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

oscarBravo

pone2012 wrote: »

By you stating that nothing can happen "before" time, you are implying that everything that ever existed is bound by time then? Am I correct?

Everything in the universe, yes. By definition.

smacl

oscarBravo wrote: »

Everything in the universe, yes. By definition.

Which definition though? Similarly, that prompts the question of what do you consider not to be in our universe? e.g. if I'm in the universe, and I imagine something, is that imagination part of the universe?

J C

Mick_1970 wrote: »

Thanks, I know we need oxygen and various other elements for life, but I am curious where you think this carbon came from?

I believe that it was created (along with all of the other elements).

If you are asking how living organisms acquire the carbon that they use to grow and live ... it largely comes from atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is captured by plants using photosyntesis ... and then become available to all living organisms right along the food-chain.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Mick_1970
Thanks, I know we need oxygen and various other elements for life, but I am curious where you think this carbon came from?

Timberrrrrrrr
Clay apparently,

Clay is largely made up of various aluminium silicates ... and not Carbon.
This has led to (unfounded) speculation that a silica-based lifeform may be possible.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

JC,
You seem to have missed the entirety of oldrnwisr's post and seem to have mistakenly stolen and copypasted some random list that you clearly don't understand.

I'm sure that this is some oversight and you'll be quick to go back and properly return the courtesy Old has given you by replying in a clear, well written and knowledgable way.

Oldrnwisr is up to his usual posting style of producing a wall of quite turgid text ... that is almost impossible to penetrate.

I'd be happy to address individual points one at a time ... but I'm not prepared to address walls of text.
Life is too short ... and all that !!!:)

J C

King Mob wrote: »

JC,
You seem to have missed the entirety of oldrnwisr's post and seem to have mistakenly stolen and copypasted some random list that you clearly don't understand.

I haven't 'stolen' anything ... I clearly referenced it as a quote ... and it exactly matches Oldrnwisr's posting style of a wall of text ... to give you guys some appreciation of how difficult it is to address such posts.

I'll address oldrnwisr's wall of text ... when you guys address mine.:)

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Oldrnwisr is up to his usual posting style of producing a wall of quite turgid text ... that is almost impossible to penetrate.

I'd be happy to address individual points one at a time ... but I'm not prepared to address walls of text.
Life is too short ... and all that !!!:)

Kettle

Pot

Black

:pac:

Mick_1970

J C wrote: »

I believe that it was created (along with all of the other elements).

If you are asking how living organisms acquire the carbon that they use to grow and live ... it largely comes from atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is captured by plants using photosyntesis ... and then become available to all living organisms right along the food-chain.

Ah OK. Do you believe carbon came from dying stars like a lot of other elements?

J C

pone2012 wrote: »

By you stating that nothing can happen "before" time, you are implying that everything that ever existed is bound by time then? Am I correct?

... and that is another reason these guys don't believe in God ... and/or ask who created God.

The reason they say that nothing can happen 'before' time is clearly driven by their materialistic beliefs that nothing (can) exist outside this physical realm.

... and the weakness in their argument is that 'something' obviously had to exist outside this physical realm ... to produce this physical realm, in the first place ... and that 'something' had to be at least as powerful as what 'It' produced ... which makes 'It' effectively omipotent.

I believe that the 'something' that produced it all was God.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Oldrnwisr is up to his usual posting style of producing a wall of quite turgid text ... that is almost impossible to penetrate.

I'd be happy to address individual points one at a time ... but I'm not prepared to address walls of text.
Life is too short ... and all that !!!:)

J C wrote: »

I haven't 'stolen' anything ... I clearly referenced it as a quote ... and it exactly matches Oldrnwisr's posting style of a wall of text ... to give you guys some appreciation of how difficult it is to address such posts.

I'll address oldrnwisr's wall of text ... when you guys address mine.:)

You posted without a link to source a copyand paste of text.

Oldrnwsr actually took time to compose a lengthy response to what you've posted on this thread, and the best you can do is call call it 'turgid'?

Poor form, JC. That's pretty disrespectful.

J C

Mick_1970 wrote: »

Ah OK. Do you believe carbon came from dying stars like a lot of other elements?

Ah ... the old 'we are all stardust' canard raises it's illogical head.:)
The late Carl Segan was a firm believer that he was made from stardust ... but I disagree ... he was a descendent of the first man and woman made by God in His image and likeness, actually.

Mick_1970

J C wrote: »

Ah ... the old 'we are all stardust' canard raises it's illogical head.:)
The late Carl Segan was a firm believer that he was made from stardust ... but I disagree ... he was a descendent of the first man and woman made by God in His image and likeness, actually.

No illogical reasoning here, Carl Sagan was correct. Then only way to produce carbon is inside a star, how do you postulate it got created?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

You posted without a link to source a copyand paste of text.

I didn't think that a link was required as it was clearly from a fellow Creationist source.

Delirium wrote: »

Oldrnwsr actually took time to compose a lengthy response to what you've posted on this thread, and the best you can do is call call it 'turgid'?

Poor form, JC. That's pretty disrespectful.

I have no wish to be personally disrespectful towards oldrnwsr ... but I'm not prepared to metaphorically 'drown' myself and my readers in reams of text ... responding to his reams of text.

If Oldrnwsr wants to write a book on his ideas, I may read it ... but I'm certainly not going to respond to every incorrect idea and claim cited by him in it.
This is not the place for such heavy prose !!!:)

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

If Oldrnwsr wants to write a book on his ideas, I may read it ... but I'm certainly not going to respond to every incorrect idea and claim cited by him in it.
This is not the place for such heavy prose !!!:)

OK, let's take just one aspect of his post, where he disproves (using Shannon's work) the assertion that a mutation can't increase information.

You clearly believe Dembski over Shannon. Can you explain why Claude Shannon is wrong?

J C

Mick_1970 wrote: »

No illogical reasoning here, Carl Sagan was correct. Then only way to produce carbon is inside a star, how do you postulate it got created?

Says who? ... and how?

If carbon was indeed created within a star, the temperatures and pressures would have been such that it would have been ejected as the diamond metastable allotrope of Carbon ... and not the biologically useful forms of carbon, found in carbon dioxide, sugars, etc.

... and we'd all be eating diamonds ... instead of dinner !!!:)

PopePalpatine

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's take just one aspect of his post, where he disproves (using Shannon's work) the assertion that a mutation can't increase information.

You clearly believe Dembski over Shannon. Can you explain why Claude Shannon is wrong?

Because Shannon didn't cite the Bible enough in his work, and J C likes to celebrate his ignorance, like an inbred redneck with a gas-guzzling pickup truck plastered with Trump stickers who "rolls coal" on cars with a double-digit MPG figure.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's take just one aspect of his post, where he disproves (using Shannon's work) the assertion that a mutation can't increase information.

You clearly believe Dembski over Shannon. Can you explain why Claude Shannon is wrong?

Both Dembski and Shannon are correct ... but they are talking about totally different things ... Dembski is talking about CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) whilst Shannon is talking about the quantification, compression, storage, and communication of all forms of information ... including non-complex, non-functional, non-specified information.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Because Shannon didn't cite the Bible enough in his work, and J C likes to celebrate his ignorance, like an inbred redneck with a gas-guzzling pickup truck plastered with Trump stickers who "rolls coal" on cars with a double-digit MPG figure.

Pseudo-liberals can be very judgemental and intolerant be times !!!:eek:

robindch

Doctor Doctor Ken Ham's Ark Park is losing money hand over fist. So the big question is - who's to blame?

Well, it couldn't be the christians who are stay away in droves. Ken reckons it's down to those dreadful atheists and all their "brainwashing":

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/06/creationist-ken-ham-blames-atheists-ark-park-failure/

One of the local newspapers looks into the property and tax dealings that went on and continues to find a sorry tale of broken promises:

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article154014269.html

robindch

Mod:

PopePalpatine wrote: »

[...] like an inbred redneck [...]

No need for that kind of comment.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Both Dembski and Shannon are correct ... but they are talking about totally different things ... Dembski is talking about CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Informtion) whilst Shannon is talking about the quantification, compression, storage, and communication of all forms of information ... including non-complex, non-functional, non-specified information.

Yeah, that's a non-rebuttal and a failure of logic.

If Shannon's work encompasses all forms of information, then it includes Dembski's woo-sounding information. So, unless you can demonstrate why one particular form of information is exempt from information theory, you still need to demonstrate how oldrnwisr is wrong.

You won't, of course, because he's not. I just enjoy watching you reply to actual science (and, better yet, mathematics) with made-up woo.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Doctor Doctor Ken Ham's Ark Park is losing money hand over fist. So the big question is - who's to blame?

Well, it couldn't be the christians who are stay away in droves. Ken reckons it's down to those dreadful atheists and all their "brainwashing":

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/06/creationist-ken-ham-blames-atheists-ark-park-failure/

One of the local newspapers looks into the property and tax dealings that went on and continues to find a sorry tale of broken promises:

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article154014269.html)

Unfortunately your idea that the Ark Encounter isn't a success (both in itself and for the local economy) is as unfounded as your belief in Spontaneous Evolution!!!:)
Quote Ken Ham:-
"Yes, the visitor numbers have been outstanding. Of course, we need to get a year behind us to understand all the attendance trends. At present, indications are that attendance will be well over the minimum of 1.4 million per year predicted by America’s Research Group—the research estimated 1.4 million to 2.2 million per year. And certainly, visitors are pouring into the town of Dry Ridge, two exits north of the Ark exit, filling the hotels there and impacting restaurants, and other businesses. For instance, Beans Cafe & Bakery (my favorite stop for a latte and a maple-glazed donut or a sandwich) is enjoying a significant increase in the number of visitors on a daily basis. Many of the visitors tell them that they are from out of state and are staying in the area to visit the Ark and Creation Museum 40 miles away."
https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/ark-encounters-responding-misinformation/

For the 'bean counters' amongst you, 1.4 million people, at an average ticket price of $50 for the Ark & Creation Museum combo amounts to $70m per year ... plus profits from refreshments and merchadising as well as God's abundant blessings ... makes this a very viable business and a great boost to the local economy. The Ark Encounter also has many scientific, business and faith-building synergies with its sister exhibition, The Creation Museum ... and both world class exhibitions have had the financial backing of very generous benefactors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_Encounter

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, that's a non-rebuttal and a failure of logic.

If Shannon's work encompasses all forms of information, then it includes Dembski's woo-sounding information. So, unless you can demonstrate why one particular form of information is exempt from information theory, you still need to demonstrate how oldrnwisr is wrong.

Like I have said, Shannon is talking about the the quantification, compression, storage, and communication of all forms of information (including Complex Functional Specified Information) ... whilst Dembski is talking only about the creation of the very special and high quality type of information that is CFSI ... which can only be created by the action of intelligence ... and is found in the genomes of living organisms.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Doctor Doctor Ken Ham's Ark Park is losing money hand over fist. So the big question is - who's to blame?

Like I've said it's not losing money ... even, the well known Atheist and Evolutionist, Prof P Z Myers and some of his students, graciously visited the Creation Museum ... and really got into the spirit of things (no pun intended) ... even riding a Triceratops !!!!:)

... so next time you're stateside, Robin, you should also go along and ride the Triceratops in the Creation Museum !!:eek:

Mick_1970

J C wrote: »

Says who? ... and why?

If carbon was indeed created within a star, the temperatures and pressures would have been such that it would have been ejected in the diamond metastable allotrope of Carbon ... and not the biologically useful forms of carbon, found in carbon dioxide, sugars, etc.

Everyone with an understanding of how the building blocks of life were formed.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Oldrnwisr is up to his usual posting style of producing a wall of quite turgid text ... that is almost impossible to penetrate.

I'd be happy to address individual points one at a time ... but I'm not prepared to address walls of text.
Life is too short ... and all that !!!:)

This is a lie JC. You aren't going to address the point because you are not able to. It would require knowledge, honesty and a good writing style. None of which you have. You also describe his claims as wrong, and without you demonstrating this, it also makes it a lie.

Old's post is long, but it is very readable and understandable. It's difficult for you to address because it is above your ability.
Pretending otherwise isn't going to fool anyone and just makes you look dishonest and weasely.

J C wrote: »

I haven't 'stolen' anything ... I clearly referenced it as a quote ... and it exactly matches Oldrnwisr's posting style of a wall of text ... to give you guys some appreciation of how difficult it is to address such posts.

Quoting something (especially unclearly like you have) without attributing it is plagiarism and therefore stealing.

It does not match Old's style as he writes his own stuff, he does not steal walls of text. Also his posts are direct and comprehensive replys to points made, not random tangents. Thirdly, his points are well referenced, researched and understood. Your points are none of those things and it's clear that you don't even understand them.

Pretending that your lazy plagiarism is the same as Old's posts is yet more lying of the highest order.

J C wrote: »

I'll address oldrnwisr's wall of text ... when you guys address mine.:)

We have. You commit every single fallacy on your list constantly.

So not only are you guilty of lying, you're committing hypocrisy as well.
Pretty sure the bible has some strong words about hypocrites and liars...

J C

King Mob wrote: »

This is a lie JC. You aren't going to address the point because you are not able to. It would require knowledge, honesty and a good writing style. None of which you have. You also describe his claims as wrong, and without you demonstrating this, it also makes it a lie.

Old's post is long, but it is very readable and understandable. It's difficult for you to address because it is above your ability.
Pretending otherwise isn't going to fool anyone and just makes you look dishonest and weasely.


Quoting something (especially unclearly like you have) without attributing it is plagiarism and therefore stealing.

It does not match Old's style as he writes his own stuff, he does not steal walls of text. Also his posts are direct and comprehensive replys to points made, not random tangents. Thirdly, his points are well referenced, researched and understood. Your points are none of those things and it's clear that you don't even understand them.

Pretending that your lazy plagiarism is the same as Old's posts is yet more lying of the highest order.

We have. You commit every single fallacy on your list constantly.

So not only are you guilty of lying, you're committing hypocrisy as well.
Pretty sure the bible has some strong words about hypocrites and liars...

I haven't lied and I have plagerised nothing ... the list of logical fallacies was clearly shown as a quote ... from a fellow creationist source, that anybody could identify in 5 seconds by googling it.

In relation to Oldrnwisr, I have addressed one of his points when asked to do so by oscarBravo ... but I'm not going to metaphorically 'drown' myself, Oldrnwisr and everybody else in reams of text ... this is not the type of forum for that kind of exchange.
Short sussinct posts and counter posts (like oscarBravo's question) is the way to go IMO.:)

... and throwing around unfounded allegations of lying is just 'poisoning the well' and adds nothing to the debate.

J C

Mick_1970 wrote: »

Everyone with an understanding of how the building blocks of life were formed.

... would realise that the diamond Carbon allotrope wouldn't produce the building blocks of life.:)

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

I have plagerised nothing ... the list of logical fallacies was clearly shown as a quote ... from a fellow creationist source, that anybody could identify in 5 seconds by googling it.

In relation to Oldrnwisr, I have addressed one of his points when asked to do so by oscarBravo ... but I'm not going to metaphorically 'drown' myself, Oldrnwisr and everybody else in reams of text ... this is not the type of forum for that kind of exchange.
Short sussinct posts and counter posts (like oscarBravo's question) is the way to go IMO.:)

Actually what you did is the epitome of plagiarism

http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism/

ACCORDING TO THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY, TO "PLAGIARIZE" MEANSto steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own

to use (another's production) without crediting the source

to commit literary theft

to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Like I have said, Shannon is talking about the the quantification, compression, storage, and communication of all forms of information (including Complex Functional Specified Information) ...whilst Dembski is talking only about the creation of the very special and high quality type of information that is CFSI ... which can only be created by the action of intelligence ... and is found in the genomes of living organisms.

Hold on, you've been cited Dembski and CFSI as 'proof' that evolution is all nonsense for ages. I.e. that information degrades over generations rather than mutates with beneficial properties for a species.

Why are you rolling back on that now?