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 Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…181182184186187…334

Comments

  • Options
    #5492
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    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.
    You're the one that is running scared here ... and refusing to back up your claims about the paper or to answer my questions about it.


  • Options
    #5493
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    You're the one that is running scared here ... and refusing to back up your claims about the paper or to answer my questions about it.

    I'm right here, JC, so I'm hardly running scared. If you could conquer your phobia of the paper, I'd be more than happy to discuss anything you may post.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5494
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    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:

    If we accepted cfsi, we would by lying to ourselves in the face of masses of evidence to the contrary, like you do. Personally, I'd rather not stoop to your level of dishonesty. I might not believe in a magical sky god but dishonesty hurts a society, so I can dislike it all the same.

    You still haven't picked even one claim from that paper to debunked, even though it debunked pretty much everything you ever posted. Evidence doesn't go away just because you ignore it.

    Come on. Just one point from the paper. Just one. If there's a flaw there point it out. Don't be a dishonest, fraudulent coward like you always are. Rise above your fears. You can be better than that.


  • Options
    #5495
    Mr. Boo
    Registered Users Posts: 347 ✭✭Mr. Boo


    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 ...'

    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.

    Don't tell me you don't even understand the concept of a Conclusions section? That is a summation of the points presented in the work. Each of the "questions" you have asked (and I use the term loosely, because you simply turned each conclusion into a question, casting further doubt on your own intelligence) is answered comprehensively in a headed section of the paper. Read it, and then come back to us. Not only are you not behaving like the scientist you claim to be, but you are acting like a petulant child who is not getting his way.


  • Options
    #5496
    Mr. Boo
    Registered Users Posts: 347 ✭✭Mr. Boo


    And it's not really like a "no true Scotsman" argument at all, because they are logical assertions aimed at exposing mathematical parlour tricks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5497
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    JC, is the Bible as authoritative in areas such as cosmology and zoology as it is in the the field of evolution? You believe in the creation as told in the Bible, and that the earth stands still while the universe revolves around it?


  • Options
    #5498
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    It's not even as if the points laid out in the rest of the paper are hard to follow. It points out several flaws in cfsi clearly and consisely, one by one, with plenty of evidence to back up why it's a flaw and why cfsi is a rubbish concept.

    I think J C is ignoring it because cfsi is all he has left, and that paper takes it away from him. He's attached himself to cfsi as proof of God, but without it he has nothing. He's scared of living in a world where he's every bit as much a product of natural forces and probability as the rest of us. It's understandable. Not everyone's brave enough to live in that world.


  • Options
    #5499
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    I'm right here, JC, so I'm hardly running scared. If you could conquer your phobia of the paper, I'd be more than happy to discuss anything you may post.
    Please answer this then ...
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74257371&postcount=5486


  • Options
    #5500
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Please answer this then ...
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74257371&postcount=5486

    no. You have to address points from the paper and explain why you arrived at that conclusion. I already said I'm not going to provide information from the paper for you.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5501
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    It's not even as if the points laid out in the rest of the paper are hard to follow. It points out several flaws in cfsi clearly and consisely, one by one, with plenty of evidence to back up why it's a flaw and why cfsi is a rubbish concept.

    I think J C is ignoring it because cfsi is all he has left, and that paper takes it away from him. He's attached himself to cfsi as proof of God, but without it he has nothing. He's scared of living in a world where he's every bit as much a product of natural forces and probability as the rest of us. It's understandable. Not everyone's brave enough to live in that world.
    What flaws?

    ... and I have no fear of my loving God ... nor do I deny the existence of any of the natural forces that He created.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5502
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    no. You have to address points from the paper and explain why you arrived at that conclusion. I already said I'm not going to provide information from the paper for you.
    I see no vaild points to address ... it you who are citing the paper ...
    ... and then you 'fall flat on your face' by not being able to point out how it helps your case ... which is to be expected ... because it doesn't help your argument.:)

    ... of course, you shouldn't have cited a paper that doesn't support your argument ... but the way you are handling it now, is destroying any credibility that you may have had.


  • Options
    #5503
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Nice try at baiting me. Address the paper please.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5504
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Nice try at baiting me.
    I haven't baited you ... I have beaten you.:)
    Mbeeb!! ... Mbeep!!:D
    koth wrote: »
    Address the paper please.
    I have ... and you are unable to answer me.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74257371&postcount=5486


  • Options
    #5505
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    What flaws?

    Uh... the ones in the paper I linked to? you have read it far enough to realise it points out flaws in Dembski's cfsi? Flaws that render the whole cfsi argument rubbish?

    Come on man, they mention that much in the first few lines of the abstract! You'll have to read more than the title to be able to dismiss a paper, you know. The way you "address" evidence like this is pathetic, dishonest and cowardly.

    ... and I have no fear of my loving God ... nor do I deny the existence of any of the natural forces that He created.:)

    By peddling cfsi as an explanation for life, you are actually denying a multitude of natural forces. So now you're a liar, fraud, coward AND a hypocrite.

    You can dispel all such unpleasant titles, however, if you just man up and read the paper I provided, which was provided for you before by at least one other poster back in the distant past. By shying away from it you're only making yourself look MORE of a liar.

    So again, I challenge you: Pick even one point from that paper that debunks cfsi, and show us how it's flawed, or stop using cfsi as an argument.


  • Options
    #5506
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I have ... and you are unable to answer me.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74257371&postcount=5486

    you asked questions that require people to provide information from the paper, so I won't be answering them.

    If you want to try and address the paper, then maybe a discussion about any points you have problems with can occur.

    I patiently await your feedback regarding the paper.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5507
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    you asked questions that require people to provide information from the paper, so I won't be answering them.
    ... why not? ... it's your chance to 'shine' ... or is it because the information required to answer my questions doesn't exist in the paper?
    koth wrote: »
    If you want to try and address the paper, then maybe a discussion about any points you have problems with can occur.
    I have already cited the issues that I have a problem with ... and you are refusing to answer me.
    koth wrote: »
    If I patiently await your feedback regarding the paper.
    ... its over to you.


  • Options
    #5508
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    J C wrote: »
    ... its over to you.

    At this stage, J C is looking like a tennis player with a massive pile of yellow balls behind him saying "your serve."


  • Options
    #5509
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... why not ... it's your chance to 'shine' ... or is it because the information required to answer my questions doesn't exist in the paper.
    So you didn't read/understand the paper
    I have already cited the issues that I have a problem with ... and you are refusing to answer me.
    No, you haven't. You responded to the conclusion that was posted on the thread. You haven't addressed any of the paper yourself. You were fishing for data from the paper.
    ... its over to you.

    Still waiting for you to being the discussion by point out just one problem you have with the paper.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5510
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    So you didn't read/understand the paper

    No, you haven't. You responded to the conclusion that was posted on the thread. You haven't addressed any of the paper yourself. You were fishing for data from the paper.


    Still waiting for you to being the discussion by point out just one problem you have with the paper.
    I feel your pain!!!:)


  • Options
    #5511
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I feel your pain!!!:)

    you must be projecting as I'm quite pain free. I can understand how such a document could be painful for you to discuss. In your own time, JC ;)

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5512
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    you must be projecting as I'm quite pain free. I can understand how such a document could be painful for you to discuss. In your own time, JC ;)
    You are afraid ... you are very afraid!!!!:)


  • Options
    #5513
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    You are afraid ... you are very afraid!!!!:)

    And yet it's you who repeatedly refuses to point out the flaws in the paper.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5514
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    And yet it's you who repeatedly refuses to point out the flaws in the paper.
    Here are some of the issues:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74257371&postcount=5486


  • Options
    #5515
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Here are some of the issues:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74257371&postcount=5486

    You're not pointing out issues, you're asking questions that require people to provide you with data from the paper.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5516
    Mr. Boo
    Registered Users Posts: 347 ✭✭Mr. Boo


    J C wrote: »
    Here are some of the issues:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74257371&postcount=5486

    Completely ignoring where I addressed this post. Take your fingers out of your ears jc.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74259759&postcount=5496


  • Options
    #5517
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mr. Boo wrote: »
    Take your fingers out of your ears jc.
    I suspect her fingers might be stuck a foot or two south of her ears.


  • Options
    #5518
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    At this stage, J C is looking like a tennis player with a massive pile of yellow balls behind him saying "your serve."

    ...or "when are you going to start?"

    Or "checkmate."


  • Options
    #5519
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    robindch wrote: »
    I suspect her fingers might be stuck a foot or two south of her ears.

    Or, more likely, meeting in the middle of his/her head.


  • Options
    #5520
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Something else for JC to ignore, but the rest of ya might be interested.

    Missing link between man and apes discovered.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5521
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    koth wrote: »
    Something else for JC to ignore, but the rest of ya might be interested.

    Missing link between man and apes discovered.
    It was washed there in the Great Flood. Perhaps it belongs to a man who lived in the belly of a whale for some time?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement