"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists are all conventionally qualified scientists ... so we have the same scientific standing as yourself and you fellow evolutionsists.

No, they are not. We've been over that. You know we have. You're lying again.

... ye are the guys admitting that you have no problem with the fact that Genetic CFSI exists ... and you then promptly deny that it exists!!!
Pull yourself together man!!

Stop twisting words and lying. It's pathetically childish. Nobody here did anything of the sort, and you would have to be particularly dense or deceitful to come to any other conclusion. Or both, but that's neither here nor there.

There is no further need to debunk any paper ... you have just admitted that you have "no problem" with genetic information being Complex, Functional and Specified ... and Creation Scientists also fulfil you other requirement ... that real scientists come up with this conclusion!!!:)

Seriously? That's how you're going to duck out of it? that's pretty lame, even for you.

Debunk the paper, J C. Stop pretending you're a scientist, and prove it. One little scientific critique, that's all it will take. You've been given months. You've even committed to it, at least twice. Now you're going back on those commitments? Perhaps you'll understand a passage from the bible, seeing as you clearly have no clue about basic microbiology:


Psalms 101:7, "He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight."

You are no friend of God's, that's clear. You lie every single chance you get.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

No, they are not. We've been over that. You know we have. You're lying again.

All Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified Scientists FACT.

They wouldn't be entitled to call themselves scientists (of any description) unless they are conventionally qualified.

Sarky wrote: »

Stop twisting words and lying. It's pathetically childish. Nobody here did anything of the sort, and you would have to be particularly dense or deceitful to come to any other conclusion. Or both, but that's neither here nor there.

Seriously? That's how you're going to duck out of it? that's pretty lame, even for you.

Debunk the paper, J C. Stop pretending you're a scientist, and prove it. One little scientific critique, that's all it will take. You've been given months. You've even committed to it, at least twice. Now you're going back on those commitments? Perhaps you'll understand a passage from the bible, seeing as you clearly have no clue about basic microbiology:


Psalms 101:7, "He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight."

You are no friend of God's, that's clear. You lie every single chance you get.

I have told the truth ... and the lies and deceit are all on the evolutionist side of the equation on this thread.

... so lets revisit my posting at 22.49 yesterday ... and your answer at 23.14 ... and we'll see who is the liar and the twister of words:-

I said

J C wrote:

"... so which part of the term Genetic CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) do you not understand/accept?

1. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Complex?
This is surely self-evident, especially since the decocoding of the Human Genome ... which required millions of hours of Human .
effort ... and the assistance of a super computer ... and we are still discovering vast new arrays of hidden complexities within the decoded Genome.

2. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Functional?
This is also self-evident - genetic information codes for highly functional living organisms and their individual highly functional processses and features.

3. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Specified?
This again is also self-evident - the link between a particular codon and the production of a specific Amino Acid is absolute ... living systems and functional proteins rely on critical sequences of amino acids, where even one amino acid mssing or changed will result in the biomolecule being non-functional or with severely degraded functionality.

4. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Information?
This is what it surely is ... Genetic Information.

... and you said

Sarky wrote:

I have no problem with genetic information being any of those things, as defined by real scientists.

What did you mean by these words, other than, that you had no problem with genetic information being Complex, Functional, Specified and Information?
... yet you persist in asking me to debunk your own cited paper on the validity of Genetic CFSI ... when you have admitted that you 'have no problem with genetic information' being Complex, Functional, Specified and Information (CFSI).

Sarky

J C wrote: »

All Creations Scientists are conventionally qualified Scientists FACT.

They wouldn't be entitled to call themselves scientists (of any description) unless they are conventionally qualified.

Perhaps you're forgetting this post which shows a "conventionally qualified" creation scientist actually had buggerall relevant qualifications?
Or maybe this post?
Or this one?

"But sarky!!!!!!!!" I hear you cry, "that's just one creation scientist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!:D:o:eek::P:eek::D"

Well, that's true. But he's not alone in being a complete fraud.

But that's old ground, we've gone over how what you said there is a total lie in detail ages ago. You'll be doing yourself a favour not bringing up the subject of your idols being charlatans in future.


Regarding the rest of your shamelessly deceitful post:
I meant that the way you use those words is inaccurate. Which of course you'd know, if you'd read the paper we showed you months ago that you promised to debunk, but then tried to weasel out of. You'd also know it if you had any kind of scientific background.

But of course you KNOW what I meant, because it was written quite clearly. A person would have to either be quite stupid or poor with English to think otherwise. You're trying to twist words to make yourself look clever, and just like every other time to tried, you failed miserably.

Now quit hiding from your own promises and debunk the paper.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

I meant that the way you use those words is inaccurate. Which of course you'd know, if you'd read the paper we showed you months ago that you promised to debunk, but then tried to weasel out of. You'd also know it if you had any kind of scientific background.

The words Complex Functional and Specified are self-explanatory ... and you have admitted that they are appropriately applied to Genetic Information ... yet you continue to ask me to debunk a paper you claim to prove that these words are not appropriate descriptors of Genetic Information.
... and then you have the audacity to accuse me of lying and twisting words!!!:(

Sarky

J C wrote: »

The words Complex Functional and Specified are self-explanatory

If you knew anything about science, you'd know nothing is self-explanatory in science. Everything is defined so there is no room for misinterpretation. Everything. And Dembski hasn't defined cfsi in terms even close to robust enough to have merit. And his lack of definition is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems with cfsi.

Which you'd know, had you bothered to read that paper you're still running from. Are you going to man up and debunk it any time soon?

... and you have admitted that they are appropriately applied to Genetic Information ... yet you continue to ask me to debunk a paper you claim to prove that these words are not appropriate descriptors of Genetic Information.

They are appropriately applied to genetic information on their own, and using the scientific definitions.

What you are doing is using someone else's shoddy definitions which allow for such loose interpretation that they could mean anything. And when coupled with the appallingly poor mathematics Dembski applied in his book, he makes them do just that.

... and then you have the audacity to accuse me of lying and twisting words!!!:(

It's not an accusation. It's pretty indisputable at this stage. If you want us to stop calling you a liar, you're going to have to stop lying. How is this not getting through to you?

Debunk the paper, J C. Like I've said before, you have no other options.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Perhaps you're forgetting this post? which shows a "conventionally qualified" creation scientist actually had buggerall relevant qualifications?
Or maybe this post?
Or this one?

"But sarky!!!!!!!!" I hear you cry, "that's just one creation scientist!:D:o:eek::P:eek::D"

Well, that's true. But he's not alone in being a complete fraud.

But that's old ground, we've gone over how what you said there is a total lie in detail ages ago. You'll be doing yourself a favour not bringing up the subject of your idols being charlatans in future.


Regarding the rest of your shamelessly deceitful post:
I meant that the way you use those words is inaccurate. Which of course you'd know, if you'd read the paper we showed you months ago that you promised to debunk, but then tried to weasel out of. You'd also know it if you had any kind of scientific background.

But of course you KNOW what I meant, because it was written quite clearly. A person would have to either be quite stupid or poor with English to think otherwise. You're trying to twist words to make yourself look clever, and just like every other time to tried, you failed miserably.

Now quit hiding from your own promises and debunk the paper.

Grady McMurtry is indeed a conventionally qualified scientist, with an undergraduate degree in Agricultural Science and a masters degree in Environmental Science.

As for the other degree holders, you have cited, some of these are obviously not considered to be Creation Scientists ... they are Legal Advisers, Mathematicians, Philosophers, Engineers, Historians, Theologians and Biblical Apologists ... all of whom provide invaluable expert opinion and advice to Creationists (and Creation Scientists) on various aspects of the Creation issue.
... and BTW the Astronomer and the Nuclear Physicist mentioned are (conventionally qualified) Creation Scientists.

... and after that particular tangent has now been 'put to bed' (for the umteenth time) ... can we get back to your admission that Genetic CFSI is a fact??

Sarky

I guess you'll just refuse to accept the reality that none of those people have any relevant qualifications. It's like someone with a Ph.D. in Ancient Greek thinking he's qualified to perform open heart surgery because he can call himself a doctor.

As for your accusation of me saying cfsi is a fact, I do hope you can back that up with something. Because I am quite certain I said nothing of the sort. you've lied enough tonight as it is.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

If you want us to stop calling you a liar, you're going to have to stop lying. How is this not getting through to you?

Were you lying when you said that you have no problem with genetic information being Complex, Functional, Specified and Information?

... or are you lying when you ask me to 'debunk' the idea that genetic information isn't Complex, Functional, Specified and Information?

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Were you lying when you said that you have no problem with genetic information being Complex, Functional, Specified and Information?

... or are you lying when you ask me to 'debunk' the idea that genetic information isn't Complex, Functional, Specified and Information?

I never said anything like that, though, so I'm afraid you're making yourself look even dumber.

Now, if you're quite done trying to weasel out of it, get back to debunking that paper.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

I guess you'll just refuse to accept the reality that none of those people have any relevant qualifications. It's like someone with a Ph.D. in Ancient Greek thinking he's qualified to perform open heart surgery because he can call himself a doctor.

It's like somebody with a Ph.D. in Ancient Greek thinking he's qualified to provide an expert opinion on Ancient Greek text.

Sarky wrote: »

As for your accusation of me saying cfsi is a fact, I do hope you can back that up with something. Because I am quite certain I said nothing of the sort. you've lied enough tonight as it is.

This was the exchange ... so ... you tell me what you were saying ... or do we now have to read you mind as well as your writings???

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
"... so which part of the term Genetic CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) do you not understand/accept?

1. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Complex?
...
2. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Functional?
...
3. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Specified?
...
4. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Information?.


Originally Posted by Sarky
I have no problem with genetic information being any of those things, as defined by real scientists.

I see that you are a bioinformatition ... so this stuff is within your area of expertise ... so 'whats the story Rory'???

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Grady McMurtry is indeed a conventionally qualified scientist, with an undergraduate degree in Agricultural Science and a masters degree in Environmental Science.

A degree in agriculture and a masters in forestry. He's basically one step up from a park ranger. Cut the shít. I also have a 'science' degree. But it (much like McMurtry's qualifications) are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Sarky

Oh, I see where the confusion is.

You think I was actually backing your position by saying I have little problem with complexity, specificity, or functionality of genetic information. You've missed the end of that sentence where I added the caveat "as defined by real scientists". By "real scientists", I of course meant people who focus on things like genetics, molecular evolution, microbiology, evolution, things like that. Things that actually have some bearing on the subject.

You seem to think that someone with a degree in agricultural science can be considered as being knowledgeable about the finer points of molecular evolution. That is EXACTLY like someone with a Ph.D. in Ancient Greek thinking he's qualified to perform open heart surgery because he can call himself a doctor. It doesn't matter how many times you disagree, or use the word FACT in big letters, that is reality, and it contradicts your claims. That makes you wrong.

You see, Dembski, the charlatan who coined the term cfsi which you seem to be thoroughly gay for, doesn't know what he's talking about. He tries to use information theory, probability, mathematics and biology to say that cfsi exists, but if you look closely at anything he's written, one can easily see he has no knowledge of any of these things, as his claims are all so flawed as to be completely worthless. You'd know this of course if you'd read that paper you promised you'd debunk before you lied about leaving the forum.

Well, I think that's where your issue is. I mean, the alternative is that you know bloody well what I'm saying, and you're getting all butthurt that your precious creation scientists don't seem to know a thing about molecular evolution, and trying desperately to claim that I said something I didn't in order to protect your little worldview.


Debunk the paper. You have no other options left.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

A degree in agriculture and a masters in forestry. He's basically one step up from a park ranger.

... and a brain surgeon is 'one step up' from a Nurse ... and they would also be completely irrelevant, if you wanted an expert opinion on how different trees speciated since the Flood or a Dendrochronology question!!!

... so what is you point?

... Creation Science draws on the expertise of every science discipline and many other academic disciplines as well.

Evolutionists should try it sometime ... the overview might get ye out of the scientific and philosophical cul de sac that many of ye seem to have driven into!!!:)

dlofnep wrote: »

I also have a 'science' degree. But it (much like McMurtry's qualifications) are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

... Your scientific inadequacies certainly haven't stopped you pontificating about things you know nothing about on this thread!!!
... but I will listen to you with respect ... because I don't believe that science is something that should be confined to an 'initiated priesthood' ... and if you make sensible points, I will take them on board.

Sarky

Debunk the paper, J C.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Debunk the paper, J C.

You have debunked it for me!!

Sarky wrote:

I have no problem with genetic information being any of those things (Complex, Functional, Specified and Information), as defined by real scientists.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... Your scientific inadequacies certainly haven't stopped you pontificating about things you know nothing about on this thread!!!

That's cute, considering you're still unable to offer a rebuttal to a number of points I made. You ran with your tail between your legs.

The difference is - I don't cite some irrelevant qualifications in an attempt to try pass myself off as a scientist, unlike your park-ranger friend above.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

You have debunked it for me!!

That is another lie. At least, I hope it's another lie. The only other way you could think I actually debunked the paper is if you were very, very stupid. I'd honestly prefer you to be a liar.

Debunk the paper. You said you were committed to debunking it. So far all you've done is run and hide whenever your lies are exposed. You have no other options left.

Sarky

Or you could run off and avoid it again, I suppose. It's certainly easier on the mind than trying to debunk a paper that undermines most of the rubbish you've been posting for the last few years.

I noticed recently that the paper itself was published in 2003. Nearly a decade later, not a single creationist seems to have been able to debunk it. Am I putting too much stock in J C as creationism's last, best herp hope?

Sonics2k

Don't bother Sarky.

He's doing what most religious orders do, twist words to make it look like it supports them so they don't actually have to think.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

You see, Dembski, the charlatan who coined the term cfsi which you seem to be thoroughly gay for, doesn't know what he's talking about.

Dumbski abandoned his ideas shortly after the Discovery Institute and their friends pulled his funding following the ID's pwnage at Dover.

Recall that Michael Behe, the only well-qualified scientist in the US who supports ID, was forced to admit during the trial that in order to get ID accepted as science, the definition of science would have to be widened to include astrology.

The admission was a moment of uncharacteristic honesty from the ID crew.

Sarky

It's tragically comic that J C seems to be unaware of all that. I mean I just don't pay attention to creationism because it's crazy bollocks, to use a lay term. What do you think his excuse is?

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

I just don't pay attention to creationism because it's crazy bollocks

Hardly. Even crazy bollocks can stand up from time to time.

Deus Ex Machina

This chap J.C. has 1978 posts on this thread. That is all.

Sonics2k

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I just find it interesting that atheists and agnostics, when asked a very simple question (to explain something they explained only the other day) respond with petty personal remarks. I think it's very tragic that the great work of scientists like Richard Dawkins is parodied in forums like this.

We have done all this in the Creationism thread, and speaking of tragic. There's a funny bloke in there (a creationist) who seems to believe that Richard Dawkins is actually a creationist himself.

In that thread we have linked to an article the virtually proves Evolution, and have been waiting many months for this guy to debunk it. If you're up to challenge, please feel free

Sid_Justice

robindch wrote: »

Sid, for the second and final time, the forum's creationism thread is here.

You might get a response if you post in a friendly manner. You certainly won't if you continue posting as you are.

what has my question got to do with creationism ?

His answer is probably the funniest, most empty-headed excuse for a grasp-at-anything, on the spot answer I've ever heard. I'm still laughing at how ridiculous it is:

"Because they look nice"

Why do peacocks have plumage?
Because they look nice.

Why do stags have antlers?
Because they look nice (plus other things)

Why do cockerels have a comb?
Because they look nice.

I could go on.

I just find it funny and slightly ironic that you consider someone's response, which has a somewhat explainable in evolutionary terms laughable.

Sid_Justice

what post is the paper in?

Sonics2k

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Why do peacocks have plumage?
Because they look nice.

Why do stags have antlers?
Because they look nice (plus other things)

Why do cockerels have a comb?
Because they look nice.

I could go on.

I just find it funny and slightly ironic that you consider someone's response, which has a somewhat explainable in evolutionary terms laughable.

Peacocks have plumage for breeding reasons, it's how they attract females.
Stags have antlers for a similar reason, that and protection.
Cockerels have a comb for the same reason.

The last time I checked, if I walked up to a woman and said "Sup lady, check out these Nipples!" it probably wouldn't get a good response.

Sid_Justice

Sonics2k wrote: »

Peacocks have plumage for breeding reasons, it's how they attract females.
Stags have antlers for a similar reason, that and protection.
Cockerels have a comb for the same reason.

The last time I checked, if I walked up to a woman and said "Sup lady, check out these Nipples!" it probably wouldn't get a good response.

How'd you think you'd get on if you went up and bared your chest and had no nipples?

Delirium

Sid_Justice wrote: »

what post is the paper in?

Here's a link to the post containing the paper

Sonics2k

Sid_Justice wrote: »

How'd you think you'd get on if you went up and bared your chest and had no nipples?

Well, then we'd have to work under one of two situations.

1) If I don't no men do. So it would be the norm for men not to have nipples, and so given current society, would quite possibly still get a slap for flashing my chest to some poor woman.

2) If I didn't have nipples, it would be safe to it's a part of evolution at work, as other men would be the same to. After all, these are essentially dead bits of flesh that serve no purpose to me, and so have started to be removed from the body. Much like the tails we once had connected to the tailbone millions of years ago

Otherwise, male nipples would appear to be a mistake made by god, after all, why would an infallible being put something on our bodies that was totally unneeded? That doesn't sound like the work of an all-knowing all powerful being.