"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky

I doubt he'll come up with anything better than "God thinks they look nice."

sephir0th

Sarky wrote: »

I doubt he'll come up with anything better than "God thinks they look nice."

Indeed, it says so in the thread tags.

cowzerp

Sarky wrote: »

I doubt he'll come up with anything better than "God thinks they look nice."

He forgot the cfsi/fairy dust for the wings, same with the wings of the ostrich

Barr125

cowzerp wrote: »

He forgot the cfsi/fairy dust for the wings, same with the wings of the ostrich

That, and God decided to screw with them by having Kiwi's lay the largest egg in relation to body size.

The egg weighs about a quarter of their own body weight. I can't imagine sh*tting something that weighs 4 stone! That's cruel and unusual. :pac:

Also for your enjoyment, animals God has apparently devised, very badly too

J C

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Um...you are preaching to the wrong crowd here - the eye one has been done to death and very convincing explanations have been put forward. Try here for a start.

Quote:
Evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of taxa. Certain components of the eye, such as the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry – that is, they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times[1] – using many of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction.

A story laced full of hand-waving unfounded assumptions (that the eye evolved at all) ... and blatant special pleading (on the one hand, the pigments supposedly evolved once and on the other hand, image forming eyes sup[posedly evolved 50-100 times).
... and still nothing to explain how something as highly specified and complex as an eye could ever come about through a combination of random mutation ... which destroys CFSI ... and a natural/sexual selection mechanism ... for the destroyed CFSI.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how destroying CFSI can lead to anything ... but disaster ... in the absence of other CFSI autocorrection mechanisms.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Try the eye one on a less knowledgeable audience. I'm sure Jesus approves of lying and manipulation if it's for the 'right' reasons.

Less ot the old guff, please ... and less of the Ad Hominism about the God who Created you ... and will one day Judge you.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how destroying CFSI can lead to anything ... but disaster ... in the absence of other CFSI autocorrection mechanisms.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Where does CFSI come into the wings of a Kiwi?

It seems that the CFSI for flight never was there ... and therefore never will be there.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Less ot the old guff, please ... and less of the Ad Hominism about the God who Created you ... and will one day Judge you.

LOL

Ad Hominism ( term incorrectly used again) about God

Perhaps you'd like to explain how destroying CFSI can lead to anything ... but disaster ... in the absence of other CFSI autocorrection mechanisms.

How about you show some scientific merit to the idea of CFSI, since nobody in the realm of science seems to agree with you.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It semms that it never was there ... and therefore never will be there.

so why do kiwis get exemption from CFSI, but humans don't?

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Quote:
Evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of taxa. Certain components of the eye, such as the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry – that is, they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times[1] – using many of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction.

A story laced full of hand-waving unfounded assumptions (that the eye evolved at all) ... and blatant special pleading (on the one hand, the pigments supposedly evolved once and on the other hand, image forming eyes sup[posedly evolved 50-100 times).
... and still nothing to explain how something as highly specified and complex as an eye could ever come about through a combination of random mutation ... which destroys CFSI ... and a natural/sexual selection mechanism ... for the destroyed CFSI.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how destroying CFSI can lead to anything ... but disaster ... in the absence of other CFSI autocorrection mechanisms.


Less ot the old guff, please ... and less of the Ad Hominism about the God who Created you ... and will one day Judge you.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how destroying CFSI can lead to anything ... but disaster ... in the absence of other CFSI autocorrection mechanisms.

A couple of points. First, I seem to recall an actual scientist that specialised in eyes and eye disorders handed you your ass on this point a couple of years ago on the big thread over the fence.

Second, do you not see how utterly retarded of is to ask someone to explain something relate to something, csfi, which they think is rubbish and which you have yet to define in a meaningful way. It is akin to asking someone why they don't think Santa can deliver all the presents in one night.

MrP

J C

koth wrote: »

so why do kiwis get exemption from CFSI, but humans don't?

We don't have the CFSI for flight either ... at least we didn't ... until the Wright Brothers came along!!!:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

We don't have the CFSI for flight either ... at least we didn't ... until the Wright Brothers came along!!!:)

The Wright Brothers created genetically engineered humans capable of flight?

J C

koth wrote: »

Ad Hominism ( term incorrectly used again) about God

Jesus Christ was both God and Man ... so it was an Ad Hominem comment that Monty made about Him.

Sarky

Why are you still talking about cfsi when you've admitted it's a crock of sh*t? It's not like you've managed to provide so much as a simple definition for it, so it's still completely invalid and every one if your posts that mentions it is invalid.

It's like you forgot your multiple total failures at science already.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Jesus Christ was both God and Man ... so it was an Ad Hominem comment about Him.

Unless God has posted on this thread and someone has said, "pay no attention to that dufus, it's only God" it really isn't.

J C

koth wrote: »

The Wright Brothers created genetically engineered humans capable of flight?

The Wright Brothers created the Complex Functional Specified Information that produced a Machine Design that was capable of flight.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The Wright Brothers created the Complex Functional Specified Information that produced a Machine Design that was capable of flight.

So CFSI applies to inorganic human made devices. Gotcha

Then that means it really doesn't apply to evolution.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

It seems that the CFSI for flight never was there ... and therefore never will be there.

So why do they have functionless wings?

Sarky

As long as nobody has a robust definition, or a way to measure it, it doesn't apply to anything.

Besides, J C admitted he can't provide any of those.

dlofnep

Hey J C - Why do Whales have functionless hind limbs?

Doctor Jimbob

dlofnep wrote: »

Hey J C - Why do Whales have functionless hind limbs?

I'm expecting the answer to be about as scientific as 'for the craic'

sephir0th

Can we rename this thread to 'Ask The Creationist a Question'. People can just drop in and have a bit of fun.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Why don't you accept it?


Thats a fair point. Unfortunately for you, it might be relevant if anyone was claiming we are chimps. No one is claiming this. What we are claiming is that humans and chimps are both apes.
Yes, we are biologically more like an elephant than a crocodile. And of course that doesn't make us elephants. It does, however, mean both us and elephants are mammals. Just like humans and chimps are both apes.

... OK ... we're not Elephants ... we're not Crocodiles ... and we're not Apes.
We're Specially Created Humans ... and that is why we drive cars ... debate Evolution on the Boards.ie ... and none of the other creatures will ever do so.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Why exactly is it thought that all apes are seperate kinds, while all big cats are the same kind? It wouldn't be because if we were accepting all the apes as one kind we'd also have to include humans would it? Becuase that would just be dishonest, and we all know you aren't dishonest J C.

... it's because the Big Cats are interfertile with each other to some degree ... while the Great Apes aren't interfertile with each other ... and they're also not interfertile with Humans.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

READ A BOOK ON EVOLUTION.

I have read many such books ... and that is why I'm certain what I'm saying is true.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't understand how you can scientifically say DNA is the same as writing.

It stores and transmits genetic information ... so it's CFSI is much more sophisticated than any written CFSI.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing relevant in that paragraph. You'd have been as well writing an essay on donkeys.

I hit the nail on the head ... and you have no answer!!!
... It is indeed the additional requirement of specificity for functional information that makes the non-intelligently directed generation of CFSI a mathematical impossibility.
Any old series of numbers drawn will be the 'winning numbers' in a Lottery ... but functional living systems requires highly specific series of biomolecules to produce functional living systems and processes.
Its the equivalent of saying that any draw other than 3, 5, 12, 18, 19 and 25 will be invalid in the Lottery next Saturday night and a different specific sequence will be required to win the following Saturday night ... and a prize will only be awarded to people who have 10 winning tickets in a row!!

J C

koth wrote: »

So CFSI applies to inorganic human made devices. Gotcha

Then that means it really doesn't apply to evolution.

CFSI is found in inorganic devices as well as virtual systems ... and organic systems.
... Gotcha!!!:)

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

A couple of points. First, I seem to recall an actual scientist that specialised in eyes and eye disorders handed you your ass on this point a couple of years ago on the big thread over the fence.

I recall no such thing.

MrPudding wrote: »

Second, do you not see how utterly retarded of is to ask someone to explain something relate to something, csfi, which they think is rubbish and which you have yet to define in a meaningful way.

Denial is a terrible thing.

cowzerp

If you keep using the CFSI answer without some proof or even decent explanation then your just taking the piss here, it's hard enough to take you serious when you won't aknowledge posts with evidence for evolution.

sephir0th

Look at this gem I found in the original thread:

JC wrote:

... The recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) in the Giraffe drops into the chest and loops over the heart before going back up to the larynx (voice box) ... is an example of God having the last laugh ... at the Atheists ... who claim that Evolution created the (perfectly designed) chest and the (perfectly designed) heart and then was 'unable' to select 4 centimetre direct route for a nerve to run directly between the vagus and the larynx ... and instead it 'selected' for a 4 metre indirect route !!!
... it works perfectly ... and is an example of a 'luxury' that only an Intelligent Designer could provide!!!!

... it's actually a 'signature' of God ... and it is not a 'defect' ... as it works perfectly!!!

So the RLN is god 'having a laugh'.
Flightless birds with non-functional wings is because 'they look better'.
Common DNA sequences is 'common design'.

I'm getting good at this creationist stuff. :pac:

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

Look at this gem I found in the original thread:



So the RLN is god 'having a laugh'.
Flightless birds with non-functional wings is because 'they look better'.
Common DNA sequences is 'common design'.

I'm getting good at this creationist stuff. :pac:

Good.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

CFSI is found in inorganic devices as well as virtual systems ... and organic systems.
... Gotcha!!!:)

not based on what you just said about the creation of an aeroplane, and the result giving humans CFSI to fly.

Plus, to follow on from your example, you know that humans created the place. So you could argue for CFSI in that case. but you have no proof of a creator of life on Earth. This means you're using CFSI as proof for the existence for CFSI, which is just nonsensical.

J C

koth wrote: »

not based on what you just said about the creation of an aeroplane, and the result giving humans CFSI to fly.

The Plane contains the Intelligently Designed CFSI required to fly.

koth wrote: »

Plus, to follow on from your example, you know that humans created the place (plane?). So you could argue for CFSI in that case. but you have no proof of a creator of life on Earth. This means you're using CFSI as proof for the existence for CFSI, which is just nonsensical.

CFSI is proof of Intelligent Activity.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

So why do they have functionless wings?

They're not completely functionless ... they just don't fly!!