"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... and you're an expert in the olde arte ... of the red herring!!!!:)

So asking you for the mathematical statement of a hypothesis you think is worthy of a nobel prize is a red herring...

I think you've been telling fibs again JC. Tsk tsk.

robindch

J C wrote: »

The applliance of energy, in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising it, always results in an increase in disorder.

Like, for example, the appliance of sun to carbon dioxide + chlorophyll which produces plants which contain less "entropy" than the CO2 which makes up most of them?

Are you saying that a tree is "intelligent"?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Like, for example, the appliance of sun to carbon dioxide + chlorophyll which produces plants which contain less "entropy" than the CO2 which makes up most of them?

Exactly ... this is one of the many situations where entropy decreases (and order and complexity increases) ... only in the presence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source!!!

robindch wrote: »

Are you saying that a tree is "intelligent"?

... no ... I'm saying that the designer of the tree was intelligent!!

Raw solar energy, on its own will generally increase entropy by degrading materials, causing sunburn, etc.
For example, on the Moon and all other lifeless planets, enropy is never decreased (nor order and complexity increased) by incident Solar radiation ... because there isn't an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising the incident external solar energy !!!

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So asking you for the mathematical statement of a hypothesis you think is worthy of a nobel prize is a red herring...

I think you've been telling fibs again JC. Tsk tsk.

It is a 'red herring' because there isn't a Nobel Prize in Mathematics!!!!:)

King Mob

J C wrote: »

It is a 'red herring' because there isn't a Nobel Prize in Mathematics!!!!:)

But there is one in physics. And as a scientist you know that thermodynamics is a branch of physics.
And physics relies on math.

So what did you think you were going to get a Nobel Prize in?

Still waiting for that mathematical statement. I understand if you're having trouble finding the notes, what with the piles of unpublished papers you have.

Pygmalion

King Mob wrote: »

Still waiting for that mathematical statement.

Accepted mathematical or scientific notation is clearly just a way for the evolutionist "scientists" to obscure the obvious conclusions about the world with demand for evidence and potential for disproof.

J C

Pygmalion wrote: »

Accepted mathematical or scientific notation is clearly just a way for the evolutionist "scientists" to obscure the obvious conclusions about the world with demand for evidence and potential for disproof.

There are many things that don't demand (or indeed lend themselves) to mathematical proof. For example, the hypothesis (and Biological Law) that all living organisms arise from pre-existing life is proven by observation ... and not by maths.
Ditto for the hypothesis (and provisional Law) that decreases in entropy (and increases in order and complexity) ... are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source.

Why are you guys running away from observed reality ... into some kind of irrelevant mathematical corner where you will confuse yourselves ... and everybody else??

... oh ... I see ... when observed reality is causing problems for your worldview ... I suppose your only hope is to try and confuse yourself and everybody else by introducing maths ... where it isn't needed!!!!:eek:

King Mob

J C wrote: »

There are many things that don't demand (or indeed lend themselves) to mathematical proof. For example, the hypothesis (and Biological Law) that all living organisms arise from pre-existing life is proven by observation ... and not by maths.
Ditto for the hypothesis (and provisional Law) that decreases in entropy (and increases in order and complexity) ... are never observed in the absence of an intelligently designed system of harnessing and utilising an external energy source.

Why are you guys running away from observed reality ... into some kind of irrelevant mathematical corner where you will confuse yourselves ... and everybody else??

... oh ... I see ... when observed reality is causing problems for your worldview ... I suppose your only hope is to try and confuse yourself and everybody else by introducing maths ... where it isn't needed!!!!:eek:

But entropy is a mathematical concept. When you make a hypothesis that directly involves entropy you need the math.

So why are you avoiding the subject? I mean it can't possibly be that you're talking out of your ass.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

But entropy is a mathematical concept. When you make a hypothesis that directly involves entropy you need the math.

My hypothesis is based on observation ... so there is no need to involve maths ... unless you don't believe what your eyes are seeing?

... isn't it strange that you guys pride yourselves on your supposed 'rationality' ... and your belief that what can be observed is all there is ... and yet you 'run away' from the observation in my hypothesis!!!

... equally, when I use maths, where it can be appropriately used, to measure the probability of getting the specific AA sequence for a specific functional protein in a particular space and time, you 'run away' shouting that maths cannot be used to prove this ... when it obviously can ... only you don't like the answer!!!:eek:

King Mob wrote: »

So why are you avoiding the subject? I mean it can't possibly be that you're talking out of your ass.

Sounds like a perfect description of your predicament on this issue!!!:eek:

equivariant

J C wrote: »

My hypothesis is based on observation ... so there is no need to involve maths ... unless you don't believe what your eyes are seeing?

How can your "hypothesis" be based on observation when you clearly have no idea what it is that you are claiming to observe? Just to be crystal J C, you do not know the precise meaning of the word entropy. I don't care how many pop science books/wikipedia pages you care to quote/link. Entropy has a precise meaning, of which you are completely ignorant, so your supposed hypothesis is (like most of your other ramblings) utter gobbledygook

You also seem to be unaware of the meaning of the word "hypothesis" - but that is a separate issue.

NecroSteve

OK, I've got a question for J_C and other such god-nuts. Let's say the world is about 4,000 years old or whatever arbitrary term ye come up with from biblical genealogy, and all living things on Earth WERE created as they are today. Do you think that future evolution is impossible? And if so, why?

By the way, I don't mean the stuff you can't wrap your head around (birds from reptiles, etc.), just stuff like the division and changing of species which is observable over less than the course of a human lifespan.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

My hypothesis is based on observation ... so there is no need to involve maths ... unless you don't believe what your eyes are seeing?

... isn't it strange that you guys pride yourselves on your supposed 'rationality' ... and your belief that what can be observed is all there is ... and yet you 'run away' from the observation in my hypothesis!!!

... equally, when I use maths, where it can be appropriately used, to measure the probability of getting the specific AA sequence for a specific functional protein in a particular space and time, you 'run away' shouting that maths cannot be used to prove this ... when it obviously can ... only you don't like the answer!!!:eek:

Sounds like a perfect description of your predicament on this issue!!!:eek:

This is just you playing around right JC?
Cause being a scientist and all you'd understand that entropy is a mathematical concept right?

Why are you pretending to be an idiot who doesn't understand basic physics?

J C

NecroSteve wrote: »

OK, I've got a question for J_C ... gratuituous insult removed ...
Let's say the world is about 4,000 years old or whatever arbitrary term ye come up with from biblical genealogy, and all living things on Earth WERE created as they are today. Do you think that future evolution is impossible? And if so, why?

By the way, I don't mean the stuff you can't wrap your head around (birds from reptiles, etc.), just stuff like the division and changing of species which is observable over less than the course of a human lifespan.

All organisms were created with considerable genetic diversity potential ... so the combination of isolation, selection and recombination will produce enormous diversity up to and including speciation within Kinds.

clever_name

J C wrote: »

All organisms were created with considerable genetic diversity potential ... so the combination of isolation, selection and recombination will produce enormous diversity up to and including speciation within Kinds.

And these organisms were created intelligently? (by the creator?)

Would this explain say the many different breeds of dog, they were created intelligently with "genetic diversity potential" and have mixed over time?

J C

clever_name wrote: »

And these organisms were created intelligently? (by the creator?)

Would this explain say the many different breeds of dog, they were created intelligently with "genetic diversity potential" and have mixed over time?

... the entire Dog Kind is descended from the members of the original members of the Dog Kind that were Directly Created.

I am indebted to Creationwiki for the folowing explanation:-
The created kind is based upon an idea that organisms were created with the innate ability to vary a great deal, and evolutionary processes are merely the means by which that innate ability to vary is expressed.

The creation phylogenetic tree is similar in form and function to the evolutionary tree, but bears two important differences.

First, while the evolutionary tree traces life back to a single cell or population of single-celled organisms, the creation biology tree traces life back to a number of unrelated populations of life-forms which roughly resembled the forms of life today.
Second, while the evolutionary tree credits evolutionary change to an increase in genetic diversity from simpler to more complex organisms, the creation biology tree credits change in expressed genetics to the rearrangement and expression of genetic variation that was "built in" to the original kinds;
Creationists assert that organisms were designed with a molecular machinery capable of editing genes, adding new alleles to the population, which generates diversity. It is generally agreed upon that natural selection, reproductive isolation (speciation), and genetic drift are effective in leading to the formation of populations that are highly adapted to their environment. Speciation and genetic drift is believed to have occurred at high frequencies during the dispersion immediately after the global flood.

The population on board the ark is believed to have been a hybrid population containing the genetic characteristics of all the races. When the population spread over the Earth after the flood, gene pools became isolated and began to adapt differentially to the regions into which they settled. For example, skin color became lightened by natural selection, so that northern populations developed lighter skin in order to produce vitamin D in more sun-deprived areas, while equatorial populations developed darker skin to protect them from the harmful effects of the sun. As a result of the population isolation, the racial characteristics became "set" in the respective populations, resulting in the characteristic races observable today.

clever_name

J C wrote: »

... the entire Dog Kind is descended from the members of the original members of the Dog Kind that were Directly Created.

Lets stick with something easier first, if dogs were created intelligently with the ability of mixing, why do some fall victim to genetic mismatches that produce problems?, diabetes & arthritis for example.

That seems particularly unintelligent to me however I'm sure you have an answer that will make sense to you.

J C wrote: »

The population on board the ark is believed to have been a hybrid population containing the genetic characteristics of all the races. When the population spread over the Earth after the flood, gene pools became isolated and began to adapt differentially to the regions into which they settled.

Sounds a bit like survival of the fittest... careful now.

J C wrote: »

As a result of the population isolation, the racial characteristics became "set" in the respective populations, resulting in the characteristic races observable today.

When exactly did people "set" and stop (best not say evolving for fear of derailment) lets say when did people stop "adapting differentially"?

Why cant people in Australia adapt to have their genes edited to prevent sun cancer?

Why cant we add some "new alleles to the population" that would prevent sickle-cell anaemia ?

It is so unfair that humans are now locked into our races and "set".

Why would an creator with intelligence design something with so many flaws?

I'm going to take a guess at the answer being along the lines of all the good stuff is from the creator and the bad stuff is a result of people.

Turtwig

clever_name wrote: »

.

If dogs were created intelligently with the ability of mixing, why do some fall victim to genetic mismatches that produce problems?, diabetes & arthritis for example

The fall.

Why cant people in Australia adapt to have their genes edited to prevent sun cancer?

The fall.

Why would an creator with intelligence design something with so many flaws?

We fell from His grace - the fall.

Why cant we add some "new alleles to the population" that would prevent sickle-cell anaemia ?

The fall.

I'm going to take a guess at the answer being along the lines of all the good stuff is from the creator and the bad stuff is a result of people.

Precisely.

robindch

God did it™

NecroSteve

This is beyond ludicrous. I'm beginning to think that someone profits somehow from such absurd beliefs as creationism, and that vested interest in it is why it for some reason isn't dead with most of the rest of those ancient desert superstitions. Anyone want to help me get to the bottom of this?

robindch

NecroSteve wrote: »

Anyone want to help me get to the bottom of this?

Creationism is popular because it allows people to think what they want to think about themselves and their place in the world.

As Andy Thompson (and Wicknight ) point out, if you can understand the psychology of the big mac, you can get a handle on why creationism and religion in general are so pervasive and popular.

It's more complicated than that, of course, but in a nutshell, that's it.

NecroSteve

Monty Burnz

J C wrote: »

There are many things that don't demand (or indeed lend themselves) to mathematical proof. For example, the hypothesis (and Biological Law) that all living organisms arise from pre-existing life is proven by observation

So who is god's dad? Or is god not alive?

Oh dear, I think your hypothesis has already fallen down if god exists.

Monty Burnz

J C wrote: »

All organisms were created with considerable genetic diversity potential ... so the combination of isolation, selection and recombination will produce enormous diversity up to and including speciation within Kinds.

Why did god bother with that? It seems to me he would either

a) create all life as finished objects with no need of, or point in, future speciation
b) start things off at a microbial level with the potential for evolution that we see in the real-world evidence, and let things develop from there.

Instead, you claim he started us off from point a. with the potential (more or less) required for point b. - how odd.

I'm sure there is a simpler explanation for this latest apparent mystery...

darjeeling

creationwiki.org wrote:

[other creationists] assert* that organisms were designed with a molecular machinery capable of editing genes, adding new alleles to the population, which generates diversity. (link)

If that's what creationists are beginning to say, then it's a big change from their previous position that novel genetic information could never evolve without direct intervention by some intelligent agent - a view still proclaimed by many, including JC on and off (but then we all know JC by now).

* 'assert' is the word. Never mind actually doing any experiments.

J C

robindch wrote: »

God did it™

Hallelujah ... can I quote you on that Robin?;)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

The fall.


The fall.


We fell from His grace - the fall.



The fall.


Precisely.

... are you having a bad hair day ... or something???

... while the Fall accounts for all of the bad things in the World ... there are still many amazing and good things here also ... directly as a result of God's Creation.

J C

clever_name wrote: »

Lets stick with something easier first, if dogs were created intelligently with the ability of mixing, why do some fall victim to genetic mismatches that produce problems?, diabetes & arthritis for example.
That seems particularly unintelligent to me however I'm sure you have an answer that will make sense to you.

... this is due to an accumulated mutation load combined with inbreeding exposure of recessive alleles.

clever_name wrote: »

Sounds a bit like survival of the fittest... careful now.

... it is survival of the fittest ... but then this is a bit of a circular concept ... because only thee 'fittest' survive and anything that survives is 'fittest' ... and it is therefore a somewhat useless and meaningless idea!!!

clever_name wrote: »

When exactly did people "set" and stop (best not say evolving for fear of derailment) lets say when did people stop "adapting differentially"?

Why cant people in Australia adapt to have their genes edited to prevent sun cancer?

Why cant we add some "new alleles to the population" that would prevent sickle-cell anaemia ?

... because selection eliminates genetic diversity. For example, the reason that a pedigree animal produces effectively identical offspring is because the high selection pressure used to produce pedigree animals practically eliminates all genetic diversity within the pedigree population.
... and the reason that Caucasian Australians have a problem with skin cancer ... is because they have lost the genetic diversity to produce significant quantities of the sunlight protectant melanin in their skins.

clever_name wrote: »

It is so unfair that humans are now locked into our races and "set".

Why would an creator with intelligence design something with so many flaws?

I'm going to take a guess at the answer being along the lines of all the good stuff is from the creator and the bad stuff is a result of people.

You guessed correctly!!!!

J C

darjeeling wrote: »

If that's what creationists are beginning to say, then it's a big change from their previous position that novel genetic information could never evolve without direct intervention by some intelligent agent - a view still proclaimed by many, including JC on and off (but then we all know JC by now).

Creation Scientists say that Materialistic processes alone cannot produce novel genetic information ... but intelligently designed systems can do so.

Marcus.Aurelius

May have already been posted, but meh.

robindch

J C wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

God did it™

Hallelujah ... can I quote you on that Robin?

No -- a bit like Jonathan Well's pretentious, but ultimately very silly, Ten Questions -- the intellectual property on that is protected and you're not free to use it :P