"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

robindch

J C wrote: »

You're the despicable one

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Oh piss off

Boys and girls, please calm down.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

The scientific method is also the basis of Creation Science ... and some Creationists are Medical Doctors ... Computer Engineers.
So Evolutionists don't have a monopoly on the Scientific Method.

The bible is the basis of Creation Science.
The fact these people are intelligent doesn't make creationism true either.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The scientific method is also the basis of Creation Science creationism ...

creationism has little or nothing to do with science. It's the attempt to have Christian creation myths as fact. Most of the time of the creationist seems to be spend on trying to get people to dismiss evolution.

and some Creationists are Medical Doctors ... Computer Engineers.
So Evolutionists don't have a monopoly on the Scientific Method.

Nobody said they do. But creationism isn't science, so if you're going to have an evolution vs. creationism discussion based on actual science, then creationism hasn't got anything to offer to the discussion other than a lack of understanding of evolution. That or deliberately distorting science.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

It's not a disclaimer ... just a fact.

Can I interest you in buying one of my fabulous pre-owned cars? Naturally you won't want any guarantee or warranty, because if it turns out to be faulty it will all be your own fault...

swampgas

J C wrote: »

The scientific method is also the basis of Creation Science ... and some Creationists are Medical Doctors ... Computer Engineers.
So Evolutionists don't have a monopoly on the Scientific Method.

Let me humour you for a minute and pretend that creationism is based on science. That would make evolution and creationism competing theories for the same evidence.

When the scientific method produces contradictory theories (which happens quite often) the correct theory is usually determined by which theory better matches the facts, and crucially, which theory makes better predictions.

Creationism has not been capable of making any useful predictions.

There is a reason why the vast majority of scientists accept evolution and disregard creationism, but I'm guessing you think they are all deluded. I'm afraid you're the deluded one.

robindch

J C wrote: »

The scientific method is also the basis of Creation Science

Rubbish. The bible is the foundation of D2C Creationism which, therefore, has nothing to do with proper, honest science. Here's a quote from AIG to prove it:

diploma-mill doctor-doctor Ham wrote:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

J C wrote: »

... and some Creationists are Medical Doctors [...]

As was Dr Josef Mengele; wouldn't get your hopes up too high on that one!

.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

I have written most of what oldrnwisr has written ... when I was an Evolutionist ... and now I blush ... at naivety of it all.:)

There is no such thing as an Evolutionist. There are people who understand the fact of Evolution, and agree that the theory of Evolution explains it perfectly fine.

You never at any point in your life understood the mechanics of Evolution, because if you did - you wouldn't routinely demonstrate ignorance about it on this thread.

dead one

J C wrote: »

I have written most of what oldrnwisr has written ... when I was an Evolutionist ... and now I blush ... at naivety of it all.:)

What does it take to piss evolutionary psychology off?...

Sarky

Ooh, wait, I know this one. Uh... To get to the other side?

dead one

It looks like a dark heaven.... I am afraid that you will not be knowing on the other side

oldrnwisr

dlofnep wrote: »

Clicking thanks on your posts oldrnwisr, isn't sufficient enough for the time you have take to write them. If you're not a lecturer on evolutionary biology, you should be. That way, you'll be speaking to a target audience that actually listens to you in an intellectually honest manner, unlike J C.

Every single point J C has made has been refuted throughout this thread. He is simply data-mining Answers in Genesis. Look at any of his replies on any topic, and go to the website - you can be sure as hell that what he is writing, is a carbon copy of these creationist websites. He doesn't actually understand what he is typing, that's why it's so easy for you to correct every single sentence he writes.

Thank you dlofnep. Really, thank you. Such positive responses make swimming through the river of crap posted by JC worthwhile. To paraphrase a comment made by Joe Higgins about Bertie Ahern, debating with JC is like playing handball against a wet haystack.

dead one

oldrnwisr wrote: »

evidence.

You forget that Dades said, evolution has nothing to do with atheism and i said some of evolution interpretation are dogmatic.... Are you not trying to link evolution with atheism in the mirror of evidence ....

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

You forget that Dades said, evolution has nothing to do with atheism and i said some of evolution interpretation are dogmatic.... Are you not trying to link evolution with atheism in the mirror of evidence ....

Dogmatic: characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

Surely that would preclude evolution from being described as dogmatic as it is based on evidential findings?

oldrnwisr

dead one wrote: »

You forget that Dades said, evolution has nothing to do with atheism and i said some of evolution interpretation are dogmatic.... Are you not trying to link evolution with atheism in the mirror of evidence ....

Look dead one, when I replied (which I shouldn't have done) I was responding to your question "what makes someone support evolution". I responded evidence. I'm not linking evolution with atheism. Evolution is true because it's observed to be true. However, the creationist mindset is so simplistic that it's either evolution without god or god without evolution.

This should explain it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, I'm going to say this for the last time. Following this I will ignore any of these type of comments you make, just so we're clear. First, natural selection is a deterministic process not a random one. Secondly, until such time as you are willing to both quantify and support your CSFI/CFSI/FSIC/CIFS etc. then there's no point commenting on it.

NS is indeed deterministic ... and I am not arguing that it isn't ... what I am arguing ... is that the supposed process that 'feeds' NS useful functional variants to NS for it to select (namely mutatgenesis) is random and therefore deleterious to organised functional information (such as genetic information).
This is basically why Evolutuonists ... like all other rational people, avoid mutagenesis themselves ... yet paradoxically, they believe that it caused slime to rise up and become Men.
W2M Evolution has half of a plausible mechanism (Natural & Sexual Selection) ... but without a plausible materialistic mechanism to produce something worthwhile to select ... the whole thing can never 'get off the ground'.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Where does the 2nd Law mention spontaneous. The 2nd law applies to closed systems, which the earth isn't.

And seeing as you mention it, you're confusing order with entropy. We have already observed instances where an increase in order is associated with an increase in entropy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/285/5426/394.short

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/279/5358/1849.short

http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v68/i12/p1090_s1?isAuthorized=no

So maybe you'd like to try that one again?

These are deterministic processes ... and like all other deterministic processes they can increase order while increasing entropy.
An intelligently designed manufacturing machine increases order in the manufactured articles it produces ... while simultaneously increasing entropy via the energy it consumes.
Explosions and all random processes that aren't controlled by a deterministic system increase both disorder and entropy.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Natural selection has formed the basis of many manufacturing processes. You might want to read these before making any more stupid comments:

Genetic algorithm

List of genetic algorithm applications

Computer-automated design

Evolutionary computing

These are all Intelligently designed deterministic systems ... just like living systems.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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

and here is Richard Dawkins explaining how it works:

... or not ... even Richard Dawkins admits that the computer model isn't like what is required if W2M Evolution is true v=because it had a pre-determined outcome with selected letters for each position as they were randomly generated (which requires advanced overview that only an Intelligence can provide). Prof Dawkins Computer may provide a plausible explantion for how Theistic Evolution might happen (although we don't see it happening currently) ... but it provides no comfort for the Materialistic variety of Evolution.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

So you're saying that DNA is your idea of the CFSI implanted by your "intelligent designer" aka the Christian God? Really?

I'm saying that DNA is observed to be an information storage and transmission mechanism ...
Who produced the original information is unknown to science ... but the fact that it had an intelligent origin is beyond scientific dispute.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Did you leave your brain at the door before posting that? Do you have any idea how stupid it looks? I guess not.

Mucus does not dissolve in water. In fact in many cases, the mucus secreted by aquatic creatures reacts to water, expanding in volume and becoming stickier. Lots of aquatic creatures secrete external mucus, particularly bony fish and hagfish. Do some reading and stop making such idiotic comments.

Mucus
Hagfish

It all depends on whether its water soluble mucus or not ... in any event it's pretty intense special pleading to argue that a snot or hagfish slime can have any role in producing an eye!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
The vary rare 'beneficial' mutations and the common deleterious ones all result in degraded genetic information.

oldrnwisr
Stop repeating the same lies over and over. If you had read "The Evolution of Biological Complexity" which I posted you would see that not to be the case.

Even by the criteria of information theory these mutations count as an increase in genetic information.

... and pigs will fly!!!
All random changes to specified functional information right across the spectrum from Computer programmes to the written word to computer chips to genetic information are observed to be deleterious ... living cells have to have amazingly designed 'autocorrection' mechanisms to undo the damage that is done by background mutagenesis ... and the entire organism can be overwhelmed by exposure to highly mutagenic agents.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Atheistic Humanism is also a faith-based belief (in the non-existence of God).
All Faiths are seeking after truth ... and I believe that Christianity has the truth.

oldrnwisr
No, JC, atheism is not a faith, neither is atheistic humanism. Most people here don't believe in a god. They do not positively believe that there are no gods. You should try and understand the difference between those two positions.

... not believing in something ... logically means believing in it's opposite.
... but it's an interesting admission that you believe that most 'Atheists' are actually 'Anti-theists'.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
You can believe in the truth of Christianity all you want. Unfortunately you don't have any evidence, do you? After all, Paul said it best in 1 Corinthians 15:

"If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised."

You are indeed correct that the core issue for the Christian Faith is the reality of Jesus Christ and the reliability of the claims made by Him and about Him. The Resurrection is the most funamental core issue ... because upon it lies the hope of the Christian for his/her own Resurrection ... and indeed it is also the major proof for the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately all these beliefs must be held through faith alone ... that is why it is called the Christian Faith, after all.
However, it is not a blind unsupported faith ... we have proof that a Divine power of effective omnipotent abilities created the Universer and all life ... and this is evidentially supported by the Complex Functional Specified nature of living systems processes and their supporting information.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
Christianity stands or falls with the resurrection. Without evidence for that you're stuffed!

... and Atheism / Anti-theism stands or falls on the validity of Materialistic Evolution ... because without a plausible physical mechanism for the Abiotic creation and spontaneous development of life ... it is 'stuffed'!!!
... so, just like Atheists/Anti-theists are right to question Creation Scientists closely on their ideas ... it's a very good idea to do the same with faith-filled Atheists and Anti-theists ... in relation to their particular 'origins story'.

wrote:

oldrnwisr
Thanks Doc. The thing is though I think when JC says unambiguous evidence he means evidence he can't explain away using creationism but since he's a master of cognitive dissonance management I can't see that happening.

When I say unambiguous evidence ... I mean scientifically valid evidence ... and not just a well crafted story ... like the ones that arrange living organisms on the basis of increasing complexity ... and claim that this somehow proves evolution ... when all it is, is a systematic description of the variety of contemporaneously living creatures ... with Evolutionary needs and biases projected onto it.:)

You're a good one oldrnwisr ... but why don't you take the side of the angels on this and everthing else?

swampgas

J C wrote: »

NS is indeed deterministic ... and I am not arguing that it isn't ... what I am arguing ... is that the supposed process that 'feeds' NS useful functional variants to NS for it to select (namely mutatgenesis) is random and therefore deleterious to organised functional information (such as genetic information).

Wrong. Mutations are almost always deleterious (or have no effect) - but in a tiny tiny fraction of cases, the mutation is beneficial. That's all it takes though.

Take a population of billions of microbes. Assume 99.999% of mutations are deleterious, that leaves 0.001% of mutations to confer some slight advantage. In a population of billions and given enough time, natural selection will cause these beneficial mutations to spread into the population.

Are you seriously going to argue that it is 100% impossible for a mutation to confer a benefit? Even when beneficial mutations have been observed in the lab and in the world around us?

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Look dead one, when I replied (which I shouldn't have done) I was responding to your question "what makes someone support evolution". I responded evidence. I'm not linking evolution with atheism. Evolution is true because it's observed to be true. However, the creationist mindset is so simplistic that it's either evolution without god or god without evolution.

This should explain it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

oldrnwisr cosying up to the Pope ... now there is a sight for sore eyes!!!:):D

If you replace the words 'Creation' and 'Creationism' with 'Evolution' and 'Evolutionism' ... and look at the video again, you won't be too far off the mark!!!!:)

Delirium

How can something be random if it always follows the same path, i.e. change always being deleterious? That means it's not random.

J C

swampgas wrote: »

Wrong. Mutations are almost always deleterious (or have no effect) - but in a tiny tiny fraction of cases, the mutation is beneficial. That's all it takes though.

Mutagenesis is overwhelmingly (and catastrophically) deleterious ... and in all cases, it is information destroying.

swampgas wrote: »

Take a population of billions of microbes. Assume 99.999% of mutations are deleterious, that leaves 0.001% of mutations to confer some slight advantage. In a population of billions and given enough time, natural selection will cause this beneficial mutation to spread into the population.

... you are correct ... but the so-called 'benficial' mutation will have caused the loss of genetic information ... which isn't what we would expect with a mechanism that supposedly produced all of the complex functional specified genetic information that separates Mankind from Pondkind.

swampgas wrote: »

Are you seriously going to argue that it is 100% impossible for a mutation to confer a benefit? Even when beneficial mutations have been observed in the lab and in the world around us?

I'm not arguing that it's impossible for a mutation to confer a benefit ... I'm arguing that any 'benefit' comes at a loss in information.
Its like hitting a particularly noisy car horn with a hammer ... and it now has the 'benefit' of sounding like the horn on John Boy Walton's van ... but this has come at the cost of serious damage to the horn mechanism ... and the chances are that another 'whack' will silence it permanently.

swampgas

J C wrote: »

Mutagenesis is overwhelmingly (and catastrophically) deleterious ... and in all cases, it is information destroying.

This is not what is observed in the real world, I'm afraid.

... you are correct ... but the so-called 'benficial' mutation will have caused the loss of genetic information ... which isn't what we would expect with a mechanism that supposedly produced all of the complex functional specified genetic information that separates Mankind from Pondkind.

I'm not arguing that ... I'm arguing that any 'benefit' comes at a loss in information.
Its like hitting a particularly noisy car horn with a hammer ... and it now has the 'benefit' of sounding like the horn on John Boy Walton's van ... but this has come at the cost of serious damage to the horn mechanism ... and the chances are that another 'whack' will silence it permanently.

What makes you say that the benefit must come with the loss of information? That's really to misunderstand the weird and wonderful way that mutations can occur.

J C

koth wrote: »

How can something be random if it always follows the same path, i.e. change always being deleterious? That means it's not random.

Explosions are random in their effects (unless they are intelligently controlled) ... and they are deleterious (unless they are intelligently controlled).

swampgas

J C wrote: »

Its like hitting a particularly noisy car horn with a hammer ... and it now has the 'benefit' of sounding like the horn on John Boy Walton's van ... but this has come at the cost of serious damage to the horn mechanism ... and the chances are that another 'whack' will silence it permanently.

This car horn analogy doesn't really work. Organisms contain DNA, which is being replicated all the time. A small transcription error as the DNA is copied leads to slightly modified DNA. In fact some DNA might be duplicated or repeated, adding to the information, rather than any information being lost.

*Warning - really corny cake analogy ahead *

A better analogy would be this: a cake recipe is being copied and re-copied over and over again by millions of cooks. When the cake is baked, the tastier it is the more the recipe gets copied. If a slight error is introduced to the recipe as it is copied, usually the cake will be less tasty and copied less. But sometimes, that slight tweak may be an improvement, the cake tastes better, and the improved recipe starts to spread to all the other cooks.

I'm going to eat some cake now and go to bed.

dead one

J C wrote: »

oldrnwisr cosying up to the Pope ... now there is a sight for sore eyes!!!:):D

If you replace the words 'Creation' and 'Creationism' with 'Evolution' and 'Evolutionism' ... and look at the video again, you won't be too far off the mark!!!!:)

JC, honestly as a third person, oldrnwisr post is making sense.. I mean there are some fundamental flaws in creationism but It doesn't make evolution perfect.... As in my views, there are some also some fundamental flaws in evolution too... The truth is in middle between creationism and evolutionist.... As there is old saying, when dispute is too long then both parties are wrong... I am lucky i don't belong to any party..

Sarky

The thing is though that only J C is wrong here. Absolutely nothing she has posted holds up to investigation. J C simply has no basis for her claims, and she has never, ever supplied one either. Science requires evidence. J C has none. Nothing J C posts is science. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Explosions are random in their effects (unless they are intelligently controlled) ... and they are deleterious (unless they are intelligently controlled).

And how does that back up your unsupported assertion that random mutation is always a negative thing? Again, if it's always negative, it can't be random.

sephir0th

dead one wrote: »

As there is old saying, when dispute is too long then both parties are wrong...

There was awful disputes over whether the world was round or flat, and whether the sun went around the earth or vice versa. Both parties clearly wrong.

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

I'm not arguing that it's impossible for a mutation to confer a benefit ... I'm arguing that any 'benefit' comes at a loss in information.

I'm confused, what is 'information' and how is it relevant in biological systems?

Sarky

sephir0th wrote: »

J C wrote: »

I'm not arguing that it's impossible for a mutation to confer a benefit ... I'm arguing that any 'benefit' comes at a loss in information.

I'm confused, what is 'information' and how is it relevant in biological systems?

Now this would be a perfect opportunity for J C to finally provide the robust mathematical definition of cfsi he keeps telling us exists. Well, much like the other dozen times he's been asked for it but shied away from revealing some evidence that he's not talking bollocks.

He won't though. He won't even admit that he can't. He will just continue talking bollocks.

Deus Ex Machina

This scale of the thread saddens me profoundly.

Sarky

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. I find it endlessly amusing watching J C fling poo about like a particularly ignorant chimp.