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

PopePalpatine

Vivisectus wrote: »

J C wrote:

hurr durr Nazis hurr durr evolution hurr durr Holocaust

Is purest nonsense. You must employ some sort of ghost writer in your scientific career, because you would never, ever survive even the most benign kind of peer review when you commit whoppers of fallacies like these.

First off, having relatives die in a conflict does not make you an expert on the ideological beliefs of either side of that conflict. That is a completely nonsensical statement.

Secondly, trying to apply evolution to nation states is ridiculous, but that did not stop the nazies from doing it. Using Protestantism to justify white supremacy is also idiotic, but that does not seem to be slowing down the KluKlux clan any.

So would I be justified in saying that Christianity is a necessary condition for white supremacy?

It is when J C persists in linking evolution and the Nazis.

Vivisectus

Well, I assume that he is no longer a proponent of intelligent design: it's complete failure to produce divine creation in laboratory conditions surely disqualifies them just as much as the plausible model for abiogenesis that Oldrandwiser presented?

As a scientists, he would never apply a double standard like that.

Vivisectus

Dr Berlinski is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (the most prominent ID research establishment in America). Although a Jew by birth, he is theologically an Agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life ... so he is certainly not a 'nutjob' as you so outrageously name-called him.

As an Agnostic the A & A would be his home forum on the Boards.ie ... he is actually one of you guys ... so do you think all Agnostics are 'nutjobs' ... or just Agnostics that don't 'buy' the theory of evolution?

Please be nice ... you can make your point without resorting to such deeply prejudicial unfounded remarks about eminent intelligent people.

You mean the author of "The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky", which explains to us that astrology is not superstitious nonsense at all but totally scientific? Who stated in that same book that medieval astrological charts used for medical reasons was a fore-runner of a modern CAT scan?

This is the eminent and intelligent person you are referring to?

Also can we explore what would constitute a nutjob and when you can call someone that, in a sort of rough and ready colloquial way?

irish coldplayer

J C wrote: »

Dr David Berlinski was born in the United States in 1942 to German-born Jewish refugees who had immigrated to New York City after escaping from France where the Vichy government was collaborating with the Germans.
Other family members weren't as lucky and died in the Holocaust - so he should know what the critical ingredients in Nazism were, including their manic and perverted commitment to the theory of evolution.
I think his point is fair and balanced ... that "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism but I think it's certainly a necessary one".
Indeed Prof Dawkins has said something similar ... that a Darwinian Society would be a thoroughly nasty one.

Dr Berlinski is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (the most prominent ID research establishment in America). Although a Jew by birth, he is theologically an Agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life ... so he is certainly not a 'nutjob' as you so outrageously name-called him.

As an Agnostic the A & A would be his home forum on the Boards.ie ... he is actually one of you guys ... so do you think all Agnostics are 'nutjobs' ... or just Agnostics that don't 'buy' the theory of evolution?

Please be nice ... you can make your point without resorting to such deeply prejudicial unfounded remarks about eminent intelligent people.:)

1. I didnt attempt to "smear" anyone I merely posted a widely available quote to show that he had essentially godwinned his own argument. If you need to invoke Nazi's or other regimes to advance your argument you've already lost.
And I'm sorry it is relevant the man even wrote an article called “Connecting Hitler and Darwin" where he neglects to mention that the Nazis banned the following:
* Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
* All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

The guy is a mathematician, and writes articles (not anywhere where they can be peer reviewed) on evolution which is fine, anyone can, but He has ZERO peer reviewed papers on anything to do with evolution so he is no way shape or form an expert.
Berlinski says he is skeptical of evolution for a number of reasons, including the appearance "at once" of an astonishing number of novel biological structures in the Cambrian explosion, the lack of major transitional fossils transitional sequences, the lack of recent significant evolution in sharks, and the evolution of the eye.
All debunked nonsense.

2. in my opinion all of the four mentioned are nutjobs. I'm entitled to my opinion like anyone else. You of course are free to agree or disagree.

3. Intelligence and being a nutjob are not mutually exclusive.

4. his family history, religion or lack of is of no concern to me it doesn't impact the debate.

5. well done on using my fairly innocuous post to sidetrack the argument.

6. Ah the Discovery Institute where they do science the proper way i.e. Start with Goddidit and work your way back.

7. how can someone possibly be Agnostic yet have their colours firmly nailed to the mask of ID which implies a supernatural creator? Its either disingenuous or he is very confused.

8. If I choose in a post to insult someone you hold in high esteem, I really don't care. I'm not attacking you personally I'm criticising sources you have used in your argument.

irish coldplayer

Vivisectus wrote: »

You mean the author of "The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky", which explains to us that astrology is not superstitious nonsense at all but totally scientific? Who stated in that same book that medieval astrological charts used for medical reasons was a fore-runner of a modern CAT scan?

This is the eminent and intelligent person you are referring to?

Also can we explore what would constitute a nutjob and when you can call someone that, in a sort of rough and ready colloquial way?

I admit it probably wasn't the best choice of word! but when I see/hear Ann Coulter in particular its the first word that enters my head.

Frank Bullitt

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

Nail, head, on it!

Mr. CooL ICE

^^

Every time someone has homosexual intercourse, God punishes us by letting Nickelback release another album

Vivisectus

irish coldplayer wrote: »

I admit it probably wasn't the best choice of word! but when I see/hear Ann Coulter in particular its the first word that enters my head.

I think it is a perfectly reasonable word in the circumstances: he clearly falls on the kook side of the spectrum, so why not say so? Just because a label is not always considered respectful does not make it undeserved or unreasonable.

Vivisectus

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

^^

credo in dio crudel indeed!

J C

lazygal wrote: »

Oh god I missed you.

God was there all the time.

J C

OK to recap
Here is the evidence for ID presented by me:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92832700&postcount=1960

J C wrote: »

... can anybody please tell me where this is wrong?
Quote:-
"(Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang."


These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
For example, there are 20 common amino acids that can be placed at each point in a protein chain. A protein chain of just 116 amino acids has a combinatorial space of 20^115 or 10^150 which is equivalent to the Universal Probability Bound (UPB).
... so the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of a specific functional protein is greater than the UPB.

The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other specific biomolecules working in highly integrated systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.

... and here is oldrnwisr's response
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92840583&postcount=1973

... and here are my responses to oldrnwisr
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92854213&postcount=2005
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92854217&postcount=2006


... and here is my response to oldrnwisr's response to me (oldrnwisr's postings in black my answers in blue):-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92900458&postcount=2073

J C wrote:

I now wish to respond to oldrnwisr's very substantive response to my posting.

Firstly, I'd like to thank you for your 'tour de force' presentation of the latest cutting edge research being undertaken into possible pre-cursors to life.

Secondly, I would also like to compliment you on presenting your evidence in a courteous and civil manner.

Thirdly, because your post is quite extensive and covers comments on both ID and the latest research on abiogenesis, I propose to divide your comments into two posts in my reply.
My first post deals with your ID comments and my second post deals with your abiogenesis comments.

Part 1. ID Comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
This link indicates that there are approximately 10^80 fundamental particles in the Universe, with some estimates going as high a 10^85.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/numbers.html

oldrnwisr
You see this is one of the indicators that Dembski is not a reputable scientist. His concept of a UPB is supposed to be a safe overestimate. Yet he uses a figure which is off by as much as 5 orders of magnitude. That's a pretty big oversight.
The figure given in the link (to the Physics of the Universe website) confirms that the figure is 10^80 ... with some other estimates up to 5 orders of magnitude greater. Dr Dembski isn't responsible for this ... it is conventional science itself that has this uncertainty on this estimate.
In any event it has no practical effect on the UPB figure of 10^150, as Dr Dembski has rounded the figure off by adding on 9 orders of magnitude to put the figure beyond doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
OK, so we agree on the Universal Probability Bound being at maximum 10^150.
... and Dr Dembski reached this figure, by calculation using the same scientific method and facts, as you did.

oldrnwisr
No, we don't agree. What I said was that Dembski's figure for the UPB is a reasonable estimate. That's all. There is still a lot of room either way, the figure of 10^150 is by no means a rigid maximum.
OK, so we agree that 10^150 is a reasonable estimate for the Universal Probability Bound.


Quote:
oldrnwisr
Secondly, only Dembski's actual conclusion is reasonable. His premise has no solid scientific basis. There is no good reason to support his three factors as relevant or correct for calculating a UPB. Even Dembski himself has retracted the original equation for the UPB. Since 2005, Dembski now claims that the UPB is defined as the inverse of the product of :
An upper bound on the computational resources of the universe in its entire history (as outlined in my last post). This is estimated by Seth Lloyd as 10^120 elementary logic operations on a register of 10^90 bits
The (variable) rank complexity of the event under consideration (A quantity which Dembski has never further defined making it completely arbitrary and thus useless).
That is the ratio of the event under consideration to the UPB, not the UPB itself which remains as a reasonable estimate of 10^150.

---

Quote:
oldrnwisr
One final note: You know when you really get down to it intelligent design isn't all that hard to understand and tear apart. It is, at its core, based on two principles: reassurance and doubt. These may seem like contradictory principles but only because one is involved in the conception of ID and the other in its propagation.
The first principle is reassurance. The concept of ID is quite simple, it provides a reassurance mechanism by explaining all the detailed natural processes above with one all sweeping cause an intelligent designer.

It proves that the Complex Specified Functional information found in all living cells could not have been produced by the simple deterministic physical and chemical processes ... but by the appliance of intelligence .
I fully accept that ‘natural’ processes are extensive and offer
adequate explanations for many aspects of living organisms.
However, there are features to life which the interaction of NS and mutatgenesis cannot explain, such as the evidence for design in nature, and the emergence of genetic information and conscious life.


Quote:
oldrnwisr
Moreover this designer has created order, creating animals within distinct kinds. The thing is, we all know, that the overwhelming majority of ID supporters fall into an easily identifiable category, conservative Christians. Moreover, we also know that these people overwhelmingly tend also to be politically conservative. Now, here's where it gets interesting. In 2003 a group of researchers conducted a meta-analysis on 88 studies of political conservatism involving over 22,000 people. The analysis found that:

"A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (-.09). "

Pretty much everything on that list are things that ID offers in spades, reassurance about death (afterlife), order, uncertainty. For ID supporters and creationists, tackling the surface flaws of ID are not going to have impact because the story is so comforting. To really impact ID we have to undermine its foundation as we have done above.
ID offers objective proof of the intelligent design of life. The intelligent designer could be a long-dead Alien, for all we know ... or a Deist God who created it all and lets it run on with no interest whatsoever in the component parts, including Humans.

Quote:
oldrnwisr
The second principle above is doubt. In 1969, a now infamous and yet anonymous tobacco company executive penned a memo which has become titled "Manufacturing doubt". In it he says:

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing the controversy."

Doubt is the product sold by the ID movement. Through their "Wedge" strategy and their "Teach the Controversy" strategy they attempt to sow doubt and create a space for ID to compete with evolution because it cannot compete on facts alone.
The doubt was sown in reverse ... Evolutionism sowed doubts in the minds of people over 100 years ago that a Divine cause wasn't required to explain the observed specified complexity of life ... and the relatively basic phenomenon of NS acting on genetic diversity was conscripted to the cause and it has now become a secular religion that is attempting to become the established religion of every state on Earth.
There truly has never been so much built on so little.

Quote:
oldrnwisr
Doubt is also JC's product. He never, despite his attestations to the contrary, responds to an opposing viewpoint in any meaningful way. He simply posts an answer which deals with every point but only superficially so, enough that it might sow doubt in the mind of a third party reading this thread.
Doubt is why I post and will continue to post against JC's rubbish. As MrP so excellently pointed out:
ID doesn't cast doubt on the mechanisms you have cited as precursors of life as we know it ... ID proves that only an intelligence of inordinate power could have the necessary overview and creative capacity to overcome the multiple UPB levels of non-functional combinatorial space observed between the specific functional biomolecules that are integrated into the closely co-ordinated systems observed in life.

Quote:
oldrnwisr
Finally (really this time), I would like to thank everyone for their supportive messages after my last post but shoutouts in particular to lazygal and MrPudding. Thanks guys.
I'd also like to thank you as well.

Doctor Jimbob

Your posts just say the same thing over and over again though.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Your posts just say the same thing over and over again though.

Here is one of you guys (an Atheist and Evolutionist) ... who became one of us (a Creationist) ...

Delirium

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Your posts just say the same thing over and over again though.

J C wrote: »

Here is one of you guys (an Atheist and Evolutionist) ... who became one of us (a Creationist) ...

You called it, Doc :pac:

Squeedily Spooch

The doubt was sown in reverse ... Evolutionism sowed doubts in the minds of people over 100 years ago that a Divine cause wasn't required to explain the observed specified complexity of life ... and the relatively basic phenomenon of NS acting on genetic diversity was conscripted to the cause and it has now become a secular religion that is attempting to become the established religion of every state on Earth.
There truly has never been so much built on so little.

Well..no, we didn't understand what caused certain things at the time so attributed supernatural causes to them as an explanation. You're thinking backwards. Unless you think the theists who agree with evolution (of which there are lots) are..atheists?

ID offers objective proof of the intelligent design of life. The intelligent designer could be a long-dead Alien, for all we know ... or a Deist God who created it all and lets it run on with no interest whatsoever in the component parts, including Humans.

Contradicting yourself again, none of this fits in with the Judeo-Christian god you worship, you've said countless times he offers us love, that doesn't exactly fall in with letting things run with no interest.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

Here is one of you guys (an Atheist and Evolutionist) ... who became one of us (a Creationist) ...

in the beginning was the word and the word was hydrogen?

Is this really your video?

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

Here is one of you guys (an Atheist and Evolutionist) ... who became one of us (a Creationist) ...

"on his knees" and "stiff neck broken" I think was his words. did he happen to find any substantiation while he was down there prostrating and grovelling?

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"on his knees" and "stiff neck broken" I think was his words. did he happen to find any substantiation while he was down there prostrating and grovelling?

He found evidence and substantiation in science for God ... and he found Jesus Christ while on his knees asking for Salvation and forgiveness of his sins.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

in the beginning was the word and the word was hydrogen?

Is this really your video?

Yes this guy was a 'full on' Atheist and Evolutionist ... scoffing at the Bible, protesting against Creation Science, which he called 'religion' ... the 'whole nine yards'.

It was a Pauline Conversion ... he literally came to scoff ... and stayed to pray.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

He found evidence and substantiation in science for God ... and he found Jesus Christ while on his knees asking for Salvation and forgiveness of his sins.

Not being able to answer students questions does not prove ID.

J C

SW wrote: »

Not being able to answer students questions does not prove ID.

Quote:-
Dr. Richard Lumsden was Professor of Parasitology and Cell Biology at Tulane University and Medical School. He served as Dean of the Graduate School, and published many scientific papers. Thoroughly versed in biological sciences, both in knowledge and lab technique, including electron microscopy, he won the highest world award for parasitology. All through his career he believed Darwinian evolution was an established principle of science, and he took great glee in ridiculing Christian beliefs.

So it wasn't for lack of ability or knowledge that he wasn't able to answer the questions ... he didn't have any real answers when he was challenged on evolution with the evidence for ID ... because M2M Evolution never happened ... and life was created.

Delirium

"dunno, ergo God". Exactly what I said. Nice to agree every now and again.

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

Quote:-
Dr. Richard Lumsden was Professor of Parasitology and Cell Biology at Tulane University and Medical School. He served as Dean of the Graduate School, and published many scientific papers. Thoroughly versed in biological sciences, both in knowledge and lab technique, including electron microscopy, he won the highest world award for parasitology. All through his career he believed Darwinian evolution was an established principle of science, and he took great glee in ridiculing Christian beliefs.

So it wasn't for lack of ability or knowledge that he wasn't able to answer the questions ... he didn't have any real answers when he was challenged on evolution with the evidence for ID ... because M2M Evolution never happened ... and life was created.

C'mon,J C, update your material-nobody likes a comedian telling the same joke over and over.

From a quote on youtube...
In typical creationist style this presentation is completely misrepresenting the truth and the facts. Dr. Richard Lumsden won the Baldwin Award in 1975. The 90 peer reviewed articles were also in the 70's.
In the 90's when he lost his marbles and became a creationist mouthpiece, he was a has been, and nothing was published up to his death in 1997.
The interesting part is that the creationists actually admit that he was an alcoholic in the obituary of their hero
"Unfortunately, years of unhealthy habits as an unbeliever, including alcohol and tobacco abuse, took their toll on his body, and he died too soon, at age 59, in 1997.

Doctor Jimbob

housetypeb wrote: »

C'mon,J C, update your material-nobody likes a comedian telling the same joke over and over.

From a quote on youtube...
In typical creationist style this presentation is completely misrepresenting the truth and the facts. Dr. Richard Lumsden won the Baldwin Award in 1975. The 90 peer reviewed articles were also in the 70's.
In the 90's when he lost his marbles and became a creationist mouthpiece, he was a has been, and nothing was published up to his death in 1997.
The interesting part is that the creationists actually admit that he was an alcoholic in the obituary of their hero
"Unfortunately, years of unhealthy habits as an unbeliever, including alcohol and tobacco abuse, took their toll on his body, and he died too soon, at age 59, in 1997.

That's quite a sad story actually. I have no idea why creationists would choose him as an example. He clearly wasn't well.

Well actually I have some idea why they'd choose him.

I also find it laughable when creations call evolution bad science. As if their alternative is good science.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

He found evidence and substantiation in science for God

Great. Adumbrate that evidence he specifically found on the floor for us then.

J C wrote: »

Yes this guy was a 'full on' Atheist and Evolutionist

Nope. He was not. Not with a line like "In the beginning was the word and the word was hydrogen?". He was "full on" not knowing what he was talking about then. He is "full on" not knowing what he is talking about now.

Trotting out videos of simpletons is evidence now? I never knew.

PopePalpatine

I wonder if Dr Lumsden's alcoholism and "conversion" to creationism are related. Perhaps he was in a vulnerable state and preyed upon by some Salvation Army-type.

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

C'mon,J C, update your material-nobody likes a comedian telling the same joke over and over.

From a quote on youtube...
In typical creationist style this presentation is completely misrepresenting the truth and the facts. Dr. Richard Lumsden won the Baldwin Award in 1975. The 90 peer reviewed articles were also in the 70's.
In the 90's when he lost his marbles and became a creationist mouthpiece, he was a has been, and nothing was published up to his death in 1997.
The interesting part is that the creationists actually admit that he was an alcoholic in the obituary of their hero
"Unfortunately, years of unhealthy habits as an unbeliever, including alcohol and tobacco abuse, took their toll on his body, and he died too soon, at age 59, in 1997.

I have highlighted the appropriate part of the quote.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Great. Adumbrate that evidence he specifically found on the floor for us then.

Some of it is here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92944247&postcount=2112

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope. He was not. Not with a line like "In the beginning was the word and the word was hydrogen?". He was "full on" not knowing what he was talking about then. He is "full on" not knowing what he is talking about now.

Trotting out videos of simpletons is evidence now? I never knew.

He confided that he was "full on" not knowing what he was talking about allright ... when he was an evolutionist.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I have highlighted the appropriate part of the quote.

J C wrote: »

Please be nice ... you can make your point without resorting to such deeply prejudicial unfounded remarks about eminent intelligent people.

do try post according to the standard you only recently demanded of others.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's quite a sad story actually. I have no idea why creationists would choose him as an example. He clearly wasn't well.

Well actually I have some idea why they'd choose him.

I also find it laughable when creations call evolution bad science. As if their alternative is good science.

He was a top scientist ... and was in excellent mental health ... he smoked and drank to excess, when he was an unbeliever ... but gave it up when, unfortunately, the physical damage was already done.

I agree it was sad that he didn't get more time in this life ... but he is now Saved and in Heaven.