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…247248250252253…328

Comments

  • #7472
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    18AD wrote: »
    I'm not moralising. When I say my shoes are good I'm saying that they function well as shoes. I'm not saying something like "good shoe!" (as I would say to a pet) when they behave themselves. This would be a moral statement.

    So if a snow flake is good at falling I am not saying that it is fulfilling its moral duty to fall.

    On your account, if I pick up a basin and ask you whether it would make a good drum stick I am making a moral judgement.
    If you're not moralising about snowflakes ... then you are making a relative judgement that snowflakes are 'better' at falling than something that is 'worse' at falling.

    ... so, if snowflakes are 'good' at falling ... what say you about a piece of lead falling on your big toe???
    ... must be some kind of an Evolutionist fetish!!!:eek:


  • #7473
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Does lead somehow not fall in J C's magical land of perverse make-believe?


  • #7474
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    It can't though, otherwise it could fail to meet the definition of CFSI/CFSD. If an ocean was to produce scoring on a wall similar to a tool, that wouldn't mean CFSI/CFSD was present. would it?
    Do you have an example of such a process that isn't created by an intelligently directed tool ... but looks like it was?

    koth wrote: »
    No it doesn't, as you've stated that the designer produces the CFSI and that naturally occuring events can produce similar results. You need the proof of the existence of the designer and evidence of the tools and methods used to create frogs, humans, dogs, apples etc.
    Non-intelligently directed processes have never been observed to produce CFSI ... so your conclusion is 'evidentially challenged' ... to the point of being a 'pipe dream'!!!
    koth wrote: »
    Stating that because humans create complex objects, like computers for example, that it proves the case for creationism is a non-starter. We know historically that humans have been creating more and more complex objects, from the simple axe up to mobile phones. We have a historical trail of evidence.

    Where is your evidence?
    The 'fingerprint' of intelligent action isn't complexity per se ... there are many deterministic and random processes that produce complexity ... for intelligent design to be attributed to an artefact, it also must be specified and functional.


  • #7475
    18AD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    J C wrote: »
    If you're not moralising about snowflakes ... then you are making a relative judgement that snowflakes are 'better' at falling than something that is 'worse' at falling.

    ... so, if snowflakes are 'good' at falling ... what say you about a piece of lead falling on your big toe???
    ... must be some kind of an Evolutionist fetish!!!:eek:

    To return to my original quesiton since you agree it is no longer a moral issue:

    You said:
    J C wrote:
    how does a snowflake drifting to Earth via the interaction of random air movements and the deterministic process of gravity 'fall well'?

    Well if something was to not fall, wouldn't that be bad falling?

    And if something does fall, it is good falling?

    Your last post seems to imply that a relative judgement does allow for better or worse falling.

    I truely hope there is in fact no point to this conversation.


  • #7476
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Does lead somehow not fall in J C's magical land of perverse make-believe?
    Within Creation Science lead is regarded as falling in accordance with the Law of Universal Gravitation.

    ... within Robins imaginings it seems that it might be a 'good' falling or a 'bad' falling ... depending on the Karma of the evolutionist standing underneath it!!!!:):D:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #7477
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,102 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Do you have an example of such a process that isn't created by an intelligently directed tool ... but looks like it was?
    Yes. The cave example. Obviously a simple cave created by coastal erosion wouldn't be identical to a human created cave. Based on evidence, such as the scoring on the wall would probably tell us if it was or wasn't created by humans.
    Non-intelligently directed processes have never been observed to produce CFSI ... so your conclusion is 'evidentially challenged' ... to the point of being a 'pipe dream'!!!
    Not really, as we still haven't arrived at an explanation as to how you prove the existence of CFSI in an organism.
    The 'fingerprint' of intelligent action isn't complexity per se ... there are many deterministic and random processes that produce complexity ... for inelligent design to be attributed to an artefact, it also must be specified and functional.

    But that doesn't explain how you determine that something was designed. All you've said is that because you attribute specificity and functionality to something that CFSI is present.

    It's just arbitrary labelling that gives no information or proof as to how something has evolved.

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



  • #7478
    sephir0th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    I thought this thread had died :(


  • #7479
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sephir0th wrote: »
    I thought this thread had died :(
    The thread keeps rising from the dead ... because there is a Christian on it!!!

    ... could be something to do with the imminience of the Rapture.:eek:

    ... and the fact that unbelievers are drawn to the light of the Holy Spirit present in every Christian ... in spite of themselves!!!:)


  • #7480
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Yes. The cave example. Obviously a simple cave created by coastal erosion wouldn't be identical to a human created cave. Based on evidence, such as the scoring on the wall would probably tell us if it was or wasn't created by humans.
    ... glad we have established this.

    koth wrote: »
    Not really, as we still haven't arrived at an explanation as to how you prove the existence of CFSI in an organism.
    It can be proven statistically, by estimating the probability of producing the specific combination of specific biomolecules to achieve functionality ... and when it goes above 10^-100 it can be said to be CFSI.


    koth wrote: »
    But that doesn't explain how you determine that something was designed. All you've said is that because you attribute specificity and functionality to something that CFSI is present.

    It's just arbitrary labelling that gives no information or proof as to how something has evolved.
    It can be statistically proven ... see above!!


  • #7481
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    The spontaneous formation of non-specified Lipid layers (like the fat scum on a jug of cold gravy) doesn't require an intelligent input ... but, equally, it will always remain a piece of fat-scum until it is 'recycled'!!!
    Ok, so we've gotten this far, we'll take it one step at a time.

    So since a lipid bi layer can form without intelligence, can liposomes and/or micelles likewise form without magic/intelligence?


  • Advertisement
  • #7482
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,102 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It can be proven mathematically, by estimating the probability of producing the specific combination of specific biomolecules to achieve functionality ... and when it goes above 10^-100 it can be said to be CFSI.

    It can be statistically proven ... see above!!

    so CFSI isn't a property or a result of a designer, it's a statement regarding probability

    by that reasoning, a simple cave, be it created by man or tide would meet the criteria of CFSD/CFSI as it has nothing to do with the structure. It merely states that the odds of the cave being created were very small.

    This means that CFSI is retrospective. It can't predict how organic matter will react, or why did it react in a particular way. It would just indicate that the odds were small of an event happening after it happened.

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



  • #7483
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, so we've gotten this far, we'll take it one step at a time.

    So since a lipid bi layer can form without intelligence, can liposomes and/or micelles likewise form without magic/intelligence?
    I said that the spontaneous formation of non-specified Lipid layers (like the fat scum on a jug of cold gravy) doesn't require an intelligent input ... but, equally, it will always remain a piece of fat-scum until it is 'recycled'!!!

    ... but ...

    ... because specified functional structures only arise via an ultimate appliance of intelligence ...

    ... therefore ...

    ... the Phospholipid bi-layers which are observed to be utilised in specific functional combinations with other biomolecules within living cells ... are Intelligently Designed


  • #7484
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    I said that he spontaneous formation of non-specified Lipid layers (like the fat scum on a jug of cold gravy) doesn't require an intelligent input ... but, equally, it will always remain a piece of fat-scum until it is 'recycled'!!!

    ... but ...

    ... because specified functional structures only arise via an ultimate appliance of intelligence ...

    ... therefore ...

    ... the Phospholipid bi-layers which are observed to be utilised in specific functional combinations with other biomolecules within living cells ... are Intelligently Designed
    That's not the question I asked JC.
    I asked you whether or not lipid mycelles or liposomes could form without intelligent/magical input.
    It's a yes or no question.


  • #7485
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's not the question I asked JC.
    I asked you whether or not lipid mycelles or liposomes could form without intelligent/magical input.
    It's a yes or no question.
    Your argument seems to be that because you can find blobs of iron ore within rocks ... that somehow the CFSI in a Jumbo Jet can be produced without any intelligent input!!!

    ... its a non-sequitur logical fallacy!!!:)


  • #7486
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    Your argument seems to be that because you can find blobs of iron ore within rocks ... that somehow the CFSI in a Jumbo Jet can be produced without any intelligent input!!!

    ... its a non-sequitur logical fallacy!!!:)
    No, that's not what I asked, I have no idea where or how you got any of this from. It barely makes sense.

    I'm not yet making an argument, I am simply asking you a yes or no question.
    So again, can lipid mycelles form due to non-intelligent processes, yes or no?
    Can Liposomes form due to non-intelligent processes, yes or no?


  • #7487
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, that's not what I asked, I have no idea where or how you got any of this from. It barely makes sense.

    I'm not yet making an argument, I am simply asking you a yes or no question.
    So again, can lipid mycelles form due to non-intelligent processes, yes or no?
    Can Liposomes form due to non-intelligent processes, yes or no?
    Lipid bicells could possibly form spontaneously ... but that would be that.


  • #7488
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    Lipid bicells could possibly form spontaneously ... but that would be that.
    Again you have failed to answer the very simple questions I put forward to you.
    I asked about Micelles and Liposomes, not lipid bicells, though they are not much different to micelles.

    So again: can lipid micelles form due to non-intelligent processes, yes or no?
    Can Liposomes form due to non-intelligent processes, yes or no?


  • #7489
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    how does a snowflake drifting to Earth via the interaction of random air movements and the deterministic process of gravity 'fall well'?
    Sheesh! If it floated upwards, it would be a rotten snowflake, wouldn't it? But by falling downwards reliably, the snowflake demonstrates -- to creationists at least -- the near-infinite genius of its design.
    J C wrote:
    Scoff all you like ... but I would remind you that Eternity is a very long time
    Indeed, and the slightest chance that I might have to share eternity with the likes of (diploma-mill-doctor-doctor) Ken Ham, (diploma-mill-doctor and convicted felon) Kent Hovind and the rest of hooting, deceitful cretins who run the creationist movement is quite enough for me to wish to spend eternity elsewhere.


  • #7490
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,315 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    J C wrote: »
    Things like 'Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago ... but ... we find Dino fossils with soft tissue still preserved ... and we find Crocodiles alive today that are identical to the fossilised Crocs that are found alongside fossil Dinos.


    That right there is why there's no point debating anything with you.


  • #7491
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Yes man and dinos used to live together. Theres a photo of Christ riding on one knocking around..


  • Advertisement
  • #7492
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    RichieC wrote: »
    Yes man and dinos used to live together. Theres a photo of Christ riding on one knocking around..

    I've seen photos of Christ AS a dino, you misinterpret the Holy Scripture!


  • #7493
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again you have failed to answer the very simple questions I put forward to you.
    I asked about Micelles and Liposomes, not lipid bicells, though they are not much different to micelles.

    So again: can lipid micelles form due to non-intelligent processes, yes or no?
    Can Liposomes form due to non-intelligent processes, yes or no?
    You tell me ... has a biologically active Liposome been observed to form spontaneously in water?


  • #7494
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,102 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    seeing as you're back, want to take a stab at addressing this?

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



  • #7495
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Things like 'Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago ... but ... we find Dino fossils with soft tissue still preserved ... and we find Crocodiles alive today that are identical to the fossilised Crocs that are found alongside fossil Dinos.

    amacachi
    That right there is why there's no point debating anything with you.
    Yes indeed ... when you are trying to prove that something that never happened, did happen ... there is little point in trying to do ... and if you debate it ... you lose.:)


  • #7496
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    so CFSI isn't a property or a result of a designer, it's a statement regarding probability

    by that reasoning, a simple cave, be it created by man or tide would meet the criteria of CFSD/CFSI as it has nothing to do with the structure. It merely states that the odds of the cave being created were very small.

    This means that CFSI is retrospective. It can't predict how organic matter will react, or why did it react in a particular way. It would just indicate that the odds were small of an event happening after it happened.
    The odds are observed to be so infinitessimally small that thay are statistically zero.


  • #7497
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    No, go back to snowflakes, you're boring when you're being wrong about mathematics and statistics.


  • #7498
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,102 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The odds are observed to be so infinitessimally small that thay are statistically zero.

    how small? and how did you arrive at the number?

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



  • #7499
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Feels like this thread's been going on for an eternity.

    Makes mortality seem like a gift TBH.
    That's because you're losing the argument ... I used to feel like that, when I was an Evolutionist.:)


  • #7500
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    That's because you're losing the argument ... I used to feel like you, when I was an Evolutionist.:)

    It certainly wasn't in this life, because you haven't studied evolution.


  • Advertisement
  • #7501
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    You tell me ... has a biologically active Liposome been observed to form spontaneously in water?

    Jc you have avoided the questions again.
    I never mentioned anything about "biologically active".

    I asked you whether or not Liposomes or micelles can form without intelligence.
    It's a yes or no question that only requires a yes or no answer.

    I don't understand why it should give you so much trouble...
    That is if you were supported by evidence and being honest that is...
    If you weren't I'd understand perfectly why you're avoiding the question.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement