"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Soul Winner

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.

If markings (i.e. writings or drawings) were found on a cave wall but we could not deduce from those markings what tools were used to make them would it be justifiable for us to conclude (based on this fact alone) that they were not intelligently designed? Surely not. Just because we don't know what tools were used to make the markings shouldn't really affect the conclusion that the markings were intelligently designed. Knowing what tools were used does nothing to add to or take away from the conclusion that intelligent agency was involved in the markings.

If the debate was about how the markings were made then this would be important but the debate is not about that at all. Its about whether or not we are able to detect intelligent causation of the markings by just scrutinising the markings themselves. Finding markings consistent with erosion, pressure or heat is evidence for erosion, pressure and heat but finding patterns that are recognisable to intelligent scrutinisers (us) to have come from an intelligent source i.e. writings or drawings etc is evidence of intelligent causation for those markings. To say that there is no proof it was caused by intelligent agency because we don't know how they made the markings is just being silly.

Sarky

There are plenty of examples in this thread, in linked papers and across the web where naturally occurring patterns contain plenty of cfsi. These are dismissed by creationists without explanation. Sometimes they say something like "well we KNOW it wasn't done by humans so it can't contain cfsi", despite the fact that by any method of measuring cfsi they can give, the example they dismissed contains tonnes of it.

You can't do that and maintain scientific credibility. Either that natural phenomenon that happens to look like a smiley face contains cfsi, or cfsi is too poorly defined to be any use. The minute you introduce an arbitrary cutoff point like that for no good reason, you may as well conclude "IT'S F*CKING MAGIC".

It's just one of many reasons why cfsi just doesn't cut it. Wiki is a good start to showing just how many holes there are to poke fun at.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

There are plenty of examples in this thread, in linked papers and across the web where naturally occurring patterns contain plenty of cfsi. These are dismissed by creationists without explanation. Sometimes they say something like "well we KNOW it wasn't done by humans so it can't contain cfsi", despite the fact that by any method of measuring cfsi they can give, the example they dismissed contains tonnes of it.

Creation Scientists say no such thing. What are these 'examples' that you are talking about?

I'll answer Doctor Jimbob, Koth and S W when we have this out of the way.

Doctor Jimbob

Sarky wrote: »

There are plenty of examples in this thread, in linked papers and across the web where naturally occurring patterns contain plenty of cfsi. These are dismissed by creationists without explanation. Sometimes they say something like "well we KNOW it wasn't done by humans so it can't contain cfsi", despite the fact that by any method of measuring cfsi they can give, the example they dismissed contains tonnes of it.

You can't do that and maintain scientific credibility. Either that natural phenomenon that happens to look like a smiley face contains cfsi, or cfsi is too poorly defined to be any use. The minute you introduce an arbitrary cutoff point like that for no good reason, you may as well conclude "IT'S F*CKING MAGIC".

It's just one of many reasons why cfsi just doesn't cut it. Wiki is a good start to showing just how many holes there are to poke fun at.

Completely agree with this, in my last post I was just simplifying things in a (probably poor) attempt to show that even assuming all these things DO contain 'CFSI', it still doesn't make a good argument for an intelligent designer of life.

As he's decided to evade even this simplified version of the argument by once again attempting to derail the conversation completely, screw it, I can't be bothered.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists say no such thing. What are these 'examples' that you are talking about?

I'll answer Doctor Jimbob, Koth and S W when we have this out of the way.

FYP

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists

Please do not use this term. There is no such thing as a creation scientist.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Completely agree with this, in my last post I was just simplifying things in a (probably poor) attempt to show that even assuming all these things DO contain 'CFSI', it still doesn't make a good argument for an intelligent designer of life.

As he's decided to evade even this simplified version of the argument by once again attempting to derail the conversation completely, screw it, I can't be bothered.

I'm not derailing or evading anything ... I've specifically promised to answer your posting ... BUT ... first I want to deal with Sarky's.

Sarky made a specific claim that I believe to false ... that 'naturally occurring patterns contain plenty of cfsi'.

It's important to follow this through ... because, if it is true, then intelligence isn't required to produce CFSI ... so it goes to the very heart of the CFSI issue. It also touches on your post.
... so what are the examples that Sarky is talking about?

Delirium

a short video of Derren Brown giving his thoughts on ID.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay8G3t8xp7s

J C

... so, just as I thought ... there are no examples.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... so, just as I thought ... there are no examples.

Well as you admitted, lipid structures.

J C

koth wrote: »

a short video of Derren Brown giving his thoughts on ID.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay8G3t8xp7s

The 'Banana' argument is now only a 'strawman' ... no Creation Scientist would use it for the very reasons stated by Darren Brown.

Equally, M2M Evolution is a very extraordinary claim ... that defies all logic and therefore requires extraordinary proof ... in accordance with the principle that Darren Brown proposes for claims in relation to the existence of God.

CFSI is now where it is at ... as Creation Science has moved far beyond Intelligent Design.

Delirium

well as soon as you define what CFSI is, we'll see if it holds up to scrutiny.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Well as you admitted, lipid structures.

If the 'lipid structures' aren't functional or specified then they don't contain CFSI.

J C

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.

The point is that CFSI is independent of tools or a designer being identified as it's author.
If we find information that is complex, functional and specified then we can conclude that it had an intelligent author ... even if we don't know who the author was or what methods/tools were used to produce it.

We can scientifically conclude that life on Earth had an intelligent author or authors ... whether this/these author(s) was/were Aliens or the God of the Bible is an open question, that science may never answer.

Prof Dawkins even accepts that life on Earth could to have been Intelligently Designed and 'seeded onto' the Earth ... by Aliens and he admits that you could find a 'signature' of these designers in the details of biochemistry / molecular biology ...
Prof Dawkins is correct ... and Creation Scientists and ID proponents have found this 'signature' ... it's CFSI.
I suspect that Prof Dawkins has also found this 'signature'!!!

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

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

The point is that CFSI is independent of tools or a designer being identified as it's author.
If we find information that is complex, functional and specified then we can conclude that it had an intelligent author ... even if we don't know who the author was or what methods/tools were used to produce it.

And my point is that you look at man made things and say 'oh, this is complex and was intelligently designed', then look at life and say 'oh, this is more complex, this must have had a designer too! yay! proof for CFSI!'
It's like me looking at my laptop and saying this is grey and made by dell, then looking at my socks and saying 'these are grey too, dell must have made them too!'

We can scientifically conclude that life on Earth had an intelligent author or authors ... whether this/these author(s) was/were Aliens or the God of the Bible is an open question, that science may never answer.

We could conclude this, yes. If there was evidence for CFSI. But, there isn't, so we can't conclude anything.

Prof Dawkins even accepts that life on Earth could to have been Intelligently Designed and 'seeded onto' the Earth ... by Aliens and he admits that you could find a 'signature' of these designers in the details of biochemistry / molecular biology ...
Prof Dawkins is correct ... and Creation Scientists and ID proponents have found this 'signature' ... it's CFSI.
I suspect that Prof Dawkins has also found this 'signature'!!!

What's your point? I haven't even watched the video, but even if dawkins does say that, which I doubt, that doesn't mean everyone else who has an issue with intelligent design has to listen to. Dawkins isn't some kind of leader we all have to follow.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The point is that CFSI is independent of tools or a designer being identified as it's author.
If we find information that is complex, functional and specified then we can conclude that it had an intelligent author ... even if we don't know who the author was or what methods/tools were used to produce it.

so without any evidence of any sort you can just claim that a designer created life. That's very convenient for Team Creationism.

We can scientifically conclude that life on Earth had an intelligent author or authors ... whether this/these author(s) was/were Aliens or the God of the Bible is an open question, that science may never answer.

You can't scientifically conclude anything if there is an absence of scientific evidence or documentation in favour of creationism.

Prof Dawkins even accepts that life on Earth could to have been Intelligently Designed and 'seeded onto' the Earth ... by Aliens and he admits that you could find a 'signature' of these designers in the details of biochemistry / molecular biology ...
Prof Dawkins is correct ... and Creation Scientists and ID proponents have found this 'signature' ... it's CFSI.
I suspect that Prof Dawkins has also found this 'signature'!!!

That was in response to a question of whether there could ever be an explanation that might have ID as the cause. And the team behind that film actually barred the scientists (that the recognised) from entering the screening of the movie. Although they didn't recognise Dawkins.

It's just more dishonest creationist nonsense to try and invalidate their opponents in the eyes of the viewers.

swiftblade

He also never admitted to your form of creation. Sure life could have begun somewhere else, and have been transported here by say, an asteroid.
Evolution still needed to take place. Or perhaps you believe a cow, goat, horse and dinosaur came here on a rocket.

Dawkins isn't saying evolution didn't happen.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And my point is that you look at man made things and say 'oh, this is complex and was intelligently designed', then look at life and say 'oh, this is more complex, this must have had a designer too! yay! proof for CFSI!'
It's like me looking at my laptop and saying this is grey and made by dell, then looking at my socks and saying 'these are grey too, dell must have made them too!'

... it's like you looking at the complex functional specified components in your laptop and any other artefact that also has complex functional specified components ... and concluding that they were both intelligently designed.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What's your point? I haven't even watched the video, but even if dawkins does say that, which I doubt, that doesn't mean everyone else who has an issue with intelligent design has to listen to. Dawkins isn't some kind of leader we all have to follow.

My point is that Prof Dawkins has admitted that it is possible to identify the 'signature' of Intelligent Design.
Prof Dawkins is one of the leading Evolutionist academics on Earth ... so if you won't believe me ... perhaps you will believe him.

... or is your commitment to anti-ID rhetoric so deep that you must stay in denial of objective reality ... an 'interesting' place for a Materialist and a skeptic to find himself!!!:)

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

He also never admitted to your form of creation. Sure life could have begun somewhere else, and have been transported here by say, an asteroid.
Evolution still needed to take place. Or perhaps you believe a cow, goat, horse and dinosaur came here on a rocket.

Dawkins isn't saying evolution didn't happen.

You see ... there is the rub ... for both of us ... ID doesn't necessarily invalidate Evolution ... or prove Creation ... so why are you guys so 'dead set' against it?

swiftblade wrote: »

Or perhaps you believe a cow, goat, horse and dinosaur came here on a rocket.

I don't believe this, as it happens ... but it makes more sense that believing that they developed from a slimeball!!!!:eek:

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

... it's like you looking at the complex functional specified components in your laptop and any other artefact that also has complex functional specified components ... and concluding that they were both intelligently designed.

My point is that Prof Dawkins has admitted that it is possible to identify the 'signature' of Intelligent Design.
Prof Dawkins is one of the leading Evolutionist academics on Earth ... so if you won't believe me ... perhaps you will believe him.

... or is your commitment to anti-ID rhetoric so deep that you must stay in denial of objective reality ... an 'interesting' place for a Materialist and a skeptic to find himself!!!:)

He said it might be possible to identify a signature. But you would need something to compare it too, ie. two different sets of DNA.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

You see ... there is the rub ... for both of us ... ID doesn't necessarily invalidate Evolution ... or prove Creation ... so why are you guys so 'dead set' against it?

I don't believe this, as it happens ... but it makes more sense that believing that the developed from a slimeball!!!!:EEK:

the same can be asked as to why you're so dead set against evolution?

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

You see ... there is the rub ... for both of us ... ID doesn't necessarily invalidate Evolution ... or prove Creation ... so why are you guys so 'dead set' against it?

I don't believe this, as it happens ... but it makes more sense that believing that the developed from a slimeball!!!!:EEK:

No but, what your saying does. Or are you telling me you now believe we have evolved from a more primitive being? I think not...

J C

swiftblade wrote: »

He said it might be possible to identify a signature. But you would need something to compare it too, ie. two different sets of DNA.

Why would Prof Dawkins say that it might be possible to identify the 'signature' of Intelligent Design ... if this is impossible ... as you guys seem to maintain?

Lads, stop the 'fooling around' ... and start 'smelling the roses' ... the reality is that the 'signature' of Intelligent Design has been identified by Creation Scientists, ID Proponents and (I suspect) many M2M Evolutionists as well.

They may not have told you guys ... yet !!!!:)

swiftblade

By signature, you're talking about something completley different. He was refering to the possibility of maybe sharing some of the same characteristics within DNA. As I said before though, we don't have anyhting to compare it to. Unless you have access to an alien lifeform?

I think you're refering to your CFSI stuff again. Appologies if I can't understand it. It was never explained to me.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

If the 'lipid structures' aren't functional or specified then they don't contain CFSI.

So why does one form of lipid structure, say a bilayer or a micelle have no CFSI, but a liposome does?
Remember I asked you this before but you tacitly admitted you can't answer it, thereby making your point stupid and unsupported.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Why would Prof Dawkins say that it might be possible to identify the 'signature' of Intelligent Design ... if this is impossible ... as you guys seem to maintain?

he was answering a hypothetical question asked by the interviewer.

J C

koth wrote: »

the same can be asked as to why you're so dead set against evolution?

I'm not dead set against Evolution ... within Kinds ... I fully accept it.
It's the M2M variety that I see reject ... because neither logic nor evidence supports it.

swiftblade

Wait, what evolution do you believe in? Where do you say believe a horse or rabbit came from? This should be interesting...

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So why does one form of lipid structure, say a bilayer or a micelle have no CFSI, but a liposome does?
Remember I asked you this before but you tacitly admitted you can't answer it, thereby making your point stupid and unsupported.

If the bilayer can be produced by deterministic processes then it isn't specified ... and
intelligence therefore isn't required to produce it.

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

If the bilayer can be produced by deterministic processes then it isn't specified ... and
intelligence therefore isn't required to produce it.

You just admitted what he said was correct. You have yet to say why.