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

J C

smacl wrote: »

Not really. If you take Conway's came of life for example and throw in random input it will regularly evolve to complex output with repeating patterns. Most of the time it will either arrive at a static state or die out entirely, but regularly this is not the case and we get artefacts such as gliders. If you allow the masses of random input and time span that a growing universe has to offer, this type of evolved complexity is inevitable for such as system. The notion that complexity can't evolve from chaos seems specious on that basis.

This uses a pre-existing intelligently designed computer and an intelligently designed programme.

Of course complexity can emerge from chaos ... the issue is that specified functionality doesn't emerge without an intelligent input ... and that is why specified functionality is the hallark of intelligent design ... and not complexity.

jigglypuffstuff

smacl wrote: »

No shortage of woo (as well as wu) in Taoism for sure, but still nothing comparable to creationism. Much of Chinese internal alchemy is dubious in the extreme, and best filed alongside homeopathy, rubbing crystals, and pretending that there are angels watching over you. At the same time, some of it can have significant health benefits (e.g. certain qigong sets, taijiquan, etc..) particularly as a regime in preventative health. You also have to be wary of how you translate things, e.g. the qi referred to in qigong and underpinning neidan has no less than 23 definitions in the great dictionary of chinese characters. See A brief history of qi for more on this. The mysterious female in the above verse is a reference to yin, or essential femaleness, darkness, softness and fluidity. It is not a reference to any given female person or deity, though that is how it would read to many.

With all do respect, my understanding of the Taoist perspective is far beyond you needing to provide a definition of yin, yang or Qi. Im quite aware of the properties of Yin and Yang, their nature, relationship to scientific phenomena and much more....This is not something I started studying yesterday (Unlike Quantum Physics, in which case school me).

Id add passive to that list of yin properties, and lunar too, and magnetism, mitochondria and so on..Theres a long, long list. And yet you believe that this is not a reference to a diety...now I am not saying it is, Im saying it could be..however you are saying it isnt, in which case I ask why is that?

In terms of you referring to Neidan as dubious, have you actually engaged in such activities to warrant that ? What makes you so sure

smacl

pone2012 wrote: »

With all do respect, my understanding of the Taoist perspective is far beyond you needing to provide a definition of yin, yang or Qi. Im quite aware of the properties of Yin and Yang, their nature, relationship to scientific phenomena and much more....This is not something I started studying yesterday (Unlike Quantum Physics, in which case school me).

Id add passive to that list of yin properties, and lunar too, and magnetism, mitochondria and so on..Theres a long, long list. And yet you believe that this is not a reference to a diety...now I am not saying it is, Im saying it could be..however you are saying it isnt, in which case I ask why is that?

If you think that yin and yang could be deities you need to revisit your Taoist literature as this is wildly off the mark. These are concepts, not physical things. From a Taoist perspective everything has yin and yang properties in varying amounts as everything derives from the tao and yin and yang are simply the first division of the tao.

In terms of you referring to Neidan as dubious, have you actually engaged in such activities to warrant that ? What makes you so sure

I've had many years of practise of various neigong and qigong sets in the past along with decades of taijiquan, so a bit, yes. The Chinese have long ascribed various magical properties to different gung practices. For example, the boxers in the boxer rebellion believed the exercise regime they performed made them impervious to bullets. Needless to say, it didn't pan out so well for them. You still see all sorts of snake oil peddled in much the same way, such as projecting qi to take out an opponent using empty force. Taoist sexual practises can also be pretty bizarre, such as attaching weights to your testicles to improve longevity, or eating ground up rhino horn as an aphrodisiac.

You say you don't need a definition of qi. I'd be interested in hearing your definition of it.

nozzferrahhtoo

pone2012 wrote: »

But is it? if we examine actual definitions of what supernatural is, versus what you posit it is, we can equally lend credence to what ive stated

Except you just did the exact opposite and what you present is perfectly consistent with my position. Ta for that.

Even the first definition you offer puts things into the realm of "supernatural" that makes no sense to do so. For example there is highly likely to be planets outside the observable universe, just like there is INSIDE it.

So by the definition you have cherry picked, a planet we can see is "natural" and a planet we can not yet see is "supernatural". That is just nonsense really. A planet is a planet is a planet, and I see no coherence in one being natural and one being supernatural just because of it's location in our universe.

Your second definition conforms to what I said, not what you said, too. Despite you putting it in bold as if you thought it was supporting your case. The words "transcend the laws of nature" for example. We do not know that the origin of the universe does any such thing. We simply do not know. So once again your interpretation of the word means that basically anything we do not know or understand is "supernatural". Which as I said means things like "epilepsy" were once "supernatural" because we once did not understand it's causes.

That is the kind of nonsense that comes of using a definition that misses the difference between "cannot (as in CURRENTLY) by explained by science" and "CANNOT be explained by science".

The same is true of the "that cannot be explained by science" you offered. AGAIN here I think you make the same error I corrected before, which is that you are mistaking the wording as meaning it can not be understood by current science when I maintain that the meaning is it CANNOT be explained by science, as in it can NEVER be explained by science. In other words to call the origin of our universe "supernatural" you are asserting it can not be explained by science. Just because it has not YET been explained by science is no grounds to assert it NEVER CAN be.

pone2012 wrote: »

I will reframe it to make it easier to understand then.My opinion is dont close yourself off to outside ideas because they dont match up to your beliefs (or lack of), rather take the "I dont know attitude".

But I am not seeing anyone here who has been "closing themselves to ideas" at all. I just see people who, while remaining open to new and different ideas, are not open to accepting any unsubstantiated notion that careens into consciousness or conversation.

I am also not seeing anyone here who needs the advice on taking the "I dont know" attitude. Generally the people on this area of the forum are very cognizant of the limits of knowledge, be it their own or that of our species as a whole.

Unfortunately, and I mean this as a general statement rather than directed at any individual, people.......... those with no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer for their claims.......... merely push the narrative that people who do not buy their claims must be in some way closed to them. In other words they serve only to project their own failures onto some imagined failure, bias or agenda of the mark.

pone2012 wrote: »

So are you saying there's nothing to suggest the actual existence of supernatural phenomena? I'm not accusing here I'm asking

I think what I "am saying" is clear. I am saying that we appear to exist, and we appear to exist in a universe. The explanation for all of that is something we currently do not have.

But the level of argument, evidence, data and reasoning on offer to me at this time that suggests that the explanation, whatever it turns out to be, lies in the machinations and actions of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent...... is precisely zero.

pone2012 wrote: »

I can tell someone what I believe, and why I believe it, however I cannot provide scientific evidence.

So far though it appears you have only told us WHAT you believe and not the "why" part, which is what I was asking. If the why is just faith, then that it at least an answer. But alas the limitations of a "just faith" result is that it precludes much of the possibilities for meaningful further discourse.

Interesting though that YOU not I limited it to "scientific evidence" specifically. Quite a lot of people do that when talking to me, even though I did not make that limitation or stipulation myself. I write, and to you also wrote, the words "Any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to lend the claim any credence". Which is quite a generalized and wide net for me to cast. But quite often people, just like you here, limit themselves specifically to scientific evidence, or act like, or outright claim, that it was I that made the limitation.

I am open to any form of evidence offered coherently and cogently. I can then think consider it, evaluate it, and explain why I can accept or reject it.

smacl

J C wrote: »

This uses a pre-existing intelligently designed computer and an intelligently designed programme.

Of course complexity can emerge from chaos ... the issue is that specified functionality doesn't emerge without an intelligent input ... and that is why specified functionality is the hallark of intelligent design ... and not complexity.

So if the function we're trying to solve is for example navigating a maze, by your logic we need a higher order intelligence to do this. If that we're the case, the slime mold in my previously linked example should not be able to perform this very specific function, yet it does. Conway's game of life is merely a vastly simplified and accelerated example of how colonies of very simple organisms already react. Using time-lapse photography, You could watch something very similar play out on an agar filled petri dish in a lab or even a lichen covered rock on the seafront.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... except I didn't do so ... I clearly indicated it was a quote ... and as it could be identified where the quote came from in 5 secs on google it I haven't presented the list as new and original and not derived from an existing source.

Posting someone else's work without reference. That is plagiarism. You posted someone else's work, and you didn't reference it, therefore you committed plagerism. Subsequently, after being called out, saying anyone could google the reference is not referencing. You plagerised, plain and simple.

J C wrote: »

... answering posts calling me unfounded names??

Unfounded (adjective): lacking a sound basis.

He gave at least two clear examples. There was or is nothing unfounded about the name. Also, I heard that lying makes baby jebus cry. Think about that JC.

MrP

bren_mc

J C wrote: »

This uses a pre-existing intelligently designed computer and an intelligently designed programme.

Of course complexity can emerge from chaos ... the issue is that specified functionality doesn't emerge without an intelligent input ... and that is why specified functionality is the hallark of intelligent design ... and not complexity.

I thoroughly agree and must therefore conclude that what I see all around me must be complexity from chaos rather than "specified functionality"

robindch

J C wrote: »

... except I didn't do so ... I clearly indicated it was a quote ... and as it could be identified where the quote came from in 5 secs on google it [...]

Not sure what copying somebody else's work without attribution is called in the private and peculiar world of creationists, but out here in the real world, it's called plagiarism and you've been called out before on it.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Not sure what copying somebody else's work without attribution is called in the private and peculiar world of creationists, but out here in the real world, it's called plagiarism and you've been called out before on it.

Have you got anything to add to the topic under discussion on this thread, Robin, other than nit-picking over how to attribute quotes from somebody else ...
... it apparently isn't sufficient to indicate something is a quote ... and let anybody who is interested, google where the quote came from, we have to give it's seed, breed and generation as well!!!

... and BTW plagarism is taking "(the work or an idea of someone else) and passing it off as one's own".:eek:

How did I pass the list off as my own ?

... are you now accusing me of quoting myself?:(

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103807716&postcount=2569

looksee

Mod: JC, cease and desist now with this wittering about plagiarism. The others including Robin are correct, you need to quote your sources. Now that particular topic is closed, can we get on with the specious nonsense please.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

Can we get on with the specious nonsense please.

Some days you just gotta love boards.ie

MrPudding

smacl wrote: »

Some days you just gotta love boards.ie

Yes. That's quite enough facts, let get back to the creationist nonsense.

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes. That's quite enough facts, let get back to the creationist nonsense.

MrP

The 'specious nonsense' in the title of this thread actually refers to Evolution ... and a book written showing up many of the invalidities and logical defects in the Theory of Evolution ... and all its many parts.:)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Specious-Nonsense-John-May/dp/1907179712

... but why let this fact stand in the way of your overwhelming need to have a go at creationism, every time you get your hands on a keyboard? :eek:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by looksee
... you need to quote your sources. Now that particular topic is closed, can we get on with the specious nonsense please.

OK looksee ... as the 'spacious nonsense' refers to evolution and I have been accused of not fully referencing my quotes ... I'll crack off, specially for you ... addressing both points ... with fully referenced quotes on the 'specious nonsense' that is evolution

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on
earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology
assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be
urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of
true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw &
holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian
Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and
Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

“Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural
selection having actually generated evolutionary change in
nature….Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor
less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” Michael
Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler &
Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358.

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest
deceit in the history of science.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The
Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great
con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.
In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N.
Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell
(United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page.

“And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as
we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the
doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the
multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by
evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound
strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred
of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that
macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Wolfgang
Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books,
1988), pp. 5-6. Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by
any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted
into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without
basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely
simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They
have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as
part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

"What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of
the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form
of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of
inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected
in `normal science,' such a dogmatic approach does not appear
healthy." R. Brady, "Dogma and Doubt," Biological Journal of the
Linnean Society, 17:79, 96 (1982)

looksee

Mod: You were asked to get back on topic, whether the specious nonsense refers to Evolution or Creationism is irrelevant. Your quoted references are also not especially relevant to the current conversation, the argument was about your unreferenced quote some pages back. Please do not comment on thread about mod actions, pm if necessary.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

The 'specious nonsense' in the title of this thread actually refers to Evolution ... and a book written showing up many of the invalidities and logical defects in the Theory of Evolution ... and all its many parts.:)

It hasn't been about that book for a very very long time.



What ever happened to the book and the author? Anyone ever follow it up?

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

The 'specious nonsense' in the title of this thread actually refers to Evolution ... and a book written showing up many of the invalidities and logical defects in the Theory of Evolution ... and all its many parts.:)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Specious-Nonsense-John-May/dp/1907179712

... but why let this fact stand in the way of your overwhelming need to have a go at creationism, every time you get your hands on a keyboard? :eek:

It refers to a book, yes. A book that is full of nonsense. You think the specious nonsense is in relation to evolution, but that is the irony. It isn't. That particular book has been torn apart and shown to be absolute nonsense.

How about you try to address some of the points that have been raised that you are ignoring? And while you are at it, try to do it without plagerising someone's else's nonsense.

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

It refers to a book, yes. A book that is full of nonsense. You think the specious nonsense is in relation to evolution, but that is the irony. It isn't. That particular book has been torn apart and shown to be absolute nonsense.

I happened to attend the launch of that book in Buswell's Hotel in Dublin some years ago.

On the one hand, I felt genuinely sorry for the deluded man who wrote the book and who happened to be there that evening - I've a faint memory there was a back story of family unhappines with the author and the book, the details of which escape me.

On the plus side, the hotel was filled with the oddest collection of individuals it must ever have seen - not the least of which were the men who almost came to physical blows at one point during floor questions following the launch, and the creationist who attended the launch in a strech limo while dressed up in a gorilla costume and who sauntered in with two ladies, each one wearing a bright pink tee-shirt several sizes too small, and each one laden with the most enormous breasts.

It was quite an evening, I have to say.

PopePalpatine

MrPudding wrote: »

How about you try to address some of the points that have been raised that you are ignoring? And while you are at it, try to do it without plagerising someone's else's nonsense.

Why do that when you can repeat "i kno wot u r but wot am i" ad nauseum?

J C

I've comprehensively addressed Oldrnwisr's post here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103836809&postcount=2634

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

It refers to a book, yes. A book that is full of nonsense. You think the specious nonsense is in relation to evolution, but that is the irony. It isn't. That particular book has been torn apart and shown to be absolute nonsense.

... you claim these things ... but where has the book "been torn apart and shown to be absolute nonsense", as you say?

It's the same with evolution ... ye guys keep saying its well proven ... but ye never tell us why / how it is well proven.

... ye guys actually say little more about evolution, than something like "trust me I'm an Evolutionist ... liar ... liar ... pants on fire".

... and "all Creationism is nonsense ... is nonsense ... is nonsense ... is nonsense.".

... without explaining why you believe either unfounded statement to be true!!!:eek:

J C

robindch wrote: »

... and the creationist who attended the launch in a strech limo while dressed up in a gorilla costume and who sauntered in with two ladies, each one wearing a bright pink tee-shirt several sizes too small, and each one laden with the most enormous breasts.

Let me see ... sexism and ... objectification of women ... Robin ... you really are excelling yourself !!!:(

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Let me see ... sexism and ... objectification of women ... Robin ... you really are excelling yourself !!!:(

He was describing the scene, it was the author and publishers who had these women there dressed like that not robin

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He was describing the scene, it was the author and publishers who had these women there dressed like that not robin

I wasn't there ... so I don't know what went on ... but describing the size of women's breasts, however they were dressed, is objectification IMO.

... or does it depend on who is doing the objectifying ... whether it's deemed to be objectifying or not?

Delirium

So, creationism..... It's a bit mad isn't it, Ted?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

So, creationism..... It's a bit mad isn't it, Ted?

... not as mad as evolutionism, Dougal.:):p

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Let me see ... sexism and ... objectification of women ... Robin ... you really are excelling yourself !!!:(

Don't make me search through you post history to dig out those really creepy posts you occasionally make about your wife.

MrP

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

I've comprehensively addressed Oldrnwisr's post here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103836809&postcount=2634

You have posted a load of nonsense if response to oldrnwisr's post, it you most certainly have not addressed it.

I appreciate that you don't really have a great deal of dignity left, if any at all, it please just admit you lack the ability to address his points, or indeed the points of anyone that posts actual science. That might actually garner you some small modicum of respect.

MrP

looksee

Mod: enough of stalking and objectification of women! Creationism, evolution, big bang, gods, science and beliefs in same, back (more or less) on topic please.

robindch

The opening sentence of "The Origin of Specious Nonsense" goes thusly:

John J May wrote:

To undertake the extirpation of fond fictions from the mind is, I know, irrefragably fraught with explosive consequences. Therefore, I intend to begin as I mean to finish, gently, with simple explanations for complex concepts and hopefully to elevate reason and true science as a magnate to science, purpose and a future with hope.

And so on for perhaps 200 pages of the most joyfully incomprehensible and inconsequential nonsense imaginable.

In places, it reaches the prosodic heights of George Francis Gillette's wonderful exposition of his "spiral universe" and the related "backscrewing theory of gravity" to which Martin Gardner devoted a page or two of his seminal 1957 book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, a short extract of which is here: