The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 19-12-2012 11:43PM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

JC your utterings are like the ramblings of a deranged mind. Two of every kind? That involves two of every animal that existed, including those which became extinct since. But there you go again, using the words "most likely". JC it is most unlikely that 7-8000 years ago, all of the continents were one land mass. It is unlikely that Lions walked up a ramp with gazelles talking to each other as they went. It is unlikely that Noah went to the frozen North Pole, and asked two Polar bears to come with him, 'cause it was going to rain. Your illogical beliefs are as likely as Noah recruiting a few Leprechauns to help him with the round up. How do you know he didn't, by the way? How do you know that the poor little Leprechauns didn't get wiped out in the flood, along with the Unicorns? is it because the Old Testament doesn't mention it? The same Old Testament which encouraged us to have slaves, kill our cheeky kids and to Stone people who strayed, until they were very dead. JC, I don't mind that you believe all those things and I'm sure that you don't mind if I think you are one card short of a full deck!

You are thinking like an Evolutionist ... and therefore you are letting your religion rule your head ... rather than your scientific training.:)
Only two of the Bear Kind is all that was needed (and they could have been juveniles) ... speciation after the Flood gave us all of our current Bear species ... including the Polar and Grizzly varieties!!:)

As for the cheeky kid killing ... that was how the Israelites chose to live ... but the hypocracy of it all was illustrated by Jesus, when he asked for someone without sin to throw the first stone ... and nobody dared to do so!!!:)

J C · 19-12-2012 11:55PM

maguffin wrote: »

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. It began in the 1960s as a Fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution. It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide. The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo"; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth. As a result, creation science also challenges the geologic and astrophysical evidence for the age and origins of Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis. Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution".

A reasonable account of Creation Science from an Evolutionist perspective.

maguffin wrote: »

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.
Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.

I could say roughly the same things about Evolution Science ... and its Spontaneous Evolution hypothesis.

The overwhelming consensus of the Creation Science community is that Spontaneous Evolution is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Spontaneous Evolution does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable unknown causes.
Spontaneous Evolution has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Atheistic Worldview into scientific facts.

PopePalpatine · 19-12-2012 11:57PM

J C wrote: »

Dr. Purdom graduated with a Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics from Ohio State University in 2000. Her specialty is cellular and molecular biology.
Dr. Purdom’s graduate work focused on genetic regulation of factors important for bone remodeling. She has published papers in the Journal of Neuroscience (under her maiden name Hickman), the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research and the Journal of Leukocyte Biology. She is a member of the American Society for Microbiology and American Society for Cell Biology. Following graduation, Dr. Purdom served as a professor of biology for six years at Mount Vernon Nazarene University in Ohio.

If that's picking up a "degree" after doing a dodgy backstreet course ... I'll eat my hat!!!!:eek:

Wow. So you managed to find one creationist with a PhD, and shown her as a shining example.

Too bad you've ignored >90% of biologists with PhDs.

You frustrate me. It frustrates me to see someone so wilfully ignorant of science. You keep accusing those who accept evolution of "sticking their heads in the sand". When I see the multitude of smilies and the over-use of ". . .", I am surprised that you're not c.12 years old and using "txtspk".

J C · 20-12-2012 12:03AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You frustrate me. It frustrates me to see someone so wilfully ignorant of science. You keep accusing those who accept evolution of "sticking their heads in the sand". When I see the multitude of smilies and the over-use of ". . .", I am surprised that you're not c.12 years old and using "txtspk".

You're confusing substance with presentation ...

... ye are sticking your heads in the sands of Evolution ... and denying the obvious ... that there is no plausible reason that you are here ... other than by Direct Supernatural Creation

PopePalpatine · 20-12-2012 12:08AM

J C wrote: »

A reasonable account of Creation Science from an Evolutionist perspective.

I could say roughly the same things about Evolution Science ... and its Spontaneous Evolution hypothesis.

The overwhelming consensus of the Creation Science community is that Spontaneous Evolution is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Spontaneous Evolution does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable unknown causes.
Spontaneous Evolution has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Atheistic Worldview into scientific facts.

J C, have you ever heard of the term "irony"?

pauldla · 20-12-2012 03:05AM

J C wrote: »

He does a great portrayal of God in Evan Almighty!!!:p

That's a movie, JC. It's not real. You can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, can't you?

maguffin · 20-12-2012 07:50AM

J C wrote: »

A reasonable account of Creation Science from an Evolutionist perspective.

NOT an evolutionist perspective...but 'cut and pasted' from Wikipedia.

I could say roughly the same things about Evolution Science ... and its Spontaneous Evolution hypothesis.

The overwhelming consensus of the Creation Science community is that Spontaneous Evolution is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Spontaneous Evolution does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable unknown causes.
Spontaneous Evolution has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Atheistic Worldview into scientific facts.

But you didn't say it...did you?....just 'word substitution' into an already existing article.

A common trait of yours....re-iteration, superficial and immature responses, ignoring the empirically measured and confirmed evidence, lack of substantial content in your own replies, and too many more to waste time on!

J C · 20-12-2012 09:20AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

J C, have you ever heard of the term "irony"?

I see it with Evolutionists all the time!!
... they think of themselves as 'uber rationalists' ... and then they go and believe the most illogical things ... like matter spontaneously generating CFSI ... and intelligence!!
... and frogs turning into princes ... with nothing added but time and (selected) mistakes!!:eek:

J C · 20-12-2012 09:23AM

pauldla wrote: »

That's a movie, JC. It's not real. You can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, can't you?

Nonetheless its nice to see an Atheist doing a great job acting as God ... now all we need is for him to believe in God ... to make a really happy ending.:)

J C · 20-12-2012 09:27AM

maguffin wrote: »

NOT an evolutionist perspective...but 'cut and pasted' from Wikipedia.

... the same thing!!:)

maguffin wrote: »

But you didn't say it...did you?....just 'word substitution' into an already existing article.

A common trait of yours....re-iteration, superficial and immature responses, ignoring the empirically measured and confirmed evidence, lack of substantial content in your own replies, and too many more to waste time on!

That was my point ... that Evolutionism and Creationism are two worldviews that share many of the same strengths and weaknesses ... although I have the say that Creationism has by far the greater empirical evidence for it's validity.

maguffin · 20-12-2012 10:00AM

J C wrote: »

... the same thing!!:)

...not really!!...you have absolutely no evidence to back this up!!

.... I have the say that Creationism has by far the greater empirical evidence for it's validity.

Please show us this wonderful empirical evidence that validates your supernatural theory.....maybe the same techniques can be applied to other supernatural phenomena such as ghosts and ghoulies and fairies!!

Mardy Bum · 20-12-2012 09:54PM

There is no point in arguing with JC.

J C · 20-12-2012 10:29PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

That conversation happens between my wife and I, all the time!!!:)

J C · 20-12-2012 10:36PM

maguffin wrote: »

...not really!!...you have absolutely no evidence to back this up!!

The quote was clearly written from an Evolutionist perspective ... and it was on Wikipedia

If you want a Creationist perspective ... you need to go to Creationwiki
http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page

maguffin wrote: »

Please show us this wonderful empirical evidence that validates your supernatural theory.....maybe the same techniques can be applied to other supernatural phenomena such as ghosts and ghoulies and fairies!!

No known natural phenomen exists that spontaneously produces CFSI.

Delirium · 20-12-2012 10:38PM

J C wrote: »

That conversation happens between my wife and I, all the time!!!:)

Well maybe if you didn't post so much creationist nonsense she wouldn't have to spend all her time on the interweb :P:pac:

J C · 20-12-2012 11:21PM

koth wrote: »

Well maybe if you didn't post so much creationist nonsense she wouldn't have to spend all her time on the interweb :P:pac:

... and if you guys weren't so demanding of me for the fruits of Creation Science ... I could get to bed earlier most nights!!!:pac::P

... speaking of which ....

pauldla · 21-12-2012 12:40AM

J C wrote: »

No known natural phenomen exists that spontaneously produces CFSI.

But what is CFSI, JC? Ah, there's a question that can never be answered...

J C · 21-12-2012 01:19AM

pauldla wrote: »

But what is CFSI, JC? Ah, there's a question that can never be answered...

No problem at all answering your question ... it's Complex Functional Specified Information.

pauldla · 21-12-2012 02:58AM

J C wrote: »

No problem at all answering your question ... it's Complex Functional Specified Information.

That explains the acronym, but doesn't tell me what Complex Functional Specified Information actually is. Care to have a crack at explaining it?

The Concrete Doctor · 21-12-2012 01:18PM

J C wrote: »

No problem at all answering your question ... it's Complex Functional Specified Information.

There are a lot of very intelligent people placing posts on this site. Unfortunately JC is not one of them. He is either arguing for the sake of it or does't really understand facts, other than the whole creation nonsense his parents taught him when he was younger and he hasn't learned to move on. He chooses to ignore valid arguments, replacing them with his own, totally illogical rants. He will then state that certain scientists hold illogical stances, when quoting some well researched point. So he doesn't really understand the concept of illogicality. Arguing with him is a little like arguing with a brain-dead politician.
I suspect he doesn't believe a word of it but just enjoys everyone having a go at him.

maguffin · 21-12-2012 01:42PM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

There are a lot of very intelligent people placing posts on this site. Unfortunately JC is not one of them. He is either arguing for the sake of it or does't really understand facts, other than the whole creation nonsense his parents taught him when he was younger and he hasn't learned to move on. He chooses to ignore valid arguments, replacing them with his own, totally illogical rants. He will then state that certain scientists hold illogical stances, when quoting some well researched point. So he doesn't really understand the concept of illogicality. Arguing with him is a little like arguing with a brain-dead politician.
I suspect he doesn't believe a word of it but just enjoys everyone having a go at him.

Probably right....in fact, imagine this....maybe JC is really a bona fide scientist doing some real research on Evolutionary Science and the Spontaneous Origin of Life, and fully embraces the Big bang theory and disregards any reference to the Bible as a valid account of how everything got here!!! heheheh!!!

doctoremma · 21-12-2012 02:31PM

J C wrote: »

No problem at all answering your question ... it's Complex Functional Specified Information.

I work with a technique commonly referred to as MLPA.

Let's imagine that you ask me to describe what this is. I reply with "Well, it's Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification". What does that tell you?

So, maybe you counter with "OK, I know what all those words mean but when you say "probe", what exactly are you referring to in this context?". I reply with "It's a probe, it's self-explanatory". What does that tell you?

You ask for further clarification. I decline to answer and start talking about something else, in a manner strangely reminiscent of a child desperately trying to avoid being told it's bedtime.

Of course, JC, I wouldn't proceed as above. As a "conventionally qualified scientist", I would be more than willing and, importantly here, more than able to describe exactly what MLPA is, rather than what the abbreviation stands for.

So, in the interests of your scientific integrity, would you be so kind as produce a brief definition of CSFI, in the context of genomic sequence, without recourse to tautological arguments such as "It's information that isn't simple".

J C · 22-12-2012 03:46PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I work with a technique commonly referred to as MLPA.

Let's imagine that you ask me to describe what this is. I reply with "Well, it's Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification". What does that tell you?

So, maybe you counter with "OK, I know what all those words mean but when you say "probe", what exactly are you referring to in this context?". I reply with "It's a probe, it's self-explanatory". What does that tell you?

You ask for further clarification. I decline to answer and start talking about something else, in a manner strangely reminiscent of a child desperately trying to avoid being told it's bedtime.

Of course, JC, I wouldn't proceed as above. As a "conventionally qualified scientist", I would be more than willing and, importantly here, more than able to describe exactly what MLPA is, rather than what the abbreviation stands for.

So, in the interests of your scientific integrity, would you be so kind as produce a brief definition of CSFI, in the context of genomic sequence, without recourse to tautological arguments such as "It's information that isn't simple".

The terms used in 'Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification' are more technical (and therefore significantly less self-explanitory than the terms used in 'Complex Functional Specified Information'.
Nonetheless it is obvious (to a scientist qualified in the field) that the term MLPA refers to a method to facilitate the amplification and detection of multiple targets with a primer pair as distinct from, for example, a standard multiplex PCR reaction, where each fragment needs a unique amplifying primer pair. As it is also 'ligation-dependent' it is obvious that it is only when both probe oligonucleotides are hybridised to their respective targets, that they can they be ligated into a complete probe - and thus only the ligated oligonucleotides are amplified - and therefore unbound probe oligonucleotides aren't amplified.

By continuously demanding a definition of 'Complex Functional Specified Information' - when it is obvious and self-explanatory to anybody, with even basic English, what these terms mean ... you are starting to look like someone in denial of the implications of CFSI ... and using semantics to avoid the issue.
Like I have said before ... you are starting to sound like a 'flat eather' trying to maintain their beliefs, by repeately looking for a definition of what the term 'sperical planet' means ... when the term is self-explanitory ... even for the scientifically un-initiated.

J C · 22-12-2012 03:56PM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

There are a lot of very intelligent people placing posts on this site. Unfortunately JC is not one of them.

I'm not going to get into an IQ contest about who is the biggest 'brainbox' on the thread.

I will merely point out that the other contributors haven't made much of an attempt at a plausible explanation for the spontaneous generation of life ... or how it could spontaneously evolve the necessary CFSI necessary to produce Human Kind from Pond Kind.
... and they haven't disproven a word that I have said about the physical evidence that still exists for the Direct Creation of life (in the CFSI in living organisms) ... all they have done is to repeatedly whing about not being able to understand words 'Complex' and 'Functional' and 'Specified' and 'Information' ... when they obvious and self-explanitory in the context of their use about genetic information.:eek:

maguffin · 22-12-2012 05:45PM

J C wrote: »

I'm not going to get into an IQ contest about who is the biggest 'brainbox' on the thread.

Indeed you shouldn't....cold be very embarrasing for you!!

I will merely point out that the other contributors haven't made much of an attempt at a plausible explanation for the spontaneous generation of life ... or how it could spontaneously evolve the necessary CFSI necessary to produce Human Kind from Pond Kind.
... and they haven't disproven a word that I have said about the physical evidence that still exists for the Direct Creation of life (in the CFSI in living organisms) ... all they have done is to repeatedly whing about not being able to understand words 'Complex' and 'Functional' and 'Specified' and 'Information' ... when they obvious and self-explanitory in the context of their use about genetic information.:eek:

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'.

doctoremma · 22-12-2012 08:39PM

JC, please do not cast aspersions on my scientific integrity when you deliver answers as if your own but which are, in some parts verbatim, lifted from Wikipedia.

You KNOW I wasn't asking you to bore on about MLPA, I was making an analogy to your bluster and delaying tactics regarding the definition of CSFI. Remarkably, you've bothered more with a definition of a concept used entirely for illustrative purposes than you have with the key definition underpinning your entire thesis.

JC, I don't understand what CSFI is. It appears entirely made up, entirely subjective and entirely ill-defined. If you can make the effort for MLPA, why not for CSFI?

doctoremma · 22-12-2012 08:50PM

J C wrote: »

all they have done is to repeatedly whing about not being able to understand words 'Complex' and 'Functional' and 'Specified' and 'Information' ... when they obvious and self-explanitory in the context of their use about genetic information.:eek:

JC, I have a degree in Biochemistry and a PhD in Developmental Genetics. I have worked in human genetic research for nearly ten years. I have published tens of papers in the field of developmental genetics, in several different animals (including humans). I have authored book chapters in genetics textbooks. I was once named as a European Outstanding Young Investigator by the European Society of Human Genetics. That bloke who just won the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology? I call him John.

If ANYONE here should understand what you are talking about in a genetic context, it is me. Disclaimers: I'm not saying I'm the ONLY one who should understand, not at all. Nor am I suggesting that if you talk about CSFI using words like bits/Shannon/etc, will I hope to continue understanding.

Just give it a shot. I feel like my knowledge has a large gap.

Gumbi · 22-12-2012 09:05PM

Pretending you know all about MLPA is a bit pathetic too, JC. I don't have a clue what it means, and, indeed, the wording that makes up the acronym does little to nothing in explaining it.

The Concrete Doctor · 23-12-2012 12:15AM

J C wrote: »

I'm not going to get into an IQ contest about who is the biggest 'brainbox' on the thread.

I will merely point out that the other contributors haven't made much of an attempt at a plausible explanation for the spontaneous generation of life ... or how it could spontaneously evolve the necessary CFSI necessary to produce Human Kind from Pond Kind.
... and they haven't disproven a word that I have said about the physical evidence that still exists for the Direct Creation of life (in the CFSI in living organisms) ... all they have done is to repeatedly whing about not being able to understand words 'Complex' and 'Functional' and 'Specified' and 'Information' ... when they obvious and self-explanitory in the context of their use about genetic information.:eek:

If anyone, like Doctoremma, comes up with a textbook explanation, even if it has the approval of the top professors in Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard, you will just ignore it JC. That is because you are an immature bluffer, with, I suspect, absolutely no scientific background.You simply believe what you learned as a child and you never moved on.
By the way, virtually every word you have uttered has been disproved. you simply chose not to take on board what was said.

Sin City · 23-12-2012 11:56AM

At the end of the day, I know nothing about CFSI or MLPA and Ill admit my biases towards DrEmmas side, as we share beliefs however if I was too look at both sides from a purely neutral and scientific standpoint, Id still side with Dr Emma. At least her science is pure science, which is what is our evidence telling us. it, not find something that fits the result I want and build around it.

This JC is where you and your ilk fall down, You can never have pure unbiased science if you want a specific outcome

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments