"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Good to see that you accept that He exists.:)

... and He Created everything!!!!

I accept that he exists as a figment of your imagination, and in that said imaginary world - he created everything.

But back in reality - there is unfortunately no evidence to suggest that there was any supernatural hand in the dawn of the Universe, or indeed life.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

I accept that he exists as a figment of your imagination, and in that said imaginary world - he created everything.

But back in reality - there is unfortunately no evidence to suggest that there was any supernatural hand in the dawn of the Universe, or indeed life.

... 'nothing' ... except the impossibility of the alternative ... abiogenesis and spontaneous evolution!!!!:)

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... 'nothing' ... except the impossibility of the alternative ... abiogenesis and spontaneous evolution!!!!:)

You keep repeating this - but it doesn't make your claims any more true. Evolution is a fact. It is predictable, observable, is peer-reviewed and has a vast array of evidence to support it.

I'm not all that interested in abiogenesis for the moment. I don't understand the origins of life, but I don't seek to fill gaps through more ignorance (IE: Biblical nonsense). I do accept that ongoing studies with regards to early earth conditions, and the produced amino acids thus far are promising - but still require further study.

legspin

J C wrote: »

Well said Mad Hatter!!

I agree that this wasn't nice ... but I hope that legspin will 'man up' and withdraw it ... because it is clearly isn't true!!!

Everybody on this thread are honourable people with sincerely held beliefs.

I don't think the Hatters'comment was directed at me.


I will withdraw the statement when you and your cohort of ignorance pedalling sliveens stop trying to drag folk back to the dark ages, and there is absolutely no evidence that has happened, is happening or will happen.

The Mad Hatter

legspin wrote: »

J C wrote: »

Well said Mad Hatter!!

I agree that this wasn't nice ... but I hope that legspin will 'man up' and withdraw it ... because it is clearly isn't true!!!

Everybody on this thread are honourable people with sincerely held beliefs.

I don't think the Hatters'comment was directed at me.

It certainly wasn't, but J C has considerable precedent in deliberately misinterpreting other peoples' posts in order to make them agree with him. I also don't think his beliefs are sincerely-held.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It certainly wasn't, but J C has considerable precedent in deliberately misinterpreting other peoples' posts in order to make them agree with him.

You are doing a good job at doing that yourself!!!:D
The only person who referred to 'Mallet Heads' on the thread was legspin!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by legspin
Do we not have enough medacious mallet heads around here already?.

The Mad Hatter
Incidentally, there was no question directed at you when you implied that all the non-creationists on this thread were mallet-heads.

Maybe you are both correct!!!!:)

I always quote people directly and accurately!!!!

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

You are doing a good job at doing that yourself!!!:D
The only person who referred to 'Mallet Heads' on the thread was legspin!!!

Maybe you both are correct!!!!:)

I always quote people directly and accurately!!!!

Like all those times you quoted Gould?

J C

legspin wrote: »

I will withdraw the statement when you and your cohort of ignorance pedalling sliveens stop trying to drag folk back to the dark ages, and there is absolutely no evidence that has happened, is happening or will happen.

The denial ... and the ignorace pedalling is all about bolstering the 'half truth' that is 'evolution'.
Its Natural Selection component is a demonstrable fact ...
... but its claim that mutagenesis produces improved functional genetic information, for NS to select, is a demonstrable fiction!!!!

BTW, Creation Scientists are honourable conventional scientists of the highest calibre!!!

... Evolutionists are also generally honourable people ... they are are simply mistaken in their unfounded belief that pondkind evolved into anything other than more varieties of pondkind !!!
... its their overwhelming need to reject the God that Created them, that is impelling them to think up completely illogical stories about spontaneous evolution!!!;);)

J C

J C wrote: »

I always quote people directly and accurately!!!!

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Like all those times you quoted Gould?

Yes.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... but its claim that mutagenesis produces improved functional genetic information, for NS to select, is a demonstrable fiction!!!!

Mutations don't have to be functional. There is no intent. They can be good, bad or indifferent. It's the ones that are beneficial, that improve the chances of survival - have a better chance of being passed down.

What part of this is it you don't understand? You're arguing from incredulity.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Mutations don't have to be functional. There is no intent. They can be good, bad or indifferent. It's the ones that are beneficial, that improve the chances of survival - have a better chance of being passed down.

What part of this is it you don't understand? You're arguing from incredulity.

Random changes to all Complex Functional Specified Information always degenerates it.
... that's why people (including Evolutionists) avoid mutagenesis!!!

... I'm arguing from logic and evidence ... you are arguing from 'old wives tales'.

Delirium

If you have the evidence to prove your claims, why not have a go at disproving the paper you've been ignoring for the best part of 4 months?

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Random changes to all Complex Functional Specified Information always degenerates it.

Er, no it doesn't.

J C

J C wrote: »

Random changes to all Complex Functional Specified Information always degenerates it.

dlofnep wrote: »

Er, no it doesn't.

... try making random changes to a page of meaningful text ... and see!!:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... try making random changes to a page of meaningful text ... and see!!:)

speaking of text, when you going to discuss the paper? Or you going to continue to ignore it?

J C

koth wrote: »

speaking of text, when you going to discuss the paper? Or you going to continue to ignore it?

You're the guys ignoring it ... and providing no evidence for your unfounded beliefs in the magical powers of Pondslime.

I'm steadily providing unchallengable evidence for my scientific hypotheses.

Delirium

we're ignoring the paper that we've been constantly asking you to address for months?

Any time you feel like attempting to discredit it, you fire ahead.

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

You're the guys ignoring it ... and providing no evidence for your unfounded beliefs in the magical powers of Pondslime.

I'm steadily providing unchallengable evidence for my scientific hypotheses.

I'm a late arrival to this thread so I'm not familiar with the paper in question. I am confused as to how you can say you are not ignoring it though, as an objective bystander to the situation it would seem you are doing just that because everytime someone mentions it you either ignore the post or just say something irrelevent.

Delirium

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm a late arrival to this thread so I'm not familiar with the paper in question. I am confused as to how you can say you are not ignoring it though, as an objective bystander to the situation it would seem you are doing just that because everytime someone mentions it you either ignore the post or just say something irrelevent.

Here's a link to the post that Sarky posted on the 3rd of September for JC to discuss.

As you can see, we are all patiently awaiting JC to debunk it.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... try making random changes to a page of meaningful text ... and see!!:)

That's an absurd comparison.

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm a late arrival to this thread so I'm not familiar with the paper in question. I am confused as to how you can say you are not ignoring it though, as an objective bystander to the situation it would seem you are doing just that because everytime someone mentions it you either ignore the post or just say something irrelevent.

A paper has been cited that is claimed to debunk ID ... I have read it and I have found that it doesn't.
The evolutionists on the thread continually ask me to debunk the paper ... but they cite nothing from the paper for me to debunk.

I prefer to positively present my case without wasting my time, going off on tangents debunking something that doesn't debunk what it claims to debunk.:)

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

That's an absurd comparison.

The comparison is very pertinent.
DNA contains a language (only much more sophisticated than Human language) ... deciphering this language was what the Human Genome project was all about ... and thus DNA stores and transmits CFSI

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

A paper has been cited that is claimed to debunk ID ... I have read it and I have found that it doesn't.
The evolutionists on the thread continually ask me to debunk the paper ... but they cite nothing from the paper for me to debunk.

I prefer to positively present my case without wasting my time, going off on tangents debunking something that doesn't debunk what it claims to debunk.:)

You should enlighten them then surely as to why the paper is wrong, I have no doubt they would appreciate it very much

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

You should enlighten them then surely as to why the paper is wrong, I have no doubt they would appreciate it very much

If you genuinely want to know what is wrong with Evolution ... just read my postings on this thread.

Time is too precious to go around debunking something that doesn't debunk what it claims to debunk.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

DNA contains a language (only much more sophisticated than Human language) ... deciphering this language was what the Human Genome project was all about ... and thus DNA stores and transmits CFSI

Random mutations are observable. It's irrelevant how complex DNA is. There is no intent in the mutation. DNA could be a trillion times more complex, it still wouldn't change anything.

Antibiotic resistance over the decades is visible evidence of evolution.

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

If you genuinely want to know what is wrong with Evolution ... just read my postings on this thread.

Time is too precious to go around debunking something that doesn't debunk what it claims to debunk.

Hypothetically speaking, I could say the same thing about your posts and yet it would be pointless for me to say your posts don't debunk anything unless I pointed out exactly why and how they fail to debunk anything. Such is the nature of discussion. Time is indeed precious, but if people can set aside the time to read all your posts and reply to them surely you could stick up a few pointers relating to how a peer reviewed paper you apparently already read fails to debunk what it supposedly debunks.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

A paper has been cited that is claimed to debunk ID ... I have read it and I have found that it doesn't.
The evolutionists on the thread continually ask me to debunk the paper ... but they cite nothing from the paper for me to debunk.

I prefer to positively present my case without wasting my time, going off on tangents debunking something that doesn't debunk what it claims to debunk.:)

JC, let me break this down for you. You have given no indication at all whatsoever that you have actually read the paper. This is why your repeated assertions that you have read the paper and there is nothing in it to challenge csfi are being held as lies.

You repeatedly claim that you are a conventionally qualified scientist, if you were indeed what you claim then you should understand why the way in which you have "dealt" with the paper is not satisfying to people who are confirmed scientists or even non-scientists who are interested in this subject. Whilst I, and probably most people here, fully accept that you may be a conventionally qualified scientist there is absolutely nothing in your behaviour on this, or any other, thread that would support this claim.

You have repeatedly refused to tell us what you qualification is. You cite "fear for your job" as the reason for this refusal. That seems a little weak. Unless you are the only person in the country with a particular qualification and you are academically well known it would seem unlikely people would be able to work out who you were. I am going to go ahead and suggest that you are not the only person with your particular qualification and I am going to go out on a limb and further suggest that you are not academically well known.

Can you please tell us what your conventional scientific qualification is please?

To everyone else on the thread; I really like this thread, but it is starting to p1ss me off somewhat. There is a lot of good info here (and no JC, none of it came from you) and I have learned a lot. I think the thread is now at the point where the only outstanding item is JC's demolition of the paper showing the csfi is a load of crap.

He has been asked for months and has repeatedly dodged it. If I may be so bold, I think we are enabling his behaviour of denial by engaging with him in his unrelated posts of bullsh1t. So I have this suggestion, why don't we have a standardised post that is used in response to any of JC's posts until he rebuttes the paper? Something like this:

"JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74184167&postcount=5370"

Please feel free to suggest improvements to the standard post. I expect it is not specific enough in what it is asking for, so perhaps one of the more scientifically minded among you could provide more detail as to what is expected in the rebuttal?

MrP

J C

koth wrote: »

we're ignoring the paper that we've been constantly asking you to address for months?

Ye are the ones ignoring the paper and what you seem to believe it says. I'm waiting patiently to see what ye are all talking about!!!

koth wrote:

Any time you feel like attempting to discredit it, you fire ahead.

If it bolsters your case, please feel free to quote from it ... and if it doesn't, I would suggest you stop embarrassing yourselves by engaging in a 'Kings new Clothes' type of debate on it!!!!
It's time that ye 'put up ... or shut up' about this paper.:)

Delirium

JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74184167&postcount=5370

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Random mutations are observable. It's irrelevant how complex DNA is. There is no intent in the mutation. DNA could be a trillion times more complex, it still wouldn't change anything.

As mutations are random, I accept that they have no intent ... but (as a result) they always degrade genetic CFSI.
Similary, random changes to a page of meaningful text also don't have any intent ... and they also degrade the CFSI in the text.

dlofnep wrote: »

Antibiotic resistance over the decades is visible evidence of evolution.

Antibiotic resistance is an exampe of Natural Selection in action.
Evolutionists seem to continually confuse Natural Selection of pre-existing CFSI with the origins of the CFSI, in the first place. They confuse the survival of the fittest CFSI (via NS) ... with the production of the fittest CFSI (via Creation).