The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wrote:

Originally Posted by monosharp
It (Intellignet Design) was laughed at by the Scientific community.

I don't think it was 'officially' ruled out because there was no submitted papers to the peer review process.

Then again, it is in no way science, it is religion.


Originally Posted by J C
...this is what is known as a Catch 22!!!

...it reminds me of a bully I once knew at school ... his favourite trick was to give one of his books to a younger child and he would then blame the child for taking the book and beat him up ... the last person that he pulled that trick on was me ... and put it this way, he didn't do it again ... to me or anybody else!!!


ISAW
How does Joseph Heller's book or bullys at school relate in any way to Intelligent Design not being science?

Ever heard of "peer review" or the "falsifiability criterion"?

According to Monosharp, the Evolutionist establishment laugh at ID and would sack any scientist that they suspect of even thinking about ID, if they could ... but despite this, ID Proponents are somehow remiss in not submitting their papers for 'peer review' to these bullies ... and Monosharp then confirms that even if the ID Proponents did submit a paper for 'peer-review' it woud be promptly rejected... on the spurious basis that ID isn't science ... but religion!!!

... I'd say that the current treatment of ID Theistic Evolutionists by their Evolutionist colleagues is indeed a 'Catch 22' ... i.e. they are provided with absurd, no-win choices ... and regardless of choice, the same negative outcome is a certainty!!!:(

... of course Creation Scientists have long ago stopped beating their heads of this particular 'brick wall' ... and they have set up their OWN 'peer-review' system!!!

...and the fact that NOBODY on this thread, except myself, has condemned the advocacy of this discrimination means that EVERYBODY on this thread are morally guilty by association, with it.

Ironically, I find myself, a Creationist, defending Thesitic Evolutionists against discrimination from other evolutionists ... even though I utterly reject the Theology of BOTH parties!!!

J C wrote: »

...just have a look at this mutation generator and the effect it has on INFORMATION ... go on push the button even 10 times and see NOTHING but HARM being done to the information in the sentence!!!
http://www.randommutation.com/
... and that is what Mutagenesis is doing to your genome ... and the only thing limiting the damage is the automatic damage repair systems in your cells ... that are themselves Intelligently Designed!!!:D:eek:

I inputted an actual genetic sequence and "mutated it" 10 times. Obviously some of the replacement letters weren't those in the genetic code. However, where the letter happened to be one which represents a particular set of bases e.g. Y represents either C or T, I chose randomly which to insert. Where the replaced letter could not indicate any base, I used that letter to substitute the original amino acid encoded for the one which the new letter represented. If the new letter did not represent anything at the DNA or protein level, I skipped that amino acid and treated it like a deletion mutation.

The result?
A gene sequence that encoded a protein which could potentially differ in ten places:
No change to amino acid sequence: 4/10
No predicted change of function: 4/10. Amino acids changes were for those with the same chemistry i.e. conservative changes.
Deletions 2/10: One of these deletions has been identified in normal people, thus indicating that this amino acid is not necessary for protein function. The second occurs in a region of the protein which is not well conserved throughout evolutionary lineages i.e. no selection pressure to maintain the sequence, therefore unlikely to be functionally important.

None of these changes hit any of the regions known, by empirical methods, to be necessary for protein function. If I had seen any of these in a patient with something wrong with them, I would be suspicious that any of these were pathogenic.

Not a perfect test but I had ten mins on my hands. And you've got to be kidding me if you can't read the sentence "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" after ten letter changes.

Edit: The random mutation generator for the English language sentence above obviously has a great deal more reserve characters to bring into play (using A-Z, both upper case and lower case, and 0-9). The genetic code can only change to three other options (not accounting for rearrangements/deletions/etc). And I ran it three times and noted that it wasn't exactly random - it seemed to preferentially replace letters which might be key to pattern recognition e.g. the "q" in "quick".

Edit #2: Not to mention that we are trying to discern the text in English (Sam gave a very good example of this in his demolition of apparent CSI). The random changes made may well make the text more readable for non-English speakers; thus the idea that the inofrmation is "degrading" is completely subjective. I can't believe I wasted even ten mins on a completely useless exercise

J C wrote: »

...just examples of pre-existing genetic diversity which was in the CSI infused at Creation!!!:)

How dishonest is this? You have essentially abandoned CSI several pages ago. Of course you would never admit that. However, you were confronted by a real paper that destroys the idea and you didn't even try to defend it. Now a few posts later, and you start spouting the same old CSI nonsense - shame on you. If you want to know why most people on this thread have nothing but contempt for your so called "logic" - this type of behaviour is why.

I can't remember who said (maybe Sam Vimes), but I think one of the best points made on this thread was this. If some version of the Christian God does exist (personally, I doubt it) then he will surely have a special place in hell reserved for the likes of J C and all those charlatans and liars who promote YEC as science.

J C wrote: »

...and the Christians on this thread 'sit on their' hands ... and only come out occasionally to join the Atheists in having a 'pot shot' at me!!!

... you should all be ashamed of yourselves!!!

As the main proponent for YEC on Boards you might receive some flack (you also give it), I don't think it is far to accuse Christians of taking pot shots. As I see it, JC, the Christians here either don't much care for the creationism debate (there is more to life than the debate, right?) or don't believe the YEC has any credibility.

I dream of locking this thread!

J C wrote: »

...and the Christians on this thread 'sit on their' hands ... and only come out occasionally to join the Atheists in having a 'pot shot' at me!!!

Did it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, the reason why it's you (with the odd bit of support from Wolfsbane and the occasional passer by) on one side and everyone else, Christian and atheist alike, on the other is that it is you who are wrong and not them?

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...in fact, it is always the Atheists who go 'running back to their mammies' to 'lick their wounds' and complain about ME!!!


ISAW
I do not believe yu can prove this assertion! Nor do I believe it is true. It may be true but if only a single non atheist complained about you it would make it false.

...I should have said that it is always the Atheists (and their 'fellow travellers') who go 'running back to their mammies' to 'lick their wounds' and complain about ME!!!

...happy now?

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... eh ... em ... could you even begin by DEFINING 'evolution' for me ...
.... and a definition that holds some potential to account for the astronomical CSI transition from 'Pondkind to Mankind' would be welcome ... to save your embarassment for Evolution ... and my embarassment for YOU!!!

monosharp
The scientific definition has been given to you more times then I can count and you have done 1 of 2 things with it. Ignored it, claimed that's not the correct definition.

ISAW
When a species changes into another species with which the prior species could not mate it has evolved.

That does not necessarily mean the prior species will become extinct.
It could be that the new species suddenly encounters something which makes it extinct. so evolution does not necessarily mean "progress". But one can understand that a particular trait would enable those more adapted to a particular environment to survive in it. The trait manifesting at the macro end is encoded in DNA on the micro end.

...so Monosharp just 'hand waves' and profers no definition of Evolution, good, bad or indifferent...
...and ISAW talks about Natural Selection of the genetic diversity produced by EXISTING CSI ... without providing any mechanism / explanation for the existence of the CSI, in the first place!!!!!

liamw wrote: »

J.C, I see you still haven't reviewed that paper equivariant sent on that completely destroys Demski's CSI. You also haven't responded to Sam Vimes' destruction of your silly interpretation of CSI.

If you're so sure that CSI is a valid concept, you should easily be able to refute these arguments... so go ahead, we're all waiting with baited breath. Prove us all wrong.

/Approves of all of this
Make it bigger too, harder to ignore

equivariant wrote: »

The lie was your claim that no one in this thread (other than you) has condemned discrimination in the workplace based on someones privately held religious beliefs. Several people have done so (perhaps without using the word condemn, but nevertheless, the meaning was clear)

...where has this condemnation been made by others on this thread?
... and where has the censure been applied to the Atheists for their advocacy of discrimination against ID Proponents and Creationists ?

equivariant wrote: »

You, on the other hand, have continued to make unsubstantiated allegations (of discrimination against creation "scientists"). It is typical of the creationist mindset to think it acceptable to make such allegations without presenting any evidence.

The discrimination that you refer to may or may not have taken place (I doubt that it is very prevalent), but unless you are willing to refer to specific verifiable evidence or cases of such discrimination that have been proven in court, you should keep your allegations to yourself.

... could the discrimination meted out to the Jews in Nazi Germany be proven in a German Court during the 1930's?
It couldn't for the simple reason that the Law allowed it - and the Courts were therefore prime enforcers of the discrimination ... rather than ... the prime protector from discrimination.

During the early 1930s the lives of the Jews weren't directly threatended. At the start they were merely excluded systematically from academia and the professions including science and they became the butt of Music Hall jokes and their livelihoods were generally 'messed-about' and they had to live an increasingly surreptitious existence.

They effectively became 'non-persons' hounded out of the public gaze with their rights and academic qualifications gradually stripped away.
I know all about it, because my uncle served with the Allied Control Council after the war ... when some of the prime perpretators and the 'legal engineers' that facilitated these outrages were hunted down and brought to justice.
My uncle always endorsed the truism that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance ... and for evil and injustice to prevail, all it takes is for good people to remain SILENT!!!
...and don't think for a moment, that what happened to the Jews couldn't happen again to some other minority in some other part of the World.
We must always remember that Germany was a modern relatively wealthy high-tech country with a fully functioning legal system and a noble people with a broadly Christian culture.
My uncle told me a story about the trial of a Nazi prisoner who had been a judge. The Nazi judge said that he was only enforcing the law in his court and he claimed that he was personally revolted by the photos he had been shown of the Concentration Camps by the War Crimes Court. He said that he knew nothing about the terrible conditions in the Camps ... and he then turned and asked in disbelief "HOW could all this have happened?" ... and the War Crimes Officer hearing the case, told him that it happened the first time that he condemned a person that he knew to be innocent in his court !!!

Everybodys rights should therefore be respected and vindicated ... because if you tolerate discrimination or injustice against others ... it does have a nasty habit of turning up at your own door!!!

Some of my best friends are Evolutionists and indeed I also know and respect a number of Atheists. I find them all to be very nice people and I would be the first to come to their defence if they were threatened with discrimination ... and I have done so on this thread in the case of Prof Francis Collins and Dr Richard Sternberg ... who are both Evolutionists ... not because I agree with their worldview, because I don't ... but because the advocacy of discrimiation based on a man's faith (or lack therof) should NEVER be tolerated.

The positon that some Creationists find themselves today has parallels with the treatment of the Jews throughout history.
Creationist teachers are summarily sacked for even mentioning ID ... and ID proponents are excluded from jobs, while Materialistic Evolution is compulsorly taught to Creationist children ... because it's the law.
The calls for me to identify myself and my scientific qualifications on this thread ... by guys openly advocating gross job discrimination against Creationists and the rescinding of their University degrees are very sinister indeed!!!
Some people, on this thread have engaged in open endorsement of job discrimination and open support for the sacking of Creationists from jobs within Academia. No censure followed such outbursts and indeed nobody condemned them. The only reaction was to censure me, when I spoke the truth and condemned such advocacy of discrimination.

Creationists have become the new 'non-persons' of the 21st Century, apparently stripped of all rights to equality for themselves and their children ... and few people seem to care.

ISAW wrote: »

You asked for a definition of "evolution". I supplied you with one. why should i be embarrassed by the definition I gave?

Furthermore where did i state that god had nothing to do with creation? i only pointed out that fundamentalist claims like the Earth being of the order of 10,000 or even 100,000 years old is not in keeping with science and that MOST CHRISTIANS i.e. 95 per cent plus agree with this!

Just like most Muslims do not support Al Khyda.

...I would hope that on mature reflection you would see the error of comparing Creation Scientists with a Terrorist Organisation?

...there are some excellent Muslim Creation Scientists BTW.

... and you were complaining yesterday about the faith position of Sir Isaac Newton and my acceptance that he was a Creation Scientist despite the fact that he was an Arian and possibly even a Deist.
... my answer is that Creation Science isn't a sectarian activity ... and we welcome Creation Scientists based on their abilities and academic excellence ... and we DON'T advocate discrimination on the basis of Religious Belief!!!:eek: