"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

robindch

Plautus wrote: »

Scientists don't see what the normative implications are of ascending from single-cellular organisms.

Normative? Implications? Ascending? What on earth do these long words mean?!

Plautus wrote: »

You'll never address any academic literature you're shown.

I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

J C

Plautus wrote: »

Ah Jaysus, are these hysterics par for the course for you? Your shower are different - you think there are moral implications to being created in the image of God. Scientists don't see what the normative implications are of ascending from single-cellular organisms. But yeah, don't let it stop you alluding to the Wannsee conference.

You know, I have to ask, what are we actually achieving here? This is pretty blatant tolerance of soap-boxing. I suppose it is funny, but it tends closer to tedium and futility for me. You'll never address any academic literature you're shown.

I address everything I'm asked ... for example, see my answers to oldrnwisr here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74828110&postcount=5936

... and the price of freedom ... is eternal vigilence ... and taking everyone at their word ... unless and until proven otherwise!!!

Plautus

J C wrote: »

I address everything I'm shown ... for example, see my answers to oldrnwisr here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74828110&postcount=5936

The paper on complex specified information remains un-addressed. You remember that?


(Ah ****, I'm playing the game. AAAAH)

robindch

J C wrote: »

and taking everyone at their word

Or, in the case of the leaders of the cretinist movement, just taking their money.

These museums to bullshit don't build themselves you know!

J C

Plautus wrote: »

The paper on complex specified information remains un-addressed. You remember that?


(Ah ****, I'm playing the game. AAAAH)

... I have addressed it and I have asked a series of questions on it .... and these remain unaddressed by you guys.

Plautus

J C wrote: »

... I have addressed it and I have asked a series of questions on it .... and these remain unaddressed by you guys.

Shouldn't be any trouble for you to point us in that direction then. I can't find that post of yours. Could you please re-post (or link to) these questions and your treatment of the paper?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Or, in the case of the leaders of the cretinist movement, just taking their money.

These museums to bullshit don't build themselves you know!

Evolutionist Museums don't build themselves allright ... and, being an academic liberal, I have no problem with them being built.

... and isn't it ironic that you accept that Museums don't build themselves ... but you still think that infinitely more information-dense living creatures do 'build themselves' from scratch ... and with no intelligent input!!!!:eek:

Plautus

Where is your treatment of the paper and the questions you asked of it? I ask partly for your own benefit.

J C

Plautus wrote: »

Shouldn't be any trouble for you to point us in that direction then. I can't find that post of yours. Could you please re-post (or link to) these questions and your treatment of 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?

Plautus

J C wrote: »

• 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?

The paper answers these questions. You might know this if you read it. Did you post these questions before or after the paper was brought into the discussion? And these are only questions. Where is your treatment of the paper? You said you asked both questions AND addressed the paper.

In either event, someone's now going to have to do the tedious task of quoting long excerpts from the paper and posting them on here as responses to these questions. Seeing as we're not getting any progress on you reading the thing by yourself like a big boy.

J C

Plautus wrote: »

The paper answers these questions. You might know this if you read it. Did you post these questions before or after the paper was brought into the discussion? And these are only questions. Where is your treatment of the paper? You said you asked both questions AND addressed the paper.

In either event, someone's now going to have to do the tedious task of quoting long excerpts from the paper and posting them on here as responses to these questions. Seeing as we're not getting any progress on you reading the thing by yourself like a big boy.

Please answer my questions on your cited paper ... and stop 'spoofing'!!!!:eek::)

Plautus

J C wrote: »

Please answer my questions on your cited paper ... and stop 'spoofing'!!!!:eek::)

That's the best you could come up with in 40 minutes? The lowliest of all: a banjaxed tu quoque fallacy?

Here's the paper again:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

And I quote you:

... I have addressed it and I have asked a series of questions on it .... and these remain unaddressed

Plural, 'these': indicating both a critique of the paper and a series of questions. We have your questions, questions which are answered by the paper; we have no substantive critique of the answers which the paper provides. Indeed, we have less than no evidence that you have read this paper. You seem to think that the paper doesn't provide the answers. The paper is being submitted to you as the answer to your questions. I think there's a prima facie case to be made that you are not capable of understanding the paper. Your evasion of it is difficult to explain otherwise.

Sarky

It's pretty simple to explain, really.

J C doesn't know how to explain anything he uses as an argument. He's unable to elaborate on even the simplest of concepts. He refuses to debunk that paper because he simply can't do it. He just doesn't know enough about science or logic or critical thinking.

And he outright refuses to learn any of these skills, because he's scared of how flimsy and untenable his position is. He knows he has no valid contributions but he's just not brave enough to accept the implications of his world view being incorrect.

And so he avoids questions, he lies, he ignores evidence and he repeats his ignorant mistakes. He willfully ignores the reality of the world because it terrifies him.


Of course I'm willing to be proved wrong. As soon as he debunks that paper I'll give him a full and unreserved apology for calling him a liar and intellectual coward.

Not a moment before. Come on, J C, if you can prove me wrong, go ahead and do it. Debunk that paper. Show us once and for all that you're not a lying coward.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

It's pretty simple to explain, really.

J C doesn't know how to explain anything he uses as an argument.

... I have fully 'stood up' every argument that I have made ... and you guys then move on to something else.

Sarky wrote: »

And he outright refuses to learn any of these skills, because he's scared of how flimsy and untenable his position is. He knows he has no valid contributions but he's just not brave enough to accept the implications of his world view being incorrect.

... that actually describes you guys perfectly.

Sarky wrote: »

And so he avoids questions, he lies, he ignores evidence and he repeats his ignorant mistakes. He willfully ignores the reality of the world because it terrifies him.

... you are the guys denying reality ... and providing no unambiguous objective evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution.
BTW, I'm not blaming you for this ... because such evidence doesn't exist ... because Pondkind didn't evolve into anything ... other than more Pondkind!!!:)

Sarky wrote: »

Of course I'm willing to be proved wrong. As soon as he debunks that paper I'll give him a full and unreserved apology for calling him a liar and intellectual coward.

I don't need either your apology or your endorsement ... and I'd be in seriious trouble if I did!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... I have addressed it and I have asked a series of questions on it .... and these (questions) remain unaddressed

Plautus
Plural, 'these': indicating both a critique of the paper and a series of questions. We have your questions, questions which are answered by the paper; we have no substantive critique of the answers which the paper provides. Indeed, we have less than no evidence that you have read this paper. You seem to think that the paper doesn't provide the answers. The paper is being submitted to you as the answer to your questions. I think there's a prima facie case to be made that you are not capable of understanding the paper. Your evasion of it is difficult to explain otherwise.

My address (singular) was my series (singular) of questions (plural).
I have read the paper ... and didn't find valid answers to my questions.
If you beleve that it does ... please point out the answers ... or, better still, provide the answers yourself!!

Sarky

Seriously? Are we going to have to recreate the paper as a YouTube video with sock puppets and musical numbers for you just because you're not capable of the teenager-level reading and comprehension skills most teenagers possess?

I offered to apologise for my conclusions about you if you could Debunk that paper. Hell, a few pages back I straight up offered to convert to your particular faith if you proved it wrong. You could have helped save a soul. Instead you kept banging the same drum, you tried to score points over people instead of taking an opportunity to save someone from eternal damnation.

You're a selfish, possibly even evil monster. And I'll apologise for getting you wrong once you PROVE I've been getting you wrong. Or do you have a kink about pretending to be persecuted?

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

... that actually describes you guys perfectly.

Is that..."I know you are but what am I"?! Superb. Well played.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Seriously? Are we going to have to recreate the paper as a YouTube video with sock puppets and musical numbers for you just because you're not capable of the teenager-level reading and comprehension skills most teenagers possess?

I offered to apologise for my conclusions about you if you could Debunk that paper. Hell, a few pages back I straight up offered to convert to your particular faith if you proved it wrong. You could have helped save a soul. Instead you kept banging the same drum, you tried to score points over people instead of taking an opportunity to save someone from eternal damnation.

You're a selfish, possibly even evil monster. And I'll apologise for getting you wrong once you PROVE I've been getting you wrong. Or do you have a kink about pretending to be persecuted?

Please get real, and stop the hyperbolics ...
... and address my questions ... you will find, if you do, that the paper doesn't validly address my questions.

It doesn't even get CSI/CSD correct!!!

Quote:-
In No Free Lunch [19, p. xi] he (Dembski) gives a process-oriented account of design:
(1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifes building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials.

But this is not a positive account of what constitutes design.
It is a repeatably observable (i.e. a scientifically valid) account of the only known method of producing Complex Specified Design (CSD)


Quote:-
Furthermore, the description is problematical. In common parlance, \design" can mean \pattern" or \motif", and the relationship between \pattern" and \purpose" is unclear.
... 'design' and even 'complex design' can indeed mean just 'pattern' ... but 'Complex Specified Design' doesn't mean pattern ... because it is functonal due to its specificity ... and it is actually the specificity that is the reason why it requires an intelligent source.


Quote:-
Intelligent design advocates claim that \design implies a designer", but perhaps this claim owes more to the structure of English than it does to logic.
Complex Specified Design implies a designer ... complex designs (i.e. without specificity) can be deterministically (or even randomly) produced.


