"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Delirium

you've never met a sick person or been sick yourself?

fatmammycat

Dead One doesn't understand evolution, perfers to think it's all magic.

Genghiz Cohen

dead one wrote: »

dead one

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

koth wrote: »

you've never met a sick person or been sick yourself?

what about you? --- I can see sickness in your thought

fatmammycat wrote: »

Dead One doesn't understand evolution, perfers to think it's all magic.

thanks !!! mew mew

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

what about you? --- I can see sickness in your thought

you wrongly refer to evolution as the impossible belief in illness.

So I was asking you if you're saying illness doesn't exist?

liamw

dead one

koth wrote: »

you wrongly refer to evolution as the impossible belief in illness.

So I was asking you if you're saying illness doesn't exist?

Ah very well, when you are mentally sick, you can't distinguish between cure and sickness --- you believe in sickness thinking it as cure -- you have taken sickness/illness as cure --

koth wrote: »

you wrongly refer to evolution as the impossible belief in illness.

what is wrong and what is right? Are you going to decide that i wrongly refer to accidents as the belief in illness...

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

Ah very well, when you are mentally sick, you can't distinguish between cure and sickness --- you believe in sickness thinking it as cure -- you have taken sickness/illness as cure --


what is wrong and what is right? Are you going to decide that i wrongly refer to accidents as the belief in illness...

very well, don't answer my questions.

robindch

dead one wrote: »

Ah very well, when you are mentally sick, you can't distinguish between cure and sickness --- you believe in sickness thinking it as cure -- you have taken sickness/illness as cure --

I have absolutely no idea what that sequence of words means, nor consequently, do I have any idea of how it's supposed to relate to the post you appeared to be replying to. I am reasonably sure, however, that you're trying to be rude.

Without wishing to pretend that creationism is anything other than completely bonkers, can both sides of the argument please avoid casting doubts upon the sanity of people on the other side of the argument?

Thanks.

Genghiz Cohen

robindch wrote: »

Without wishing to pretend that creationism is anything other than completely bonkers, can both sides of the argument please avoid casting doubts upon the sanity of people on the other side of the argument?

Thanks.

J C, actually, really, in earnest, believes that the world is 10,000 years old. (Unless Wick is right)
How can you ask this of us?
HOW?!

Terrlock

Question 1:

Why do you think Darwin's theory to be true?


Question 2:

Why do you think Darwin's theory not to be true?


Question 3: What is the evidence that you have found to make you fully sure of yourself?

Just wondering!!!

EI_Flyboy

Terrlock wrote: »

Question 3: What is the evidence that you have found to make you fully sure of yourself?

Just wondering!!!

A lot of people don't need any evidence to believe in something, just bias.

Feel free to keep banging your heads against the brick wall though.

Turtwig

Terrlock wrote: »

Question 1:

Why do you think Darwin's theory to be true?

Darwin's theory isn't true. It's just less wrong than all the other alternatives. As for why : biology.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I'm still interested to hear JC condemn the Canaanite genocide.

I certainly would wish that it didn't happen.

I equally would wish that God didn't kill men, women and children in the Great Flood either ... and I would also wish that God would have removed the curse of death and disease that we are all still living with, as a result of the Fall.

However, I recognise that God is sovereign in these matters ... and He gives life ... and can therefore take it away.
Equally He gives us free-will ... but with resposibility for our decisions and actions as the logical follow-on from the exercise of our free-will.

He is also both a God of perfect justice as well as perfect love.
Perfect Justice demands that we pay with our lives because Adam and Eve freely chose death over life ... thereby introducing sin and death for themselves and their descendants ... while perfect love demands that we don't continue to suffer the penalty of death and disease.
It seems that God has resolved this conundrum by continuing to maintain physical death as a just punishment upon a fallen Creation ... but with eternal spiritual life as a loving reward for those who freely decide to love Him.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Darwin's theory isn't true. It's just less wrong than all the other alternatives.

Darwins theory of Natural Selection is valid ... it is when it is extrapolated to claiming that information-destructive phenomena, like mutagenesis, provides the CFSI for NS to select ... that it 'falls flat on its face'!!!:)

Delirium

you going to answer any points in the paper or going to continue to ignore it?

liamw

koth wrote: »

you going to answer any points in the paper or going to continue to ignore it?

Eventually you will forget, or give up on JC and quit the thread. In about 200 pages someone else will unknowingly post the same paper and we go ring-a-ring-a-rosie. I know this because this has all happened on the B,C&P thread several times before. It's Groundhog Thread 2.

J C

koth wrote: »

you going to answer any points in the paper or going to continue to ignore it?

There are no points to answer.:)

... and your inability to come up with any points proves this to be true.

Sarky

I gave you a paper full of points. Just because you're scared to read it doesn't mean they don't exist. Could you just grow a pair and read the paper? It's not long and doesn't use many big words, it wouldn't be a challenge for a second-level education student, never mind someone who claims to be a very good scientist.

J C

liamw wrote: »

Eventually you will forget, or give up on JC and quit the thread. In about 200 pages someone else will unknowingly post the same paper and we go ring-a-ring-a-rosie. I know this because this has all happened on the B,C&P thread several times before. It's Groundhog Thread 2.

... the circle we are following is one where Evolutionists claim that there are 'loads of evidence' for evolution ... without providing any ... except references to examples of NS ... while ignoring the fact that there is no viable mechanism (other than the appliance of intelligence) to produce the genetic diversity from which NS selects.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

I gave you a paper full of points. Just because you're scared to read it doesn't mean they don't exist. Could you just grow a pair and read the paper? It's not long and doesn't use many big words, it wouldn't be a challenge for a second-level education student, never mind someone who claims to be a very good scientist.

Here is another 'merry-go-round'.
I have read it ... and I didn't find any points that disprove ID.

... if you have read it (and it is you that is citing it) ... and if you have found any points that you believe disproves ID ... slap them up here and I will look at them.:)

Sarky

And we're back to you lying either about having read it, or having understood it.

This thread would have been over a long time ago if you managed to just be honest for an entire post.

Mr. Boo

Finally got a chance to read through the paper, well done to Elsberry et al.

Statistics, computation, mathematics are something I have to work very hard at in my own studies, but this paper seems exhaustive in its effort to challenge Demski on an academic level.

We have argued that Dembski's justification for \intelligent design" is flawed in many respects. His concepts of complexity and information are either orthogonal or opposite to the use of these terms in the literature. His concept of specification is ill-defined. Dembski's use of the term "complex specified information" is inconsistent, and his proof of the "Law of Conservation of Information" is flawed. Finally, his claims about the limitations of evolutionary algorithms are incorrect. We conclude that there is no reason to accept his claims. Finally, we issue several challenges to those who would continue to pursue "intelligent design" as a research paradigm.

Had a good laugh reading the conclusions. Does it look familiar? :pac:

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Finally got a chance to read through the paper, well done to Elsberry et al.

Statistics, computation, mathematics are something I have to work very hard at in my own studies, but this paper seems exhaustive in its effort to challenge Demski on an academic level.

Quote:-
We have argued that Dembski's justification for \intelligent design" is flawed in many respects. His concepts of complexity and information are either orthogonal or opposite to the use of these terms in the literature. His concept of specification is ill-defined. Dembski's use of the term "complex specified information" is inconsistent, and his proof of the "Law of Conservation of Information" is flawed. Finally, his claims about the limitations of evolutionary algorithms are incorrect. We conclude that there is no reason to accept his claims. Finally, we issue several challenges to those who would continue to pursue "intelligent design" as a research paradigm.

Had a good laugh reading the conclusions. Does it look familiar? :pac:

I also had a good laugh reading the 'conclusions' ... which are general remarks that contain no specifics ... in the vein of 'no true Scotsman would ...'

So, to start off, could you please answer the following questions in relation to the above quote from the paper:-

Where exactly is Dembski's justification for ID flawed?
How exactly are his concepts of complexity and information orthogonal or opposite to their use in the literature?
Where exactly is the inconsistency in Dembski's use of the term "complex specified information"?
Why precisely is his proof of the "Law of Conservation of Information" flawed?
Why exactly are his claims about the limitations of evolutionary algorithms incorrect?
... and finally, could I say that proponents of ID have no problem in rising to any challenge to ID as a research subject.

Delirium

liamw wrote: »

Eventually you will forget, or give up on JC and quit the thread. In about 200 pages someone else will unknowingly post the same paper and we go ring-a-ring-a-rosie. I know this because this has all happened on the B,C&P thread several times before. It's Groundhog Thread 2.

You're probably right, liam. But I'm willing to keep at it for now.

If he doesn't it address it, I'll just add it to the list with the video I posted last month as material he can't provide reasoning for why it's incorrect from his perspective.

J C wrote: »

I also had a good laugh reading the 'conclusions' ... which are general remarks that contain no specifics ... in the vein of 'no true Scotsman would ...'

Sounds exactly like most of the stuff you've been posting on this thread.

And I see you're still trying to get people to read and provide data from the paper for you. Why not read it and explain where you deem it to be wrong?

J C

koth wrote: »

You're probably right, liam. But I'm willing to keep at it for now.

If he doesn't it address it, I'll just add it to the list with the video I posted last month as material he can't provide reasoning for why it's incorrect from his perspective.


Sounds exactly like most of the stuff you've been posting on this thread.

And I see you're still trying to get people to read and provide data from the paper for you. Why not read it and explain where you deem it to be wrong?

You cited the paper ... Mr Boo posted the quote from it ... now please answer my questions on it ... or simply accept that it doesn't actually prove that ID is invalid.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

You cited the paper ... Mr Boo posted the quote from it ... now please answer my questions on it ... or simply accept that it doesn't actually prove that ID is invalid.

Nope, won't be doing your legwork for you. Just because I don't read it for you doesn't mean you don't have many points to address in the paper.

If you could actually invalidate the paper, you would have do so by now instead of dancing around it.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

This thread would have been over a long time ago if you managed to just be honest for an entire post.

This thread would have been over long ago if you guys accepted the reality of CFSI ... but then Spontneous Evolution would be 'finished' as well.
... and as Spontaneous Evolution provides the main intellectual justification for Atheism ... this would mean that Atheism would have suffered a severe loss of credibility as well!!

... and ye just can't countenance that!!!:):eek:

J C

koth wrote: »

Nope, won't be doing your legwork for you. Just because I don't read it for you doesn't mean you don't have many points to address in the paper.

If you could actually invalidate the paper, you would have do so by now instead of dancing around it.

You cited the paper ... Mr Boo posted the quote from it ... now please answer my questions on it.
If the paper does what you say it does, it should be easy to do so.

... or you can just accept that it doesn't actually prove that ID is invalid, which is what I have concluded.

You have been 'itching' for a debate on the paper for the past several posts ... and here you have questions from me that go to the heart of the matter ... and you are refusing to answer them.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

You cited the paper ... Mr Boo posted the quote from it ... now please answer my questions on it ... or just accept that it doesn't actually prove that ID is invalid.

That paper really has put the frighteners on ya, JC. You'd rather spend days avoiding it rather than attempt to address any of the points on it.

I won't be answering the questions as that would require me to provide you with information from the paper you refuse to read and/or address.