Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.

1…3940424445…48

Comments

  • #1232
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Nope, you should probably look up the definition of ad homenism.
    There is a neat description of an ad hominem here :-
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

    Quote:-
    "Description of Ad Hominem

    Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    Therefore A's claim is false.

    The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)."


  • #1233
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Think about the irony of this. A fraudster who believes in Intelligent Design, has an autistic son and tries to have him cured by a faith healer. The man must believe god made his son this way, and he tries to defy god by trying to cure the child by a bloody faith healer?

    It's classic. :pac:
    Where is the irony ... except in your mind.
    I see deep sadness for a much loved son who has serious problems. As a Christian, Dr Dembski wouldn't believe that God made his son Autistic ... and there is a long tradition within Christianity going back to Apostolic Times of praying for the sick ... and 'laying hands' on them in blessing.


  • #1234
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Jernal wrote: »
    It (Mathematics) is such a beautiful queen, probably the most beautiful of them all.
    ... as a Mathematician myself (amongst other things) I have to agree ... and Dr Dembski is one of it's Kings!!

    Quote Wiki
    "Dr Dembski studied statistics at the University of Illinois at Chicago ... it was in 1988 at a conference on randomness that Dembski began to believe that there was purpose, order, and design in the universe by the intervention of a god.[6] Remaining in academia, Dembski ultimately completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and masters degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago respectively."

    Dr Dembski is indeed an eminently qualified Mathematician.


  • #1235
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »
    Where is the irony ... except in your mind. I see deep sadness for a much loved son who has serious problems. As a Christian, Dr Dembski wouldn't believe that God made his son Autistic ... and there is a long tradition within Christianity going back to Apostolic Times of prying for the sick ... and 'laying hands' on them in blessing.

    So did your "God" make his son autistic? If so why did he do it? What possible reason could you "God" have for making a child be born autistic, or blind, deaf, deformed, disabled ?


  • #1236
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Mathematics is the "purest" science of all
    purity.png
    ... and the hypothesis that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind using as combination of deep time and selected maistakes' ... is several more degrees to the left of Sociology on the JSFP (the 'Jimoslimos Scale of Field Purity')!!!:D:):eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #1237
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    [-0-] wrote: »
    Do you shave JC? The bible forbids it. Do you wear two different types of fabric? The bible forbids it.

    Do you use antibiotics to cure illnesses JC? It is the application of genetic theory, indirectly, to cure what ails you.


  • #1238
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    So did your "God" make his son autistic? If so why did he do it? What possible reason could you "God" have for making a child be born autistic, or blind, deaf, deformed, disabled ?
    God doesn't do any of these things ... He Created everything perfectly ... the Fall came and introduced death, disease and Human frailty ... and we are living the consequences ever since.


  • #1239
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Do you use antibiotics to cure illnesses JC? It is the application of genetic theory, indirectly, to cure what ails you.
    It's also the application of the products of the diversity of Created Genetic Information to cure what ails you, but only if it's caused by an antibiotic sensitive bacterium, of course!!!:D


  • #1240
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Who's the Hood again?
    J C wrote: »
    ... and the hypothesis that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind using as combination of deep time and selected maistakes' ... is several degrees more to the left of Sociology on the 'Jimoslimos Scale' of 'field purity'!!!:D:)
    Ah J C no! However much I'd like to be recognised in your somewhat dubious claims, I'll have to take a pass. It's not my creation shall we say.

    BTW, the original link for the comic is here
    http://xkcd.com/435/


  • #1241
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,030 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Dembskis claims were rejected because scientists roundly debunked them, that's not an ad hom.

    you need to address the links provided if you want people to consider taking CFSI seriously.

    You also haven't explained how a wooden boat would survive super-tsunamis that would obliterate it.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #1242
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Ah J C no! However much I'd like to be recognised in your somewhat dubious claims, I'll have to take a pass. It's not my creation shall we say.

    BTW, the original link for the comic is here
    http://xkcd.com/435/
    ... I like it ... LOL ... mbeep ... mbeep!!!!:)


  • #1243
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,144 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Ah J C no! However much I'd like to be recognised in your somewhat dubious claims, I'll have to take a pass. It's not my creation shall we say.

    BTW, the original link for the comic is here
    http://xkcd.com/435/

    Infinitely far to the left of this scale, creationism is eating glue and drooling out of one corner of its mouth.


  • #1244
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Dembskis claims were rejected because scientists roundly debunked them, that's not an ad hom.
    This statemtent by you isn't an ad hominem allright ... it's just an unsupported claim.
    Please provide supporting proof for this claim in relation to the existence of CFSI or irreducible complexity, for example.
    koth wrote: »
    you need to address the links provided if you want people to consider taking CFSI seriously.
    What links?
    koth wrote: »
    You also haven't explained how a wooden boat would survive super-tsunamis that would obliterate it.
    Years ago the argument was that you couldn't physically build a wooden boat that big as it would collapse under its own weight ... and when a Dutch Hanydman built it and sailed it up to Utrecht ... the argument has now shifted to whether it is seaworthy in a storm!!!
    The simple answer to your question is that neither of us know whether it would or would not survive ... but speaking as somebody who has visted the Ark in Holland and inspected its enormous tree trunk size superstructure network I'd say it could survive almost anything!!!!:)


  • #1245
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,030 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »
    This statemtent by you isn't an ad hominem allright ... it's just an unsupported claim.
    Please provide supporting proof for this claim in relation to the existence of CFSI or irreducible complexity, for example.
    Give a scientific definition of CFSI and we might be able to have that conversation.
    What links?
    The ones you stated you would not address as this is a personal discussion. :confused:
    Years ago the argument was that you couldn't physically build a wooden boat that big as it would collapse under its own weight ... and when a Dutch Hanydman built it and sailed it up to Utrecht ... the argument has now shifted to whether it is seaworthy in a storm!!!
    The simple answer to your question is that neither of us know whether it would or would not survive ... but speaking as somebody who has visted the Ark in Holland and inspected its enormous tree trunk size superstructure network I'd say it would survive almost anything!!!!:)

    You created the impossible scenario. There is no way the ark could survive the super-tsunmais. If you maintain it could, please explain how it defied the laws of physics.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1246
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    OMG! Spoiler!
    J C wrote: »
    It's also the application of the products of the diversity of Created Genetic Information to cure what ails you, but only if it's caused by an antibiotic sensitive bacterium, of course!!!:D

    This crap again? *sigh*

    Nope. We've tracked the evolution of most antibiotics. We can tell when most of them evolved, such as polyketide synthases which diverge from fatty acid synthesis genes a long time ago. They weren't always there, your god certainly didn't direct their development. There's a research thesis I wrote in the UCC library that deals with the evolution of antibiotics. I have some experience in that area. There's someone from damn near every academic field in this forum J C, and when you pretend you know something clever, they're going to call you on it.

    But we've been through this in the old thread, more than once. You know that. We know that. And yet here you are pretending none of it happened.

    Oh, and as for your whining about ad hominems, it's only an ad hom if we don't also explain why you're wrong. And of course we've done that, if you bothered to read the links we've provided.

    I think it was oldrnwisr put it best, as usual. Ages ago, when you were throwing about actual ad homs yourself while whining that showing you up as clueless was unfair and pretty much Nazism (again), he held your hand gently, walked you through definitions and examples any child would grasp, and finished off with "You're not wrong because you're an idiot; You're wrong and you're an idiot."

    At least I think it was oldrnwisr. Doesn't really matter who said it. Point is, ignoring the substance of an argument so you can clear ad hominem is dishonorable, and shows a gaping hole where your integrity should be.

    Now, you have a fair few scientific papers disproving Dembski's cfsi as misinformed, shoddy vague waffle that gets nearly everything wrong. Are you going to refute them, or carry on pretending the fatal flaws they discuss don't exist yet again?


  • #1247
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Infinitely far to the left of this scale, creationism is eating glue and drooling out of one corner of its mouth.
    Technically speaking, if you travel in a stright line for a distance approaching infinity to the left you will end up somewhere around were Mathematics is on the right.
    http://science.blurtit.com/3641801/if-you-travel-in-a-straight-line-in-space-amp-keep-going-amp-going-amp-going-would-one

    ... I thank you for your compliment ... but I would still grant Mathematics pre-eminence over Creation Science ... just about, mind you ... is a close run thing!!!:):p


  • #1248
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    J C wrote: »
    This statemtent by you isn't an ad hominem allright ... it's just an unsupported claim.
    Please provide supporting proof for this claim in relation to the existence of CFSI or irreducible complexity, for example.

    What links?

    Years ago the argument was that you couldn't physically build a wooden boat that big as it would collapse under its own weight ... and when a Dutch Hanydman built it and sailed it up to Utrecht ... the argument has now shifted to whether it is seaworthy in a storm!!!
    The simple answer to your question is that neither of us know whether it would or would not survive ... but speaking as somebody who has visted the Ark in Holland and inspected its enormous tree trunk size superstructure network I'd say it could survive almost anything!!!!:)

    Funny

    They said pretty much the same thing about the Titanic.


  • #1249
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Give a scientific definition of CFSI and we might be able to have that conversation.
    As somebody has already said, science relies on language and its plain meaning when discussing and defining ideas and hypotheses ... and CFSI means and is defined as Complex Functional Specified Information ... in the normal of plain meaning of the words Complex Functional and Specified.
    koth wrote: »
    The ones you stated you would not address as this is a personal discussion. :confused:
    I was referring to your question about links!!

    koth wrote: »
    You created the impossible scenario. There is no way the ark could survive the super-tsunmais. If you maintain it could, please explain how it defied the laws of physics.
    Tsumamis (super or otherwise) only become problematical when their waves approach land and rise out of the sea. Out in deep ocean they barely make a ripple ... and please do bear in mind that during the Flood, the entire Earth was covered by deep sea!!!:)


  • #1250
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    J C wrote: »
    and please do bear in mind that during the Flood, the entire Earth was covered by deep sea!!!:)

    and yet the trees survived....:confused:


  • #1251
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Funny

    They said pretty much the same thing about the Titanic.
    Quite true ... but then again, there were no icebergs during the flood ... as the seawater was universally warm, with all of the universal tectonic activity that was going on!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #1252
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    and yet the trees survived....:confused:

    Trees can survive 40 days of submersion in salt water according to JC.


  • #1253
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    OMG! Spoiler!
    J C, that's not even close to a definition. Try harder. Much harder.

    Of course, when Dembski failed to supply a definition himself, I won't be holding my breath for you to come up with anything but the same old circular rubbish. Especially when you try to pretend all those papers disposing Dembski's claims dont exist.


  • #1254
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    and please do bear in mind that during the Flood, the entire Earth was covered by deep sea!!!


    Bannasidhe
    and yet the trees survived....:confused:
    The recession phase of the flood started after 40 days ... and flood tolerant trees can survive flooding for up to 2 years ... and the flood-intolerant trees would have survived as seeds aboard the Ark and/or on flotsam.


  • #1255
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    Trees can survive 40 days of submersion in salt water according to JC.
    ... and a lot of water wasn't salty due to the enormous amounts of (feshwater) rain that fell.


  • #1256
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    J C wrote: »
    ... and a lot of water wasn't salty due to the enormous amounts of (feshwater) rain that fell.

    Ah that explains everything!


  • #1257
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    J C, that's not even close to a definition. Try harder. Much harder.

    Of course, when Dembski failed to supply a definition himself, I won't be holding my breath for you to come up with anything but the same old circular rubbish. Especially when you try to pretend all those papers disposing Dembski's claims dont exist.
    I have given the definition in plain English ... what do you want me to do ... provide to you in Esperanto ?


  • #1258
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    OMG! Spoiler!
    Howard Juneau wrote: »
    Ah that explains everything!

    Well, if you ignored all the basic physics. Such as salt water being denser than fresh so trees would still be submerged in it. And the fatal pressures they would be subjected to under all that water. And how trees wouldn't be able to photosynthesise under water seeing as they evolved above it in a fluid that wasn't so impenetrable and refractive, not to mention covered over completely by all the flotsam J C requires for all the animals that weren't in the ark.

    Animals such as salt water fish that can't live in deep water, only they'd die in the fresh water near the surface due to all the magical rainfall. And with them gone, their predators starve. And so on, down the food chain. The whole story is just full of holes that J C can't, won't or is just afraid to look at.


  • #1259
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

    Doctor Jimbob
    Read the last paragraph you posted there JC, its the key.
    Ah I see ... you're arguing that because Dr Dembski is supposed to be a 'fraudster' anything he says about CFSI can be discounted and ignored.

    I'm sorry, but even if (and I don't believe it for a moment) Dr Dembski was a fraudster ... it would still be ad hominem to reject his ideas on CFSI because of this.
    The only situation where a persons character would be of significance would be where they were giving eyewitness testimony of an unrepeatable event.This is not true in the case of CFSI ... as it can be objectively and repeatedly observed - and thus Dr Dembski's character (all be it excellent as it is) doesn't enter into the equation.


  • #1260
    Howard Juneau
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,901 ✭✭✭Howard Juneau


    But....but....but God! Thru him all makey up things are possible. Not unless JC has been fibbing to us!


  • Advertisement
  • #1261
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    OMG! Spoiler!
    J C wrote: »
    I have given the definition in plain English ... what do you want me to do ... provide to you in Esperanto ?

    Try mathematics. Just saying "cfsi is cfsi" is circular, unhelpful and totally dishonest.

    Try harder. Try like a real scientist. A good start would be those papers debunking Dembski's claims. We know you can't, but watching you squirm is amusing.


Advertisement