"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

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

... then you can't definitively conclude that it's CFSI.

... this may be an issue with abiotic CFSI ... but it isn't an issue with the functional CFSI found in living organisms.

Genghiz Cohen

How do you definitively conclude something has no CFSI.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Look harder.

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

... er no Robin ... scientifically speaking, the author(s) of the CFSI in life is/are unknown.

I don't wish to dampen your 'enthusiasm' for ID science ... but I think that you should let me answer the questions ... until you have done a little more study on CFSI.:):D

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

How do you definitively conclude something has no CFSI.

It is extremely difficult to scientifically prove a negative because absence of evidence isn't conclusive evidence of absence.
This applies to all types of phenomena ... and not just CFSI.

swiftblade

I haven't posted in this thread yet beacause, well, I see it as a wasted effort, but I can't help but laugh when I read something like this. I have to hand it too you JC. You have a real way with words.

J C wrote: »

absence of evidence isn't conclusive evidence of absence.

Sarky

swiftblade wrote: »

I haven't posted in this thread yet beacause, well, I see it as a wasted effort, but I can't help but laugh when I read something like this. I have to hand it too you JC. You have a real way with words.

It'd be nice if he'd bothered to reference the original, but he does have a bit of a problem when it comes to providing citations.

It's not wasted effort posting here. Just ignore J C's terrible attempts at science and there's loads of cool stuff to read.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

It'd be nice if he'd bothered to reference the original, but he does have a bit of a problem when it comes to providing citations.

The original what ??? its a logical fact that absence of evidence isn't conclusive evidence of absence

... and I have no problem with citation ... have a look at my sig ... it's fully referenced!!!:)

Sarky wrote: »

It's not wasted effort posting here. Just ignore J C's terrible attempts at science and there's loads of cool stuff to read.

ID and Creation Science are not only cool ... they're awesome!!!!.:)

swiftblade

I honestly haven't a clue what the whole CFSI thing is either. Tried looking it up, not much use. Could you explain it in plain english JC? I can't even find a website relating to it. I did honestly try looking.

If I take your advise, in that, it's self explanatory,

Complex- Adjective:

Consisting of many different and connected parts.

Functional- Adjective:

• Of or having a special activity, purpose, or task; relating to the way in which something works or operates.
• Designed to be practical and useful, rather than attractive.

Specified- Verb:

• Identify clearly and definitely: "he did not specify a date".
• State a fact or requirement clearly and precisely: "the agency failed to specify that the workers were not their employees".

Information- Noun:

• Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
• A formal criminal charge lodged with a court or magistrate by a prosecutor without the aid of a grand jury.

It still doesn't explain much, JC. Any help here?

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

I haven't posted in this thread yet beacause, well, I see it as a wasted effort, but I can't help but laugh when I read something like this. I have to hand it too you JC. You have a real way with words.

It's the inspiration of The Holy Spirit in action.:)

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

It's the inspiration of The Holy Spirit in action.:)

If you are in constant contact with the holy spirit, can you ask what CFSI is/means? Maybe he/it/she knows.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

I honestly haven't a clue what the whole CFSI thing is either. Tried looking it up, not much use. Could you explain it in plain english JC? I can't even find a website relating to it. I did honestly try looking.

If I take your advise, in that, it's self explanatory,

Complex- Adjective:

Consisting of many different and connected parts.
Consisting of multiple integrated components or processes.

Functional- Adjective:

• Of or having a special activity, purpose, or task; relating to the way in which something works or operates.
• Designed to be practical and useful, rather than attractive.

Having a clear purpose, activity and/or effect.

Specified- Verb:

• Identify clearly and definitely: "he did not specify a date".
• State a fact or requirement clearly and precisely: "the agency failed to specify that the workers were not their employees".

Specific critical sequences ... which, if changed randomly, reduces or eliminates functionality.

Information- Noun:

• Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
• A formal criminal charge lodged with a court or magistrate by a prosecutor without the aid of a grand jury.

The ordered multi-level sequence of symbols/signals (stored and transmitted on DNA) that provides the instructions to produce the highly integrated functional biological systems and processes observed in living organisms..

It still doesn't explain much, JC. Any help here?

The meaning of CFSI, in the context of living organisms, is in blue above.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

If you are in constant contact with the holy spirit, can you ask what CFSI is/means? Maybe he/it/she knows.

You must be psychic!!!
... see my last post!!!:)

Sarky

And you've been told countless times why that isn't good enough, J C.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The meaning of CFSI, in the context of living organisms, is in blue above.

rephrasing individual definitions of each word doesn't equal a definition for CFSI.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

And you've been told countless times why that isn't good enough, J C.

... it's as real as it gets!!!!

Why do you guys have such a problem with the blindingly obvious ... that living organisms contain vast quantities of highly integrated CFSI of such sophistication that they makes super-computers look like pocket calculators??

J C

koth wrote: »

rephrasing individual definitions of each word doesn't equal a definition for CFSI.

I can take you to water ... but I can't make you drink!!!

You always have the right to continue to be wrong.

You aren't the first person to be so fixated with your own worldview that you defy logic and the physical evidence before your eyes ... to maintain your beliefs ... and you won't be the last.:)

I too was that soldier ... when I was an Evolutionist.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I can take you to water ... but I can't make you drink!!!

You always have the right to continue to be wrong.

You aren't the first person to be so fixated with your own worldview that you defy logic and the physical evidence before your eyes ... to maintain your beliefs ... and you won't be the last.:)

I too was that soldier ... when I was an Evolutionist.

considering that you haven't been able to describe what CFSI is, I'm not too concerned about being wrong from your point of view.

If you can't define what CFSI is, then no one can try to examine the concept of CFSI to see if it holds up to scrutiny. I'm actually beginning to think you're purposely being evasive because you know it won't hold up to scrutiny.

feel free to define CFSI though if you wish to prove otherwise.

swiftblade

I wouldn't mind if he wasn't defining it, but you could find info about it somewhere else. The fact is, when you type CFSI into google, not one website comes up relating to what JC is talking about.

In conclusion JC, I find it hard to believe anything you say or have faith, in what you say, if you can't simply explain this CFSI stuff, that from the looks of it you base all your beliefs on.

J C

koth wrote: »

considering that you haven't been able to describe what CFSI is, I'm not too concerned about being wrong from your point of view.

If you can't define what CFSI is, then no one can try to examine the concept of CFSI to see if it holds up to scrutiny. I'm actually beginning to think you're purposely being evasive because you know it won't hold up to scrutiny.

feel free to define CFSI though if you wish to prove otherwise.

Read my previous posts if you want to know what CFSI is ... and if you don't want to know ... then ignorace of CFSI ... may well be bliss for you.:)

Sarky

And another one slips through his holy spirit enhanced grasp.

This is why you'll always be a laughing stock, J C. Even dead one started asking why you kept dodging simple questions.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Read my previous posts if you want to know what CFSI is ... and if you don't want to know ... then ignorace may well be bliss for you.

I have read your posts, and I do want to know. And not being a scientist, I find your attempts at defining CFSI too vague to be of any use.

swiftblade

koth wrote: »

I have read your posts, and I do want to know. And not being a scientist, I find your attempts at defining CFSI too vague to be of any use.

What he said. I read nearly all your posts relating to CFSI, JC. I still don't know what it actually is. I know it's an argumnet for intelligent design, but I have yet to see you describe it simply enough.

Think about it. How can anybody take you seriously if you can't define the one thing you're basing most of your arguments on.

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

What he said. I read nearly all your posts relating to CFSI, JC. I still don't know what it actually is. I know it's an argumnet for intelligent design, but I have yet to see you describe it simply enough.

Think about it. How can anybody take you seriously if you can't define the one thing you're basing most of your arguments on.

You don't need to take me seriously if you don't want to.

You don't need to do or believe anything if you don't want to.

You have the free will ... to be right ... or wrong.

... and you have the freedom ... to be Saved ... or not.

That's just the way it is ... and I wouldn't change it, even if I could ... because it would remove your freedom as a sovereign Human Being.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

You don't need to take me seriously if you don't want to.

You don't need to do or believe anything if you don't want to.

You have the free will ... to be right ... or wrong.

You have the freedom ... to be Saved ... or not.

That's just the way it is ... and I wouldn't change it, even if I could ... because it would remove your freedom as a sovereign Human Being.

so are you washing your hands with regards to defining CFSI then?

swiftblade

See this is why I wasn't posting on this thread. I think this is fitting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg

J C

koth wrote: »

so are you washing your hands with regards to defining CFSI then?

No ... I'm washing my hands with regards to your games of verbal ping pong.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

No ... I'm washing my hands with regards to your games of verbal ping pong.

so you are refusing to define CFSI then. No problemo.

Then have you anything credible that would help support the creationist myth?

J C

koth wrote: »

so you are refusing to define CFSI then. No problemo.

Then have you anything credible that would help support the creationist myth?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77095022&postcount=7708

Doctor Jimbob

For the sake of argument I'm going to accept your definition of CFSI J C. Even accepting this, I can point out the flaws. You talk about how CFSI is evidence of intelligent design. CFSI found in cave markings/man made cave can be shown to be created by a designer as we find evidence of human tools used to make the markings. Same with books, we know humans write books, it's not a huge leap of faith to assume old books we find with unknown authors were also written by humans. What I'm saying is there is evidence that these had a designer, so you can say they have CFSI. There is no evidence of any tools use to create life. There is no proof that it had a designer. CFSI is too broad of a term to be used to imply a common source. It would be like me saying because my skin is the same colour as my jacket, they were both made by Wrangler. Or my bed is the same colour as my wall, therefore they're both beds.

I know I'm not being very clear, it's been a long day.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77095022&postcount=7708

So it's still a no.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

For the sake of argument I'm going to accept your definition of CFSI J C. Even accepting this, I can point out the flaws. You talk about how CFSI is evidence of intelligent design. CFSI found in cave markings/man made cave can be shown to be created by a designer as we find evidence of human tools used to make the markings. Same with books, we know humans write books, it's not a huge leap of faith to assume old books we find with unknown authors were also written by humans. What I'm saying is there is evidence that these had a designer, so you can say they have CFSI. There is no evidence of any tools use to create life. There is no proof that it had a designer. CFSI is too broad of a term to be used to imply a common source. It would be like me saying because my skin is the same colour as my jacket, they were both made by Wrangler. Or my bed is the same colour as my wall, therefore they're both beds.

I know I'm not being very clear, it's been a long day.

Exactly, Doc. That's the same problem that I pointed out to JC.