdf+html

This is a paper by Alan Fersht, one of the biggest names in the world of protein folding. His (and other biochemists') experiments show that the most likely method for which proteins fold correctly with only sequence information is through cooperative optimisation of the energies of interaction.

I agree that proteins fold in a specific pre-determined complex manner that is essential for the functionality of each protein ... and that is further evidence of the CSI inherent at every level within these processes.

... and that is another reason why random processes, like mutagenesis, can only destroy such processes ... and will never add any CFSI to these processes.

We have entered the 'Age of Information' in Biology research ... and Evolutionists have a choice :-
They can stay in denial ... and become irrelevant.
Or they can embrace the reality that modern science has discovered.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

You did before actually. I'm not that desperate for money yet tho.;)

Never mind the money ... what about the fame?:D

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

We have entered the 'Age of Information' in Biology research ... and Evolutionists have a choice :-
They can stay in denial ... and become irrelevant.
Or they can embrace the reality that modern science has discovered.

Anyone else see the total irony in this?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

No we haven't.


Except of course when you use the wrong numbers and can't tell the difference between millions and billions.
And since you where copying that crap from some inane site, you've a long way to go before you can be considered "competent".

Also you're ignoring an assload of points people have made against you.
Can you explain how exactly you can consider this honest behaviour?

Denial really is a terrible thing!!!:eek:

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Anyone else see the total irony in this?

Yes, I agree that it is deeply ironic.
I know many Evolutionists who are very eminent scientists ... and they have done amazing work.
It is very sad that they may not get the credit that they deserve ... if they continue to stick with Evolution ... and 'go down with the ship' ... when it inevitably sinks without trace!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Denial really is a terrible thing!!!:eek:

So I take it, once again you're going to be completely dishonest and ignore all those points?

Why are you ignoring them?
Why are you ignoring my questions asking you this?
It's not exactly something an honest person does....

Improbable

J C wrote: »

I agree that proteins fold in a precise determined manner for each protein ... and that is further evidence of the CSI inherent at every level within these processes.

... and that is another reason why random processes, like mutagenesis, can only destroy such processes ... and will never add any CFSI to these processes.

We have entered the 'Age of Information' in Biology research ... and Evolutionists have a choice :-
They can stay in denial ... and become irrelevant.
Or they can embrace the reality that modern science has discovered.

What do CSI and CFSI stand for?

The folding of the proteins isn't determined by anything more complicated van der Waals forces, electrostatics, backbone entropy, environmental conditions (pH, temperature) etc. We do not understand the exact process of how it happens to every tiny degree because the interactions are currently beyond our level of science. But there is still no reason to think that a deity is responsible for it.

Most mutations are indeed destructive in nature. That is not in dispute. What happens with those types of mutations is that natural selection weeds them out.

Consider for example if there was a single gene with a single gene product that controlled your muscle strength (Yes, this is overly simplified but it's suitable for demonstration purposes). Now, most mutations will cause that gene product to be weaker. Therefore, they will have less muscle strength and be less likely to procreate and pass on their genes because the stronger animals will beat them to it. But you might also get a mutation which increases muscle strength. In that case, the organism will function better and procreate better than its normal muscle counterparts.

My own thesis was on the mutation of single amino acids within a protein by site directed mutagenesis (the same type of mutation that can occur in nature) in order to increase the thermal stability of the protein. The protein had antibacterial properties (breaking down the chains of NAM and NAG that are part of the bacterial cell wall). Most of the mutations I induced were destructive, but some of them increased the structural stability of the protein at higher temperatures than the wild type. Just to pre-empt your inevitable argument, yes, I was the designer in this case, but the same types of mutations can and do occur naturally.

What is this "denial" and "reality" that you speak of?

I would also like to note that you have given no actual evidence of anything for your side, all you have done is quote other people and give your OPINIONS. As valid as you might think them to be, no matter how strongly you believe in it, opinions =/= fact.