"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sid_Justice

Sonics2k wrote: »

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

Are you serious? This is the paper that you've been asking some random punter to debunk for over 1000 posts?

Is it even peer reviewed?

This is actually lovely. My entire point is proven. What you guys have done, the people that addressed me and, based on a quick skim, the people that belittled the JC chap is take other peoples research and paraphrase it to try and make yourselves sound informed.

The original poster of the other thread belittled some chappies about evolution/creationism and apparently lambasted with some triade he butchered from some pro-evo website (not the soccer kind). When asked to give a semi-rigorous account of his understanding of evolution he wasn't able to.

The next genius on the thread, Sonics2k tells me there is a 'paper' that 'virtually proves evolution'. I must either applaud him for the clever word play or, more appropiately chastise him for making some a bold, unfounded and false statement that reeks of misunderstanding and miscomprehension.

That paper does NOT prove evolution, virtually, literally, metaphorically, or any other way. If any paper proved evolution it would be peer reviewed, printed in nature and referenced by a million people around the world.

What this case shows again is someone who probably hasn't read the paper, and certainly doesn't understand it, misrepresenting it and trying to beat people over the head with it? Remind you of anything else? A bible maybe?

Now I'm not discounting the paper per say. I haven't read it properly, but I'll take it on first impression that what it says is fair and reasonable. What the paper actually disproves, is some random theory (CSI) some equally random pro-creationist made about the inability of evolutionary based algorithms to create sufficiently complex pieces of information.

To be quite frank, I would be very surprised if anyone bar one or two people on this forum have actually read that paper and are qualified enough to say anything particularly loud about it.

Sid_Justice

Sonics2k wrote: »

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.

No. If you were born with a congenital malformation which resulted in having no nipples (a third, fourth or fifth nipple is known to happen, I don't think no nipples is but it's only an example) you would have no nipples and the rest of male kind would have nipples. The situation then would be, would having no nipples offer you any competitive advantage to other males. Would you be more or less likely to copulate and cause a conception? If you were, would your embryo carry to full term? If so, would that child have any increase in fitness with your dodgy gene (if of course it was a germline gene account for your malformation), would it be better or worse at life so to speak than 'normal' children? Next, if that child became an adult, would it have any greater likelihood of producing viable offspring than a normal? If the answers to these questions are all yes then there is an evolutionary logic for male to lose nipples. If the answer are all no, then there is no evolutionary logic for nipples to be lost.

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

No. nipples are not dead pieces of flesh. I don't know why you would say that, they are living tissue made up living cells like everything else on your body except the most outer layer of skin and your hair.

Next you make another common misconception 'atheist's make. You don't lose things just because you no longer have a use for them. Humans carry their appendices because there isn't any apparent evolutionary pressure to reward losing them.

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.

You'd swear it was 1980 with this kind of carry on?

Delirium

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Now I'm not discounting the paper per say. I haven't read it properly, but I'll take it on first impression that what it says is fair and reasonable. What the paper actually disproves, is some random theory (CSI) some equally random pro-creationist made about the inability of evolutionary based algorithms to create sufficiently complex pieces of information.

That's the reason that we've been asking JC to discuss the paper as his/her argument for intelligent design is relying on the theory that is debunked in the paper.

Sarky

Sid_Justice wrote: »

To be quite frank, I would be very surprised if anyone bar one or two people on this forum have actually read that paper and are qualified enough to say anything particularly loud about it.

Oh, hi.

I've read it. The finer points of information theory is not my strong suit, but having a B.Sc. in marine science, a H.Dip. in microbiology and a M.Sc. in bioinformatics and systems biology, it's safe to say I know a thing or two about mathematics, probability, statistics and molecular evolution. No, the paper does not prove evolution. That was an inelegant choice of words on Sonics2k's part.

What it does, though, and does in a very straightforward and scientific manner, is tear apart the cfsi notion that Dembski used to try claiming proved intelligent design. The paper shows that Dembski is wrong, indisputably, and cfsi is not in any way a valid scientific concept. It does so by pointing out how Dembski never properly defines his terms, uses several other terms interchangeably despite the fact that they all mean quite different things, uses bad mathematics (there's a review of his book that shows one of Dembski's calculations is off by a factor of 10^65 or so, for example), and overall just throws a bunch of crap together and tries to hide the massive flaws behind fancy words.

This particular paper tore apart Dembski's cfsi rubbish nearly 10 years ago. There are a few challenges to creation scientists near the end which, if completed, would go a long way to making cfsi worthy of the attention of the scientific community. But in ten years, nobody's managed to complete one of them. Not even the first, which is provide a rigorous mathematical definition of the term "complex specified information". One would think that if Dembski didn't want people to call him a fraud and a charlatan, he would have been able to do so. He certainly claimed that he could, but he's never published it. It's almost like Dembski was lying when he said he had a rigorous mathematical definition. Imagine that. A creationist telling lies.


Anyway, to the present day:

From this one paper alone, it's obvious that cfsi is a load of crap (Of course, like I said earlier, it's not alone. We're just focusing on one paper because asking J C to debunk 5 papers at once would be excessive.). It simply doesn't hold up to even casual mathematical scrutiny. It cannot be used in an argument, because it is completely invalid.

But J C doesn't seem to realise this. Or, more likely, he DOES realise this but doesn't want to admit it. He keeps beating the same old drum despite the fact that it was all shown to be rubbish at least a decade ago. He goes on and on and on about cfsi as if all those papers showing how the whole theory is half-baked, badly worded mathematically incorrect gibberish were never published. He keeps citing it as a knock-out argument. This appears to be a view completely divorced from reality to anyone with even a year or two of university level mathematics under their belt. Never mind all the fully qualified microbiologists, statisticians and other scientists who contribute to this thread.

Simply put, if cfsi had any merit, J C should be able to show how the paper is flawed, and gets everything wrong. He claims to be a fully qualified scientist, so this should be a doddle. He doesn't even have to understand every nuance of the various disciplines in the paper, he could just seize upon one area he DOES understand and entirely debunk that. But, astoundingly, all he ever does is ignore it, or say it's all completely wrong without going into any detail why, or try to change the subject with snide remarks about evolutionists. He has been doing this since I first posted the paper back in September. This is not the sign of a qualified scientist who knows what he's talking about. He claims to have answers, but never posts them. He claims we're wrong, but can never explain why. Almost every single post he has made in this thread has been untrue, and has been SHOWN to be untrue.

I must admit to being wrong about one thing: J C did once try to debunk a small section of the paper, I'll edit in the link to the post once I find it again. I must have missed that post when it was made. Apologies to J C for claiming he never tried. Nevertheless, the one time he did try, his arguments were full of holes and went down in flames thanks to one poster (I think it was oldrnwisr? It was 4am when I saw it, so I couldn't be certain) knowing what they were talking about.

So far, J C has not provided any counter to that one paper that can hold its own. One little paper that invalidates around 90% of all his posts! If he was serious about the scientific method and had the proof he claims he has, why hasn't he posted it in all this time.


The most reasonable conclusion is that it's because he can't.

So no, I'm afraid your entire point isn't proven. It is a case of someone who HAS read it, and DOES understand it, representing it perfectly accurately, and letting J C BEAT HIMSELF over the head with it by his inability to counter a single point from it.

If you want to point out the flaws in that paper though, be my guest. We've been asking J C to do it for months with nothing but a bunch of smiley faces to show for it...

Mark Hamill

Sid_Justice wrote: »

take other peoples research and paraphrase it to try and make yourselves sound informed.

Thats the definition of informed. You take other peoples research, read it and show that you can reproduce it (usually not word for word). The only issue is whether or not it is understood. I would imagine most people on this forum understand evolution.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

The original poster of the other thread belittled some chappies about evolution/creationism and apparently lambasted with some triade he butchered from some pro-evo website (not the soccer kind). When asked to give a semi-rigorous account of his understanding of evolution he wasn't able to.

You cant blame someone for not wanting to get into a discussion on evolution in a thread where he just wanted to point out a humorous response he got from a JH.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

The next genius on the thread, Sonics2k tells me there is a 'paper' that 'virtually proves evolution'. I must either applaud him for the clever word play or, more appropiately chastise him for making some a bold, unfounded and false statement that reeks of misunderstanding and miscomprehension.

You need to look at the context before belittling Sonics2k. Its been a fair while since I've paid attention to JC, but I'm pretty sure that he still presents "evolution (ie undirected natural processes) cant account for an increase in information" as his main "argument" for creationism (argument in inverted commas as I'm pretty sure that he hasn't defined what he means by information, he is too dishonest to admit that he just means complexity). Dembski is the main proponent put forward supporting this, so a paper debunking it would destroy all of JCs arguments against increased complexity through evolution. Without this argument, every single other biological and paleontological example of evolution would have to stand.

Incidentally, it would never be possible to have the paper peer reviewed, as it debunks Dembski's hypotheses, which themselves have never been peer reviewed.

dlofnep

Sid_Justice wrote: »

You don't lose things just because you no longer have a use for them. Humans carry their appendices because there isn't any apparent evolutionary pressure to reward losing them.

There a vast number of reasons why a species might lose a feature. The appendix is a vestigial feature. Selection has indeed shrunk the appendix, but it is suggested that shrinking the appendix any further would cause more harm than good - as it would produce more blockages. So while it would be far more rewarding to homo sapiens to lose their appendix, it is potentially blocked from happening. Also - we are still a very young species and are still evolving. It's not the same as a car rolling out of a factory which is complete - species are continuously evolving, humans included. Selection may indeed find another way to resolve the issue of the appendix, although - with modern science and qualified doctors able to deal with appendix problems, the role selection plays is lessened greatly. (At least in the developed world).

Species can lose a feature, and often do because they have no use for them btw. That's not to say that they always lose them. An ostrich for example has wings, but do not serve their original purpose of flight. Instead - they are used for balance when the Ostrich runs at high speed. So a species can indeed lose a feature if it has no purpose, or it can use a vestigial feature in a different manner than originally intended.

Sid_Justice

Sarky wrote: »

Oh, hi.

I've read it. The finer points of information theory is not my strong suit, but having a B.Sc. in marine science, a H.Dip. in microbiology and a M.Sc. in bioinformatics and systems biology, it's safe to say I know a thing or two about mathematics, probability, statistics and molecular evolution. No, the paper does not prove evolution. That was an inelegant choice of words on Sonics2k's part.

As I said, I knew there would be one or two. I've a M.Sc in the Bioinformatics area myself, I am no stranger to evolutionary computing or genetic algorithms. You've being too gracious to Sonic, he was completely wrong.

What it does, though, and does in a very straightforward and scientific manner, is tear apart the cfsi notion that Dembski used

Fair enough. But really, ducks in the barrel stuff.

Imagine that. A creationist telling lies.

Necessary? This is the A&A forum after all, really feel the need to sling the mud?

We're just focusing on one paper because asking JC

Why exactly are you asking someone who has no education in the field to prove or disprove a piece of academic work? Is this it like, you get kicks out of it?

So far, J C has not provided any counter to that one paper that can hold its own. One little paper that invalidates around 90% of all his posts! If he was serious about the scientific method and had the proof he claims he has, why hasn't he posted it in all this time.

It all seems rather self-indulgent. You do realise there are literally 1000s of posts on this thread will a very small number of people saying variations of the same thing.

So no, I'm afraid your entire point isn't proven. It is a case of someone who HAS read it, and DOES understand it, representing it perfectly accurately, and letting J C BEAT HIMSELF over the head with it by his inability to counter a single point from it.

My point still holds. My point was the majority couldn't appreciate the science of the paper. You claim you do, and I've no reason to doubt you, you have the credentials and have demonstrated an understanding. My point remains that Sonic obviously doesn't understand the paper and is wielding it like a weapon.

If you want to point out the flaws in that paper though, be my guest. We've been asking J C to do it for months with nothing but a bunch of smiley faces to show for it...

I'm sure if I or anyone looked hard enough there would be flaws in it. There's flaws to some degree in every paper I've ever read. Or do you believe that just because it has some PhDs name on it it must be flawless? ARe you even aware of the irony?

Sid_Justice

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats the definition of informed. You take other peoples research, read it and show that you can reproduce it (usually not word for word). The only issue is whether or not it is understood. I would imagine most people on this forum understand evolution.

I'd love to do a spot check on this forum now and see who can distinguish natural selection and evolution for me. I'd be very surprised if the over half passed the test. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe all these guys who aren't biologists, who aren't evolutionary biologists still understand evolution because they read A God delusion and read the back cover of blind watchmaker.

You cant blame someone for not wanting to get into a discussion on evolution in a thread where he just wanted to point out a humorous response he got from a JH.

Yes I can. When they boast about how they lectured someone on the subject I feel entitled to query the contents of said lecture. Surely you agree that people have to prove what they say and we can't just take their word for it?

You need to look at the context before belittling Sonics2k. Its been a fair while since I've paid attention to JC, but I'm pretty sure that he still presents "evolution (ie undirected natural processes)

I hope that's not your working definition of evolution.

Incidentally, it would never be possible to have the paper peer reviewed, as it debunks Dembski's hypotheses, which themselves have never been peer reviewed.

Wasn't that my point, someone wrote a rebuttal against a crackpot theory in his spare time and now this forum wants to celebrate it as a proof of evolution.

I didn't want to post in this thread, I read this topic when that book came out and it took on a life of its own. The moderator moved my posts here. I essentially think it's a waste of time, it's a group of 'atheists' ganging up on a single creationist who was stubborn enough to provide circular arguments to perpetuate replies from you guys.

I don't think there is any merit, scientific or other, in tihs thread.

Delirium

FYI, Sid, JC claims to be a scientist who has worked for many years in a field of science heavily involved in the area of evolution. He/she refuses to state what scientific qualifications he/she has.

JC has made claims of a very high level of scientific knowledge/education, so it's not asking much of JC to analyse the paper on-thread if we take JC at his/her word.

Mark Hamill

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Why exactly are you asking someone who has no education in the field to prove or disprove a piece of academic work? Is this it like, you get kicks out of it?

JC presented his argument to us, so we counter it. Thats how debates go, its just in this there is a nicely written article which contradicts everythign JC says, and until he can counter it, there is little reason to listen to him prattle on about anything else. Its up to JC to successfully debunk the paper which itself debunks him, not us.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

It all seems rather self-indulgent. You do realise there are literally 1000s of posts on this thread will a very small number of people saying variations of the same thing.

Thats JC for you. Go look at the creationism and evolution thread (assuming it still exists) in the christian forum and, from the start, you can see JC spouting the same bullsh*t, getting debunked and just spouting it again. Its been like this for years. I gave up ages ago, I'm only in this thread because I was reading the nipple one.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

My point still holds. My point was the majority couldn't appreciate the science of the paper. You claim you do, and I've no reason to doubt you, you have the credentials and have demonstrated an understanding. My point remains that Sonic obviously doesn't understand the paper and is wielding it like a weapon.

He did misrepresent it, but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand it. It may have just a poor choice of wording. We will know when he comes back.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I'm sure if I or anyone looked hard enough there would be flaws in it. There's flaws to some degree in every paper I've ever read. Or do you believe that just because it has some PhDs name on it it must be flawless? ARe you even aware of the irony?

Are you aware of the irony of asking if someone has done something and, before they can respond, berating them for it? I'm not, because its not ironic, its actually strawmanning.

Sid_Justice

dlofnep wrote: »

There a vast number of reasons why a species might lose a feature.

There is one reason, evolutionary pressure.

The appendix is a vestigial feature. Selection has indeed shrunk the appendix, but it is suggested that shrinking the appendix any further would cause more harm than good

I know I sound like I'm nit picking and probably doing a tad more inferring than I should but do you know how this sounds. You make it sound that natural selection has decided it won't shrink the appendix any more because it's good enough.

You should always keep in mind that natural selection has no foresight and no hindsight. Things just happen. There are no steps of progression from primitive ape, to more upright man like a set of steps.

So while it would be far more rewarding to homo sapiens to lose their appendix, it is potentially blocked from happening.

Again you make it sound like it's goal oriented. Homo sapiens aspire to be better speices so they want to drop the excess. It doesn't work like that. I don't really get the blocked from happening thing.

Also - we are still a very young species and are still evolving.

What would you call a old species? Coelcanth? Horseshoe crab? All species are evolving. I don't think young or old makes much difference to it, other then perhaps rate.

It's not the same as a car rolling out of a factory which is complete - species are continuously evolving, humans included.

Oh right sorry you say this here.

Mark Hamill

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Yes I can. When they boast about how they lectured someone on the subject I feel entitled to query the contents of said lecture. Surely you agree that people have to prove what they say and we can't just take their word for it?

I would agree that they should be able to support what they say, but not that they have to everyone at anytime.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I hope that's not your working definition of evolution.

Its not, but thats how JC puts it: Natural random processes cant result in new information ("complexity"), only an intelligence cant account for DNA/humans etc. etc.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Wasn't that my point, someone wrote a rebuttal against a crackpot theory in his spare time and now this forum wants to celebrate it as a proof of evolution.

One person described the article as such, not the whole forum.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I didn't want to post in this thread, I read this topic when that book came out and it took on a life of its own. The moderator moved my posts here. I essentially think it's a waste of time, it's a group of 'atheists' ganging up on a single creationist who was stubborn enough to provide circular arguments to perpetuate replies from you guys.

I don't think there is any merit, scientific or other, in tihs thread.

I think you want it to be that the atheists here are bullying some creationist, but that just doesn't add up. JC has been doing this for years, firstly on the christianity forum and now here (presumably still on the christianity forum too). But no-one forces him to do it, he does because he wants to. And those that debunk him do so so that when someone comes along to these threads, they dont go away thinking that JC is saying anything that is even remotely true.

Sid_Justice

koth wrote: »

FYI, Sid, JC claims to be a scientist who has worked for many years in a field of science heavily involved in the area of evolution. He/she refuses to state what scientific qualifications he/she has.

JC has made claims of a very high level of scientific knowledge/education, so it's not asking much of JC to analyse the paper on-thread if we take JC at his/her word.

For the people that are requesting JC rebuttal the paper, why don't they say, define evolutionary computing and genetic algorithms for me or algorithmic information theory.

Delirium

Sid_Justice wrote: »

For the people that are requesting JC rebuttal the paper, why don't they say, define evolutionary computing and genetic algorithms for me or algorithmic information theory.

speaking for myself, I couldn't do that as I don't have the requisite knowledge so I'd leave it to people who say they know that stuff do so. And JC has been the most vocal in claiming to have that knowledge/education.

Sonics2k

I can admit fault and will retract my statement that it virtually proves evolution. I am no scientist, and will admit a mistake.

However I think Sarky cleared it all up greatly.

dlofnep

Sid_Justice wrote: »

There is one reason, evolutionary pressure.

Of which many factors contribute to said pressure. Climate, competition for food, etc..

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I know I sound like I'm nit picking and probably doing a tad more inferring than I should but do you know how this sounds. You make it sound that natural selection has decided it won't shrink the appendix any more because it's good enough.

No, that's not what I said or anything even remotely like it.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

You should always keep in mind that natural selection has no foresight and no hindsight. Things just happen. There are no steps of progression from primitive ape, to more upright man like a set of steps.

I'm well aware of how natural selection works, thanks very much. I'm referring to the observation of evolution.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Again you make it sound like it's goal oriented. Homo sapiens aspire to be better speices so they want to drop the excess. It doesn't work like that. I don't really get the blocked from happening thing.

No, I don't. Natural selection has no goal, nor did I state anywhere that it did.
Regarding the appendix - appendicitis is caused when the appendix opening to the cecum becomes blocked.

Natural selection reduced the size of the appendix in humans, but it is blocked from reducing it any further (suggested by Jerry Coyne), because to do so would increase the rate at which appendicitis occurs. As it stands, it's about 1 in every 15 people, which prior to modern medicine was fatal. Therefore, humans with an even smaller appendix would be more susceptible to appendicitis - let's say for the sake of argument every 1 in 5 people.

Therefore - the appendix is blocked from being reduced in size by natural selection, as it is detrimental to the species. It's not to say that a human cannot have a genetic error which would reduce the size of the appendix, it's just that it would not be beneficial for their offspring to inherit - and thus, a 'block' in natural selection. That is how Jerry Coyne describes it - I trust his judgement on the topic.

J C

robindch wrote: »

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.

... and to have Spontaneous Evilution (AKA neo-Darwinian Evilution) accepted as valid science ... the definition of science would need to be widenened to include fairy stories ... like the one about the frog ... that turned into a prince in a (long) series of mistakes!!!

Sid_Justice

Sid_Justice wrote: »

For the people that are requesting JC rebuttal the paper, why don't they say, define evolutionary computing and genetic algorithms for me or algorithmic information theory.

So dlofnep how about you answer these questions?

You're obviously well able to parrot off what "Jerry Coyne" says (i thought he was the infamour JC who has just returned). So if you are so fanatical about JC refuting this paper why don't you demonstrate your knowledge of the topic.

Sid_Justice

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not the same as a car rolling out of a factory which is complete - species are continuously evolving

This is another terrible analogy. You're comparing an individual (a car) to a group (species). What would be more appropriate would be to compare a model to a species and a car to an individual. A model is made up of cars and a species is made up of individuals. The car comes out and it goes about its business until a new model comes in. The car that breaks down the most gets replaced the better car stays.

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

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.

You are speaking like a Theistic Evolutionist when you say this.
God chose to create Adam as a special ex nihilo Creation ... and He chose to create Eve from Adams flesh ... Adam therefore had to have the CFSI potential to generate both women and men ... and that is why men have both X and Y chromosomes ... but women only have X chromosomes.
Male mammals also need the genetic CFSI to ensure female Mammals have mammary glands ... and that is also why men (and other male mammals) have hormonally controlled (non-functional) nipples!!!:)

J C

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I'd love to do a spot check on this forum now and see who can distinguish natural selection and evolution for me. I'd be very surprised if the over half passed the test.

The inability to distinguish between the proven fact of NS (in all its various manifestations) ... and spontaneous evolution (which is little more than a collection of well-written stories) is a problem that isn't just confined to this thread.:)

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I didn't want to post in this thread, I read this topic when that book came out and it took on a life of its own. The moderator moved my posts here.

Robin, Dades .... what have you done???!!!:eek::D

dlofnep

Sid_Justice wrote: »

You're obviously well able to parrot off what "Jerry Coyne" says

There's a stark difference between reading a book thoroughly, and parroting a few buzz words. I have read Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" a number of times, from cover to cover - including a number of other texts on the topic of evolution. My interest in the topic is out of curiosity, rather than academic. I don't study evolutionary biology in University, nor did I ever pretend to claim so. If you feel that reading books from well respected evolutionary biologists, taking on-board that information and then using the said information to assist me in forming an argument is parroting - then quite frankly, I've no idea what you're on about.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

So if you are so fanatical about JC refuting this paper why don't you demonstrate your knowledge of the topic.

Where have I demonstrated a fanaticism for J C to refute this paper? The majority of my dialogue with him has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of specified complexity - but rather my personal rebuttals to some claims he has cited from Answers in Genesis, including erroneous claims of carbon-dating of coal, projected population growth and a handful of other topics. I'm not interested in CSI. I have watched Dembski debate, and he simply didn't manage to sell his argument to me. No more, no less.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not interested in CSI. I have watched Dembski debate, and he simply didn't manage to sell his argument to me. No more, no less.

There is none so blind as he who will not see (the obvious)!!!!:)

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

There is none so blind as he who will not see (the obvious)!!!!:)

You missed an L in oblivious.

Plautus

I think Sid_Justice has a good point actually - is this how we're getting our kicks: going around in circles asking someone with a poor (or non-existent) education in science to refute something he can't and won't admit that he can't? Talk about low-hanging fruit.

Thread should have been knocked on the head a couple of thousand posts ago.

J C

Sid_Justice wrote: »

For the people that are requesting JC rebuttal the paper, why don't they say, define evolutionary computing and genetic algorithms for me or algorithmic information theory.

Genetic algorithms are basically computer programmes that claim to mimic spontaneous evolution.
However, they are not real analogues to spontaneous evolution, as they require Intelligent Design at many points in their programming and execution ...
... starting with the intelligently designed computers that they run on, the intelligently designed programming language that they are written in and the intelligently designed structure of the algorithms themselves.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... starting with the intelligently designed computers that they run on, the intelligently designed programming language that they are written in and the intelligently designed structure of the algorithms themselves.

That's great and all, but it carries no weight because you do not apply the same logic to your 'intelligent designer', who must be more complex than the Universe itself - and thus require an intelligent designer themselves.

Of course, you excuse this intelligent designer of the requirement for a designer because it doesn't suit your argument. You expect us to believe that a Deity designed a decaying Universe, full of black holes, exploding stars and planet-seeking asteroids, an imperfect body incapable of synthesizing vitamin and an appendix that is willing to explode at any given moment.

A designer that look on with indifference at the Earth for over 13 billion years, and then decided to plant the seed of humanity and wait another 100,000 or so before he 'saved' us with his only begotten son. You seriously can't be expected to present a theory in 2011 and not be ridiculed. It's simply preposterous.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

The inability to distinguish between the proven fact of NS (in all its various manifestations) ... and spontaneous evolution (which is little more than a collection of well-written stories) is a problem that isn't just confined to this thread.:)

That's another thing, you keep refusing to acknowledge that the only person on this thread who keeps talking about "spontaneous evolution" is you.

Nobody else is, quite frankly, woefully misinformed enough to think that's how evolution happened. Just you. Do you not ever feel a little embarrassed about that? Or are you content to keep posting things that have been shown time and again to be totally untrue?

You should probably read something on evolution that was printed AFTER what Darwin wrote. Seriously, most of his ideas have been improved upon or replaced with something better at this stage. You could do yourself a favour and read up on your favourite creationist heroes too, and acknowledge that most of them don't have any relevant qualifications.

Please educate yourself, J C. Nobody with the qualifications you claim to have would keep getting it so wrong. Stop making a fool of yourself. Either debunk that paper, or admit that you're not the scientist you claim to be. And if you ARE a scientist, let us know how you came to be so BAD at it.

Oh, and if you could see your way to debunking that paper soon, that'd be nice too. I've been showing you since September, but you've been almost totally silent on the matter. I mean, you "committed" to responding to it, but you're taking an awfully long time about it, and if you don't do it soon I think we're all just going to conclude that you cant, that 90% of your posts are lies, and move on without you.

robindch

Sid_Justice wrote: »

For the people that are requesting JC rebuttal the paper, why don't they say, define evolutionary computing and genetic algorithms for me or algorithmic information theory.

As you're a recent, and most welcome, arrival here to A+A, let me present a basic flow-chart of how things are done around here. Note specifically, point (1) below. Thanks.

dead one

robindch wrote: »

As you're a recent, and most welcome, arrival here to A+A, let me present a basic flow-chart of how things are done around here. Note specifically, point (1) below. Thanks.

"Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass"