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

obplayer

J C wrote: »

Hi Penny. My apologies for the delay in answering your question ... but I was otherwise engaged.

Anyway ... Creation Science traces its academic pedigree right back to the 'Fathers of Modern Science' ... who were nearly all Creationists.

Modern Creation Scientists are all eminently qualified conventional scientists, who apply the scientific method to the evaluation of the physical evidence for Creation across all of the scientific disciplines.

Whole mega-threads that had to be truncated because they threatened to cause 'melt-down' of the Boards servers (or some such) have been written about the theories and the evidence underpinning the theories of Creation Science.:)
Here is just one link to the evidence for Intelligent Design ... which is but one scientific discipline in which Creation Scientists (and other scientists) excel.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=486

The Fathers of Modern Science lived in eras where almost everyone was a Theist and to not be, or to be open about not being, was an unforgivable social sin. They were also 'The Fathers' because science was very much in it's infancy and we know more now.

"I'm not saying you're more intelligent than Aristotle, or wiser. For all I know, Aristotle's the cleverest person who ever lived. That's not the point. The point is only that science is cumulative, and we live later.”
― Richard Dawkins

J C wrote: »

Modern Creation Scientists are all eminently qualified conventional scientists, who apply the scientific method to the evaluation of the physical evidence for Creation across all of the scientific disciplines.

Name three please so I can check.

J C

SW wrote: »

There's no real definition of CFSI/CSI. In all the time I've seen these threads move along, I've yet to see anyone find an actual defintion as to what CFSI is or how it's observed.

You can read more about it here.

Thanks for providing a link. I'll now address the quote you provided (my comments in blue).

Quote:
A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results." Very strong on claims but distinctly weak on supporting evidence

[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."
Intelligent Design Theory doesn't calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't need to do this as its a certainty (because eyes exist).
What can be calculated is the probability that an eye came about by non-intelligently directed processes ... and the probability is zero.

[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance. Its an argument supported by repeated observation with not a single exception ever being found ... to the point where it now has the status of a Creation Science Law.

obplayer

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know what "Complex Functional Specified Information" is or is supposed to be. I'm asking you for some info on it if you have any available?

Best of luck with that quest.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Thanks for providing a link. I'll now address the quote you provided (my comment in blue.

Quote:
A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results." Very strong on claims but distinctly weak on supporting evidence

[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."
Intelligent Design Theory doesn't calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't need to do this as its a certainty (because eyes exist).
What can be calculated is the probability that an eye came about by non-intelligently directed processes ... and the probability is zero.

[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance. Its an argument supported by repeated observation with not a single exception ever being observed to the point where it now has the status of a Creation Science Law.

You haven't provided a definition of CFSI or how it's observed/measured. Would you like to try again?

J C

obplayer wrote: »

The Fathers of Modern Science lived in eras where almost everyone was a Theist and to not be, or to be open about not being, was an unforgivable social sin. They were also 'The Fathers' because science was very much in it's infancy and we know more now.

"I'm not saying you're more intelligent than Aristotle, or wiser. For all I know, Aristotle's the cleverest person who ever lived. That's not the point. The point is only that science is cumulative, and we live later.”
― Richard Dawkins

I'm in full agreement with you on all of this.

obplayer wrote: »

Name three (Creation Scientists) please so I can check.

Oh ye of little faith !!!:)
Oops ... I almost forgot ... I'm on the A & A where ye are of no Faith.;)
Anyway ... here is a list (of considerably more than 3 Creation Scientists)
http://creation.com/creation-scientists

J C

obplayer wrote: »

Best of luck with that quest.

At least he is questing ... so you never know ... he just might reach the 'Holy Grail' of scientific endeavor ... and become a Creation Scientist.
It happened to me ... so there is every reason to hope that it could happen to him.

J C

SW wrote: »

You haven't provided a definition of CFSI or how it's observed/measured. Would you like to try again?

Does this mean that you are happy that I have adequately addressed (and demolished) your quote?

I have also already said that CFSI is self-defining and and self-explanatory ... it is Information that is observed to be Complex Functional and Specified ... and wherever it is observed and it's ultimate source is identified it is always found to be the result of applied intelligence.

This has been observed so extensively and so often that it now has the status of a Scientific Law.

What more can I say ... without repeating myself??

obplayer

J C wrote: »

I'm in full agreement with you on all of this.

Oh ye of little faith !!!:)
Oops ... I almost forgot ... I'm on the A & A where ye are of no Faith.;)
Anyway ... here is a list (of considerably more than 3 Creation Scientists)
http://creation.com/creation-scientists

If you are in full agreement then why do you cite the 'Fathers of Science' in modern discussions?

The Creation Ministries International formerly known as Answers in Genesis - Australia and Creation Science Foundation set up by Ken Ham is not a sensible or balanced place to quote from, however I will take three people from the list and see what I can find out. I will return tomorrow.

And by the way we do have faith, faith in science, reason and logic.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

At least he is questing ... so you never know ... he just might reach the 'Holy Grail' of scientific endeavor ... and become a Creation Scientist.
It happened to me ... so there is every reason to hope that it could happen to him.

I have asked before but I will ask again...
What are your scientific credentials? Where did you study? What qualifications did you earn?

J C

obplayer wrote: »

I have asked before but I will ask again...
What are your scientific credentials? Where did you study? What qualifications did you earn?

It doesn't matter ... I don't want to know your qualifications ... and I'm certainly not going to identify mine.

This is a discussion forum ... not a scientific forum where my (obvious) eminence as a scientist might be germane.

J C

obplayer wrote: »

If you are in full agreement then why do you cite the 'Fathers of Science' in modern discussions?

... because Creation Science traces its scientific pedigree right back to the 'founding fathers' of Modern Science ... and it isn't a group of 'bible-bashing back-woods' people as is often portrayed in the popular media.

obplayer wrote: »

The Creation Ministries International formerly known as Answers in Genesis - Australia and Creation Science Foundation set up by Ken Ham is not a sensible or balanced place to quote from,

We're dealing in objectively verifiable fact here (in relation to eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists) ... so it doesn't really matter where the list/quote comes from.

obplayer wrote: »

however I will take three people from the list and see what I can find out. I will return tomorrow.

Thanks.

obplayer wrote: »

And by the way we do have faith, faith in science, reason and logic.

As also do Creation Scientists.:)
... but we do lack faith in Spontaneous Evolution ... I guess we're therefore 'Evolutionary Atheists' (if that's not a contradiction in terms) !!!:eek:

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Dos this mean that you are happy that I have adequately addressed (and demolished) your quote?

No.

I have also already said that CFSI is self-defining and and self-explanatory ... it is Information that is observed to be Complex Functional and Specified ... and wherever it is observed and it's ultimate source is identified it is always found to be the result of applied intelligence.

This has been observed so extensively and so often that it now has the status of a Scientific Law.

What more can I say ... without repeating myself??

"CFSI is CFSI" isn't a definition. It would be nice to finally have one.

Also, do rocks or water contain CFSI?

J C

SW wrote: »

"CFSI is CFSI" isn't a definition. It would be nice to finally have one.

You're correct that CFSI isn't a definition ... its an acronym for Complex Functional Specified Information ... which is self-defining and and self-explanatory.

SW wrote: »

Also, do rocks or water contain CFSI?

No ... not in and of themselves - but a carved rock that has become a tombstone, for example, would contain some CFSI.

oscarBravo

J C, you disappeared in the middle of our conversation. Would you mind replying to the last post that I addressed to you?

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

No...

Huh? You mean water wasn't designed by the guy who designed everything else just for the human race?

Brian Shanahan

Deleted User wrote: »

I imagine that this has been linked before, but I can't find much about this. Is ther,, ie a link / definition of what this is available?

I've never heard of it.

Emmet, it's a term invented by William Dumbski to cover the fact that he doesn't understand the basics of evolution, like how natural selection gets around the random nature of mutations; because as evolution is reactive to the species' environment, the processof "choosing" which mutations are kept is no longer random, but based on the organism's success at surviving and procreating.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Emmet, it's a term invented by William Dumbski ...

He is Dr William Dembski ... and I would ask you to do the courtesy of using people's proper names rather than using derogatory modifications. It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with somebody ... there is no reason to descend to 'name-calling' ... and anybody who does, automatically loses whatever argument or credibility they may wish to generate.

Anyway, Dr Dembski is eminently and conventionally qualified to scientifically evaluate Intelligent Design ... which has mathematical, statistical and philosophical-theological dimensions.

The following are Dr Dembski's educational qualifications:-
Quote Wikipedia:-
"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)."

Dr Dembski comes from a liberal Roman Catholic background ... as 'mainstream' as you can get on matters of religion and Evolution:-
Quote Wikipedia:-
"(Dr.) Dembski was born in Chicago, Illinois, the only child of Catholic parents, his mother an art dealer and his father a college professor and lecturer. His father held a D.Sc. in biology from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg and taught evolutionary biology; while growing up Dembski was neither particularly religious nor did he question the theory of evolution.[6][7] He attended an all-male Catholic preparatory school in Chicago. Dembski finished high school a year early, excelling in math and finishing a calculus course in one summer. After high school he attended the University of Chicago."

This guy was an Evolutionist true and true ... but he saw that Spontaneous Evolution makes no sense - and has been trying (and largely succeeding) in producing a scientifically and logically valid alternative through his researches into the Intelligent Design of life.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

... to cover the fact that he doesn't understand the basics of evolution, like how natural selection gets around the random nature of mutations; because as evolution is reactive to the species' environment, the process of "choosing" which mutations are kept is no longer random, but based on the organism's success at surviving and procreating.

There is no issue over the fact that nature selects 'less fit' organisms to die / fail to reproduce. However, Natural Selection can only select from the genetic diversity available to it ... and such genetic diversity can only be produced by applied intelligence, as genetic information is observed to be Complex Functional and Specified ... and random changes to such information (which mutations are) result in the loss of CFSI ... often catastrophically so.
While NS is a well proven system for selection ... mutagenesis is observed to be damaging to CFSI ... and is therefore a totally inadequate mechanism to explain the supposed emergence through NS of the highly sophisticated Complex Functional and Specified mechanisms observed in living organisms.

Delirium

what is CFSI? How is it observed /measured? What peer reviews have confirmed Dembinskis claims?

How were planets created if rocks and water contain no CFSI (as you have said)?

MrPudding

I have been busy recently, and have not been keeping up with scientific news as much as I would like. I assume this is the reason I was not aware that CSFI had been elevated to the position of scientific law.

Can anyone provide me with a link to confirm its new status?

MrP

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Huh? You mean water wasn't designed by the guy who designed everything else just for the human race?

That wasn't what I said ... the question posed to me was focussed on CFSI and whether rocks or water contain CFSI.
I state that in and of themselves, water and rocks didn't contain CFSI - but a carved rock that has become a tombstone, for example, would contain some CFSI.

Intelligent Design (and it's product CFSI) is most dramatically found in living organisms ... so we can definitively and scientifically confirm that living organisms were Intelligently Designed ... who the Intelligent Designer(s) was/were isn't currently amenable to scientific investigation ... but, of course, the question of who the Designer was is amenable to philosophical and theological investigation.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

I have been busy recently, and have not been keeping up with scientific news as much as I would like. I assume this is the reason I was not aware that CSFI had been elevated to the position of scientific law.

Can anyone provide me with a link to confirm its new status?

MrP

It has the status of a Law because of the fact that wherever CFSI is observed and the author is identified, the CFSI is invariably (and with no exceptions) found to be the product of the application of Intelligence ... this means that it will remain a Law ... until proven otherwise.

So, rather than looking for links ... could I respectfully suggest that you try and disprove this Law and be forever remembered as the person who disproved the Law of CFSI.

You could be as famous as Dr Dembski ... or indeed Ken Ham ... now there is a challenge for you ... Mr P.:)

Delirium

You made the claim, JC. It's your responsibility to back it up or withdraw the claim. Choice is yours.

J C

SW wrote: »

You made the claim, JC. It's your responsibility to back it up or withdraw the claim. Choice is yours.

Which claim?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Which claim?

that CFSI is a scientific Law for a start. Do you have any links to support the claim?`

obplayer

J C wrote: »

... because Creation Science traces its scientific pedigree right back to the 'founding fathers' of Modern Science ... and it isn't a group of 'bible-bashing back-woods' people as is often portrayed in the popular media.

So does Astrology.

J C wrote: »

... We're dealing in objectively verifiable fact here (in relation to eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists) ... so it doesn't really matter where the list/quote comes from.

Thanks.

As also do Creation Scientists.:)
... but we do lack faith in Spontaneous Evolution ... I guess we're therefore 'Evolutionary Atheists' (if that's not a contradiction in terms) !!!:eek:

I looked at the list of scientists and I decided the easiest approach was to use Rational Wiki,
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scientists_alive_today_who_accept_the_biblical_account_of_creation
here are three excerpts.

1.Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist Works in a field completely unrelated to the subject at hand. Is the Chair in Psychology at Wichita State University. Frequent lecturer for AIG, but lectures only on the history of the movement, the history of "Darwinian" research and philosophical questions about why humans search for unanswerable answers. Rejects any scientific discussions at his lectures.

7.Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist Working with an obsolete model of the earth's core, Dr. Barnes asserted that the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially, ignoring empirical evidence to the contrary. Working under these erroneous assertions, he somehow managed to arrive at his predetermined conclusions. Also a firm denier of relativity.

28.Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist "If the miraculous is rejected for early Genesis, then on what basis can it be accepted for the resurrection?" In other words, just believe Creationism, because you wouldn't want your entire worldview crashing down on you.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

It doesn't matter ... I don't want to know your qualifications ... and I'm certainly not going to identify mine.

This is a discussion forum ... not a scientific forum where my (obvious) eminence as a scientist might be germane.

I haven't made any claims as to my qualifications, you on the other hand have made a factually verifiable claim which you refuse to back up. If we can't trust you on this claim why should we on any other? If you are not willing to back up your claim then you should withdraw it. If you are willing to do neither then I claim you are a liar.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88698321&postcount=312

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

That wasn't what I said ... the question posed to me was focussed on CFSI and whether rocks or water contain CFSI.
I state that in and of themselves, water and rocks didn't contain CFSI - but a carved rock that has become a tombstone, for example, would contain some CFSI.

You mentioned rocks the first time, too, but never addressed water. Why not?

Did your fella design bananas? If he did, he designed them badly, as humankind had to domesticate them before they became palatable. Also, why are they indigenous to SE Asia, and can only grow in the tropics? Why weren't they designed to grow anywhere people lived?

J C

obplayer wrote: »

So does Astrology.

None of the 'Founding Fathers' of Modern Science were Astrologers, as far as I know ... but they were practically all Creationists.

I will answer the remainder of your post in blue below (with your post in black):-

I looked at the list of scientists and I decided the easiest approach was to use Rational Wiki,
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scientists_alive_today_who_accept_the_biblical_account_of_creation
here are three excerpts.

1.Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist Works in a field completely unrelated to the subject at hand. Is the Chair in Psychology at Wichita State University. Frequent lecturer for AIG, but lectures only on the history of the movement, the history of "Darwinian" research and philosophical questions about why humans search for unanswerable answers. Rejects any scientific discussions at his lectures.
Dr Ackerman is an eminently qualified conventional Psychologist with a Chair at a secular conventional University who lectures on Creation Science topics in line with his qualifications such as the psychological explanations for why Humans search for answers in relation to their origins.

7.Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist Working with an obsolete model of the earth's core, Dr. Barnes asserted that the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially, ignoring empirical evidence to the contrary. Working under these erroneous assertions, he somehow managed to arrive at his predetermined conclusions. Also a firm denier of relativity.

The Earth's magnetic field is indeed decaying ... ten times faster then conventional science used to think. Dr Barnes is now dead and carried out his research during from the 1930s to the 1980s ... and is now being proven to be right!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2686070/Earths-magnetic-field-weakening-10-times-faster-thought-Western-Hemisphere.html

Dr Barnes was eminently and conventionally qualified:-
... and here is his academic record:-
http://creationwiki.org/Thomas_Barnes

28.Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist "If the miraculous is rejected for early Genesis, then on what basis can it be accepted for the resurrection?" In other words, just believe Creationism, because you wouldn't want your entire worldview crashing down on you.
... like happened to an Evolutionist who challenged Dr Chittick at a conference :-
Quote Dr Chittick :-
"One of the things I ask these people who challenge us is—'Have you ever seen one single example, any example, of where information spontaneously arises?' In fact, I was at a conference one weekend and a graduate student in science came up and challenged me. He said, 'Well, there are examples where inflow of energy causes increase in information'. He said, 'There has to be'. And so my response to him was, 'Show me one!' He said, 'All right, I'll go find one'. That was on a Thursday afternoon, and he disappeared, and he was gone for about 24 hours. The next day he came back with red eyes and very tired looking. He said, 'I have been to the library studying, and you're right, there are no cases'."

obplayer

J C wrote: »

... because Creation Science traces its scientific pedigree right back to the 'founding fathers' of Modern Science ... and it isn't a group of 'bible-bashing back-woods' people as is often portrayed in the popular media.

We're dealing in objectively verifiable fact here (in relation to eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists) ... so it doesn't really matter where the list/quote comes from.

Thanks.

As also do Creation Scientists.:)
... but we do lack faith in Spontaneous Evolution ... I guess we're therefore 'Evolutionary Atheists' (if that's not a contradiction in terms) !!!:eek:

Also check this previous post.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57847942&postcount=13458

obplayer

J C wrote: »

None of the 'Founding Fathers' of Modern Science were Astrologers, as far as I know ... but they were practically all Creationists.

I will answer the remainder of your post in blue below (with your post in black):-

I looked at the list of scientists and I decided the easiest approach was to use Rational Wiki,
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scientists_alive_today_who_accept_the_biblical_account_of_creation
here are three excerpts.

1.Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist Works in a field completely unrelated to the subject at hand. Is the Chair in Psychology at Wichita State University. Frequent lecturer for AIG, but lectures only on the history of the movement, the history of "Darwinian" research and philosophical questions about why humans search for unanswerable answers. Rejects any scientific discussions at his lectures.
Dr Ackerman is an eminently qualified conventional Psychologist with a Chair at a secular conventional University who lectures on Creation Science topics in line with his qualifications such as the psychological explanations for why Humans search for answers in relation to their origins.

7.Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist Working with an obsolete model of the earth's core, Dr. Barnes asserted that the earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially, ignoring empirical evidence to the contrary. Working under these erroneous assertions, he somehow managed to arrive at his predetermined conclusions. Also a firm denier of relativity.

The Earth's magnetic field is indeed decaying ... ten times faster then conventional science used to think. Dr Barnes is now dead and carried out his research during from the 1930s to the 1980s ... and is now being proven to be right!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2686070/Earths-magnetic-field-weakening-10-times-faster-thought-Western-Hemisphere.html

Dr Barnes was eminently and conventionally qualified:-
... and here is his academic record:-
http://creationwiki.org/Thomas_Barnes

28.Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist "If the miraculous is rejected for early Genesis, then on what basis can it be accepted for the resurrection?" In other words, just believe Creationism, because you wouldn't want your entire worldview crashing down on you.
... like happened to an Evolutionist who challenged Dr Chittick at a conference :-
Quote Dr Chittick :-
"One of the things I ask these people who challenge us is—'Have you ever seen one single example, any example, of where information spontaneously arises?' In fact, I was at a conference one weekend and a graduate student in science came up and challenged me. He said, 'Well, there are examples where inflow of energy causes increase in information'. He said, 'There has to be'. And so my response to him was, 'Show me one!' He said, 'All right, I'll go find one'. That was on a Thursday afternoon, and he disappeared, and he was gone for about 24 hours. The next day he came back with red eyes and very tired looking. He said, 'I have been to the library studying, and you're right, there are no cases'."

At this point I am going to leave it to people reading these posts. They have the information and links...except of course for evidence of you being a scientist. Where is it?