"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

sponsoredwalk

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Funny thing ... change the word 'Christian' to 'Materialist' in the above flowchart ... and it perfectly describes my experience in debating Materialists !!!:)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Funny thing ... change the word Christian to Materialist in the above flowchart ... and it describes my experience in debating Materialists!!!:)

people are still waiting for you to answer questions from a while ago, such as when you claimed that intelligent design proved the existence of God and then back tracked.

So it certainly describes debating you. Does that prove you are secretly a materialist?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Funny thing ... change the word Christian to Materialist in the above flowchart ... and it describes my experience in debating Materialists!!!:)

Are you joking me? We've had to continually chase you down using your own
words as evidence becasue you bounce from topic to topic leaving no trace
of the last topic save your own nonsensical quotes 20 pages back.

Just address the last two posts, i.e. not chanigng the topic off your claims
about dinosaurs being mammals &, to me far more importantly, explaining
why my analysis of your proof is wrong because I guarantee you it isn't.

Zombrex

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Are you joking me?

The thing you have to appreciate with JC is that he is not a believer like Soul Winner or Wolfsbane or the other Creationists on the Christianity forum.

He is a troll. This raises some interesting questions, such as why dedicate your life to trolling a website with Creationist propaganda when you yourself are not a believer.

He of course claims to be Christian but you can see after spending a while debating with him and the others that this simply isn't the case. There is none of the cognative compartmentalization present in his posts that is present in the posts of the others. They are conflicted with this topic because they actually hang their faith on it, you can see this in the posting style. JC is far to blantant about his deception and misdirection. They couldn't be like that as it would be too obvious to themselves that they are lying in order to prop up their position, which would cause crisis of conscience. JC has no such issue. He very rarely if ever engages in other Christian topics, and shows little interest in areas of Christianity other than related to Creationism.

I would love to meet him in the flesh, the idea of someone so utterly devoted to a single troll fascinates me. It is dedication on a level that even on the internet is rare, like an actor who completely becomes a character long after the performance is over.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

It is dedication on a level that even on the internet is rare, like an actor who completely becomes a character long after the performance is over.

Quite like "shut-eye" of a cold reader... :pac:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69820222&postcount=1116

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... I am now drawing a deep breath as I await immediate denial from the Evolutionists along the lines that the 'dino-fuzz' wasn't 'fuzz' or hair at all ... at all !!!!

... because this evidence 'blows the whole Evolutionary time frame out of the water'!!!!



Galvasean
So J C uses an article about feathered dinosaurs as proof of dinosaurs being mammals (yep, everyone knows modern day mammals have feathers).
He then cites evidence that mammlas lived alongside dinosaurs (something nobody ever disputed) as further evidence that dinosaurs and mammals are one in the same.

I'm sorry but the guy is a f#cking idiot. No two ways ifs or buts about it. Such statements are idiocy in the extreme.
What a f#cking tool.

... have I got the gift of prophecy ... or what???:)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

people are still waiting for you to answer questions from a while ago, such as when you claimed that intelligent design proved the existence of God and then back tracked.

So it certainly describes debating you. Does that prove you are secretly a materialist?

I'm a Materialist up to the point ... where the Materialists cease to be 'hard-headed' Materialists ... and start believing in the 'magical powers' of muck and mistakes ... to turn unicellular Pondslime into Mankind!!!

J C

liamw wrote: »

Quite like "shut-eye" of a cold reader... :pac:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69820222&postcount=1116

The only ones on this thread 'with their eyes wide shut' are the self-styled 'Materialists' who have long since ceased to be real hard-headed Materialists and instead, without either evidence or logic to support their case, they believe with the faith of a zealot, in the 'Moronic Design' of life ... rather than its Intelligent Design!!!:)

sponsoredwalk

Just in case you forgot

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

J C wrote: »

... when you are, in fact, a Specially Created Son of God ... with an eternal destiny of your own choosing ahead of you!!!

I know that I alone choose my destiny thanks & I don't need a book
that preaches genocide as a just response to tell me that

J C wrote:

NS is a fact ... and it acts on the pre-existing CFSI genetic diversity infused into the various genomes at Creation. It's existence therefore doesn't have any bearing on my proof that CFSI doesn't generate itself ... and that CFSI requires an input of intelligent design to produce it.

Okay, so natural selection exists & it is a key component of the theory
of evolution. So the very fact you accept this means the evolution
"fairytale" is not a fairytale because there is some truth there already,
so I think you'd agree that you cannot continue calling evolution a fairytale
you'll have to concede that there is some truth to the theory, whatever
that truth is.

J C wrote:

SS is a fact ... and it acts on the pre-existing CFSI genetic diversity infused into the various genomes at Creation. It's existence therefore doesn't have any bearing on my proof that CFSI doesn't generate itself ... and that CFSI requires an input of intelligent design to produce it.

Now we have two components of the theory you were calling a fairytale
to actually be true. Notice that you are talking about the "origin" of
CFSI again. and the theory of evolution, that fairytale, says absolutely
nothing about the origin of CFSI rather it just discusses how this CFSI
can become less or more complex due to environmental pressures,
breeding pressures etc... About the origin of CFSI, I mean it's such a
stupid idea, CFSI is just FI (functional information) that is Complex
due to an originally simple bit of Functional information Complexifying due to
beneficial genetic mutation that is Specified to do a certain task. It's
Specified by the beneficial Function it undertakes. I guess I don't mean
tha evolution says nothing about the origin of CFSI, I mean that evolution
simply selects FI in the first place & by evolutionary processes this
information gradually Complexifies & assumes new Specified Functions,
but the idea that originally this CFSI is selected is a joke, a red herring
argument by ID'ers to say - how could something so complex come from
mud in the way it is???? The answer is time & accumulation, & you consistently
ignore the importance of time, as your denial of macroevolution explicitly
illustrates as proof of this.

J C wrote:

The laws thermodynamics indicate that everything in the universe is moving from a state of order to disorder ... and this can only be locally reversed by the input of intelligently harnessed energy. They are therefore a major supporting proof for the Intelligent Design of life.

I'm really happy you made this statement, by this logic the sun is
intelligent. The sun offers up this "intelligent" energy in the form of
heat & allows for plants to convert this energy into other forms.
This is the logic of a sun-god advocate But I think you know that
I was talking about thermodynamics as espoused in the abiogenesis
video. Do you remember that? Do you remember what fuelled the
cells to eat other cells & grow bigger thereby having an advantage over
other cells? Thermodynamic disparities. Your proof said nothing about
this, it simply talks about a 100 chain protein that is sitting inside a
cell that is stuck in the struggle for survival because of uncontrollable
thermodynamic & environmental pressures to survive competitively.

J C wrote:

Environmental pressures are a fact ... and they act on the pre-existing CFSI genetic diversity infused into the various genomes at Creation. It's existence therefore doesn't have any bearing on my proof that CFSI doesn't generate itself ... and that CFSI requires an input of intelligent design to produce it.

This is an outright lie, unintentional I'm sure, but a lie nonetheless.
Environmental pressures do not act on "pre-existing CFSI genetic
diversity infused into the various genomes at Creation" they act on
"pre-existing CFSI genetic diversity infused into the various
genomes at Creation". There is a hell of a lot of importance to that fact,
that CFSI is excluded from that sentence.

So lets get this straight, you accept that every component of the fairytale
evolutionary theory is a fact, you accept microevolution is a fact but do
not accept macroevolution even though macroevolution is defined as
microevolution over time, in math terms [latex] macroevolution \ = \ \frac{ \Delta \ (microevolution)}{ \Delta \ t}[/latex],
or possibly more accurately,
[latex] macroevolution \ = \ \sum_{i=1}^{n} \ ( microevolutionary \ change)_i \ = \ \sum_{i=1}^{n} \
(beneficial \ genetic \ change)_i[/latex]
so accepting microevolution instantly forces you to accept macroevolution
by definition. You also accept NS acts on existing CFSI, you accept
sexual selection acts on existing organisms & you accept thermodynamics
acts locally on a system to lower entropy (i.e. reduce disorder), I mean
you accept all components of the fairytale theory you despise. Now, the
important thing that you have a problem with is abiogenesis, i.e. the
origin of CFSI. You constantly talk about issues pertaining to abiogenesis,
the orign of CFSI & the fact that the high probability simply does not
allow for it therefore it must of been created by an intelligence. This is
not the theory of evolution though, this is abiogenesis. Once that
CFSI is produced & is made to replicate & survive in it's environment it
becomes the theory of evolution. So once again this is all abiogenesis,
you literally accept evolution but just don't agree that evolution can
cause new organisms, or new species result from evolution.

I want to talk about your proof now, the fact that your proof discusses
a protein chain sitting inside an already self-replicating & environmentally
dependent & competetive cell (NS, Therrmodynamics) is a discussion of
the origin of "intelligent" chains of code, but that is not a disproof of
evolution. Your proof simply cannot disprove a theory that focuses on the
survivaly & replication of organisms that do not even depend on the
genetic content of their cells. Does that make sense? The cells are
splitting & eating one another irrespective of the 100 chain "protein"
sitting inside them How does your theory disprove that? Explain it?
It doesn't, your proof is simply a discussion of the origin of "intelligence",
i.e. what you think is intelligent. The point of NS is that whatever survives
is intelligent because, shocker, it's surviving.

J C wrote:

you haven't succeeded in providing any substantive evidence for the non-intelligently directed production of the CFSI found in living organisms ... nor have you provided any substantive invalidating evidence for my mathematical proof of ID.

Do you know what an enzyme is? It speeds up reactions in cells & is
extremely specific to certain molecules. The existence of enzymes is
proof of the non-intelligently direction production of CFSI in cells
because if enzymes did not exist it would take 78 million years to
create the building blocks of DNA and RNA

One scientist who studies these issues is Dr. Richard Wolfenden, Alumni
distinguished professor of biochemistry and biophysics and chemistry at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a member of the National
Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he reported a biological transformation
deemed "absolutely essential" in creating the building blocks of DNA and
RNA would take 78 million years in water.
"Now we've found one that's 10,000 times slower than that," Wolfenden
said. "Its half-time - the time it takes for half the substance to be
consumed - is 1 trillion years, 100 times longer than the lifetime of the
universe. Enzymes can make this reaction happen in 10 milliseconds."
link

What is the point of mentioning this? It is that even without enzymes
biologically necessary molecules could still be produced without a magic
finger descending from the heavens. So I guess enzymes and the sun are
this "intelligence" ID'ers have long been searching for all this time.

J C wrote:

OK
1. Am I correct that the number of possible permutations in a 100 chain protein is 10^130?

I haven't studied combinatorics yet but the point is not that you've got
the right figure in your maths its the fact you'd even do this calculation
in the first place that concerns us. In a 100 chain protein completely
disorganized & constantly permutating, if just 1 protein change in the
collection of permutations was beneficial to the cell in any way the
replicating cell would keep that permutation intact, it would not change
anymore. Why? Because that is NS, the good permutations are kept &
the bad ones are discarded. Imagine the cell with a completely random
genome has 1 permutation that works, some of it's daughter cells would
also have random genetic changes. There are 100+ descendants of that
original cell with the beneficial mutation & say 5% have random genetic
permutations, say 1% have beneficial changes, well there's even more
genetic change! 99% of the 5% had bad genetic changes & died out
but just 1% lived on! That is natural selection, the thing you accept.
Now, crack out the math: [latex] \sum_{i=1}^{n} \ (beneficial \ genetic \ change)_i[/latex]

J C wrote:

2. Am I correct that a 100 chain protein is quite a small protein ... and there are many functional proteins with chain lengths of hundreds of amino acids in their chains?

Yes, the hilarious thing though is that when your "proof" talks about
proteins it already concedes defeat How did the proteins originate?
Proteins are composed of what exactly? They are composed of specific
combinations of amino acids which, in turn, are composed mainly of
C O H & N atoms but in specific side groups which only admit specific
bonds. When your "proof" talks about proteins it already conceded that
a hell of a lot of "intelligence" already exists to work on This intelligence
has a certain range of possibilities.

J C wrote:

4. Am I correct that If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein?

As I said I haven't done combinatorics yet so I can't say how you
arrived at that figure & honestly in a proof it's poor taste to leave out the
explicit calculational techniques involved in arriving at such a figure but
the thought process behind this is most definitely wrong. It doesn't
mention natural selection. Why does that disprove your "proof"? Because
NS would instantly select any beneficial permutation and allow it to
survive & reproduce into the next & future generations thereby allowing
for more beneficial genetic permutations in it's sequence thereby
complexifying the information in the genome. I alread told you about
this, remember? I went on a rant about each generation acquiring a
beneficial genetic mutation. Your "proof" does not explain what actually
happens in nature, that a beneficial genetic permutation will be selected
to survive into future generations & the permutations that do nothing for
an organism will linger on until the organism is wiped out by the more
successful predators.

Your "proof" doesn't mention this at all so it doesn't say a thing about
reality, it is talking about a 100-protein chain existing in empty space
constantly permutating into your 'ideal' sequence, that is not the real
world in which cells have ever existed so it's a phantom proof about
combinatorics. It doesn't mention the environment, it mentions a snail
pushing an electron through the universe ffs!

So you accept evolution because you accept all of the components that
make up the theory of evolution, your proof already admits that proteins
exist when proteins themselves are already made up of complex
combinations of atoms that only allow specific bonds to form between
neighbouring proteins in the chain, your proof does not mention that
the permutations in the protein chain are acted upon by natural selection
so as to select the beneficial ones that can then further complexify &
increase information content & despite being told about all these problems
more than once in this thread you repeat the claim that this "proof"
actually matters while insulting the theory of evolution even though
your proof says absolutely nothing about any component of the theory
but instead discusses the origin of what you perceive as intelligence.
For 'some' reason it doesn't matter to you that through the indirect process of
evolution this CFSI is gradually & cumulatively selected from FI over
extended periods of time by NS, SS i.e. all the components of evolution that
you have told us are a fact.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

The thing you have to appreciate with JC is that he is not a believer like Soul Winner or Wolfsbane or the other Creationists on the Christianity forum.

He is a troll. This raises some interesting questions, such as why dedicate your life to trolling a website with Creationist propaganda when you yourself are not a believer.

He of course claims to be Christian but you can see after spending a while debating with him and the others that this simply isn't the case. There is none of the cognative compartmentalization present in his posts that is present in the posts of the others. They are conflicted with this topic because they actually hang their faith on it, you can see this in the posting style. JC is far to blantant about his deception and misdirection. They couldn't be like that as it would be too obvious to themselves that they are lying in order to prop up their position, which would cause crisis of conscience. JC has no such issue. He very rarely if ever engages in other Christian topics, and shows little interest in areas of Christianity other than related to Creationism.

Trying to 'Divide and Conquer' ... eh???

I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that I am Saved through His mercy ... with no merit on my part ... so I am a Born Again Saved Bible-believing Christian ... and Christians don't come any more genuine than that.

Wicknight wrote: »

I would love to meet him in the flesh, the idea of someone so utterly devoted to a single troll fascinates me. It is dedication on a level that even on the internet is rare, like an actor who completely becomes a character long after the performance is over.

The dedication of Atheists, in their hundreds, to debating Theological issues on these threads fascinates me. What also fascinates me is how few Christians are able or willing to defend and/or proclaim their Faith ... and the fact that when they try, many of them (and especially the Evolutionist ones) are often easily defeated in debate with Atheists. This indicates that many of them either aren't indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God's wisdom ... and/or if they are, they are not taking His advice!!!

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Now we have two components of the theory you were calling a fairytale
to actually be true. Notice that you are talking about the "origin" of
CFSI again. and the theory of evolution, that fairytale, says absolutely
nothing about the origin of CFSI rather it just discusses how this CFSI
can become less or more complex due to environmental pressures,
breeding pressures etc... About the origin of CFSI, I mean it's such a
stupid idea, CFSI is just FI (functional information) that is Complex
due to an originally simple bit of Functional information Complexifying due to
beneficial genetic mutation that is Specified to do a certain task. It's
Specified by the beneficial Function it undertakes. I guess I don't mean
tha evolution says nothing about the origin of CFSI, I mean that evolution
simply selects FI in the first place & by evolutionary processes this
information gradually Complexifies & assumes new Specified Functions,
but the idea that originally this CFSI is selected is a joke, a red herring
argument by ID'ers to say - how could something so complex come from
mud in the way it is???? The answer is time & accumulation, & you consistently
ignore the importance of time, as your denial of macroevolution explicitly
illustrates as proof of this.

Explaining the origin of CFSI is the issue.

It is mathematically impossible to produce and/or increase CFSI using random generators, such as mutations ... because the non-functional possiblities are literally infinite ... and the functional ones are very limited. Intelligence is the only known phenomenon that is capable of deliberately selecting the functional combinations ... and if you are arguing that some other unknown force is also capable of such deliberately directed behaviour ... then you are the 'Man of Faith' and I am the 'Man of Science' on this issue.

... and it's OK for you to admit this ... so that we can then have a productive and open debate on the issue!!!

Morbert

J C wrote: »

Explaining the origin of CFSI is the issue.

It is mathematically impossible to produce and/or increase CFSI using random generators, such as mutations ... because the non-functional possiblities are literally infinite ... and the functional ones are very limited. Intelligence is the only known phenomenon that is capable of deliberately selecting the functional combinations ... and if you are arguing that some other unknown force is also capable of such deliberately directed behaviour ... then you are the 'Man of Faith' and I am the 'Man of Science' on this issue.

... and it's OK for you to admit this ... so that we can then have a productive and open debate on the issue!!!

JC, saying something over and over does not make it true. You have consistently failed to present any research demonstrating that biological information cannot be generated by natural selection.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Explaining the origin of CFSI is the issue.

The origin of CFSI is FI.
The origin of Complex Functional Specified Information is Functional Information.

Chemistry, Thermodynamics, environmental constraints etc... tell us
how functional information originates, replicates & engages in competition
& mutations, time, changing environments, predatorial advantages etc...
tell us how "information" complexifies due to the constraints imposed on it.
This is the story of muck to man JC, only I think it's abit more complicated
and involved generations of organisms mutating, complexifying,
moving from sea to land to trees to the air etc...

J C wrote: »

It is mathematically impossible to produce and/or increase CFSI using random generators, such as mutations ... because the non-functional possiblities are literally infinite ... and the functional ones are very limited.

I've explained to you why it's not mathematically impossible, natural
selection choosing beneficial permutations instantly removes all infinities
from the equation, all you need is one functional permutation at all that
satisfies the environmental constraints & you have the origin of CFSI,
called FI :eek: The fact that your proof ignores this simple fact is a complete
and utter disproof of your "proof". You have absolutely no way of fixing
this idea or defending yourself so your proof is just wrong, I'm sorry.

Oh, I see that you (willingly?) admit your proof is wrong too seeing as you
can't offer any proper defense whatsoever but you choose to just instead
repeat the same argument that is actually proven wrong in the post
you quote Look at the picture I posted earlier, is that situation
accounted for in that picture? :pac:

Intelligence is a human idea of how human brains act, intelligence has
nothing to do with nature, nature just is, intelligence is only a human
construct of what is deemed pleasant. Humans like intelligence & scorn
stupidity, you are applying human ideals to nature when nature doesn't
care about your ridiculous conception of what "intelligence" is.

J C wrote: »

Intelligence is the only known phenomenon that is capable of deliberately selecting the functional combinations ... and if you are arguing that some other unknown force is also capable of such deliberately directed behaviour ... then you are the 'Man of Faith' and I am the 'Man of Science' on this issue.

What is funnier is that by your definition of intelligence the sun is

JC wrote:

The laws thermodynamics indicate that everything in the universe is moving from a state of order to disorder ... and this can only be locally reversed by the input of intelligently harnessed energy. They are therefore a major supporting proof for the Intelligent Design of life.

extremely intelligent but the sun is inanimate, soulless & completely
explained by materialistic concepts, so by your logic materialism is
intelligence... Similarly with this intelligent thermodynamics that causes
such an intelligent form of replication in that abiogenesis video :eek:
Shocking stuff! You've cracked the ID mystery of what this intelligence is!

Can you now explain to us why you think evolution is a fairytale when you
accept every component of the theory? You've admitted that you
accept every part of this theory but you just don't like to admit you
accept the whole, it's as if you're repressed, i.e. in the closet about
your evolutionismist dealings! I bet we are offering you some mental
satisfaction & relief, this is how you get the evolutionist urges out of
your system :pac:


So lets get it straight, "intelligence" is a superficial human construct that
you've learned from ID'ers but it is explained by materialistic origins yet
you continue to use these materialistic words as proof of god as he
"fits the bill" in your words, you said your proof shows us that. But
your proof has been proven wrong by me & I've explained that you
actually accept every part of evolutionary theory, what is your argument
here? You aren't happy with this "muck to man" idea but all the things
you believe to be true, NS, SS etc... are the things that prove this.
Just tell me, are you going to contact Dembski & tell him that you've
found out that the sun & thermodynamics are this unspecified () "intelligence"?

sponsoredwalk

Wicknight wrote: »

There is none of the cognative compartmentalization present in his posts that is present in the posts of the others.

There is only one compartment, that which furthers his agenda & anything
that conflicts or serves to the detriment of the noble agenda that the holy
spirit instructs him on must be ignored instantly.

• Dinosaurs are mammals,

• Repeat the mantra of intelligence as a means to disprove materialism even though materialistic processes fall under your own definition of intelligence,

• A proof disproving evolution that actually doesn't mention one part of the theory it disproves but instead talks about combinatorics in a vacuum,

• Ignore the many disproofs of said proof and instead repeat the statement that the proof is correct,

• Argue adamantly that an idea like intelligence, a 100% humanly constructed idea is responsible for the creation of life but argue that the improbability of god being higher than his own invented figures is wrong because all we have is a 100% humanly constructed idea of the creator of life :rolleyes: (:D),

• Denial of macroevolution while accepting microevolution (even though one is defined as the other over time)

I can't even remember the rest of the nonsense spewed tbh but all of
these things are either ignored or pitifully responded to as a means to
keep the bad thoughts out of the compartment, it takes true belief to
make this many mistakes, this many factual errors & that many repetitions
of X while ignoring all of the problems with X. Unfrickingbelievable, I dare
not read the BCC thread for fear of going insane trying to show more than
one person in complete denial of reality the logical contradictions

Wicknight wrote: »

He is a troll.

I think the probability of him being a troll is mathematically impossible!

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... have I got the gift of prophecy ... or what???:)

Phase 1: Post BS
Phase 2: Predict people will call you on said BS.
Phase 3: ?????
Phase 4: Prophet!

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

Trying to 'Divide and Conquer' ... eh???

I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that I am Saved through His mercy .

Servile little believer aren't you?

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

Servile little believer aren't you?

Our God reigns!!!!:)

marienbad

J C wrote: »

Our God reigns!!!!:)

Well, not on this thread

sponsoredwalk

marienbad wrote: »

Well, not on this thread

I think JC knows that too, that's why he's here all the time arguing for
materialistic theories & indulging his passionate belief in evolution while
maintaining the facade of dissent in order to satisfy the policeman in
his head that is keeping him in the creationist closet

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The origin of CFSI is FI.
The origin of Complex Functional Specified Information is Functional Information.

Chemistry, Thermodynamics, environmental constraints etc... tell us
how functional information originates, replicates & engages in competition
& mutations, time, changing environments, predatorial advantages etc...
tell us how "information" complexifies due to the constraints imposed on it.
This is the story of muck to man JC, only I think it's abit more complicated
and involved generations of organisms mutating, complexifying,
moving from sea to land to trees to the air etc...

... if and when Chemistry, Thermodynamics, environmental constraints etc spontaneously write the CFSI found on the front page of the Irish Times, I'll believe you ... until then, I'll continue to reject your idea that non-intelligently directed processes can produce the CFSI found in life or in print!!!:)

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I've explained to you why it's not mathematically impossible, natural
selection choosing beneficial permutations instantly removes all infinities
from the equation, all you need is one functional permutation at all that
satisfies the environmental constraints & you have the origin of CFSI,
called FI :eek: The fact that your proof ignores this simple fact is a complete
and utter disproof of your "proof". You have absolutely no way of fixing
this idea or defending yourself so your proof is just wrong, I'm sorry.

Yes, you are correct that all you would need is a series of functional permutations that satisfies the environmental constraints ... but the spontaneous production of just one functional specific biomolecule is a mathematical impossibility ... and we would need millions of such functional specific biomolecules to produce the living organisms that we observe in the biosphere.
... so even though all we would need is a series of functional permutations that satisfies the environmental constraints, this is mathematically impossible due to the vast inequilibrium between specific functional permutations and the non-specific, non-functional ones.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Intelligence is a human idea of how human brains act, intelligence has nothing to do with nature, nature just is, intelligence is only a human construct of what is deemed pleasant. Humans like intelligence & scorn stupidity, you are applying human ideals to nature when nature doesn't care about your ridiculous conception of what "intelligence" is.

Intelligent behaviour is found in all living creatures ... and not just in Humans.
It is a virtual phenomenon and is the fourth great phenomenon of existence ... after matter, energy and time.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What is funnier is that by your definition of intelligence the sun is extremely intelligent but the sun is inanimate, soulless & completely explained by materialistic concepts, so by your logic materialism is intelligence...

How so?

Please bear in mind that I said that The Laws Thermodynamics indicate that everything in the universe is moving from a state of order to disorder ... and this can only be locally reversed by the input of intelligently harnessed energy. The Laws Thermodynamics are therefore a major supporting proof for the Intelligent Design of life.
Raw energy from the Sun, or any other energy source, is at best neutral and at worst highly destructive in hurricanes, sunburn, uncontrolled fires, genetic mutagenesis, etc.
Energy only increases order and decreases entropy when it is intelligently harnessed using intelligently designed systems like photosynthesis, wind turbines, solar panels, combustion engines, etc.:)

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Phase 1: Post BS
Phase 2: Predict people will call you on said BS.
Phase 3: ?????
Phase 4: Prophet!

... non-specific and unfounded ridicule is the last resort of somebody with no evidence for their position ... it is routinely deployed by Evolutionists ... and undermines their case in the eyes of objective observers!!!

... but then again, if they were to try to make the case for Evolution, it would be so hopeless, that it would probably undermine their position even more than their use of non-specific and unfounded ridicule of the creationist position.

... and I know what I'm talking about as I too tried to make the case for (Materialistic) Evolution for years, when I was an Evolutionist ... and I blush with embarassment, every time I think of it now!!!:o:o:o

J C

marienbad wrote: »

Well, not on this thread

Our God reigns everywhere ... including this thread!!!

He doesn't impose His will, however, as He has granted all Humans the free-will to choose to accept or to reject Him.

... and I guess some girls will ... and some guys won't ... some guys need a lot of loving ... and some girls don't!!!
... and vice-versa!!!:)

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... and I know what I'm talking about as I too tried to make the case for Evolution for years, when I was an Evolutionist ... and I blush with embarassment, every time I think of it now!!!:o:o:o

Except you've already admitted that currently do believe in evolution.
So there's another lie.

I'm sure any objective reader will be keeping count of the mountain of lies you've had to tell just to state your position, let alone defend it.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Except you've already admitted that currently do believe in evolution.
So there's another lie.

I'm sure any objective reader will be keeping count of the mountain of lies you've had to tell just to state your position, let alone defend it.

Evolution is such a 'weasel word' that it can mean many different things ... and even a 7-Day Creationist can be an 'evolutionist' of sorts, by accepting that NS of Direct Divinely Created Genetic Diversity occurs!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Evolution is such a 'weasel word' that it can mean many things ... and even a 7-Day Creationist can be an 'evolutionist' of sorts, by accepting that NS of Direct Divinely Created Genetic Diversity occurs!!!

No it has a strict and certain definition which you've already said you argee with.
Likely because you're either a troll or an idiot.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... non-specific and unfounded ridicule is the last resort of somebody with no evidence for their position ... it is routinely deployed by Evolutionists ... and undermines their case in the eyes of objective observers!!!

Any objective observers can see clear as day that the evolution side of this debate have been presenting you with mountains of evidence which has been routinely ignored. Any ridicule you recieve due to your own stubborn unwiillingness to embrace reason over madness is entirely your own fault.

It's a bit like the circus really... Come to see the trapeeze artists, stay to laugh at the freaks.

J C wrote:

... and I know what I'm talking about as I too tried to make the case for (Materialistic) Evolution for years, when I was an Evolutionist ... and I blush with embarassment, every time I think of it now!!!:o:o:o

The world blushes with embarassment evry time you type.

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

Our God reigns!!!!:)

I don't believe you.
Prove it.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

It's a bit like the circus really... Come to see the trapeeze artists, stay to laugh at the freaks.
The world blushes with embarassment evry time you type.

I'll save your blushes by not mentioning the Evolution freak-show ... in the Evolutionary Zoo.

... and I can assure that my 'high wire' acts are totally safe ... because I have the safety net of the Word of God beneath me!!!!:)

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

I don't believe you.
Prove it.

It's a free country ... and you're quite entitled to your disbelief.