"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

Changeless and timeless, but still mutable? Weird...!

Yes! I knew someone would point this out. 15 points for Robin.
Now for 5 bonus points, can anyone tell me who's argument I paraphrased there?

dlofnep

Malty_T wrote: »

That would require being rational, the debate would be over very quickly!

True - Atheists could construct a better basis for argument for theists, than theists themselves could.

Genghiz Cohen

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes! I knew someone would point this out. 15 points for Robin.
Now for 5 bonus points, can anyone tell me who's argument I paraphrased there?

Ken Ham?

Turtwig

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Ken Ham?

Nope try again.

liamw

Malty_T wrote: »

Nope try again.

William Lane Craig?

Turtwig

liamw wrote: »

William Lane Craig?

5 bonus points for you.:)

Improbable

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71461356&postcount=3845

liamw

The Mad Hatter

liamw wrote: »

"Hello, my name is Kent Hovind"

-Actual quote from Kent Hovind's doctoral thesis.

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

"Hello, my name is Kent Hovind"

Probably not his real name then.

Still, at least his whereabouts are known.

J C

... plenty of 'fun and games' ... but still no evidence that matter can generate CFSI in the absence of applied intelligence.:)

Sarky

J C wrote: »

... plenty of 'fun and games' ... but still no evidence that matter can generate CFSI in the absence of applied intelligence.:)

You're still banging the cfsi drum even after it has been shown several times to be rubbish. Try harder. You're still in laughing stock territory.

Seriously, if you can't provide anything that hasn't already been debunked a hundred times already in this thread alone, then you might just have to reconsider your stance on the subject. Or you could just stick with being a liar and a fraud. I'll be honest, I think we'd find that more amusing, but it'd be healthier for you if you came clean and admitted being wrong about creation science having any validity. Because that's where all the evidence leads to. You may not like it, but that won't stop it being true.

amacachi

Loved a couple of pages ago where JC said our "materialism" stops us from seeing the physical evidence for a creator. Surely it would help us? :pac:

Delirium

I still find it strange that JC dismisses all evidence that has been provided on this thread while failing to provide any evidence for creationism.

amazing that someone can disengage from reality for such a long time.

dlofnep

koth wrote: »

I still find it strange that JC dismisses all evidence that has been provided on this thread while failing to provide any evidence for creationism.

amazing that someone can disengage from reality for such a long time.

I don't find it strange. People of faith are simply incapable of critical thinking when debating this issue.

The Mad Hatter

koth wrote: »

I still find it strange that JC dismisses all evidence that has been provided on this thread while failing to provide any evidence for creationism.

amazing that someone can disengage from reality for such a long time.

Yes, you'd think we'd have learned by now.

MrPudding

Very loosely related, mods please forgive me. Good cause.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/crisis-creationism-in-schools-isn-t-science.html

MrP

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

People of faith are simply incapable of critical thinking when debating this issue.

Speaking of which ... you guys, as people of faith in the absence of God, must suffer from terrible mental contortions ... denying reality ... while simultaneously trying to believe that ye are 'hard headed' materialists!!!
For example, ye look at living creatures and ye see purposeful design of enormous complexity and sophistication right down from the macro-level to the molecular level ... and every level in between ... and ye deny that it is, in fact design ... and ye start saying that it all happened by a series of selected multiple random mistakes ... while gleefully ignoring the fact that useless random mistakes effectively infinitely outnumber the odd 'useful' ones.
Ye also deny that the mega-bits of multiple layers of fully integrated, Complex Specified Functional Information found in the genomes and phenomes of all living organisms is, in fact Complex Specified Functional Information ... and ye deny that it ultimately had an intelligent source ... when CFSI has always been scientifically observed to have an intelligent source.
Do ye ever get tired of living a life of continuous denial of real-world reality??

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

Speaking of which ... you guys, as people of faith in the absence of God must suffer from terrible mental contortions ... denying reality ... while simultaneously trying to believe that ye are 'hard headed' materialists!!!
For example, ye look at living creatures and ye see purposeful design of enormous complexity and sophistication right down from the macro-level to the molecular level ... and every level in between ... and ye deny that it is, in fact design ... and ye start saying that it all happened by a series of selected multiple random mistakes ... while gleefully ignoring the fact that useless random mistakes effectively infinitely outnumber the odd 'useful' ones.
Ye also deny that the mega-bits of multiple layers of fully integrated, Complex Specified Functional Information found in the genomes and phenomes of all living organisms is, in fact Complex Specified Functional Information ... and ye deny that it ultimately had an intelligent source ... when CFSI has always been scientifically observed to have an intelligent source.
Do ye ever get tired of living a life of continuous denial of the real-world reality??

I haven't seen anyone express these opinions anywhere in this thread.

Most people are expressing faith in assertions that can be supported by evidence, and for want of evidence of the existence of some judeo-christian god, refuse to believe in one.

Nobody, except a few creationists posting here, define the idiosyncratic environmental adaptations built up over successive generations of mutation to be the result of design. And the selection is not performed by some entity. Natural selection is about competition to procreate, but there is no 'judge'.

And CSFI has never been scientifically observed, it is a fallacy. It has been invented to retrofit the same old religious arguments to stand up to the continued discoveries of genuine, peer-reviewed science. It fails in doing this.

As a scientist, I am very much up to my knees in 'real-world reality'. What I do is very real, and that is why I am compelled to continue.

J C

amacachi wrote: »

Loved a couple of pages ago where JC said our "materialism" stops us from seeing the physical evidence for a creator. Surely it would help us? :pac:

Ye are not following through on your Materialism ... which should tell ye ... from observation of the physical evidence, that the Complex Functional Specified Information inherent in every living organism indicates that it was intelligently created.
Ye are like somebody standing by a photocopier loudly proclaiming that because the photocopier is capable of producing copies of pages, without any need for an intelligent input ... that the photocopier itself ... and the writing on the paper being copied also didn't need any intelligent input.
Ironically, your need to deny God outweighs your desire to be a materialist ... and that is why you believe that purely materialistic processes can produce artefacts, like living organisms, when there are no known mechanisms to produce the CFSI found in these organisms, other than intelligence.
I freely accept that we cannot scientifically determine who the intelligence was that created life ... but the fact that life was created by (an) intelligence(s) unknown is currently the best avaliable scientifically verifiable hypothesis.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

Ye are not following through on your Materialism ... which should tell ye ... from observation of the physical evidence, that the Complex Functional Specified Information inherent in every living organism indicates that it was intelligently created.
Ye are like somebody standing by a photocopier loudly proclaiming that because the photocopier is capable of producing copies of pages, without any need for an intelligent input ... that the photocopier itself ... and the writing on the paper being copied also didn't need any intelligent input.
Ironically, your need to deny God outweighs your desire to be a materialist ... and that is why you believe that purely materialistic processes can produce artefacts, like living organisms, when there are no known mechanisms to produce the CFSI found in these organisms, other than intelligence.
I freely accept that we cannot scientifically determine who the intelligence was that created life ... but the fact that life was created by (an) intelligence(s) unknown is currently the best avaliable scientifically verifiable hypothesis.

No.....it's nothing like that. At all.

Doc_Savage

J C wrote: »

but the fact that life was created by (an) intelligence(s) unknown is currently the best avaliable scientifically verifiable hypothesis.

please... do tell....

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

As a scientist, I am very much up to my knees in 'real-world reality'. What I do is very real, and that is why I am compelled to continue.

... but your personal religious need to deny God, drives you to deny that functional information is functional information ... and it had an intelligent source ... when all similar functional information is observed to have an intelligent source.

You live in a 'twilight zone' of claiming to be a Materialist while believing that things that are impossible for all known materialistic processes to produce without an intelligent input, could be produced without an intelligent input.

You look at a photocopier and accept that an intelligent input was required to produce its complex specified functionality ... but for reasons of maintaining your faith in Atheism ... you deny that a much greater intelligent input was required to produce the vastly greater complex specified functionality of the person doing the photocopying.

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

No.....it's nothing like that. At all.

... oh, yes it is.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

... but your personal religious need to deny God, drives you to deny that patently functional information is functional information ... and it had an intelligent source ... when all similar functional information is observed to have an intelligent source.

You live in a 'twilight zone' of claiming to be a Materialist while believing that things that are impossible to produce without an intelligent input could be produced without an intelligent input.

You look at a photocopier and accept that an intelligent input was required to produce its complex specified functionality ... but for reasons of maintaining your faith in Atheism ... you deny that a much greater intelligent input was required to produce the vastly greater complex specified functionality of the person doing the photocopying.

I have no religious need to deny god. I have no religious needs at all. I spent enough time navel-gazing when I was younger to be comfortable with what I know about the world now, that I do not need to explain what I do not understand with umbrella excuses such as 'god must have done it'.

I have never claimed to be a materialist, and I am not sure you even know what the term means. You appear to be ill informed, unwilling to learn, and in possession of a means to access Wikipedia. Your long-winded statements often make almost no sense at all, and contain a lot of poor logic of your own misguided design.

This all boils down to you flat out not understanding evolution and natural selection. You simply, repeatedly state that the only way certain patterns of behaviour and physiological functions could possibly arise is through some guy knocking out animals in a magical workshop that exists outside of time and space. And then you state that this is the only logical explanation for life as we know it. I have to hand it to you that it is an interesting way of looking at the world, but it is insanely boring and worn out at this stage.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes, you'd think we'd have learned by now.

You might indeed think that you'd have learned by now that CFSI cannot be generated without an intelligent input ... but, because of your faith in Atheism, it seems that you are in denial of this reality.

EI_Flyboy

But yeah, if God created us in this magical workshop, well, I gotta ask... Who created God...?

Sarky

CFSI hasn't even been defined by the tosser who first claimed it was proof of God. It's rubbish. I could just as easily claim that squoddlewogg is proof that the universe is the dream of a giant sentient bottle of Irn Bru and it would be every bit as valid as CFSI.

Here is a paper that shows up the massive holes in Dembski's cfsi rubbish. There are some challenges in chapter 12. cfsi is absolute bunk until those are addressed properly.

So either solve those challenges or never, ever mention cfsi again.

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

I have no religious need to deny god. I have no religious needs at all. I spent enough time navel-gazing when I was younger to be comfortable with what I know about the world now, that I do not need to explain what I do not understand with umbrella excuses such as 'god must have done it'.

... and instead, you now say that 'God mustn't have done it' ... and therefore it 'did itself' ... despite having no plausible ability to do so!!:)

Mr. Boo wrote: »

I have never claimed to be a materialist, and I am not sure you even know what the term means. You appear to be ill informed, unwilling to learn, and in possession of a means to access Wikipedia. Your long-winded statements often make almost no sense at all, and contain a lot of poor logic of your own misguided design.

I am using the word 'materialist' in the sense of sombody believing that the material world is all there is ... and that virtual phenomena like intelligence had no input in the creation of the Universe or life.

Mr. Boo wrote: »

This all boils down to you flat out not understanding evolution and natural selection. You simply, repeatedly state that the only way certain patterns of behaviour and physiological functions could possibly arise is through some guy knocking out animals in a magical workshop that exists outside of time and space. And then you state that this is the only logical explanation for life as we know it. I have to hand it to you that it is an interesting way of looking at the world, but it is insanely boring and worn out at this stage.

Evolution and NS cannot explain the production of the CFSI present in living organisms ... and Spontaneous Evolution is a latter-day, somewhat more sophisticated, repeat of the Spontaneous Generation of life fallacy, that was commonly accepted in the Middle Ages.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

CFSI hasn't even been defined by the tosser who first claimed it was proof of God. It's rubbish. I could just as easily claim that squoddlewogg is proof that the universe is the dream of a giant sentient bottle of Irn Bru and it would be every bit as valid as CFSI.

Here is a paper that shows up the massive holes in Dembski's cfsi rubbish. There are some challenges in chapter 12. cfsi is absolute bunk until those are addressed properly.

So either solve those challenges or never, ever mention cfsi again.

... so are you denying that Genetic Information is Complex and Functional and Specified and Information?
This is the kind of intellectually defunct situation in which Materialists find themselves, when they don't follow through on the reality which confronts them, ... and they end up denying the plain meaning of the words Complex, Functonal, Specified and Information ... in order to maintain a belief that God doesn't exist.:eek: