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…253254256258259…334

Comments

  • Options
    #7652
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    JC that answer just doesn't cut it. I know what each of the words mean. I'm asking you what they, as a group mean in a scientific sense.
    The combination of complex functional and specific information or design always has an intelligent source where the source has been identified. This combination of information and design has never been produced using non-intelligently dircted processes. The scientific repeatably observable conclusion reached from this evidence is that CFSI and CFSD has been produced by intelligent agent(s) unknown.
    This hypothesis may be disproven by the observation of CFSI being produced by non-intelligently directed processes.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Thats all well and good, but the twisting I was talking about was you comparing people not wanting a pope in their country for sectarian reasons and people not wanting a pope in their country because he's a hate spreading asshat.
    Whatever your reasons it is an attack of freedom of movement and speech however you look at it!!!
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    As a former Roman Catholic who turned against the church partly because of my issues with people like Ratzinger, I think I'm fairly entitled to have an opinion on this.
    You are entitled to have an opinion and to express it ... but you are not entitled to stop other people (including the Pope) from expressing their opinions ... or coming to Ireland to visit and speak to anybody who wants to listen to them.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    They have a right to speak wherever they want. Just as I have a right to oppose it.
    You have a right to politely disagree with their expressed views ... but you don't have a right to stop them coming here and expressing their views.

    What's wrong with you guys?
    Ye claim to be skeptics and free-thinkers ... yet ye seem to only want people who agree with you, to be allowed into Ireland ... or to speak within Ireland.
    Ye want only your 'origins story' taught by law in all schools ... and nobody elses.
    ... sounds like ye have become a caricature of your own prejudices!!!
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Like I said, I'm all for tolerence. Ratzinger isn't. I'm intolerant of his intolerant views though. I don't see why tolerence should be universally applied, regardless of the hate spewing from someone.
    The true test of tolerance is to be tolerant of people you disagree with.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Condom sales weren't even allowed in this country until fairly recently because of the church's influence. I'd call that suffering sales.
    You have a point there.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I never said 'no pope here'
    You haven't disagreed with it either.


  • Options
    #7653
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    The combination of complex functional and specific information or design always has an intelligent source where the source has been identified. This combination of information and design has never been produced using non-intelligently dircted processes. The scientific repeatably observable conclusion reached from this evidence is that CFSI and CFSD has been produced by intelligent agent(s) unknown.
    This hypothesis may be disproven by the observation of CFSI being produced by non-intelligently directed processes.
    JC why are you using your CFSI bull**** when you've already tacitly admitted it was bull****?
    Seems it's a bit dishonest of you to do something like that...


  • Options
    #7654
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    King Mob wrote: »
    Seems it's a bit dishonest of you to do something like that...
    What is wrong if he is dishonest, Are you honest?


  • Options
    #7655
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    dead one wrote: »
    What is wrong if he is dishonest, Are you honest?
    I try to be.

    And it's wrong because he's pretending to be honest when he both clearly isn't and is in general profoundly ignorant. Or at least doing a very good job of pretending to be both dishonest and ignorant.


  • Options
    #7656
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    King Mob wrote: »
    I try to be.

    ...are you not pretending to be honest, again what's wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7657
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    dead one wrote: »
    ...are you not pretending to be honest, again what's wrong.
    I'm not pretending to be anything.

    I'm just pointing out that JC is resorting to dishonesty to support his crap and that this is an indication that his position is crap.

    It's bad because dishonest is a bad thing , dead one.


  • Options
    #7658
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm not pretending to be anything.
    I'm just pointing out that JC is resorting to dishonesty to support his crap and that this is an indication that his position is crap.
    how it damages your existence, king of the mob, please explain
    let's see honesty


  • Options
    #7659
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    I'm glad that you recognise that the guarantee of your rights lies in the universality and equality of the scope and enforcement of everyones rights (including yours and mine).
    I’m glad you are glad.

    J C wrote: »
    However, the fact that you only grudgingly respect my right to hold my views means that you don't really respect me or my rights at all ... and this implies that, if given the opportunity, you would therefore discriminate against me if you were in a position to do so!!!
    I don’t respect you. I have already said that directly, there is no need to derive my thoughts about you for other things I have said. I do not respect you, I do not respect the utter rubbish you believe, but I grudgingly respect your right to believe whatever cr@ap you want.
    J C wrote: »
    Your use of words like 'idiotic and retarded' about my beliefs are deeply prejudicial personal remarks ... and completely unfounded given my conventional University qualifications - and eminent career to date.
    ... and please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that these remarks were describing my ideas ... and not my person.
    An idea may be wrong ... but it cannot be 'retarded' ... only a person can be 'retarded' ... although I wouldn't use such an insulting prejudicial word to describe a person with special needs, myself.[IMG]file:///Users/Chris/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image002.png[/IMG]
    Sorry, but I don’t agree. I call ideas retarded all the time. Your beliefs are idiotic and retarded, if you want to take that as a comment about you, then you can, but that is not how it is meant. I do have opinions on your personally, but I will keep those to myself.

    Please don’t bring up your conventional training and your eminent career. Over the years to have been posting here your have provided nothing, either directly or indirectly by what you have posted, to give the slightest indication that you have any qualification in or that you work in any science related post. On the other hand you have over 7000 posts indicating that you have no clue about science.

    J C wrote: »
    Disrespecting somebody is exactly the same as not respecting them.
    No. it isn’t. Disrespecting someone requires an act. Not respecting someone requires no act, it is merely not respecting them. There are a number of people that I respect, this is something I actively do. Here are plenty of people I don’t respect. I don’t respect them for a variety of reasons, but that vast majority of people I don’t respect the reason I don’t respect them is because I don’t know anything about them. Why should I respect or disrespect someone I don’t know?

    This can then extend to people I do know but don’t respect. If I believe a person is not worthy of respect then I will not give them respect. In some cases I may also disrespect them, an actual act which shows I disrespect them, but fo the most part I will simply not respect them.
    J C wrote: »
    I will protest naked sectarianism wherever I find it ... and

    irrespective of who it is aimed at.
    Good for you. This isn’t it. It is like people protesting about the G20 leaders coming for a visit. I don’t know ninja900 but I think that statistically he is likely to be a lapsed catholic and as such is likely to have a large number of catholic relatives. I expect that he loves them and treats them as he should. The line in his signature simply indicates that the leader of that organization is not, as far as he is concerned, welcome in this country. He is not stopping the pope form visiting, he is not trampling on anyone’s right to do anything, he is merely pointing out that, in his opinion we, as a country, should not welcome a child rapist protecting cnut that disrespects our country to our country.
    J C wrote: »
    You've got this back to front ... you should respect the person because respect for his/her rights flows from the respect for the person themselves.
    You are free to reject or support their beliefs, as you wish.
    Don’t tell me what I should do. I will respect a person right to hold a belief. I will not be forced to respect that person or the potential crap they believe in.
    J C wrote: »
    Disrespect can range from sullen contempt (which you are exibiting), which can escalate to verbal or physical assault in inter-personal situations ... and thus it is highly anti-social behaviour.
    Yes it can. I personally try to avoid escalating but it can be difficult. In cases where it does escalate we have the mods on boards and we have the criminal justice system in real life. Again, no reason for me to respect you or what you believe. The courts have, thus far, backed this position.

    J C wrote: »
    You don't have to share my beliefs ... nor me yours ... but I respect you and your right to hold them without fear or favour from me or anybody else ... and you should reciprocate.
    I don’t want or need your respect. Why should I respect you? You have done nothing to earn it. I will respect your right to hold a belief but I will not be forced to respect you. What are you? The thought police?

    J C wrote: »
    A Christian would respect you God-given free will to not believe in God, if that is what you want to do.
    Awesome. And I will respect a christian’s right to believe whatever crap they want. I still won’t respect the Christian himself unless he give a reason other than he believes some crap.

    J C wrote: »
    It all depends ... I don't think, for example, that any court would disrespect the beliefs of Jews and Moslems by setting aside their right to follow their belief in abstaining from eating Pork.
    I would agree with you fort his type fo thing. However, where the beleiver’s belief is in conflict with someone else’s protected rights then the court will not protect it. The relate counselor that said he would not counsel gay people or the registrar that said she would not resister gay relationships show us this.

    J C wrote: »
    ... and one of these rights is the freedom to believe and express ones belief without being personally attacked or discriminated against.
    Beliefs can be criticized. You might not like it but it is the case. Criticism is not necessarily attack.


    J C wrote: »
    I am aware of no such thing ... The NO POPE HERE slogan is just as offensive to ordinary Roman Catholics, who view him as their spiritual leader, as it is to the Pope himself (who probably won't have read it anyway).
    Well, that is too bad really. They are entitled to their opinion and ninja900 is entitled to his. If they are incapable of separating his view that the leader of their church is not welcome, according to him, then that says more about them than it does him.
    J C wrote: »
    Why do you think that it is any more acceptable for an Atheist to make the exact same sectarian anti-Roman Catholic remark that is a 'by-word' for the depths of sectarian hostility in Northern Ireland?
    ... and has thankfully become a 'thing of the past' up there.
    Because the fcuking intent is completely different.

    MrP


  • Options
    #7660
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Blimey, is there anything that J C doesn't manage to completely misunderstand?


  • Options
    #7661
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    dead one wrote: »
    how it damages your existence, king of the mob, please explain
    let's see honesty

    Because it's a discussion board, Dead one. When someone uses dishonesty in a discussion, it tends to come up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7662
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    JC why are you using your CFSI bull**** when you've already tacitly admitted it was bull****?
    Seems it's a bit dishonest of you to do something like that...
    I have honestly, patiently politely (and repeatedly) answered all of your questions ... but there comes a point when I simply have to ignore repeated questions that I have already answered numerous time.

    ... and your allegation that I am dishonest is as unfounded (and as great a figment of your biased imagination) as your belief in M2M Evolution!!!:)


  • Options
    #7663
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    any joy with the definition of CFSI, JC? or do I put it back in the cabinet with the file on the Loch Ness monster?

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



  • Options
    #7664
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    I have honestly, patiently politely (and repeatedly) answered all of your questions ... but there comes a point when I simply have to ignore repeated questions that I have already answered numerous time.

    ... and your allegation that I am dishonest is as unfounded (and as great a figment of your biased imagination) as your belief in M2M Evolution!!!:)
    But you never answered any of my questions, then when I warned you that if you continued to do so it would be an admission that you cannot answer them.

    You ignored that and the questions, so I took that to mean that you can't answer them and therefore forfeit the points.

    And yet here you are still spouting CFSI when you've tacitly admitted it is bull****.
    This is dishonesty JC.


  • Options
    #7665
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,862 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    J C wrote: »
    Last time I saw this sectarian slogan was in Belfast about 10 years ago.

    Yeah.. it's catchy isn't it?

    There's a huge difference between criticism of RCC based on prejudice/bigotry, and criticism of RCC based on its appalling record and its continuing behaviour and attitude in relation to its massive child rape conspiracy.

    If you can't see the difference, well, *shrug*. I was brought up a Catholic by the way. I'll be keeping organised religion well away from my kids.

    Also your response to my earlier post just made no sense at all.
    I don't deny you the right to be sectarian ... but I am exercising my right to condemn you for your intolerance!!!

    He can come here if he likes, I can't stop him. I don't have to like it and I don't have to pretend to. I can urge people to oppose a visit if I like, and if he does visit I can urge people to protest if I like. None of this makes me either sectarian or intolerant. Organised religions should be held accountable for their actions and this is far from the case with the RCC's criminal activities in Ireland.

    The Dublin Airport cap is damaging the economy of Ireland as a whole, and must be scrapped forthwith.



  • Options
    #7666
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I’m glad you are glad.
    Good

    MrPudding wrote: »
    I don’t respect you. I have already said that directly, there is no need to derive my thoughts about you for other things I have said. I do not respect you, I do not respect the utter rubbish you believe, but I grudgingly respect your right to believe whatever cr@ap you want.
    All I can say to that foul-mouthed outburst is that I still respect you.
    Why do you have such a problem with inter-personal relations with people who have a difference of opinion with you?
    I meet many people that I agree with ... and many people that I disagree with, on many issues ... every day ... and I respect them all, as the amazing intelligent sovereign Human Beings that they are.
    You need to control your disrespect for other people who are different to you ... and you need to try to fit in harmoniously in our increasingly pluralist society!!!

    ... try love ... and respect for your fellow man ... life is better that way!!!:)
    ... its also better for your blood pressure!!
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Sorry, but I don’t agree. I call ideas retarded all the time. Your beliefs are idiotic and retarded, if you want to take that as a comment about you, then you can, but that is not how it is meant. I do have opinions on your personally, but I will keep those to myself.
    Your disrespect for me personally has been amply aired by you ... now can we get back to discussing my ideas ... and leave your hopelessly biased opinion of me aside ... because nobody with an ounce of objectivity would accept that you are capable of giving an unbiased opinion of me, at this stage.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Please don’t bring up your conventional training and your eminent career. Over the years to have been posting here your have provided nothing, either directly or indirectly by what you have posted, to give the slightest indication that you have any qualification in or that you work in any science related post. On the other hand you have over 7000 posts indicating that you have no clue about science.
    Once again I am exactly what I say I am ... and this fact ... together with your repeatedly expressed deep bias towards me, disqualifies you from making any meaningful assessment of my abilities or personality.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    No. it isn’t. Disrespecting someone requires an act. Not respecting someone requires no act, it is merely not respecting them. There are a number of people that I respect, this is something I actively do. Here are plenty of people I don’t respect. I don’t respect them for a variety of reasons, but that vast majority of people I don’t respect the reason I don’t respect them is because I don’t know anything about them. Why should I respect or disrespect someone I don’t know?

    This can then extend to people I do know but don’t respect. If I believe a person is not worthy of respect then I will not give them respect. In some cases I may also disrespect them, an actual act which shows I disrespect them, but fo the most part I will simply not respect them.
    Making foul mouthed prejudicial comments about someones person is both disrespecting them and not respecting them. They have the very same meaning!!!

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Good for you. This isn’t it. It is like people protesting about the G20 leaders coming for a visit. I don’t know ninja900 but I think that statistically he is likely to be a lapsed catholic and as such is likely to have a large number of catholic relatives. I expect that he loves them and treats them as he should. The line in his signature simply indicates that the leader of that organization is not, as far as he is concerned, welcome in this country. He is not stopping the pope form visiting, he is not trampling on anyone’s right to do anything, he is merely pointing out that, in his opinion we, as a country, should not welcome a child rapist protecting cnut that disrespects our country to our country.
    That's your (repeatedly expressed) opinion of the Pope ... but that still doesn't give you, or anybody else the right to disrespect him ... or any other person, for that matter. Exhibiting disrespect for somebody in their physical presence is classified as behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace ... and is a criminal offense.

    You really do need to separate your attitiude to the person and his/her ideas. Respect the person ... and politely challenge their ideas all you want.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    And I will respect a christian’s right to believe whatever crap they want. I still won’t respect the Christian himself unless he give a reason other than he believes some crap.
    Are you saying that you disrespect people you meet every day when their beliefs are not in accordance with your beliefs?

    Your social interactions must be very 'interesting'.:eek:
    MrPudding wrote: »
    I would agree with you fort his type fo thing. However, where the beleiver’s belief is in conflict with someone else’s protected rights then the court will not protect it. The relate counselor that said he would not counsel gay people or the registrar that said she would not resister gay relationships show us this.
    People must do their job ... and if I am a Marriage Registrar, for example, I must register all lawful marriages, without fear of favour to the personal beliefs or lifestyles of the the parties involved ... and I don't really understand why anybody would have a problem doing so.
    I'd even marry you, (to your chosen partner) provided you behaved yourself and showed respect for yourself and myself during the ceremony!!!!:):eek:


  • Options
    #7667
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you never answered any of my questions, then when I warned you that if you continued to do so it would be an admission that you cannot answer them.

    You ignored that and the questions, so I took that to mean that you can't answer them and therefore forfeit the points.

    And yet here you are still spouting CFSI when you've tacitly admitted it is bull****.
    This is dishonesty JC.
    Its not dishonesty ... just boredom with the non-questions that you have been repeatedly asking!!!:(

    I have told you what CFSI is ... and gave examples of what CFSI is ... and what it isn't.

    If you want to get the 'brownie points' you need to show where I am wrong ... or cite an example of a non-intelligently directed system producing CFSI:)


  • Options
    #7668
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    Its not dishonesty ... just boredom with the non-questions that you have been repeatedly asking!!!:(

    I have told what CFSI is ... and gave examples of what is CFSI ... and what isn't.

    If you want to get the 'brownie points' you need to show where I am wrong ... or cite an example of a non-intelligently directed system producing CFSI:)
    But you have done neither because you are talking out of your ass, which you admitted by ignoring the questions.

    You could still answer some of them if you need to hang on to the nonsense you spout.
    But if you don't answer them, yet continue to use CFSI, you are being dishonest.


  • Options
    #7669
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Yeah.. it's catchy isn't it?

    There's a huge difference between criticism of RCC based on prejudice/bigotry, and criticism of RCC based on its appalling record and its continuing behaviour and attitude in relation to its massive child rape conspiracy.

    If you can't see the difference, well, *shrug*. I was brought up a Catholic by the way. I'll be keeping organised religion well away from my kids.

    Also your response to my earlier post just made no sense at all.
    I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with organised religion. Just bear in mind that there are many organised religions out there ... and they include ones that deny God ... as well as ones that believe in Him.

    In any event, all persons should be given respect ... and allowed the freedom to travel and meet people wherever they wish.

    Do unto others ... as you would have them do unto you. It isn't always reciprocated ... but you will always have the higher moral authority as a result.

    ... and people will respect you even more if you can rise above your experiences ...and not do onto them ... as they have done onto you.:)

    ninja900 wrote: »
    He can come here if he likes, I can't stop him. I don't have to like it and I don't have to pretend to. I can urge people to oppose a visit if I like, and if he does visit I can urge people to protest if I like. None of this makes me either sectarian or intolerant. Organised religions should be held accountable for their actions and this is far from the case with the RCC's criminal activities in Ireland.
    All quite reasonable and logical ... so I would ask you, as a friend, to reconsider your signature ... which I think, detracts from the valid message that you wish to get across.


  • Options
    #7670
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you have done neither because you are talking out of your ass, which you admitted by ignoring the questions.

    You could still answer some of them if you need to hang on to the nonsense you spout.
    But if you don't answer them, yet continue to use CFSI, you are being dishonest.
    ... so please tell me specifically, where I am wrong on CFSI ...

    ... or better still, give us an example of the production of CFSI via a non-intelligently directed process.


  • Options
    #7671
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... so please tell me specifically, where I am wrong on CFSI ...

    ... or better still, give us an example of the production of CFSI via a non-intelligently directed process.

    how can anyone hope to give an example of something that has yet to be defined?

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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7672
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    ... so please tell me specifically, where I am wrong on CFSI ...

    ... or better still, give us an example of the production of CFSI via a non-intelligently directed process.

    Simple, you are unable to explain how one form of lipid structure is possible and one is not without magic stepping in.
    I have asked you this question repeatedly and you ignored which you agreed meant you forfeited the point.

    And as koth says, I can't provide you with an example of something I don't think exists.


  • Options
    #7673
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Simple, you are unable to explain how one form of lipid structure is possible and one is not without magic stepping in.
    I have asked you this question repeatedly and you ignored which you agreed meant you forfeited the point.

    And as koth says, I can't provide you with an example of something I don't think exists.
    Intelligence isn't magic ... its the product of a mind.


  • Options
    #7674
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    I have told you what CFSI is ... and gave examples of what is CFSI ... and what isn't.
    Just FYI - you haven't.


  • Options
    #7675
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Intelligence isn't magic ... its the product of a mind.

    a supernatural deity creating all existence and life contained within it is magic.

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



  • Options
    #7676
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    JC attempted to present a way to mathemically determine the CFSI of a string of letters here:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64185114&postcount=20396

    When Sam Vimes debunked this, you can see where JC says that you have to first establish that something is functional (how?) and then use the equation:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64196677&postcount=20423

    It was then established that CFSI was nothing more than a claim of irreducible complexity, since the claim is that the specific sequence of DNA cannot be functional in any subsequence (or with any mutations) i.e. have evolved.


  • Options
    #7677
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    Intelligence isn't magic ... its the product of a mind.
    The way you are using it, you may as well define it as magic.

    And since you yet again ignored the questions you were asked, you forfeit them.

    So any further mention of CFSI from you as an argument will be complete dishonesty.


  • Options
    #7678
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sephir0th wrote: »
    JC attempted to present a way to mathemically determine the CFSI of a string of letters here:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64185114&postcount=20396

    When Sam Vimes debunked this, you can see where JC says that you have to first establish that something is functional (how?) and then use the equation:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64196677&postcount=20423

    It was then established that CFSI was nothing more than a claim of irreducible complexity, since the claim is that the specific sequence of DNA cannot be functional in any subsequence (or with any mutations) i.e. have evolved.
    You establish that it is functional ... by observing functionality or purpose as a result of it.

    DNA per se isn't irreducibly complex ... it is specific critical sequences of biomolecules that are irreducibly complex. DNA is the medium upon which was written the CFSI of life by God.


  • Options
    #7679
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    J C wrote: »
    You establish that it is functional ... by observing functionality or purpose as a result of it.

    And if you don't see and immediate purpose or functionality?


  • Options
    #7680
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    And if you don't see and immediate purpose or functionality?
    Look harder.

    God wouldn't waste energy or appear to be stupid by designing things that don't have a purpose!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7681
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    robindch wrote: »
    Look harder.

    God wouldn't waste energy or appear to be stupid by designing things that don't have a purpose!

    How do you know??!
    HUH?!?!
    HUH!?!

    Jebus can do whateva he wants.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement