The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Benny_Cake

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

No, I think he means it as an acronym and I think it stands for Complex Functional Specified Information.

I just did a Google search for CFSI and creationism. The first result was this thread! The others referred to a defunct organisation called the Centre for Science and Faith International. JC, I would suggest that you clarify what you mean by this acronym, and whether it is used by anyone else or if it's something that you came up with yourself (in which case you should really refrain from using it). This thread has been running for a long time now and if it's developed it's own jargon it doesn't exactly encourage new people to take part.

maguffin

With regard to CSFI....I posted this TWICE as a response to JC's ramblings...but he just chose to ignore it...so here it is again...

"CFSI is an argument proposed by Dembski and used by him and others to promote 'intelligent design' however the concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems or biology. Specified complexity is one of the two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being irreducable complexity.
In Dembski's terminology, a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance. Dembski argues that it is impossible for specified complexity to exist in patterns displayed by configurations formed by unguided processes. Therefore, Dembski argues, the fact that specified complex patterns can be found in living things indicates some kind of guidance in their formation, which is indicative of intelligence.

A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results".
Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".

Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an 'argument from ingorance'."

J C

maguffin wrote: »

"CFSI is an argument proposed by Dembski and used by him and others to promote 'intelligent design' however the concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems or biology. Specified complexity is one of the two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being irreducable complexity.

Specified Complexity is indeed an irrefutable 'fingerprint' of intelligent action or design. It is found in all spoken and written languages, all computer programmes, blueprint drawings and every manufactured article ... as well as DNA and living processes and genetic information.

maguffin wrote: »

In Dembski's terminology, a specified pattern is one that admits short descriptions, whereas a complex pattern is one that is unlikely to occur by chance.

A Specified Pattern is one that is imposed by intelligence in accordance with defined rules and one where small random changes will degrade and eliminate functionality. Written languages are specified patterns of letters that are imposed by intelligence, obey defined rules and small random changes to the letter pattern will degrade and eliminate functionality. Ditto with genetic information

maguffin wrote: »

Dembski argues that it is impossible for specified complexity to exist in patterns displayed by configurations formed by unguided processes. Therefore, Dembski argues, the fact that specified complex patterns can be found in living things indicates some kind of guidance in their formation, which is indicative of intelligence.

Correct.

maguffin wrote: »

A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results".

Very strong on opinion ... but a bit short on evidence!!!:(

maguffin wrote: »

Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".

... the odds against the spontaneous production of an eye are so great that they are effectively incalculable.
We could produce an approximation (with a great amount of effort) ... but the arguments over the details would be never ending.
Luckily, we don't need to bother ... because the odds against producing just one medium sized specific biomolecule by chance are greater than the number of every possible event in the Big Bang Universe (i.e. a statistical impossibility) ... and we need thousands of specific biomolecules arranged in very specific chemical and physical relationships with each other to produce an eye ... to say nothing about the further complex specified functional neurological processes to produce the sensation of sight!!!

maguffin wrote: »

Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an 'argument from ingorance'."

It's an argument from knowledge of biological processes and all other examples of Complex Specified Functional Information.

The real argument from ignorance is the one that says that Spontaneous Evolution is a fact and Pondkind evolved into Mankind through a process of selected mistakes ... and you're going to have to trust us on this, because there isn't a shred of evidence that it could ever occur!!! :eek:

J C

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I just did a Google search for CFSI and creationism.

Great.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The first result was this thread!

Even better!!!

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The others referred to a defunct organisation called the Centre for Science and Faith International.

Nothing to do with Complex Functional Specified Information.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

JC, I would suggest that you clarify what you mean by this acronym, and whether it is used by anyone else or if it's something that you came up with yourself (in which case you should really refrain from using it). This thread has been running for a long time now and if it's developed it's own jargon it doesn't exactly encourage new people to take part.

The acronym saves wear and tear on my keyboard ... and I promise that I will use the full phrase every ten posts or so for any uninitiated person who happens to visit this thread.

I certainly wouldn't want anybody to be suffering from a lack of access to the scientific insights of ID and Creation Science because of an acronom that they don't understand.

Thanks for the advice Benny.

J C

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

No, I think he means it as an acronym and I think it stands for Complex Functional Specified Information. It appears to be made up by JC in order to look impressive and to dismiss lesser mortals. But making up acronyms out of very complex words, can be an arrogant way of putting down people, like me for example, who don't really understand what you are trying to say. It is a form of attempted bullying really. Very un-christian.

... so if I say DNA, RTE, GAA or ABC ... I'm 'bullying' ... while you guys openly advocate blatant discrimination against me and my fellow Creationists and even ID proponents ... and ye call me all of the horrible names under the sun ... from a moron to a liar ... and I'm the 'bully' when I talk about Complex Functional Specified Information ... and I call it CFSI for short.:(

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

The great thing about Jesus was the way he spoke to simple people. He never tried to put them down, he explained in very simple terms, what he meant. But then he was great, he didn't have to try and prove it the whole time.

... I'd never claim to be as good or as nice or as great as Jesus Christ ... because I'm a sinner ... and He is ... God!!!
... but the great thing about Complex Specified Functional Information AKA (Also Known As) CFSI is that those four (relatively) simple words destroy all of the story-telling that Spontaneous Evolutionists use in a vain attempt to deny Jesus Christ His rightful place as the Creator God of the Universe!!!:)

maguffin

Here is another CFSI put down....

http://www.jackscanlan.com/2011/01/dembskis-idea-of-complex-specified-information-is-ironically-unspecified/

J C

maguffin wrote: »

Here is another CFSI put down....

http://www.jackscanlan.com/2011/01/dembskis-idea-of-complex-specified-information-is-ironically-unspecified/

If that's a CFSI 'put down' ... I'm an evolutionist!!!:)

The article lists a number of excellent examples of Complex Functional Specified Information (CFSI) ... and other evidence of ID

Masteroid

J C wrote: »

1. The so-called geological column isn't a record of creatures from different periods of time ... its a record of Flood burial ... and that is why you don't find dinosurs or crocodiles buried alongside Humans ... because you didn't find Dinosaurs and crocodiles living with Humans as they occupied different ecological niches ... just like crocodiles don't live with Humans today!!

But if there had been a global flood then the fossil record would indeed indicate that crocodiles and dinosaurs did appear to co-exist and a good explanation for that, if it were the case, would be a global flood.

You see, all the dead bodies would be mixed together and scattered across the globe.

Unfortunately for creationists, it is partly because the fossil record fails to show human remains that were laid down at the same time and place as dinosaurs were laid that the global flood theory doesn't 'hold water'.

You would love for dinosaurs remains to be found alongside human remains. It will never happen though because there was never a global flood such as that depicted by you and the bible.;)

Masteroid

J C wrote: »

Are ye in such desperation ... to shore up Darwinian Evolution ... that ye are now denying established scientific facts ...

What 'established scientific facts'?

J C wrote:

... like DNA being the genetic information storage and transmission medium for life.

And what does that mean exactly? Information can appear in strange forms.

For instance, you can take a blank square of paper, make five folds in it and make a paper aeroplane which you can then throw. If it is well made then it might fly a long way.

Someone else might then pick up that plane and unfold it in order to read whatever message might be written there. He opens it up and what has he got? A blank piece of paper with seven fold lines in it.

Now, if he were to apply a little pressure to opposite edges of the unfolded paper then he could quite easily reconstruct the 'plane, the folds act like a memory of part of the shape of the plane.

So, there we are, with a blank pice of paper that contains all the instructions necessary to make a plane.

Furthermore, there are no constraints on the size of the piece of paper to be folded either so we can make little planes and we can make big planes.

DNA is information in the same way a the folds in the paper are information and the human being is a large piece of folded paper. Human DNA simply represents the best way to fold a piece of paper into the form of a human.

I think you make the mistake of imagining DNA as a computer program that contains all the instructions required to build a computer that is capable of running the program.

Now that would be impossible.

And again you make the mistake of considering human DNA as a starting point.

I mean, has it ever crossed your mind that the creation story may only be on day six?

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I think we can agree as a starting point that mankind is made out of the same stuff as what dust is made out of.

'Spontaneous Evolutionists' say that life began as (in effect) dust be randomly mixed with water. They would concede that there are other influences but that's basically it. And this is what you have a problem with isn't it.

But is 'Spontaneous Evolution' supported by the bible? It would seem so.

Look at -

Genesis 2:6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

This does suggest that water was instrumental in the creation of life which is born out by -

Genesis 2:5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;

Which means it is reasonable to read Genesis 2:7 as

Genesis 2:7 And [thus] the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being

Which is to say that we can interpret the entire passage quoted as -

5 There was no life on earth because water had not mixed with dust

6 Water mixed with the dust and

7 This is how God created man.

The phrase 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life' is simply a poetic device that is a metaphor that is substituted for the phrase 'mixing with water'.

In other words, 'dust' is the fertilizer in the process that created mankind.

How do you know that day six is over and that man is fully formed? Perhaps Adam has yet to emerge? A perfect human-being, naive, obedient and having a good work ethic?

According to Genesis 2:5-7, ponkind to mankind is actually how it happened. From the bottom up and not the top down as you suppose.

This is why I advise you to think of human DNA as a large-scale object constructed of simple small-scale structures that exhibit simple behaviour.

Like the folds on a paper aeroplane. One piece of paper a seven fold-lines. A few more fold and a couple of twists and you have a bird that flaps its wings.

Lots of information and not a word written down. Just fold-lines.

Keep it simple. Apparently, according to the bible, God did.:)

J C wrote:

... and ye want ID scientists to be censored and not allowed to speak to University students while ye want Spontaneus Evolution to be taught as fact to infants... and with no alternative opinion allowed !!!:(

I'm not saying that they should be censored, I'm saying that they should only appear to the public on shows such as Mock the Week and QI.

As pointed out above, your view cannot be reconciled with the biblical text quoted. You are saying that God did it but not in the way that is suggested by the literal meaning of the bible.

And you know this because you think that if God didn't do it then life occurred on earth because 150 twenty-sided dice were thrown 10 to the 164 times.

Five folds yields seven pieces of information about shape.

The construction of the eye is nothing more than a sequence of folding sheets of cells in the region of the frontal cortex. There isn't a code for building an eye, rather a structure that appears because of a certain fold sequence becomes utilised as an eye.

Mutations and time do the rest.

J C wrote:

You just couldn't make this stuff up!!!

Says the man who would have us believe that tumultuous water came from above and below, submerging the entire surface of the planet, killing everything in the world, almost, and that all the dead bodies were deposited in a pattern that is an exact match of their natural pattern of distribution.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

Many creatures as well as the large Dinosaurs have gone extinct ... but we still have Crocodile 'Dinosurs' ... and Rhino ones!!!:)

There is so much wrong with the OP, but this bit is particularly hilarious. A Rhinocerous is of the class Mammalia meaning that its direct ancestors diverged from those of the dinosaurs before dinosaurs existed.

When you can't even get your lies to have a surface plausibility you know you're in trouble.

@J C seeing as you seem to be so fond of the flood "hypothesis". How do you explain the fact that this story was stolen from other creation myths not connected to any of the Abrahamic faiths, more specifically the Babylonian one? And the fact that the genesis (pun intended) of the Old Testament (according to our best records) begins after the Babylonian Captivity?

Seems to me that a far more plausible explanation than the myth being true (to any extent greater than myths generally) is that the old men who wrote the Old Testament (it is so obviously a book by committee) realised they hadn't a beginning to their tribal creation story, and one of them said "hey the Babylonians had a spiffy one, lets rob that!"

Brian Shanahan

dvae wrote: »

the bible contains words of man but, blessed or approved by god. Jesus himself often used the words "it is written" when referring to scripture.
i am also reminded of Jeremiah 1:9 where it says "Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth".
there are parts of the bible that obviously should not be taken literally such as when Jesus says"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away".
the bible is gods holy word. God dictated, and man wrote it down, similar to a boss dictating to a sectary, but in holy and inspired way.

It is generally a bad idea when trying to convince people that a book contains truth to reference that book's own protestations that it is. This is as true for the bible as for any other book.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

the odds against the spontaneous production of an eye are so great that they are effectively incalculable

I go one further and say that spontaneous production of an eye would be impossible by any biological process we know of.

Brian Shanahan

doctoremma wrote: »

I go one further and say that spontaneous production of an eye would be impossible by any biological process we know of.

I was going to link to an article about the unscientificness of this type of post until I reread it and saw the "spontaneous". My face turned red when I understood your point

However as it debunks the post you are responding to I'll link it anyway for the edification of J C.

doctoremma

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

However as it debunks the post you are responding to I'll link it anyway for the edification of J C.

Good luck with that. No matter how many times you say that evolutionary theory does not suggest that the eye developed "spontaneously", JC will ignore it, in favour of what he thinks are headline-grabbing sound bites. He is singularly unable to understand the difference between "spontaneous" and "random" and how "spontaneous" events (such as "random" mutations) can provide the raw material for the most definitely "non-random" process of natural selection. Furthermore, despite lots of well-meaning people here talking him through various aspects of the theory (perhaps to the mutual benefit of both), he continually disregards what they say, which is, quite honestly, rude.

Of course, this behaviour only serves to give the distinct impression that he doesn't understand what evolutionary theory is, thus rendering his arguments against it mere babble.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I go one further and say that spontaneous production of an eye would be impossible by any biological process we know of.

... if it wasn't a spontaneous process (you have confirmed that the spontaneous production of an eye is impossible) ... then the only known alternative is an intelligently directed one.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

There is so much wrong with the OP, but this bit is particularly hilarious. A Rhinocerous is of the class Mammalia meaning that its direct ancestors diverged from those of the dinosaurs before dinosaurs existed.

The point I was making is that the term 'Dinosaur' encompasses a whole 'grab-bag' of different creatures ... some of which were warm-blooded mammals ... like the Triceratops ... which was an extinct type of Rhinocerous.:D

Gumbi

JC, I genuinely cannot tell if you're trolling or not.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

He is singularly unable to understand the difference between "spontaneous" and "random" and how "spontaneous" events (such as "random" mutations) can provide the raw material for the most definitely "non-random" process of natural selection.

Emma Emma ... what does it take???

Random processes ... such as 'random' mutations always degrade information ... and never produce Complex Functional Specified Information ... so the only way NS has anything Complex Functional and Specified to select ... is because the Complex Functional Specified attributes were Intelligently Produced, in the first place.

doctoremma wrote: »

Furthermore, despite lots of well-meaning people here talking him through various aspects of the theory (perhaps to the mutual benefit of both), he continually disregards what they say, which is, quite honestly, rude.

I have respectfully disagreed with some people ... and provided very good reasons for my disagreement ... which is polite conversation, as far as I am concerned.:)

J C

Gumbi wrote: »

JC, I genuinely cannot tell if you're trolling or not.

Of course not.

... but Spontaneous Evolution is a bit of a 'troll' itself!!!:)

Benny_Cake

J C wrote: »

The point I was making is that the term 'Dinosaur' encompasses a whole 'grab-bag' of different creatures ... some of which were warm-blooded mammals ... like the Triceratops ... which was an extinct type of Rhinocerous.:D

No, it wasn't a "type of rhinocerous", but I'm beginning to suspect you know that.

J C

Benny_Cake wrote: »

No, it wasn't a "type of rhinocerous", but I'm beginning to suspect you know that.

Why do you say that?
Not only do I think it ... I know that it was a type of Rhino.

Why do you say that the Triceratops wasn't a type of Rhino?

Is it because you think that it was ... but are afraid of what some Evolutionists might say about you, if you said so?
... or do you genuinely think that it was a lizard?

Zombrex

Gumbi wrote: »

JC, I genuinely cannot tell if you're trolling or not.

Don't worry, he is. He doesn't believe any of it, nor is he a Christian. The relevant question is what does he get out of this near decade long troll. The answer to that would probably win a Nobel prize.

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

Don't worry, he is. He doesn't believe any of it, nor is he a Christian. The relevant question is what does he get out of this near decade long troll. The answer to that would probably win a Nobel prize.

Of course I'm not a troll ... I'm the genuine article ... a Christian indwelt by the Holy Spirit ... ready and willing to point everyone to the truth.

Benny hasn't answered my question ... so perhaps you will ...
Do you think that the Triceratops was a type of Rhino ... or are you afraid of what some Evolutionists might say about you, if you said it was?
... or do you genuinely think that it was a lizard?

J C

By your silence ... I'll take it that you also think it was a Rhino.

You don't need to say anything ... your secret is safe with me ... and I understand and forgive you for scoffing at me to retain your 'street cred' with your Skeptic friends ... I used to do a bit of scoffing too at Creationism, when I was an Evolutionist ... but I have repented ... and God has forgiven me.

maguffin

J C wrote: »

Why do you say that?
Not only do I think it ... I know that it was a type of Rhino.

Why do you say that the Triceratops wasn't a type of Rhino?

Is it because you think that it was ... but are afraid of what some Evolutionists might say about you, if you said so?
... or do you genuinely think that it was a lizard?

NOT A TRICERATOPS ANYWHERE TO BE SEEN in the history of rhino....

Family Rhinocerotidae[23]

• Subfamily Rhinocerotinae
  • Tribe Aceratheriini
    • †Aceratherium lived from 33.9—3.4 Ma
    • †Acerorhinus 13.6—7.0 Ma
    • †Alicornops 13.7—5.33 Ma
    • †Aphelops 20.430—5.330 Ma
    • †Chilotheridium 23.03—11.610 Ma
    • †Chilotherium 13.7—3.4 Ma
    • †Dromoceratherium 15.97—7.25 Ma
    • †Floridaceras 20.43—16.3 Ma
    • †Hoploaceratherium 16.9—16.0 Ma
    • †Mesaceratherium
    • †Peraceras 20.6—10.3 Ma
    • †Plesiaceratherium 20.0—11.6 Ma
    • †Proaceratherium 16.9—16.0 Ma
    • †Sinorhinus
    • †Subchilotherium
  • Tribe Teleoceratini
    • †Aprotodon 28.4—5.330 Ma
    • †Brachydiceratherium
    • †Brachypodella
    • †Brachypotherium 20.0—5.33 Ma
    • †Diaceratherium 28.4—16.0 Ma
    • †Prosantorhinus 16.9—7.25 Ma
    • †Shennongtherium
    • †Teleoceras 16.9—4.9 Ma
  • Tribe Rhinocerotini 40.4—11.1 Ma—Present
    • †Gaindatherium 11.61—11.1 Ma
    • Subtribe Rhinocerotina 17.5 Ma—Present[24]
      • †Rusingaceros 17.5 Ma
      • Rhinoceros – Indian & Javan rhinoceros
  • Tribe Dicerorhinini
    • †Coelodonta – Woolly rhinoceros
    • Dicerorhinus – Sumatran rhinoceros
    • †Dihoplus 11.610—1.810 Ma
    • †Lartetotherium 15.97—8.7 Ma
    • †Stephanorhinus 9.7—0.126 Ma – Merck´s rhinoceros & Narrow-nosed rhinoceros
  • Tribe Dicerotini 23.03—Present
    • Ceratotherium – White rhinoceros 7.250—Present
    • Diceros – Black rhinoceros 23.03—Present
    • †Paradiceros 15.97—11.61 Ma
• Subfamily Elasmotheriinae
  • †Gulfoceras 23.030—20.430 Ma
    • †Victoriaceros[25] 15 Ma
  • Tribe Diceratheriini
    • †Diceratherium 33.9—11.610 Ma
    • †Subhyracodon 38.0—26.3 Ma
  • Tribe Elasmotheriini 20.0—0.126 Ma
    • †Bugtirhinus 20.0—16.9 Ma
    • †Caementodon
    • †Elasmotherium – Giant rhinoceros 3.6—0.126 Ma
    • †Hispanotherium synonymized with Huaqingtherium 16.0—7.250 Ma
    • †Iranotherium
    • †Kenyatherium
    • †Meninatherium
    • †Menoceras 23.03—16.3 Ma
    • †Ougandatherium 20.0—16.9 Ma
    • †Parelasmotherium
    • †Procoelodonta
    • †Sinotherium 9.0—5.3 Ma

Triceratops was NOT a member of the rhino family.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... if it wasn't a spontaneous process (you have confirmed that the spontaneous production of an eye is impossible) ... then the only known alternative is an intelligently directed one.

No, JC, no it's not.

J C

maguffin wrote: »

NOT A TRICERATOPS ANYWHERE TO BE SEEN in the history of rhino....

Why does it take three people to answer my question ... and then I just get the standard Evolution answer (which obviuosly wouldn't include the Triceratops in the Rhinocerotidae) ... because such an inclusion wouldn't 'fit' into the Evolutionist 'worldview'.

I was asking a personal belief question from Benny and Zombrex ... in view of the fact that they were questioning my personal well-founded belief that a Triceratops was a type of Rhino.

So could you please tell me whether you personally think that the Triceratops was a type of Rhino?
... or do you genuinely think that it was a lizard?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

No, JC, no it's not.

Care to expand?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Do you think that the Triceratops was a type of Rhino ... or are you afraid of what some Evolutionists might say about you, if you said it was?
... or do you genuinely think that it was a lizard?

No the triceratops was not a rhino. Rhinos are perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates). Triceratops was not, it had even toes on its back legs, 4 in all, and 5 on its front legs, nothing like the Rhino which has 3 toes on all legs and bears it's weight on the middle toe, like other odd toed ungulates.

But then as Benny says, you already knew that.

Troll harder bro, troll harder. :rolleyes:

<snip>

Masteroid

J C wrote: »

... if it wasn't a spontaneous process (you have confirmed that the spontaneous production of an eye is impossible) ... then the only known alternative is an intelligently directed one.

And there you go again - either God did it or 150 twenty-sided dice were rolled 10 to the power of 164 times.

Daddy or chips?