Darwin's theory

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

No ... I asked for the post reference as you claimed that these points were in response to my post 1660 ... and as far as I can recall, they were made by you and refuted by me much earlier.
Please give me the post reference.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

No ... I asked for the post reference as you claimed that these points were in response to my post 1660.
Please give me the post reference.

Or you could just read the post you quoted.7

You're clearly just going to ignore everything I saw now anyway.

J C

Why all this 'shadow boxing' and 'dancing about' ... is it because my post 1660 is irrefutable ... and ID is therefore scientifically validated?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Or you could just read the post you quoted.7

You're clearly just going to ignore everything I saw now anyway.

Please address my post 1660 ... and I certainly won't ignore you.
... just like I haven't ignored you on this thread since and before my post 1660

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Why all this 'shadow boxing' and dancing about ... is it because my post 1660 is irrefutable ... and ID is therefore scientifically validated?

Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

Why all this 'shadow boxing' and dancing about ... is it because my post 1660 is irrefutable ... and ID is therefore scientifically validated?

You only have to look up actual scientists and what they have to say about Dembski and the general consensus on his views, hell even other creationists don't share them, and that must be some sort of achievement :pac:

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

You only have to look up actual scientists and what they have to say about Dembski and the general consensus on his views, hell even other creationists don't share them, and that must be some sort of achievement :pac:

... and yet nobody is able to refute the basis for his ideas in my post 1660.

kingchess

yeah J C,hitch your wagon to some other "expert",since when is ID deserving of equal respect to the science backed theory of Evolution???

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.

On that note we'll all 'sleep on it' ... and this will give ye a chance to refute or accept my post 1660 ...

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... and yet nobody is able to refute the basis for his ideas in my post 1660.

Apart from my post, to name just one, that you ignored because I didn't provide a post number - something you've only started doing since you randomly made it a requirement for others. I could go back and find the post, but since you've made excuses twice now I'm sure you'd just find another one this time.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

On that note we'll all 'sleep on it' ... and this will give ye a chance to refute or accept my post 1660 ...

See my posts 1730 and 1768. I can't wait to see what your excuse is this time

J C

kingchess wrote: »

yeah J C,hitch your wagon to some other "expert",since when is ID deserving of equal respect to the science backed theory of Evolution???

... since the basis for ID has been seen to be irrefutable.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... since the basis for ID has been seen to be irrefutable.

And so we can conclude we were all designed by mighty Odin. Hooray!

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

See my posts 1730 and 1768. I can't wait to see what your excuse is this time

My apologies ... I didn't see your post 1730 and I'll now answer both 1730 and 1768.

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.

Roughly 600,000 entries must be made on average to win a lottery with odds of 600,000 to 1. You could theoretically win with just one number in the lottery ... but this would only happen on average every 600,000 draws, with just one entry ticket in each draw.
Where the combinatorial space of a specific biomolecule is greater than The Universal Probability Bound, this means that the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of such biomolecules is on average, an impossibilty.

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)

The number of elementary particles is the best estimate of modern science and I'll leave you to be the judge of how 'shaky' the foundation for this is.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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.

... but we need 'right' interactions at every point in every living system precisely when and where needed ... and with odds against any of these 'right' interactions occurring at above the Universal Probability Bound ... we run out of luck the first time we try to non-intelligently 'make' a critical chain for a specific biomolecule to 'fit' within an equally specific biochemical pathway within an equally specify living system that must be specifically integrated and co-ordinated with other systems for it to be functional, in the first place.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Roughly 600,000 entries must be made on average to win a lottery with odds of 600,000 to 1. You could theoretically win with just one number in the lottery ... but this would only happen on average every 600,000 draws, with just one entry ticket in each draw.
Where the combinatorial space of a specific biomolecule is greater than The Universal Probability Bound, this means that the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of such biomolecules is on average, an impossibilty.

Well, yes, exactly. But for one person to win it, they could do so by only entering once. Again, you're using the flawed reasoning that the way the universe is now is some kind of perfect state, when it isn't.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And so we can conclude we were all designed by mighty Odin. Hooray!

... or something intelligent, in any event.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Well, yes, exactly. But for one person to win it, they could do so by only entering once. Again, you're using the flawed reasoning that the way the universe is now is some kind of perfect state, when it isn't.

They could do so ... but if they were the only one entering, they could expect to win only once every 600,000 draws on average.

... and if the lottery had odds of 10^150 ... nobody could expect to ever win ... no matter how many entries they had or how many draws that took place.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

... or something intelligent, in any event.

But conveniently for you, the Judeo-Christian God.

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

But conveniently for you, the Judeo-Christian God.

Not necessarily ... we simply don't know who or what this intelligence was/is.
... but we do know that it was an intelligence / intelligences.
... or at least something, with the abilities of an intelligence ... perhaps 'life ... but not as we have known it!!!'

... and on that note ... I'm off to bed ... to 'sleep on it'.:)

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

Not necessarily ... we simply don't who or what this intelligence was/is.
... but we do know that it was an intelligence / intelligences.
... or something else, perhaps, with the abilities of an intelligence ... perhaps 'life ... but not as we have known it!!!'

... and on that note ... I'm off to bed ... to 'sleep on it'.:)

But that's not what you're proposing on this thread at all, that it was all the God you believe in and he knew what he was doing all along and the bible is the literal truth isnt the same thing as "something" intelligent.

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

But that's not what you're proposing on this thread at all, that it was all the God you believe in and he knew what he was doing all along and the bible is the literal truth isnt the same thing as "something" intelligent.

You're absolutely correct. The God bit is my faith position ... science has only progressed far enough to identify that life had an intelligent 'origin' ... the identity of the intelligence(s) or the 'thing(s)' with the abilities of intelligence is scientifically unknown.
... and for the third time I'm definitely off to bed ... good night and sleep tight.:)

obplayer

J C wrote: »

That's my faith position ... science has only progressed far enough to identify that life had an intelligent 'origin' ... the identity of the intelligence(s) or the 'thing(s)' with the abilities of intelligence is scientifically unknown.
... and for the third time I'm definitely off to bed ... good night and sleep tight.:)

And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster caress you to sleep with his Blessed Noodly Appendages.

Chunners

We didn't evolve from apes we evolved from hominids, humans evolved one way and apes evolved another, hominids was our common ancestor, the big difference if you want to really know what was the part that branched off as humans we evolved opposable thumbs, stood upright, our jaw changed so that instead of constantly growing teeth we just grow 2 sets so that we have interlocking jaws and the reason we have interlocking jaws is so our faces aren't long so then when we stand up on our hind legs we aren't a ****ing target for every animal looking for a quick meal. Apes can grow constant teeth, humans can't, we did not evolve from apes, apes and humans evolved from hominids, that "Humans evolved from apes" **** is just another "Lies to children" << google "lies to children"

Chunners

J C wrote: »

My apologies ... I didn't see your post 1730 and I'll now answer both 1730 and 1768.

Roughly 600,000 entries must be made on average to win a lottery with odds of 600,000 to 1. You could theoretically win with just one number in the lottery ... but this would only happen on average every 600,000 draws, with just one entry ticket in each draw.
Where the combinatorial space of a specific biomolecule is greater than The Universal Probability Bound, this means that the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of such biomolecules is on average, an impossibilty.

The number of elementary particles is the best estimate of modern science and I'll leave you to be the judge of how 'shaky' the foundation for this is.


... but we need 'right' interactions at every point in every living system precisely when and where needed ... and with odds against any of these 'right' interactions occurring at above the Universal Probability Bound ... we run out of luck the first time we try to non-intelligently 'make' a critical chain for a specific biomolecule to 'fit' within an equally specific biochemical pathway within an equally specify living system that must be specifically integrated and co-ordinated with other systems for it to be functional, in the first place.

Actually no, have you ever heard of hydrocarbons? I'm guessing not because religious people hate admitting they exist, see if you put hydrogen, carbon and oxygen in a closed system and add some electricity what happens is they bind and become this thing called RNA (Ribonucleic acid) and then if you throw Nitrogen into they mix it becomes DNA all without any outside influence, those four atoms only need to be together and they create DNA, they don't need a god, they don't need anything, life will out, it does not need someone to stir the pot. Your God can't even control me having a dump and you expect us to believe it can control something as complex as life? life is random because no one intelligent enough to create it would sit back then and watch it destroy itself

Squeedily Spooch

Chunners wrote: »

Actually no, have you ever heard of hydrocarbons? I'm guessing not because religious people hate admitting they exist, see if you put hydrogen, carbon and oxygen in a closed system and add some electricity what happens is they bind and become this thing called RNA (Ribonucleic acid) and then if you throw Nitrogen into they mix it becomes DNA all without any outside influence, those four atoms only need to be together and they create DNA, they don't need a god, they don't need anything, life will out, it does not need someone to stir the pot. Your God can't even control me having a dump and you expect us to believe it can control something as complex as life? life is random because no one intelligent enough to create it would sit back then and watch it destroy itself

Or create all these natural laws and physics then break them, but only in a REALLY short timespan. In the middle east. With no eyewitnesses.

floggg

J C wrote: »

... so how did Pondkind supposedly evolve into Mankind then?

... or are you saying that this never happened?

Dust didn't spontaneously convert into Adam ... God did it.

You like to dress up your biblical creation account as "creation science", but tell me how is God doing any of this scientifically possible?

How does God levelling mountains, flooding the earth, creating men from muck etc for within the laws of science and nature.

You say there is proven evidence for it.- where is the evidence (other than the bible) that dust can be turned into a man.

Or that a rib can be turned into a woman.

For any of that to work, you need to accept that God has powers which go beyond what we know to be scientifically possible.

And if that's the case, you cannot call it "science". You've moved into the realm of magic.

nozzferrahhtoo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. So the atheists have 'belief' in science

No, not really. That is a bit like saying you "believe" in the rules of football. It is just not the words to use. Science is just a methodology. A set of rules. Nothing there to "believe" in by any normal usage of the word.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Well, I checked the sums he does in it and they look OK. Also, he has a friend who has a PhD in Caltech so I guess he knows what he is talking about. So Darwinian evolution does look to be wrong. OK, to be pernickity, we can say it looks unlikely in the extreme.

Which mathematics convinced you specifically. Could you reproduce them here and explain how you "checked the sums" exactly? And exactly how it disproves Evolution given the mathematics appear to be a discussion of life arising, and nothing to do with evolution at all?

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yes. But if equally intelligent and educated people are concluding that a book of middle east myths and legends is a basis for conclusions, does that alone not give them some credibility ?

No. Credibility comes from one source only. The Substantiation that is offered to ground the claims being made. That is it.

WHO is making the claims, where they were educated, how many of them there are, what letters they have got after their name, how many claims they made before the current one which were vindicated or falsified, their IQ or lack of it, how much or strongly they personally believe what they are saying, how many people are convinced by what they are saying, what they had for breakfast..... all of this is wholly and entirely and completely irrelevant. Ignore it all.

Again focus on two things and two things only:

1) WHAT they are saying and
2) WHAT basis they offer for saying it.

nozzferrahhtoo

paddy1990 wrote: »

This is because they are unable to be completely objective due to a subjective bias (even though they claim that they are).

Despite you putting the last part of this in bold, I am unaware of any scientists who claim they, or other scientists, are unbiased. Quite the opposite in fact. So the core basis of the point you are trying to explain to me here is thus far entirely wrong.

The whole methodology of science itself, the entire methodology, is built on the assumption that scientists themselves ARE biased. Often highly so. We know too well how scientists can become emotionally attached to a false idea. And the converse is true too, how easily scientists will reject ideas solely because they are emotionally unappealing.

So no, we know damn well that scientISTS are biased. Often heavily so. But ScienCE is not. It is just a methodology and can not be biased at all.

paddy1990 wrote: »

the entire emotional circuitry that you have is a chance product of evolution.

This appears to be the point you keep on making in this post and previous ones. Repeating the point I am afraid is not adding to my understanding of what you think the relevance of the point is.

Yes the evidence thus far wholly points one way: That human consciousness, subjectivity, emotion, language, intelligence are ALL products of incremental evolution. Great. So why is your point of pointing this out over and over exactly? I am not seeing where you are going with this.

paddy1990 wrote: »

This is the foundation of why the blind spot/delusion exists

But there is no blind spot or delusion there. We have acknowledged it and accept it. That is the exact OPPOSITE of blind spots and delusions.

paddy1990 wrote: »

and you can see it in the responses to my posts (i only read two but i imagine there were others along the same lines) who couldn't understand what I was saying.

Well if you can not be bothered reading replies to your posts I am not even sure why you bother making those posts. If you are going to but imagine what the replies are then why even bother?

However I would point out that not agreeing with what you are saying and/or not seeing where you think you are going with what you are saying..... is not the same as people not understanding what you are saying.

I can understand perfectly well everything you have said. I just do not see where you are going with it. Perhaps what you are misconstruing as people failing to understand you therefore, if actually you failing to understand THEM. Actually I get somewhat concerned when the rhetoric of "people just fail to understand my points" features as heavily in peoples posts as it does in yours.

paddy1990 wrote: »

subjectivity would have to be overcome with objectivity

Which is why we have things like the scientific method to dilute to near insignificance the effect of subjectivity in such processes.

Other than _that_ however I am not sure what you think you mean by one "overcoming" the other, or what form you imagine such a process would take.

Delirium

SW wrote: »

sure. You can start by responding to my post containing a link and text explaining why Dembski is wrong.

J C wrote: »

Your post was a rehash of somebody else's views on Dembski.
I'll respond if you respond to my posting.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

J C wrote: »

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.

So by your own rules we can conclude that Dembski is wrong because you have not addressed the link I posted.

floggg

J C wrote: »

Why all this 'shadow boxing' and 'dancing about' ... is it because my post 1660 is irrefutable ... and ID is therefore scientifically validated?

Yes, because a "scientist" like yourself "winning"* an argument on the Internet with persons of unknown scientific qualifications and knowledge is scientific validation.


* victory achieved solely on the basis of the parameters for debate chosen and enforced by victor and through willful refusal to address third party arguments and respect used to refute the third party arguments and research relied upon by the victor.