Darwin's theory

J C

5uspect wrote: »

What percentage of the text in that post is yours and what is copied verbatim from the discredited rantings of Dembski?

The second half are mine and the first half are Dembski's ... and if they are 'discredited' as you claim ... then you should be able to easily point out the flaws that 'discredit' them.
Why hasn't anybody done so ... rather than engaging in unfounded name calling?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

The second half are mine and the first half are Dembski's ... and if they are 'discredited' as you claim ... then you should be able to easily point out the flaws that 'discredit' them.
Why hasn't anybody done so ... rather than engaging in unfounded name calling?

But they have :pac:

J C

kingchess wrote: »

you do not know how to google?? plenty on google proving what a con-man dembski is:p

... or so you say.
Now please show us where he is a 'con-man' by addressing his words and mine in this posting:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Doctor Jimbob

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Funny how when it suits you you'll ignore arguments and facts but when you want to divert attention away you'll cry foul on other posters. You're actually farcical at this stage, no wonder you won't tell anyone your scientific credentials, they're probably as valid as mine. As in non existent.

He's literally ignoring a post while telling the rest of us to stop ignoring his posts :pac:

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But they have :pac:

Where has anybody addressed my posting?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

The second half are mine and the first half are Dembski's ... and if they are 'discredited' as you claim ... then you should be able to easily point out the flaws that 'discredit' them.
Why hasn't anybody done so ... rather than engaging in unfounded name calling?

Nobody has called you any names, stop being so bloody dishonest. You're the boards equivalent of that one person we all knew growing up who was a blatant liar and would just let their lies spiral out of control to the point where they'd try make everyone else out to be wrong. This just keeps getting funnier and funnier.

kingchess

by the way ,since when is ID considered to be on equal terms with the theory of Evolution?? evolution has science backing it .

Doctor Jimbob

SW wrote: »

Dishonest Dembski: the Universal Probability Bound

J C wrote: »

Where has anybody addressed my posting?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

There.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

Where has anybody addressed my posting?

Google it, type Dembski into Google and the first things that come up are other scientists demolishing his arguments. It's not hard. God didn't magic those opposable digits out of thin air for you to make other people look stuff up on the internet for you.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

He's literally ignoring a post while telling the rest of us to stop ignoring his posts :pac:

I'm asking that my clear post that provides the basis for ID be addressed ... before going any further.

If you have an answer you can stop this thread dead in it's tracks by disproving ID ... and validating M2M Evolution ... and if you don't then Darwin's Theory will be effectively replaced by ID (in regard to M2M Evolution anyway).

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I'm asking that my clear post that provides the basis for ID be addressed ... before going any further.

If you have an answer you can stop this thread dead in it's tracks by disproving ID ... and validating M2M Evolution ... and if you don't then Darwin's Theory will be effectively replaced by ID (in regard to M2M Evolution anyway).

You;ve already shown that you'll just ignore any answer.

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Google it, type Dembski into Google and the first things that come up are other scientists demolishing his arguments. It's not hard. God didn't magic those opposable digits out of thin air for you to make other people look stuff up on the internet for you.

I'm not interested in other peoples hand waving strawman arguments against ID on the internet ... I'm interested in you guys providing me with any flaws that you see in the basis for ID that is summarized in this posting
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

I'm asking that my clear post that provides the basis for ID be addressed ... before going any further.

If you have an answer you can stop this thread dead in it's tracks by disproving ID ... and validating M2M Evolution ... and if you don't then Darwin's Theory will be effectively replaced by ID (in regard to M2M Evolution anyway).

Two posts up^ use your eyes that God created from nothing

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You;ve already shown that you'll just ignore any answer.

Please provide an answer to my posting and I promise I'll respond.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I'm not interested in other peoples hand waving strawman arguments against ID on the internet ... I'm interested in you guys providing me with any flaws that you see in the basis for ID that is summarized in this posting
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

And we're interested in you providing your own points instead of regurgitating Dembski's. As soon as you produce your own critique of evolution, I'll respond to it in kind. If you're going to just post other people's opinions, I don't see how you can criticise us for doing the same.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

I'm not interested in other peoples hand waving strawman arguments against ID on the internet ... I'm interested in you guys providing me with any flaws that you see in the basis for ID that is summarized in this posting

But sure that's all you do? Have you any scientific evidence that YOU have proposed that show Intelligent Design more accurate than Evolution Theory? You're the one claiming to be a scientist.

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Nobody has called you any names, stop being so bloody dishonest. You're the boards equivalent of that one person we all knew growing up who was a blatant liar and would just let their lies spiral out of control to the point where they'd try make everyone else out to be wrong. This just keeps getting funnier and funnier.

One end of your post denies the other ... you claim that nobody is calling me names ... and then you proceed, literally in the next breath, to call me a liar ... while studiously ignoring a posting by me that could prove all that I have claimed for ID to be invalid.
Come on guys ... answer my post and prove ID to be the fraud ye claim it to be.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Please provide an answer to my posting and I promise I'll respond.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Ok. It has nothing to do with evolution. It's an estimate of the possible number of interactions between particles using shaky foundations. It doesn't actually refute evolution in any way. You're assuming that all possible interactions to produce various parts of organisms must have occured in order to produce said parts, when in fact this isn't the case. It's a bit like claiming that if the odds of winning a prize are 600,000 to 1, you'd need to enter the competition 600,000 times to win it.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

One end of your post denies the other ... you claim that nobody is calling me names ... and then you proceed, literally in the next breath, to call me a liar ... while studiously ignoring a posting by me that could prove all that I have claimed for ID to be invalid.
Come on guys ... answer my post an prove ID to be the fraud ye claim it to be.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Calling you a liar when you're lying isn't calling you names, it's stating a truth.

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

But sure that's all you do? Have you any scientific evidence that YOU have proposed that show Intelligent Design more accurate than Evolution Theory? You're the one claiming to be a scientist.

I have given it here in my posting
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

One end of your post denies the other ... you claim that nobody is calling me names ... and then you proceed, literally in the next breath, to call me a liar ... while studiously ignoring a posting by me that could prove all that I have claimed for ID to be invalid.
Come on guys ... answer my post and prove ID to be the fraud ye claim it to be.

Well you have been caught lying in the past so it's an apt description.

If I called you a scientist, now THAT would namecalling. Referring to you as something you are clearly not.

Brian Shanahan

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Funny how when it suits you you'll ignore arguments and facts but when you want to divert attention away you'll cry foul on other posters. You're actually farcical at this stage, no wonder you won't tell anyone your scientific credentials, they're probably as valid as mine. As in non existent.

I beg to differ, your scientific credentials are more valid than JC's. You've read and understood some scientific material, all JC has is "I've read bits of the bible, it is inerrant!!!!!!1111!!!!!1!!!11!!!1oneoneoneoONEONEeleven!!!!!!!"

kingchess

I"m normally not a praying man-but if you are up there please save me, superman;by the great Homer Simson. I am quite certain that dembski could use some dodgy maths to prove that superman is actually not that good at flying.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

I have given it here in my posting

No you're just quoting Dembski. I mean your research.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I have given it here in my posting
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

No, you've given dembski's claims. Do you not see the hypocrisy in asking us to refute those ourselves, when the very claims you have given aren't your own?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Calling you a liar when you're lying isn't calling you names, it's stating a truth.

... and calling me a liar when I'm telling the truth ... makes you the liar ... so lets see which one of us is lying by responding to my proof for ID in this post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, you've given dembski's claims. Do you not see the hypocrisy in asking us to refute those ourselves, when the very claims you have given aren't your own?

The claims are my own and Dembski's ... so please address them or if you don't I'll draw the reasonable conclusion that ID is valid ... and so will every objective reader of this thread.

Squeedily Spooch

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I beg to differ, your scientific credentials are more valid than JC's. You've read and understood some scientific material, all JC has is "I've read bits of the bible, it is inerrant!!!!!!1111!!!!!1!!!11!!!1oneoneoneoONEONEeleven!!!!!!!"

It's basically like having a round hole and a square block and using a mallet of ignorance to try make them fit together.

Doctor Jimbob

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ok. It has nothing to do with evolution. It's an estimate of the possible number of interactions between particles using shaky foundations. It doesn't actually refute evolution in any way. You're assuming that all possible interactions to produce various parts of organisms must have occured in order to produce said parts, when in fact this isn't the case. It's a bit like claiming that if the odds of winning a prize are 600,000 to 1, you'd need to enter the competition 600,000 times to win it.

J C wrote: »

The claims are my own and Dembski's ... so please address them or accept that ID is valid.

I did.

And I still don't understand why you think it's ok to post someone elses claims, but won't accept someone else's refutation.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

The claims are my own and Dembski's ... so please address them or accept that ID is valid.

If Dembski's claims were true then why hasn't ID overtaken Evolution as the primary reason for why we are here being the mass scientific consensus? Even among theists Evolution is held more as a valid answer.