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
Comments
-
... I understand that he is an immunologist by training ... as the list states!!
... he is a research scientist and I understand that he is a Microbiologist by training ... as the list states!!
Fair enough. Still though, it would be more relevant to say what the qualifications and current occupation of the people on the list is, just like the Project Steve list. Otherwise it's even more worthless than it already is.... there is a typo there allright ... you are correct that he is not a Geophysicist ... but is an environmental biologist
No, this -- fcuk -- is a typo. The above is a lie.They are conventionally qualified scientists who have risked their careers to declare their support for Creationism
And? So? Therefore? You still seem to be missing the point. How does the list whether it's one person or one million support the claims of creationism?... google isn't all seeing ... and all knowing ...
The average number of webpages currently indexed by Google is around 50 billion. To not return any meaningful results is quite an achievement in underachievement.... so good, they named him twice!!!!
The great Dr Korochkin is now dead ... but was a leader in his field, in every sense of the word.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/y3228v00v6122383/
I can assure you that Dr Korochkin was indeed a Creationist ... for example he was amongst 400 scientists who attended the second Moscow International Symposium on Creation Science in May 1994.
Attending a conference is hardly sufficient proof that he was a creationist. His published writings on the other hand tell a different story. This is from an article he wrote in 1999 for New World:
"The more organism is specialized, [i.e.] the higher the step of the evolutionary ladder, on which it stands, the more these changes are deeper and irreversible."
"... erythrocytes of the mammals, who evolution-wise are higher than the birds ..."He was indeed a Creation Scientist par excellence... and was Silliman Professor of Natural History in Yale College.
He wrote a book entitled "SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE-
A REVIEW OF " THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION " OF PROF. TAYLER LEWIS."
Quote:-
" The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork." Thus spake the Psalmist in view of the revelation which God had made of himself in his works. With deeper emphasis may we now utter the same ascription of praise; for that revelation, as its records have been unfolded in these later days, has opened more and more glorious thoughts of the Almighty Architect, and appears as unfathomable in its truths, as God himself is infinite."
Yes, and if you'd managed to read past page 1 of the book you would have read this:
"The evolution of the germ — in its essence, a simple memberless cellule — resulting in a successive individualization of parts: the more fundamental first; then, by degrees, leading on to the completed complex organism in all its details, is an exhibition of another grand law of the highest significance ; one, in an important sense, typical of all progress.
The spiral line of development as the initial in evolution, and retained in its perfection in the spiral arrangement of leaves in plants, as well as in the parts of some animals, is another grand law, which science has evolved from the mass of facts before us in the plant-ldngdom."
Dana wrote that book in an attempt to reconcile his scientific understanding with his religious beliefs. The one thing that becomes clear early on is that Dana is not a biblical literalist but rather sees a divine plan, God acting through natural laws. He sees evolution as an aspect of this, a mechanism used by God to institute his plan. So, not a creationist.... if one of them was able to demonstrate how the CFSI in living organisms could arise spontaneously ... that would be achieving something for Evolution ... putting their names to a list achieves nothing ... as everybody already accepts that Evolutionists are to be found at all levels within Academia today ... just like Geocentrists were found at all levels within Medieval Academia ... as Galileo Galilei found out, to his cost!!!
Well, if you could demonstrate that CFSI is a real phenomenon that would be lovely. Anyway, I'll come back to CFSI and Dembski's other bull**** in a bit.... it has been used as a spurious argument for the spontaneous evolution of biological 'polymers' ... like proteins.
Please cite specific examples of your assertion.... 'evolution' is a weasel word ... NS is a demonstrable fact of nature ... the issue is how the CFSI from which NS selects, arose in the first place ... and so far, 'wilful ignorace' best describes the Evolutionist 'answers' to this particular conundrum!!
I'm sure that somebody has already explained the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.
Now back to Dembski and CFSI. First of all it would be nice for you to clarify the difference between certain terms because there seems to be a lot of goalpost shifting on the creationist side in order to avoid any arguments of substance. Particularly it would help if you could concisely explain the difference between specified complexity, CSI, CFSI and CSD. Just so there's no accusations of strawmanning.
Dembski is a dishonest charlatan who still advances the same argument despite having been corrected on more than a few occasions. I will keep this to general points, since this post is long enough already without going into specifics of Dembski's work.
The first noteworthy point about Dembski is is his intellectual honesty or more correctly his complete lack thereof. His tactic of posting preview chapters on the web, allowing critiques and revising his work is not an attempt to correct mistakes but rather to avoid argument of the substance of his claims. In his own words:
"I'm not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics' objections. An additional advantage with this approach is that I can cite the website on which the objections appear, which typically gives me the last word in the exchange. And even if the critics choose to revise the objections on their website, books are far more permanent and influential than webpages."
This vacuum of honesty and integrity continues to inform Dembski's professional career.
The next point is that Dembski's idea of specified complexity is not the revolutionary piece of evidence against evolution that he and other creationists would like to claim. His work, such as it is has not added significantly to the body of work in either information theory or biology. His original work "The Design Inference" is cited in 242 other publications and yet none of these are original research and most of what remains are highly critical of Dembski's unsound claims.
Dembski also seems to have an allergy to supporting this killer argument of his. His peer-reviewed publications (from his own CV) are:
Journals- The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher-Level Search” (co-authored with Robert J. Marks II), Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics 14(5) (2010): 475-486.
Conference Proceedings- Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle” (co-authored with Winston Ewert, George Montañez, Robert J. Marks II), Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, IEEE, University of Texas at Tyler, 9 March 2010.
- Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism” (co-authored with Winston Ewert and Robert J. Marks II), Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, San Antonio, Texas (October 2009): 3047–3053.
- Bernoulli’s Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search” (co-authored with Robert J. Marks II), Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, San Antonio, Texas (October 2009): 2647–2652.
- Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success” (co-authored with Robert J. Marks II), IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, 5(5) (September 2009): 1051–1061.
Dembski's arguments are the worst kind of pseudoscientific crap and have been torn apart again and again. Here is just a few brief articles on why Dembski's arguments don't hold water:- Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information"
- Information Theory and Creationism - William Dembski
- Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates - A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch
- How Anti-Evolutionists abuse mathematics
- Dembski "displaces Darwinism" mathematically -- or does he?
- William Dembski's treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in jello
- How not to detect design
- Effect of Ties on the Evolution of Information by the Ev program
and if you feel in for a bit more of a challenge there's this:
Schneider, T., Evolution of Biological Information, Nucleic Acids Research (2000), Vol. 28, 2794-2799
not to mention the Elsberry/Shallit paper which you are still hiding from.... and I too believe in science and I am a conventionally qualified scientist ...
Degrees that you get on the back of a box of cornflakes don't count.
Now, I've gotten sidetracked enough in this debate, are you going to support your religious assertions or run away and hide like you have done with your pseudoscientific ones??0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
You're saying that "intelligence" cannot come from "non-intelligence"?
If that's the case, then who created your deity?
God was present before time when He formed this system. It's God who created time and space -- God needs no time, robindch, you with your little knowledge tries to measure God but you forget your knowledge, your wisdom has limit --- You can think with in AQUARIUM--- You see, robindch, this AQUARIUM of fish, this is tiny world , they can't think outside of this AQUARIUM --- They even don't note who is watching them
It's a strange example but i hope it would clear your mind about God ---
the equations for general relativity represents t!me & space, the outcomes tell time has a starting- when all this happened- -- as God doesn't exist with time and space so it needs no creation --- You can't apply rules of time and space to God ---as God needs no time and space ----0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement