"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky

You've done nothing of the sort J C, and everyone who views this thread can see that. come on, J C, stop pussyfooting around. You're supposed to have God on your side. Is the magical voice in your soul unable to provide mathematical proofs or links to peer-reviewed evidence? The holy spirit isn't much of a mathematician or information theorist. In fact, it only seems capable of repeating, ad infinitum, the same old disproved rubbish. It's almost as if you're projecting your own opinions onto some divine label for justification...

As for my "unfounded accusations", prove me wrong. That's all you have to do to make me retract every single one.

J C

Plautus wrote: »

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

Christians are the salt of the Earth ... and salt cleanses but it also can be an irritant for those with open wounds that haven't healed!!!!

Sarky

Enough salt also renders the ground unable to bear fruit. A bit like poison.

But let's not get distracted, J C, you have a paper to debunk.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

You've done nothing of the sort J C, and everyone who views this thread can see that. come on, J C, stop pussyfooting around. You're supposed to have God on your side. Is the magical voice in your soul unable to provide mathematical proofs or links to peer-reviewed evidence? The holy spirit isn't much of a mathematician or information theorist. In fact, it only seems capable of repeating, ad infinitum, the same old disproved rubbish. It's almost as if you're projecting your own opinions onto some divine label for justification...

As for my "unfounded accusations", prove me wrong. That's all you have to do to make me retract every single one.

... everyone can see that you guys have no answer to my posting on your 'prize' paper and its invalid reasoning in relation to ID.

... and all of your 'hand-waving' and verbal 'prancing about' cannot hide this fact!!!

Sarky

So you're not going to go into any more detail than "I say this bit is wrong!" then?

I guess you'll just have to live with what appear to be pretty well-founded accusations of dishonesty and cowardice, then. Your choice.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

So you're not going to go into any more detail than "I say this bit is wrong!" then?

... the whole thing is wrong.

... and you're only respose to date is a cart-load of 'hand-waving' and denial !!!!

Plautus

Christians are the salt of the Earth ... and salt cleanses but it also can be an irritant for those with open wounds that haven't healed!!!!

You insulting berk. I really do wish we could all realise the futility of the task at hand and close this sorry chapter.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Enough salt also renders the ground unable to bear fruit. A bit like poison.

Yes, its strategic use can kill weeds ... and trees that bear bad fruit!!:)

Plautus

J C wrote: »

Its strategic use can kill weeds ... and trees that bear bad fruit!!:)

Gotta' love that genocidal Old Testament Yahweh.

J C

Plautus wrote: »

You insulting berk. I really do wish we could all realise the futility of the task at hand and close this sorry chapter.

So ... when you have no answer to what I have to say ... you just want to stick your fingers in your ears ... and run away.

J C

Plautus wrote: »

Gotta' love that genocidal Old Testament Yahweh.

Luckily we are living in the era of God's grace ... and not his Justice.

I was speaking metaphorically about ideas that are 'weeds' and concepts that bear 'bad fruit'.

Plautus

J C wrote: »

So ... when you have no answer to what I have to say ... you just want to stick your fingers in your ears ... and run away.

The thread lies at nearly 400 pages in length. For some reason, you're a special exemption from the soap-boxing rule. It's not about running away, it's about realising when you're wasting air on a zealot. And, oh my, how much air has been wasted.

I was speaking metaphorically about ideas that are 'weeds' and concepts that bear bad fruit.

Ever hear that line about where books burn now, later people will?

J C

Plautus wrote: »

The thread lies at nearly 400 pages in length. For some reason, you're a special exemption from the soap-boxing rule. It's not about running away, it's about realising when you're wasting air on zealot. And, oh my, how much air has been wasted.

... I have addressed the core issues of ID in my posting here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74840918&postcount=5960

... so here is you chance to debunk ID ... by debunking what I have said ... or are you going to run away instead?

Sarky

J C wrote: »

... the whole thing is wrong.

So you keep claiming. Would you mind backing it up with anything? Anything at all? Because you'll kinda need to do that if you want people to stop thinking you're a lying mental case.

Plautus

J C wrote: »

... I have addressed the core issues of ID in my posting here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74840918&postcount=5960

... so here is you chance to debunk ID ... by debunking what I have said ... or are you going to run away instead?

You and Dembski keep using 'specificity' in a very loose way without accepting that this is entirely determinism on your part: you see patterns, not actually distinct from other naturally occurring patterns, but say that because these code for information that they are 'specific' -> and this somehow implies the Judaeo-Christian creator. You do realise how often we observe DNA mutating at the sub-macro evolutionary level?

It's like me saying that because archaeologists work out the age of trees through dendrochronology that this is 'specified information' (even though we are imposing anthropocentric concepts of time onto it) and therefore the tree was 'created' and that the creator must be God.

Do you realise how many leaps of faith are in there? Oh, yeah. Faith. That's what you're all about.

Shut up. Go away. That's not an order, that's a request and I'm not bothered that it's not a polite request. Thanks.

J C

Plautus wrote: »

Ever hear that line about where books burn now, later people will?

Tell this to -0- ...

wrote:

Originally Posted by [-0-]
... The company that published your book needs to die.

Plautus

J C wrote: »

Tell this to -0- ...

I'm not the keeper of others, I'll deal with you and you deal with me. [TEXT DELETED]

J C

Plautus wrote: »

You and Dembski keep using 'specificity' in a very loose way without accepting that this is entirely determinism on your part: you see patterns, not actually distinct from other naturally occurring patterns, but say that because these code for information that they are 'specific' -> and this somehow implies the Judaeo-Christian creator. You do realise how often we observe DNA mutating at the sub-macro evolutionary level?

We use 'specificity' in a specific way.
All functional information is observed to be specific - and it is this attribute that provides its functionality ... and all random changes to it reduces its quality ... and rapidly reduces its functionality.

This is as true of the printed word ... as it it of computer programmes ... as it is of genetic information.

Functonal information is observed to generally not be patterened. For example, there is no discernable pattern to a page of written text ... and where a pattern is observed e.g. a series of repeated letters (abc, abc, abc, etc.) they have no functionality, by lacking the critical combination of features of CFSI ... which are complexity, functionality and specificity.

Plautus wrote: »

Shut up. Go away. That's not an order, that's a request and I'm not bothered that it's not a polite request. Thanks.

Can't stand to hear the truth ... eh???

J C

Plautus wrote: »

I'm not the keeper of others, I'll deal with you and you deal with me. [TEXT DELETED]

... and I love you ... in a purely Christian way, of course.

Sarky

As soon as you say anything even remotely truthful, we'll let you know if it's palatable or not.

But first, you're going to have to debunk that paper, like we've been asking you to do for over a year.

Plautus

A bacteria or a tumour mutates for survivability. We see it under the microscope. No sign of the creator. It's an innate response to environmental conditions and other factors. No positive evidence to show otherwise: in fact, by introducing a micro-organism to certain environmental conditions we can induce changes in it. So are we divine too?

If you think about it, that might help you out a bit, seeing as nobody really wants to be worshipping the God who created disease and cancer.

Anyway, so what if the genetic information is 'specific'. You, as a human, discern the information as generating specific outcomes. You haven't escaped the anthropic bias of perceiving significance or immanent will where there is none. And just how does 'specificity' or 'complexity' get us to -> God created the world? There are a number of intermediate stages before that conclusion. Which, honestly, is undiluted horse****.

Can't stand to hear the truth ... eh???

I just think it's a major anomaly in the application of the charter that a wilful obfuscator and disingenuous dullard like yourself has been soap-boxing for, apparently, an entire year. Time's up gentlemen.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

As soon as you say anything even remotely truthful, we'll let you know if it's palatable or not.

But first, you're going to have to debunk that paper, like we've been asking you to do for over a year.

The Word of God is unpalatable to the unSaved.

I have just debunked the core issue of the paper ... and all I have heard from you guys is personal abuse ... and silence on the points. I have made

J C

Plautus wrote: »

I just think it's a major anomaly in the application of the charter that a wilful obfuscator and disingenuous dullard like yourself has been soap-boxing for, apparently, an entire year. Time's up gentlemen.

If there is any anomaly, its the tolerance shown you guys with your expressions of naked hatred, advocacy of job discrimination on the basis of religion, ad hominem attacks, dogged 'soap boxing' on your own pet biases and deliberate lying about me!!!
... but I'm not complaining about it ... I accept that I shouldn't be in the kitchen, if I can't stand the heat.

... so, gentlemen, ready, steady ... cook !!!!:eek::D

Sarky

That's not hatred, J C. It's pity.

All you have to do is prove me wrong and I'll retract everything I ever said about you.

But until you do, the evidence points at you being a liar who runs from every question. you may not like it, but that doesn't matter. We're following the evidence. You want us to reach a different conclusion? Show us new evidence. Show us that we're wrong about you.

That's all you have to do. It's very simple. So why haven't you done it yet?

Plautus

J C wrote: »

If there is any anomaly, its the tolerance shown you guys with your expressions of naked hatred, advocacy of job discrimination on the basis of religion, ad hominem attacks, dogged 'soap boxing' on your own pet biases and deliberate lying about me!!!

Oh pet, by any chance could any of this induce you to never darken A&A ever again? If so, I'll do my level best to be 110% more insulting towards you in future.

J C

Plautus wrote: »

A bacteria or a tumour mutates for survivability. We see it under the microscope. No sign of the creator. It's an innate response to environmental conditions and other factors. No positive evidence to show otherwise: in fact, by introducing a micro-organism to certain environmental conditions we can induce changes in it. So are we divine too?

A tumour is caused by a mutation ... and causes disease and death in an afflicted organism ... not something that plausibly accounts for the supposed Evolution of Pondkind the Mankind.

Plautus wrote: »

If you think about it, that might help you out a bit, seeing as nobody really wants to be worshipping the God who created disease and cancer.

... except He didn't create disease and death ... this was caused by Mankind choosing their ways over God's ways.
There is a a way that seems right unto man ... that leadeth onto death.

Plautus wrote: »

Anyway, so what if the genetic information is 'specific'. You, as a human, discern the information as generating specific outcomes. You haven't escaped the anthropic bias of perceiving significance or immanent will where there is none.

... the functionality and specificity are objectively assessible ... and present.

Plautus wrote: »

And just how does 'specificity' or 'complexity' get us to -> God created the world? There are a number of intermediate stages before that conclusion.

I agree ... and I accept that these steps involve more faith than science ... which makes your aversion to ID all the more perplexing ... because you can be an ID proponent without necessarily believing in God.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

That's not hatred, J C. It's pity.

All you have to do is prove me wrong and I'll retract everything I ever said about you.

But until you do, the evidence points at you being a liar who runs from every question. you may not like it, but that doesn't matter. We're following the evidence. You want us to reach a different conclusion? Show us new evidence. Show us that we're wrong about you.

That's all you have to do. It's very simple. So why haven't you done it yet?

I've done it ... and you haven't responded to any of my points ... so I guess, you just don't have any answer ... because it's the truth.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74840918&postcount=5960

Plautus

A tumour is caused by a mutation ... and causes disease and death in an afflicted organism ... not something that plausibly accounts for the supposed Evolution of Pondkind the Mankind.

We observe micro-organisms undergoing transformation, and their genetic code with it, on a day to day basis in laboratories around the world. If you can't understand how this might be extrapolated to geological spans of time with multi-cellular organisms (changes in which can be observed in the fossil record) then ... ah wait, you don't even accept that the world is older than 4,000 BC.

... except He didn't create disease and death ... this was caused by Mankind choosing their ways over God's ways.
There is a a way that seems right unto man ... that leadeth onto death.

WTF! How did mankind 'create' pathogens? Even by the internal logic of Genesis, if someone was handing out the whup-ass and pestilence then hey, it was your 'benevolent' God.

... the functionality and specificity are objectively assessible ... and present.

You really have mastered the technique of 'if I say so, it is so.' Read some philosophy that isn't by an evangelical Protestant with a degree printed on toilet paper and you might understand something of the problem(s) with claiming 'objectivity.' Humans construct a lot of meaning about the world which exists outside of them. In some cases, such as yours, humans fall into quite discernible logical fallacies.

because you can be an ID proponent without necessarily believing in God.

What on earth are you even DOING here then hawking this as your trump card for a Judaeo-Christian creator? Pack up your bags and stop boring everyone to death.

J C

Plautus wrote: »

Oh pet, by any chance could any of this induce you to never darken A&A ever again? If so, I'll do my level best to be 110% more insulting towards you in future.

Thanks for the love ... but I think that this is an 'eyeopener' for the majority of people in Ireland who have perceived Atheists to be some kind of 'liberals' who don't believe in God ... but fully accepts everybody elses right to do so ...
... when the reality of this thread is that ye are showing yourselves to be bigots of the highest order, able and more than willing to engage in gross discrimination against Theists (or worse, in some cases) if given half a chance!!!

Plautus

J C wrote: »

Thanks for the love ... but I think that this is an 'eyeopener' for the majority of people in Ireland who have perceived Atheists to be some kind of 'liberals' who doesn't believe in God ... but fully accepts everybody elses right to do so ...
... when the reality of this forum is that ye are bigots of the highest order, able and more than willing to engage in gross discrimination (or worse, in some cases) if given half a chance!!!

An open society never established a right not to be insulted when the shoe fits. And the shoe most certainly fits. Call it cut and thrust. Whatever about some fits of pique you've prompted, there's no convincing evidence in the thread JC that you're in danger of any 'persecution'. Clearly the creationist industry is paying cretins like you very well; and while I don't think anyone here wants to pass laws against your creationist 'industry', no-one is particularly interested either in gifting you bastards a platform or access to school-children.

Ever wonder why you, and only you, generates this kind of response? Perhaps because you are a simplificateur, evader, soap-boxer, liar and self-righteous proselytiser with few comparisons.

A year is quite long enough to be putting up with someone who doesn't even understand the words they're using. Maybe you'll understand this:

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"