Quote:-
After all, we would not likely say \pattern implies a patterner".
... and ID proponents don't say this either!!!
... because a pattern does not always imply a 'patterner'.

Quote:-
It is certainly easy to claim a teleological account of biology, but other natural processes produce \design", in the sense of pattern, without evidently falling under the process-oriented view of design that Dembski provides. Consider, for example, the highly symmetrical 6-sided patterns that appear in snow°akes. If there is any evidence of purpose in the patterns seen
in snow°akes, it eludes us."
... biological processes are specified ... and they therefore produce Complex Functional Specified Design (that is the 'hallmark' of intelligent action).
... other patterned phenomena, like snowflakes and fractals, for example, produce complex designs allright ... but they do not produce specified functionality and these designs are therefore not specific ... and thus they can be produced using combinations of random and deterministic processes (that don't require any intelligent input).

Sarky wrote: »

Hell, a few pages back I straight up offered to convert to your particular faith if you proved it wrong.

... so are you now going to fulfill your word ... to go and get Saved?

[-0-]

Oh sweet suffering Jesus. The company that published your book needs to die.

I'm tempted to buy it just so I can debunk the entire thing and show the world what a fraud you (and your ilk) are, but it would be lining your pockets.

I bet you sleep like a baby at night, you horrible bastard.

Sorry Dades, this is ridiculous and just down right unacceptable.

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

Oh sweet suffering Jesus. The company that published your book needs to die.

I'm tempted to buy it just so I can debunk the entire thing and show the world what a fraud you (and your ilk) are, but it would be lining your pockets.

I bet you sleep like a baby at night, you horrible bastard.

Sorry Dades, this is ridiculous and just down right unacceptable.

What are you talking about? ... I haven't written The Origin of Specious Nonesense!!!

... You guys have repeatedly asked me to address your 'prize' paper ... I asked questions about it ... and ye ignored them ... and repeatedly asked me to make specific comments on it ... and when I do ... all I get is verbal abuse!!!:(

... what's wrong with you ... and why are you so grossly intolerant of the truth????

... and what was 'ridiculous and just down right unacceptable' about my last posting?

... and BTW, Jesus isn't suffering now ... He suffered and died once for all sin.

Sarky

I'm just going out on a limb here, but it might have something to do with the lies and misinformation you keep posting.

You still haven't addressed the paper. All you've done is say it's wrong. You have yet to go into any detail about why it's wrong. And I suspect you never will, because you can't.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

I'm just going out on a limb here, but it might have something to do with the lies and misinformation you keep posting.

You still haven't addressed the paper. All you've done is say it's wrong. You have yet to go into any detail about why it's wrong. And I suspect you never will, because you can't.

The lies and misinformation are all on your side of this thread!!!

I have addressed a specific in relation to the paper in my second last posting ... so what have you to say about it ... if anything?

... and not only have I said that the paper is wrong on this issue ... I have also explained why it's wrong.

... and the hate-mogering language of -0- is completely unacceptable ... and is doing great damage to the image of Atheism.

Sarky

No, you have not. You're lying. All you have done is claim "This bit is wrong". You have yet to provide any mathematics to counter the paper's, or even some peer-reviewed evidence as to why they might be wrong.

So no, you haven't debunked anything yet. Try harder, or stop lying altogether.

Poor Uncle Tom

Are you the J C, or just impersonating him?

J C

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Are you the J C, or just impersonating him?

Neither.

Poor Uncle Tom

So you fall between two stools, so to speak.....

J C

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

So you fall between two stools, so to speak.....

I haven't fallen ... I'm Saved!!!

Plautus

You'd think the 'Saved' have better things to do than be a pain in the ass.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

No, you have not. You're lying. All you have done is claim "This bit is wrong". You have yet to provide any mathematics to counter the paper's, or even some peer-reviewed evidence as to why they might be wrong.

So no, you haven't debunked anything yet. Try harder, or stop lying altogether.

Your unfounded allegations of lying are becoming tiresome!!!!

I have done much more than merely claiming that the paper is wrong ... I have provided evidence that it is wrong about /doesn't address CSD.

... which goes to the heart of the issue on ID.

... the fact that you have nothing to say except some furious 'hand-waving' speaks volumes about the validity of what I have said ... and, in turn the validity of ID.

Logical Fallacy

J C wrote: »

... the fact that you have nothing to say except some furious 'hand-waving' speaks volumes about the validity of what I have said ... and, in turn the validity of ID.

Best Logical Fallacy i have seen on boards yet, because it's one of the rarest.

Fantastic work.