"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

[-0-] · 23-09-2011 3:23pm

J C wrote: »

Of course mutations are random ... and therefore information destroying ... which is not a mechanism to explain how the CFSI found in living organisms was created.
... and the Atlantic Tomcod PCB resistance mutation is no exception!!!

... you must have such an interesting life ...!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QKAbuoB24U

J C · 23-09-2011 8:42pm

Sarky wrote: »

loss of two amino acids changed the shape of a protein and now it doesn't bond with something it used to bond with, or bonds with something it didn't before. Adding an amino acid or two would have a similar effect. They're called indels. It's short for insertion/deletion error. They happen when imperfect copies are made during replication. It's pretty straightforward. Happens all the time in one species or another. I'm doing my thesis on something similar. I know how it works. You, it is quite clear, do not. But you're going to lie about understanding genetics and biochemistry anyway.

The point still stands that both insertions and deletions destroy CFSI ... by reducing functionality ... and that's why even Evolutionits avoid mutagenesis ... like the plague!!!:eek:

Sarky wrote: »

Now, go ahead and debunk that paper. You've avoided it for long enough.

Over to you ... to answer my questions!!

sponsoredwalk · 23-09-2011 8:43pm

J C wrote: »

The point still stands that both insertions and deletions destroy CFSI.

How can you destroy that which does not exist?

J C · 23-09-2011 8:53pm

[-0-] wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QKAbuoB24U

A tough ... but fair assesment of Evolution-speak allright!!!:)

Sarky · 23-09-2011 8:54pm

J C wrote: »

The point still stands that both insertions and deletions destroy CFSI ... by reducing functionality ... and that's why even Evolutionits avoid mutagenesis ... like the plague!!!:eek:

cfsi isn't there to destroy. Dembski is a charlatan, and if you'd ever read the paper I showed you, you'd know that.

Insertions and deletions CHANGE genetic information. The ones that are fatal die out. The ones that don't continue on, and occasionally become useful. You don't understand genetics. I'm a microbiologist and bioinformatician. I do understand genetics. And you're talking bollocks again.

Over to you ... to answer my questions!!

The answer to each of your questions begins the line below the title you stole the questions from. Of course, you'd know that if you weren't so afraid of reading the paper. Done. now debunk the paper like we've been challenging you for the last few weeks. Quit hiding, and avoiding, and trying to misdirect attention from it.

It's not so much the fact that you're a liar, really, so much as the fact that you're so bad at it. You are painfully transparent, J C. And that would be fine if you ever displayed a shred of honesty. But you have done nothing of the sort since you registered here.

J C · 23-09-2011 8:56pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

How can you destroy that which does not exist?

Do you believe that functional Information isn't carried by DNA?
Do you think it isn't specific information?
Do you think it isn't complex information?

sponsoredwalk · 23-09-2011 8:57pm

J C wrote: »

A tough ... but fair assesment of Evolution-speak allright!!!:)

All those big words the evolutionismist speakers use, it's all bollix don't ye
think? Why don't they just normal-speak like a normal person like...

sponsoredwalk · 23-09-2011 9:05pm

J C wrote: »

Do you believe there isn't functional Information in DNA?
Do you think it isn't specific information?
Do you think it isn't complex information?

Oh, so you're claiming at one stage that the information is "specific" but
then in the very next sentence you're claiming that it is, in fact, contrary
to your earlier assertion in only the previous sentence, despite what you'd
have us believe, "complex" information.

Ha, nice try JC, so which is it? This time try to keep your story straight :rolleyes:

J C · 23-09-2011 9:07pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

All those big words the evolutionismist speakers use, it's all bollix don't ye
think? Why don't they just normal-speak like a normal person like...

Its the simplicity, innocence and wrong-headedness of the language that the Evolutionists use that makes it a load of 'Victor Meldrew'!!!:D

J C · 23-09-2011 9:10pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Oh, so you're claiming at one stage that the information is "specific" but
then in the very next sentence you're claiming that it is, in fact, contrary
to your earlier assertion in only the previous sentence, despite what you'd
have us believe, "complex" information.

Ha, nice try JC, so which is it? This time try to keep your story straight :rolleyes:

Complexity and specificity are not mutually exclusive ... and they are both hallmarks of functional information

sponsoredwalk · 23-09-2011 9:10pm

J C wrote: »

Its the simplicity, innocence and wrong-headedness of the language that the Evolutionists use that makes it a 'Victor Meldrew'!!!

Oh? I never thought about it that deeply, I guess there is a kind of
technical beauty to Genesis 2.7: "the LORD God formed the man from the
dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the
man became a living being."

Sarky · 23-09-2011 9:11pm

Com on, J C, describe in detail why the paper we keep asking you to man up and face is wrong. Show us a detailed mathematical definition of cfsi, like Dembski has failed to do. Answer the challenges it puts forth. Show us you're not a complete liar, that you have a tiny speck of dignity somewhere in that deceitful mass of yours.

J C · 23-09-2011 9:16pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Oh? I never thought about it that deeply, I guess there is a kind of
technical beauty to Genesis 2.7: "the LORD God formed the man from the
dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the
man became a living being."

Very profound ... and amazing!!!

sponsoredwalk · 23-09-2011 9:17pm

J C wrote: »

Complexity and specificity are not mutually exclusive ... and they are both hallmarks of functional information

Wow, I didn't realize that. I have much to learn yet, tell me - whats your
favourite example of a technical problem with the religion presently known
as orthodox communi darwinism?

sponsoredwalk · 23-09-2011 9:27pm

*50 internets to the person who realizes why this particular video out of all
of the possibilities is being posted

*

JC, what have I been lied to about as regards this piece of propaganda for evilution?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUhYGgtwNkE

J C · 24-09-2011 10:28pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Wow, I didn't realize that. I have much to learn yet, tell me - whats your
favourite example of a technical problem with the religion presently known
as orthodox communi darwinism?

The complete absence of any mechanism to produce the additional CFSI required to 'evolve' from 'Pondkind to Mankind'.:)

Delirium · 24-09-2011 10:33pm

you still peddling that CFSI nonsense? You need to debunk the paper if you want any hope of being taken seriously with that.

Giuseppe55 · 24-09-2011 11:32pm

J C wrote: »

The complete absence of any mechanism to produce the additional CFSI required to 'evolve' from 'Pondkind to Mankind'.:)

What kind of mechanism do you think would be required? Tell us what you think.

J C · 25-09-2011 5:06pm

Giuseppe55 wrote: »

What kind of mechanism do you think would be required? Tell us what you think.

Just like I have no idea how a perpetual motion machine could possibly be constructed ... I also have no idea how Human Beings could possibly 'evolve' from Ponkind without any intelligent input.

... but if you guys have any ideas ... I'm all ears.

Delirium · 25-09-2011 5:12pm

we have numerous times, and you ignored it. just as you're ignoring the paper for the third week running.

Giuseppe55 · 25-09-2011 6:02pm

J C wrote: »

Just like I have no idea how a perpetual motion machine could possibly be constructed ... I also have no idea how Human Beings could possibly 'evolve' from Ponkind without any intelligent input.

... but if you guys have any ideas ... I'm all ears.

In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

J C · 25-09-2011 6:50pm

Giuseppe55 wrote: »

In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about ... it's you guys who don't have any evidence (or spontaneous mechanism) for your beliefs in the powers of Pondkind to evolve into Mankind.

Delirium · 25-09-2011 6:54pm

and we can expect you to discuss the paper when??

J C · 25-09-2011 7:14pm

koth wrote: »

and we can expect you to discuss the paper when??

... whenever you're ready ... to answer the questions that I have already asked about it.

Sarky · 25-09-2011 7:18pm

So you're going to hide from it. Coward.

Delirium · 25-09-2011 7:21pm

you said that you could debunk the paper, and yet you have continually avoided discussing the paper.

so it's very much a case of waiting for you to address even one point in the paper.

when you're ready, JC.

J C · 25-09-2011 7:29pm

Sarky wrote: »

So you're going to hide from it. Coward.

You're the guys hiding from nearly everything I say.

Delirium · 25-09-2011 7:33pm

we've been waiting for almost a month for the great debunk you promised.

you still haven't posted it yet.

J C · 25-09-2011 7:36pm

koth wrote: »

we've been waiting for almost a month for the great debunk you promised.

you still haven't posted it yet.

I've been debunking Spontaneous Evolution on this thread ... for over a year now ... and without any substantive response from you guys.

Delirium · 25-09-2011 7:39pm

well that's a flat out lie. but then science does seem to be a problem for you.

and still no debunk of the paper either.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments