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

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

J C wrote: »

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.

You're forgetting all the scientific papers we've provided that show why cfsi is flat out wrong. Dembski isn't wrong because he's a fraud; He's a fraud because he's wrong and lies about it.

Refute those papers. Prove that cfsi is something that should be taken seriously. Do what Dembski himself is totally unable to do.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

You're forgetting all the scientific papers we've provided that show why cfsi is flat out wrong.

Long on claims ... but a bit short on proofs!!

Sarky wrote: »

Dembski isn't wrong because he's a fraud; He's a fraud because he's wrong and lies about it.

Once again, long on claims ... but a bit short on proofs!!

Sarky wrote: »

Refute those papers. Prove that cfsi is something that should be taken seriously. Do what Dembski himself is totally unable to do.

Refuting refutations isn't where its at with CFSI ... its a plain unimpeachable fact that it exists and were it author is known it is always observed to be an intelligent being.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

Dembski's qualifications are not even closely relevant to the field. If he'd gotten a PhD in applied maths or the like, maybe he could claim something about modelling biological systems, but pure mathematics? Not nearly close.

But 'creation science' doesn't seem to think knowledge about biological life is at all important to the origins and development of biological life. Dead giveaway there. Such people have no interest in science, only confirmation bias.

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

The Bible is silent on how the animals were fed ... you guys scoff at how this could be achieved naturally ... and I have given an explaination ... 2/3rds of the Ark space available for the storage of feed, the possibility of some form of hibernation amongst at least some of the animals and juvenile pairs of each Kind greatly reducing feed requirements.

Once again a wonderful display of avoiding the question. The question I originally posed is how were the animals fed once they left the ark. Whatever feed might and I stress might have sustained them for six months, there is a big hole in your global flood notion because it fails to account for feeding the animals after the flood subsided.

Oh, and with regard to your explanation you have still failed to answer my questions about the mechanisms involved. For example, how did Noah manage to store and preserve enough fresh meat for all the carnivores?

J C wrote: »

Genetic information is observed to be complex functional and specified ... which is similar but infinitely more sophisticated to information written in a book.

No JC, it really isn't.

This has been explained to you before. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Not to mention pretty much the contents of every evolution thread you've been involved in.

J C wrote: »

The reason you 'don't really know' how life originated is because you are denying the only plausible mechaism ... which it Direct Divine Creation ... and that is why all other invalid and illogical Hypotheses 'fall on their face' ... and don't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.

I don't deny anything. However you're only going to persuade me by offering evidence and reasoned argument, neither of which you have ever offered in any exchange we have had.

The bigger problem here though is that it is funamentally dishonest to claim to know what nobody possibly can know. We can't even know the range of possible mechanisms which could be responsible for life on earth so for you to claim that divine creation is the only plausible one is dishonest. Par for the course for you really.

Natural Selection is a fact ... but it can only select ... and the proposed mechanism to provide the information from which to select (mutagenesis) is destructive of the complex functional specified information observed to be in genetic information.
So the Evolution Hypotheses is made up of a combination of a genetic information destroying mechanism (Mutagenesis) and a selection mechanism ... to select the degraded information ... which would only result in a downwards spiral from perfection to imperfection (which is what we observe)... and not the other way around ... which would be required if 'pondkind did, in fact, evolve into Mankind'

Mutation is not an information destroying mechanism. It can and has been shown to increase information including any number of improvements to the parent organism.

Your position is based on a false assumption that there existed a set of genetically perfect information before the fall. It is false because a) the existence of such information cannot be demonstrated and b) we know that the fall and in fact the entire Genesis creation account is a fictional tale, borrowed from a number of earlier creation myths but relying most heavily on the Sumerian creation myth.

J C wrote: »

... and all of this change to the English language was produced through the appliance of Human Intelligence ... in a tightly specified and complex manner typical of the intelligent production of all new compex functional specified information.

Jesus, you don't even understand what an analogy is. The language analogy is useful for explaining to Terrlock how mutation and natural selection allow for the basic alphabet of DNA to be recombined in new patterns to create new information. Intelligence is not necessary or relevant in discussing such an analogy.

J C wrote: »

... but even if these new combinations occur ... you have just said that it has been freed from NS ... and thus these new combinations cannot be selected ... and if it isn't freed from from NS ... the intermediate combiantions will be selected against.

I didn't say it had been freed from natural selection, I said it was free from selective pressure. When a gene is duplicated the copy can be mutated without changing the default function of the gene. This means that the copy gene can acquire mutations which can build up into a new function for the organism. If this new function confers a benefit on survivability or attractiveness then this new gene will now be selected for in its own right. Intermediate combinations won't be selected for or against unless they have some impact on the organism.

J C wrote: »

Shannon Information ... is a measure raw data without any measure of its compexity, functionality of specificity ... which are all critical in living systems. A series of random jumbled cyphers contain the same Shannon Information as a series of compex, functional specified codes. In living processes the random jumbled cyphers would be fatal ... while the compex, functional specified codes are the genertic information that codes for living processses.

Shannon information is what Dembski bases his CFSI concept on as well as Kolomogorov complexity. Unfortunately since neither you nor Dembski seem able or willing to understand either of these concepts or use them in their proper sense, your critique of my example above is entirely meaningless.

J C wrote: »

The quantity of Shannon Information has increased ... but the quality of the genetic information has decreased ... and if the mutation to CCG results in a loss of functionality in a critical system it could even be fatal.

Quality, as Sarky points out is a subjective attribute. It is unscientific as it cannot be measured. However, since you can't even define CFSI in quantitative terms, talking about qualitative terms is rather like getting the cart before the horse.

J C wrote: »

The moon dust argument is not considered to be valid by Creation Science.

You might want to explain that to Terrlock

J C wrote: »

... this full scale model of the Ark doesn't seem to be falling apart ... as you have predicted ... so your hypothesis isn't supported by reality.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246247/Dutchman-Johan-Huibers-launches-life-sized-Noahs-Ark-replica-Dordrecht.html

You really do have a talent for avoiding the question JC. I pointed out that a wooden construction vessel cannot possibly withstand the stresses of the kind of waves that would be produced by the kind of tectonic activity you are suggesting. This "replica" ark not only is not a replica in that it uses steel reinforced wooden construction, but has also not been subjected to wave force of any kind. As I pointed out the last time, rogue waves are capable of destroying modern ships far larger than the supposed dimensions of the ark.
Take the MS Munchen for example. Launched in 1972,this vessel was 261m long, 18m high and had a capacity of 46,000 tons. In 1978 a 20m rogue wave, destroyed the ship leaving only a few pieces of scattered wreckage. This vessel was constructed from steel with a yield strength (the point beyond which a material will be plastically deformed) of 230MPa and an ultimate tensile strength (failure strength) of 340MPa. If a 20m wave can destroy a ship with these structural properties then how is a wooden vessel with a tensile strength of just 3.5MPa going to survive multiple waves each of which are orders of magnitude bigger.

J C wrote: »

Christians have never believed in a Flat Earth ... and, like you have said, the fact that the Earth is spherical is easily established by a few simple observations.
We also don't believe in spontaneous generation or perpetual motion machines ... for the same reason ... that it is easily established by a few simple observations that they are impossible ... and the Bible doesn't concern itself unduly with these issues as well.

Oh, I do love the No True Scotsman fallacy. Terrlock has already claimed that the Bible provides foreknowledge of a spherical earth, maybe he didn't get the memo from all the other christians.

J C wrote: »

In an Old Testament community, it would have been regarded as taking something that wasn't yours to take ... if consentual sex occurred between a man and a woman outside of marriage.

However, there is no indication of consent in the verse. The only implication of the verse is rape.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

J C wrote: »

Long on claims ... but a bit short on proofs!!


Once again, long on claims ... but a bit short on proofs!!

You always say this when someone links you to proof that you're wrong. I suppose it's easier than actually looking at the proof that you're wrong. It's hugely dishonest and more than a little cowardly, but we've come to expect that from you in the years you've been running away from proof that you're wrong.

Refuting refutations isn't where its at with CFSI ... its a plain unimpeachable fact that it exists and were it author is known it is always observed to be an intelligent being.

if refutation isn't "where it's at" with cfsi, then it's not science. It's just the vague unsubstantiated claims of a fraud that real scientists have shown conclusively to be bollocks, such as in all the papers we've linked you to but you keep running away from.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Dembski's qualifications are not even closely relevant to the field. If he'd gotten a PhD in applied maths or the like, maybe he could claim something, but pure mathematics? Not nearly close.

He has a Masters Degree in statisitics ... which is an applied maths discipline.
... and what is wrong with pure maths anyway ... it's the queen of pure science!!

Sarky wrote: »

But 'creation science' doesn't seem to think knowledge about biological life is at all important to the origins and development of biological life. Dead giveaway there. Such people have no interest in science, only confirmation bias.

Everybody wants to have their bias confirmed ... but when it isn't confirmed its pretty obvious ... this is the case with 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution ... but you guys seem to prefer to engage in 'name calling' the messenger ... rather than taking the message of the invalidity of 'big picture' evolution on board and confirming or refuting it.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

Oh stop playing the poor victim and refute even one of those papers. Refute even one of the examples of how cfsi is bollocks.

Just stop lying to us. That got old years ago.

Statistics isn't much use on its own in biology without knowledge of biological systems and population behaviors. Pure mathematics is utterly useless in biology without an understanding of biology to show you how to apply it. None of Dembski's qualifications have anything to do with biological science. That means he has no authority on biological science, and it makes his lies very easy to spot.

So how about refusing the scientific papers that prove him, and by extension you) wrong? Still running away from them?

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

J C wrote: »

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!!!

No icebergs but plenty of continents flying around according to you.

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

[-0-] wrote: »

Mathematics is not a science. Again - the man has never written a scientific paper for peer review because he is a complete and utter fraud. He is not a scientist.



Here is one example. In No Free Lunch an attempt to dispense with unknown material mechanisms was known as a "proscriptive generalization", but that term appears nowhere in Dembski's current revision of the book. To me this is a clear case of Dembski feeling the term was an unwise one, suggesting a degree of certainty that he cannot justify. He has not acknowledged any change in his argument. Dembski's frequent unacknowledged changes of terminology do nothing to enhance the clarity of his arguments. He does this purposely.


There is nothing general about saying that CFSI theory is not scientific, that the man has never written a scientific article in his life, ergo he is not a scientist but a fraudster. Those are quite specific arguments. To disagree with this you have to prove how CFSI is scientific. Show me a scientific article he wrote which was peer reviewed. The document Sarky and I linked you to rips CFSI apart and demonstrates how it is NOT in fact scientific.



Really? How about how ID is not a science. I said it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87661124&postcount=1211





<> You cannot be that forgetful.

Here is one: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87662547&postcount=1230
Here is another: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87662469&postcount=1227
Here's another: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87660729&postcount=1205
Here's another: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87660682&postcount=1204
Here's another: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87606095&postcount=759

This post has been completely ignored by you J C. It has instances where I propose several propositions. You asked 'what links'. Well here they are. You were asked to take me up ON EVEN ONE of these propositions, and now you continue to play the victim and put your head in the sand and ignore it.

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I would appreciate it if you didn't try to tell me what my point is. Dembski is, without doubt, a fraudster. My point, however, is that none of his qualifications are particularly relevant to the field of evolutionary biology. Nothing to do with his character.

Whether or not his qualifications are relevant to the field he claims to work in is absolutely relevant to the argument.

As the mathematical proof for the intelligently created nature of CFSI is mathematically based his qualifications are indeed appropriate. However, as CFSI is repeatably observable his qualifications aren't of significance in relation to the validity of CFSI and referring to them disparagingly is ad hominem to his qualities ... when the subject at issue is the veracity of what he (and all of us observe) ... the complex functional specified nature of the genetic information in living things ... which has nothing to do with Dr Dembski's qualifications, excellent though they are.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Lets look at this another way. Assume you have to undergo surgery tomorrow. The person scheduled to operate on you is an expert in the field of quantum mechanics. Undoubtedly a very smart person. However, they have no training whatsoever in surgery. Would you let this person operate on you?

