The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

robindch wrote: »

Doctor Doctor Ken Ham's Ark Park is losing money hand over fist. So the big question is - who's to blame?

Well, it couldn't be the christians who are stay away in droves. Ken reckons it's down to those dreadful atheists and all their "brainwashing":

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/06/creationist-ken-ham-blames-atheists-ark-park-failure/

One of the local newspapers looks into the property and tax dealings that went on and continues to find a sorry tale of broken promises:

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article154014269.html)

Unfortunately your idea that the Ark Encounter isn't a success (both in itself and for the local economy) is as unfounded as your belief in Spontaneous Evolution!!!:)
Quote Ken Ham:-
"Yes, the visitor numbers have been outstanding. Of course, we need to get a year behind us to understand all the attendance trends. At present, indications are that attendance will be well over the minimum of 1.4 million per year predicted by America’s Research Group—the research estimated 1.4 million to 2.2 million per year. And certainly, visitors are pouring into the town of Dry Ridge, two exits north of the Ark exit, filling the hotels there and impacting restaurants, and other businesses. For instance, Beans Cafe & Bakery (my favorite stop for a latte and a maple-glazed donut or a sandwich) is enjoying a significant increase in the number of visitors on a daily basis. Many of the visitors tell them that they are from out of state and are staying in the area to visit the Ark and Creation Museum 40 miles away."
https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/ark-encounters-responding-misinformation/

For the 'bean counters' amongst you, 1.4 million people, at an average ticket price of $50 for the Ark & Creation Museum combo amounts to $70m per year ... plus profits from refreshments and merchadising as well as God's abundant blessings ... makes this a very viable business and a great boost to the local economy. The Ark Encounter also has many scientific, business and faith-building synergies with its sister exhibition, The Creation Museum ... and both world class exhibitions have had the financial backing of very generous benefactors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_Encounter

robindch wrote: »

Doctor Doctor Ken Ham's Ark Park is losing money hand over fist. So the big question is - who's to blame?

Like I've said it's not losing money ... even, the well known Atheist and Evolutionist, Prof P Z Myers and some of his students, graciously visited the Creation Museum ... and really got into the spirit of things (no pun intended) ... even riding a Triceratops !!!!:)

... so next time you're stateside, Robin, you should also go along and ride the Triceratops in the Creation Museum !!:eek:

Mick_1970 wrote: »

Everyone with an understanding of how the building blocks of life were formed.

... would realise that the diamond Carbon allotrope wouldn't produce the building blocks of life.:)

J C wrote: »

... would realise that the diamond Carbon allotrope wouldn't produce the building blocks of life.:)

Correct, diamond wouldn't form the basis for life as you and I experience it.

However it is very arrogant to assume that any life outside our perceived universe could not have as it's basis something like carbonados.

At least you accept that carbon exists and are aware of nucleosynthesis, which is a good thing.

pone2012 wrote: »

definitions of supernatural fall into the following category according to Oxford " attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

I think I hold a different understanding of that definition to you. I understand "supernatural" to refer to things that are "beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" in terms of them being beyond EVER being understood by science or the laws of nature.

The way you have parsed the definition is to say "supernatural" means anything that is CURRENTLY outside our scientific understanding. So, for example, before we knew the neurological underpinnings of Epilepsy at the level of the brain.... Epilepsy was "supernatural" because it was outside CURRENT scientific understanding.

And I do not think that is the right way to parse the definition of "supernatural" at all. "Supernatural" is about what is BEYOND EVER being understood using science, not what is CURRENTLY beyond being understood by science. Therefore Epilepsy was never "supernatural" even when we did not understand it.

So to call the origins of our universe "supernatural" is to make an assumption that I do not think there is currently a basis to make. So I can but advise you do not make it.

pone2012 wrote: »

I assume when people begin to let go of such an unwarranted , severely limited perception of the universe, some understanding may be gained

It is hard to parse what a sentence like that means as quite often when I hear it and I delve further into it's meaning with the speaker..... it turns out what they mean by it is "Stop believing only what you find substantiation for, and open yourself up to believing stuff I have simply made up directly or second hand".

And while YMMV I see nothing "limited" or "limiting" about only lending credence to claims which are presented to me with SOME modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to lend them credence.

pone2012 wrote: »

I want to know his opinion of what happened, what caused the big bang and how the universe came to be... And you are welcome to add yours if you wish

Well if I am also welcome to add mine, the answer is simply "I do not know, no one else seems to either, and I consider it an open question at this time".

Certainly however the word "cause" gives me pause because causality is temporal, based on time, and time is an attribute that appears to have come into being "after" the big bang. So when we start talking about "causes" of the big bang or what happened "before" it......... I think we are entering into a realm of discourse outside normal human linguistics because our language is, for good reason, temporal based too.

But whatever the answer turns out to be, assuming we ever find one, I think it will either not be a causal solution, or it will require a whole new model of causality that is independent of a temporal element. Either that or it is universe all the way down, each with a temporal element containing the next.

But, as I said: I do not know, and no one else appears to either. We are, alas, entirely ignorant at this time.

pone2012 wrote: »

Everyone here seems to be attempting to make jokes / snide comments at JCs expense...

And many users are past even bothering to reply to him or be trolled by him, which is why it is always welcome to have another like your good self enter the thread to lend some new life to the discussion.

And I hope not too many users, and I hope you can forgive them, transfer their snidery on to you from him until such time as it is warranted to do so. But alas yes, there are those who will jump on any creationist (or similar) that comes into this thread as if they are just another head of the same snake.

I trust you will find my own response above that, and you will return the decorum in the spirit it is offered.

pone2012 wrote: »

By you stating that nothing can happen "before" time, you are implying that everything that ever existed is bound by time then? Am I correct?

Well as I said above, we simply do not know if time was an element in the original creation or formation of our universe. It is just not knowledge we have. What we certainly do NOT have at this time is any model of causality without a temporal element, so really at this point we do not even have the LANGUAGE (aside, I suppose, for the language of mathematics) let alone the actual evidence and knowledge, to really talk about it outside the realm of navel gazing and guesswork.

The only other thing I can say with any certainty after that is that WHATEVER the explanation for our universe is..... we at this time do not appear to have even a shred of a tiny modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest that the explanation lies in the workings of a non-human intelligent or intentional agent. Or a "god" if you will.

To my knowledge anyway. If you ARE are of any such thing I have missed, you are more than invited to adumbrate it for me now. Clearly you have indicated in your most recent post you have a "faith" in such an intentional creation agent, but I would be interested if that is grounded in anything more substantive than the mere whim of faith?

J C wrote: »

Both Dembski and Shannon are correct ... but they are talking about totally different things ... Dembski is talking about CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) whilst Shannon is talking about the quantification, compression, storage, and communication of all forms of information ... including non-complex, non-functional, non-specified information.

No, once again you've got this completely wrong.

Firstly, there's no suggestion here about Shannon being right or wrong. His equations merely provide the mechanism for evaluating information content. It is a tool. What is in question here is Dembski's concept of complex specified information. That is what is wrong. Dembski uses complex specified information to mean genetic information with low Kolmogorov complexity. He then goes on to claim that such information can only be destroyed and not added to by naturalistic processes. He is doubly wrong.

Firstly, as I outlined in my last post, complex specified information is actually genetic information with high Kolmogorov complexity. Mutation increases this because it increases the variation between specimens. It is this variation which drives natural selection.
Let's use an analogy to explain this. A lot of modern communications is transmitted via fibre optic cabling. This involves transmitting a signal using light waves. If you transmit a single frequency of light down the cable then it doesn't matter how many different sources for that light there are because there is no difference between them. If instead we use multiple sources with slightly different frequenciess then we get a series of pulses because there will be points at which the different wavelengths cancel each other out. These pulses can then be used to transmit digital information based on whether there is a pulse of light being received or not. By adjusting the number of sources and their frequencies you can maximise the bandwidth (i.e. total transmission rate) of the information you're trying to send (approx. 1.2 petabits/second for fibre optics). For anyone who wants a visual example of this here's a good video from Sixty Symbols:



Evolution works on the same principlee. Mutations increase the variation and (from my last post) the genetic information in the population. This is what drives natural selection. It is a well studied topic and there are several good papers which explain this in more detail, such as this one:

Evolution of Biological Complexity

I mentioned above that Dembski is doubly wrong. Even, if he were correct about CSI and Kolmogorov complexity, which he isn't, his idea about CSI being destroyed by mutation would only hold if the only modes of mutation were indels (insertions or deletions) of single nucleotides or frameshift mutations. However, that's not at all true. Quite often, mutation happens at a level above the nucleotide sequence such as gene duplication, chromosome duplication, chromosomal fusion and whole genome duplication (polyploidy). We have examples of all of these mutations where Dembski's ideas of CSI don't even come into play:

Chromosomal fusion
Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion


Whole genome duplication (polyploidy)
A model for the establishment of polyploidy in plants

Chromosomal duplication (aneuploidy)
Segmental aneuploidy and the genetic gross structure of the drosophila genome

Gene Duplication
The Evolution of Functionally Novel Proteins after Gene Duplication

J C wrote: »

Says who? ... and how?

If carbon was indeed created within a star, the temperatures and pressures would have been such that it would have been ejected as the diamond metastable allotrope of Carbon ... and not the biologically useful forms of carbon, found in carbon dioxide, sugars, etc.

... and we'd all be eating diamonds ... instead of dinner !!!:)

Astrophysics, really? It's time consuming enough correcting your mistakes in biology and theology, did you really have to embarrass yourself in another discipline.

There are so many different things wrong with your statement above that it's difficult to decide which one to start with.

The first problem is that not all stars are the same. Because of the relationship between solar mass and the eventual death of a star there are many different outcomes once a star's hydrogen level decreases to the point that it moves off the main sequence. This is a long and detailed topic but this picture might help to visualise the problem:



Both the dominant energy production process during the main sequence and the triple-alpha process, by which carbon is produced, is highly dependent on temperature, solar mass and density. Because of the variations in these values among stars, we end up with a wide variety of outcomes.

The triple-alpha process is the process in a star by which carbon is produced. During the main sequence, helium accumulates in the stellar core. Eventually, 3 helium nuclei (hence triple alpha) combine to form a carbon nucleus (with the intermediate step of 2 helium nuclei forming a beryllium nucleus). Depending on the mass of the star and other factors like the radiative pressure and electrodegeneracy pressure this carbon can be changed into other carbon forms or carbon compounds before being ejected from the star. By studying meteorites from stellar ejecta we have found carbon in the form of graphite, carbon and silicon carbide.

Your claim hinges on all of the carbon in a star being held in that star without being further converted to oxygen or ejected from the star and where the pressure inside the star is sufficient to transform this carbon into diamond. While this is possible, it's very rare compared to other allotropes of carbon.

Like I said already this is a detailed topic and it's not possible to explain the depths of JC's wrongness without creating a "turgid wall of text" so for anyone interested, here are a few helpful links which explain the subject in more detail:

Stellar nucleosynthesis

Triple-alpha process

Stellar nucleosynthesis and the isotopic composition of presolar grains from primitive meteorites

Effective pressures in star formation

Nuclear astrophysics: the unfinished quest for the origin of the elements


Now, to get back to your previous point:

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists investigate the world and report their findings, like all other scientists.

No, to say that creation scientists are "like all other scientists" is demonstrably false.

Let's take the Institute for Creation Research, for example. The ICR describes its mission as:

"ICR exists to conduct scientific research within the realms of origins and earth history, and then to educate the public both formally and informally through graduate and professional training programs, through conferences and seminars around the country, and through books, magazines, and media presentations."

This all sounds perfectly reasonable on the surface. However, in their "About us" section, there is a page titled "Core Principles" which outline the basis of the ICR's worldview and shows just how dissimilar they are to conventional scientists. On this page you can find statements which are both demonstrably wrong and unscientific.

For example:

"The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start."

"The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order."

"The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological."

"The biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and Fall of man, the Curse on the Creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government), and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel."

An actual group of scientists wouldn't hold such preconceived assumptions or biases. There's nothing wrong with having a set of core principles, but if you want to hold yourself up as a paragon of scientific research and be taken seriously as scientists then these principles should include a commitment to publishing all results, eliminating biases where possible, academic integrity, and of course a declaration of interests, all of which are missing from ICR's website. It is these reasons as well as the unscientific behaviour of the more prominent "creation scientists" which I documented previously which isolate "creation scientists" from the larger scientific community.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Actually what you did is the epitome of plagiarism

http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism/

... except I didn't do so ... I clearly indicated it was a quote ... and as it could be identified where the quote came from in 5 secs on google it I haven't presented the list as new and original and not derived from an existing source.

Mick_1970 wrote: »

Correct, diamond wouldn't form the basis for life as you and I experience it.

However it is very arrogant to assume that any life outside our perceived universe could not have as it's basis something like carbonados.

It's much more arrogant to assume that life outside our perceived Universe doesn't include God ... when we have actual infallible evidence for His actions in this Universe.

J C wrote: »

It's much more arrogant to assume that life outside our perceived Universe doesn't include God ... when we have actual infallible evidence for His actions in this Universe.

Well isn't that dandy, show me this "infallible evidence" for your chosen deity.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, once again you've got this completely wrong.

Firstly, there's no suggestion here about Shannon being right or wrong.

I never said he was wrong ... in fact I said he was right.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

His equations merely provide the mechanism for evaluating information content. It is a tool.

Its a tool for quantifying information and its storage, and communication limits ... without any reference to the quality of the information (which is a derivative of functionality and not its quantity).

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What is in question here is Dembski's concept of complex specified information. That is what is wrong. Dembski uses complex specified information to mean genetic information with low Kolmogorov complexity.

In general, living CFSI has relatively low Kolmogorov complexity due to the limited combinatorial space for useful biomolecules and the genetic CFSI that produces them.
Mutagenesis will certainly increase its Kolmogorov complexity but at a very high cost in functionality and specificity ... rapidly reaching the point of complete disfunctionality and death.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

He then goes on to claim that such information can only be destroyed and not added to by naturalistic processes. He is doubly wrong.
Firstly, as I outlined in my last post, complex specified information is actually genetic information with high Kolmogorov complexity.

It isn't actually ... Kolmogorov complexity can be vastly increased when there is no requirement for functionality ... which would otherwise strictly limit the combinatorial space due to the specificity requirements needed to retain functionality.
i agree that fully functional Genetic information has lower Kolmogorov complexity than genetic information degraded by mutagenesis. The mistake you're making is thinking that Kolmogorov complexity is some kind of measure of the functional quality of genetic information ... when the reverse is actually true.
Just like a page of typed English language has a much lower level of Kolmogorov complexity than a page of random letters and symbols from every language on earth. However, it's increase in Kolmogorov complexity comes at the cost of functionality in that it is meaningless ... while the page of English language is meaningful.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Mutation increases this because it increases the variation between specimens. It is this variation which drives natural selection.

Mutagenesis increases the variation between specimens allright ... but it is deleterious variation ... where the more of it an oganism has the less fit it makes the individual ... and it becomes rapidly lethal, in the absence of active 'repair' mechanisms that restore the genome to its pristine / semi-pristine condition. Indeed inherited mutations in DNA-repair genes such as BRCA2 are associated with increased risks of agressive cancers, such is the importance of avoiding compromising these auto-repair mechanisms ... which reverse mutations ... thereby reducing it's Kolmogorov complexity.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Wow!

Not only are you a liar you are a delusional liar!

I'm not going to dignify your crass ad hominem with a reply.:(

looksee wrote: »

(non-mod hat) well that's one way out I suppose

... a way out of what?

... answering posts calling me unfounded names??