"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Delirium

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.

It can't though, otherwise it could fail to meet the definition of CFSI/CFSD. If an ocean was to produce scoring on a wall similar to a tool, that wouldn't mean CFSI/CFSD was present. would it?

... 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.

No. I'm keeping this as a purposely simple hypothetical cave. It only has the cave, no paintings or artwork. And again, it's only with the evidence of tools used and the existence of similar tools produced and used by the cave creator.

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

No it doesn't, as you've stated that the designer produces the CFSI and that naturally occuring events can produce similar results. You need the proof of the existence of the designer and evidence of the tools and methods used to create frogs, humans, dogs, apples etc.

Stating that because humans create complex objects, like computers for example, that it proves the case for creationism is a non-starter. We know historically that humans have been creating more and more complex objects, from the simple axe up to mobile phones. We have a historical trail of evidence.

Where is your evidence?

robindch

18AD wrote: »

What is CFSI?

Nobody knows, least of all JC.

William Dumbski, the clown who came up with the term, never defined it properly, almost certainly because it made no sense to start with. Of the few people in real universities who paid any attention to Dumbski's silly ideas, I get the impression that they thought that his stuff was so bad, that the word "wrong" was insufficient to describe the logical clusterf*ck that was ID. Another own-goal from the Wedge Strategy!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/dembski.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/presentation_without_arguments_dembski_disappoints/

In any event, Dumbski abandoned CSIF as soon as his backers terminated his contract to promote it, and he's now listed as "teaching" "philosophy" to endless groups of rednecks in some Texas hicksville.

robindch

J C wrote: »

... I am saying that neither the production of the snowflake or it's falling to the ground reqiuires an intelligent input

Well, hang on, we agree that snowflakes fall very well. But Dumbski's central claim is that doing something well is an indication of intelligent design!

Therefore, since snowflakes move downwards very effectively, we must conclude -- according to creationist logic anyway -- that either an intelligent deity is pulling them downwards, or god forbid, pushing them downwards.

Which one is it?

Galvasean

18AD wrote: »

What is CFSI?

The Claret Samal Foundation Incorporated according to Wikipedia.

Sarky wrote: »

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

Whenever I google it I just find pictures of some ginger lad in sunglasses.

Sarky

And that show is full of bad science, abysmal jokes, shoddy moral judgements, plot holes as big as...

Holy crap, CSI Miami is creationist propaganda. Priming viewers subliminally to more readily accept bollocks explanations being pulled out of someone's arse over real science. It's obvious when you think about it.

They could have gone for a better poster boy though. Horatio Caine is just another own goal for the creationists.

Mr. Boo

I seem to remember from graph theory and network science that sand piles exhibit complex behaviour, though they are not complicated systems. Information on the functioning of this behaviour can be specifically predicted once a few basic characteristics are understood. Am I a Jesus freak now?

robindch

Mr. Boo wrote: »

I seem to remember from graph theory and network science that sand piles exhibit complex behaviour [...]

And the Mandelbrot Set is infinitely detailed, but is described by a very simple equation. In the world of creationists, this is impossible.

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Am I a Jesus freak now?

Do you believe up Jesus as you saviour? If you answer "yes", I think we have our answer

J C

robindch wrote: »

Well, hang on, we agree that snowflakes fall very well. But Dumbski's central claim is that doing something well is an indication of intelligent design!

... so how does a snowflake drifting to Earth via the interaction of random air movements and the deterministic process of gravity 'fall well'?
... or has the English language ceased to have any meaning for you??

robindch wrote: »

Therefore, since snowflakes move downwards very effectively, we must conclude -- according to creationist logic anyway -- that either an intelligent deity is pulling them downwards, or god forbid, pushing them downwards.

Which one is it?

None of the above ... and the idea that God pushes or pulls snowflakes downwards is just a figment of your imagination ... just like M2M Evolution actually!!!!:)

King Mob

So JC, since you are now pretending to believe that structure can come from not magic/intelligent processes would you consider the formation of lipid bilayers one of those non-magic/intelligent processes?

18AD

J C wrote: »

... so how does a snowflake drifting to Earth via the interaction of random air movements and the deterministic process of gravity 'fall well'?

Well if something was to not fall, wouldn't that be bad at falling?

And if something does fall, it is good at falling?

This thread is wild!

J C

robindch wrote: »

And the Mandelbrot Set is infinitely detailed, but is described by a very simple equation. In the world of creationists, this is impossible.

As a maths equation this is an example of a deterministic process.
It is therefore eminently possible to describe deterministic processes, like gravity and fractals, using mathematical equations ... although if you are a 'mathematically challenged' Evolutionist, this might be difficult to accept!!!

robindch wrote:

Do you believe up Jesus as you saviour? If you answer "yes", I think we have our answer

Scoff all you like ... but I would remind you that Eternity is a very long time ... and if you want to take the personal risk that it might also be a very hot time ... then you are quite entitled to do so ...
... but please don't expect any 'brownie points' for such illogical behaviour!!!:)

I lay before you life or death ... please choose (eternal) life.

J C

18AD wrote: »

Well if something was to not fall, wouldn't that be bad at falling?

And if something does fall, it is good at falling?

This thread is wild!

... please stop moralising about gravity!!!!

... moral judgements like 'good' and 'bad' do not apply to deterministic processes like gravity.

Delirium

Would you like to pick up where we left off, JC?

18AD

J C wrote: »

... please stop moralising about gravity!!!!

... moral judgements like 'good' and 'bad' do not apply to deterministic processes like gravity.

I'm not moralising. When I say my shoes are good I'm saying that they function well as shoes. I'm not saying something like "good shoe!" (as I would say to a pet) when they behave themselves. This would be a moral statement.

So if a snow flake is good at falling I am not saying that it is fulfilling its moral duty to fall.

On your account, if I pick up a basin and ask you whether it would make a good drum stick I am making a moral judgement.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So JC, since you are now pretending to believe that structure can come from not magic/intelligent processes would you consider the formation of lipid bilayers one of those non-magic/intelligent processes?

Specified functional structure only arises via an ultimate appliance of intelligence.

Phospholipid bi-layers are utilised in specific functional combinations with other biomolecules within living cells ... and these complex specified structures are thus Intelligently Designed.

The spontaneous formation of non-specified Lipid layers (like the fat scum on a jug of cold gravy) doesn't require an intelligent input ... but, equally, it will always remain a piece of fat-scum until it is 'recycled'!!!

J C

18AD wrote: »

I'm not moralising. When I say my shoes are good I'm saying that they function well as shoes. I'm not saying something like "good shoe!" (as I would say to a pet) when they behave themselves. This would be a moral statement.

So if a snow flake is good at falling I am not saying that it is fulfilling its moral duty to fall.

On your account, if I pick up a basin and ask you whether it would make a good drum stick I am making a moral judgement.

If you're not moralising about snowflakes ... then you are making a relative judgement that snowflakes are 'better' at falling than something that is 'worse' at falling.

... so, if snowflakes are 'good' at falling ... what say you about a piece of lead falling on your big toe???
... must be some kind of an Evolutionist fetish!!!:eek:

Sarky

Does lead somehow not fall in J C's magical land of perverse make-believe?

J C

koth wrote: »

It can't though, otherwise it could fail to meet the definition of CFSI/CFSD. If an ocean was to produce scoring on a wall similar to a tool, that wouldn't mean CFSI/CFSD was present. would it?

Do you have an example of such a process that isn't created by an intelligently directed tool ... but looks like it was?

koth wrote: »

No it doesn't, as you've stated that the designer produces the CFSI and that naturally occuring events can produce similar results. You need the proof of the existence of the designer and evidence of the tools and methods used to create frogs, humans, dogs, apples etc.

Non-intelligently directed processes have never been observed to produce CFSI ... so your conclusion is 'evidentially challenged' ... to the point of being a 'pipe dream'!!!

koth wrote: »

Stating that because humans create complex objects, like computers for example, that it proves the case for creationism is a non-starter. We know historically that humans have been creating more and more complex objects, from the simple axe up to mobile phones. We have a historical trail of evidence.

Where is your evidence?

The 'fingerprint' of intelligent action isn't complexity per se ... there are many deterministic and random processes that produce complexity ... for intelligent design to be attributed to an artefact, it also must be specified and functional.

18AD

J C wrote: »

If you're not moralising about snowflakes ... then you are making a relative judgement that snowflakes are 'better' at falling than something that is 'worse' at falling.

... so, if snowflakes are 'good' at falling ... what say you about a piece of lead falling on your big toe???
... must be some kind of an Evolutionist fetish!!!:eek:

To return to my original quesiton since you agree it is no longer a moral issue:

You said:

J C wrote:

how does a snowflake drifting to Earth via the interaction of random air movements and the deterministic process of gravity 'fall well'?

Well if something was to not fall, wouldn't that be bad falling?

And if something does fall, it is good falling?

Your last post seems to imply that a relative judgement does allow for better or worse falling.

I truely hope there is in fact no point to this conversation.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Does lead somehow not fall in J C's magical land of perverse make-believe?

Within Creation Science lead is regarded as falling in accordance with the Law of Universal Gravitation.

... within Robins imaginings it seems that it might be a 'good' falling or a 'bad' falling ... depending on the Karma of the evolutionist standing underneath it!!!!:):D:eek:

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Do you have an example of such a process that isn't created by an intelligently directed tool ... but looks like it was?

Yes. The cave example. Obviously a simple cave created by coastal erosion wouldn't be identical to a human created cave. Based on evidence, such as the scoring on the wall would probably tell us if it was or wasn't created by humans.

Non-intelligently directed processes have never been observed to produce CFSI ... so your conclusion is 'evidentially challenged' ... to the point of being a 'pipe dream'!!!

Not really, as we still haven't arrived at an explanation as to how you prove the existence of CFSI in an organism.

The 'fingerprint' of intelligent action isn't complexity per se ... there are many deterministic and random processes that produce complexity ... for inelligent design to be attributed to an artefact, it also must be specified and functional.

But that doesn't explain how you determine that something was designed. All you've said is that because you attribute specificity and functionality to something that CFSI is present.

It's just arbitrary labelling that gives no information or proof as to how something has evolved.

sephir0th

I thought this thread had died

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

I thought this thread had died

The thread keeps rising from the dead ... because there is a Christian on it!!!

... could be something to do with the imminience of the Rapture.:eek:

... and the fact that unbelievers are drawn to the light of the Holy Spirit present in every Christian ... in spite of themselves!!!:)

J C

koth wrote: »

Yes. The cave example. Obviously a simple cave created by coastal erosion wouldn't be identical to a human created cave. Based on evidence, such as the scoring on the wall would probably tell us if it was or wasn't created by humans.

... glad we have established this.

koth wrote: »

Not really, as we still haven't arrived at an explanation as to how you prove the existence of CFSI in an organism.

It can be proven statistically, by estimating the probability of producing the specific combination of specific biomolecules to achieve functionality ... and when it goes above 10^-100 it can be said to be CFSI.

koth wrote: »

But that doesn't explain how you determine that something was designed. All you've said is that because you attribute specificity and functionality to something that CFSI is present.

It's just arbitrary labelling that gives no information or proof as to how something has evolved.

It can be statistically proven ... see above!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

The spontaneous formation of non-specified Lipid layers (like the fat scum on a jug of cold gravy) doesn't require an intelligent input ... but, equally, it will always remain a piece of fat-scum until it is 'recycled'!!!

Ok, so we've gotten this far, we'll take it one step at a time.

So since a lipid bi layer can form without intelligence, can liposomes and/or micelles likewise form without magic/intelligence?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It can be proven mathematically, by estimating the probability of producing the specific combination of specific biomolecules to achieve functionality ... and when it goes above 10^-100 it can be said to be CFSI.

It can be statistically proven ... see above!!

so CFSI isn't a property or a result of a designer, it's a statement regarding probability

by that reasoning, a simple cave, be it created by man or tide would meet the criteria of CFSD/CFSI as it has nothing to do with the structure. It merely states that the odds of the cave being created were very small.

This means that CFSI is retrospective. It can't predict how organic matter will react, or why did it react in a particular way. It would just indicate that the odds were small of an event happening after it happened.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so we've gotten this far, we'll take it one step at a time.

So since a lipid bi layer can form without intelligence, can liposomes and/or micelles likewise form without magic/intelligence?

I said that the spontaneous formation of non-specified Lipid layers (like the fat scum on a jug of cold gravy) doesn't require an intelligent input ... but, equally, it will always remain a piece of fat-scum until it is 'recycled'!!!

... but ...

... because specified functional structures only arise via an ultimate appliance of intelligence ...

... therefore ...

... the Phospholipid bi-layers which are observed to be utilised in specific functional combinations with other biomolecules within living cells ... are Intelligently Designed

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I said that he spontaneous formation of non-specified Lipid layers (like the fat scum on a jug of cold gravy) doesn't require an intelligent input ... but, equally, it will always remain a piece of fat-scum until it is 'recycled'!!!

... but ...

... because specified functional structures only arise via an ultimate appliance of intelligence ...

... therefore ...

... the Phospholipid bi-layers which are observed to be utilised in specific functional combinations with other biomolecules within living cells ... are Intelligently Designed

That's not the question I asked JC.
I asked you whether or not lipid mycelles or liposomes could form without intelligent/magical input.
It's a yes or no question.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

That's not the question I asked JC.
I asked you whether or not lipid mycelles or liposomes could form without intelligent/magical input.
It's a yes or no question.

Your argument seems to be that because you can find blobs of iron ore within rocks ... that somehow the CFSI in a Jumbo Jet can be produced without any intelligent input!!!

... its a non-sequitur logical fallacy!!!:)

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Your argument seems to be that because you can find blobs of iron ore within rocks ... that somehow the CFSI in a Jumbo Jet can be produced without any intelligent input!!!

... its a non-sequitur logical fallacy!!!:)

No, that's not what I asked, I have no idea where or how you got any of this from. It barely makes sense.

I'm not yet making an argument, I am simply asking you a yes or no question.
So again, can lipid mycelles form due to non-intelligent processes, yes or no?
Can Liposomes form due to non-intelligent processes, yes or no?