That's a totally seperate operational issue ... where certain skills and knowledge are required, just like you wouldn't ask a surgeon to fix your car, for the same reason.
Howwever, if we are examining some factor in relation to either your surgery or your car ... then the opinion of somebody not qualified in either field (for which the surgeon or the mechanic doesn't have a plausible and effective answer) would have to be taken seriously ... and could not be dismissed by an adhominem such as 'the little housewife doesn't know what she is talking about'.

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

http://i.imgflip.com/5006r.jpg

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

J C wrote: »

As the matematical proof for the intelligently created nature of CFSI is mathematically based his qualifications are indeed appropriate.

It must really sting, then, that he has no mathematical proof that holds up to any level of scrutiny. You'd know this if you hadn't run away from all those papers which point out the mathematical flaws in Dembski's claims.

However, as CFSI is repeatably observable his qualifications aren't of significance in relation to the validity of CFSI and referring to them disparagingly is ad hominem to his qualities ... when the subject at issue is the veracity of what he (and all of us observe) ... the complex functional specified nature of the genetic information in living things ... which has nothing to do with Dr Dembski's qualifications, excellent though they are.

Again with the cluelessness. He hasn't even defined cfsi in a way that would hold up to basic scientific scrutiny. Again, you'd know this if you hadn't run away from all the papers which point this out.

That's a totally seperate operational issue ... where certain skills and knowledge are required, just like you wouldn't ask a surgeon to fix your car, for the same reason.

And yet you rely on someone with no training in biological science to tell you about biological science. Dembski makes some very stupid assumptions that fall apart under basic scrutiny by biologists. Once again, you'd know that if you hadn't run away from all the papers you've been shown.

Howwever, if we are examining some factor in relation to either your surgery or your car ... then the opinion of somebody not qualified in either field (for which the surgeon or the mechanic doesn't have a plausible and effective answer) would have to be taken seriously ... and could not be dismissed by an adhominem such as 'the little housewife doesn't know what she is talking about'.

And this is exactly why it's perfectly valid to say Dembski hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about. He starts with a fundamental misunderstanding of what real scientists say of information theory, and he gets more and more incorrect from there. When anyone has called him on flaws in his claims, he doesn't have anything even close to an effective answer. Indeed, he often resorts to childish insults and threats.

And once again, you would know all of this, had you not run away from the many, many pepers provided to you which explicitly refute everything Dembski claims.

Stop running away for once and refute the papers, J C. Every time you dodge this massive problem with your claims, you make those claims look more and more stupid, and they started off pretty damn stupid.

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Brian Shanahan

Sarky wrote: »

One would be nice. Given the standard of J C's attempts at science, I don't believe he has so much as a diploma in the field. Hell, with the amount of incredibly basic stuff he gets wrong, it's plausible he never even took science in secondary school.

Given his place of origin and lack of intelligence, I wouldn't be suprised if JC is still sitting his 11+ every summer.

Brian Shanahan

Jernal wrote: »

That's the most controversial remark published in this thread so far.

The Imperial Tie-Fighter is right. While mathematics is an essential tool for all scientists, and used in every single discipline (and most published papers), it is not in itself a science.

Brian Shanahan

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

JC you've spent your whole life decrying evolution, but now you are saying it happens. What gives?

May I remind you the use of antibiotics in medicine, and the increasing uselessness of some antibiotics, is totally dependant on and strong evidence for the process of evolution you are currently arguing against.

If there were an intelligently designed process, diseases would not be able to alter their genetic structures significantly and develop antibiotic immunities, because an intelligently designed system (which by necessity would have a plan and direction) wouldn't have such a huge flaw in it.

So by posting specious nonsense, which nevertheless acknowledges the basis of antibiotic medicine, you don't do anything harmful to my position, you bolster it by acknowledging it's reality while destroying your own.

gaynorvader

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

JC you've spent your whole life decrying evolution, but now you are saying it happens. What gives?

It's called "moving the goalposts". When you realise something you were saying was wrong, never admit you were wrong, just pretend you meant something else. In this case J C never meant that all evolution was wrong, just that it can only happen in short periods, not over very long periods and that God made it.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

Pretty much. A classic example is when creationists say something like "If evolution is true there would be transitional fossils between species A and species B!" Then when a palaeontologist shows them a perfect example of a transitional fossil between species A and species B, they say something stupid like "If evolution was true there'd be transitional fossils between species A, species B, and the fossil you just showed me!" Show them the transitional fossils they were demanding, and they'll say it still doesn't count because you need to show transitional fossils between all the originals and them as well. And so on and so on. The more transitional fossils people find, the stupider creationists look, but they think in some perverse way that filling in the gaps is doing the opposite of answering questions.

J C has, of course, engaged in such silliness in the past. He's also asked for such idiocy as a half-crocodile, half-duck to prove evolution. Poor guy. He seems oddly blind to anything that shows him to be wrong. Where a real scientist sees gaps being filled by data, creationists just see an increase in the number of gaps between data, oblivious to the question being slowly answered. Wilful ignorance at its worst.

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

To be fair, he's a big Dembski follower, and I gave an example of Dembski doing the exact same thing. At least JC is consistent in his ignorance/idiocy.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

JC you've spent your whole life decrying evolution, but now you are saying it happens. What gives?

I haven't actually spent my whole life decrying evolution ... indeed for a considerable portion of my life I believed in Molecules to Man Spontaneous Evolution ... missing links ... and 'the whole nine yards'!!!
Then I discovered the concept of CFSI and the fact that it is always a product of intelligent action.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

May I remind you the use of antibiotics in medicine, and the increasing uselessness of some antibiotics, is totally dependant on and strong evidence for the process of evolution you are currently arguing against.

A/B resistance is evidence of NS of pre-existing CFSI in action. If you define 'Evolution' this way then I accept that it occurs.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

If there were an intelligently designed process, diseases would not be able to alter their genetic structures significantly and develop antibiotic immunities, because an intelligently designed system (which by necessity would have a plan and direction) wouldn't have such a huge flaw in it.

The ability of all organisms to adapt to a changing environment via NS is good design ... but after the Fall it has had both good and bad results ... just like everything else after the Fall.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

I am right and you are wrong because...

um...

am...

lets see now..

gotta think of something quick before they find out my lack of answers...

wait I got it...

JEEBUS!

Fixed your post, no need to thank me.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You won't be refuting those papers then?

Nor responding to oldrnwisr's post which showed exactly why J C was talking out of his arse. Very selective when it comes to responding, is our J C. Never goes for the posts which prove he doesn't know what he's talking about.

MrPudding

OMG! Spoiler!

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You won't be refuting those papers then?

Does anyone think he will? If you do you are even more deluded than he obviously is.

MrP

[-0-]

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Not to mention my other propositions....

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

MrPudding wrote: »

Does anyone think he will? If you do you are even more deluded than he obviously is.

MrP

While I do like to hold out a slim hope that J C will eventually learn to back up his claims, or at least apologise for not doing so, mostly I think the challenge is put out there to show everyone that his claims are total rubbish which he simply cannot substantiate, and that he will eventually slink off for a few weeks before chancing his arm again.

Turtwig

MrPudding wrote: »

Does anyone think he will? If you do you are even more deluded than he obviously is.

MrP

To be fair, I recall him making a few attempts to rebuke papers in the Origin of Specious Nonsense and BCP thread.

MrPudding

OMG! Spoiler!

Sarky wrote: »

While I do like to hold out a slim hope that J C will eventually learn to back up his claims, or at least apologise for not doing so, mostly I think the challenge is put out there to show everyone that his claims are total rubbish which he simply cannot substantiate, and that he will eventually slink off for a few weeks before chancing his arm again.

Absolutely. He is clearly a lost cause, but the responses to him increase the knowledge of those that aren't willfully ignorant. Whilst I get frustrated sometimes whith the pointlessness of dealing with him, I understand the utility in comtinuing to do it. PLus, I really enjoy reading the posts, I have learned so much.

MrP