"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

CiaranMT wrote: »

... and God loves you too!!!:)

J C

NecroSteve wrote: »

Ehhh... how about the entire science of evolutionary biology over the last century and a half?

Evolutionary Biology scientifically studies genetic drift within Kinds - and that is how all of the really useful discoveries, like AB resistance, are made!!!

... the 'millions of years' stories about non-repeatable (and evidentially unsupported) events, like the one about amphibians evolving into Mankind are strictly outside the realm of science - and are faith-based speculation.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

... but the impossible will remain impossible.

You don't know what is impossible. I know what is logical improbable.

Was is not impossible to circumnavigate the world at one point ?

J C wrote: »

... He was a mortal Man ... and an immortal God.

Now that is logical improbable, are you even listening to your own argument ?

The bible was written by men.

J C wrote: »

... and a ball of Phospholipids it would remain without the addition of CFSI via an ultimate input of intelligence.

More of your CFSI poppycock, It has already been hammered into the ground.
The only thing that needs intelligence is you

Information can be gained in nature by way of replication with variation and be maintained by natural selection.

Flavobacterium have been found in ponds around Nylon factories with enzymes capable of digesting Nylon, a synthetic material only developed this century.
A result of both a gene duplication and a frame shift mutation. <--- LOOK A MUTATION THAT DID NOT RESULT IN POLY MONGOLOID CHILDREN !!!!!

J C wrote: »

... I once was an evolutionist too ... and I used to also sigh a lot too !!!!

Good for you

J C wrote: »

... snowflakes do not exhibit CFSI ... although the have complex information within their structures ... it is neither functional nor specified ... and thus doesn't require any input of intelligence to form it.

Here we go with the ambigious use of you CFSI maimi. What do you mean by functional ? What do you mean by the information ? are we talking about the size and dimensions of the shapes ? Because that information would be part of giving the snowflake its overall shape. Which is a function.



Define what you mean by Complex. after all snowflakes chemical are just frozen water molecules, thats rather simple, however structurally they are complex.

Which again brings us around to the use of the term information. What information J.C ? Anything can be information.

CFSI, It could mean anything folks.

J C wrote: »

It's somewhat hotter ... and an all round much more unpleasant place to be !!!;)

What does it matter when it goes on for "eternity"

robindch

J C wrote: »

... the 'millions of years'

Billions of years, JC, billions of years.

If you're going to reject one of the cornerstones of modern science, then do try to reject it accurately.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Billions of years, JC, billions of years.

If you're going to reject one of the cornerstones of modern science, then do try to reject it accurately.

But if I represent the argument accurately it's harder to dismiss!!!!

5uspect

robindch wrote: »

Billions of years, JC, billions of years.

If you're going to reject one of the cornerstones of modern science, then do try to reject it accurately.

Has he ever done that? I doubt he can even give an accurate account of what evolution actually says.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Evolutionary Biology scientifically studies genetic drift within Kinds - and that is how all of the really useful discoveries, like AB resistance, are made!!!

I haven’t been on the other thread for a while; could you do me a favour please? Can you explain, exactly, what a “kind” is? You know, how are kinds defined, an couple of examples of different kinds and what is in them and what isn’t?

MrP

Galvasean

MrPudding wrote: »

I haven’t been on the other thread for a while; could you do me a favour please? Can you explain, exactly, what a “kind” is? You know, how are kinds defined, an couple of examples of different kinds and what is in them and what isn’t?

MrP

The definition of Kinds change all the time (depending on how the argument is phrased).
Robin once made a rather amusing list of 'known kinds'.

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

The definition of Kinds change all the time (depending on how the argument is phrased).
Robin once made a rather amusing list of 'known kinds'.

That was me!

(Link)

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

You don't know what is impossible. I know what is logical improbable.

Was is not impossible to circumnavigate the world at one point ?

It was always possible to circumnavigate the world ...
... as a scientist I know that it is impossible to break the Laws of Thermodynamics ... and therefore perpetual motion machines and Materialistic Evolution are impossibilities!!!!

GO_Bear wrote: »

Information can be gained in nature by way of replication with variation and be maintained by natural selection.

CFSI cannot be produced by random processes like mutation/variation ... and replication merely reproduces existing CFSI.

GO_Bear wrote: »

Flavobacterium have been found in ponds around Nylon factories with enzymes capable of digesting Nylon, a synthetic material only developed this century.
A result of both a gene duplication and a frame shift mutation. <--- LOOK A MUTATION THAT DID NOT RESULT IN POLY MONGOLOID CHILDREN !!!!!

... just part of the genetic diversity infused into bacteria at Creation ... and expressing itself now with the advent of Nylon!!!!

GO_Bear wrote: »

Here we go with the ambigious use of you CFSI maimi. What do you mean by functional ? What do you mean by the information ? are we talking about the size and dimensions of the shapes ? Because that information would be part of giving the snowflake its overall shape. Which is a function.

... functionality is the exhibition of a useful feature that is specific to the entity concerned. Living organisms are bristling with functionality and specificity ... the unique complex shapes of snowflakes exhibit no functionality or specificity ... and they therefore don't exhibit CFSI.

GO_Bear wrote: »

Define what you mean by Complex. after all snowflakes chemical are just frozen water molecules, thats rather simple, however structurally they are complex.

You are correct that great complexity can be achieve through the interaction of simple processes ... snowflakes and fractals are good examples of this phenomenon. However, what sets living organisms apart from fractals and snowflakes is the specific functional nature of biomolecules ... and that is why CFSI cannot arise by non-intelligently directed means ... while fractals and snowflakes can produce an infinity of different complex shapes ... with none of them exhibiting functionality or specificity.
You really do need to attend some lectures on Intelligent Design.

GO_Bear wrote: »

Which again brings us around to the use of the term information. What information J.C ? Anything can be information.

You are correct that anything can be 'information' ... but we are not talking about 'anything' when we find Complex Functional Specified Information ... we are talking about languages in print, voice and DNA ... which all have originated by an ultimate input of Intelligence.

GO_Bear wrote: »

What does it matter when it goes on for "eternity"

If you are in Hell ... eternity is a long, long time!!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Galvasean
The definition of Kinds change all the time (depending on how the argument is phrased).
Robin once made a rather amusing list of 'known kinds'.

The Mad Hatter
That was me!

Great to see such competition amongst Skeptics to present aspects of Creation Science!!!!:D

King Mob

J C wrote: »

It was always possible to circumnavigate the world ...
... as a scientist I know that it is impossible to break the Laws of Thermodynamics ... and therefore perpetual motion machines and Materialistic Evolution are impossibilities!!!!

Oh this will be good.
How exactly does evolution break the laws of thermodynamics JC?
And which law exactly does it break?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Billions of years, JC, billions of years.

... when it comes to the supposed 'transition' from amphibians to man ... it is measured in hundreds of millions of Evolutionist Years ...
Amphibians are believed by Evolutionists to have arisen in the late Devonian period in the Paleozoic Era about 365 million Evolutionist years ago ...
.. and therefore I am correct that it is millions ... and not billions of Evolutionist years.

robindch wrote: »

If you're going to reject one of the cornerstones of modern science, then do try to reject it accurately.

Please try to be accurate ... yourself!!!:eek:

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Oh this will be good.
How exactly does evolution break the laws of thermodynamics JC?
And which law exactly does it break?

Only an ultimate input of intelligence can use external energy to locally decrease entropy.

Entropy increases with the appliance of non-intelligently directed/harnessed energy.

An uncontrolled explosion increases entropy ... while a controlled explosion in, for example, an intelligently designed engine cylinder can be used to intelligently decrease entropy and produce local increases in ordered complexity.

As the person who discovered that an ultimate intelligent input as well as an external energy source are required to locally decrease entropy ... I should get a Nobel Prize ... but I'm not holding my breath!!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Only an ultimate input of intelligence can use external energy to locally decrease entropy.

Entropy increases with the appliance of non-intelligently directed/harnessed energy.

An uncontrolled explosion increases entropy ... while a controlled explosion in, for example, an intelligently designed engine cylinder can be used to intelligently decrease entropy and produce local increases in ordered complexity.

Well we both know that's not how thermodynamics work and why this nonsense doesn't even apply to evolution.

But I am disappoint JC, I was hoping for more of your maths.

J C wrote: »

As the person who discovered that an ultimate intelligent input as well as an external energy source are required to locally decrease entropy ... I should get a Nobel Prize ... but I'm not holding my breath!!!!

Yes you sure did JC, you are very clever indeed....

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Yes you sure did JC, you are very clever indeed....

Thanks King!!!:D

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Thanks King!!!

No you see JC it's "King Mob" you have to say the whole thing.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

No you see JC it's "King Mob" you have to say the whole thing.

I thought we were on 'first name' terms Mr. Mob!!!!:)
... but I will call you King Mob from now on ... if that is what you desire.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I thought we were on 'first name' terms Mr. Mob!!!!:)

It's still "King Mob" and you still have to say the full thing.
otherwise you might run the risk of looking like a total idiot.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

It's still "King Mob" and you still have to say the full thing.
otherwise you might run the risk of looking like a total idiot.

... I have now said the whole thingamy ... so what does that make you look like???

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... I have now said the whole thingamy ... so what does that make you look like???

oooh... you got me.
Your rapier wit is too much for me.

Fluffybums

J C wrote: »

Only an ultimate input of intelligence can use external energy to locally decrease entropy.

Entropy increases with the appliance of non-intelligently directed/harnessed energy.

An uncontrolled explosion increases entropy ... while a controlled explosion in, for example, an intelligently designed engine cylinder can be used to intelligently decrease entropy and produce local increases in ordered complexity.

As the person who discovered that an ultimate intelligent input as well as an external energy source are required to locally decrease entropy ... I should get a Nobel Prize ... but I'm not holding my breath!!!!

Ah bless..............

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Great to see such competition amongst Skeptics to present aspects of Creation Science!!!!:D

as you appear to have missed the question this was referring to I will replay it for you.*

MrPudding wrote: »

I haven’t been on the other thread for a while; could you do me a favour please? Can you explain, exactly, what a “kind” is? You know, how are kinds defined, an couple of examples of different kinds and what is in them and what isn’t?
***
**MrP

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

I haven’t been on the other thread for a while; could you do me a favour please? Can you explain, exactly, what a “kind” is? You know, how are kinds defined, an couple of examples of different kinds and what is in them and what isn’t?

MrP

A Kind or Baramin are all of the descendants of an originally Created Pair.
The definitive test for a Created Kind is the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within a Kind.

Many members of Baramin are also allocated to various Kinds provisionally on the basis of phenotype, even though they don't cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within the particular Kind.

The Dog Barmin approximates to the Canis Genus ... but most members of the Canidae Family are thought to belong to the Dog Kind.

The ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive scientific test for membership of a Created Kind.

We see evidence of very significant speciation (recently and rapidly) within Created Kinds all around us. The Cattle Kind has over 100 different species with different degrees of cross-fertility between them ... ditto the Horse Kind, the Cat Kind, the Camel Kind, etc.

Most of the major speciatiation events appears to have already occurred and speciation is now very limited in its extent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfQAJnF6ST8

5uspect

J C wrote: »

As the person who discovered that an ultimate intelligent input as well as an external energy source are required to locally decrease entropy ... I should get a Nobel Prize ... but I'm not holding my breath!!!!

You'll have to publish your "discovery" in a peer reviewed journal first. I don't think they accept manuscripts written in crayon.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

as a scientist I know that it is impossible to break the Laws of Thermodynamics ... and therefore perpetual motion machines and Materialistic Evolution are impossibilities!!!!

Wrong

J C wrote: »

CFSI cannot be produced by random processes like mutation/variation ... and replication merely reproduces existing CFSI.

Well its a good thing CFSI is bull**** then. However new genetic information can be producded by mutation and variation

J C wrote: »

... just part of the genetic diversity infused into bacteria at Creation ... and expressing itself now with the advent of Nylon!!!!

Wow

J C wrote: »

... functionality is the exhibition of a useful feature that is specific to the entity concerned. Living organisms are bristling with functionality and specificity ... the unique complex shapes of snowflakes exhibit no functionality or specificity ... and they therefore don't exhibit CFSI.

I have already said that the shapes define the macro structure which is a useful function.

Or could you define useful, cause useful could mean anything.

J C wrote: »

You are correct that great complexity can be achieve through the interaction of simple processes ... snowflakes and fractals are good examples of this phenomenon. However, what sets living organisms apart from fractals and snowflakes is the specific functional nature of biomolecules ... and that is why CFSI cannot arise by non-intelligently directed means ... while fractals and snowflakes can produce an infinity of different complex shapes ... with none of them exhibiting functionality or specificity.
You really do need to attend some lectures on Intelligent Design.

You use the term specific functionality alot, still has no context, in terms of biomolecules you say. Is this that stupid arguement about the bacterial flagellum ? cause that has been run so far into the ground.


Why would I attend lectures when I could go to mass ..... it has been deemed a re branding of creationism ... by the courts

J C wrote: »

You are correct that anything can be 'information' ... but we are not talking about 'anything' when we find Complex Functional Specified Information ... we are talking about languages in print, voice and DNA ... which all have originated by an ultimate input of Intelligence.

Anything can be functional, anything can be specific. and any interaction can be complex.
However biomolecules can carry out a range of functions, with varying levels of specificity.

And here we are again at complex, its a rather relative term.... relative to the arguement you are trying to rebute to I suppose

J C wrote: »

If you are in Hell ... eternity is a long, long time!!!!

Eternity is a long, long time!!!!! regardless

J C

5uspect wrote: »

You'll have to publish your "discovery" in a peer reviewed journal first.

Will they accept a peer-reviewed Creation Science paper??

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Will they accept a peer-reviewed Creation Science paper??

Of course they would. But you know, it'd actually have to be full of evidence and logic and other inconvenient things like that.

Why not post it here first and then in the unlikely event actual scientific journal send it back to you saying it's total nonsense, you can show us all this bias science has against you.

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

However new genetic information can be producded by mutation and variation

... which part of mathematically impossible do you not understand??

GO_Bear wrote: »

Wow

... that was my reaction as well, when I first heard that this was the reason that the bacterium could partially digest Nylon.
Isn't God's Creation amazing!!!

GO_Bear wrote: »

I have already said that the shapes define the macro structure which is a useful function.

Or could you define useful, cause useful could mean anything.

It doesn't matter what shape the snowflake is ... so it isn't specified or functional ... but functional biomolecules are observed to exist ... and even small changes to their sequences destroys their functionality ... so they are tightly specified ... and they therefore exhibit CFSI ... while snowflakes or fractals don't.

You need to attend a few tutorials to 'brush up' on ID!!!

GO_Bear wrote: »

You use the term specific functionality alot, still has no context, in terms of biomolecules you say. Is this that stupid arguement about the bacterial flagellum ? cause that has been run so far into the ground.

... every functional biomolecule exhibits tight specificity ... so ID is found in all living processes ... and not just the bacterial flagellum!!!

GO_Bear wrote: »

Why would I attend lectures when I could go to mass ..... it has been deemed a re branding of creationism ... by the courts

One court concluded that it wasn't a materialistic explantion of the origins of life ... which is true ... it is ultimately a supernatural explanation ... but so what ... as it has mathematical proof that it occurred!!!!

GO_Bear wrote: »

Anything can be functional, anything can be specific. and any interaction can be complex.
However biomolecules can carry out a range of functions, with varying levels of specificity.

... only phenomena exhibiting functionality are functional ... and it is observed that functionality is always associated with tight specificity ... and vice versa!!!

GO_Bear wrote: »

Eternity is a long, long time!!!!! regardless

True ... but it will be significantly morer 'uncomfortable' in Hell.
It will literally be hell actually!!!

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Of course they would. But you know, it'd actually have to be full of evidence and logic and other inconvenient things like that.

Why not post it here first and then in the unlikely event actual scientific journal send it back to you saying it's total nonsense, you can show us all this bias science has against you.

It is self-evident that an ultimate intelligent input as well as an external energy source are required to locally decrease entropy ... so I don't think it requires much more than to point out this obvious fact!!!
... and it also seems that I am the first person to discover it.

... who says that all obvious scientific facts have been discovered already???

... it reminds me of the story about one of the directors of the US Patents Office during mid 19th Century who recommended that the office should be 'wound down' because he believed that every useful device that could be invented had been invented!!!!