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

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…5253555758…334

Comments

  • Options
    #1622
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    The premise of you argument against the proposed mechanism on abiogenesis is incorrect on two fronts:
    1. The mechanism does not propose the formation of anything as complex as a 100 amino acid protein.
    The Evolutionary paradigm not only proposes the formation of simple 100 chain specific functional proteins ... but also their specific combination to form functional cells ... and their specific combination to form functional organs ... and their combination to form functional organisms!!!


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    2. Your mathematical proof is based upon the vast combinatorial space of the universe, and at the risk of repeating myself, the mechanism you are hoping to disprove does not occur in the cast expanse of space but on a planet and specifically in an aqueous environment.
    ... my mathematical proof is measuring the combinatorial space of a small protein ... which is vastly greater than the combinatorial space of the entire Universe ... and therefore it is mathematically impossible for non-intelligently directed processes to produce specific biomolecules on demand ... within the tiny subset of the Universe that are aqueous environments ... and yet this is a requirement, if spontaneous evolution evolved Pondkind to Mankind.


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    Now can you please address these issues with your argument and re-calculate. Telling me to "forget about it with bells on it!!!" is hardly a scientific or logical argument. You ask people to respect your arguments, so please when someone raises a valid problem with that argument at least supply a reasoned, logical reply with evidence. I at least have the experience and qualifications to prove that I can call myself a scientist, as you purport to be (details of your basis for this claim have also gone unanswered). I have had senior, experienced postdocs treat my queries with more respect than you have shown.
    I didn't mean to dismiss your question ... but, for some reason I found it difficult to take somebody who calls themselves 'Fluffybums' seriously!!!:eek:

    In any event, I have answered your questions above in this posting.


  • Options
    #1623
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    JC, I think that most people here would have more respect for you point of view if you simply stated that you believe in the version of the origin of life and species as written in the bible because that is part of your faith and you believe that the bible is true. Where I for one have a problem is that you claim to be a scientist yet your arguments and replies indicate a barely fundamental understanding of biology (I can say about the physics and astronomy as my understanding of these is little more than second level).

    Have the courage to be proud of your faith and admit that that is the basis of your belief in creation as described in Genesis. If you truely are a scientist - evidence?
    I believe the Bible ... but here is the thing ... conventional science and maths also proves that life was Intelligently Designed ... and that is why, as a scientist, I don't just proclaim my faith in the Bible ... and leave it at that.


  • Options
    #1624
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    J C wrote: »
    The Evolutionary paradigm not only proposes the formation of simple 100 chain specific functional proteins ... but also their specific combination to form functional cells ... and their specific combination to form functional organs ... and their combination to form functional organisms!!!
    The evolution is NOTa theory of abiogenesis. I was specifically talking about the mechanism of abiogenesis described and for which the experiments of Dr. J. Szostak provide some support. Please take the time to watch the video (not imbedded one before so hope it works) and I apologise for it being the same one used previously - I love Beethoven and particularly his 9th Symphony. This mechanism does not start with 100 amino acid proteins or anything close.


    ... my mathematical proof is measuring the combinatorial space of a small protein ... which is vastly greater than the combinatorial space of the entire Universe ... and therefore it is mathematically impossible for non-intelligently directed processes to produce specific biomolecules on demand ... within the tiny subset of the Universe that are aqueous environments ... and yet this is a requirement, if spontaneous evolution evolved Pondkind to Mankind.

    Evolution is NOT a spontaneous process, unless you call millions of years spontaneous:confused:, it takes a very long time.

    I didn't mean to dismiss your question ... but, for some reason I found it difficult to take somebody who calls themselves 'Fluffybums' seriously!!!:eek:

    In any event, I have answered your questions above in this posting.



    And I could have taken your name JC to mean that you think your are some kind of Messiah.

    Sorry haven't got the hang of the YouTube embedding yet. Will try again.


  • Options
    #1625
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Still being purposely ignored :D


  • Options
    #1626
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,516 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    J C wrote: »
    ... always the 'hard word' from Robin!!!

    ... when you can't invalidate the work of Creation Scientists ... you just attack them personally.

    ... please stick to attacking Creationist ideas ... and stop attacking them personally ... if you want to have any credibility.

    Are you or are you not an expert in bioinformatics?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1627
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    It is outrageous that evolutionists have to choose their words very carefully lest they be targetted in a 'witch hunt' and their careers destroyed on the mere suspicion that they have ID or 'shock-horror' Creationist sympathies!!!

    It's because lying to children and/or abusing your position of authority
    with respect to educational materials is something morally repugnant to
    evolutionismistisers...


  • Options
    #1628
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    J C wrote: »
    I believe the Bible ... but here is the thing ... conventional science and maths also proves that life was Intelligently Designed ... and that is why, as a scientist, I don't just proclaim my faith in the Bible ... and leave it at that.

    Based on your "scientific" arguments used in this thread you have less than a junior Cert understanding of genetics, phylogeny, biology and biochemistry. As for the maths and physics I myself only have slightly better than second level understanding so I will leave that to others to comment. Your arguments show little or no critical thinking or scientific rigor.

    I have a BSc (Hons) Biochemistry, a research based MSc and have worked as a scientist for 20 years and I think twice about calling myself a scientist. Based on the evidence of this thread you are not even close to being a scientist. The chances of you truly being a scientist are somewhat slimmer than you say the chance are that a 100 amino acid protein formed spontaneously in the vast expanse of the universe.
    If you find this insulting then you should not claim to be something which you demonstrate, with nearly every post, that you are not.

    If I you believe in Genesis as written in the Bible because of your faith - then I respect that.


  • Options
    #1629
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    The Evolutionary paradigm not only proposes the formation of simple 100 chain specific functional proteins ... but also their specific combination to form functional cells ... and their specific combination to form functional organs ... and their combination to form functional organisms!!!

    Fluffybums
    The evolution is NOTa theory of abiogenesis. I was specifically talking about the mechanism of abiogenesis described and for which the experiments of Dr. J. Szostak provide some support. Please take the time to watch the video (not imbedded one before so hope it works) and I apologise for it being the same one used previously - I love Beethoven and particularly his 9th Symphony. This mechanism does not start with 100 amino acid proteins or anything close.
    I was describing the supposed evolution from so-called 'simple primirdial cells' to multicellular organisms above (which is Evolution).
    The point that I was making is that the vast combinatorial spaces that are involved would defeat any non-intelligently directed process in producing the vast amounts of Specified Complexity found in living organisms ... and such a process is what Materialistic Evolution is supposed to be (and it is not Abiogenesis).

    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... my mathematical proof is measuring the combinatorial space of a small protein ... which is vastly greater than the combinatorial space of the entire Universe ... and therefore it is mathematically impossible for non-intelligently directed processes to produce specific biomolecules on demand ... within the tiny subset of the Universe that are aqueous environments ... and yet this is a requirement, if spontaneous evolution evolved Pondkind to Mankind.

    Fluffybums
    Evolution is NOT a spontaneous process, unless you call millions of years spontaneous, it takes a very long time.
    I meant spontaneous in the sense of materialistically determined ... and not rapid.
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    I didn't mean to dismiss your question ... but, for some reason I found it difficult to take somebody who calls themselves 'Fluffybums' seriously!!!

    In any event, I have answered your questions above in this posting


    Fluffybums
    And I could have taken your name JC to mean that you think your are some kind of Messiah.
    I suppose that you could ... but you would be wrong.


  • Options
    #1630
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    J C wrote: »
    I was describing the supposed evolution from so-called 'simple primirdial cells' to multicellular organisms above (which is Evolution).
    The point that I was making is that the vast combinatorial spaces that are involved would defeat any non-intelligently directed process in producing the vast amounts of Specified Complexity found in living organisms ... and such a process is what Materialistic Evolution is supposed to be (and it is not Abiogenesis).
    Hang on a moment that maths bit was about the formation of a 100 amino acid protein from elements in the vast expanse of space, which would I agree be so unlikely that it would not have occurred. However, that is not the proposed mechanism (planet/water yadayada). I don't think you fully understand your own argument.

    I meant spontaneous in the sense of materialistically determined ... and not rapid.

    No.

    I'm assuming you meant primordial cells or was that pyramidal cells - BIG difference.

    I think you need to familiarise yourself with the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.


  • Options
    #1631
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    5uspect wrote: »
    Are you or are you not an expert in bioinformatics?
    My expertise in Bioinformatics is from the ID 'side of the house' ... so, unlike my other areas of scientific expertise, it would not be regarded as a conventional area of expertise by Materialistic Evolutionists.

    Nonetheless, it is cutting edge stuff ... which isn't going down the intellectual 'Cul de Sacs' that some Evolutionists are going down with Bioinformatics.

    Could I just ask you one question ... when you are performing protein expression analysis or whatever area of Bioinformatics that you are engaged in ... do you ever wonder why the stuff you are studying is so incredibly sophisticated and apparently Intelligently and Purposefully Designed ... if it all really is an 'accident of nature'?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1632
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    It's because lying to children and/or abusing your position of authority
    with respect to educational materials is something morally repugnant to
    evolutionismistisers...
    ... such excuses (even if they were valid in the first place, which they are not) wear pretty thin when the discrimination is meted out when educational materials and children aren't involved ... which is the case in the vast majority of such discriminatory acts.


  • Options
    #1633
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    ... such excuses (even if they were valid in the first place, which they are not) wear pretty thin when the discrimination is meted out when educational materials and children aren't involved ... which is the case in the vast majority of such discriminatory acts.

    Look who is the one lying in this thread? You cant even face my questions
    because I have you quoted explicitly lying. I've went to a lot of
    trouble many times in this thread to dig up your contradictions & lies
    because if I didn't you'd get away with it and continue spouting your lies.
    I'm not the only one either, every poster here has questions they've been
    asking for around for at least half a month. You are just another example
    of why creationists get such a bad repuation, not because they are trying
    to bring god in where "he" doesn't belong but because you all lie, swindle
    & try to fool everyone in the name of religion, the end justifies the
    means to you and it's sickening.


  • Options
    #1634
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    Based on your "scientific" arguments used in this thread you have less than a junior Cert understanding of genetics, phylogeny, biology and biochemistry. As for the maths and physics I myself only have slightly better than second level understanding so I will leave that to others to comment. Your arguments show little or no critical thinking or scientific rigor.
    ... I hope that your scientific judgement is better than your erroneous judgement of my academic credentials!!!:(
    Fluffybums wrote: »
    I have a BSc (Hons) Biochemistry, a research based MSc and have worked as a scientist for 20 years and I think twice about calling myself a scientist. Based on the evidence of this thread you are not even close to being a scientist. The chances of you truly being a scientist are somewhat slimmer than you say the chance are that a 100 amino acid protein formed spontaneously in the vast expanse of the universe.
    If you find this insulting then you should not claim to be something which you demonstrate, with nearly every post, that you are not.
    Once again, I only can hope that your scientific judgement is somewhat better that your erroneous judgement of my academic credentials.


  • Options
    #1635
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Look who is the one lying in this thread?
    Is this a confession or something? ... because it certainly doesn't apply to me.


  • Options
    #1636
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Is this a confession or something? ... because it certainly doesn't apply to me.

    You're lying about lying, most likely again.

    [latex] x_{n + 1} \ = x_n \ + C[/latex]

    Where:

    x = lie
    C = constant standing for some new erroneous statement.

    With an algorithm like this it's easy to produce a thread with 1641 replies :D


  • Options
    #1637
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    You're lying about lying, most likely again.

    [latex] x_{n + 1} \ = x_n \ + C[/latex]

    Where:

    x = lie
    C = constant standing for some new erroneous statement.

    With an algorithm like this it's easy to produce a thread with 1641 replies :D
    It seems that the double liar is yourself!!!!

    Is this the best defense of Evolution that you can offer???


  • Options
    #1638
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    I'm surprised you didn't use those mathematical skills to phrase that a
    bit better ;)

    What you mean is:

    [latex] (x_{n + 1})^{-1} \ = \ truth[/latex]

    No, I don't think that works, we don't have any evidence in this thread
    of that yet ;)

    I have a better defense of evolution here in the big post that has
    called you on everything you've been doing thus far (and probably the
    5 or so years you've been on boards)    .


  • Options
    #1639
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    J C wrote: »
    ... I hope that your scientific judgement is better than your erroneous judgement of my academic credentials!!!:(

    Once again, I only can hope that your scientific judgement is somewhat better that your erroneous judgement of my academic credentials.

    What academic credentials and/or scientific experience?


  • Options
    #1640
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    JC wrote:
    ... my mathematical proof is measuring the combinatorial space of a small protein ... which is vastly greater than the combinatorial space of the entire Universe ... and therefore it is mathematically impossible for non-intelligently directed processes to produce specific biomolecules on demand ...

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

    The odds scientists would look at are 1 in 10^40. Not 10^107. This has all been explained to you before.


  • Options
    #1641
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Morbert wrote: »
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

    The odds scientists would look at are 1 in 10^40. Not 10^107. This has all been explained to you before.

    Wow, that article really nails J C's argument, well: First off he absolutely
    has no argument against what we're talking about but the absolutely
    ridiculous things he's said are shown to be just stupid, plain stupid, by this
    article. Second his arguments have all been shown to be false &
    in fact his argument is with that which he accepts - microevolution,
    but this argument should silence this ridiculous talk of a proof he's
    back to hammering on about.

    It's funny how we explained this monomer to polymer situation already
    but he doesn't get it, presumable because it's more sophisticated than
    copy-pasting a creationist argument from some forum & inserting
    incorrect figures from a 10 year old book while claiming truth.

    I think this article need just be continuously quoted to every claim J C
    makes because it'll answer it.
    58087365.png


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1642
    Improbable
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Wow, that article really nails J C's argument, well: First off he absolutely
    has no argument against what we're talking about but the absolutely
    ridiculous things he's said are shown to be just stupid, plain stupid, by this
    article. Second his arguments have all been shown to be false &
    in fact his argument is with that which he accepts - microevolution,
    but this argument should silence this ridiculous talk of a proof he's
    back to hammering on about.

    I love it sponsoredwalk, I really do. But you know as well as I do that it won't make even the tiniest difference to his argument. It's the immunity of faith to reason. That's why I've given up.


  • Options
    #1643
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Improbable wrote: »
    I love it sponsoredwalk, I really do. But you know as well as I do that it won't make even the tiniest difference to his argument. It's the immunity of faith to reason. That's why I've given up.

    Yeah I know, but he's cornered big time now & there's absolutely no way
    he can deny it. Not only with the abiogenesis/math-proof (:rolleyes:) argument
    but simply on his own logic seeing as his problems are with genetics and
    microevolution (where's all the talk of the fantasy of natural selection now?) so don't
    give up :D

    I finished the May interview there, jeesh he really knows nothing about
    this theory. "I'm as much of a scientist as Darwin was", does the guy
    know anything about Darwin? Does he know anything about what he
    did for the 20 years he didn't publish, nor of the new discoveries he
    made? Radiocarbon dating was questioned in a meeting in a conference,
    oh okay - that invalidates everything and proves "around 6000 years old".
    Does he know how the atmosphere factors into the radiation of the C¹⁴
    isotope? Can he tell us how the atmosphere, as he claimed on the show,
    would alter nuclear physics by changing the radiation ratio of C¹⁴ to
    C¹²?

    J C, if you question radiocarbon dating, here is something you can read.
    Here (chapter 1, lesson 1) is a description of how radiocarbon dating is
    calculated using just a basic differential equation, should be intelligible if
    you understand how to integrate 1/x. Tell us how a "genius" can question
    something as simple as this - this calculation (based off chemistry &
    nuclear physics) gives 15,500 years.


  • Options
    #1644
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,516 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    J C wrote: »
    My expertise in Bioinformatics is from the ID 'side of the house' ... so, unlike my other areas of scientific expertise, it would not be regarded as a conventional area of expertise by Materialistic Evolutionists.

    Nonetheless, it is cutting edge stuff ... which isn't going down the intellectual 'Cul de Sacs' that some Evolutionists are going down with Bioinformatics.

    So.. you are an expert in the field of Bioinformatics?
    What software do you use?

    Of course bioinformatics is really just statistical analysis so it doesn't really matter if you accept evolution or ID. The stats are the stats.


  • Options
    #1645
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    J C wrote: »
    ... there are only so many ways that I can say you're wrong !!!

    and until you (or anybody else) provides any evidence for the spontaneous production of flying pigs ... there is nothing that I need to say!!!

    FYP


  • Options
    #1646
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    Morbert wrote: »
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

    The odds scientists would look at are 1 in 10^40. Not 10^107. This has all been explained to you before.

    Very clear and very simple, thanks for the link.


  • Options
    #1647
    keppler
    Registered Users Posts: 389 ✭✭keppler


    J C wrote: »

    Could I just ask you one question ... when you are performing protein expression analysis or whatever area of Bioinformatics that you are engaged in ... do you ever wonder why the stuff you are studying is so incredibly sophisticated and apparently Intelligently and Purposefully Designed ... if it all really is an 'accident of nature'?


    Im speechless.... i really am:rolleyes:

    J C im sure that he knew when he began his career he wasn't going to be studying LEGO....:mad:


  • Options
    #1648
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    There are times reading these threads that I kind of wish people where forced to use verifiable real names when we get into these" I'm a scientist and your not one" tit-for-tat's.


  • Options
    #1649
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,516 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    keppler wrote: »
    Im speechless.... i really am:rolleyes:

    J C im sure that he knew when he began his career he wasn't going to be studying LEGO....:mad:

    Well I'm an engineer by trade, and my first undergrad classes involved modelling LEGO...

    I got into the bio side of things after my PhD in turbulence. A lot of the statistical tools used in both are quite similar.

    I interested to see what software and hardware J C uses in his lab.
    Has he any thoughts on the Applied BioSystems 7900 GT, the backbone of a lot of gene expression work. What bioinformatics tools does he use.

    I write a lot of my stuff in Matlab with the Statistics Toolbox, I don't see the need to pay extra for the Bioinformatics Toolbox when it's just a lot of the same functions.

    As an expert in the field, regardless of his particular research interests, it would be good to hear what he is actually doing and thinks about the development of the area.


  • Options
    #1650
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    There are times reading these threads that I kind of wish people where forced to use verifiable real names when we get into these" I'm a scientist and your not one" tit-for-tat's.

    You are so right. It's not smart or really relevant and I am ashamed to say I have been guilty of it:o.

    I'm out of this thread it is going nowhere slowly. I think we have to agree to disagree.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1651
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    5uspect wrote: »
    I interested to see what software and hardware J C uses in his lab.
    JC said that he's learned all he knews from "Bioinformatics [...] from the ID 'side of the house'".

    This almost certainly means that he's acquired what he knows from a christian fundamentalist numerologist named William Dembski who was at the forefront of the ID crusade up to the point at which it was holed and sunk in the Dover trial. Following that, the ID movement, the infamous Wedge Strategy and creationism in general has been in decline. Dembski's ID Lab was closed, I think in 2006, and he's abandoned his discredited work in mathemagics and is now working as a "research professor in philosophy" in a minor religious outfit somewhere in the bible belt.

    Dembski's ramblings can be viewed at his website and he uses neither software nor hardware to demonstrate anything, since (a) it may well not be able to demonstrate what his financial backers want him to demonstrate and (b) his arguments are consequently expressed in pseudo-mathematical language only. Where these have any discernible meaning at all, they have been comprehensively disproven.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement