"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

robindch · 14-01-2012 01:18PM

Sarky wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if his next reply was actually a presentation of the flaws in that paper?

Yes, it would be.

<sigh>

Sarky · 14-01-2012 01:24PM

Yeah, sorry, I know I'm a terrible person for getting so much amusement out of watching someone completely fail to do anything but dig a deeper hole as if the very concept of "up" was alien to them.

legspin · 14-01-2012 02:27PM

Sarky wrote: »

. as if the very concept of "up" was alien to them .

Sure have you never heard of Intelligent Falling?

J C · 14-01-2012 07:54PM

Sarky wrote: »

Come on J C. Do yourself a favour. By actually debating, you'll be doing the rest of us a favour too, we are pretty sick of your childish tactics by now and would welcome a constructive debate. Hell, you'll be doing the WORLD a favour if you can debunk that paper and demonstrate that cfsi isn't a pile of wishey-washy crap that everyone was wrong to debunk for the last decade or so. If they were all flawed in their destroying your favourite claims, show us where they went wrong.

I always engage in constructive debate ... ye are the guys engaging in ad hominems ... and refusing to present the supposed points in favour of your argument, in the paper ye keep talking about.

Come on guys and 'put up or shut up' about this 'pet' paper of yours.

J C · 14-01-2012 07:56PM

legspin wrote: »

Sure have you never heard of Intelligent Falling?

... is it something that Evolutionists engage in?:eek::pac:

J C · 14-01-2012 08:01PM

robindch wrote: »

Yes, it would be.

<sigh>

Robin, please stop sighing ... like some kind of 'love sick' teenager ... and help your Evolutionist colleagues 'save some face' on this paper that they keep talking about ... but which doesn't seem to provide any evidence for the claims being made about it.:)

Delirium · 14-01-2012 08:08PM

J C wrote: »

Ready, whenever you are.;)

guess you're still not ready to discuss the paper after all.

J C · 14-01-2012 08:25PM

koth wrote: »

guess you're still not ready to discuss the paper after all.

Your claims about this paper is like everything else about evolution, on this thread ... long on claims ... but short on evidence!!!:)

Delirium · 14-01-2012 08:27PM

J C wrote: »

Your claims about this paper is like everything else about evolution ... long on claims ... but short on evidence!!!:)

so why did you avoid the question I put to you earlier today?

For someone so confident in the lack of substance to the the paper, you're remarkably shy about discussing it.

Sarky · 15-01-2012 01:51AM

More dodging and insults from J C. Again you make yourself look stupid. You should be ashamed of yourself. But no, you're just going to keep going on and on with arguments that nobody with any sense has believed in a decade or more. you could silence us all by debunking that paper you've been cowering from since September. We'd acknowledge that we were wrong and adjust our perceptions of reality accordingly.

But you can't, can you? You have nothing to defend your claims with, and you have nothing to attack ours with. And you have too much pride to admit it. All you're doing is showing us that intelligent design is the most idiotic thing to ever sully this planet. It's as tragic as it is comic.

Well, maybe a little more comic.

Turtwig · 15-01-2012 02:04AM

Semantic satiation beginning to set in here. What exactly is this "paper"? What is meant by "debunk" again?

Turtwig · 15-01-2012 02:07AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Should we all simultaneously send pm's to May asking him to come on
here and debate his book?

:eek:

In fact, I have a fantastic idea!

I got another book on evolution out of the library just yesterday.
I picked this specific book because there is a video course on evolution
that follows the book perfectly:
http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior
The videos are all on youtube, just search the titles as given in the yale
link or even just "yale evolution youtube".

I was just going to go through this on my own but here's a better idea:
Why don't a lot of people send a pm to John J May asking him to
join us in watching the video lectures over the course of the next few
weeks & discussing the flaws & lies that are presented in the lectures.
To make this even better, I'll post notes of the essential points of each
chapter to expand upon anything that needs to be expanded upon!
I'm thinking 1 lecture a week (it's only an hour). By the end everybody
will have concrete knowledge of evolutionary theory :cool: & we have May
to point out any of the flaws in evolutionary theory. Basically everybody
watches the lecture, I'll post summaries of anything in the book & then
we ask May to point out the lies etc... I bet he'll learn a lot & so will we.

If a few people post their support in the next day or two in this thread
then I'll post in this thread a post that we'll all edit together & then we'll
all simultaneously send May a pm of this post.

You jelly?

Count me in. I'll follow a 1hr lecture with another hour of reading per week if needs be.

Sarky · 15-01-2012 02:16AM

Jernal wrote: »

Semantic satiation beginning to set in here. What exactly is this "paper"?

This paper. Takes apart cfsi and shows why it's a load of bollocks. Not like it's hard, but still...

What is meant by "debunk" again?

Show flaws in, expose as a lie or untruth, that sort of thing. Most of us have been asking J C since September to show us a single flaw in that paper. So far he made one attempt. His arguments were shown to be flawed. He hasn't tried again, ignoring that his arguments just don't work.

If there were any errors with the paper's conclusions, I would have thought someone would have been able to expose them by now. The paper itself is over 9 years old at this stage. Maybe I'd get better results by asking a real scientist to play devil's advocate?

J C · 15-01-2012 01:56PM

Sarky wrote: »

This paper. ...

If there were any errors with the paper's conclusions, I would have thought someone would have been able to expose them by now. The paper itself is over 9 years old at this stage. Maybe I'd get better results by asking a real scientist to play devil's advocate?

I have already said that I am prepared to answer any questions put to me from anybody on the paper.

I have also said that I am prepared to critically review the paper paragraph by paragraph, as ye have requested ... provided you guys nominate one scientific expert from your side to counter what I say / debate with me on the specifics of the paper.
Having up to 100 evolutionists jumping in and out ... and some only making ad hominems against me (as distinct from the points at issue) will get us nowhere.

So who is your 'Goliath' in terms of scientific expertise on biological informatics?

Sarky · 15-01-2012 02:12PM

Unnecessary and irrelevant. You can point out flaws on your own, or you can't. If your arguments have merit, they won't be torn apart. Throughout this thread you've bragged about being able to hold your own against everyone else. Now you actually have to back your claims up with logic and.evidence, you're suddenly all shy. Have you never actually given a presentation in front of a crowd? That's how it works.

Man up, show us why "up to 100" of us are wrong and quit stalling. You've claimed to have read the whole thing, you've claimed you understand it, you claim it's completely flawed.

Show. Us.

DeVore · 15-01-2012 02:15PM

Or we could dust off the Boards debating chamber and pit 3 vs 3 in a restricted, public readable forum with the public able to comment in a seperate public-writeable forum.
Its worked well before!

Just an idea...

DeV.

J C · 15-01-2012 02:17PM

Sarky wrote: »

Unnecessary and irrelevant. You can point out flaws on your own, or you can't. If your arguments have merit, they won't be torn apart. Throughout this thread you've bragged about being able to hold your own against everyone else. Now you actually have to back your claims up with logic and.evidence, you're suddenly all shy.

Man up, show us why "up to 100" of us are wrong and quit stalling. You've claimed to have read the whole thing, you've claimed you understand it, you claim it's completely flawed.

Show. Us.

So ye don't have anybody qualified in Biological informatics to debate with me ... this explains why ye never provide any evidence for your numerous erroneous assertions ... and instead engage in logical fallicies like ad homonems and 'bait and switch' arguments.

J C · 15-01-2012 02:20PM

DeVore wrote: »

Or we could dust off the Boards debating chamber and pit 3 vs 3 in a restricted, public readable forum with the public able to comment in a seperate public-writeable forum.
Its worked well before!

Just an idea...

DeV.

I'll go with a 3 to 1 ... even 100 to 1 ... provided that all ad hominems are banned for the duration of the review.

Delirium · 15-01-2012 02:21PM

why are you unwilling to respond to the question I asked you relating to the paper?

based on your reading of the paper, can you provide one error on the paper with regards to the analysis of CFSI? And can you then provide some proof from a peer reviewed scientific work to back up your claim?

sponsoredwalk · 15-01-2012 02:26PM

Jernal wrote: »

Count me in. I'll follow a 1hr lecture with another hour of reading per week if needs be.

Fantastic! :cool:

DeVore wrote: »

Or we could dust off the Boards debating chamber and pit 3 vs 3 in a restricted, public readable forum with the public able to comment in a seperate public-writeable forum.
Its worked well before!

Just an idea...

DeV.

Sounds like a plan, we have to write up a nice letter to send to May
first. will think of something in the next day. Assuming he's up for
it we can put Me, Malty & mystery person X on one side, May, JC &
and whoever the most hardcore denier from the BBC thread is on
the other. Ground rules being that nothing but the contents of the
lectures can be discussed, & soapboxing not being humoured :P
Any further ideas anyone?

J C · 15-01-2012 02:28PM

koth wrote: »

why are you unwilling to respond to the question I asked you relating to the paper?

based on your reading of the paper, can you provide one error on the paper with regards to the analysis of CFSI? And can you then provide some proof from a peer reviewed scientific work to back up your claim?

... so you're going to hide behind the old Evolutionist 'peer-review' chestnut ... whereby you demand Evolutionist peer review ... while refusing to allow Evolutionist peer review of ID / Creation Science papers.

Delirium · 15-01-2012 02:31PM

J C wrote: »

... so you're going to hide behind the old Evolutionist 'peer-review' chestnut ... whereby you demand Evolutionist peer review ... while refusing to allow Evolutionist peer review of ID / Creation Science papers.

Ok, if you have a problem with the peer-review part of the question, then ignore it.

So how about this revised question.

based on your reading of the paper, can you provide one error on the paper with regards to the analysis of CFSI? And can you then provide an explanation regarding how it is an error?

J C · 15-01-2012 02:36PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Fantastic! :cool:

Sounds like a plan, we have to write up a nice letter to send to May
first. will think of something in the next day. Assuming he's up for
it we can put Me, Malty & mystery person X on one side, May, JC &
and whoever the most hardcore denier from the BBC thread is on
the other. Ground rules being that nothing but the contents of the
lectures can be discussed, & soapboxing not being humoured :P
Any further ideas anyone?

I have no problem with this either ... but countering/defending the ideas presented in the video will obviously involve the citing of other information outside the videos by both sides.
I will agree to focus on debating the specific claims / ideas presented in the video.

Discussing both the 'anti-ID paper' and the 'Pro-Evolution videos' simultaneously will only cause confusion ... so which do ye guys want to run with first?

J C · 15-01-2012 02:39PM

koth wrote: »

Ok, if you have a problem with the peer-review part of the question, then ignore it.

So how about this revised question.

based on your reading of the paper, can you provide one error on the paper with regards to the analysis of CFSI? And can you then provide an explanation regarding how it is an error?

That is fine ... there are many issues in the paper with regards to CFSI ... and I think the logical way to approch it is to address each issue as we meet it in the paper.

... but which do ye want to do first ... discuss the 'paper' ... or the 'videos'?

sponsoredwalk · 15-01-2012 02:44PM

J C wrote: »

I have no problem with this either ... but countering/defending the ideas presented in the video will obviously involve the citing of other information outside the videos by both sides.
I will agree to focus on debating the specific claims / ideas presented in the video.

Discussing both the 'anti-ID paper' and the 'Pro-Evolution videos' simultaneously will only cause confusion ... so which do ye guys want to run with first?

This is the most rational thing I've seen posted in this thread :eek: :P
Yeah, within reason, the citing of material relevant to that particular
lecture is of course a great idea.

sponsoredwalk · 15-01-2012 02:45PM

J C wrote: »

... but which do ye want to do first ... discuss the 'paper' ... or the 'videos'?

Well we have to contact J May first JC, do you happen to know him & are
you able to ask him or will I just write up a letter asking him to join us?

Delirium · 15-01-2012 02:46PM

J C wrote: »

That is fine ... there are many errors in the paper with regards to CFSI ... and I think the logical way to approch it is to address each issue as we meet it in the paper.

... but which do ye want to do first ... discuss the 'paper' ... or the 'videos'?

I'd like you to answer the question that I asked. The paper vs. video is pertaining to an as yet uncreated thread in the debate forum. Or are you suspending discussion on this thread and waiting for the thread on the debate forum to be created?

J C · 15-01-2012 02:51PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Well we have to contact J May first JC, do you happen to know him & are
you able to ask him or will I just write up a letter asking him to join us?

Don't know him personally.
Suggest you write a PM to him.

J C · 15-01-2012 02:58PM

koth wrote: »

I'd like you to answer the question that I asked. The paper vs. video is pertaining to an as yet uncreated thread in the debate forum. Or are you suspending discussion on this thread and waiting for the thread on the debate forum to be created?

I'll run with the 'paper' or the 'videos' being discussed on this thread going forward ... or if separate threads are created ... I'll also run with that.

I don't want to discuss both the 'paper' and the 'videos' simultaneously ... either on this thread ... or on separate threads.
It could be confusing ... and I don't frankly have the time to do both simultaneously.

My own view is that the 'paper' should be discussed first ... to get the whole ID issue out of the way, one way or the other ... and we can then look at the evolution 'videos'.

... we could also get going with the 'paper' ... while we await John May's decision in relation to the Evolution 'videos' discussion.

dlofnep · 15-01-2012 02:59PM

J C wrote: »

So ye don't have anybody qualified in Biological informatics to debate with me ...

What's your qualifications in Bioinformatics out of curiosity?

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments