"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

King Mob

J C wrote: »

If you have any evidence for the spontaneous production of Liposomes ... please provide it ... and if you don't, please stop speaking in riddles ... and making unfounded Ad Hominem remarks!!!

I'm not speaking in riddles, I'm asking you two yes or no questions.
Can Liposomes form without intelligence?
Can micelles form without intelligence?

And I didn't make any ad hominem, I was just pointing out that avoiding and ignoring simple yes or no questions makes you look like a dishonest, ignorant crackpot.
I didn't say you were, because you are certainly going to answer these two questions without further delay.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not speaking in riddles, I'm asking you two yes or no questions.
Can Liposomes form without intelligence?
Can micelles form without intelligence?

And I didn't make any ad hominem, I was just pointing out that avoiding and ignoring simple yes or no questions makes you look like a dishonest, ignorant crackpot.
I didn't say you were, because you are certainly going to answer these two questions without further delay.

... I have already told you that Biologically active Liposomes contain large quantities of high quality CFSI ... and therefore required an ultimate input of intelligence.

This doesn't seem to have satisfied you ... and you have claimed that you weren't talking about biologically active liposomes (which are the only ones of significance in living organisms) ...
... apparently you were talking about 'any old liposome' ... so I'm asking you what exactly you are talking about ... and what evidence, if any, you have to support your contention!!

... and all you can do is to robotically repeat your meaningless questions ... with a few (thinly veiled) unfounded personal insults thrown in for good measure!!!

... methinks, you have been at the Evolution videos again!!!:D

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... I have already told you that Biologically active Liposomes contain large quantities of high quality CFSI ... and therefore required an ultimate input of intelligence.

This doesn't seem to have satisfied you ... and you have claimed that you weren't talking about biologically active liposomes (which are the only ones of significance in living organisms) ...
... apparently you were talking about 'any old liposome' ... so I'm asking you what exactly you are talking about ... and what evidence, if any, you have to support your contention!!

... and all you can do is to robotically repeat your meaningless questions ... with a few (thinly veiled) unfounded personal insults thrown in for good measure!!!

... methinks, you have been at the Evolution videos again!!!:D

But I'm only repeating these questions because you seem to be having trouble answering either of them. I can't imagine why that is.

And as I stated, I never said anything about biologically active anything. I'm not sure why you are bringing this in.
Nor have I made any claim that requires me to provide evidence.
I just asked you a pair of simple yes or no questions.

So again:
Can Liposomes form without intelligence?
Can micelles form without intelligence?

Delirium

but based on the last few posts that we exchanged, you've defined CFSI as a result of a mathematical equation.

It's not a property that can be examined. You haven't expanded it any further than "it's very unlikely for this to happen without God".

J C

King Mob wrote: »

But I'm only repeating these questions because you seem to be having trouble answering either of them. I can't imagine why that is.

And as I stated, I never said anything about biologically active anything. I'm not sure why you are bringing this in.
Nor have I made any claim that requires me to provide evidence.
I just asked you a pair of simple yes or no questions.

So again:
Can Liposomes form without intelligence?
Can micelles form without intelligence?

No .. not that I am aware of.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

No .. not that I am aware of.

JC, you still failed to address the questions. I asked you two.

Is this "no" for both of them?

And while we are at it, why did it take you nearly a page to answer these questions?
Surely someone who isn't a troll or a crank ignorant of the facts would have been able to answer those yes or no questions immediately.
So why didn't you?

J C

koth wrote: »

but based on the last few posts that we exchanged, you've defined CFSI as a result of a mathematical equation.

I haven't done so ... in fact, CFSI cannot be generated by deterministic phenomena, like mathematical equations.

koth wrote: »

It's not a property that can be examined. You haven't expanded it any further than "it's very unlikely for this to happen without God".

Scientifically speaking CFSI cannot be produced without the appliance of intelligence ... which could be you ... or God !!:)

J C

King Mob wrote: »

JC, you still failed to address the questions. I asked you two.

Is this "no" for both of them?

And while we are at it, why did it take you nearly a page to answer these questions?
Surely someone who isn't a troll or a crank ignorant of the facts would have been able to answer those yes or no questions immediately.
So why didn't you?

You were asking a general (and therefore ambiguous) question ... and I was therefore qualifying my answer.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

You were asking a general (and therefore ambiguous) question ... and I was qualifying my answer.

And again for some unknown reason you avoided answering my question.

Is this "no" for both of them?

And I'll have to ask another, running the risk of giving you another one to ignore.

What could have been ambiguous about a yes or no question?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I haven't done so ... in fact, CFSI cannot be generated by deterministic phenomena, like mathematical equations.

yes you did. I asked how do you show the properties of CFSI in an organism and you said that if the probability of it evolving without intelligent design was low, then it had CFSI.

Scientifically speaking CFSI cannot be produced without the appliance of intellignce ... which could be you ... or God !!:)

no, not scientifically speaking, as you still haven't shown scientifically the proof for creationism/ CFSI.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

And again for some unknown reason you avoided answering my question.

Is this "no" for both of them?

And I'll have to ask another, running the risk of giving you another one to ignore.

What could have been ambiguous about a yes or no question?

Its a no to Liposomes ... and a yes to some bicells.

J C

koth wrote: »

yes you did. I asked how do you show the properties of CFSI in an organism and you said that if the probability of it evolving without intelligent design was low, then it had CFSI.

... CFSI cannot be generated by deterministic processes, like mathematical equations ... but CFSI can be measured by the appliance of mathematics.

Delirium

so what is CFSI then? because you still haven't defined it, other than it needs someone to create it.

do I contain CFSI? and if yes, where did it come from?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Its a no to Liposomes ... and a yes to some bicells.

And again...
Wow, it's almost like you don't want to answer any of these questions at all...

What could have been ambiguous about a yes or no question?

And now another one, why if the answers where different did you only give the one answer after ignoring both questions for so long?

I am sorry for all these off topic questions JC but I'm just trying to find out how ignoring questions and other dishonest behaviour doesn't make you a troll or a crank.

J C

koth wrote: »

so what is CFSI then? because you still haven't defined it, other than it needs someone to create it.

It's Complex Functional Specified Information.

koth wrote: »

do I contain CFSI?

Yes.

koth wrote: »

and if yes, where did it come from?

Scientifically speaking ... we don't know ....

... now, if you want my considered opinion ...

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It's Complex Functional Specified Information.

and a potato is a potato:rolleyes:

I already knew what the anagram stood for, but you still haven't enlightened me as to what it is.

Yes.

Scientifically speaking ... we don't know ....

... now, if you want my opinion ...

hold on. If you don't know where CFSI came from, how can you argue that creationism is the only game in town? Might as well state that because man and woman exist, creationism is correct.

Doctor Jimbob

Stating what the letters
CFSI stands for isn't a definition J C.

J C

koth wrote: »

and a potato is a potato:rolleyes:

Exactly!!!:)

koth wrote: »

I already knew what the anagram stood for, but you still haven't enlightened me as to what it is.

It's self-explanitory!!!

koth wrote: »

hold on. If you don't know where CFSI came from, how can you argue that creationism is the only game in town? Might as well state that because man and woman exist, creationism is correct.

Creation Science is the only game in town ... for people who really think about it.

... but there is an effective infinity of wrong ideas ... for those who 'go with the flow'!!!!:)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Stating what the letters
CFSI stands for isn't a definition J C.

It is adequate when the words are self-explanitory for everyone over five years old!!!:):D:eek:

Doctor Jimbob

Saying cfsi is cfsi is more like saying a potato is a thing you find under the ground than saying a potato is like a potato. It doesnt differentiate it from other things you find under the ground. Just like saying something is cfsi doesnt actually define what cfsi is in the slightest. Its an extraordinarily vauge description.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Exactly!!!:)

If you think that is a satisfactory way to define a potato when someone asks what a potato is, then it explains why you have problems with science.

FYI here's a definition of a potato: A starchy plant tuber that is one of the most important food crops, cooked and eaten as a vegetable.

See? a person who didn't know what a potato was now has a better understanding of the properties of a potato.

It's self-explanitory!!!

It really isn't, as I've to ask a third time for a definition.

Creation Science is the only game in town ... for people who really think about it.

... but there is an effective infinity of wrong ideas ... for those who 'go with the flow'!!!!:)

Yeah, silly me for accepting scientific evidence in preference to Christian parables. Whatever was I thinking?:rolleyes:

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Stating what the letters
CFSI stands for isn't a definition J C.

It is adequate when the words are self-explanitory for everyone over five years old!!!:):D:eek:

Less of the unnecessary ad hominisms please J C.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Saying cfsi is cfsi is more like saying a potato is a thing you find under the ground than saying a potato is like a potato. It doesnt differentiate it from other things you find under the ground. Just like saying something is cfsi doesnt actually define what cfsi is in the slightest. Its an extraordinarily vauge description.

WHAT are you on about???!!!

Your posting has a Gunning Fog Index ... approaching 'pea soup'!!!!:)

Doctor Jimbob

WHAT are you on about???!!!

Your posting has a Gunning Fog Index ... approaching 'pea soup'!!!!:)[/Quot
e]

Ignoring the hilarity of you asking someone what they're on about, I'll attempt to explain.
Saying CFSI is CFSI is like saying something you find under the ground is something you find under the ground. Its ridiculously vauge.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

And again...
Wow, it's almost like you don't want to answer any of these questions at all...

What could have been ambiguous about a yes or no question?

And now another one, why if the answers where different did you only give the one answer after ignoring both questions for so long?

I am sorry for all these off topic questions JC but I'm just trying to find out how ignoring questions and other dishonest behaviour doesn't make you a troll or a crank.

JC, you seem to missed my post somehow.
Could you address it please before people start getting the wrong idea that you are incapable of honest discussion.

J C

koth wrote: »

FYI here's a definition of a potato: A starchy plant tuber that is one of the most important food crops, cooked and eaten as a vegetable.

... AKA ... a potato ... to everyone except the very 'long-winded'!!!

koth wrote: »

See? a person who didn't know what a potato was now has a better understanding of the properties of a potato.

... that assumes that the person reading it knows the meaning of plain English words.
... for example, words like Complex, Functional, Specified and Information.

koth wrote: »

Yeah, silly me for accepting scientific evidence in preference to Christian parables. Whatever was I thinking?:rolleyes:

What scientific evidence??

J C

King Mob wrote: »

JC, you seem to missed my post somehow.
Could you address it please before people start getting the wrong idea that you are incapable of honest discussion.

I looked at it ... and I decided that life is too short to bother engaging in such verbal 'tiddly winks'!!!!:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... AKA ... a potato ... to everyone except the 'long-winded'!!!

a truly daft response. someone doesn't know what a potato is, and you just respond with potato? Clearly you've never had to educate anyone. If a person has no understanding of something, to just repeat the word over and over is rude/ignorant.

... that assumes that the person reading it knows the meaning of plain English words.
... for example, words like Complex, Functional, Specified and Information.

wow, you really aren't able to describe something that you support so vociferously?

What scientific evidence??

There has been an abundance of evidence for evolution posted on this thread. You should read it when you get a chance, seeing as you somehow missed it the first time round.

J C

koth wrote: »

FYI here's a definition of a potato: A starchy plant tuber that is one of the most important food crops, cooked and eaten as a vegetable.

Why use one simple word ... when you can use 20 words ... and still not effectively describe the thing!!!:D;):):eek:

J C

koth wrote: »

There has been an abundance of evidence for evolution posted on this thread. You should read it when you get a chance, seeing as you somehow missed it the first time round.

... link please?