Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…5354565859…106

Comments

  • Options
    #1652
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Never suggested anything of the sort.

    If CFSI was sound, then why hasn't a creationist accepted a nobel prize for science considering it claims to disprove evolution?
    I think that you'll find that at least one ID proponent was a Nobel Laureate.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92198721&postcount=1617


  • Options
    #1653
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    References to peer reviewed papers on CFSI please.
    That's a bit like a Roman Catholic demanding papal assent to a protestant theological doctrine ... such a demand is a Catch 22.:)

    Conventional Science refuses to publish or peer review ID research papers ... so asking for such papers is also a Catch 22 demand.


  • Options
    #1654
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I think that you'll find that at least one ID proponent was a Nobel Laureate.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92198721&postcount=1617

    Smoke and mirrors, JC. I asked why someone hadn't been awarded a nobel prize for their work on CFSI and disproving evolution.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1655
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Smoke and mirrors, JC. I asked why someone hadn't been awarded a nobel prize for their work on CFSI and disproving evolution.
    As Fr Jack might say, I guess that would be an ecumenical matter!!!:)


  • Options
    #1656
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I guess that would be an ecumenical matter!!!:)
    Correct. Creationism is exactly that. Glad we can agree on something.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1657
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Correct. Creationism is exactly that. Glad we can agree on something.
    I meant an ecumenical matter between the believers in Evolution (who award Nobel Prizes) and the believers in ID (who have maths on their side).
    The Creationists are on the sidelines looking on at this fascinating clash of beliefs.:):eek:


  • Options
    #1658
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    That's a bit like a Roman Catholic demanding papal assent to a protestant theological doctrine ... such a demand is a Catch 22.:)

    Conventional Science refuses to publish or peer review ID research papers ... so asking for such papers is also a Catch 22 demand.

    Have you ever heard of the mother watching her son's regiment parading past? She turns to her husband and says 'look, everyone's out of step except our Johnny!'
    If 'CFSI is a mathematically sound argument' then mathematicians would accept it. Clearly, by your own admission, they do not.


  • Options
    #1659
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I meant an ecumenical matter between the believers in Evolution (who award Nobel Prizes) and the believers in ID (who have maths on their side).
    The Creationists are on the sidelines looking on at this fascinating clash of beliefs.:):eek:

    Clash of beliefs?

    we're talking about scientists and people who dismiss current scientific understanding in favour of the account in Genesis.

    You may wish to frame the discussion as a "clash of beliefs" but that actually isn't the case.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1660
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,945 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    I see J C hasn't actually provided those papers on "CFSI" yet.


  • Options
    #1661
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    Have you ever heard of the mother watching her son's regiment parading past? She turns to her husband and says 'look, everyone's out of step except our Johnny!'
    If 'CFSI is a mathematically sound argument' then mathematicians would accept it. Clearly, by your own admission, they do not.
    ... a more accurate analogy would be another little Johnny ... who declared that the Emperor had no clothes ... and was despised by everybody for his lack of appreciation of the sartorial elegance of the 'buck naked' Emperor!!!:):eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1662
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Clash of beliefs?

    we're talking about scientists and people who dismiss current scientific understanding in favour of the account in Genesis.

    You may wish to frame the discussion as a "clash of beliefs" but that actually isn't the case.
    The ID/Evolution debate has nothing to do with Genesis ... that's the realm of Creation Scientists, like myself.

    The ID/Evolution debate is all about whether mathematical proof for the intelligent design of life will be accepted by those who believe that pondslime spontaneously lifted itself up by its own bootstraps to become Man.


  • Options
    #1663
    Miguel Squeaking Teenager
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Miguel Squeaking Teenager


    Where is this mathematical proof? A google for "Mathematical proof of CFSI" turned up this
    http://www.cfsimissing.com/Professional_Investigators.html


  • Options
    #1664
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    I think that you'll find that at least one ID proponent was a Nobel Laureate.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92198721&postcount=1617

    He was not an ID proponent he was a puzzled scientist looking for a solution. Show us a quote from Prof. Crick where he advocates intelligent design. And once again, he was talking about the origin of life not evolution. Do you believe that by telling the same lies over and over we will come to believe them?


  • Options
    #1665
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    The ID/Evolution debate has nothing to do with Genesis ... that's the realm of Creation Scientists, like myself.

    The ID/Evolution debate is all about whether mathematical proof for the intelligent design of life will be accepted by those who believe that pondslime spontaneously lifted itself up by its own bootstraps to become Man.

    Still lying about being a scientist?


  • Options
    #1666
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,945 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Is this the Professor Crick J C's talking about? He doesn't seem quite welcoming to the idiocy of ID.


  • Options
    #1667
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    He was not an ID proponent he was a puzzled scientist looking for a solution. Show us a quote from Prof. Crick where he advocates intelligent design. And once again, he was talking about the origin of life not evolution. Do you believe that by telling the same lies over and over we will come to believe them?
    He was certainly puzzled allright ... and he defined the mathematics ... that eventually led to the modern ID movement within science.
    He was talking about both the origin of life ... and the origin of the genetic diversity of life.


  • Options
    #1668
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The ID/Evolution debate has nothing to do with Genesis ... that's the realm of Creation Scientists, like myself.

    The ID/Evolution debate is all about whether mathematical proof for the intelligent design of life will be accepted by those who believe that pondslime spontaneously lifted itself up by its own bootstraps to become Man.

    There is no mathmatical proof for ID. If there was, it would re-write the science books. It would be international news.

    ID is just creationism re-branded due to religious groups attempt to have Genesis taught in the science class and being subsequently barred from doing so as it wasn't science. So they re-branded as ID and tried again.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1669
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    He was certainly puzzled allright ... and he defined the mathematics ... that eventually led to the modern ID movement within science.
    He was talking about both the origin of life ... and the origin of the genetic diversity of life.

    According to your quote he was talking about the origin of life only. As for this mathematics, again, references. We have explained before that in the real scientific world just repeatedly making claims does not make them true.


  • Options
    #1670
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Is this the Professor Crick J C's talking about? He doesn't seem quite welcoming to the idiocy of ID.
    Prof Crick joins Prof Hoyle as an agnostic who ceased to believe in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and concluded that life could only have been produced by intelligent direction.

    Like I have already said, ID proponents aren't interested in Genesis, like Creationists are ... but they do recognize that the Modern Synthesis is well past it's 'sell-by' date.:)


  • Options
    #1671
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    There is no mathmatical proof for ID. If there was, it would re-write the science books. It would be international news.
    It should ... but it isn't ... now go figure!!!:)
    SW wrote: »
    ID is just creationism re-branded due to religious groups attempt to have Genesis taught in the science class and being subsequently barred from doing so as it wasn't science. So they re-branded as ID and tried again.
    ... or so we are told by Evolutionists who seem to ignore the inconvenient truth that Agnostics, like Profs Hoyle and Crick were also ID proponents,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1672
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    According to your quote he was talking about the origin of life only. As for this mathematics, again, references. We have explained before that in the real scientific world just repeatedly making claims does not make them true.
    In the scientific world repeating claims, based on evidence should make them acceptable ... and with the notable exception of ID ... this is largely the case.


  • Options
    #1673
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It should ... but it isn't ... now go figure!!!:)
    clearly the maths isn't as solid as you'd have us believe.
    ... or so we are told by Evolutionists who seem to ignore the inconvenient truth that Agnostics, like Profs Hoyle and Crick were also ID proponents,

    that does nothing to disprove what I said about creationists re-branding under the term 'Intelligent Design'. These aren't actions of honest scientists but that of some religious folk trying to pervert the science lessons in school because it doesn't gel with Genesis.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1674
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    In the scientific world repeating claims, based on evidence should make them acceptable ... and with the notable exception of ID ... this is largely the case.
    what evidence? Links?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1675
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    clearly the maths isn't as solid as you'd have us believe.
    The maths is 'watertight' ... but the need to believe in Evolution is so strong that even the 'queen of sciences' is ignored and denied on the ID issue.
    I say this with no pride or condemnation ... as I once did that myself also.

    SW wrote: »
    that does nothing to disprove what I said about creationists re-branding under the term 'Intelligent Design'. These aren't actions of honest scientists but that of some religious folk trying to pervert the science lessons in school because it doesn't gel with Genesis.
    Creationists have no need to re-brand anything ... we already have an excellent brand called Creation Science ... and it is winning against all competition ... including the ID and Evolution brands, within the conventional scientific marketplace.


  • Options
    #1676
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,945 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    J C wrote: »
    It should ... but it isn't ... now go figure!!!:)

    ... or so we are told by Evolutionists who seem to ignore the inconvenient truth that Agnostics, like Profs Hoyle and Crick were also ID proponents,

    Crick WAS NOT an IDiot!


  • Options
    #1677
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The maths is 'watertight' ... but the need to believe in Evolution is so strong that even the 'queen of sciences' is ignored and denied on the ID issue.
    I say this with no pride or condemnation ... as I once did that myself also.
    The more likely explanation is that the maths isn't watertight. But it does make for a better story to spin it as being watertight and dismissed despite that it is watertight because scientists just don't like ID. So I can see why those that have religious objections to evolution would do that even if it isn't honest behaviour.


    Creationists have no need to re-brand anything ... we already have an excellent brand called Creation Science ... and it is winning against all competition ... including the ID and Evolution brands, within the conventional scientific marketplace.
    I'd suggest you read up on ID, particularly in America, where the events occured as described.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1678
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    It should ... but it isn't ... now go figure!!!:)

    ... or so we are told by Evolutionists who seem to ignore the inconvenient truth that Agnostics, like Profs Hoyle and Crick were also ID proponents,


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Views_on_religion
    "Crick was especially critical of Christianity:
    "I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about.":
    Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children"

    Thanks to PopePalpatine for link.



    Now show us where Crick said he was an ID proponent.


  • Options
    #1679
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Crick WAS NOT an IDiot!
    I never said he was ... in fact, he was an amazing man of insight and brilliance ... who defined the mathematics ... that eventually led to the modern ID movement within science.


  • Options
    #1680
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,945 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    J C, if Crick were alive today, and you told him that he's a creationist, he'd either laugh in your face or sue you for libel.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1681
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Views_on_religion
    "Crick was especially critical of Christianity:
    "I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about.":
    Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children"

    Thanks to PopePalpatine for link.
    Just goes to show that I can admire a person's scientific achievements ... even if that person is mistaken about my Faith.

    I don't live in a 'black and white' world where everybody is either good or bad, right or wrong ... most people are mixtures of both.

    obplayer wrote: »
    Now show us where Crick said he was an ID proponent.
    Prof. Francis Crick (1916–2004) Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Nobel laureate 1962, Professor at the Salk Institute

    "To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA) which will be described in outline in Chapter 5. Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?

    This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!

    This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry by comparison to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense."     Life Itself (1981) p. 51-52.


Advertisement