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…247248250252253…334

Comments

  • Options
    #7472
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    any chance of an answer, JC?



    So what created them?
    A combination of random and deterministic processes.


  • Options
    #7473
    18AD
    Registered Users Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    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 the spontaneous evolution of CFSI.

    So the whole point is that you think the alternative to evolution that you endorse should be taught in schools?


  • Options
    #7474
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    A combination of random and deterministic processes.

    Why can this not apply to life then?


  • Options
    #7475
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    A combination of random and deterministic processes.

    so humans must be created by a designer, but the universe (including Earth) happened without a designer?

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



  • Options
    #7476
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    18AD wrote: »
    So the whole point is that you think the alternative to evolution that you endorse should be taught in schools?
    You have accepted that (M2M) Evolution is a faith ... so I say 'sauce for the goose ... sauce for the gander'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7477
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Why can this not apply to life then?
    Because a combination of random and deterministic processes is observed to not be capable of generating the Complex Functional Specific Information found in living systems.


  • Options
    #7478
    18AD
    Registered Users Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    J C wrote: »
    You have accepted that (M2M) Evolution is a faith ... so I say 'sauce for the goose ... sauce for the gander'.

    To be honest, I don't even know what M2M Evolution is. I'm just trying to make sense of what you're saying. I havn't accepted anything.

    You claimed evolution was faith based.
    Then you admit that there is some evidence for it, therefore it's not faith based.
    J C wrote:
    I have said that the evidence for and against Evolution...

    Emphasis added.


  • Options
    #7479
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    by whom?

    who have proven this to be the case? Have the defined exactly what CFSI is?

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



  • Options
    #7480
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    so humans must be created by a designer, but the universe (including Earth) happened without a designer?
    Life can be scientifically declared to have been intelligently designed because it contains CFSI.

    Raw matter in the Universe and on the Earth doesn't contain CFSI ... and therefore may ... or may not have been intelligently created.
    It's a bit like a pile of sand may have been dumped by a lorry driven by an intelligent agent ... or it may have been dumped by floodwater.
    ... but if a house has been built by the appliance of intelligence to the pile of sand it will contain CFSI ... and it therefore can be scientifically declared to have been Intelligently Designed.


  • Options
    #7481
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    How can it scientifically declared? There isn't any science out there that mentions CFSI.

    And you've just contradicted yourself because if I make a sandcastle, sand suddenly has CFSI?

    The term is so ambiguous as to be of no use.

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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7482
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    How can it scientifically declared? There isn't any science out there that mentions CFSI.

    And you've just contradicted yourself because if I make a sandcastle, sand suddenly has CFSI?

    The term is so ambiguous as to be of no use.
    Where have I contradicted myself ... I said that CFSI is the result of the imposition of intelligent activity on matter ... and a sand-castle is indeed the result of the imposition of intelligently directed activity upon sand.

    A sand-castle contains Complex Specified Design and is thus a product of intelligence.


  • Options
    #7483
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    does a cave created by coastal erosion contain CFSI?

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



  • Options
    #7484
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    A sand-castle contains Complex Specified Design and is thus a product of intelligence.

    What about a snow-flake, which gives the appearance of design?

    icysnow-flake.jpg


  • Options
    #7485
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    does a cave created by coastal erosion contain CFSI?
    no ... coastal erosion doesn't produced specified functional structures that the hand of man would produce.


  • Options
    #7486
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    What about a snow-flake, which gives the appearance of design?

    icysnow-flake.jpg
    A snowflake is designed (by a combination of random and deterministic processes).

    It isn't intelligently designed, because it doesn't have specified functionality.


  • Options
    #7487
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    no ... coastal erosion doesn't produced specified structures that the hand of man would produce.

    but man made caves do contain CFSI?

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



  • Options
    #7488
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    but man made caves do contain CFSI?
    Yes, that is actually how we differentiate between man-made and naturally created caves.


  • Options
    #7489
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, that is actually how we differentiate between man-made and naturally created caves.

    so if a person was to happen upon a cave, how would they measure the absence/presence of CFSI?

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



  • Options
    #7490
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, that is actually how we differentiate between man-made and naturally created caves.

    No it isn't. I mean, there are observable conditions which can reveal whether a cave is man made or natural, but to lump these under an umbrella term like CFSI, which is then also used to describe features present in life, is just unreasonable.


  • Options
    #7491
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    so if a person was to happen upon a cave, how would they measure the absence/presence of CFSI?
    You would observe if there are complex specified structures or designs on the walls of the cave. If there are chisel marks and/or artwork, for example, these would be complex specified designs and thus CFSD.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7492
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    so you can only determine CFSI after determining that a human created the cave by evidence of tools used or cave paintings? and what is CFSD?

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



  • Options
    #7493
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    okay, JC, I have this for you to ponder/respond to.

    I'm going to use the cave example to try and get across where my thinking is at with regards to CFSI.

    The cave exists, but we don't know if it's erosion or man made. So we examine the cave. We find evidence of tool marks on the cave which match previously discovered tools known to be used by man. And once we've established this we can say the cave contains CFSI.

    To apply the same thinking to creationism we fall at the first hurdle. We don't have evidence of tools that have been used previously by a deity to create life. We essentially have the cave, but no tool marks.

    Creationism is basically saying that a deity created a cave using tools never before seen, that leave no evidence behind but there is CFSI present in humans.

    How? You haven't fulfilled the criteria you put forward with regards to caves and CFSI. The existence of the designer proves the case for CFSI, not vice versa.

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



  • Options
    #7494
    18AD
    Registered Users Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    What is CFSI? :confused:


  • Options
    #7495
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    It's funny, nobody has ever come out and defined it in a way that makes sense. Or is even internally consistent.


  • Options
    #7496
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    A snowflake is designed (by a combination of random and deterministic processes). It isn't intelligently designed, because it doesn't have specified functionality.
    It does -- it's designed by nature to fall downwards. And it does this quite effectively.

    Are you saying that gravity is intelligent?


  • Options
    #7497
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    okay, JC, I have this for you to ponder/respond to.

    I'm going to use the cave example to try and get across where my thinking is at with regards to CFSI.

    The cave exists, but we don't know if it's erosion or man made. So we examine the cave. We find evidence of tool marks on the cave which match previously discovered tools known to be used by man. And once we've established this we can say the cave contains CFSI.
    When it comes to things like caves it is actually CFSD (Complex Functional Specified Design )that we are talking about, most of the time. Identification of such designs is independent of the methods used to produce them.
    koth wrote: »
    To apply the same thinking to creationism we fall at the first hurdle. We don't have evidence of tools that have been used previously by a deity to create life. We essentially have the cave, but no tool marks.
    ... we have the cave with the complete works of Shakespeare (and Wikipedia) written on its walls!!!
    Who did the writing ... and how it was actually done isn't known ... but we know definitively that an inteligent agent(s) did it.
    koth wrote: »
    Creationism is basically saying that a deity created a cave using tools never before seen, that leave no evidence behind but there is CFSI present in humans.

    How? You haven't fulfilled the criteria you put forward with regards to caves and CFSI. The existence of the designer proves the case for CFSI, not vice versa.
    The existence of CFSI scientificaly proves that an intelligent agent(s) is/are ultimately responsible for the artefact, nothing more ... nothing less.


  • Options
    #7498
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    It does -- it's designed by nature to fall downwards. And it does this quite effectively.
    ... and it does so through a combination of random (air movements) and deterministic (gravity) processes - which don't require any intelligent input.
    robindch wrote: »
    Are you saying that gravity is intelligent?
    ... I am saying that neither the production of the snowflake or it's falling to the ground reqiuires an intelligent input ... but using it in combination with other snowflakes to make a specified snowman or a functional specified igloo does require an intelligent input.


  • Options
    #7499
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I actually regret trying to focus J C on that paper for so long.

    He's much more hilarious when trying to explain other things.


  • Options
    #7500
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    ... and it does so through a combination of random (air movements) and deterministic (gravity) processes - which don't require any intelligent input.

    ... I am saying that neither the production of the snowflake or it's falling to the ground reqiuires an intelligent input ... but using it in combination with other snowflakes to make a specified snowman or a functional specified igloo does require an intelligent input.

    What makes a snowman more specified than a snowflake?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7501
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    When it comes to things like caves it is actually CFSD (Complex Functional Specified Design )that we are talking about, most of the time. Identification of such designs is independent of the methods used to produce them.

    ... we have the cave with the complete works of Shakespeare (and Wikipedia) written on its walls!!!
    Who did the writing ... and how it was actually done isn't known ... but we know definitively that an inteligent agent(s) did it.

    The existence of CFSI scientificaly proves that an intelligent agent(s) is/are ultimately responsible for the artefact, nothing more ... nothing less.

    Alright folks we've worked out what CFSI is, let me provide a definition.

    CFSI is whatever a creationist wants it to be at any given moment in time.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement