"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Plautus

So, I was reading this, and couldn't help thinking of Dembski:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[/thread]

Lucy8080

^^^^^^^^^^

i like point four. i bet it has a mirror image for a "logically consistent" statement.

j.c. may get credit for it yet! maybe he gets a minus. yup...i think that is what has happened in here...

for some reason a logically consistent statement would get a minus by the standards of that funny link.

-3 j.c....for making a logically consistent statement..

+3 on the thanks for that link above.

omy.

J C

Plautus wrote: »

So, I was reading this, and couldn't help thinking of Dembski:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[/thread]

Funny ... but when I read it, I immediately thought of M2M Evolution ... and this thread!!!


The Crackpot Index

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit. It needs it ... because it'e the only credit that M2M Evolution merits!!!

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on (by Creation Scientists) to be false. That's just about every statement about M2M Evolution

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. Things like 'Evolution is the only thing that allows scientists to make sense of Biology' ... etc.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. Things like 'Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago ... but ... we find Dino fossils with soft tissue still preserved ... and we find Crocodiles alive today that are identical to the fossilised Crocs that are found alongside fossil Dinos.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. Every statement of Evolutionist Faith is held with religious tenacity by M2M Evolutionists ... so points, were points are due, on this particular issue!!!

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. There are no real experiments that prove that M2M Evolution is even theoretically possible ... so Evolutionists can only do thought experiments by telling wonderful (and unbelievable) stories to themselves ... like the one about the slimeball that morphed into a scientist ... over millions of years!!

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). Things like DNA and RNA, I suppose ... but then Creation Scientists also work on these phenomena ... so I guess that Evolutionsts will have to share the honours on this one!!!

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". ... fair enough!!!

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). That must be an Evolutionist 'thing' ... because Creation Scientists fully support the validity of quantum mechanics.

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. I suppose it helps that Evolutionists have gone to school ... but how much help this has been to them, is an open question!!

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.) I must say that claims that 'Evolution as we know it' has been around since Darwin ... doesn't cut much ice with me ... but then this is a Crackpot Index, after all.


10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. It seems that the 'evidence' for M2M Evolution (that everyone on this thread talks about) falls into this category ... or perhaps it doesn't exist at all.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. Evolutionists offer the money via research grants ... that everybody pays for!!!
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
'Evolution' seems to be a 'weasel word' allright !!!

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". Evolutionists seem to be 'mathematically challengenged' allright ... otherwise they would see that the non-functional combinatorial space for specific functional biomolecules is so tiny as to make non-intelligently directed Evolution an impossibility.

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. Evolutionists don't accept that Intelligent Design is a theory ... they are correct ... it's a fact.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". It is indeed vacuous to argue that even though Intelligent Design explains how living systems originated, it doesn't explain 'why' life exists!!!

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). Einstein did say that he believed that God doesn't play dice with the world ... so I guess this is one set of points that the M2M Evolutionists can't validly claim!!!!

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". This is another set of points that M2M Evolutionists can't claim ... as Evolution is as old as the Ancient Greeks ... and just as dead!!!

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.) Evolutionists often do 'nit-pick' over minor details ... and argue over gnats, while swallowing camels!!!
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. Not an issue for Creationists ... so only Evolutionists can get these points!!!

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). See above.

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. Evolutionists really score here ... they are great story-tellers!!!

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. They don't brag about it ... but M2M Evolutionist stories do attract ridicule

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) Is this something like talking about Darwinian Evolution ... when your name happens to be Darwin???

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. This has certainly happened on this thread in regard to Evolution ... it's what's known as being 'long' on claims ... but 'short' on evidence!!!

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
That sums up what the Evolutionists on this thread (erroneously) think about Creation Scientists.

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". Nobody gets any points on this one!!!

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.) Doesn't apply to this thread.

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. See above on Einstein.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). Some Evolutionists believe they they were created by an extraterrestrial civilization .

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory. Doesn't apply to this thread.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. Doesn't apply to this thread.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. When it comes to Creation Science it isn't a 'conspiracy' ... its just open hostility!!!!!

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. If the cap fits !!!!

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) Doesn't apply to this thread.

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. Sounds like the 50 points are on the way to all of the M2M Evolutionists on this thread!!!

The Evolutionists on this thread seem to have clocked up thousands of points ... on the Crackpot Index!!!:):D:eek:

Sarky

Shoddy, petty one-liners based on a complete misunderstanding of the basics again? Don't you have anything new yet?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Shoddy, petty one-liners based on a complete misunderstanding of the basics again? Don't you have anything new yet?

Sour grapes ...
... and (on SW's advice) ... I'm waiting patiently for you guys to respond to my critique of the anti-ID Paper.:)

18AD

J_C, what exactly is your line of argument here?

Is it that science is based on faith? Is it to say that science is no good because it is based on faith? If so, are you not degrading the idea of faith itself, including in religion, therefore rejecting the idea of faith altogether?

J C

18AD wrote: »

J_C, what exactly is your line of argument here?

Is it that science is based on faith? Is it to say that science is no good because it is based on faith? If so, are you not degrading the idea of faith itself, including in religion, therefore rejecting the idea of faith altogether?

Science is based on repeatably verifiable evidence ... so its not supposed to be based on faith.

However, M2M Evolution is based on faith ... as it is has never been observed and seems to be even theoretically impossible.

I'm not rejecting faith at all ... I believe in the Saving power of Jesus Christ through Faith ... but I believe in ID through repeatably observable science.

I know my faith from my science ... I only wish that I could say the same for the Evolutionists on this thread!!!:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Science is based on repeatably verifiable evidence ... so its not supposed to be based on faith.

However, M2M Evolution is based on faith ... as it is has never been observed and seems to be even theoretically impossible.

I'm not rejecting faith at all ... I believe in the Saving power of Jesus Christ through Faith ... but I believe in ID through repeatably observable science.

I know my faith from my science ... I only wish that I could say the same for the Evolutionists on this thread!!!:)

M2M evolution isn't even a thing, it's a daft term you made up.

No, you believe in ID because religion tells you to.

You clearly don't know your faith from your science.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

M2M evolution isn't even a thing, it's a daft term you made up.

No, you believe in ID because religion tells you to.

You clearly don't know your faith from your science.

M2M Evolution is shorthand for the supposed transition from single-celled Microbes to Mankind via naturally selected mutations that is 'big picture' Evolution. I agree with you that it is a daft thing ... but you're the one who believes that it happened ... while I don't!!!

My 'religion' tells me that an Intelligent God Created all life ... and my science is finding that life was Intelligently Designed. I choose to 'join the dots' through faith ... whereas ye guys deny the physical evidence before your eyes of the Intelligent Design of life ... because your Atheist religion tells you to!!!

18AD

J C wrote: »

Science is based on repeatably verifiable evidence ... so its not supposed to be based on faith.

However, M2M Evolution is based on faith ... as it is has never been observed and seems to be even theoretically impossible.

I'm not rejecting faith at all ... I believe in the Saving power of Jesus Christ through Faith ... but I believe in ID through repeatably observable science.

I know my faith from my science ... I only wish that I could say the same for the Evolutionists on this thread!!!:)

Why is faith in Jesus ok but faith in evolution not ok? How do you make that decision?

J C

18AD wrote: »

Why is faith in Jesus ok but faith in evolution not ok? How do you make that decision?

Whatever you wish to have faith in (including Evolution) is OK by me.

However, the fact that a belief in Evolution is a Faith means that the 'separation of state and faith' doctrine (that Atheists are so fond of) applies equally to Evolution.
However, in American Public Schools, Evolution has effectively become the only state-approved Faith (even though the constitution prohibits the state establishing any faith) ... and it's teaching is mandated by law to all children ... and equally, the teaching of all other faiths is banned by law.

Similar proposals are being made by Atheists and other secularists for schools in Ireland (ironically, under the guise of 'separating faith and state').

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

However, M2M Evolution is based on faith ... as it is has never been observed and seems to be even theoretically impossible.

You do know that it would be impossible to 'observe' the transition from the most primitive forms of life, all the way to modern homo sapiens? We've also never observed a full rotation of Pluto around the sun, given that it's orbit is 248 years and we first identified it only in 1930. But you wouldn't argue with scientists with regards to the orbital duration of Pluto, right?

You're creating a strawman, nothing more - nothing less. The evolutionary record is not complete, and never could be complete - at least in the sense that you are asking. What people like you want is a species by species transition all the way from primitive life-forms, up to modern homo sapiens. It's simply an absurd request.

What we do have is a gradual timeline over an extremely long period of time - which shows life starting with very basic life, and then gradually becoming more complex and advanced over 100's of millions of years. There is no other theory other than evolution that can explain this.

At a finer level, we have an extremely good fossil record of speciation. The homo genus for example is very well documented.

You're simply a fish out of water when it comes to this debate, because either do not understand evolution, or you do understand it and purposely create strawman arguments, and terms - so that you don't have to actually engage and debate on the real logistics of the discussion.

So continue to try and convince yourself that ID is somehow on par at a scientific level, with evolutionary biology and cosmology - because you are fooling nobody, but yourself.

Delirium

Does everything contain CFSI?

J C

koth wrote: »

Does everything contain CFSI?

Some people believe that all matter is 'intelligent' ... but I have seen no evidence to support this idea.

Where the source of CFSI has been established, it has always been observed to be the result of the imposition of intelligently directed action on matter ... and not an inherent capacity of the matter itself.

18AD

J C wrote: »

Whatever you wish to have faith in (including Evolution) is OK by me.

However, the fact that a belief in Evolution is a Faith means that the 'separation of state and faith' doctrine (that Atheists are so fond of) applies equally to Evolution.
However, in American Public Schools, Evolution has effectively become the only state-approved Faith (even though the constitution prohibits the state establishing any faith) ... and it's teaching is mandated by law to all children ... and equally, the teaching of all other faiths is banned by law.

Similar proposals are being made by Atheists and other secularists for primary schools in Ireland (ironically, under the guise of 'separating faith and state').

So the whole point is that you think evolution shouldn't be taught to kids?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

M2M Evolution is shorthand for the supposed transition from single-celled Microbes to Mankind via naturally selected mutations that is 'big picture' Evolution. I agree with you that it is a daft thing ... but you're the one who believes that it happened ... while I don't!!!

It's shorthand for nothing. It's something you made up. To make evolution appear less credible. You misrepresent the theory all the time, probably because you realise that when it's presented properly it makes perfect sense. I didn't say it was a daft thing. Don't put words in my mouth.

My 'religion' tells me that an Intelligent God Created all life ... and my science is finding that life was Intelligently Designed. I choose to 'join the dots' through faith ... whereas ye guys deny the physical evidence before your eyes of the Intelligent Design of life ... because your Atheist religion tells you to!!!

You're not joining the dots, you're not connecting religion and science. You're connecting religion and religion. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for ID. None.
Atheism is not a religion either.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Some people believe that all matter is 'intelligent' ... but I have seen no evidence to support this idea.

can you give some examples of objects that don't contain CFSI?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Some people believe that all matter is 'intelligent' ... but I have seen no evidence to support this idea.

Where the source of CFSI has been established, it has always been observed to be the result of the imposition of intelligently directed action on matter ... and not an inherent capacity of the matter itself.

I don't see how you can establish the source of something that hasn't even been established to exist.

J C

18AD wrote: »

So the whole point is that you think evolution shouldn't be taught to kids?

The whole point is 'parity of esteem' ... either teach the scientific evidence in favour of and against Evolution ... or don't teach it at all.
Equally, 'parity of esteem' would mean that if all children are taught Evolution ... they should also be taught about ID and Creation Science.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

The whole point is 'parity of esteem' ... either teach the scientific evidence in favour of and against Evolution ... or don't teach it at all.
Equally, 'parity of esteem' would mean that if all children are taught Evolution ... they should also be taught about ID and Creation Science.

No.

J C

koth wrote: »

can you give some examples of objects that don't contain CFSI?

a pile of sand, snowflakes, a flowing river, etc.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No.

... er ... yes!!!

Delirium

J C wrote: »

a pile of sand, snowflakes, a flowing river, etc.

So what created them?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... er ... yes!!!

No, that would be like teaching something I just made up off the top of my head as an alternative to the theory of gravity.

You can't just present something as an alternative to a scientific theory without evidence.

18AD

J C wrote: »

The whole point is 'parity of esteem' ... either teach the scientific evidence in favour of and against Evolution ... or don't teach it at all.
Equally, 'parity of esteem' would mean that if all children are taught Evolution ... they should also be taught about ID and Creation Science.

But in your previous post you say that evolution is faith based and that these things shouldn't be taught in schools?

Evolution is based on faith.
Evolution should not be taugh in schools.

-

But now you say that there is (partial) evidence for evolution and that it should be taught along with it's counterparts.

Evolution is based on (partial) evidence.
Evolution should be taught in schools.

J C

18AD wrote: »

But in your previous post you say that evolution is faith based and that these things shouldn't be taught in schools?

Evolution is based on faith.
Evolution should not be taugh in schools.

I have no problem with faith being taught to children in schools (or outside schools) ... so I have no problem ... and indeed, I think that it is essential to teach Evolution 'warts and all' to all children.
-

18AD wrote: »

But now you say that there is (partial) evidence for evolution and that it should be taught along with it's counterparts.

Evolution is based on (partial) evidence.
Evolution should be taught in schools.

I have said that the evidence for and against Evolution should be taught. This would include the fact that there is strong evidence for Evolution within Kinds using pre-existing CFSI ... and the fact that there is no unabiguous evidence for the spontaneous evolution of CFSI.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You can't just present something as an alternative to a scientific theory without evidence.

This hasn't stopped many people presenting M2M Evolution as a scientific theory ... even though it has no unambiguous supporting evidence!!!

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

This hasn't stopped many people presenting M2M Evolution as a scientific theory ... even though it has no unambiguous supporting evidence!!!

Lol.

Delirium

any chance of an answer, JC?

J C wrote: »

a pile of sand, snowflakes, a flowing river, etc.

So what created them?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I have no problem with faith being taught to children in schools (or outside schools) ... so I have no problem ... and indeed, I think that it is essential to teach Evolution 'warts and all' to all children.
-
I have said that the evidence for and against Evolution should be taught. This would include the fact that there is strong evidence for Evolution within Kinds using pre-existing CFSI ... and the fact that there is no unabiguous evidence for CFSI.

FYP.