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

Darwin's theory

1…5657596162…88

Comments

  • #1742
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    It's basically like having a round hole and a square block and using a mallet of ignorance to try make them fit together.
    ... then it should be relatively easy to identify the flaws in my posting...
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1743
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    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.
    I'm also making the claims ... so please make the refutation to my specific posting.


  • #1744
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    I'm also making the claims ... so please make the refutation to my specific posting.

    Fucking lol.


  • #1745
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    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.
    That question only becomes relevant when the basis of ID is refuted or accepted ... please answer my posting and refute or accept it
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1746
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Fucking lol.
    ... and now we have bad language added to all the hand-waving and name calling ... but still no refutation of my posting
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • Advertisement
  • #1747
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    That question only becomes relevant when the basis of ID is refuted or accepted ... please answer my posting and refute or accept it
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    SW posted a link to someone refuting it. I refuted it myself, which you promised to respond to. You haven't. Making the accusations of 'liar' appropriate. I'd also add hypocrite and charlatan to that. I had made the assumption that you were capable of honest, fair debate once other people would allow you the same courtesy, but it's become clear you're incapable of it. Whether you're trolling or genuinely just that brainwashed I have no idea, but honest, rational debate is clearly beyond you.


  • #1748
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    That question only becomes relevant when the basis of ID is refuted or accepted ... please answer my posting and refute or accept it
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    Now you're just proposing a logical fallacy. Even if evolution wasn't correct that wouldn't mean ID was. You're supposed to be a scientist and that's a basic principle. "Accept or repent" does fit in nicely with the tyrannical god you worship though.


    I have a genuine question. If God is so great, and you're truly destined for Heaven regardless in all it's pleasures and paradise...why not just kill yourself? You only need ask for forgiveness and himself upstairs would be fine with it. Hell suicide isnt even in his List Of 10 Things I Don't Like list. Why wait around down here for decades when there's an infinite paradise up there for you?


  • #1749
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    SW posted a link to someone refuting it. I refuted it myself, which you promised to respond to. You haven't. Making the accusations of 'liar' appropriate. I'd also add hypocrite and charlatan to that. I had made the assumption that you were capable of honest, fair debate once other people would allow you the same courtesy, but it's become clear you're incapable of it. Whether you're trolling or genuinely just that brainwashed I have no idea, but honest, rational debate is clearly beyond you.
    More unfounded name calling ... but no answer to my posting ...
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1750
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    More unfounded name calling ... but no answer to my posting ...
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    I did answer it. You're ignoring it.


  • #1751
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    More unfounded name calling ... but no answer to my posting ...

    No they're very founded names. You do have a penchant for the old hypocrisy and trying to pull a fast one despite being called out on it all the time.


  • Advertisement
  • #1752
    kingchess
    Registered Users Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    JC-do you ever say a prayer for Satan??,he is the one sinner that needs all the prayers he can get-hate the sin not the sinner and all that. also what do think of AH??


  • #1753
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    Now you're just proposing a logical fallacy. Even if evolution wasn't correct that wouldn't mean ID was. You're supposed to be a scientist and that's a basic principle. "Accept or repent" does fit in nicely with the tyrannical god you worship though.
    My post presents the basis for the scientific validity of ID ... if it is correct, it invalidates Non-intelligently directed M2M Evolution.
    ... so please tell us what flaws are in my posting, and by extension in ID?

    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    I have a genuine question. If God is so great, and you're truly destined for Heaven regardless in all it's pleasures and paradise...why not just kill yourself? You only need ask for forgiveness and himself upstairs would be fine with it. Hell suicide isnt even in his List Of 10 Things I Don't Like list. Why wait around down here for decades when there's an infinite paradise up there for you?
    Suicide is a very serious issue, and sadly too common in this country ... so I'm not going to dignify this scurrilous posting with a reply.
    Please stop trying to divert the thread away from the core issue ... the validity of ID ... or Darwin's Theory.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1754
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I did answer it. You're ignoring it.
    Please answer my posting point by point.


  • #1755
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    J C wrote: »
    OK 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.
    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 biomolecules working in highly integrate systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.
    SW wrote: »
    Dishonest Dembski: the Universal Probability Bound
    obplayer wrote: »
    His universal probability bound depends on the matter in the Universe generating random sequences until the sequence 'required' is achieved.
    First of all there is no guarantee that the sequence which has produced the life we see is the only one which could produce life. We may well be a product of one of a great number of sequences which could produce some kind of life. "It's life Jim but not as we know it!" Do we know these sequences exist? No, but it makes more sense to look for them than to run like children to your God theory.
    Secondly his calculations depend on the premise that all possible sequences or sub-sequences are equally probable or even possible. There are chemical constraints on which molecules can associate with other molecules, these constraints could reduce the range of possible outcomes enormously. Do we know the details of these constraints? Not yet, but taking such factors into account makes much more sense than childishly using a very simplistic formula to conclude that an unexplained external force did everything.
    SW wrote: »
    here's an excellent dissection of many things JC has been posting for years
    SW wrote: »
    sure. You can start by responding to my post containing a link and text explaining why Dembski is wrong.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Your post is a rehash of dembski's claims. Worded differently, but exactly the same points are being made. If posting someone else's work is fine, refuting said post using someone else's work should also be fine.

    Also at no point in my post did I name call, you even admitted earlier in the threat I debate things fairly. I think you just don't want to address the point and are making excuses.
    5uspect wrote: »
    What percentage of the text in that post is yours and what is copied verbatim from the discredited rantings of Dembski?
    J C wrote: »
    More unfounded name calling ... but no answer to my posting ...
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    You're lying. Remember when you got caught copy pasting stuff from wikipedia into your posts? Remember all the lies you told?


  • #1756
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    No they're very founded names. You do have a penchant for the old hypocrisy and trying to pull a fast one despite being called out on it all the time.
    ... so 'call me' on this posting, if you can.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1757
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    My post presents the basis for the scientific validity of ID ... if it is correct, it invalidates Non-intelligently directed M2M Evolution.
    ... so please tell us what flaws are in my posting, and by extension in ID?


    It's literally been answered a half dozen times now. You're just ignoring it.


  • #1758
    Somecrimesitry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 101 ✭✭Somecrimesitry


    J C wrote: »
    ... so 'call me' on this posting, if you can.

    What's your number?


  • #1759
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    It's literally been answered a half dozen times now. You're just ignoring it.

    There's also the fact that Billy A. Dumbass, like the rest of the creationist rent-a-quotes, has little to no qualifications in the field he likes to spend so much time arguing against.

    It's almost like they can't find anyone who's actually studied biology to a meaningful extent who disagrees with evolution. Can anyone guess why that might be? *Special note for J C - I said biology, not atheism.*


  • #1760
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    It's literally been answered a half dozen times now. You're just ignoring it.
    It hasn't ... OBplayer tried to answer it here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92680492&postcount=1671

    and I answered his posting here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92680702&postcount=1675

    ... and then the trail went cold ... and name calling and diversion took over.

    ... so please answer my posting here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660
    ... or if you want, you could take up where obplayer left off, with my answer here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92680702&postcount=1675


  • #1761
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    There's also the fact that Billy A. Dumbass, like the rest of the creationist rent-a-quotes, has little to no qualifications in the field he likes to spend so much time arguing against.

    It's almost like they can't find anyone who's actually studied biology to a meaningful extent who disagrees with evolution. Can anyone guess why that might be? *Special note for J C - I said biology, not atheism.*
    ... it is you guys who are unable to find any flaws in my posting ... and resorting to name-calling means that ye have no answer.
    ... so where are the people who have 'actually studied biology to a meaningful extent' who can find flaws in my posting?


  • Advertisement
  • #1762
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    ... it is you guys who are unable to find any flaws in my posting ... and resorting to name-calling means that ye have no answer.
    ... so where are the people who have 'actually studied biology to a meaningful extent' who can find flaws in my posting?

    obplayer did, you restated the same points in a slightly different way without really responding to his refuations.

    SW did, you outright ignored it.

    I did, you outright ignored it.


  • #1763
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    There's also the fact that Billy A. Dumbass, like the rest of the creationist rent-a-quotes, has little to no qualifications in the field he likes to spend so much time arguing against.
    ... and if Wiliam Dembski is the 'dumbass' you claim him to be ... what does this make you when you are unable to find flaws in his words on ID in my posting here?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1764
    kingchess
    Registered Users Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    Posters keep pointing out where they have answered you, you keep posting that they have not.anyway Dembski is a moron of the highest order-maybe you should try to hitch your wagon to some other "expert"???


  • #1765
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    obplayer did, you restated the same points in a slightly different way without really responding to his refuations.

    SW did, you outright ignored it.

    I did, you outright ignored it.
    What posting by you on my post 1660 did I ignore?


  • #1766
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    ... and if Wiliam Dembski is the 'dumbass' you claim him to be ... what does this make you when you are unable to find flaws in his words on ID in my posting here?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    I did, and you ignored it. And did you just resort to name calling? Thought you were above that :pac:

    It's also very difficult to refute nonsense. It's kinda like if i bashed my face off the keyboard and asked you to refute my points. Just because you couldn't wouldn't make my point valid.


  • #1767
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    What posting by you on my post 1660 did I ignore?

    The one where I pointed out those claims don't actually refute evolution, since they're stating the number of possible interactions of elementary particles (based on shaky foundations). If it were necessary for a very large number of interactions to occur you might have a point, but it isn't. All that's required is that the right interactions occur. And those 'right' ones are only deemed so because they resulted in life as we know it - other interactions could have occurred that resulted in different life, or no life at all. There's an assumption that the steps leading up to current life are the perfect series of steps, completely flawless - but that's only because of a human egocentric view of the universe.


  • #1768
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kingchess wrote: »
    Posters keep pointing out where they have answered you, you keep posting that they have not.anyway Dembski is a moron of the highest order-maybe you should try to hitch your wagon to some other "expert"???
    Ye guys keep calling Dembski all kinds of disparaging names ... yet ye have failed to disprove his words in my post
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    ... and most of ye have studiously ignored it.

    ... again, if Dembski is the 'moron' you claim him to be ... why can you not identify any flaws in his words and ideas in my post
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1769
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The one where I pointed out those claims don't actually refute evolution, since they're stating the number of possible interactions of elementary particles (based on shaky foundations). If it were necessary for a very large number of interactions to occur you might have a point, but it isn't. All that's required is that the right interactions occur. And those 'right' ones are only deemed so because they resulted in life as we know it - other interactions could have occurred that resulted in different life, or no life at all. There's an assumption that the steps leading up to current life are the perfect series of steps, completely flawless - but that's only because of a human egocentric view of the universe.
    Post number please?


  • #1770
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    Post number please?

    Read the rest of that post you just quoted. I reiterated my points.


  • Advertisement
  • #1771
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I did, and you ignored it. And did you just resort to name calling? Thought you were above that :pac:
    I merely asked a question ... to which the answer is still to be definitively settled.:pac:
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    It's also very difficult to refute nonsense. It's kinda like if i bashed my face off the keyboard and asked you to refute my points. Just because you couldn't wouldn't make my point valid.
    Bashing your face off the keyboard would result in indecipherable words ... my posting is quite clear ... and it is either false ... or its not ... so please point out any flaws in it.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement