"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky

It would be more accurate to say his maths is wrong. Actual mathematics used by people who know what they're talking about goes a long way to supporting evolution.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

He may be right ... or he may be wrong about CFSI ... but he is not a liar.
You guys claim to be open-minded ... and to go where the evidence leads.
... yet when presented with new evidence and new scientific concepts, with considerable explanatory power ... ye gang up on the person presenting the information ... and spend most of your energies trying to discredit the messengers ... rather than logically and politely discussing the evidence and the science.

So show me where he provided the robust definition of cfsi he claimed to have from day one, but has so far inexplicably failed to provide. If you can't, then I guess he was lying about it all this time.

J C

koth wrote: »

and yet here mankind is. guess the maths is wrong.

... the maths is correct ... its maths after all ... so the theory that non-intelligently directed processes produced Mankind (or any other life-form) is what is wrong.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... the maths is correct ... its maths after all ... so the theory that non-intelligently directed processes produced Mankind (or any other life-form) is what is wrong.

that's a shockingly bad statement for someone who claims to have a high level of education to make.

by the farcial reasoning, 2+2=5:rolleyes:

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

... the maths is correct ... its maths after all ... so the theory that non-intelligently directed processes produced Mankind (or any other life-form) is what is wrong.

The math you present is irrelevant.

J C

koth wrote: »

that's a shockingly bad statement for someone who claims to have a high level of education to make.

by the farcial reasoning, 2+2=5:rolleyes:

I meant it in the sense of 2+2=4 ... i.e. the fact that Dr Dembski has correctly done the maths means that he has effectively disproven M2M Evolution ... and thereby debunked the biggest religious movement currently on Earth.

... and that is why you guys can't constrain you emotional oubursts ... because your 'God' ... of Evolution has been found to have feet of clay.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I meant it in the sense of 2+2=4 ... i.e. the fact that Dr Dembski has correctly done the maths means that he has effectively disproven M2M Evolution ... and thereby debunked the biggest religious movement currently on Earth.

evolution hasn't been debunked ergo the maths you presented is wrong.

Sarky

Still waiting for evidence that Dembski wasn't a liar when he said he could provide a rigorous definition of cfsi.

You do have one, don't you? It would be very stupid to bang on about it otherwise.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I meant it in the sense of 2+2=4 ... i.e. the fact that Dr Dembski has correctly done the maths means that he has effectively disproven M2M Evolution ... and thereby debunked the biggest religious movement currently on Earth.

... and that is why you guys can't constrain you emotional oubursts ... because your 'God' ... of Evolution has been found to have feet of clay.

Dembski has done no such thing. Show me one non creationist who supports his work. Just one. From any branch of science.
As people have repeatedly asked you, stop using made up terms like M2M evolution. That sounds like some kind of dodgy boyband. The term is evolution.

You just don't get it do you? We're standing by evolution because there's evidence for it. It's not because we worship it. If a sound theory which contradicted popped up tomorrow which (sound meaning one which can actually be verified) then I don't think anyone would have an issue accepting it. Except you of course becuase you'd probably stick your head in the sand about that one as well along with Dumbski et al.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Still waiting for evidence that Dembski wasn't a liar when he said he could provide a rigorous definition of cfsi.

You do have one, don't you? It would be very stupid to bang on about it otherwise.

Complex Functional Specified Information is :-

Complex-Consisting of multiple integrated components.

Functional-Having a clear purpose, activity and/or meaningful effect.

Specified-Consisting of critical sequences ... which, if changed randomly, reduces or eliminates functionality.

Information-An ordered sequence of symbols/signals that convey instructions or messages.

Any artefact with all of the above characteristics can be said to have CFSI and to be an ultimate product of intelligence.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Dembski has done no such thing. Show me one non creationist who supports his work. Just one. From any branch of science.
As people have repeatedly asked you, stop using made up terms like M2M evolution. That sounds like some kind of dodgy boyband. The term is evolution.

You just don't get it do you? We're standing by evolution because there's evidence for it. It's not because we worship it. If a sound theory which contradicted popped up tomorrow which (sound meaning one which can actually be verified) then I don't think anyone would have an issue accepting it. Except you of course becuase you'd probably stick your head in the sand about that one as well along with Dumbski et al.

Your bias and emotional commitment to Evolutionism is clear for all to see.

Sarky

Not even close to good enough, J C. Where is Dembski's rigorous definition? The one you claim he has, but which he still hasn't revealed? Try again. This time answer the question you were asked.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Complex Functional Specified Information is :-

Complex-Consisting of multiple integrated components.

Functional-Having a clear purpose, activity and/or meaningful effect.

Specified-Consisting of critical sequences ... which, if changed randomly, reduces or eliminates functionality.

Information-An ordered sequence of symbols/signals that convey instructions or messages.

Any artefact with all of the above characteristics can be said to have CFSI and to be an ultimate product of intelligence.

Ah. So you don't have one. Well. This is awkward.

J C wrote: »

Your bias and emotional commitment to Evolutionism science is clear for all to see.

FYP.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ah. So you don't have one. Well. This is awkward.

I've just given you one ... and while its very awkward for Evolutionism ... its 'game set and match' to ID.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I've just given you one ... and while its very awkward for Evolutionism ... its 'game set and match' to ID.:)

No, you've just defined four words. If I define four random words from the dictionary does that mean I get to claim evolution is real, in your eyes?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, you've just defined four words. If I define four random words from the dictionary does that mean I get to claim evolution is real, in your eyes?

My four words prove that M2M Evolution never could happen ... you don't have four (or any number of) words which prove that it could happen:)

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

My four words prove that M2M Evolution never could happen ... you don't have four (or any number of) words which prove that it could happen:)

There is no term called M2M evolution. How many times do I have to say this? How can you disprove a term that doesn't exist? Evolution is all-encompassing. If you don't understand this, then you do not understand evolution. Now stop wasting our time with your nonsense and read a book on evolution.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

My four words prove that M2M Evolution never could happen ... you don't have four (or any number of) words which prove that it could happen:)

No, they really don't. Ignoring for a second you're (again) using a term you've repeatedly been told is nonsense, All you've done at the very most is point out that genetic material is complex functional specified information. This is, as I've said before a ridiculously vauge and simple description. It does not prove a thing. Just because you can't comprehend the fact something so amazing can happen naturally doesn't mean it can't, it just means you don't understand it.

At this stage I'm wondering if you even understand Dembski's arguments to be honest.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

There is no term called M2M evolution. How many times do I have to say this? How can you disprove a term that doesn't exist? Evolution is all-encompassing.

... so can you please define this 'all encompassing' evolution that you speak of.
It sounds like all things to all men ... and ultimately nothing to anybody!!!

dlofnep wrote: »

If you don't understand this, then you do not understand evolution. Now stop wasting our time with your nonsense and read a book on evolution.

I have read many books on evolution ... and found many wonderful stories ... but no evidence for Microbes to Man Evolution.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, they really don't. Ignoring for a second you're (again) using a term you've repeatedly been told is nonsense, All you've done at the very most is point out that genetic material is complex functional specified information. This is, as I've said before a ridiculously vauge and simple description. It does not prove a thing. Just because you can't comprehend the fact something so amazing can happen naturally doesn't mean it can't, it just means you don't understand it.

Could you please enlighten us as to how you think it happened then.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Could you please enlighten us as to how you think it happened then.

I assume you mean how evolution happened?
I think it happened the same way as anyone who's studied the subject without an agenda thinks it happened. As a result of millions of years of genetic mutation, with favourable mutations being retained via natural selection.
This is supported by:
a) The fossil record.
b) Observable micro evolution (which you've admitted is a reality yourself)
c) The absence of a remotely viable alternative
d) The presence of 'useless' features in centain species which would have had a use in the species' ancestors
And many other things people far more intelligent than me could add, I'm sure.


Edit: That video you just added is laughable. Again, I'll provide an easy list.
a) They mock the sentence 'whatever it was', claiming this is unscientific. As opposed to the much more scientific 'god did it?' Anyway, this is referring to abiogenesis, which, as has already been pointed out, is a different argument.
b) The crystals part. Again referring to abiogenesis, but ignoring that for a second.. the scientist he talks to simply says this is ONE hypothesis. He doesn't claim it as a fact. I like the 'crystal ball' bit, ridiculing the 'magic' of the crystal theory. Again, how is 'God did it' A more realistic theory?
c) A ridiculous cartoon is their third point. Really?
d) I was watching that video hoping it would actually discuss evolution. It didn't. Oh well.


Do you seriously think that video makes a good argument?

swiftblade

J C wrote: »

Could you please enlighten us as to how you think it is happening then.

FYP

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I assume you mean how evolution happened?
I think it happened the same way as anyone who's studied the subject without an agenda thinks it happened. As a result of millions of years of genetic mutation, with favourable mutations being retained via natural selection.

Has a single favourable mutation that didn't result from a loss / damage to genetic information ever been observed?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This is supported by:
a) The fossil record.
Which shows no gradual change ... and no change over hundreds of millions of years (so-called 'living fossils')
... but which shows billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down under water all over the Earth ... which is incontrovertible evidence for a worldwide flood and extinction event (for anybody without an agenda).
b) Observable micro evolution (which you've admitted is a reality yourself)
Which is only the juggling, sorting and selection of existing genetic information ... that was infused at Creation..
c) The absence of a remotely viable alternative
Creation by intelligence(s) unknown is the only viable scientific explanation.
d) The presence of 'useless' features in centain species which would have had a use in the species' ancestors
Current functions have been discovered for practically all of these supposed vestigial structures
And many other things people far more intelligent than me could add, I'm sure.
I'm all ears!!!

swiftblade

How about we try to get a few examples of 'modern' evolution. ie. noticeable changes in fauna/flora that has taken place recently? Tbh I think we argued our point enough but, meh, I'm bored.

I recall a research done on earth worms in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. They went from producing asexual to mating with other worms. Apparently it increased protection from radiation, as there was a likelihood of passing on genes that offered better protection.

Sorry don't have any source to hand. On a mobile. Anyone else know what im talking about?

Sarky

We've been over all that J C, many times. You are completely wrong. Stop misrepresenting everything, please.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

... I was watching that video hoping it would actually discuss evolution. It didn't. Oh well.


Do you seriously think that video makes a good argument?

Not a very good argument for Abiogenesis ... I must admit.
... here is a video on evolution ... and its invalidity..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXP_lyRmcE

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

Not a very good argument for Abiogenesis ... I must admit.
... here is a video on evolution ... and its invalidity..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXP_lyRmcE

By 1:40 he has already demonstrated that he does not understand evolution.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Has a single favourable mutation that didn't result from a loss / damage to genetic information ever been observed?

I don't quite get what you're asking here?

Doctor Jimbob

This is supported by:
a) The fossil record.
Which shows no gradual change ... and no change over hundreds of millions of years (so-called 'living fossils')
... but which shows billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down under water all over the Earth ... which is incontrovertible evidence for a worldwide flood and extinction event (for anybody without an agenda).

The fossil record shows a lot of gradual change. Look up tetrapod evolution. I've written an essay on the subject that I'll upload once I find it.
Bringing up 'living fossils' once again shows you have no clue how evolution works, and shows you've never read a book on the topic. Just because a new organism evolves from an old one, it doesn't automatically follow that the old one will disappear. Why would it?

b) Observable micro evolution (which you've admitted is a reality yourself)
Which is only the juggling, sorting and selection of existing genetic information ... that was infused at Creation..

And what would happen if this micro evolution continued over a few hundred million years? Surely some of the species would become so differerentiated from their ancestors that they could be called a new species? Boom. Evolution of species. Grossly simplified but we have to start somewhere.

c) The absence of a remotely viable alternative
Creation by intelligence(s) unknown is the only viable scientific explanation.

Why? Because you say so? I haven't looked into that man's crystal hypothesis. It could be horse**** for all I know. But him being wrong does not make the creator of the video correct. Again, why would it?

d) The presence of 'useless' features in centain species which would have had a use in the species' ancestors
Current functions have been discovered for practically all of these supposed vestigial structures.

Take flightless birds.Why do they still have wings? Funny how much they look like those of other birds which have the ability to fly. It's almost as if they had a common ancestor somewhere down the line. Hmmm...[/quote]

And many other things people far more intelligent than me could add, I'm sure.
I'm all ears!!!

It's not your ears you need to open, it's your mind.

Doctor Jimbob

swiftblade wrote: »

How about we try to get a few examples of 'modern' evolution. ie. noticeable changes in fauna/flora that has taken place recently? Tbh I think we argued our point enough but, meh, I'm bored.

I recall a research done on earth worms in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. They went from producing asexual to mating with other worms. Apparently it increased protection from radiation, as there was a likelihood of passing on genes that offered better protection.

Sorry don't have any source to hand. On a mobile. Anyone else know what im talking about?

Just to debunk J C's probable argument before he can even get it in, radiation is a force of nature, not an intelligent hand.