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…256257259261262…334

Comments

  • Options
    #7742
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swiftblade wrote: »
    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 anything to compare it to. Unless you have access to an alien lifeform?
    Prof Dawkins was talking about identifying a 'signature' of Intelligent Design i.e. an objective scientifically verifiable method of identifying ID.

    A 'signature' isn't a comparison ... it's something that is uniquely imposed by the phenomenon that produced it ... in this case Intelligence.


  • Options
    #7743
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swiftblade wrote: »
    You just admitted what he said was correct. You have yet to say why.
    Who said what was correct?
    ... please clarify.


  • Options
    #7744
    swiftblade
    Registered Users Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭swiftblade


    J C wrote: »
    Prof Dawkins was talking about identifying a 'signature' of Intelligent Design i.e. an objective scientifically verifiable method of identifying ID.

    A 'signature' isn't a comparison ... it's something that is uniquely imposed by the phenomenon that produced it ... in this case Intelligence.

    But that's not what he was talking about. Your back to your CFSI. There is no deffinate way to say "Yup, that's ID". There isn't a little "Made by ID" placed on everything.

    But to save you from replying. Blah, blah, specified funtion blah, blah. Yea I get it.


  • Options
    #7745
    swiftblade
    Registered Users Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭swiftblade


    J C wrote: »
    Who said what was correct?
    ... please clarify.

    Sorry, Misread that.


  • Options
    #7746
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    That was in response to a question of whether there could ever be an explanation that might have ID as the cause.
    ... and like many answers, it revealed more that the question may have asked.
    In this case, the fact that it might be possible to identify a 'signature' of intelligent action within living organisms using biochemistry and molecular biology.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7747
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swiftblade wrote: »
    There is no deffinate way to say "Yup, that's ID". There isn't a little "Made by ID" placed on everything.
    Prof Dawkins has said that it might be possible ... and I'm saying that it is possible ... and has been done.


  • Options
    #7748
    swiftblade
    Registered Users Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭swiftblade


    J C wrote: »
    swiftblade wrote: »
    But that's not what he was talking about. Your back to your CFSI. There is no deffinate way to say "Yup, that's ID". There isn't a little "Made by ID" placed on everything.
    Prof Dawkins has said that it might be possible ... and I'm saying that it is possible ... and has been done.

    Yes, to find a signature withim DNA. But for that, you need a comparrison set.


  • Options
    #7749
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    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.
    Yes, that's my point, it's coming to a conclusion without evidence.
    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.
    Probably because as a scientist he is willing to remain open to any possibility in the event that there is evidence produced for it. You see unlike creation 'scientists', real scientists don't just sweep evidence under the rug when it doesn't suit their theories.
    In answer to your second point, science would never get anywhere if everyone just agreed with whoever happens to be the leader in their field. Science evolves (ha) as we discover new things. While the pile of evidence under the creationist's rug gets bigger. (See, I can tell bad jokes too!).
    ... 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!!!:)
    The man who supports a theory without as shred of evidence against one with mountains of evidence is claiming I'm in denial of reality. Interesting.
    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?
    Stating that all life forms were designed and popped into existance in a similar form to their current form doesn't invalidate the theory that they achieved their current form gradually over millions of years? Care to explain how that makes sense?
    I don't believe this, as it happens ... but it makes more sense that believing that they developed from a slimeball!!!!:eek:
    How does it make more sense? I admit it's difficult to get your head around but you really need to appreciate the vast amount of time involved. Put it this way, we see evidence of micro evolution (which you've agreed to yourself) which shows that evolution is ongoing. We see no ongoing evidence of Creationism. We don't see new animals just appearing from thin air from time to time, do we?
    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?
    Becuase current scientific evidence shows us that it is impossible. If new evidence comes up that show's it possible, no real scientist is going to deny it just because they don't like it.
    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 !!!!:)
    If any scientist had discovered this 'signature' and could actually prove it, we'd know about it very quickly. But they haven't, so things are staying fairly quiet.
    swiftblade wrote: »
    Wait, what evolution do you believe in? Where do you say believe a horse or rabbit came from? This should be interesting...

    You'd think that, but it isn't really.


  • Options
    #7750
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swiftblade wrote: »
    Yes, to find a signature withim DNA. But for that, you need a comparrison set.
    You don't need a comparison set ... the presence of CFSI in Genetic Information carried on any DNA is the 'signature' of intelligent action.


  • Options
    #7751
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    You don't need a comparison set ... the presence of CFSI in Genetic Information carried on any DNA is the 'signature' of intelligent action.

    The presence of CFSI is not something which can be measured though. The whole argument seems to be 'everything man made has CFSI becuase we can prove man made it, and life has CFSI as well because...well just because.'


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7752
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.
    Ok, so then what makes a bi layer more different than a Liposome that makes one more impossible than the other.

    You keep dodging this very simple question.


  • Options
    #7753
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Yes, that's my point, it's coming to a conclusion without evidence.
    Its coming to a conclusion based on direct comparison between evidence.

    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Probably because as a scientist he is willing to remain open to any possibility in the event that there is evidence produced for it. You see unlike creation 'scientists', real scientists don't just sweep evidence under the rug when it doesn't suit their theories.
    In answer to your second point, science would never get anywhere if everyone just agreed with whoever happens to be the leader in their field. Science evolves (ha) as we discover new things. While the pile of evidence under the creationist's rug gets bigger. (See, I can tell bad jokes too!).
    The guys doing all of the sweeping under the rug on this thread ... are the Evolutionists

    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The man who supports a theory without as shred of evidence against one with mountains of evidence is claiming I'm in denial of reality. Interesting.
    ... 'mountains' of evidence that have never been produced on this thread ... or anywhere else, that I'm aware of.

    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Stating that all life forms were designed and popped into existance in a similar form to their current form doesn't invalidate the theory that they achieved their current form gradually over millions of years? Care to explain how that makes sense?
    If an Alien came to Earth ... and genetically engineered advanced like forms ... then they would 'pop into existence' at the time they were produced by the Alien ... but if the Alien was very sophisticated ... the life forms could have sufficient CFSI built in to evolve and change to match environmental niches using NS ... so ID per se doesn't rule out Evolution ... indeed it is the only plausible mechanism that we can think of to provide the functional variety from which NS can select.

    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Becuase current scientific evidence shows us that it is impossible. If new evidence comes up that show's it possible, no real scientist is going to deny it just because they don't like it.
    Having seen the emotional outbursts on this thread, I don't think that the Evolutionists posting here are the cool objective detached people that they would like to think they are.

    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    If any scientist had discovered this 'signature' and could actually prove it, we'd know about it very quickly.
    That's obviously not how it works - the basic instinct of all power structures is self-preservation ... and the Evolutionists on this thread are no different in this regard to any other group.


  • Options
    #7754
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    CFSI is now where it is at ... as Creation Science has moved far beyond Intelligent Design.
    You're aware that William Dumbski, the fool who came up with CSFI, has abandoned it?

    Didn't you get the newsletter?


  • Options
    #7755
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    Its coming to a conclusion based on direct comparison between evidence.
    No, it's comparing two examples, one of which there is evidence for, once of which there isn't.

    The guys doing all of the sweeping under the rug on this thread ... are the Evolutionists
    A well thought out and well backed up argument.

    ... 'mountains' of evidence that have never been produced on this thread ... or anywhere else, that I'm aware of.
    Then I suggest you start reading.

    If an Alien came to Earth ... and genetically engineered advanced like forms ... then they would 'pop into existence' at the time they were produced by the Alien ... but if the Alien was very sophisticated ... the life forms could have sufficient CFSI built in to evolve and change to match environmental niches using NS ... so ID per se doesn't rule out Evolution ... indeed it is the only plausible mechanism that we can think of to provide the functional variety from which NS can select.
    I don't see why you keep bringing this hypothetical alien into it. As there is no evidence for this, it's entirely irrelevant. ID is also in no way plausible.

    Having seen the emotional outbursts on this thread, I don't think that the Evolutionists posting here are the cool objective detached people that they would like to think they are.
    ... they're one of the most partisan and illogically emotional group of people that I have ever met.
    Pot, meet kettle.

    That's obviously not how it works - the basic instinct of all power structures is self-preservation ... and the Evolutionists on this thread are no different in this regard to any other group.
    The problem is 'evolutionism' isn't a power structure, it's a branch of science. You're getting it confused with a religion again.


  • Options
    #7756
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    robindch wrote: »
    You're aware that William Dumbski, the fool who came up with CSFI, has abandoned it?

    Didn't you get the newsletter?

    What? You mean this solid, well thought out scientific idea has been abandoned by it's creator? Why oh why would be do such a thing? :eek:

    I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact it's horseshit backed up by no evidence whatsoever?


  • Options
    #7757
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    You're aware that William Dumbski, the fool who came up with CSFI, has abandoned it?

    Didn't you get the newsletter?
    I'm aware of no such thing ... and please ease off on the unfounded ad hominisms.

    ... and Robin could you also please use the basic courtesy of spelling peoples names correctly ... he is Dr William Dembski ... and yes they are earned doctorates from conventional Universities.

    According to Wikipedia, Dr Dembski completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and masters degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago respectively), and a Master of Divinity in theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary (1996).


  • Options
    #7758
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    And yet he still couldnt define the very concept he tried to push as proof of god.

    That's pretty dumb by anyone's standards.

    Ooh, maybe you could do it instead!


  • Options
    #7759
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The problem is 'evolutionism' isn't a power structure, it's a branch of science. You're getting it confused with a religion again.
    You're the yuys confusing your faith and your science.

    On this thread the Evolutionists are highly emotional people, in deep denial, that their faith in the power of microbes to morph into Man via billions of selected mistakes, doesn't stand up to scrutiny on any level!!!:)


  • Options
    #7760
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    You're the yuys confusing your faith and your science.

    On this thread the Evolutionists are highly emotional people, in deep denial, that their faith in the power of microbes to morph into Man over via billions of selected mistakes, doesn't stand up to scrutiny on any level!!!:)

    Evolution is a fact, and demonstrable. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, you will never change this. Arguing from personal incredulity is not the basis of a well informed argument. You lose.


  • Options
    #7761
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    You're the yuys confusing your faith and your science.

    On this thread the Evolutionists are highly emotional people, in deep denial, that their faith in the power of microbes to morph into Man via billions of selected mistakes, doesn't stand up to scrutiny on any level!!!:)

    Nope, that's clearly you.

    Theory of evolution = Scientific Theory, not a faith.
    How does it not stand up to scrutiny when you accept that some form of evolution can happen?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7762
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    What? You mean this solid, well thought out scientific idea has been abandoned by it's creator? Why oh why would be do such a thing? :eek: I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact it's horseshit backed up by no evidence whatsoever?
    Nope. It's more interesting than that -- Dumbski abandoned the idea pretty much after ID lost, big-time, at the Dover trial, when ID and its concomitant CISF nonsense was relegated, by ID supporters themselves (!), to the level of astrology. Once they admitted that, the game was up and the trial was lost. Shortly afterwards, Dumbski's wealthy financial/religious backers pulled the funding for his "research", his "center" was shut down and Dumbski moved on to work as a religious preacher for some minor redneck outfit in Texas somewhere.
    J C wrote: »
    I'm aware of no such thing
    I've brought Dumbski's abandonment of his immensely stupid ideas to your attention many times. If you're interested, please feel free to search back through this thread or the other one.


  • Options
    #7763
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Nope. It's more interesting than that -- Dumbski abandoned the idea pretty much after ID lost, big-time, at the Dover trial, when ID and its concomitant CISF nonsense was relegated, by ID supporters themselves (!), to the level of astrology. Once they admitted that, the game was up and the trial was lost. Shortly afterwards, Dumbski's wealthy financial/religious backers pulled the funding for his "research", his "center" was shut down and Dumbski moved on to work as a religious preacher for some minor redneck outfit in Texas somewhere.
    Robin, the last time that I personally met somebody who was not respecting people by pronouncing their names improperly ... it was the school-yard bully at my school.
    Funny thing ... unlike you ... he stopped name-calling when I asked him to ... and apologised to all his victims.

    I never knew whether this was due to what I said to him about Jesus Christ ... or the fact that I was a 6' 4" 18-year old Evolutionist, at the time ... and with a physique ... and a bit of a 'survival of the fittest' attitude to match!!!
    Either way ... his victims thanked me ... and he thanked me ... and all the girls admired me ... so it was a win:win all round.

    ... you should try it too.:)

    robindch wrote: »
    I've brought Dumbski's abandonment of his immensely stupid ideas to your attention many times. If you're interested, please feel free to search back through this thread or the other one.
    I am happy to report that Dr Dembski is still publishing work on ID. His latest book is written by himself and Jonathan Witt ... Intelligent Design Uncensored. (InterVarcity Press Books, May 2010) ISBN 978-0830837427.
    ... enjoy ...
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/uncensoring_and_simplifying_th035971.html


  • Options
    #7764
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I don't think it changes the fact that he hasn't defined cfsi in a way that would hold up to the scrutiny of a child.

    Since Dembski and creationism as a whole admitted complete and abject failure in that regard, do you think you could fill in the gaps instead? It can't be that hard. At least, you keep claiming that. But then you do lie an awful lot, so I'm sure you'll appreciate why we've been asking you for the last few years to back yourself up with even a tiny bit of evidence.


  • Options
    #7765
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    I don't think it changes the fact that he hasn't defined cfsi in a way that would hold up to the scrutiny of a child.

    Since Dembski and creationism as a whole admitted complete and abject failure in that regard, do you think you could fill in the gaps instead? It can't be that hard. At least, you keep claiming that. But then you do lie an awful lot, so I'm sure you'll appreciate why we've been asking you for the last few years to back yourself up with even a tiny bit of evidence.
    Have a look at this link ... and you'll find that none of what you're saying is true.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/uncensoring_and_simplifying_th035971.html


  • Options
    #7766
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Also judging by the level of honesty you've displayed in the past, there's a greater chance that you were the squat lesbian that never showered in school.


  • Options
    #7767
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I'm on a phone right now, so could you do me a favour and post the bit from that link where someone gives a clear, robust definition of cfsi?

    That is, if there is one. I find it more likely that you're lying again.


  • Options
    #7768
    housetypeb
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    J C wrote: »
    Robin, the last time that I personally met somebody who was not respecting people by pronouncing their names improperly ... it was the SCHOOL YARD BULLY AT MY SCHOOL .
    Funny thing ... unlike you ... he stopped name-calling when I asked him to ... and apologised to all his victims.

    I never knew whether this was due to my WITNESSING TO HIM ABOUT JESUS CHRIST ... or the fact that I was a 6' 4" 18-year old Evolutionist, at the time ... and with a physique ... and a bit of a 'survival of the fittest' attitude to match!!!
    Either way ... his victims thanked me ... and he thanked me ... and all the girls admired me ... so it was a win:win all round.

    ... you should try it too.:)

    LOL, Another lie since you claim to have been an evolutionist scientist for many years until you were saved by jebus.


  • Options
    #7769
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Sarky wrote: »
    I'm on a phone right now, so could you do me a favour and post the bit from that link where someone gives a clear, robust definition of cfsi?

    That is, if there is one. I find it more likely that you're lying again.

    Don't bother, there's no explanation.

    One line talks about 'functional information like we find in cells books and software programs'. Which again seems to me like saying 'we can see these two things are intelligently designed because we know man designed them, so this other things must be inteligently designed as well....just because'.

    "ID's opponents are 'openly and unashamedly letting theology stand in the way of scientific investigation--the very charge they constantly levy against [proponents of] ID.'" Is another gem from the article.


  • Options
    #7770
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    housetypeb wrote: »
    J C
    Robin, the last time that I personally met somebody who was not respecting people by pronouncing their names improperly ... it was the SCHOOL YARD BULLY AT MY SCHOOL .
    Funny thing ... unlike you ... he stopped name-calling when I asked him to ... and apologised to all his victims.

    I never knew whether this was due to my WITNESSING TO HIM ABOUT JESUS CHRIST ... or the fact that I was a 6' 4" 18-year old Evolutionist, at the time ... and with a physique ... and a bit of a 'survival of the fittest' attitude to match!!!
    Either way ... his victims thanked me ... and he thanked me ... and all the girls admired me ... so it was a win:win all round.

    ... you should try it too.:)

    LOL, Another lie since you claim to have been an evolutionist scientist for many years until you were saved by jebus.
    I was a cultural Christian and an evolutionist for years ... I became a Creationist ... and was Saved ... relatively recently.
    There are many cultural Christians who aren't Saved ... or indeed Creationists.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7771
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,638 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    I was a cultural Christian and an evolutionist for years ... I became a Creationist ... and was Saved ... relatively recently.
    There are many cultural Christians who aren't Saved ... or indeed Creationists.

    I like this subtle threat 'Believe what I believe or suffer eternal damnation.'
    Compare this to the 'evolutionist' attitude of 'Believe what I believe because it's the truth. No, really, you aren't going to burn for all eternity if you don't believe me. Nothing will change in any meaningful way other than you knowing the truth. That's all. No catch.'


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement