Creation vs. Evolution

[Greg Jennings]

Well, I may be an idiot Greg, but the round craft and many of the details in the Gilgamesh story are absurd and illogical.

Explain to me how a known real-life water vessel is a less logical choice than an ark unlike any ship seen ft centuries to come? Give us all the brilliant logic there, 6.

The Iraqi tablet is NOT 5,000 years old Greg. However secularists who seemingly are desperate to find something to discredit God's Word SPECULATE it is 5000 years old. We know that speculation is incorrect since the Genesis flood happened about 4500 years ago.

The tablet itself is over 4000 years old, which is far older than any manuscripts of the Bible. The story is thought to be much older than the manuscript, just like Genesis is much older than any manuscripts we have of it today.

Greg...literature is generally pretty easy to understand. When Jesus spoke in parables, or used metaphors...its easy to detect, as it is in other literature. Jesus and other Bible authors refer to Noah and the flood as a historical event.

You're free to think that. However, if you're right, then Jesus was either wrong or lying. That would seem to undermine your messiah a bit more than a loose-handed metaphor would.

The logic you are using is what Christ warns us about..... Not to be deceived by Satan that things will always continue. Unfortunately pre-flood people believed the lie. God's Word warns...
2 Peter 3:6,7 "Then he used the water to destroy the ancient world with a mighty flood. And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed."

Pre-flood people didn't know that the world was round. We have an enormous amount of information now that ancient peoples never had any access to, and we've gained massive amounts of knowledge from that. That's how we know that the flood story was a myth based on a real and devastating regional flood. There are even sediment deposits in the region that seem to show a major flood in the Sumer region at the right time.

So call me the devil, 6. That's what the church has done to those who espouse correct scientific beliefs for centuries. You're nothing new. Just another ignorant, scared person

 

[alwight]

:

I really don't care what you think Shannon dictates Yorzhik, in reality the occasional mistake and error within the genetic transcription process isn't noise,

:darwinsm: You should re-write Shannon. You're a genius! In fact, you should have your own show! :darwinsm:

Thanks Yorzhik your opinions are always very important to me. :comeout:

:

it remains only occasional errors durimg a transcription process and not a transmission system however much you'd like to spin it otherwise.

:darwinsm: Yeah, cause transcription is in no way transmitting anything :darwinsm:

Yes, a transmission or go-between's purpose is to accurately deliver a message so that it is ideally the same at both ends without inserting changes of its own, while a genetic transcription system only has one end and the original message is used by it to produce something else (protein) from the original code.

:

Yorzhik tries hard to spin a transcription process into some kind of universal law of "noise"

Ah, yeah... I'm trying to spin transcription to be a UNIVERSAL LAW of "NOISE." :darwinsm:

Well done Yorzhick but can you read without your lips moving yet?

:

to be apply anywhere that he thinks obfuscation is deemed necessary, meanwhile my eyes glaze over once again.

Your eyes glaze over because common descent is your religion you follow with blind faith.

No I see evidence and a scientific consensus while you believe in talking snakes a young earth and a supposed global flood that left no evidential record behind.

:

Show me how Shannon applies to genetic transcription in any meaningful and practical way first, since that is only your assertion so far, despite what you say below.

Mistakes/errors are simply changes from the original, noise however would be an inherent feature within any transmission system which may or may not cause mistakes to the original message, but trying to apply the same to a transcription system just begs the question why you'd even want to do that or call it noise?

:darwinsm: So I'm thinking you dream of being a professional parody someday.

Is a commentary strictly necessary here, or perhaps you have nothing better to say?

:

Call them what you like but I'm still not seeing any transmission system or go-between process.

A bit typically cryptic, just more smoke and mirrors Yorzhik? :idunno:

Oh, right. There is no go-between process between the DNA and the protein it makes. None. You figured it out. Good for you. :darwinsm:

Right, the transcription system may have several processes but its purpose is to transcribe not transmit. lain:

 

[6days]

Explain to me how a known real-life water vessel is a less logical choice than an ark unlike any ship seen ft centuries to come?

Many of the details in the Gilgamesh story are absurd or illogical.
For one thing the cube shaped boat of Gilgsmesh would have been subject to rolling. The dimensions of the ark, given to Noah from God, are seen to be optimal by S.W. Hong, S. S. Na, B. S. Hyun, S. Y. Hong, D. S. Gong, K. J. Kang, S. H. Suh, K. H. Lee and Y. G. Je are all on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon.
http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway

The tablet itself is over 4000 years old, which is far older than any manuscripts of the Bible. The story is thought to be much older than the manuscript, just like Genesis is much older than any manuscripts we have of it today.

I agree that manuscripts often provide history that is older than the manuscript. The Hebrews are known for a tradition of oral tradition and memorization. Gilgamesh is seen by virtually everyone as a mythical story. The similarities to the Genesis account is strong evidence that Gilgamesh is a pagan re-telling of the Genesis account.

You're free to think that. However, if you're right, then Jesus was either wrong or lying. That would seem to undermine your messiah a bit more than a loose-handed metaphor would.

I like the quote from C.S.Lewis
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to"

Pre-flood people didn't know that the world was round.

You must be referring to atheists? Surely those who believed God;s Word knew better.

We have an enormous amount of information now that ancient peoples never had any access to, and we've gained massive amounts of knowledge from that. That's how we know that the flood story was a myth based on a real and devastating regional flood. There are even sediment deposits in the region that seem to show a major flood in the Sumer region at the right time.

Its amazing how secularists often get so close to the truth but can't get all the way there as they realize they would be agreeing that God's Word is correct.
For example...
"Evidence Suggests Noah's Ark Flood Existed, Says Robert Ballard, Archaeologist Who Found Titanic"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobil...tanic_n_2273143.html?1355183096&ncid=webmail3
God's Word tells us that the whole world was submerged. And, there is evidence the whole world was covered. The Bible, and the creation model, explains that the mountains rose after the flood and deep canyons developed in the ocean to drain water from the land.

You will notice though in the article that the Guardian doesn't understand the 'theory ', thinking it was a local flood. But.... what if this archeologist and other scientists say there was a global flood? Will people allow themselves to consider that there was a recent global blood? Atheists can't allow themselves to follow the evidence to the truth found in God's Word.

You're nothing new. Just another ignorant, scared person. / You're an idiot

Not sure if I value your opinion on that or not Greg. Ha
But I am glad you are here in TOL sharing your beliefs.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Many of the details in the Gilgamesh story are absurd or illogical.
For one thing the cube shaped boat of Gilgsmesh would have been subject to rolling. The dimensions of the ark, given to Noah from God, are seen to be optimal by S.W. Hong, S. S. Na, B. S. Hyun, S. Y. Hong, D. S. Gong, K. J. Kang, S. H. Suh, K. H. Lee and Y. G. Je are all on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering, Taejon.
http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway

I'm certain that the Gilgamesh tale is an inaccurate re-telling of a real flood. I'm also certain that Noah's flood is as well. The real "ark" is the round one described in the Iraqi tablet, not the ones described in Gilgamesh or Noah.

About the ark according to Genesis's dimensions being sea-worthy: it could float according to tests, but there are more than a few other problems....
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/

I agree that manuscripts often provide history that is older than the manuscript. The Hebrews are known for a tradition of oral tradition and memorization. Gilgamesh is seen by virtually everyone as a mythical story. The similarities to the Genesis account is strong evidence that Gilgamesh is a pagan re-telling of the Genesis account.

http://time.com/44631/noah-christians-flood-aronofsky/
My link is from a highly reputable source, and claims that the Epic of Gilgamesh (among other flood myths) is far older than the story of Noah. Do you have a credible source saying otherwise?

I like the quote from C.S.Lewis
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to"

I don't think I was saying that Jesus absolutely wasn't a god. But he absolutely was a great teacher. I don't think there is any harm in you admitting that he was

You must be referring to atheists? Surely those who believed God;s Word knew better.

Mmhmm...just like the atheists that argued the sun orbited the Earth for centuries.....oh wait those were christians........
I love how you project. It's adorable

Its amazing how secularists often get so close to the truth but can't get all the way there as they realize they would be agreeing that God's Word is correct.
For example...
"Evidence Suggests Noah's Ark Flood Existed, Says Robert Ballard, Archaeologist Who Found Titanic"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobil...tanic_n_2273143.html?1355183096&ncid=webmail3
God's Word tells us that the whole world was submerged. And, there is evidence the whole world was covered. The Bible, and the creation model, explains that the mountains rose after the flood and deep canyons developed in the ocean to drain water from the land.

You will notice though in the article that the Guardian doesn't understand the 'theory ', thinking it was a local flood. But.... what if this archeologist and other scientists say there was a global flood? Will people allow themselves to consider that there was a recent global blood? Atheists can't allow themselves to follow the evidence to the truth found in God's Word.

Your link leads to a 404 error. Post the actual article so I can examine your claims about it, please.

Not sure if I value your opinion on that or not Greg. Ha
But I am glad you are here in TOL sharing your beliefs.

Well thanks. I really wish you'd just take a course in biology or geology though. You'd see how silly you're being

 

[Interplanner]

I'm certain that the Gilgamesh tale is an inaccurate re-telling of a real flood. I'm also certain that Noah's flood is as well. The real "ark" is the round one described in the Iraqi tablet, not the ones described in Gilgamesh or Noah.

About the ark according to Genesis's dimensions being sea-worthy: it could float according to tests, but there are more than a few other problems....
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/


http://time.com/44631/noah-christians-flood-aronofsky/
My link is from a highly reputable source, and claims that the Epic of Gilgamesh (among other flood myths) is far older than the story of Noah. Do you have a credible source saying otherwise?


I don't think I was saying that Jesus absolutely wasn't a god. But he absolutely was a great teacher. I don't think there is any harm in you admitting that he was



Mmhmm...just like the atheists that argued the sun orbited the Earth for centuries.....oh wait those were christians........
I love how you project. It's adorable


Your link leads to a 404 error. Post the actual article so I can examine your claims about it, please.

Well thanks. I really wish you'd just take a course in biology or geology though. You'd see how silly you're being

Greg:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/vide...mozilla-002&hsimp=yhs-002&hspart=mozilla&tt=b


About 2/3 through two leading British antiquities scholars are both quoted saying that world geomythology derives from Genesis, not the reverse.

 

[Interplanner]

How is that people who don't believe in God are suddenly quite certain of what He can or can't do?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/vide...mozilla-002&hsimp=yhs-002&hspart=mozilla&tt=b


About 2/3 through two leading British antiquities scholars are both quoted saying that world geomythology derives from Genesis, not the reverse.

My article is from 2014. If what you're saying is true, would you be so kind as to post a link to confirm and so that we can see if perhaps your Brits are holding an older view formed prior to the new evidence?


Excuse me, I've misunderstood. I now understand that you are saying that there are two scholars in the video that agree with your statement. To that I say, "And?" Two British antiquities scholars hold this view.......versus the opposing views of nearly all of their field. Perhaps your scholars were not yet aware of recent finds, or perhaps they simply hold an unorthodox view. There are a myriad of experts I could quote that oppose them, so I don't see what the overall point of posting the dissenting opinion of two scholars was

 

[Tyrathca]

How is that people who don't believe in God are suddenly quite certain of what He can or can't do?

Is there a particular claim you are talking about or are just talking to yourself?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, I still think you are bonkers btw , but you are apparently arguing that predicting, perhaps correctly, that snow would fall in NYC in March is a sign from God that you are a prophet but the fact that the world didn't end as you predicted last year can be waved away as a glitch?
Come on man, get real for a change, you have no special insights from angels, as a prophet you suck and that snow falling in march in NYC is not exactly miraculous. lain:

Dear alwight,

Again, I'm not bonkers, no matter how many times you think it. You've got to realize that I gave a certain amount {in inches} of how much snow would fall. It was divine, not a prediction. Yes, I made a glitch before and no one wants to quit harping on it because it is only one of two 'glitches' that I've made here on my almost 3 years at TOL. BTW, I did not predict the end of the world. It will not come to an end. The meek shall remain on Earth, as Jesus promised. {"The meek shall inherit the Earth."} There is no END coming around for them this time. 2/3 of the Earth's population shall die though. It is what is called Armageddon.

Get real, man? I am real and really going to Heaven, God Willing. That snow falling in March was a big deal, given to me by God, and very close to me. He told me that He would send 7 inches and He did just as He said. If it were not such a big deal, I would have not had a frantic reporter calling me every 1/4 hour. So you think I suck as a prophet? Could you do a better job over the space of almost 42 years?? Could you not make a mistake in 42 years? You won't even read my book, so you don't know all of the things that I am right about during that time. Even Moses made a mistake. Jonah made a mistake. Lot's wife made a mistake. Her husband Lot was told by angels that no one should turn and look back at Sodom being destroyed. She did it anyway. But it was a costly mistake. She turned into a pillar of salt. She had one simple thing to do and couldn't. I have tons of hard things to do and I am not making tons of mistakes doing it, but rather the opposite. Thanks for the vote of confidence, alwight!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

@ Michael,
Alwight is all right in his premise here. If you maintain that you are a prophet, but you speak things prophetically that don't come to pass, you can't be considered a prophet by biblical standards. And this whole thread is arguing whether biblical standards are appropriate to apply to science, so why would we apply them less to the realm they deal more directly with?

If I prophecy 97 times, and it all comes to pass, then I am a good prophet. If I prophecy 2 other times, and it does not come to pass, it means the prophecy was wrong and not of God, not that I am not a prophet. I am glad that God is not as harsh as you about forgiving me. Here is how you can tell a prophecy: if that thing comes to pass then it is of God, but if it does not, then it is not of God, and you shall not be afraid of the prophet. I'm not looking for anyone to be afraid of me. And if you don't want to believe me then whatever. See what the future holds. That's what you must do with any prophecy, so go for it. I think Deut. 18:22KJV is a good way to know if a prophecy it true or not. Wow, forgiveness around here is scarce. Eeek!

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. [Deu 18:22 KJV]

Derf, how do you think I prophesied that 7 {SEVEN INCHES} inches of snow would fall on a certain day on a Newspaper Office Building, so that one of the reporters would know that God was with me after all? God told me that He would do it. It was not my idea. I'm not perfect. Neither was Moses, and he SAW God, but still he struck his staff against a rock from which water spilled forth for the Israelites to drink from. But he struck the rock with his staff as if he were causing the water to come forth, and not that God was doing the miracle instead. I spoke presumptuously, and so you need not be afraid that Armageddon should have happened this past autumn. That is what I said wrong because of certain posters here who kept bugging me for 'when, when, when!!' I'll not make the same mistake again.

Have Mercy Like God And Jesus,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I'm afraid that's far from possible, Michael. Doesn't make the story "wrong", it just got a makeover

Dear Greg,

Yes, it is possible. The only animals on earth that survived were those who could breathe in the water. All of the land animals, including birds, bit the dust.

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

If I prophecy 97 times, and it all comes to pass, then I am a good prophet.

But Michael you have not made 97 prophecies. Let alone 97 correct ones.

If you have you certainly haven't tried to share them widely.

If I prophecy 2 other times, and it does not come to pass, it means the prophecy was wrong and not of God, not that I am not a prophet.

Yes but if your most important prophecy is false and your only other claim is of prophesying about a snow storm in a city that gets snow regularly then is it so hard to understand the lack of trust in you?

Michael Cadry said on Apr 7, 2015 7:04 AM Okay, brethren. The Lord has confided in me that Armageddon will happen before the end of this year. That means Jesus will be returning directly thereafter. I'm not claiming to know the day or hour, or even the month. I asked the Lord if I could tell others and He said yes. How extremely wonderful!! I long for the day!!! God Be With You All, Michael

You said that the lord TOLD you things, this isn't a "mistake" this is either God not actually telling you things (either you inferred it somehow, or you lied) or God being wrong. Did God tell you this or not? Where is your "mistake"?

I spoke presumptuously, and so you need not be afraid that Armageddon should have happened this past autumn. That is what I said wrong because of certain posters here who kept bugging me for 'when, when, when!!' I'll not make the same mistake again.

You lied that God had told you something in order to appease posters on this forum then shared this prophecy beyond this forum? You were presumptuous to say you had your god tell you something when he did not?

 

[MichaelCadry]

But Michael you have not made 97 prophecies. Let alone 97 correct ones.

If you have you certainly haven't tried to share them widely.

I have not kept track of how many prophecies I've made in the past 42 years. I'm guessing it isn't 97 either. But I can't say for sure. No, I haven't tried to share them widely. You either read my book or you don't. I am surely not going to retype the book for you here on TOL. And since you don't believe my book, you're never going to know how many prophecies I've made, or even touch on the amount.

Yes but if your most important prophecy is false and your only other claim is of prophesying about a snow storm in a city that gets snow regularly then is it so hard to understand the lack of trust in you?

My most important prophecy was convincing that NYC News reporter that God was with me and my testimony. It was my first time and it was awesome and innocent. By the way, EVERYONE knows it snows in NYC. The miraculous part was me saying that it would be 7" and on a certain day. Not that it snowed, but that it snowed 7" as the Lord told me.

Michael Cadry said on Apr 7, 2015 7:04 AM Okay, brethren. The Lord has confided in me that Armageddon will happen before the end of this year. That means Jesus will be returning directly thereafter. I'm not claiming to know the day or hour, or even the month. I asked the Lord if I could tell others and He said yes. How extremely wonderful!! I long for the day!!! God Be With You All, Michael

You said that the lord TOLD you things, this isn't a "mistake" this is either God not actually telling you things (either you inferred it somehow, or you lied) or God being wrong. Did God tell you this or not? Where is your "mistake"?

You lied that God had told you something in order to appease posters on this forum then shared this prophecy beyond this forum? You were presumptuous to say you had your god tell you something when he did not?

I made a mistake about what the Lord God had said to me. That is all I have to tell you. I have explained myself already to others here and to you, Ty. The devil will be with you as you watch Jesus coming with the clouds of heaven. You have chosen your poison over and over again. Yes, I know you don't believe in Jesus or Satan. Well, when you see Jesus, then you will also know that Satan exists also. May God Be With You Then, Ty!! I hope all of you will come to your senses then. I wish no malice upon you.

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

I have not kept track of how many prophecies I've made in the past 42 years. I'm guessing it isn't 97 either. But I can't say for sure. No, I haven't tried to share them widely. You either read my book or you don't. I am surely not going to retype the book for you here on TOL. And since you don't believe my book, you're never going to know how many prophecies I've made, or even touch on the amount.

But given you have only shared one supposed correct prophecy with anyone here isn't it fair enough that we a very skeptical of your prophetic powers given your much larger failures of prophecy?

Besides where is it in your book because after a brief keyword search of it I can't seem to find any prophecies about anything that has happened yet. Although I did learn that apparently you think psychics/magicians are real, evil and Uri Geller is the antichrist... Oh and apparently you live a sad repressed life of suppressing your homosexual urges and guilt regarding past sexual behaviours. To be honest I feel kind of sorry for you due to the twisted psychology you've trapped yourself in.

My most important prophecy was convincing that NYC News reporter that God was with me and my testimony.

No your most important prophecy by any reasonable measure is the one involving gods plan for all of creation. i.e. the Apocalypse. That was is and forever will be the most important prophecy a prophet can make (and you like the millions of fake prophets before and after you will keep getting it wrong, because it's never going to happen)

It was my first time and it was awesome and innocent. By the way, EVERYONE knows it snows in NYC. The miraculous part was me saying that it would be 7" and on a certain day. Not that it snowed, but that it snowed 7" as the Lord told me.

And yet someone successfully predicting the amount of snow on a particular day in snow season is still not all that impressive. The odds of someone doing that by chance are not all that unlikely even if you did do it.

I made a mistake about what the Lord God had said to me. That is all I have to tell you. I have explained myself already to others here and to you, Ty.

Either God said something to you or not. It's actually very simple. Clearly he did not say anything to you and you just inferred it or made it up. That or you can't tell the difference between god or the devil telling you something until you get it wrong.

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

Again, I'm not bonkers, no matter how many times you think it. You've got to realize that I gave a certain amount {in inches} of how much snow would fall. It was divine, not a prediction. Yes, I made a glitch before and no one wants to quit harping on it because it is only one of two 'glitches' that I've made here on my almost 3 years at TOL. BTW, I did not predict the end of the world. It will not come to an end. The meek shall remain on Earth, as Jesus promised. {"The meek shall inherit the Earth."} There is no END coming around for them this time. 2/3 of the Earth's population shall die though. It is what is called Armageddon.

Armageddon would nevertheless be the end of the world as we know it Michael and a far more significant event than snow falling in NYC in March. As we know snow falls in NYC in March, big deal, good guess maybe but hardly indicative of a prophet. To be a prophet you'd have to be reliable and consistent which clearly you're not.

Get real, man? I am real and really going to Heaven, God Willing. That snow falling in March was a big deal, given to me by God, and very close to me. He told me that He would send 7 inches and He did just as He said. If it were not such a big deal, I would have not had a frantic reporter calling me every 1/4 hour. So you think I suck as a prophet? Could you do a better job over the space of almost 42 years?? Could you not make a mistake in 42 years? You won't even read my book, so you don't know all of the things that I am right about during that time. Even Moses made a mistake. Jonah made a mistake. Lot's wife made a mistake. Her husband Lot was told by angels that no one should turn and look back at Sodom being destroyed. She did it anyway. But it was a costly mistake. She turned into a pillar of salt. She had one simple thing to do and couldn't. I have tons of hard things to do and I am not making tons of mistakes doing it, but rather the opposite. Thanks for the vote of confidence, alwight!

Michael

On a scale of 1 to 10, snow falling in NYC in March = <1 while Armageddon = >10. A prophet must get the big stuff right at least else all you are Michael is a rather poor Old Moore's Almanac.

 

[6days]

I'm certain that the Gilgamesh tale is an inaccurate re-telling of a real flood.

You are correct.... It is an inacurrate re-telling of a true account.

About the ark according to Genesis's dimensions being sea-worthy: it could float according to tests, but there are more than a few other problems....
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...yes-180950385/

Remember the argument was that the Gilgamesh tale is illogical and absurd?
The cube boat would rollover where as engineers have called the God designed ark "optimal".
Even your paper from the students admits "“You don’t think of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we discovered it would work,” said Thomas Morris, one of the students who worked on the project, in a statement.

I don't think I was saying that Jesus absolutely wasn't a god. But he absolutely was a great teacher.

So... good teachers according to you claim that they have pre-existence.....they claim to be able to forgive sin..... they claim that unforgiven sinners will spend eternity in the lake of fire?
Jesus claimed He is the one and only way to God.
Either Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be....our Creator, Lord, Savior...... or He was a liar.

 

[Derf]

If I prophecy 97 times, and it all comes to pass, then I am a good prophet. If I prophecy 2 other times, and it does not come to pass, it means the prophecy was wrong and not of God, not that I am not a prophet. I am glad that God is not as harsh as you about forgiving me. Here is how you can tell a prophecy: if that thing comes to pass then it is of God, but if it does not, then it is not of God, and you shall not be afraid of the prophet. I'm not looking for anyone to be afraid of me. And if you don't want to believe me then whatever. See what the future holds. That's what you must do with any prophecy, so go for it. I think Deut. 18:22KJV is a good way to know if a prophecy it true or not. Wow, forgiveness around here is scarce. Eeek!



Derf, how do you think I prophesied that 7 {SEVEN INCHES} inches of snow would fall on a certain day on a Newspaper Office Building, so that one of the reporters would know that God was with me after all? God told me that He would do it. It was not my idea. I'm not perfect. Neither was Moses, and he SAW God, but still he struck his staff against a rock from which water spilled forth for the Israelites to drink from. But he struck the rock with his staff as if he were causing the water to come forth, and not that God was doing the miracle instead. I spoke presumptuously, and so you need not be afraid that Armageddon should have happened this past autumn. That is what I said wrong because of certain posters here who kept bugging me for 'when, when, when!!' I'll not make the same mistake again.

Have Mercy Like God And Jesus,

Michael

Hi Michael,
I hope you can understand, it's not a matter of forgiveness, it's a matter of source of truth. When you hold up the Bible as God's Word, and say it is the ultimate source of truth, and then you speak what you say is God's Word of prophecy, and it doesn't come true, what are unbelievers supposed to do with that? Is it possible for them to believe the next prophecy you deliver? Is it possible for them to believe you when you quote scripture. Forget unbelievers for a moment--what are believers supposed to do with your message. Most prophecy had some kind of imperative attached to it--repentance from evil, usually. If a prophet came with an imperative to stop doing one thing and start something else instead, but the thing didn't come to pass, the people did not have to listen to the imperative.

You've given imperatives to the followers of this thread--that they should believe the Bible's account of creation, or that there would be dire, eternal consequences. SO if you hold up your prophecy as the legitimization of your message, and any prophecies fail to come to pass, you've lost credibility--there's no reason to fear you BY THE VERY BIBLE YOU PREACH. And since a prophet is supposed to be giving God's commands to the people, God's word is now telling your listeners not to fear God. It's not just you that have lost credibility.

So you tell me, where should my loyalties lie--with you, who are telling me not to believe the Bible, or the Bible.

I don't write this lightly. I appreciate your passion and your faithfulness to this thread, and your ability to show love to those who disagree with you-don't stop any of that. But dig into the Bible and get to know it and forget prophesying about future events: unless/until you have an eternally faithful source.

God Bless you, Michael.
Derf

 

[Yorzhik]

It applies to when transmitting a message perfectly/unaltered is desirable. It does not apply to when all information, information storage or information creation.

It does apply to all information transmitted as measured by Shannon.

I'm going to presume this was more of a knee jerk response because you just assume I'm wrong. I'm not sure how else you couldn't have thought through something that is so clearly wrong based on even your day to day experiences.

Why is it so obviously wrong? Because even when you can guarantee that all the "free information" is both intelligible and even potentially interesting people NEVER want it, you never want it either and for good reason. Case in point - when you turn on the television do you turn on EVERY channel at the same time or just one? When you make a phone call to your relative do you want a dozen documentaries to play at the same time? I'm going to assume that you are a normal person who would answer "no" but then how would you reconcile that with the the fact you would then be rejecting "free" information? If the station on a radio is being interfered with by another distant station on the same frequency do you call that interference noise? Isn't it also more "free information"?

If you are going to make an analogy, make it fit in the same context as that which is being explained. To make the analogy accurate, the free information would have to work... like the free information gained from noise in DNA which creates a new working feature. Therefore, since watching all channels at once, or documentaries playing while you make a phone call does not work, it is not analogous to new features that do work. So free information would be when you text your wife that you are at the grocery store and she answers back "bring stuff for tacos" that instead you receive, because of noise, a text that reads, "bring cheese, hamburger, and sour cream for d tacos.lllll We have tomatoes and a taco shells oaikado" and it happens to work because it is accurate about what is in your kitchen.

So, yeah, everyone would want free information in the same context that DNA gets free information for new features.

Heck, if you'd like to add natural selection to this analogy go right ahead, but remember that the noise you advocate that is free information for DNA in the context of common descent *is functional* most of the time.

I'm not actually sure I understand your wording here. But does this mean that a mutation reversing a mutation from several generations prior is an increase in information or is that still noise to you and thus a decrease in information?

Yes, it counts as increasing information. Now it's your job to show that this is normal in order for common descent to work.

Nice strawman but I never said they were exactly the same.

I didn't either. They are both evaluation functions, and in the same context, so saying they are the same is within the bounds of normal human discourse.

I said that your description of genetic algorithms (and your excuse for why you didn't have to apply your "Shannon prevent new information" rule)could be applied to mutation/natural selection just as easily. So are you arguments about genetic algorithms wrong or is there something specific about mutation/natural selection which exempts it from your arguments applying?

No, you forgot what was said. You still must apply Shannon to a genetic algorithm and the information in the evaluation function is greater than the possible information content of the random sample.

No, your memory of the argument is wrong.

No regardless of who is right about Shannon information and DNA that particular question was dumb as answering it necessitated I assume you were right about the very thing we were debating.

Fair enough. Let's put it this way, since messages in the cell satisfy all the requirements to be a message, if you want to claim that Shannon does not apply to that set of messages you'll have to provide evidence why.

 

[Yorzhik]

So you think that "noise is anything that can disturb that signal" means that "noise is always undesirable". Are you for real?

Shannon is for real. Yes.

OF COURSE mutations "disturb" the "signal" in the sense that they cause change. But since they cause variation in the population genotype then they provide the raw material for evolution to work. Natural selection provides the mechanism for information from the environment to work its way back to the DNA of the gene-pool.

Quite a claim. Now just provide your evidence and you'll have yourself an important discovery.

That you continue to claim that mutations are always harmful shows you have no understanding of what natural selection does.

You aren't right about that. I'm plenty open to the claim that mutations allow for messages that work better (in the context of common descent), but being scientific about the endeavor, since Shannon shows your claim to be unlikely, you must provide the evidence to the contrary.

And I've just noticed in the other post that you accept that mutations are reversible processes, and that since a mutation can reverse a previous mutation then mutations can increase the information of the genome. Great - we're getting somewhere.

See there. I'm reasonable about evidence for your side.

 

[Tyrathca]

It does apply to all information transmitted as measured by Shannon.

Shannon information can not be applied to everything in the universe. Your comment is both extremely vague and ignores the underlying principles upon which Shannon information is built: it is a model for communication and as Shannon himself put it: "The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximatelya message selected at another point"

It doesn't apply to just anywhere you can label something as information.

If you are going to make an analogy, make it fit in the same context as that which is being explained. To make the analogy accurate, the free information would have to work... like the free information gained from noise in DNA which creates a new working feature. Therefore, since watching all channels at once, or documentaries playing while you make a phone call does not work, it is not analogous to new features that do work. So free information would be when you text your wife that you are at the grocery store and she answers back "bring stuff for tacos" that instead you receive, because of noise, a text that reads, "bring cheese, hamburger, and sour cream for d tacos.lllll We have tomatoes and a taco shells oaikado" and it happens to work because it is accurate about what is in your kitchen.

I'm seeing that you are completely missing the point of what I said. Simply put, I was not making an analogy. I was giving an extreme/exaggerated example to highlight why your retort regarding "free information" (and the purpose and intention behind human communication systems) was wrong.

So, yeah, everyone would want free information in the same context that DNA gets free information for new features.

No they wouldn't. That method is tedious, slow, unreliable and a pain to set up the necessary conditions of mutation and selection and we often (though not always) have other more expedient ways to solve problems for us.

Though I bet you're going to misunderstand/misrepresent what I've said here.

Yes, it counts as increasing information. Now it's your job to show that this is normal in order for common descent to work.

I'm not sure what you mean by asking I "show that is normal".

But I'm glad you've finally accepted that yes information can increase thanks to mutations. Normal, common, whatever is irrelevant given you admit that it CAN happen. Given your entire premise was that Shannon information theory said that information could NEVER increase I'm sure you'll find a way to backtrack out of this statement.

I didn't either. They are both evaluation functions, and in the same context, so saying they are the same is within the bounds of normal human discourse.


No, you forgot what was said. You still must apply Shannon to a genetic algorithm and the information in the evaluation function is greater than the possible information content of the random sample.

No, your memory of the argument is wrong.

Then I'm not really sure what we are arguing about in this part. And to be honest I don't really care since it hardly matters now that you admit that information can increase due to mutations in at least some situations.

Fair enough. Let's put it this way, since messages in the cell satisfy all the requirements to be a message, if you want to claim that Shannon does not apply to that set of messages you'll have to provide evidence why.

We are not talking about "messages in cells" we are talking very specifically about DNA and inheritance and I STILL don't understand why you think proving anything about mRNA and protein synthesis has any bearing on DNA and inheritance. DNA and inheritance does NOT fulfill the the requirements to have Shannon information applied to it.

If you think it does please actually spell it out with direct reference to Shannon information - extra point if you directly reference the original paper (I won't hold my breath though since you've never actually answered this question - note: word associations like being able to use the word "code" or "information" in a meaningful sentence with DNA does not count.)