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
1…233234236238239…334

Comments

  • Options
    #7052
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    But it's already been shown on this thread that the entire concept of CSFI is meaningless pseudoscientific bulldung.
    Ye guys have done no such thing.

    Ye have linked to a paper that ye claim to invalidate CFSI ... and ye then promptly ran away from it, as if it was on fire ... while shouting at me to criticise it.

    I would ask you which dimension to the CFSI found in the genomes of living creatures, are you denying?

    ... so, are you denying that it is Complex?
    ... or Functional?
    ... or Specified?
    ... or Information?


  • Options
    #7053
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Being a former evolutionist I understand it all too well.
    ... but, if I am wrong, this is your opportunity to enlighten me ... and showcase your knowledge of the subject.

    Pity your involvement in this thread shows a complete unwillingness to understand/accept any of the mountain of evidence produced here.

    Add to that, your continued promotion of CFSI when people have provided links/arguments showing it to be nonsense. This is further compounded by an unwillingness to discuss the paper that debunks it and a failure on your behalf to provide any peer reviewed scientific papers supporting CFSI.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #7054
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    J C wrote: »
    Ye guys have done no such thing.

    Ye have linked to a paper that ye claim to invalidate CFSI ... and ye then promptly ran away from it, as if it was on fire ... while shouting at me to criticise it.

    I would ask you which dimension to the CFSI found in the genomes of living creatures are you denying?

    ... so, are you denying that it is Complex?
    ... or Functional?
    ... or Specified?
    ... or Information?

    Your response to the paper was to ask how it reached its conclusions (which would have been perfectly clear if you'd read any more than the conclusions section of the paper). You then claimed for months to have addressed it, and subsequently ignored any further posts on the matter.

    And now you say we are running from the paper?


  • Options
    #7055
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Pity your involvement in this thread shows a complete unwillingness to understand/accept any of the mountain of evidence produced here.
    ... ye keep talking about 'mountains of evidence' ... but then ye provde no actual evidence for how Prokaryotes could ever become Professors!!!
    ... or land mammals becoming Whales either !!!
    koth wrote: »
    Add to that, your continued promotion of CFSI when people have provided links/arguments showing it to be nonsense. This is further compounded by an unwillingness to discuss the paper that debunks it and a failure on your behalf to provide any peer reviewed scientific papers supporting CFSI.
    ... so, which dimension to the CFSI found in the genomes of living creatures, are you denying?

    ... are you denying that it is Complex?
    ... or Functional?
    ... or Specified?
    ... or Information?


  • Options
    #7056
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... ye keep talking about 'mountains of evidence' ... but then ye provde no actual evidence for how prokaryotes could ever become Professors!!!
    well if you'd actually read any of the text/links posted on the thread you might have a better understanding of the evidence. But I can understand your unwillingness to engage with the material that has been provided by various posters.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7057
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Glad I found this video again. I wonder what you make of it, jc;

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s

    embedding is difficult on my phone.


  • Options
    #7058
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    assume this is the video you were trying to embed, Richie:)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #7059
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    well if you'd actually read any of the text/links posted on the thread you might have a better understanding of the evidence. But I can understand your unwillingness to engage with the material that has been provided by various posters.
    I've read them ... and I've even wrote about some of these ideas, in my youth!!!
    ... but none of these phenomena provides any evidence that Prokaryotes could ever become Professors!!!


  • Options
    #7060
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I've read them ... and I've even wrote about some of the ideas in them, in my youth!!!
    ... but none of these ideas provide evidence that Prokaryotes could ever become Professors!!!

    There have been many articles/links posted here showing the evidence for evolution. As yet, you haven't provided any evidence for the creation story in the bible.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #7061
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Thanks, koth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7062
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    assume this is the video you were trying to embed, Richie:)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s
    Yes indeed, Evolutionists do use the location of integration sites of the transposable elements of HERVs to determine evolutionary relationships ... but is this what actually happened?
    The presupposition of common ancestry is underpinning the interpretation of the evidence for common ancestry - and thus it is circular logic in action.

    Common integration sites are equally indicative of a common designer, as certain sites may have been predisposed to the insertion of retroviruses. Since chimp and human genomes are similar, similar sites in the genomes may have seen incorporation of certain retroviruses at the same locations in their genomes in the (not too distant) past. This would seem to indicate is that the common ancestors of all Humans and Chimps were infected with the same RVs at the same time ... probably during, or in the immediate aftermath of the Flood, when their numbers had all bottlenecked!!!

    If you would like to pursue further reading on this matter, here is a peer-reviewed paper, on the subject of HERVs.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/12/19/human-endogenous-retroviruses

    ... and that is why every Evolutionary Biology Department needs a resident Creation Scientist ... to stop Evolutionist 'flights of fancy' ... and to help ensure full peer-review, by challenging presuppositions, when necessary, within their research conclusions.:D


  • Options
    #7063
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    They had a model, made a prediction which turned out to be correct. Its called science. What youre doing is hijacking their work and inserting your assumption in "god did it"

    youre argument is kinda dying on its arse here, jc.


  • Options
    #7064
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    They had a model, made a prediction which turned out to be correct.
    ... or was it the other way around ... that they discovered the insertions ... and then interpreted them in accordance with Evolutionist presuppositons about common ancestry???

    RichieC wrote: »
    Its called science.
    ... it's called something that is badly in need of Creation Science peer-review!!!:pac:

    RichieC wrote: »
    What youre doing is hijacking their work and inserting your assumption in "god did it"
    Ye are hi-jacking God's handiwork ... and claiming that it just 'made itself'!!!:pac:
    RichieC wrote: »
    youre argument is kinda dying on its arse here, jc.
    This certainly applies to the idea that the location of integration sites of the transposable elements of HERVs supports common ancestry ... rather than common design ... and common infection !!!


  • Options
    #7065
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Fair play. Jc. Im tapping out.


  • Options
    #7066
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    Fair play. Jc. Im tapping out.
    That would be 1 - 0 to Creation Science then !!!:)


  • Options
    #7067
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Science does not make assumptions as huge as what youre suggesting, jc.

    Biblical creation you are talking and it is not a science.


  • Options
    #7068
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    Science does not make assumptions as huge as what youre suggesting, jc.
    Evolutionist Science makes an even greater assumption ... that dead clay can eventually produce Human Beings through processes unknown acting over billions of years and the accumulation of selected mistakes.
    RichieC wrote: »
    Biblical creation you are talking and it is not a science.
    If Direct Creation (by an agent or agents unknown) was the process by which life was created ... and it looks that this was how it happened ... then Science needs to study it.

    Evolutionists are free to not study the most likely way that life originated ... but they don't have the right to stop other Scientists from doing so ... and having their results published in peer-reviewed Journals.


  • Options
    #7069
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    This is why youre being ridiculed jc. Im not a scientist and even I know that evolutionists, as you put it make no assumptions on what is an entirely different area of study. Abiogenisis is a different field of study to evolutionary biology. In the unlikely case that a creator was discovered and verified, it wouldnt change the facts of evolution one iota.


  • Options
    #7070
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    This is why youre being ridiculed jc. Im not a scientist and even I know that evolutionists, as you put it make no assumptions on what is an entirely different area of study. Abiogenisis is a different field of study to evolutionary biology. In the unlikely case that a creator was discovered and verified, it wouldnt change the facts of evolution one iota.
    Richie ... the fact is that both Abiogenesis and macro-evolution require the spontaneous production of vast quantities of new CFSI and are therefore both impossibilities.

    Evolutionists point to the evidence for micro-evolution and speciation within Kinds (which nobody disputes) ... and they then switch to the unwarranted conclusion that this 'proves' that Microbes became Microbiologists !!!!

    They point out the fact that NS of pre-existing CFSI happens ... and they then erroneously claim that this implies that new CFSI can be created without an intelligent input.

    This is the logical fallacy of Equivocation

    http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_equivocation.htm


  • Options
    #7071
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    What is this CSFI? I never heard of it. You got a link to some info? google is no help.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7072
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Richie ... the fact is that both Abiogenesis and macro-evolution require the spontaneous production of vast quantities of new CFSI and are therefore both impossibilities.
    Yeah, much better to accept the bible myth of a man instantly being created from clay. And of course, you have proof to back up this claim. I mean you wouldn't just accept any camp-fire story without evidence?
    Evolutionists point to the evidence for micro-evolution and speciation within Kinds (which nobody disputes) ... and they then switch to the unwarranted conclusion that this 'proves' that Microbes became Microbiologists !!!!

    They point out the fact that NS of pre-existing CFSI happens ... and they then claiming that this implies that new CFSI can be created without an intelligent input.

    Instead of creating terms (such as CFSI) in attempt to create an illusion of science around religious parables.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #7073
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    What is this CSFI? I never heard of it. You got a link to some info? google is no help.
    Google doesn't have access to everything!!!


  • Options
    #7074
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    J C wrote: »
    RichieC wrote: »
    What is this CSFI? I never heard of it. You got a link to some info? google is no help.
    Google doesn't have access to everything!!!

    Even if its just mumbo jumbo made up by creationists there still should be something I can read on it.


  • Options
    #7075
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    This is the logical fallacy of Equivocation

    http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_equivocation.htm

    well done, JC, you just sank CFSI with that link :D

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #7076
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Yeah, much better to accept the bible myth of a man instantly being created from clay. And of course, you have proof to back up this claim. I mean you wouldn't just accept any camp-fire story without evidence?
    I agree that people shouldn't believe in any old story ... like the Evolutionist one about the amphibian frog 'evolving' into the Human prince, with nothing added but time and selected mistakes!!!

    In any event, science doesn't concern itself with who/what the intelligence was ... but merely with the physically observable evidence for it's actions.

    koth wrote: »
    Instead of creating terms (such as CFSI) in attempt to create an illusion of science around religious parables.
    CFSI is no illusion.

    I have already asked which dimension to the CFSI found in the genomes of living creatures, you are denying.

    ... are you denying that it is Complex?
    ... or Functional?
    ... or Specified?
    ... or Information?

    ... and the silence that these questions have received proves that CFSI is a valid scientific descriptor of genetic information.


  • Options
    #7077
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I agree that people shouldn't believe in any old story ... like the Evolutionist one about the amphibian frog 'evolving' into the Human prince, with nothing added but time and selected mistakes!!!

    In any event, science doesn't concern itself with who/what the intelligence was ... but merely with the physically observable evidence for it's actions.
    Bingo, JC. Science deals with evidence. All the more reason why the bible stories aren't considered science, no evidence exists to prove that God created Adam.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #7078
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    well done, JC, you just sank CFSI with that link :D
    Just proves that I am not sectarian in my sources ... and Evolutionists don't apply their own logic to their own theories. :):p


  • Options
    #7079
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Bingo, JC. Science deals with evidence. All the more reason why the bible stories aren't considered science, no evidence exists to prove that God created Adam.
    There is no scientific evidence that God created Adam ... this is a matter of Faith.

    ... but there is scientific evidence that all Humans are descended from one man ... and he was Directly Created by intelligent agent(s) unknown!!!


  • Options
    #7080
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    J C wrote: »
    koth wrote: »
    Yeah, much better to accept the bible myth of a man instantly being created from clay. And of course, you have proof to back up this claim. I mean you wouldn't just accept any camp-fire story without evidence?
    I agree that people shouldn't believe in any old story ... like the Evolutionist one about the amphibian frog 'evolving' into the Human prince, with nothing added but time and selected mistakes!!!

    In any event, science doesn't concern itself with who/what the intelligence was ... but merely with the physically observable evidence for it's actions.

    koth wrote: »
    Instead of creating terms (such as CFSI) in attempt to create an illusion of science around religious parables.
    CFSI is no illusion.

    I have already asked which dimension to the CFSI found in the genomes of living creatures, you are denying.

    ... are you denying that it is Complex?
    ... or Functional?
    ... or Specified?
    ... or Information?

    ... and the silence that these questions have received proves that CFSI is a valid scientific descriptor of genetic information.

    So its not actually science but rather a simplified description of the functions of genes?

    Confused..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7081
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    Even if its just mumbo jumbo made up by creationists there still should be something I can read on it.
    Its no 'mumbo jumbo' ... and you're hearing about it from me ... what more do you want???


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement