The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... a biblical tangent ... and a few name callings and a 'smart ass' jibe ... not much of a rebuttal SW.

Nowhere in that post did I name call. A bit more honesty would be appreciated.

Must do better (a bit like Evolution actually)!!:D

That's a confusing statement considering you don't seem to understand evolution.

Without getting side-tracked into this biblical tangent raised (when evolution was destroyed by me) ... can I gently point out that Mt Everest is less than 6 miles high ... so the average movement over the hundred or so years of most of the seismic activity surrounding Noah's flood, would only need to 'whizz' it upwards at 0.000006849 MPH or roughly a half an inch per hour ... or the 'speed' of the hour hand on a small clock!!!!!!:eek:

So you're revoking your claim of continents moving around at 3mph?

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

{...}
I did it here and here.
{...}

Neither of those are evidence. The pictures, without a source, are pretty, but useless. The other link is just you postulating. If I posted an unsourced picture showing aliens, that would not be evidence of aliens as you'd (probably rightly) assume it was a hoax, doctored picture or a fake.

Sarky

Mentioning CFSI like it's scientifically valid? Again? We've been through this. It's ill-defined bunk from a morally bankrupt fraud who doesn't even support it any more. But you already know that, J C. Why do you persist belting out that rubbish when we've shown you it's not true?

Don't you even have any new lies to peddle?

Cool Mo D

A little off topic, and not technically part of evolution, but here is an interesting article on the possible biochemical paths that lead to the origin of life:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6168/259.full

Cabaal

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I just want to drive nails slowly into my eyes.

You're doing it wrong,

you use the nails on your wrists (not the hands like Christians like to believe), yet another thing religious people got wrong.....

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Without getting side-tracked into this biblical tangent raised (when evolution was destroyed by me) ...

Quite apart from your ludicrous claim that geology moving at the speed of a clock's hour hand being safe... The above is another lie. You were utterly torn apart in that thread by people who actually know what they're talking about. Perhaps you should read it again.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

That assumes that the very rare 'beneficial' mutation doesn't occur in an organism with other deleterious mutations that will kill or seriously disadvantage it.

Yes. Let's assume that. My point still stands.

As the negative mutations vastly outweigh the beneficial ones this is always going to be the case.

No, it's not. You're assuming a thousand mutations to one organism, only one of which is beneficial. I've already explained that your analogy of hitting the same car a thousand times is false.

Also, even so-called 'beneficial' mutations are always observed to result in a loss of genetic information.

How do you make that out?

The point is that mutagenesis doesn't 'work' at all ... except to produce overwhelming damage ... and the occasional 'unusual' organism ... always with a loss of CFSI.

OK, so we're falling back on makey-uppy "science" to shore up our bronze-age hallucinations. That didn't take long.

I did it here and here.

No, you didn't.

... one mutation can be enough to kill or seriously debilitate an organism ... and the 'negative' ones vastly outweigh the odd 'positive' one ... that always involves a loss of genetic CFSI ... and that is why mutagenesis is avoided like the plague!!!
... by everyone ... including Evolutionists ... whose faith in the generative powers of mutagenesis over supposed billions of years somehow falters when it come to today ... and themselves.:D

Yeah, I can see why others have given up on you long ago. It's like you don't even feel you need to make any sense, because god.

Brian Shanahan

Cabaal wrote: »

You're doing it wrong,

you use the nails on your wrists (not the hands like Christians like to believe), yet another thing religious people got wrong.....

Chances are pretty good (like almost certain) that if Jebus of Nazareth was a real person, and not a cardboard cutout version of Gandalf, he wasn't crucified but either hanged from a tree (like one of those Southern lynchings) or stoned to death.

Crucifixion was reserved for traitors against the Roman state (hence why the Sparticite rebels were crucified along the Appian way by Crassus). Jesus was tried under Jewish religious law (well according to that fabulous {using the original meaning "created in fable" here} document the bible) therefore hanging or stoning would have been the two applicable death penalties.

nagirrac

I've seen it all now, an atheist quoting the bible to back up an "almost certain" claim no less.

It is generally accepted by most scholars that Jesus was executed by the Romans. Leaving aside the bible account that clearly documents that Jesus was handed over to the Romans by the Jews, most scholars turn to Tacitus who wrote in his Annals in the early second century ".. called Christians by the population. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius, at the hands of one of our prosecutors, Pontius Pilate".

What possible motivation would the leading Roman historian of the time have for documenting that the Romans executed Jesus, if he could blame it on the Jews?

Must try harder Brian.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

What possible motivation would the leading Roman historian of the time have for documenting that the Romans executed Jesus, if he could blame it on the Jews?

Perhaps Tacitus was an historian instead of an anti-semite?

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps Tacitus was an historian instead of an anti-semite?

He was both. Tacitus' distain for the Jews and their beliefs is fairly well established in his Histories. My point is simply that Tacitus is regarded academically as one of the strongest sources of non-biblical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion by the Romans.

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps Tacitus was an historian instead of an anti-semite?

Or most likely, he didn't write anything about Jebus, but the rcc later got a scribe to write the passage in to give their religion a veneer of legitimacy.

sephir0th

72DSpecial

J C wrote: »

That isn't a fact ... it's just an opinion based on a 'long ages' interpretation of the facts.

Sorry - BullSh*t! A wide range of dating methods are used to determine the age of things - from organic matter to granites, and they are all cross referenced in order to achieve the most accurate date. It seems that whatever dating method is used in the argument, if it doesn't fit with the creatards beliefs, then it's not good enough.
Maybe the laws of physics have changed over the last 5 billion years that would allow for Rubidium / Strontium dating to be skewed - maybe the half life of the isotopes has changed due to interference by god and so we can say the Earth is young.
Maybe the speed of light has changed over the last 14 billion years so that light from near the center of the known universe could get to us faster!

I doubt it.

72DSpecial

http://www.hark.com/clips/ffsfkkkvcp-george-carlin-religion-is-bull****-holy-****

Say no more.....

kiffer

72DSpecial wrote: »

Sorry - BullSh*t! A wide range of dating methods are used to determine the age of things - from organic matter to granites, and they are all cross referenced in order to achieve the most accurate date. It seems that whatever dating method is used in the argument, if it doesn't fit with the creatards beliefs, then it's not good enough.
Maybe the laws of physics have changed over the last 5 billion years that would allow for Rubidium / Strontium dating to be skewed - maybe the half life of the isotopes has changed due to interference by god and so we can say the Earth is young.
Maybe the speed of light has changed over the last 14 billion years so that light from near the center of the known universe could get to us faster!

I doubt it.

My favourite part of the "all those 'clocks' ran differently in the past so things look older than they are" argument is that changes to physics that would make one clock run fast would make other types of clock run slow.
So for example if the radioactive decay rate was faster then things would be hotter and closure temperature wouldn't be reached until things cooled down more...

Genghiz Cohen

A nice resource to CTRL+F and search through whenever your time is too valuable to reiterate a point made by at least 7 other people then promptly ignored.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[-0-]

EDIT: just saw the above post.

The above link is a fairly comprehensive list of Creationist claims, and counter arguments to why the claims are complete horse crap.

JC, care to address any of the counter arguments given on this site?

I'll help you out, here's the CFSI rebuttal: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI110.html

Here's a list of other propositions you have ignored as well: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87668971&postcount=1293

J C

The Great Debate - between Bill Nye - The Science Guy ... and Ken Ham - The Creation Science Guy!!!

The topic was "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era?"

Enjoy.:cool:

bumper234

J C wrote: »

The Great Debate - between Bill Nye - The Science Guy ... and Ken Ham - The Creation Science Guy!!!

The topic was "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era?"

Enjoy.:cool:

I did enjoy, I enjoyed seeing Ham splutter and stutter and get his proverbial ass handed to him on a plate.

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

EDIT: just saw the above post.

The above link is a fairly comprehensive list of Creationist claims, and counter arguments to why the claims are complete horse crap.

JC, care to address any of the counter arguments given on this site?

I'll help you out, here's the CFSI rebuttal: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI110.html

Here is the above linked extract (my answers in red):-

"Claim CI110 (of Dr Willliam Dembski):

Design can be recognized by the following filter:

If an event E has high probability, accept regularity as an explanation; otherwise move to the next step.
If the chance hypothesis assigns E a high probability or E is not specified, then accept chance; otherwise move down the list.
Having eliminated regularity and chance, accept design.


This filter is equivalent to detecting complex specified information.
Source:
Dembski, William A., 1998. The Design Inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge University Press.

Response:

The filter is useless in practice because the probabilities it asks for can never be known. Step 1, in particular, does not ask us to accept or reject just one regularity hypothesis, it asks us about all regulatory hypotheses, even ones that nobody has thought of before. Similarly, rejecting chance requires a complete list of all chance processes that might apply to the event.
This part of filter works by identifying phenomena that have observed high probabilities or regularity.

The filter is based on the premise that the categories of regularity, chance, and design are "mutually exclusive and exhaustive" (Dembski 1998, 36). But they are not mutually exclusive. R. A. Fisher, for example, included mutations in all three categories. Individually, they were due to chance, but collectively they were governed by laws, and all of this was planned by God (Ruse 2001, 121).
Regularity / chance and design are mutually exclusive and I also don't accept the (Theistic Evolutionist) idea that mutations are caused by God.

Although the filter claims to detect design, it really says nothing about design. The filter defines design as the elimination of regularity and chance, not, as most people would define design, as purposeful, intelligent arrangement. The two definitions are not equivalent. Dembski himself noted that some intelligent design will be eliminated in the first two steps. And what the filter actually detects is copying, not intelligent agency.
The filter detects the unambiguous action of intelligence ... with some 'false negatives' being rejected by the filter.

Since the filter does not say anything about design, there is no intelligent design hypothesis that can be used scientifically or for any practical purposes.
This filter is only one method of detecting intelligent design - there are other methods - for example, phenomena where probabilities in excess of 10^80 are encountered ... i.e. most observed biological systems.

Key terms in the filter, especially "chance hypothesis" and "specified," are poorly defined.

Dembski does not consider that design is a process. The process that produces design is itself not regularity (or the resulting design would have high probability) or chance (or the design would likely not result), so the filter says the process must itself be design. Thus, the design process must have another design process to produce it, which needs a design process of its own, ad infinitum, or somewhere along the way there must be no process at all and design must come out of nowhere. In actuality, design is typically done as an iterative process involving lots of trial and error. Regularity and chance are both parts of the process, as is selection. Evolution uses the same processes.
Human design sometimes involves trial and error followed by selection ... but all of these Human processes involve the appliance of intelligence at each stage ... and if this wasn't used no functional Human design would ever emerge.

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

I did enjoy, I enjoyed seeing Ham splutter and stutter and get his proverbial ass handed to him on a plate.

I enjoyed it too.

I thought that both participants gave a good account of their respective worldviews in a respectful manner.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

I enjoyed it too.

I thought that both participants gave a good account of their respective worldviews in a respectful manner.

Heh. Sure.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Heh. Sure.

It happened.:)

bumper234

J C wrote: »

I enjoyed it too.

I thought that both participants gave a good account of their respective worldviews in a respectful manner.

You would.

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

You would.

Respect is the way to go.:)

bumper234

J C wrote: »

Respect is the way to go.:)

Honest question, who do you believe won that debate?

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

Honest question, who do you believe won that debate?

It was a very good debate ... with both sides well presented by both speakers.

Of course, a lot wasn't covered and every point by one side wasn't refuted by the other ... but such is to be expected in any debate.

bumper234

J C wrote: »

It was a very good debate ... with both sides well presented by both speakers.

Of course, a lot wasn't covered and every point by one side wasn't refuted by the other ... but such is to be expected in any debate.

Ok I'll try again. In your opinion who won that debate? Yes I know it was a good debate I have watched it, I know not everything was covered as that would take months. All I wish to k ow is who you believe WON that particular debate? A one word answer containing the persons surname will suffice thanks.

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

Ok I'll try again. In your opinion who won that debate? Yes I know it was a good debate I have watched it, I know not everything was covered as that would take months. All I wish to k ow is who you believe WON that particular debate? A one word answer containing the persons surname will suffice thanks.

I think that Bill Nye presented his case very well ... but Ken Ham won it, partially because creation is actually a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era ... and it's relatively easier to argue in favour of a truism.:)