"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

Sarky wrote: »

This paper. ...

If there were any errors with the paper's conclusions, I would have thought someone would have been able to expose them by now. The paper itself is over 9 years old at this stage. Maybe I'd get better results by asking a real scientist to play devil's advocate?

I have already said that I am prepared to answer any questions put to me from anybody on the paper.

I have also said that I am prepared to critically review the paper paragraph by paragraph, as ye have requested ... provided you guys nominate one scientific expert from your side to counter what I say / debate with me on the specifics of the paper.
Having up to 100 evolutionists jumping in and out ... and some only making ad hominems against me (as distinct from the points at issue) will get us nowhere.

So who is your 'Goliath' in terms of scientific expertise on biological informatics?

Sarky

Unnecessary and irrelevant. You can point out flaws on your own, or you can't. If your arguments have merit, they won't be torn apart. Throughout this thread you've bragged about being able to hold your own against everyone else. Now you actually have to back your claims up with logic and.evidence, you're suddenly all shy. Have you never actually given a presentation in front of a crowd? That's how it works.

Man up, show us why "up to 100" of us are wrong and quit stalling. You've claimed to have read the whole thing, you've claimed you understand it, you claim it's completely flawed.

Show. Us.

DeVore

Or we could dust off the Boards debating chamber and pit 3 vs 3 in a restricted, public readable forum with the public able to comment in a seperate public-writeable forum.
Its worked well before!

Just an idea...


DeV.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Unnecessary and irrelevant. You can point out flaws on your own, or you can't. If your arguments have merit, they won't be torn apart. Throughout this thread you've bragged about being able to hold your own against everyone else. Now you actually have to back your claims up with logic and.evidence, you're suddenly all shy.

Man up, show us why "up to 100" of us are wrong and quit stalling. You've claimed to have read the whole thing, you've claimed you understand it, you claim it's completely flawed.

Show. Us.

So ye don't have anybody qualified in Biological informatics to debate with me ... this explains why ye never provide any evidence for your numerous erroneous assertions ... and instead engage in logical fallicies like ad homonems and 'bait and switch' arguments.

J C

DeVore wrote: »

Or we could dust off the Boards debating chamber and pit 3 vs 3 in a restricted, public readable forum with the public able to comment in a seperate public-writeable forum.
Its worked well before!

Just an idea...


DeV.

I'll go with a 3 to 1 ... even 100 to 1 ... provided that all ad hominems are banned for the duration of the review.

Delirium

why are you unwilling to respond to the question I asked you relating to the paper?

based on your reading of the paper, can you provide one error on the paper with regards to the analysis of CFSI? And can you then provide some proof from a peer reviewed scientific work to back up your claim?

sponsoredwalk

Jernal wrote: »

Count me in. I'll follow a 1hr lecture with another hour of reading per week if needs be.

Fantastic! :cool:

DeVore wrote: »

Or we could dust off the Boards debating chamber and pit 3 vs 3 in a restricted, public readable forum with the public able to comment in a seperate public-writeable forum.
Its worked well before!

Just an idea...


DeV.

Sounds like a plan, we have to write up a nice letter to send to May
first. will think of something in the next day. Assuming he's up for
it we can put Me, Malty & mystery person X on one side, May, JC &
and whoever the most hardcore denier from the BBC thread is on
the other. Ground rules being that nothing but the contents of the
lectures can be discussed, & soapboxing not being humoured :P
Any further ideas anyone?

J C

koth wrote: »

why are you unwilling to respond to the question I asked you relating to the paper?

based on your reading of the paper, can you provide one error on the paper with regards to the analysis of CFSI? And can you then provide some proof from a peer reviewed scientific work to back up your claim?

... so you're going to hide behind the old Evolutionist 'peer-review' chestnut ... whereby you demand Evolutionist peer review ... while refusing to allow Evolutionist peer review of ID / Creation Science papers.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... so you're going to hide behind the old Evolutionist 'peer-review' chestnut ... whereby you demand Evolutionist peer review ... while refusing to allow Evolutionist peer review of ID / Creation Science papers.

Ok, if you have a problem with the peer-review part of the question, then ignore it.

So how about this revised question.

based on your reading of the paper, can you provide one error on the paper with regards to the analysis of CFSI? And can you then provide an explanation regarding how it is an error?

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Fantastic! :cool:



Sounds like a plan, we have to write up a nice letter to send to May
first. will think of something in the next day. Assuming he's up for
it we can put Me, Malty & mystery person X on one side, May, JC &
and whoever the most hardcore denier from the BBC thread is on
the other. Ground rules being that nothing but the contents of the
lectures can be discussed, & soapboxing not being humoured :P
Any further ideas anyone?

I have no problem with this either ... but countering/defending the ideas presented in the video will obviously involve the citing of other information outside the videos by both sides.
I will agree to focus on debating the specific claims / ideas presented in the video.

Discussing both the 'anti-ID paper' and the 'Pro-Evolution videos' simultaneously will only cause confusion ... so which do ye guys want to run with first?

J C

koth wrote: »

Ok, if you have a problem with the peer-review part of the question, then ignore it.

So how about this revised question.

based on your reading of the paper, can you provide one error on the paper with regards to the analysis of CFSI? And can you then provide an explanation regarding how it is an error?

That is fine ... there are many issues in the paper with regards to CFSI ... and I think the logical way to approch it is to address each issue as we meet it in the paper.

... but which do ye want to do first ... discuss the 'paper' ... or the 'videos'?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I have no problem with this either ... but countering/defending the ideas presented in the video will obviously involve the citing of other information outside the videos by both sides.
I will agree to focus on debating the specific claims / ideas presented in the video.

Discussing both the 'anti-ID paper' and the 'Pro-Evolution videos' simultaneously will only cause confusion ... so which do ye guys want to run with first?

This is the most rational thing I've seen posted in this thread :eek: :P
Yeah, within reason, the citing of material relevant to that particular
lecture is of course a great idea.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... but which do ye want to do first ... discuss the 'paper' ... or the 'videos'?

Well we have to contact J May first JC, do you happen to know him & are
you able to ask him or will I just write up a letter asking him to join us?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

That is fine ... there are many errors in the paper with regards to CFSI ... and I think the logical way to approch it is to address each issue as we meet it in the paper.

... but which do ye want to do first ... discuss the 'paper' ... or the 'videos'?

I'd like you to answer the question that I asked. The paper vs. video is pertaining to an as yet uncreated thread in the debate forum. Or are you suspending discussion on this thread and waiting for the thread on the debate forum to be created?

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Well we have to contact J May first JC, do you happen to know him & are
you able to ask him or will I just write up a letter asking him to join us?

Don't know him personally.
Suggest you write a PM to him.

J C

koth wrote: »

I'd like you to answer the question that I asked. The paper vs. video is pertaining to an as yet uncreated thread in the debate forum. Or are you suspending discussion on this thread and waiting for the thread on the debate forum to be created?

I'll run with the 'paper' or the 'videos' being discussed on this thread going forward ... or if separate threads are created ... I'll also run with that.

I don't want to discuss both the 'paper' and the 'videos' simultaneously ... either on this thread ... or on separate threads.
It could be confusing ... and I don't frankly have the time to do both simultaneously.

My own view is that the 'paper' should be discussed first ... to get the whole ID issue out of the way, one way or the other ... and we can then look at the evolution 'videos'.

... we could also get going with the 'paper' ... while we await John May's decision in relation to the Evolution 'videos' discussion.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

So ye don't have anybody qualified in Biological informatics to debate with me ...

What's your qualifications in Bioinformatics out of curiosity?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I'll run with the 'paper' or the 'videos' being discussed on this thread going forward ... or if separate threads are created ... I'll also run with that.

I don't want to discuss both the 'paper' and the 'videos' simultaneously ... either on this thread ... or on separate threads.
It could be confusing ... and I don't frankly have the time to do both simultaneously.

My own view is that the 'paper' should be discussed first ... to get the whole ID issue out of the way, one way or the other ... and we can then look at the evolution 'videos'.

... we could also get going with the 'paper' ... while we await John May's decision in relation to the Evolution 'videos' discussion.

Okay, JC, I won't press you any more to discuss the paper until a consensus has been agreed as to what is happening with the paper vs. video being first for discussion (be it here or on the debate forum).

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

What's your qualifications in Bioinformatics out of curiosity?

'Curiosity killed the cat'!!!:)

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

'Curiosity killed the cat'!!!:)

But information made him fat!


In an earlier post JC claimed he was a graduate of the National University of Ireland.

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

But information made him fat!

You're a poet ... and you don't know it!!!:)

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

'Curiosity killed the cat'!!!:)

So basically, you've no qualifications. Thanks.

Turtwig

Isn't sarky a research assistant in bioinformatics? Sorry jc but I think we do both improbable and sarky are more than adequately experienced and I wouldn't rule out other a and a regulars either.

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

In an earlier post JC claimed he was a graduate of the National University of Ireland.

dlofnep wrote: »

So basically, you've no qualifications. Thanks.

What I have said ... I have said.

... and what I haven't said ... I haven't said.

J C

... so guys ... is it the paper or the video?
... or are ye afraid ... or very afraid?;):)

Killer Pigeon

Why is this thread still open?

AtomicHorror

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Why is this thread still open?

Because J_C only exists within the context of a nourishing host thread on the topic of evolution. Before this, it was the BC&P thread. Without such a thread, J_C is merely hypothetical.

J C

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Why is this thread still open?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Because J_C only exists within the context of a nourishing host thread on the topic of evolution. Before this, it was the BC&P thread. Without such a thread, J_C is merely hypothetical.

... so, when 'push comes to shove' ... ye just run away ... shouting ad hominems ... as ye go???:eek:

AtomicHorror

Hey J_C, remember this post and this one? Those were fun. You reacted by bulk spamming bible quotes until the Christianity moderators told you to stop, then you went "on holidays" for a while. Good times.

Anyway, you never did refute those points and counterpoints, and it's been nearly three years. Just worth bringing up since you seem to be playing Dodge The Question again. So folks here be warned: you may have a long wait for those answers.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

... so guys ... is it the paper or the video?
... or are ye afraid ... or very afraid?;):)

You must debunk the paper first.

If it's the videos first, then CFSI will be your only argument. So you must prove, beyond all doubt that it is not sh1te.