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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…239240242244245…328

Comments

  • #7232
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    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.

    Okay, JC, I won't press you any more to discuss the paper until a consensus has been agreed as to what is happening with the paper vs. video being first for discussion (be it here or on the debate forum). :)

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



  • #7233
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    What's your qualifications in Bioinformatics out of curiosity?
    'Curiosity killed the cat'!!!:)


  • #7234
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    J C wrote: »
    'Curiosity killed the cat'!!!:)

    But information made him fat!


    In an earlier post JC claimed he was a graduate of the National University of Ireland.


  • #7235
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    housetypeb wrote: »
    But information made him fat!
    You're a poet ... and you don't know it!!!:)


  • #7236
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    'Curiosity killed the cat'!!!:)

    So basically, you've no qualifications. Thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • #7237
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Isn't sarky a research assistant in bioinformatics? Sorry jc but I think we do both improbable and sarky are more than adequately experienced and I wouldn't rule out other a and a regulars either.


  • #7238
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    housetypeb wrote: »
    In an earlier post JC claimed he was a graduate of the National University of Ireland.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    So basically, you've no qualifications. Thanks.
    What I have said ... I have said.

    ... and what I haven't said ... I haven't said.


  • #7239
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... so guys ... is it the paper or the video?
    ... or are ye afraid ... or very afraid?;):)


  • #7240
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    Why is this thread still open?


  • #7241
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Why is this thread still open?

    Because J_C only exists within the context of a nourishing host thread on the topic of evolution. Before this, it was the BC&P thread. Without such a thread, J_C is merely hypothetical.


  • Advertisement
  • #7242
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Why is this thread still open?
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Because J_C only exists within the context of a nourishing host thread on the topic of evolution. Before this, it was the BC&P thread. Without such a thread, J_C is merely hypothetical.
    ... so, when 'push comes to shove' ... ye just run away ... shouting ad hominems ... as ye go???:eek:


  • #7243
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Hey J_C, remember this post and this one? Those were fun. You reacted by bulk spamming bible quotes until the Christianity moderators told you to stop, then you went "on holidays" for a while. Good times.

    Anyway, you never did refute those points and counterpoints, and it's been nearly three years. Just worth bringing up since you seem to be playing Dodge The Question again. So folks here be warned: you may have a long wait for those answers.


  • #7244
    Mr. Boo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭Mr. Boo


    J C wrote: »
    ... so guys ... is it the paper or the video?
    ... or are ye afraid ... or very afraid?;):)

    You must debunk the paper first.

    If it's the videos first, then CFSI will be your only argument. So you must prove, beyond all doubt that it is not sh1te.


  • #7245
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Hey J_C, remember this post and this one? Those were fun. You reacted by bulk spamming bible quotes until the Christianity moderators told you to stop, then you went "on holidays" for a while. Good times.

    Anyway, you never did refute those points and counterpoints, and it's been nearly three years. Just worth bringing up since you seem to be playing Dodge The Question again. So folks here be warned: you may have a long wait for those answers.
    ... we were over and back on these questions as far as I can recall ... but if you want to use them as the basis for further answers I'd be happy to oblige.
    ... so what do ye want to tackle next ?
    ... the paper, the videos or the AH questions?

    ... and I'm not dodging any question ... I'm now just wondering what questions ye guys want answers to first!!!


  • #7246
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mr. Boo wrote: »
    You must debunk the paper first.

    If it's the videos first, then CFSI will be your only argument. So you must prove, beyond all doubt that it is not sh1te.
    CFSI isn't the only argument ... but I take your point in relation to it's importance.
    The general thrust of your point makes sense.


  • #7247
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Hey J_C, remember this post and this one? Those were fun. You reacted by bulk spamming bible quotes until the Christianity moderators told you to stop, then you went "on holidays" for a while. Good times.

    Anyway, you never did refute those points and counterpoints, and it's been nearly three years. Just worth bringing up since you seem to be playing Dodge The Question again. So folks here be warned: you may have a long wait for those answers.

    Oh I don't think anyone seriously expects answers from him. But it is amusing (to me, anyway, in a Napoleon Dynamite, cringe-worthy sort of way) to see him demonstrate the depths of his intellectual dishonesty.


  • #7248
    Mr. Boo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭Mr. Boo


    J C wrote: »
    CFSI isn't the only argument ... but I take your point in relation to it's importance.
    The general thrust of your point makes sense.

    General thrust? What is this? It's a rather simple statement.

    And I can't remember you making any other arguments that didn't involve CSI miami. I want to see your analysis of this paper. I really do. But I fear you are incapable of anything beyond overt trolling.


  • #7249
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    ... we were over and back on these questions as far as I can recall ...

    Over, sure. Back, nope. You asked a bunch of questions, I replied. Nothing further from you. I asked a bunch of questions, you replied, I countered. Nothing further from you. Two lines of questioning, your turn on both. That's when you started spamming scripture in an appropriately vomit-green font.

    Someone got a link to this paper everyone's talking about? I'm way out of practice on making good arguments, and I haven't picked apart a research paper in some time. Mind needs some exercise and J_C is a great punchbag. You can hit him for years and he'll keep on coming back.


  • #7250
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Sarky wrote: »
    Oh I don't think anyone seriously expects answers from him. But it is amusing (to me, anyway, in a Napoleon Dynamite, cringe-worthy sort of way) to see him demonstrate the depths of his intellectual dishonesty.

    Some of the time, it's incapacity. Some of the time, dishonesty. Most of the time, it's a bit of both. Though I suppose it's dishonesty to himself in the first case, to us in the second. He hasn't the humility to recognize that his grasp of some subjects- probability stands out as a very good example- is simply too weak to be of use to him without making some effort to improve it.


  • #7251
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Oh wow, Atomic Horror is back.

    Things just got interesting...


  • Advertisement
  • #7252
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Over, sure. Back, nope. You asked a bunch of questions, I replied. Nothing further from you. I asked a bunch of questions, you replied, I countered. Nothing further from you. Two lines of questioning, your turn on both. That's when you started spamming scripture in an appropriately vomit-green font.

    Someone got a link to this paper everyone's talking about? I'm way out of practice on making good arguments, and I haven't picked apart a research paper in some time. Mind needs some exercise and J_C is a great punchbag. You can hit him for years and he'll keep on coming back.


    Link to the paper :)

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



  • #7253
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    J C wrote: »
    ... so, when 'push comes to shove' ... ye just run away ... shouting ad hominems ... as ye go???:eek:

    Push comes to shove? The last time I read this thread was a couple of months ago. You're still here! TBH, not many people here have time to argue about the nonsense that is creationism.


  • #7254
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjcFSy1KCTI


  • #7255
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    koth wrote: »
    Link to the paper :)

    Thank you.


  • #7256
    beerbuddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 131 ✭✭beerbuddy


    koth wrote: »
    Link to the paper :)

    Thanks for the link i was wondering what all the shouting is on about.
    Why not open a new thread about this paper.
    I read the first 20 pages or so then got lazy and read the reviews by tut tut googling. I think this will get ripped to bits but i will of course take time.
    I am not an ID fan by the way.


  • #7257
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    Why not open a new thread about this paper.

    Because the Mods like to keep the evolution/creationism debate confined to one thread so it does not take over the forum. Proper order too.


  • #7258
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    Thanks for the link i was wondering what all the shouting is on about.
    Why not open a new thread about this paper.
    I read the first 20 pages or so then got lazy and read the reviews by tut tut googling. I think this will get ripped to bits but i will of course take time.
    I am not an ID fan by the way.

    Also, because J C could then avoid the subject by simply not posting in the thread.


  • #7259
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    OK let's start with the 'paper'.

    Please resist the temptation to use ad hominems ... when ye have no other answer to what I have to say.

    My comments will be in blue ... and the text of the paper will be in black.
    Quote:-
    Abstract
    Intelligent design advocate William Dembski has introduced a measure of information called complex specified information", or CSI. He claims that CSI is a reliable marker of design by intelligent agents. He puts forth a "Law of Conservation of Information" which states that chance and natural laws are incapable of generating CSI. True
    In particular, CSI cannot be generated by evolutionary computation. True ... and has never been done since, either.

    Dembski asserts that CSI is present in intelligent causes and in the flagellum of Escherichia coli, and concludes that neither have natural explanations. He concluded that they have intelligent causes ... without any claim as to whether the intelligence is 'natural' or 'super-natural'. Indeed CSI is found in Human writing, for example ... and this doesn't have a 'super-natural' origin.
    In this paper we examine Dembski's claims, point out significant errors in his reasoning, and conclude that there is no reason to accept his assertions. This is an assertion and a claim that I intend to show to not have been achieved in the paper.


  • #7260
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    1 Introduction
    In recent books and articles (e.g., [16, 17, 19]), William Dembski uses a semi-mathematical treatment of information theory to justify his claims about "intelligent design". He has backed up his contentions with mathematical rigour.
    Roughly speaking, intelligent design advocates attempt to infer intelligent causes from observed instances of complex phenomena. They infer intelligent causes from observed instances of complex and specified phenomena
    Proponents argue, for example, that biological complexity indicates that life was designed. They argue that biological complexity and specificity indicates that life was designed. There are many complex phenomena that are the result of random or deterministic processes ... things like mixtures of different coloured sand ... or snowflakes are examples of complex phenomena that are the result of random and deterministic processes respectively. They differ from living systems in their (lack of) specificity ... and not in their complexity.
    This claim is sometimes offered as an alternative to the theory of evolution. It scientifically invalidates Materialistic 'Microbes to Man' Evolution. The appliance of intelligence is potentially capable of Creating a Man and/or developing a Man via a series of intermediary steps from a Microbe. Non-intelligently directed processes, like Materialistic Evolution cannot, even in theory, do this because of the observed specificity of all functional living processes and the effectively infinite combinatorial space occupied by non-functional systems.
    Christian apologist William Lane Craig has called Dembski's work "groundbreaking" [17, blurb at beginning]. True.
    Journalist Fred Heeren describes Dembski as "a leading thinker on applications of probability theory" [38].1 At a recent conference [53], University of Texas philosophy professor Robert Koons called Dembski the "Isaac Newton of information theory."2 True.
    Is such effusive praise warranted? Yes it is ... and I intend to show that such praise is warranted, by the time I have fully reviwed this paper.


  • Advertisement
  • #7261
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Wow. This is going to be excruciating.

    MrP


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement