The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Evolutionary biologists DO NOT start with the premise that god doesn't exist. They start with the observation that finches on different islands have different-shaped beaks, or that a species of beetle contains DNA from a bacteria, or that a mutation in a protein allows it to have a novel function. They then use current biological knowledge to explain such observations and, occasionally, where such knowledge is absent, put forward biologically-plausible theories for future testing.

That is all.

... so have they worked out yet, where the CFSI that codes for finches and beetles and bacteria ... came from originally?

doctoremma wrote: »

So now, you can cease your fevered imaginings that we all sit around, debating current results, wringing our hands at how we're going to explain this or that without god.

... so does this mean that ye 'have turned over a new leaf' ... and ye are all becoming Theistic Evolutionists?
... because the 'Spontaneous' variety is pretty much 'kaput'!!!:):D

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

Lol :rolleyes:

LOL ... back to you ... with love on it!!!:)

J C

Masteroid wrote: »

You must have missed the bit where J C single-handedly saved mankind from little green men from another world.

I think you'll find that true biblical creationists rule out that possibility altogether since it would create a huge problem regarding 'The Chosen Ones'.

Shouldn't Genesis have mentioned that there were other worlds created with other populations that would be more technologically advanced and could possibly attack us at sometime in the future?

I think it proves that, as a scientist, I report the evidence I find ... as I find it.

Masteroid wrote: »

The term 'Spontaneous Evolutionist' as used by J C is a derogatory term for scientists that are not creationists.

The term Spontaneous Evolutionist is descriptive (and it's not derogatory).
What's derogatory about the word 'Spontaneous'?

... if you're saying that calling somebody an Evolutionist ... is derogatory ... it could only be so ... if they're not one!!:D:eek:

Masteroid wrote: »

Surely the act of labelling non-creationists as 'trolls' is itself an act of trolling?

... only if it's untrue ... like the labelling of me as a 'troll' ... when I'm not, is trolling against me.

Gumbi

What kind if scientist are you, JC?

Masteroid

Gumbi wrote: »

What kind if scientist are you, JC?

Not any kind Gumbi.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... so have they worked out yet, where the CFSI that codes for finches and beetles and bacteria ... came from originally?

JC, before working out where it came from, the biology community has to satisfy itself that such a thing exists. For such evidence to be identified, the biological community needs a definition of what CSFI is.

Amazingly, simply asserting its existence and stating it to be obvious to anyone with eyes is not providing a definition by which the biology community can begin its investigations.

So, do you have a definition of CSFI? A rigorous scientific one, not one which contains emoticons.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, before working out where it came from, the biology community has to satisfy itself that such a thing exists. For such evidence to be identified, the biological community needs a definition of what CSFI is.

Amazingly, simply asserting its existence and stating it to be obvious to anyone with eyes is not providing a definition by which the biology community can begin its investigations.

So, do you have a definition of CSFI? A rigorous scientific one, not one which contains emoticons.

Its CFSI Complex Functional Specified Information ... and wherever its source has been established ... the source has always been found to be intelligence.
This is so well proven that it should have the status of a scientific Law by now ... but instead, because it offends the Materialist's wish to deny the existence of God, the very existence of this obvious Scientific Law ... is also denied ... and for good measure, (in order to be sure to be sure) it is excluded from, even consideration, within conventional science.:)

The Concrete Doctor

J C wrote: »

Not that I am aware of ... but neither does anybody else I know, support this either!!!

You have said that the bible is the word of God. So How can you ignore the passages which call for people to be stoned or killed? the bible supports slavery how can you turn against that but support the literal translation of everything else?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Gumbi
What kind if scientist are you, JC?

Masteroid
Not any kind Gumbi.

I'm sufficiently scientifically qualified to 'beat the pants off' any of you guys ... on answering any scientific question, ye care to ask ... and that is all ye need to know!!!:)

J C

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

You have said that the bible is the word of God. So How can you ignore the passages which call for people to be stoned or killed? the bible supports slavery how can you turn against that but support the literal translation of everything else?

Old Testament Law is confined to Old Testament times ... whch were under law.
We are now in the Church Era of God's mercy ... and Jesus has told us that there are only two Commandments[/B] to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Mt 22:34-40
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Gumbi

J C wrote: »

I'm sufficiently scientifically qualified to 'beat the pants off' any of you guys ... on answering any scientific question, ye care to ask ... and that is all ye need to know!!!:)

So you're not a scientist. That's what I thought.

Gumbi

J C wrote: »

Its CFSI Complex Functional Specified Information ... and wherever its source has been established ... the source has always been found to be intelligence.
This is so well proven that it should have the status of a scientific Law by now ... but instead, because it offends the Materialist's wish to deny the existence of God, the very existence of this obvious Scientific Law ... is also denied ... and for good measure, (in order to be sure to be sure) it is excluded from, even consideration, within conventional science.:)

What does that mean?

J C

Gumbi wrote: »

So you're not a scientist. That's what I thought.

Where did I say that?

I am a conventionally qualified scientist ... and I'm 'beating the pants off' all of you guys ... on answering any scientific question, that ye have cared to ask !!!:)

J C

Gumbi wrote: »

What does that mean?

It's pretty clear and unabiguous .. please try reading it again.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I'm sufficiently scientifically qualified to 'beat the pants off' any of you guys ... on answering any scientific question, ye care to ask ... and that is all ye need to know!!!:)

your lack of a scientific definition for CFSI as requested by doctoremma shows otherwise.

The Concrete Doctor

J C wrote: »

I'm sufficiently scientifically qualified to 'beat the pants off' any of you guys ... on answering any scientific question, ye care to ask ... and that is all ye need to know!!!:)

Last night I watched a great documentary on BBC, presented by David Attenborough. It was about the first living organisms, which have been fossilized from over 500 million years ago. He was discussing the fossils with a palaeontologist who was an expert on the subject. JC you should contact the BBC and let them know the truth. Wouldn't it be great to hear a debate between Mr. Attenborough and a real "scientist" like yourself.

J C

koth wrote: »

your lack of a scientific definition for CFSI as requested by doctoremma shows otherwise.

Please stop engaging in semantics ... the definition is self evident in the term 'Complex Functional Specified Information', itself.:)

... you're starting to sound like an increasingly desperate 'flat earther' trying to deny the existence of a spherical planet by saying that a 'Spherical Planet' lacks a scientific defintion.:D

... mbeep ... mbeep !!!:eek:

J C

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Last night I watched a great documentary on BBC, presented by David Attenborough. It was about the first living organisms, which have been fossilized from over 500 million years ago. He was discussing the fossils with a palaeontologist who was an expert on the subject. JC you should contact the BBC and let them know the truth.

... and would these so-called 'first living organisms' also be found alive today as well ... and thus not 500 million years old or indeed 3,500 million years old at all???

... here is what the Smithsonian has to say about them (emphasis mine)...
Quote:-
"So what were the first living things and when did they appear? Studies of genetic material indicate that a living group of single-celled organisms called Archaea may share many features with early life on Earth. Many Archaea now live in hot springs, deep-sea vents, saline water, and other harsh environments. If the first organisms resembled modern Archaea, they also may have lived in such places, but direct evidence for early life is controversial because it is difficult to distinguish between complex inorganic structures and simple biological ones in the geologic record. The oldest evidence for life may be 3.5-billion-year-old sedimentary structures from Australia that resemble stromatolites. Stromatolites are created today by living mats of microorganisms (mostly cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae). These primitive organisms trap thin layers of sediment with their sticky filaments and grow upward to get light for photosynthesis. Modern-day examples of stromatolites can be found in waters off Australia, the Bahamas, and Belize."

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great to hear a debate between Mr. Attenborough and a real "scientist" like yourself.

.... David Attenborough is a man that I greatly admire for his wonderful TV programmes ... and it would make a very interesting TV programme indeed.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Please stop engaging in semantics ... the definition is self evident in the term 'Complex Functional Specified Information', itself.:)

Apologies, JC, I presumed this was a discussion where the free exchange of ideas/information took place. If you don't want to give a scientific explanation of CFSI, then just say so.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

Its CFSI Complex Functional Specified Information ... and wherever its source has been established ... the source has always been found to be intelligence.

This is not a rigorous scientific definition of CSFI.

Let's make it easier for you (although why a 'conventionally-qualified scientist' should need baby steps is beyond me*)...

I am looking at a genome of Organism X, belonging to Species Y. What are my first steps to identify what might constitute CSFI in that genome?

*Note: a 'conventional' qualification for a scientist is a PhD. Are you implying that you have a PhD in a scientific, maybe even biology, field?

pauldla

J C wrote: »

Please stop engaging in semantics ... the definition is self evident in the term 'Complex Functional Specified Information', itself.:)

... you're starting to sound like an increasingly desperate 'flat earther' trying to deny the existence of a spherical planet by saying that a 'Spherical Planet' lacks a scientific defintion.:D

... mbeep ... mbeep !!!:eek:

A sphere can be defined as a round object whose surface is at all points equidistant from its centre. (Online dictionaries are great).

A planet can be defined as a nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves. (Yay online dictionaries).

Thus, a spherical planet can be defined as a celestial body, round in shape, with its surface being at all points equidistant from its core.

We can further expand our definition by observing that planets are rarely perfectly spherical, due to such factors as their own rotation, the gravitational pull of nearby celestial objects, etc.

Defining a spherical planet as a spherical planet is useless, and imparts no understanding. Surely a scientist would be able to see that?

'Complex Functional Specified Information' is not a simple term. Saying that it is 'self-evident' is useless, and imparts no understanding. Please can you offer a definition, as requested by doctoremma and koth?

The Concrete Doctor

J C wrote: »

... and would these so-called 'first living organisms' also be found alive today as well ... and thus not 500 million years old or indeed 3,500 million years old at all???

... here is what the Smithsonian has to say about them (emphasis mine)...
Quote:-
"So what were the first living things and when did they appear? Studies of genetic material indicate that a living group of single-celled organisms called Archaea may share many features with early life on Earth. Many Archaea now live in hot springs, deep-sea vents, saline water, and other harsh environments. If the first organisms resembled modern Archaea, they also may have lived in such places, but direct evidence for early life is controversial because it is difficult to distinguish between complex inorganic structures and simple biological ones in the geologic record. The oldest evidence for life may be 3.5-billion-year-old sedimentary structures from Australia that resemble stromatolites. Stromatolites are created today by living mats of microorganisms (mostly cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae). These primitive organisms trap thin layers of sediment with their sticky filaments and grow upward to get light for photosynthesis. Modern-day examples of stromatolites can be found in waters off Australia, the Bahamas, and Belize."

.... David Attenborough is a man that I greatly admire for his wonderful TV programmes ... and it would make a very interesting TV programme indeed.

Actually, no. these organisms died out. They have no descendants today, they were very basic apparently. All that remains are the fossils. Very interesting! And no, they did not say they were billions of years old. 550 million was the estimate, according to Mr. Attenborough. They were not in Australia, so they were obviously different from the ones you refer to. A long time ago JC.

doctoremma

pauldla wrote: »

A sphere can be defined as a round object whose surface is at all points equidistant from its centre. (Online dictionaries are great).

A planet can be defined as a nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves. (Yay online dictionaries).

Thus, a spherical planet can be defined as a celestial body, round in shape, with its surface being at all points equidistant from its core.

Pauldla, it's almost like, I don't know, once you give a decent definition and/or working hypothesis, other people can begin to investigate your claims. Imagine that!

J C

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Actually, no. these organisms died out. They have no descendants today, they were very basic apparently. All that remains are the fossils. Very interesting! And no, they did not say they were billions of years old. 550 million was the estimate, according to Mr. Attenborough. They were not in Australia, so they were obviously different from the ones you refer to. A long time ago JC.

My quote was from the Smithsonian Institute ... and they put the origins of life at 3,500 million Evolutionist years ago ... and you say it was 500 million Evolutionist years ago ... either way ... it roughly translates into about 10,000 Sideral Years.:)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Pauldla, it's almost like, I don't know, once you give a decent definition and/or working hypothesis, other people can begin to investigate your claims. Imagine that!

ID proponents are already doing that ... and with great success ... imagine that !!!!:)

Andrewf20

JC, im just reading through Genesis here. Im interested to hear your thoughts on the following:

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

Whats your thoughts on this?

Gumbi

Andrewf20 wrote: »

JC, im just reading through Genesis here. Im interested to hear your thoughts on the following:

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

Whats your thoughts on this?

Magic of course? Stupid question.

J C

pauldla wrote: »

A sphere can be defined as a round object whose surface is at all points equidistant from its centre. (Online dictionaries are great).

A planet can be defined as a nonluminous celestial body larger than an asteroid or comet, illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves. (Yay online dictionaries).

Thus, a spherical planet can be defined as a celestial body, round in shape, with its surface being at all points equidistant from its core.

We can further expand our definition by observing that planets are rarely perfectly spherical, due to such factors as their own rotation, the gravitational pull of nearby celestial objects, etc.

Defining a spherical planet as a spherical planet is useless, and imparts no understanding. Surely a scientist would be able to see that?

'Complex Functional Specified Information' is not a simple term. Saying that it is 'self-evident' is useless, and imparts no understanding. Please can you offer a definition, as requested by doctoremma and koth?

CFSI is self-explanatory ... just like a spherical planet is self-explanatory.

Like I have said, you're starting to sound like an increasingly desperate 'flat earther' trying to deny the existence of a spherical planet by saying that a 'Spherical Planet' lacks a scientific defintion ... when it is staring you in the face.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Please stop engaging in semantics ... the definition is self evident in the term 'Complex Functional Specified Information', itself.:)

Lol.

If it is so easy you should be able to provide the scientific definition, assuming you understand what a scientific definition actually is, which as a "trained scientist" such as yourself should be no issue.

Right JC?

*cough*troll*cough* ... *cough*not-real-scientist*cough* ... *cough*not-actually-Christian*cough* ... sorry, terrible cough these days :P

J C

Andrewf20 wrote: »

JC, im just reading through Genesis here. Im interested to hear your thoughts on the following:

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

Whats your thoughts on this?

God Created the Earth as well as a source of light (that wasn't the Sun) on the First Day.
This source of light continued until the stars and the Sun were created on the Fourth Day.