Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…7778808283…232

Comments

  • #2372
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    J C wrote: »
    ... only if you say so.

    I do indeed

    J C wrote: »
    Jesus won't ... but the other fella just might!!

    Im just that popular eh

    Jesus and the other fella stalking me., Yeah thats not gay or creepy at all
    J C wrote: »

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

    Im not a scientist, like yourself

    So you should present you findings and explain your methods and what exactly CSFI is it? actually is, and how you use it to prove the existence of God

    Im not expecting you can (or are able) to do this as you tend to skirt around the issues instead of explaining yourself.

    Could it be you know that you are actually talking complete and utter nonsense and cannot do as you claim and that your creationist science is as much use as a chocolate teapot


  • #2373
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Sin City;
    Could it be you know that you are actually talking complete and utter nonsense and cannot do as you claim and that your creationist science is as much use as a chocolate teapot
    It certainly has a lot in common with Russell's teapot.


  • #2374
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sin City wrote: »
    I do indeed
    Jesus will respect your choice.

    Sin City wrote: »
    Im just that popular eh

    Jesus and the other fella stalking me., Yeah thats not gay or creepy at all
    Like I have said, Jesus won't stalk you ... but the other guy just might ... especially if you give him any encouragement.

    Sin City wrote: »
    Im not a scientist, like yourself

    So you should present you findings and explain your methods and what exactly CSFI is it? actually is, and how you use it to prove the existence of God

    Im not expecting you can (or are able) to do this as you tend to skirt around the issues instead of explaining yourself.

    Could it be you know that you are actually talking complete and utter nonsense and cannot do as you claim and that your creationist science is as much use as a chocolate teapot
    CFSI is real allright ... and if you guys are really interested in learning about it ... as distinct from comparing it to a chocolate teapot in advance of knowing the details of it ... I may take the time to talk about it to you.
    A good indicator of your bona fides on this matter ... would be for you guys to present the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution.


  • #2375
    maguffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭maguffin


    J C wrote: »
    CFSI is real allright ... and if you guys are really interested in learning about it ... as distinct from comparing it to a chocolate teapot in advance of knowing the details of it ... I may take the time to talk about it to you.
    A good indicator of your bona fides on this matter ... would be for you guys to present the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution.

    Real and DEBUNKED!!!

    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'.


  • #2376
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    ... just a summary of the debate so far ... nothing more or less.

    JC, you keep droning on, in your own version of scientific language, about winning debates or beating everyone in an argument. Well, to win an argument it is necessary for some, if not all of the people with whom you are arguing, to conceed that you have made good points and that maybe you are correct in your assertions. So far, not one single person replying to this thread has even come close to agreeing with you. You do not seem to have convinced anyone, but yourself, that you are speaking anything other than total nonsense. So, my dear friend, you have won no argument, or debate on this site, nor do you look likely to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • #2377
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,165 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    If the creationism-vs-evolution debate could be represented by a chess game, creationism seems to be the person who smacks the chess board off the table and calls themselves the winner.


  • #2378
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    If the creationism-vs-evolution debate could be represented by a chess game, creationism seems to be the person who smacks the chess board off the table and calls themselves the winner.
    Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year to you all.

    We'll take up where we have left off on the C/E debate in the New Year.:)


  • #2379
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year to you all.

    We'll take up where we have left off on the C/E debate in the New Year.:)

    Many happy returns to you and all our new friends.


  • #2380
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    ... just a summary of the debate so far ... nothing more or less.

    Dr Emma asked you to explain what CSFI actually means in a practical sense and you refuse to answer on the basis that she is faking an interest in the objective implications that the existence of CFSI might bring with it, implications that she herself is able to assess and refute within a scientific framework.

    You say that since it is almost unanimously agreed that you are full of it then why should you even try to enlighten us as to what CSFI is?

    On that basis, why are you still talking at all? Everything you have posited has been roundly dismissed as the musings of someone lacking higher mental capabailities.

    When you were asked about the flood event you were quite happy to explain terms like 'deluge' which is entirely more self-explanatory than CSFI.

    When I questioned you about Lazarus chatting with Abraham in Hades you went to great pains to unsuccessfully describe what was meant by the story even though the words of the story are simple and self-explanatory and in spite of the fact I consistently exposed your flawed knowledge of the bible.

    You have lost every argument so far except on the subject of CSFI and that is because you will not engage in that debate which forms the last bastion of your sinking position.

    You have admitted that you have 're-written' and 're-interpetated' the bible guided by voices in your head. Is that what makes you a 'conventionally qualified scientist', the voices in your head?

    So, do by all means make your last stand argument for CSFI and ID by providing Dr Emma with a working definition of what CSFI is.

    In other words, give her a slide preperation that she can put under her microscope and let the chips fall as they may.

    Obviously you won't because you can't can you?

    Because if you do you will have shown that all life on this planet had originated from pond-slime.

    It's funny actually, you will argue that it is impossible for even the most basic organism to spontaneously come to exist but have no problem with the human genome coming into existence fully formed on the fourth day of the existence of the universe.

    If God made CSFI then why bother saving Noah, his family and all the animals? The fact that God relied on speciation after the flood does make one wonder, why should it be different before the flood? And what effect does water have on CSFI? God didn't need Noah to have a big boat, all He needed was CSFI, lots of time and lots of random mistakes. :P:pac:

    I wonder, how did God make all the clay? Did he smash trillions of pre-existing pots to pieces.


  • #2381
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    Jesus will respect your choice.


    Like I have said, Jesus won't stalk you ... but the other guy just might ... especially if you give him any encouragement.


    CFSI is real allright ... and if you guys are really interested in learning about it ... as distinct from comparing it to a chocolate teapot in advance of knowing the details of it ... I may take the time to talk about it to you.
    A good indicator of your bona fides on this matter ... would be for you guys to present the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution.

    I met with an eminent Geologist last Saturday and I asked him about the creationist ideas concerning the age of the earth. His reply was interesting. The bible, on which creationists base their ideas, was written thousands of years ago. It was not written from a scientific point of view, therefore to base beliefs around the beginnings of the universe on texts written by people who had no scientific background, training or education, is rather foolish. Science has progressed. Our scientific knowledge today is immeasurably superior to what it was when the books were written. Anybody who places a belief in the very limited historical or scientific knowledge of thousands of years ago over the extensive scientific knowledge of today, has to be deluding themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #2382
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    If the creationism-vs-evolution debate could be represented by a chess game, creationism seems to be the person who smacks the chess board off the table and calls themselves the winner.
    If the creationism-vs-evolution debate could be represented by a chess game, evolutionism would be the person who makes millions of random moves ... and expects to eventually 'evolve' a car from the chessboard!!!:):p

    ‘I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.’
    – Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher—Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

    I marvel myself at how so many intelligent, indeed eminent, scientists believe that CFSI can be spontaneously generated ... but I certainly don't laugh at them ... because 'I was that soldier' ... and I too once believed that I was directly descended from Pondkind ... with nothing added but time and selected mistakes.

    I blush with embarrassment every time I recall just how silly I was to believe such unbelievable stuff.:o


  • #2383
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    If the creationism-vs-evolution debate could be represented by a chess game, evolutionism would be the person who makes millions of random moves ... and expects to eventually 'evolve' a car from the chessboard!!!:):p

    ‘I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.’
    – Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher—Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

    I marvel myself at how so many intelligent, indeed eminent, scientists believe that CFSI can be spontaneously generated ... but I certainly don't laugh at them ... because 'I was that soldier' ... and I too once believed that I was directly descended from Pondkind ... with nothing added but time and selected mistakes.

    I blush with embarrassment every time I recall just how silly I was to believe such unbelievable stuff.:o

    JC, I have been watching a BBC programme called "Stargazers" tonight. They talk to scientists who have placed probes and vehicles on planets like Mars. These people and their colleagues, send spaceships out to the far reaches of our solar system. In other words, they are pretty bright. Tonight they produced actual meteorites which have landed on earth and which have been examined by some of the most eminent scientists and physicists on Earth. These meteorites were formed about they same time as our solar system approximately four thousand million years ago.
    They had some very interesting discussions about the universe and its origins. People were invited to ask questions of these experts in their field. For a brief moment, I was hoping that you JC, would send a tweet telling them that they were all wrong and that those meteorites were actually less than 10,000 years old, because the bible tells you so.
    Could you imagine the laughter in the studio?


  • #2384
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    JC, I have been watching a BBC programme called "Stargazers" tonight. They talk to scientists who have placed probes and vehicles on planets like Mars. These people and their colleagues, send spaceships out to the far reaches of our solar system. In other words, they are pretty bright. Tonight they produced actual meteorites which have landed on earth and which have been examined by some of the most eminent scientists and physicists on Earth. These meteorites were formed about they same time as our solar system approximately four thousand million years ago.
    They had some very interesting discussions about the universe and its origins. People were invited to ask questions of these experts in their field. For a brief moment, I was hoping that you JC, would send a tweet telling them that they were all wrong and that those meteorites were actually less than 10,000 years old, because the bible tells you so.
    Could you imagine the laughter in the studio?
    A good reason for not sending in a tweet!!!
    These scientists are undoubtedly eminent experts in their field ... which appears to be astronomy ... and the building and flying rockets ... and if I ever need a rocket ... they would be amongst the first persons I would ask to make it for me.

    However, when it comes to matters of Faith, like the origin of the Universe and all life therein, then the rule is that an inordinate phenomenon has to have an even greater inordinate cause ...
    ... and the Universe and all life are one almighty phenomenon ... that logically had to have an almighty God as it's almighty cause.:)


  • #2385
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    J C wrote: »
    A good reason for not sending in a tweet!!!

    These scientists are undoubtedly eminent experts in their field ... which appears to be astronomy ... and the building and flying rockets ... and if I ever need a rocket ... they would be amongst the first persons I would ask to make it for me.

    However, when it comes to matters of Faith, like the origin of the Universe and all life therein, then the rule is that an inordinate phenomenon has to have an even greater inordinate cause ...
    ... and the Universe and all life are one almighty phenomenon ... that logically had to have an almighty God as it's almighty cause.:)

    You have convinced me JC with your superior logical arguements which were utterly flawless and left all your oppenents seeing the light and turning their backs on science reason and.logic for good . The wealth of evidence you have supplied to back yore beliefs were truely inspiring. Where can I sign up ?


  • #2386
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sin City wrote: »
    You have convinced me JC with your superior logical arguements which were utterly flawless and left all your oppenents seeing the light and turning their backs on science reason and.logic for good .
    Thanks for the flattery ... but, you do realise that you don't have to abandon science and logic ... in fact, if you become a Creation Scientist you can really devote yourself fully to both science and logic.
    Sin City wrote: »
    The wealth of evidence you have supplied to back yore beliefs were truely inspiring. Where can I sign up ?
    Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be Saved.


  • #2387
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    If the creationism-vs-evolution debate could be represented by a chess game, evolutionism would be the person who makes millions of random moves ... and expects to eventually 'evolve' a car from the chessboard!!!:):p

    ‘I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.’
    – Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher—Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

    I marvel myself at how so many intelligent, indeed eminent, scientists believe that CFSI can be spontaneously generated ... but I certainly don't laugh at them ... because 'I was that soldier' ... and I too once believed that I was directly descended from Pondkind ... with nothing added but time and selected mistakes.

    I blush with embarrassment every time I recall just how silly I was to believe such unbelievable stuff.:o

    JC, I have been watching a BBC programme called "Stargazers" tonight. They talk to scientists who have placed probes and vehicles on planets like Mars. These people and their colleagues, send spaceships out to the far reaches of our solar system. Tonight they produced actual meteorites which have landed on earth and which have been examined by some of the most eminent scientists and physicists on Earth. These meteorites were formed about they same time as our solar system approximately four thousand million years ago.
    They had some very interesting discussions about the universe and its origins. People were invited to ask questions of these experts in their field. For a brief moment, I was hoping that you JC, would send a tweet telling them that they were all wrong and that those meteorites were actually less than 10,000 years old, because the bible tells you so.
    Could you imagine the laughter in the studio?


  • #2388
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    A good reason for not sending in a tweet!!!
    These scientists are undoubtedly eminent experts in their field ... which appears to be astronomy ... and the building and flying rockets ... and if I ever need a rocket ... they would be amongst the first persons I would ask to make it for me.

    However, when it comes to matters of Faith, like the origin of the Universe and all life therein, then the rule is that an inordinate phenomenon has to have an even greater inordinate cause ...
    ... and the Universe and all life are one almighty phenomenon ... that logically had to have an almighty God as it's almighty cause.:)

    Total gobledegook JC. Is that the best you have to offer? I talk about eminent scientists and you talk about matters of faith,,, pathetic!


  • #2389
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    J C wrote: »
    Thanks for the flattery ... but, you do realise that you don't have to abandon science and logic ... in fact, if you become a Creation Scientist you can really devote yourself fully to both science and logic.

    Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be Saved.

    Yes you can now call me saved city

    Of course you have to abandon science and logic, otherwise the cracks appear, no best to live life in blissfull ignorence, the man upstairs apparently doesnt like his autobiographical faults being pointed out and such.,


    Yes I look forward to being a creationist scientist, I already have my first thesis entitled God did it


    It simple, any question you can think of the correct answer is God did it
    Fool proof.

    Yes I can see me winning the Nobel prize for physics, chemistry biology maths human nature everything with this one thesis, I say thesis but really its just three words. But still it air tight.

    No need to make any human advances in medicine science engineering , no sir God doesnt want that, otherwise he would have given us all the knowledge with Adam, who did truely exist...........God did it, see fool proof

    Have my second journal article in works now, working title it says so in the Bible. A gripping read full of insight and wisdom and will really put creation science on the Map

    Hold on God Old saved city is going to show the heathens the error of their ways


  • #2390
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Total gobledegook JC.
    please be nice ... and if you can't be nice, don't make silly untrue statements.
    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Is that the best you have to offer? I talk about eminent scientists and you talk about matters of faith,,, pathetic!
    I differentiated between matters of Operative Science ... Astronomy and the use of rockets to explore space and other planets ... and matters of Faith ... like the question of origins and the age of the Earth.

    I must also tell you that Forensic Science is making good progress in confirming that an Intelligence / Intelligence(s) of inordinate capacity produced life.


  • #2391
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    I must also tell you that Forensic Science is making good progress in confirming that an Intelligence / Intelligence(s) of inordinate capacity produced life.
    Link please? This could be interesting.


  • Advertisement
  • #2392
    starskey77
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 143 ✭✭starskey77


    J C wrote: »
    As Spontaneous Evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is a Mathematical Impossibility ... and Abiogenesis breaks the Law of Biogenesis ... ye need to do some more 'head-scratching' and research if ye are to be taken seriously by anybody except yourselves!!!!:)

    Ironically, it has turned out that Abiogenesis/Spontaneous Evolution has the same scientific validity as a belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden ... and it is ID and Creation that are consistent with the Laws of Science.:)

    the chicken or the egg brainbox


  • #2393
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sin City wrote: »
    Yes you can now call me saved city.
    That's not my call ... Salvation is strictly between yourself and Jesus Christ.
    Sin City wrote: »
    Of course you have to abandon science and logic, otherwise the cracks appear, no best to live life in blissfull ignorence, the man upstairs apparently doesnt like his autobiographical faults being pointed out and such.,
    I embrace science and logic ... and that is why I no longer believe the totally illogical idea that life was spontaneously generated and spontaneously evolved from Pondkind to Man via a process of selected mistakes.

    Sin City wrote: »
    Yes I look forward to being a creationist scientist, I already have my first thesis entitled God did it.
    While it may well be true that God did many things ... deterministic and random processes have also done many things as well ... and Creation Scientists work hard at differentiating between what God did directly ... and what was produced by deterministic and random processes afterwards.

    Sin City wrote: »
    It simple, any question you can think of the correct answer is God did it
    Fool proof.
    Not correct ... for example, God didn't write your post ... you did.
    Sin City wrote: »
    Yes I can see me winning the Nobel prize for physics, chemistry biology maths human nature everything with this one thesis, I say thesis but really its just three words. But still it air tight.
    Its not air tight ... and if it's a Nobel Prize that you are after ... perhaps you should concentrate on Intelligent Design Research.
    Sin City wrote: »
    No need to make any human advances in medicine science engineering , no sir God doesnt want that, otherwise he would have given us all the knowledge with Adam, who did truely exist...........God did it, see fool proof.
    God helps those who help themselves ... and He has given us the intelligence and free will to do so.
    Sin City wrote: »
    Have my second journal article in works now, working title it says so in the Bible. A gripping read full of insight and wisdom and will really put creation science on the Map

    Hold on God Old saved city is going to show the heathens the error of their ways
    Your enthusiasm for Creation Science is good ... but it needs to be matched with a little restraint and common sense!!!
    Welcome aboard.:)


  • #2394
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    starskey77 wrote: »

    Originally Posted by J C
    As Spontaneous Evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is a Mathematical Impossibility ... and Abiogenesis breaks the Law of Biogenesis ... ye need to do some more 'head-scratching' and research if ye are to be taken seriously by anybody except yourselves!!!!

    Ironically, it has turned out that Abiogenesis/Spontaneous Evolution has the same scientific validity as a belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden ... and it is ID and Creation that are consistent with the Laws of Science.
    The truth will set you free.:)

    ... and bears repetition.

    Thanks starskey.


  • #2395
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    So, you have this 'super-bear' on the ark. I have to wonder why did such a bear come to be extinct and what were the mechanisms that caused the polar-bear and grizzly-bear to spontaneously appear as its replacement.

    It will be fun picking that one apart.


  • #2396
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    So, you have this 'super-bear' on the ark. I have to wonder why did such a bear come to be extinct and what were the mechanisms that caused the polar-bear and grizzly-bear to spontaneously appear as its replacement.
    The Grizzly and Polar Bear can interbreed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid

    Polarbrown-2.jpg

    The Ark 'super-bear', as you call it, is the common ancestor of all bear species living today. All bears of the Ursidae family can interbreed ... but other bear species, like the Giant Panda, may have lost their interbreeding capacity due to speciation.;)
    Masteroid wrote: »
    It will be fun picking that one apart.
    Yes, Creation Science is very interesting ... and great fun too!!!:)


  • #2397
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    The Grizzly and Polar Bear can interbreed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid

    Polarbrown-2.jpg

    The Ark 'super-bear', as you call it, is the common ancestor of all bear species living today. All bears of the Ursidae family can interbreed ... but other bear species, like the Giant Panda, may have lost their interbreeding capacity due to speciation.;)

    Yes, Creation Science is very interesting ... and great fun too!!!:)

    Okay, so going with that, and I don't have a problem with shared ancestory since evolutionary science explains this, where is that 'super-bear' now?

    I mean, after the travellers alighted from the Ark and and began to go forth and multiply, a community of super-bears, a species with a strong family resemblance, would have taken hold of territory and began to dominate in certain areas. It would have been the same for the super-cat and the super-dog and all the super-insects, super-lizards and super-birds.

    Obviously there are a couple of obvious problems with this scenario. For example, every meal eaten by a predator would almost necessarily result in an extinction event due to population crash. If there are only two antelopes, a breeding pair, and one becomes a lion's meal then it's all over for antelopes. And lions need more than one meal over the course of their lives.

    But I'll allow you to continue to ignore the far-reaching implications suggested here.

    So let's assume that Noah gave the super-elephant, the super-cow, the super-sheep, and all the other super-herbivores a head-start by releasing the super-lions, super-tigers and super-bears, oh my, some weeks after them.

    That way the herbivores can find places of safety.

    So now we can imagine all these hungry predators sniffing the air as they leave the Ark, trying to glean clues as to the whereabouts of their next meal.

    Where did their next meal come from?

    But my point is, what environmental pressures could have caused the forebear of all bears to undergo speciation and evolve itself out of the gene-pool in favour of specializations like the panda or polar bear?

    Why, in less than 6000-years, should every species that travelled on the Ark have become extinct to be replaced by less adaptable newer and more specialized genuses?

    What happened 6000-years ago to cause the super-bear to ditch its genetic diversity in favour of the evolutionary dead-end that is the panda?

    Your CSFI isn't too clever is it really?


  • #2398
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    Okay, so going with that, and I don't have a problem with shared ancestory since evolutionary science explains this, where is that 'super-bear' now?

    I mean, after the travellers alighted from the Ark and and began to go forth and multiply, a community of super-bears, a species with a strong family resemblance, would have taken hold of territory and began to dominate in certain areas. It would have been the same for the super-cat and the super-dog and all the super-insects, super-lizards and super-birds.

    Obviously there are a couple of obvious problems with this scenario. For example, every meal eaten by a predator would almost necessarily result in an extinction event due to population crash. If there are only two antelopes, a breeding pair, and one becomes a lion's meal then it's all over for antelopes. And lions need more than one meal over the course of their lives.
    You forget that there was effectively endless supplies of dead meat around, due to the mass deaths of every other animal on Earth ... and it would be quite well preserved at the high altitiude of the Ararat mountains, where the Ark came to rest ... and if you doubt me ... please remember that we can still dig up preserved Mammoth meat in Siberia ... thousands of years after the Flood.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    But I'll allow you to continue to ignore the far-reaching implications suggested here.
    No need to do this.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    So let's assume that Noah gave the super-elephant, the super-cow, the super-sheep, and all the other super-herbivores a head-start by releasing the super-lions, super-tigers and super-bears, oh my, some weeks after them.

    That way the herbivores can find places of safety.

    So now we can imagine all these hungry predators sniffing the air as they leave the Ark, trying to glean clues as to the whereabouts of their next meal.

    Where did their next meal come from?
    ... from the preserved bodies of some of the dead animals killed in the Flood ... see above.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    But my point is, what environmental pressures could have caused the forebear of all bears to undergo speciation and evolve itself out of the gene-pool in favour of specializations like the panda or polar bear?

    Why, in less than 6000-years, should every species that travelled on the Ark have become extinct to be replaced by less adaptable newer and more specialized genuses?
    Speciation through isolation and/or Natural Selection.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    What happened 6000-years ago to cause the super-bear to ditch its genetic diversity in favour of the evolutionary dead-end that is the panda?
    ... the same thing that caused the Poodle to ditch its genetic diversity in favour of the evolutionary dead-end that is a Poodle ... intense selection ... artificial selection, in the case of the Poodle ... and Natural Selection, in the case of the Panda.

    BTW, your correct observation that Natural selection reduces genetic diversity ... is a serious piece of evidence against spontaneous evolution being capable of producing increase in genetic diversity required to produce the great diversity that we observe in living organisms.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Your CSFI isn't too clever is it really?
    It is very clever ... actually.


  • #2399
    maguffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭maguffin


    J C wrote: »

    Originally Posted by Masteroidviewpost.gif
    Your CSFI isn't too clever is it really?

    It is very clever ... actually.

    I do hate repeating myself but CSFI...

    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'.


  • #2400
    Aquarius34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Aquarius34


    It's really to hard to comment on this thread, because it's just hearsay, bible quotes, biased views, religious views and Athesim thrown about.

    Is there any clarity here or is everyone just trying to be so self righteous here. How about leave personal conjecture aside and start using some common sense and try stick to a few points at a time. It's very hard to read through this thread as it's just seems like punches swung from every direction.

    I had to come on to the "flood" point.

    The ark, was not created by "God" and "God" of the bible did not save mankind. You are going to have to do proper research and not just blindly accept what the bible states. You have to understand the bible is not a hundred percent accurate and that is obvious to anyone who has the ability to discern and no fact from fiction. I'm not taking sides on any issue here. I am not even going to allow myself get dragged into this issue. But I really got myself icky when I read the claims about the flood on both the religious point of view and the scientific point of view. Both sides are wrong completely.

    • The Flood did in fact happen and it happened 12,000 years ago (last poleshift)
    • The ark did exist, and it was not a wooden boat, it was a submarine type ship
    • God did not save mankind,
    • The God of the bible, is not the creator of mankind or of this Universe.
    • Noah did exist and was part human half Annunaki and he was commissioned to save much of Earths species and humans as possible


  • Advertisement
  • #2401
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    I do hate repeating myself but CSFI...

    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.
    CFSI is scientifically sound ... as it can be repeatably observed that, where the origin of CFSI is determined ... it is always found to have an intelligent author.

    Masteroid 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.
    Not correct. There are many complex patterns that do occur by chance ... its the combination of functional, specified and complex patterns and information that marks CFSI as the unabiguous product of intelligence.

    Masteroid 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.
    Masteroid 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".
    I don't accept any of these generalisations.
    Masteroid 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".
    We probably can't do this ... but it is academic ... because the probablity of producing just one specific 100 chain functional biomolecule is greater than the number of atoms in the Big Bang Universe ... and thousands of tightly specified biomolecules arranged in thousands of highly specific combinations are required to produce a functional eye ... and this doesn't even begin to explain the production of sight ... which requires a brain to produce it.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an 'argument from ingorance'.
    Its an argument from repeated observation.

    The real argument from ignorance, if there is one at all, is the Evolutionist argument ... that life exists ... so therefore it had to be spontaneously produced ... because the only alternative, Direct Creation is unacceptable to a Materialist.

    This belief in the absoutism of Materialism is neatly summarised by Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.
    He wrote :-

    "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "


Advertisement