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/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…245246248250251…328

Comments

  • #7412
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Shoddy, petty one-liners based on a complete misunderstanding of the basics again? Don't you have anything new yet?
    Sour grapes ...
    ... and (on SW's advice) ... I'm waiting patiently for you guys to respond to my critique of the anti-ID Paper.:)


  • #7413
    18AD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    J_C, what exactly is your line of argument here?

    Is it that science is based on faith? Is it to say that science is no good because it is based on faith? If so, are you not degrading the idea of faith itself, including in religion, therefore rejecting the idea of faith altogether?


  • #7414
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    18AD wrote: »
    J_C, what exactly is your line of argument here?

    Is it that science is based on faith? Is it to say that science is no good because it is based on faith? If so, are you not degrading the idea of faith itself, including in religion, therefore rejecting the idea of faith altogether?
    Science is based on repeatably verifiable evidence ... so its not supposed to be based on faith.

    However, M2M Evolution is based on faith ... as it is has never been observed and seems to be even theoretically impossible.

    I'm not rejecting faith at all ... I believe in the Saving power of Jesus Christ through Faith ... but I believe in ID through repeatably observable science.

    I know my faith from my science ... I only wish that I could say the same for the Evolutionists on this thread!!!:)


  • #7415
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    M2M evolution isn't even a thing, it's a daft term you made up.

    No, you believe in ID because religion tells you to.

    You clearly don't know your faith from your science.
    M2M Evolution is shorthand for the supposed transition from single-celled Microbes to Mankind via naturally selected mutations that is 'big picture' Evolution. I agree with you that it is a daft thing ... but you're the one who believes that it happened ... while I don't!!!

    My 'religion' tells me that an Intelligent God Created all life ... and my science is finding that life was Intelligently Designed. I choose to 'join the dots' through faith ... whereas ye guys deny the physical evidence before your eyes of the Intelligent Design of life ... because your Atheist religion tells you to!!!


  • #7416
    18AD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    J C wrote: »
    Science is based on repeatably verifiable evidence ... so its not supposed to be based on faith.

    However, M2M Evolution is based on faith ... as it is has never been observed and seems to be even theoretically impossible.

    I'm not rejecting faith at all ... I believe in the Saving power of Jesus Christ through Faith ... but I believe in ID through repeatably observable science.

    I know my faith from my science ... I only wish that I could say the same for the Evolutionists on this thread!!!:)

    Why is faith in Jesus ok but faith in evolution not ok? How do you make that decision?


  • Advertisement
  • #7417
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    18AD wrote: »
    Why is faith in Jesus ok but faith in evolution not ok? How do you make that decision?
    Whatever you wish to have faith in (including Evolution) is OK by me.

    However, the fact that a belief in Evolution is a Faith means that the 'separation of state and faith' doctrine (that Atheists are so fond of) applies equally to Evolution.
    However, in American Public Schools, Evolution has effectively become the only state-approved Faith (even though the constitution prohibits the state establishing any faith) ... and it's teaching is mandated by law to all children ... and equally, the teaching of all other faiths is banned by law.

    Similar proposals are being made by Atheists and other secularists for schools in Ireland (ironically, under the guise of 'separating faith and state').


  • #7418
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    However, M2M Evolution is based on faith ... as it is has never been observed and seems to be even theoretically impossible.

    You do know that it would be impossible to 'observe' the transition from the most primitive forms of life, all the way to modern homo sapiens? We've also never observed a full rotation of Pluto around the sun, given that it's orbit is 248 years and we first identified it only in 1930. But you wouldn't argue with scientists with regards to the orbital duration of Pluto, right?

    You're creating a strawman, nothing more - nothing less. The evolutionary record is not complete, and never could be complete - at least in the sense that you are asking. What people like you want is a species by species transition all the way from primitive life-forms, up to modern homo sapiens. It's simply an absurd request.

    What we do have is a gradual timeline over an extremely long period of time - which shows life starting with very basic life, and then gradually becoming more complex and advanced over 100's of millions of years. There is no other theory other than evolution that can explain this.

    At a finer level, we have an extremely good fossil record of speciation. The homo genus for example is very well documented.

    You're simply a fish out of water when it comes to this debate, because either do not understand evolution, or you do understand it and purposely create strawman arguments, and terms - so that you don't have to actually engage and debate on the real logistics of the discussion.

    So continue to try and convince yourself that ID is somehow on par at a scientific level, with evolutionary biology and cosmology - because you are fooling nobody, but yourself.


  • #7419
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Does everything contain CFSI?

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



  • #7420
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Does everything contain CFSI?
    Some people believe that all matter is 'intelligent' ... but I have seen no evidence to support this idea.

    Where the source of CFSI has been established, it has always been observed to be the result of the imposition of intelligently directed action on matter ... and not an inherent capacity of the matter itself.


  • #7421
    18AD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    J C wrote: »
    Whatever you wish to have faith in (including Evolution) is OK by me.

    However, the fact that a belief in Evolution is a Faith means that the 'separation of state and faith' doctrine (that Atheists are so fond of) applies equally to Evolution.
    However, in American Public Schools, Evolution has effectively become the only state-approved Faith (even though the constitution prohibits the state establishing any faith) ... and it's teaching is mandated by law to all children ... and equally, the teaching of all other faiths is banned by law.

    Similar proposals are being made by Atheists and other secularists for primary schools in Ireland (ironically, under the guise of 'separating faith and state').

    So the whole point is that you think evolution shouldn't be taught to kids?


  • Advertisement
  • #7422
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Some people believe that all matter is 'intelligent' ... but I have seen no evidence to support this idea.

    can you give some examples of objects that don't contain CFSI?

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



  • #7423
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    18AD wrote: »
    So the whole point is that you think evolution shouldn't be taught to kids?
    The whole point is 'parity of esteem' ... either teach the scientific evidence in favour of and against Evolution ... or don't teach it at all.
    Equally, 'parity of esteem' would mean that if all children are taught Evolution ... they should also be taught about ID and Creation Science.


  • #7424
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    can you give some examples of objects that don't contain CFSI?
    a pile of sand, snowflakes, a flowing river, etc.


  • #7425
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    No.
    ... er ... yes!!!


  • #7426
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    a pile of sand, snowflakes, a flowing river, etc.

    So what created them?

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



  • #7427
    18AD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    J C wrote: »
    The whole point is 'parity of esteem' ... either teach the scientific evidence in favour of and against Evolution ... or don't teach it at all.
    Equally, 'parity of esteem' would mean that if all children are taught Evolution ... they should also be taught about ID and Creation Science.

    But in your previous post you say that evolution is faith based and that these things shouldn't be taught in schools?

    Evolution is based on faith.
    Evolution should not be taugh in schools.

    -

    But now you say that there is (partial) evidence for evolution and that it should be taught along with it's counterparts.

    Evolution is based on (partial) evidence.
    Evolution should be taught in schools.


  • #7428
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    18AD wrote: »
    But in your previous post you say that evolution is faith based and that these things shouldn't be taught in schools?

    Evolution is based on faith.
    Evolution should not be taugh in schools.
    I have no problem with faith being taught to children in schools (or outside schools) ... so I have no problem ... and indeed, I think that it is essential to teach Evolution 'warts and all' to all children.
    -
    18AD wrote: »
    But now you say that there is (partial) evidence for evolution and that it should be taught along with it's counterparts.

    Evolution is based on (partial) evidence.
    Evolution should be taught in schools.
    I have said that the evidence for and against Evolution should be taught. This would include the fact that there is strong evidence for Evolution within Kinds using pre-existing CFSI ... and the fact that there is no unabiguous evidence for the spontaneous evolution of CFSI.


  • #7429
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You can't just present something as an alternative to a scientific theory without evidence.
    This hasn't stopped many people presenting M2M Evolution as a scientific theory ... even though it has no unambiguous supporting evidence!!!


  • #7430
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    any chance of an answer, JC?
    J C wrote: »
    a pile of sand, snowflakes, a flowing river, etc.

    So what created them?

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



  • #7431
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    any chance of an answer, JC?



    So what created them?
    A combination of random and deterministic processes.


  • Advertisement
  • #7432
    18AD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    J C wrote: »
    I have no problem with faith being taught to children in schools (or outside schools) ... so I have no problem ... and indeed, I think that it is essential to teach Evolution 'warts and all' to all children.
    -
    I have said that the evidence for and against Evolution should be taught. This would include the fact that there is strong evidence for Evolution within Kinds using pre-existing CFSI ... and the fact that there is no unabiguous evidence for the spontaneous evolution of CFSI.

    So the whole point is that you think the alternative to evolution that you endorse should be taught in schools?


  • #7433
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    A combination of random and deterministic processes.

    so humans must be created by a designer, but the universe (including Earth) happened without a designer?

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



  • #7434
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    18AD wrote: »
    So the whole point is that you think the alternative to evolution that you endorse should be taught in schools?
    You have accepted that (M2M) Evolution is a faith ... so I say 'sauce for the goose ... sauce for the gander'.


  • #7435
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Why can this not apply to life then?
    Because a combination of random and deterministic processes is observed to not be capable of generating the Complex Functional Specific Information found in living systems.


  • #7436
    18AD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    J C wrote: »
    You have accepted that (M2M) Evolution is a faith ... so I say 'sauce for the goose ... sauce for the gander'.

    To be honest, I don't even know what M2M Evolution is. I'm just trying to make sense of what you're saying. I havn't accepted anything.

    You claimed evolution was faith based.
    Then you admit that there is some evidence for it, therefore it's not faith based.
    J C wrote:
    I have said that the evidence for and against Evolution...

    Emphasis added.


  • #7437
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    by whom?

    who have proven this to be the case? Have the defined exactly what CFSI is?

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



  • #7438
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    so humans must be created by a designer, but the universe (including Earth) happened without a designer?
    Life can be scientifically declared to have been intelligently designed because it contains CFSI.

    Raw matter in the Universe and on the Earth doesn't contain CFSI ... and therefore may ... or may not have been intelligently created.
    It's a bit like a pile of sand may have been dumped by a lorry driven by an intelligent agent ... or it may have been dumped by floodwater.
    ... but if a house has been built by the appliance of intelligence to the pile of sand it will contain CFSI ... and it therefore can be scientifically declared to have been Intelligently Designed.


  • #7439
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    How can it scientifically declared? There isn't any science out there that mentions CFSI.

    And you've just contradicted yourself because if I make a sandcastle, sand suddenly has CFSI?

    The term is so ambiguous as to be of no use.

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



  • #7440
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    How can it scientifically declared? There isn't any science out there that mentions CFSI.

    And you've just contradicted yourself because if I make a sandcastle, sand suddenly has CFSI?

    The term is so ambiguous as to be of no use.
    Where have I contradicted myself ... I said that CFSI is the result of the imposition of intelligent activity on matter ... and a sand-castle is indeed the result of the imposition of intelligently directed activity upon sand.

    A sand-castle contains Complex Specified Design and is thus a product of intelligence.


  • Advertisement
  • #7441
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    does a cave created by coastal erosion contain CFSI?

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



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement