The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

doctoremma · 23-12-2012 01:54PM

Just to reiterate, in case my CV outline is taken by some as the basis for an argument from authority, the point of it was to establish to JC that I feel perfectly competent to understand CSFI from a genetics POV (as do, I'm sure, others here), if I had a definition and explanation to work from.

J C · 23-12-2012 05:22PM

doctoremma wrote: »

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.

I've cast no aspersions on your scientific integrity ... but I would point out that my scientific integrity (and that of all Creation Scientists) is routinely attacked and bad-mouthed on this thread and others.
... as for your reference to Wikipedia, I checked what I was going to say against Wikipedia, in order to prevent an interminable 'nit picking' session from you guys about the semantics of MLPA ... as has been the case on other scientific issues, including CFSI.

doctoremma wrote: »

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.

I didn't 'bore on', as you have said ... I merely pointed out that the terms used in MLPA are more technical (and therefore significantly less self-explanitory) than the terms used in 'Complex Functional Specified Information'.
I also pointed that 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 ... without any requirement for exhaustive definitions.

doctoremma wrote: »

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?

I've told you enough ... for all the thanks that I got!!:eek:
I have no problem discussing CFSI (including precise definitions) with people who seriously wish to learn about it ... rather than merely using it as an opportunity to scoff at me.
You're quite entitled to scoff ... but I am under no obligation to provide information to you, that you clearly don't actually wish to know.

J C · 23-12-2012 05:32PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I feel like my knowledge has a large gap.

It's entirely self-inflicted, if you do have this large gap in your knowledge on ID.:D

J C · 23-12-2012 05:40PM

Sin City wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately, your bias is total on the origins issue ... and not only in relation to doctoremma and her writings.
... and this is true of practically all materialists ... who refuse to countenance a supernatural origin for life, when it is currently the only plausible explanation ...
... and the refusal to consider a supernatural origin is made, despite there being repeatably observable physical evidence i.e. scientifically valid evidence for it's validity ... in the tera-bits of Complex, highly Functional, tightly Specified genetic Information found in living things.

The Materialist then goes one further ... and bans, even the consideration, of a supernatural origin of life within science ... and if that's not total bias, I don't know what is.
It's the equivalent of a number of Creationists, ganging up, to ban even the consideration of the Spontaneous Evolution hypothesis within the Universities under their authority.
Everyone can see that this would be an outrageous suppression of academic freedom, if it was done by Creationists to Evolutionists ... yet you guys seem to think that it is somehow acceptable for Evolutionists to do this to Creationists ... or are you the first Materialist that I have met that thinks that the pursuit of Creation Science should be allowed under academic freedom?
What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander ... but ye guys are so biased that ye can't even begin to imagine such basic fairness towards Creationists.

BTW ... I'm not saying that it is a 'bad' thing that Materialists are biased ... everyone is biased to some degree by their worldview ... Materialists just need to admit it ... and recogise the rights of others to be different to them.

Gumbi · 23-12-2012 06:01PM

You say you're a "Creation Scientist" JC. What is the criteria to be a Creation Scientist?

J C · 23-12-2012 07:31PM

Gumbi wrote: »

You say you're a "Creation Scientist" JC. What is the criteria to be a Creation Scientist?

Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists with an interest in pursuing Creation Science research and/or teaching Creation Science and/or promoting Creation Science and expaining it's results.
Creation Scientists also critically evaluate the scientific evidence for Spontaneous Evolution and all of the other Materialistic Theories surrounding the 'origins' question.

Creation Science is the mirror image of the Evolutionist position on the Origins Issue.
Within Creation Science both old-agers and young-agers are to be found ... but I have to say that the young-ages position dominates ... due to the much greater evidence and the all round greater coherence of the young-ages position.

doctoremma · 23-12-2012 07:50PM

J C wrote: »

I've cast no aspersions on your scientific integrity ... but I would point out that my scientific integrity (and that of all Creation Scientists) is routinely attacked and bad-mouthed on this thread and others.

You suggested that people who demanded definitions and explanations of CSFI were being deliberately obtuse. That is attacking our scientific integrity.

Until you start to act like a scientist, you do not have any scientific integrity to attack or bad-mouth, That's not to say that your posts are entirely devoid of conversational merit, but it IS to say they are entirely devoid of scientific merit. If you want to talk science, you better start talking science, instead of talking about talking science.

J C wrote: »

I've told you enough ... for all the thanks that I got!!:eek:

You currently get no thanks because you haven't told me or anyone else ANYTHING about CSFI.

J C wrote: »

I have no problem discussing CFSI (including precise definitions) with people who seriously wish to learn about it ... rather than merely using it as an opportunity to scoff at me.

You clearly do have a problem with discussing it, as you continually refuse to do so, passing up the opportunity to expand not only your own knowledge but teach others a little about your thesis.

J C wrote: »

You're quite entitled to scoff

Really, what kind of "conventionally-qualified scientist" says that? If I present something a little wacky, a little left field, but back it up with solid repeatable data, I don't expect anyone to scoff, nor do I grant them the entitlement to do so.

J C · 23-12-2012 08:19PM

doctoremma wrote: »

You suggested that people who demanded definitions and explanations of CSFI were being deliberately obtuse. That is attacking our scientific integrity.

They are being obtuse on this issue ... and are in denial of its validity.
Whether its deliberate or sub-conscious I'm not sure.

doctoremma wrote: »

Until you start to act like a scientist, you do not have any scientific integrity to attack or bad-mouth, That's not to say that your posts are entirely devoid of conversational merit, but it IS to say they are entirely devoid of scientific merit. If you want to talk science, you better start talking science, instead of talking about talking science.

I walk the walk as well as talk the talk!!!:)

doctoremma wrote: »

You currently get no thanks because you haven't told me or anyone else ANYTHING about CSFI.

You're entitled to your opinion ... but I must respectfully disagree that you have been told nothing about CFSI ... whether you listened to what you were told is another matter.
It is a truism that we can bring a horse to water ... but we can't make it drink.

doctoremma wrote: »

You clearly do have a problem with discussing it, as you continually refuse to do so, passing up the opportunity to expand not only your own knowledge but teach others a little about your thesis.

I have done so on many occasions ... only to have the debate on CFSI derailed by some comment or other thrown in about something totally different. There are so many of ye that this is inevitable ... unless ye voluntarily restrict yourselves and appoint somebody to be your spokesperson on this issue. So far ye have refused to do so ... and the debate often descends into chaos, with several topics being thrown into the mix together ... perhaps this is inevitable when there is such a hunger for the details of the scientific discoveries of Creation Science amongst you guys.:)

doctoremma wrote: »

Really, what kind of "conventionally-qualified scientist" says that? If I present something a little wacky, a little left field, but back it up with solid repeatable data, I don't expect anyone to scoff, nor do I grant them the entitlement to do so.

If somebody wishes to scoff there is little that you or I can do about it.
... you are even scoffing at me now by placing the words 'conventionally qualified scientist' in inverted commas ... which leads me to the logical conclusion that you are not actually in the least interested in finding out about CFSI ... and no matter what I say you will ignore or discount it ... so really, why should I bother??

doctoremma · 23-12-2012 08:45PM

J C wrote: »

They are being obtuse on this issue ... and are in denial of its validity.
Whether its deliberate or sub-conscious I'm not sure.

If a scientist (or, in this case, a large number of scientists) denies the validity of your hypothesis and/or experimental output, then it is up to you to convince the doubter. Just like Jesus, innit.

J C wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion ... but I must respectfully disagree that you have been told nothing about CFSI ... whether you listened to what you were told is another matter.

OK, retracted. You've told me what it stands for. You've made a circular hash of defining the terms.

My assertion that I haven't been told anything about CSFI was based on the de facto situation, where I still have no idea what you mean by "complex", by "specified" or by "functional" ("information" is the least of our problems here).

J C wrote: »

.. you are even scoffing at me now by placing the words 'conventionally qualified scientist' in inverted commas ... which leads me to the logical conclusion that you are not actually in the least interested in finding out about CFSI ... and no matter what I say you will ignore or discount it ... so really, why should I bother??

I am scoffing because your claim that you are a conventionally qualified scientist is remarkable, based on the evidence here (and elsewhere).

Now, let's be clear. My supposition that you are not a "conventionally-qualified scientist" is NOT IN ANY WAY to do with the hypothesis or data you are proposing. It is entirely based on the way you talk, the way you conduct yourself, the way you appear to misapprehend the scientific method/data/interpretation, the way you spectacularly miss the point, the way you reference Wiki and don't admit it. You do not, in even the most charitable view, walk the walk.

Of course, this does not mean that you are not a "conventionally-qualified scientist" at all. Like I said, start talking science, instead of talking about talking science.

doctoremma · 23-12-2012 08:50PM

JC, I have in front of me the entire genome sequence of Damon albarnis.

(A quick Google search will tell you that we are dealing in hypotheticals here, although if I had Damon Albarn's DNA, than I could clone....nah, nevermind. Now, Kurt Cobain....stop, Emma).

So, a genomic sequence. How do I identify CSFI?

Sin City · 23-12-2012 10:00PM

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, I have in front of me the entire genome sequence of Damon albarnis.

(A quick Google search will tell you that we are dealing in hypotheticals here, although if I had Damon Albarn's DNA, than I could clone....nah, nevermind. Now, Kurt Cobain....stop, Emma).

So, a genomic sequence. How do I identify CSFI?

For the love.of god (its an expression jc )please don't clone.damon albran

Sin City · 23-12-2012 10:11PM

J C wrote: »

Unfortunately, your bias is total on the origins issue ... and not only in relation to doctoremma and her writings.
... and this is true of practically all materialists ... who refuse to countenance a supernatural origin for life, when it is currently the only plausible explanation ...
... and the refusal to consider a supernatural origin is made, despite there being repeatably observable physical evidence i.e. scientifically valid evidence for it's validity ... in the tera-bits of Complex, highly Functional, tightly Specified genetic Information found in living things.

Im sorry, do explain the scientific validity of God
My biases aside, I can only go where evidence suggests. If there was overwhelming evidence to confirm the existence of God I doubt their would be any athesists left. A person can have biases, but a good scientist leaves their biases outside the lab and concentrates only on what the data and evidence suggests.

J C wrote: »

The Materialist then goes one further ... and bans, even the consideration, of a supernatural origin of life within science ... and if that's not total bias, I don't know what is.
It's the equivalent of a number of Creationists, ganging up, to ban even the consideration of the Spontaneous Evolution hypothesis within the Universities under their authority.
Everyone can see that this would be an outrageous suppression of academic freedom, if it was done by Creationists to Evolutionists ... yet you guys seem to think that it is somehow acceptable for Evolutionists to do this to Creationists ... or are you the first Materialist that I have met that thinks that the pursuit of Creation Science should be allowed under academic freedom?
What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander ... but ye guys are so biased that ye can't even begin to imagine such basic fairness towards Creationists.

BTW ... I'm not saying that it is a 'bad' thing that Materialists are biased ... everyone is biased to some degree by their worldview ... Materialists just need to admit it ... and recogise the rights of others to be different to them.

Do me a favour and explain your CSFI position to me in simple English,
Explain to me how it proves the existence of a God, not supposes but proves.

The thing thats wrong with creation science as I have already said is, that it starts with the existence of God and then tries to make the evidence fit the criteria to confirm their hypothesis which is against everything that a pure science is

J C · 23-12-2012 10:16PM

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, I have in front of me the entire genome sequence of Damon albarnis.

(A quick Google search will tell you that we are dealing in hypotheticals here, although if I had Damon Albarn's DNA, than I could clone....nah, nevermind. Now, Kurt Cobain....stop, Emma).

So, a genomic sequence. How do I identify CSFI?

You are now getting into areas of industrial knowhow ... that I am not able to discuss.

J C · 23-12-2012 10:34PM

doctoremma wrote: »

If a scientist (or, in this case, a large number of scientists) denies the validity of your hypothesis and/or experimental output, then it is up to you to convince the doubter. Just like Jesus, innit.

That is one possible reaction ... but the other one is to simply crack on with your research, including it commercial applications ... and collaborate with like-minded scientists ... rather than wasting time with the 'doubting thomases'.

doctoremma wrote: »

OK, retracted. You've told me what it stands for. You've made a circular hash of defining the terms.

I'm sorry that you feel like that.

doctoremma wrote: »

My assertion that I haven't been told anything about CSFI was based on the de facto situation, where I still have no idea what you mean by "complex", by "specified" or by "functional" ("information" is the least of our problems here).

I can tell you that the 'information' part is the most difficult to define precisely and accurately.

doctoremma wrote: »

I am scoffing because your claim that you are a conventionally qualified scientist is remarkable, based on the evidence here (and elsewhere).

I could say the very same about you ... or any of the rest of the posters on this forum who claime to be scientists ... but I accept your word for it ... and crack on with the debate.
... and as I've beaten the proverbial pants off everyone on practically every issue raised with me both here and over on the A & A ... could I suggest that if I'm not a conventionally trained scientist ... then it is even more embarassing for ye guys and your case ... that ye have been roundly defeated by a 12 year old ... as some of ye have disparagingly called me!!:D

doctoremma wrote: »

Now, let's be clear. My supposition that you are not a "conventionally-qualified scientist" is NOT IN ANY WAY to do with the hypothesis or data you are proposing. It is entirely based on the way you talk, the way you conduct yourself, the way you appear to misapprehend the scientific method/data/interpretation, the way you spectacularly miss the point, the way you reference Wiki and don't admit it. You do not, in even the most charitable view, walk the walk.

You are still attacking the person (me) ... which is a logical falllacy ... and not attacking any idea or evidence that I present.
Like I have said, if I am a 12 year old ... it's even more embarassing for your case that I'm able to roundly defeat you on every point that you raise.

... better for your own self-esteem to accept that I am a conventionally qualifiied scientist, that I say I am. It will also save considerable time and effort on all our parts!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

Of course, this does not mean that you are not a "conventionally-qualified scientist" at all.

That's the way to go, Emma!!!:)
That way you can say that you fought the good fight for Evolution ... and lost to an eminently qualified Creation Scientist.
... and you can continue to believe in Spontaneous Evolution ... on the basis that it was your inability to present the case properly (as distinct from the fact that the theory is defunct) ... which was the reason you lost the debate.:D:eek:

tommy2bad · 23-12-2012 10:47PM

JC;
That is one possible reaction ... but the other one is to simply crack on with your research, including it commercial applications ... and collaborate with like-minded scientists ... rather than wasting time with the 'doubting thomases'.

You mean commercial applications like this? http://creationmuseum.org/
Or commercial applications like Penicillin?
Are you sure it's science your thinking off and not show business.

Quatermain · 23-12-2012 10:57PM

J C wrote: »

... better for your own self-esteem to accept that I am a conventionally qualifiied scientist, that I say I am. It will also save considerable time and effort on all our parts!!!

You cannot really claim victory when you yourself cannot explain the items you present as "evidence", and everything you say can be summed up as "I'm right, take my word for it". I suggest you actually respond to people if you want to be taken half-way seriously.

J C · 24-12-2012 12:18AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

You mean commercial applications like this? http://creationmuseum.org/
Or commercial applications like Penicillin?
Are you sure it's science your thinking off and not show business.

Commercial applications like identifying human/intelligently-directed causes as distinct from random, deterministic and other non-intelligently directed causes for various phenomena.

The Creation Museum is primarily a faith-building enterprise ... and an excellent high quality one at that ... it uses some of the results of Creation Science and ID research ... but it is primarily focussed on the illustration and explanation of Biblical truth, in all of its dimensions.

J C · 24-12-2012 12:21AM

Quatermain wrote: »

You cannot really claim victory when you yourself cannot explain the items you present as "evidence", and everything you say can be summed up as "I'm right, take my word for it". I suggest you actually respond to people if you want to be taken half-way seriously.

Victory comes two ways for a Creationist ... one way is proving the existence of God via Creation Science and CFSI/ID ... but the other way is proving the invalidity of Materialist constructs such as Spontaneous Evolution.
... and so far it's not looking good for Spontaneous Evolution on this thread ... while Creationism rocks on!!!:)

Quatermain · 24-12-2012 12:27AM

J C wrote: »

Victory comes two ways for a Creationist ... one way is proving the existence of God via Creation Science and CFSI/ID

You mean the CFSI you're "unable to discuss"? Please.

Sin City · 24-12-2012 12:28AM

J C wrote: »

Victory comes two ways for a Creationist ... one way is proving the existence of God via Creation Science and CFSI/ID ... but the other way is proving the invalidity of Materialist constructs such as Spontaneous Evolution.
... and so far it's not looking good for Spontaneous Evolution on this thread ... while Creationism rocks on!!!:)

Look up the word delusional in the dictionary
secondly I have yet to see your proof for the existence.of.god

So your science at the moment has not offered evidence of your two above claims

J C · 24-12-2012 12:38AM

Quatermain wrote: »

You mean the CFSI you're "unable to discuss"? Please.

It's been 'discussed' ad nauseum ... it's just that you don't like the result ... and its devastating implications for your worldview !!:)

J C · 24-12-2012 12:41AM

Sin City wrote: »

Look up the word delusional in the dictionary
secondly I have yet to see your proof for the existence.of.god

So your science at the moment has not offered evidence of your two above claims

... just got to love you, Sin City.
... because trying to reason with you doesn't seem to work.:)

... please love Jesus ... and be Saved!!!

Quatermain · 24-12-2012 12:44AM

J C wrote: »

It's been 'discussed' ad nauseum ... it's just that you don't like the result ... and its devastating implications for your worldview !!:)

You are now getting into areas of industrial knowhow ... that I am not able to discuss.

And the discussions thereof have mostly consisted of you being asked to explain yourself, only to prance away, giggling like a coquettish milkmaid in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

"Devastating"? I like the fact that you apparently think you're shaking the very foundations of the earth, old chap. A touch of hubris there, I fancy. You're more akin to the rooster crowing atop his dunghill. You're fooling nobody, and you're convincing nobody.

Sin City · 24-12-2012 12:45AM

J C wrote: »

... just got to love you, Sin City.
... because trying to reason with you doesn't seem to work.:)

... please love Jesus ... and be Saved!!!

A creationist , says.that I cant be reasoned with ????

How can I be saved.when im not in peril ?

Also feel free to answer the.questions that.i and others have.posed to you

J C · 24-12-2012 01:07AM

Sin City wrote: »

A creationist , says.that I cant be reasoned with ????

Ironic ... isn't it??:)

Sin City wrote: »

How can I be saved.when im not in peril ?

You may think that you're not in peril ... and that is precisely why you need to be Saved.
Jesus loves you ... please love Him back..

J C · 24-12-2012 01:12AM

Quatermain wrote: »

And the discussions thereof have mostly consisted of you being asked to explain yourself, only to prance away, giggling like a coquettish milkmaid in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.

"Devastating"? I like the fact that you apparently think you're shaking the very foundations of the earth, old chap. A touch of hubris there, I fancy. You're more akin to the rooster crowing atop his dunghill. You're fooling nobody, and you're convincing nobody.

... and if you spent less time engagng in ad Hominems against me ... and more trying to present the evidence for your belief in Spontaneous Evolution ... you might not convince anybody, but at least you could be given some credit for trying!!!:p

Sin City · 24-12-2012 01:16AM

J C wrote: »

Ironic ... isn't it??:)

You may think that you're not in peril ... and that is precisely why you need to be Saved.
Jesus loves you ... please love Him back..

Im afraid its an unrequited love then

Hopefully he wont start stalking me

Now how about answering the questions posed to you?

J C · 24-12-2012 01:34AM

Sin City wrote: »

Im afraid its an unrequited love then

... only if you say so.

Sin City wrote: »

Hopefully he wont start stalking me

Jesus won't ... but the other fella just might!!

Sin City wrote: »

Now how about answering the questions posed to you?

I'll have a go ... when you present the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution.

The Concrete Doctor · 24-12-2012 01:36AM

I've beaten the proverbial pants off everyone on practically every issue raised with me
Creationist scientufic language JC??

J C · 24-12-2012 01:39AM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

I've beaten the proverbial pants off everyone on practically every issue raised with me
Creationist scientufic language JC??

... just a summary of the debate so far ... nothing more or less.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments