"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

EI_Flyboy

You know, if there is a God, it doesn't care whether you believe in it or not.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

... and instead, you now say that 'God mustn't have done it' ... and therefore it 'did itself' ... despite having no plausible ability to do so!!:)

I am using the word 'materialist' in the sense of sombody believing that the material world is all there is ... and that virtual phenomena like intelligence had no input in the creation of the Universe or life.

Evolution and NS cannot explain the production of the CFSI present in living organisms ... and they are a latter-day, somewhat more sophisticated, repeat of the Spontaneous Generation of life fallacy, that was commonly accepted in the Middle Ages.

No. I say I have seen no proof of a god. A creator of everything. And before you bring up CFSI as proof again, read the paper cited in sarky's last post. (I know you won't, because as has been pointed out many times already you apparently do not understand most of the ideas you rail against, and fail to address anything outside of your little manifesto)

Again, if by the material world you mean all parts of the known universe that we are currently able to observe and explore to the extent we are currently capable, then that is what I believe is there yes. I don't know how intelligence is a 'virtual phenomenon'. The physiology behind intelligence, it's effects and possibilities are very real. However, I don't think rocks or trees or starfish were designed by an intelligent hand. That's an ignorant assertion that an ignorant person might (understandably) use to explain that which needs explaining.

Your continued 'mud to man' sh!te is just annoying though. It's playground stuff, grow up.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

... so are you denying that Genetic Information is Complex and Functional and Specified and Information?

Not at all. I'm denying that the term CFSI, as creationists use it, is even a thing. It hasn't been rigorously defined. It hasn't even been moderately well defined. When you're trying to use information theory to prove your claims, you're not going to get anywhere with poorly defined concepts. Dembski's cfsi is, quite simply, bollocks. Maybe you could read the paper I provided. Hell, just skim through it. It points out massive flaws in the arguments you're trying to make. It's utterly, fatally flawed.

This is the kind of intellectually defunct situation in which Materialists find themselves, when they don't follow through on the reality which confronts them, ... and they end up denying the plain meaning of the words Complex, Functonal, Specified and Information ... in order to maintain a belief that God doesn't exist.:eek:

Maybe you could read the paper I provided? Go on. Give it a go. It raises several good points about why your treasured cfsi concept is a non-starter. You claim you know what cfsi is, so you should have no trouble dealing with any of the concepts in that paper. AND you claim you're a scientist, so if the paper has any flaws you'll be able to point them out. Go on. It'll be good for you. It'll be good for all of us. Go on. Show us what's wrong with that refutation.

Sarky

I should probably add that if you CAN'T point out what's wrong with that paper then you must admit that CFSI is a pile of crap. And that by continuing to use it as an argument you are, in fact, being a liar and a fraud. We already know, because we're the ones showing you the information that points out your claims are invalid. It'll just be nice to hear it from you. You're long overdue for an actual honest statement. Go on. Point out 5 flaws in the paper that make its claims invalid. I dare you.

Or you could just run off and hide for a couple of weeks like you usually do, before coming back with the same old crap, the only difference being that slightly more people now laugh at you with a mixture of dismissal and pity.

EI_Flyboy

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Don't. Feed. The. Troll.

Sarky

But he's so adorable when he's woefully misinformed or just outright lying!

EI_Flyboy

They only exist because you breath life into them.

Sarky

Nonsense, they spontaneously arose from muck.

papu

Sarky wrote: »

CFSI hasn't even been defined by the tosser who first claimed it was proof of God. It's rubbish. I could just as easily claim that squoddlewogg is proof that the universe is the dream of a giant sentient bottle of Irn Bru and it would be every bit as valid as CFSI.

Here is a paper that shows up the massive holes in Dembski's cfsi rubbish. There are some challenges in chapter 12. cfsi is absolute bunk until those are addressed properly.

So either solve those challenges or never, ever mention cfsi again.

Very Very interesting paper indeed. Thanks!

Delirium

less talk, more any evidence please.

J C

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

You know, if there is a God, it doesn't care whether you believe in it or not.

That is a possibility ... but if He died that we might live ... and He Created us in His own image then He does care very much whether we love or hate Him.
You are correct that the type of 'Intelligence' that created us is a matter of faith.

J C

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

That has certainly been my experience with 'died in the wool' Evolutionists.

In my own case, I was an Evolutionist ... and I reasoned myself out of evolution and into creation ... so the reverse is entirely possible ... but I see no evidence or reason to believe that Pondkind could ever spontaneously produce the vast quantities of CFSI necessary to morph into Mankind.

... so, the truth is that Evolutionists can't reason Creationists out of their current worldview ... because Evolutionists have no valid reasons for their belief in Spontaneous Evolution, to present to Creationists!!!

J C

koth wrote: »

less talk, more any evidence please.

... applies to every Evolutionist that I know ... on this thread!!!:)

Creation by an intelligence / intelligences unknown is self-evident.

J C

papu wrote: »

Very Very interesting paper indeed. Thanks!

... and practically every claim against ID presented in it has been debated ... and debunked ... on this thread and the mega-thread.

... and if we have missed any claim ... please present it and I shall be happy to address it.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... applies to every Evolutionist that I know!!!:)

Creation by an intelligence / intelligences unknown is self-evident.

should be no challenge for you to point the errors in the paper Sarky provided then

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

No. I say I have seen no proof of a god. A creator of everything. And before you bring up CFSI as proof again, read the paper cited in sarky's last post. (I know you won't, because as has been pointed out many times already you apparently do not understand most of the ideas you rail against, and fail to address anything outside of your little manifesto)

... see my previous post #5386 for the answer to this point.

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Again, if by the material world you mean all parts of the known universe that we are currently able to observe and explore to the extent we are currently capable, then that is what I believe is there yes. I don't know how intelligence is a 'virtual phenomenon'. The physiology behind intelligence, it's effects and possibilities are very real.

Who said that virtual phenomena ... like intelligence and God weren't real? ...
... of course they are real ... and they leave real physical 'fingerprints' when they act in the physical world.

Mr. Boo wrote: »

However, I don't think rocks or trees or starfish were designed by an intelligent hand. That's an ignorant assertion that an ignorant person might (understandably) use to explain that which needs explaining.

Rocks can form spontaneously using known physical and chemical laws ... but the CFSI in trees and starfish are the 'fingerprints' of intelligent action.

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Your continued 'mud to man' sh!te is just annoying though.

the 'mud to man' hypothesis of Materialistic Evolution is indeed exactly how you describe it ... and I think that it is 'smelling to high heaven' ... and it is about time that it should be flushed away to avoid any further embarrassment for the Evolutionists who have produced it!!!:D

J C

koth wrote: »

should be no challenge for you to point the errors in the paper Sarky provided then

I reject the paper in its entirety ... so I wouldn't know where to even start.

Please present even one idea from it that hasn't been comprehensively debunked already on this thread ... and I will be happy to oblige.

Monty Burnz

Sarky wrote: »

Both of those claims are untrue. Do you EVER get tired of lying?

Lying for god is good lying. The ends justify the means. It's in the Bible somewhere at the back.

Monty Burnz

J C wrote: »

the 'mud to man' hypothesis of Materialistic Evolution is indeed exactly how you describe it ...

I'm confused. When a dusty old book of fairy tales and myth says that the sky god made people from mud, you find it totally plausible. It's almost like you are being...inconsistent. :pac:

J C

Sarky wrote: »

I should probably add that if you CAN'T point out what's wrong with that paper then you must admit that CFSI is a pile of crap. And that by continuing to use it as an argument you are, in fact, being a liar and a fraud. We already know, because we're the ones showing you the information that points out your claims are invalid. It'll just be nice to hear it from you. You're long overdue for an actual honest statement. Go on. Point out 5 flaws in the paper that make its claims invalid. I dare you.

Or you could just run off and hide for a couple of weeks like you usually do, before coming back with the same old crap, the only difference being that slightly more people now laugh at you with a mixture of dismissal and pity.

... see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74186163&postcount=5386

J C

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Lying for god is good lying. The ends justify the means. It's in the Bible somewhere at the back.

When you know the truth ... and the truth has set you free ... there is no need for lying.

... on the other hand, if you believe a fairytale about frogs turning into princes and other, even more far fetched ideas ... then lying about me could indeed be an occupational hazard!!!:)

J C

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm confused. When a dusty old book of fairy tales and myth says that the sky god made people from mud, you find it totally plausible. It's almost like you are being...inconsistent. :pac:

That isn't the reason that I know that life was created through a vast input of intelligence ... this is self-evident and scientifically verifiable from the vast amounts of CFSI present in living organisms.

The reason I believe that the God of the Bible did it, is held by me through faith alone.
... and the Bible isn't just any old 'dusty book' containing the fallible words of Mankind ... it is the infallible Word of God.

... and ye are the guys being inconsistent ...
... claiming that the origins of all life can be explained by purely physical processes and without any input of intelligence ... and then singularly failing to provide any physical evidence for this belief.

... ye also rightly reject the censorship of ideas ... and many of the abuses of power that were used by mainstream churches to protect their pet ideas from critical evaluation ... and ye then censor me by confining me to this thread, on the spurious basis that I might upset the athesists on other threads within this forum by pointing out errors in their beliefs and writings.

... ye claim to be skeptical of all ideas ... and yet ye cling to a belief in Spontanous Evolution and ye defend it, in all of its unfounded glory, with the tenacity of religious zealots.:eek:

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm confused.

... yet another occupational hazard for evolutionists ... when they are trying to match an evolutionary hypothesis that never happened ... to the evidence for Creation that is there in the real world.:):D
... no wonder you are confused!!!:D

... but I love ye all ... ye remind me so much of wilful children rebelling against parental authority ... and I suppose that is what ye are ... from God's perspective.:D

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

CFSI hasn't even been defined by the tosser who first claimed it was proof of God. It's rubbish.

Which is why Dumbski's "research outfit" was closed down after its funding was stopped and he now tells people about the limits of god at a minor fundamentalist seminary in Texas:

http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm?pageid=800&enc=495E4B4A5433392C23442550435120415379

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I reject the paper in its entirety ... so I wouldn't know where to even start.

Please present even one idea from it that hasn't been comprehensively debunked already on this thread ... and I will be happy to oblige.

you reject the paper entirely? Excellent, shouldn't be much work to address one point in the paper and show why you reject it.

I won't be choosing it for you as I'd like to see some proof that you read the paper. So off you go, show us how the paper is wrong.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

... see my previous post #5386 for the answer to this point.

Who said that virtual phenomena ... like intelligence and God weren't real? ...
... of course they are real ... and they leave real physical 'fingerprints' when they act in the physical world.


Rocks can form spontaneously using known physical and chemical laws ... but the CFSI in trees and starfish are the 'fingerprints' of intelligent action.

the 'mud to man' hypothesis of Materialistic Evolution is indeed exactly how you describe it ... and I think that it is 'smelling to high heaven' ... and it is about time that it should be flushed away to avoid any further embarrassment for the Evolutionists who have produced it!!!:D

Post #5386 doesn't answer anything.

Why did god need to create the earth if it can form spontaneously then?

The 'mud to man' hypothesis is your hypothesis. It is your bastardization of a far more complex set of theories put before you here, that you clearly do not understand. If you did understand them you would be able to comment on them.

J C wrote: »

I reject the paper in its entirety ... so I wouldn't know where to even start.

Please present even one idea from it that hasn't been comprehensively debunked already on this thread ... and I will be happy to oblige.

Rejecting the paper, and therefore not commenting on it is a complete cop out. Maybe it has been debunked by some of your loony colleagues in the jesus-science league, but not many people here probably subscribe to their journals.

J C wrote: »

... ye claim to be skeptical of all ideas ... and yet ye cling to a belief in Spontanous Evolution and ye defend it, in all of its unfounded glory, with the tenacity of religious zealots.:eek:

... but I love ye all ... ye remind me so much of wilful children rebelling against parental authority ... and I suppose that is what ye are ... from God's perspective.:D

There is much evidence for evolution. See above.

You remind me of a character in a Romero movie, or Hicks' Quayle.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

I reject the paper in its entirety ... so I wouldn't know where to even start.

How about starting at the beginning? It's not even a long paper. Rejecting the paper in its entirety is a pathetic cop out. Come on, J C, show us the full talent of "one of the best" ex-evolutionists, as you called yourself when dead one was stroking your ego.

Please present even one idea from it that hasn't been comprehensively debunked already on this thread ... and I will be happy to oblige.

I've presented about a dozen, all in an easy to read format, peer reviewed and everything. Pick your favourite, even. Go on, just one or two points. They're all summed up in bullet points at the end, it's not like it's a very complicated paper. Any scientist could read it, even if they didn't specialise in information theory. A bigshot like you should breeze through it, if you're half the scientist you claim to be.

You can't do it, can you? You can't even bring yourself to read it.You're just going to ignore it and hope it goes away. I guess on top of liar and fraud we can also legitimately label you a coward as well. I wouldn't be surprised if you turned out the be Ann Coulter in disguise. You're certainly deluded enough.



Aside: writing this post from my phone. The predictionary kept trying to make me type bigot instead of bigshot. I lol'd. Even inanimate objects have unflattering opinions of J C.

EI_Flyboy

J C wrote: »

That is a possibility ... but if He died that we might live ... and He Created us in His own image then He does care very much whether we love or hate Him.
You are correct that the type of 'Intelligence' that created us is a matter of faith.

No no, you're wrong, God did not die on a cross, obviously a conman of sorts, maybe his intentions were to free people from a spurious servitude to cruel beliefs. Lazarus was a dry run but Longines mucked things up by putting the spear in. Sure even when the appostles met "him" on the road, they didn't recognise him. How is it you don't recognise someone that you're supposed to love more than life itself? Because it's not them.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

Speaking of which ... you guys, as people of faith in the absence of God,

liamw

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

There is much evidence for evolution.

It all depends on how you define that 'weasel word' Evolution.

If you are talking about NS of the pre-existing genetic diversity potential infused into all Kinds at Creation ... there is plenty of evidence for that ...

... but if you are talking about the 'Pondkind to Mankind' type of 'Evolution' there is no evidence for that ... and the vast increase in CFSI required is a mathematical impossibility.