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…234235237239240…334

Comments

  • Options
    #7082
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    So its not actually science but rather a simplified description of the functions of genes?

    Confused..
    CFSI is valid, cutting-edge scientific terminology.


  • Options
    #7083
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Just proves that I am not sectarian in my sources ... and Evolutionists don't apply their own logic to their own theories. :):p
    They do, and you'd know that if you ever read any of the scientific articles posted on this thread.
    J C wrote: »
    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!!!
    "There's no evidence but it's true", that's a well reasoned argument there, JC
    :rolleyes:
    RichieC wrote: »
    So its not actually science but rather a simplified description of the functions of genes?

    Confused..
    It's a made up phrase by a creationist, which is pretty well debunked in a paper posted on this very thread. One which JC has kept well away from discussing for months.
    J C wrote: »
    CFSI is valid, cutting-edge scientific terminology creationist nonsense .

    FYP

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



  • Options
    #7084
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    J C wrote: »
    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???

    Well I was hoping for a link to explain it but evidently thats not possible. Gee I wonder why...


  • Options
    #7085
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    RichieC wrote: »
    Well I was hoping for a link to explain it but evidently thats not possible. Gee I wonder why...

    seeing as the guy who coined the term had huge problems explaining it, it's extremely unlikely JC will be able to ;)

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



  • Options
    #7086
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Not too fresh in my mind but I believe the evidence points to a group of a thousand or so humans being our decendents.. I dont think anyone says a single male.

    Eta no im thinking of the bottleneck after the krackatoa super volcano.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7087
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    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!!!


    koth
    "There's no evidence but it's true", that's a well reasoned argument there, JC
    Which part of the phrase 'there is scientific evidence' do you not understand?

    All Humans are descended from one man ... and he was Directly Created by intelligent agent(s) unknown ...
    ... this is a matter of Science ... and is supported by the physical evidence!!!

    God created Adam ... this is a matter of Faith, based on the Word of God.

    You guys need to go on a course on logic that will help ye to differentiate between matters of faith (like Spontaneosu Evolution) and matters of science (like the Direct Creation of life).

    koth wrote: »
    It's a made up phrase by a creationist, which is pretty well debunked in a paper posted on this very thread. One which JC has kept well away from discussing for months.
    All scientific terminology has been invented by somebody!!!

    ... and we haven't been discussing the paper that you are referring to ... you guys have been claiming that it is some kind of Evolutionist 'magic bullet' that will invalidate ID ... but so far, its all talk ... and no action ... from you guys!!!


  • Options
    #7088
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    What about eve? why no mention of her?


  • Options
    #7089
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Which part of the phrase 'there is scientific evidence' do you not understand?

    All Humans are descended from one man ... and he was Directly Created by intelligent agent(s) unknown ...
    ... this is a matter of Science ... and is supported by the physical evidence!!!

    God created Adam ... this is a matter of Faith, based on the Word of God.
    well feel free to provide the evidence then, JC. I'm actually amazed you've been sitting on this scientific bombshell for so long.
    All scientific terminology has been invented by somebody!!!

    ... and we haven't been discussing the paper that you are referring to ... you guys have been claiming that it is some kind of Evolutionist 'magic bullet' that will invalidate ID ... but so far, its all talk ... and no action ... from you guys!!!
    There is an abundance of material on this thread that invalidates ID, the paper is just one of those items. There's also the fact that ID is creationism rebranded, which was an attempt to get Christian parables into the science class.

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



  • Options
    #7090
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Shouldnt be long before the SCotUS rules ID not science too.... I hope.


  • Options
    #7091
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    What about eve? why no mention of her?
    The Creation of Eve is a matter of Faith, based on the Word of God.

    ... but there is scientific evidence that all Humans are also descended from one woman (Mitochondrial Eve) ... and she was also Directly Created by intelligent agent(s) unknown ...
    ... this is a matter of Science ... and is supported by the physical evidence!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7092
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    RichieC wrote: »
    Shouldnt be long before the SCotUS rules ID not science too.... I hope.

    indeed. the world really doesn't need such a downward slide in science that would occur if the US began considering ID as science.

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



  • Options
    #7093
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    RichieC wrote: »
    What is this CSFI?
    It's an acronym short for "complex specified functional information" or something like that. Even though JC talks about it in virtually every post, he won't tell us what it is. And he won't do that because the cretin who dreamed up the idea won't tell us either (and Dembski has ceased work on the idea since his backers pulled their funding).

    I suggest substituting it for any other four-letter-abbreviation and see how you get on -- "Special Highly Incomprehensible Thing" seems as good as any other.


  • Options
    #7094
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    There is an abundance of material on this thread that invalidates ID, the paper is just one of those items. There's also the fact that ID is creationism rebranded, which was an attempt to get Christian parables into the science class.
    Spontaneous Evolution is Atheism rebranded ... and even though it has no physical evidence for its existence, this hasn't stopped it being included in science class !!!


  • Options
    #7095
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Spontaneous Evolution is Atheism rebranded ... and even though it has no physical evidence for its existence, this hasn't stopped it being included in science class !!!

    classic stuff, JC. You just keep adding to the list of things you clearly misunderstand. Atheism makes no statement about the origins of life, but you know that and you're just making a facile attempt to counter my post.

    @robin: I suggest that CFSI be logged as meaning "Creationists Faking Scientific Investigation" :pac:

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



  • Options
    #7096
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    It's an acronym short for "complex specified functional information" or something like that. Even though JC talks about it in virtually every post, he won't tell us what it is. And he won't do that because the cretin who dreamed up the idea won't tell us either (and Dembski has ceased work on the idea since his backers pulled their funding).
    Like all valid scientific terms, it is self evident and is exactly 'what it states on the tin' ... complex specified functional information.
    robindch wrote: »
    I suggest substituting it for any other four-letter-abbreviation and see how you get on -- "Special Highly Incomprehensible Thing" seems as good as any other.
    The real "Special Highly Incomprehensible Thing" is Spontaneous Evolution ...
    It enjoys a specially protected status under law, it is highly incomprehensible, as 'it means all things to all men' ... and it is a 'thing' ... in every sense of the word!!!:)


  • Options
    #7097
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    Not too fresh in my mind but I believe the evidence points to a group of a thousand or so humans being our decendents.. I dont think anyone says a single male.
    They do actually!!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

    Quote:
    A family tree of y-chromosomes can be constructed, with the mutations serving as branching points along lineages. Y chromosome Adam is positioned at the root of the family tree as the y-chromosomes of all living males are descended from his y-chromosome...

    ... Y-chromosomal Adam had at least two sons and two of his sons have unbroken lineages that have survived to the present day. Initial sequencing of the human y-chromosome suggested that two most basal y-chromosome lineages were Haplogroup A and Haplogroup BT. Haplogroup A is found at low frequencies in parts of Africa, but is common among certain hunter-gatherer groups. Haplogroup BT lineages represent the majority of African y-chromosome lineages and virtually all non-African lineages.


  • Options
    #7098
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    I corrected myself in the same pozt jc. But well done for being right (I think) this time.


  • Options
    #7099
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    They do actually!!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

    Quote:
    A family tree of y-chromosomes can be constructed, with the mutations serving as branching points along lineages. Y chromosome Adam is positioned at the root of the family tree as the y-chromosomes of all living males are descended from his y-chromosome...

    ... Y-chromosomal Adam had at least two sons and two of his sons have unbroken lineages that have survived to the present day. Initial sequencing of the human y-chromosome suggested that two most basal y-chromosome lineages were Haplogroup A and Haplogroup BT. Haplogroup A is found at low frequencies in parts of Africa, but is common among certain hunter-gatherer groups. Haplogroup BT lineages represent the majority of African y-chromosome lineages and virtually all non-African lineages.

    Let me just add in the rather important bit you conveniently left out there:

    ''All living humans are also descended matrilineally from Mitochondrial Eve who is thought to have lived earlier about 190,000 - 200,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve need not have lived at the same time.''

    If Y-Chromosomal adam and Mitochondrial Eve may not have lived at the same time, this to me would imply that while all living humans are descended from these people, they did not necessarily 'get it on'.

    Therefore, yes, all humans today are descended from one man and one woman. This man and woman way have lived 50,000 years apart, however, so clearly all living humans are not descended from one couple, which to me is a pretty important point.

    Edit -That quote is taken from the source you linked to, in case I wasn't clear about that.


  • Options
    #7100
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    So J C, how about that paper you said you'd debunk? We've been showing it to you since September, have you not been able to come up with a single argument in all that time?


  • Options
    #7101
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    I corrected myself in the same pozt jc. But well done for being right (I think) this time.
    ... so that would be 2 - 0 to Creation Science, then!!!:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7102
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... so that would be 2 - 0 to Creation Science, then!!!:)

    score keeping doesn't really work if you fail to count points gained on the other side ;)

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



  • Options
    #7103
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Let me just add in the rather important bit you conveniently left out there:

    ''All living humans are also descended matrilineally from Mitochondrial Eve who is thought to have lived earlier about 190,000 - 200,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve need not have lived at the same time.''

    If Y-Chromosomal adam and Mitochondrial Eve may not have lived at the same time, this to me would imply that while all living humans are descended from these people, they did not necessarily 'get it on'.

    Therefore, yes, all humans today are descended from one man and one woman. This man and woman way have lived 50,000 years apart, however, so clearly all living humans are not descended from one couple, which to me is a pretty important point.
    The reason for the big difference in 'ages' between Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam is because of the assumed rates of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome mutagenesis.
    Just like many other genetic analyses, assumptions ... in this case, evolutionary assumptions, play a crucial role. Researcher Dr Krzysztof Cyran of the Silesian University of Technology explains the process as follows:
    “You have to translate the differences between gene sequences into how they evolved in time. And how they evolved in time depends upon the model of evolution that you use. So, for instance, what is the rate of genetic mutation, and is that rate of change uniform in time? And what about the process of random loss of genetic variants, which we call genetic drift?”...

    ... "Each model has its own assumptions, and each assumption has mathematical implications. To further complicate matters, some of the assumptions are not valid for human populations. For example, some models assume that population size never changes. That is not true for humans, whose population has grown exponentially for at least several thousand generations. Other models assume perfect mixing of genes, meaning that any two humans anywhere in the world have an equal chance of producing offspring."
    You can read more about this here:-
    http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=14646

    Creation Scientists don't argue now that Mitochondrial Eve was Eve of the Bible ... although she could have been, she could also be the most recent common female ancestor of the immediate descendents of the people on the Ark (if this woman wasn't Eve). The same applies to Y-chromosome Adam ... he may be the Adam who was Created by God ... or the most recent common male ancestor of Noah and his family (if this man wasn't Adam). With two genetic bottlenecks in the Human population (at Creation and at the Flood) this creates the possibility that Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve may not be Adam and Eve ... but they could be!!!

    I'll let AIG take it from here on the difference between Mitochondrial / Y-Chromosome and Nuclear DNA:-

    Quote:-
    When we examine people’s mitochondrial DNA today, we find very little diversity. Generally, mitochondrial genes are very similar. That also implies that there has been little time for mutations to occur. The ancestor of our mitochondrial genes, the woman from whom humans inherited their mitochondria, must have lived relatively recently (just how recently is a matter of debate). ...
    ... The story is different when we examine genes in the nucleus, which are passed down from both males and females. We have found a lot of diversity in nuclear genes, and these genes appear to be from men and women who are older than the ancestor of modern mitochondrial genes. Thus, the diversity in our nuclear genes probably came from people who lived before the Flood and passed their diversity down through several different humans on the Ark.

    How can different genes in the same person come from different sources? Remember that eight people were on the Ark but only four were women, whom we will assume were not closely related. Right after the Flood, a total of four types of mitochondrial DNA were present among the women of the human population. There were even more types of nuclear DNA among both the males and females. Now imagine how quickly the types of mitochondrial DNA could be lost. If Japheth had one daughter and this daughter did not have any daughters, then the mitochondria of Japheth’s wife would have been lost, but Japheth’s nuclear genes would survive through his sons. In this way, mitochondrial diversity can be lost quickly during a genetic bottleneck, while nuclear diversity can be preserved.

    genetic-diversity-large.jpg


  • Options
    #7104
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    score keeping doesn't really work if you fail to count points gained on the other side ;)
    As ye guys only ever score 'own goals' ... the score keeping is very easy indeed!!:pac:


  • Options
    #7105
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    So J C, how about that paper you said you'd debunk? We've been showing it to you since September, have you not been able to come up with a single argument in all that time?
    ... its your cited paper ... and ye guys haven't come up with a single argument based on it, in all that time.

    I guess that would be 3 - 0 in favour of Creation Science!!:)


  • Options
    #7106
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    I think your stepping into trolling territory, jc...


  • Options
    #7107
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... its a fact that its your cited paper ... and its a fact that ye guys haven't come up with a single argument based on it, in all that time.

    ... so there is no trolling by me ... I'm just citing some inconvenient truths!!!


  • Options
    #7108
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You actually don't have the faintest idea how science works, do you? You're lying about having a scientific background. Again.

    Why not be honest just once and admit you don't understand? There's no shame in not understanding science when you don't have that background. Although there is considerable shame in having that background and then insisting on posting the kind of amazingly stupid things you claim are science.

    Come on J C, stop making yourself look stupid. It's sad to watch.


  • Options
    #7109
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    You actually don't have the faintest idea how science works, do you? You're lying about having a scientific background. Again.

    Why not be honest just once and admit you don't understand? There's no shame in not understanding science when you don't have that background. Although there is considerable shame in having that background and then insisting on posting the kind of amazingly stupid things you claim are science.

    Come on J C, stop making yourself look stupid. It's sad to watch.
    Unfounded Ad Hominem remarks ... which is another type of logical fallicy ... and thus an 'own goal' ... so I guess that makes it 4 - 0 to Creation Science!!!:)


  • Options
    #7110
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    So you dont even knpw what ad hominem is either...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7111
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    So you dont even knpw what ad hominem is either...
    Its a remark made about the person making an argument rather than addressing the point at issue ... and is thus a logical fallicy, as it avoids the substantive issue and trys to generate and appeal to people's prejudices instead.
    ... and you can read all about it here:-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    5 - 0 :)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement