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.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…251252254256257…328

Comments

  • #7592
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dead one wrote: »
    how it damages your existence, king of the mob, please explain
    let's see honesty

    Because it's a discussion board, Dead one. When someone uses dishonesty in a discussion, it tends to come up.


  • #7593
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    JC why are you using your CFSI bull**** when you've already tacitly admitted it was bull****?
    Seems it's a bit dishonest of you to do something like that...
    I have honestly, patiently politely (and repeatedly) answered all of your questions ... but there comes a point when I simply have to ignore repeated questions that I have already answered numerous time.

    ... and your allegation that I am dishonest is as unfounded (and as great a figment of your biased imagination) as your belief in M2M Evolution!!!:)


  • #7594
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    any joy with the definition of CFSI, JC? or do I put it back in the cabinet with the file on the Loch Ness monster?

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



  • #7595
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    I have honestly, patiently politely (and repeatedly) answered all of your questions ... but there comes a point when I simply have to ignore repeated questions that I have already answered numerous time.

    ... and your allegation that I am dishonest is as unfounded (and as great a figment of your biased imagination) as your belief in M2M Evolution!!!:)
    But you never answered any of my questions, then when I warned you that if you continued to do so it would be an admission that you cannot answer them.

    You ignored that and the questions, so I took that to mean that you can't answer them and therefore forfeit the points.

    And yet here you are still spouting CFSI when you've tacitly admitted it is bull****.
    This is dishonesty JC.


  • #7596
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 38,574 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    J C wrote: »
    Last time I saw this sectarian slogan was in Belfast about 10 years ago.

    Yeah.. it's catchy isn't it?

    There's a huge difference between criticism of RCC based on prejudice/bigotry, and criticism of RCC based on its appalling record and its continuing behaviour and attitude in relation to its massive child rape conspiracy.

    If you can't see the difference, well, *shrug*. I was brought up a Catholic by the way. I'll be keeping organised religion well away from my kids.

    Also your response to my earlier post just made no sense at all.
    I don't deny you the right to be sectarian ... but I am exercising my right to condemn you for your intolerance!!!

    He can come here if he likes, I can't stop him. I don't have to like it and I don't have to pretend to. I can urge people to oppose a visit if I like, and if he does visit I can urge people to protest if I like. None of this makes me either sectarian or intolerant. Organised religions should be held accountable for their actions and this is far from the case with the RCC's criminal activities in Ireland.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Advertisement
  • #7597
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I’m glad you are glad.
    Good

    MrPudding wrote: »
    I don’t respect you. I have already said that directly, there is no need to derive my thoughts about you for other things I have said. I do not respect you, I do not respect the utter rubbish you believe, but I grudgingly respect your right to believe whatever cr@ap you want.
    All I can say to that foul-mouthed outburst is that I still respect you.
    Why do you have such a problem with inter-personal relations with people who have a difference of opinion with you?
    I meet many people that I agree with ... and many people that I disagree with, on many issues ... every day ... and I respect them all, as the amazing intelligent sovereign Human Beings that they are.
    You need to control your disrespect for other people who are different to you ... and you need to try to fit in harmoniously in our increasingly pluralist society!!!

    ... try love ... and respect for your fellow man ... life is better that way!!!:)
    ... its also better for your blood pressure!!
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Sorry, but I don’t agree. I call ideas retarded all the time. Your beliefs are idiotic and retarded, if you want to take that as a comment about you, then you can, but that is not how it is meant. I do have opinions on your personally, but I will keep those to myself.
    Your disrespect for me personally has been amply aired by you ... now can we get back to discussing my ideas ... and leave your hopelessly biased opinion of me aside ... because nobody with an ounce of objectivity would accept that you are capable of giving an unbiased opinion of me, at this stage.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Please don’t bring up your conventional training and your eminent career. Over the years to have been posting here your have provided nothing, either directly or indirectly by what you have posted, to give the slightest indication that you have any qualification in or that you work in any science related post. On the other hand you have over 7000 posts indicating that you have no clue about science.
    Once again I am exactly what I say I am ... and this fact ... together with your repeatedly expressed deep bias towards me, disqualifies you from making any meaningful assessment of my abilities or personality.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    No. it isn’t. Disrespecting someone requires an act. Not respecting someone requires no act, it is merely not respecting them. There are a number of people that I respect, this is something I actively do. Here are plenty of people I don’t respect. I don’t respect them for a variety of reasons, but that vast majority of people I don’t respect the reason I don’t respect them is because I don’t know anything about them. Why should I respect or disrespect someone I don’t know?

    This can then extend to people I do know but don’t respect. If I believe a person is not worthy of respect then I will not give them respect. In some cases I may also disrespect them, an actual act which shows I disrespect them, but fo the most part I will simply not respect them.
    Making foul mouthed prejudicial comments about someones person is both disrespecting them and not respecting them. They have the very same meaning!!!

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Good for you. This isn’t it. It is like people protesting about the G20 leaders coming for a visit. I don’t know ninja900 but I think that statistically he is likely to be a lapsed catholic and as such is likely to have a large number of catholic relatives. I expect that he loves them and treats them as he should. The line in his signature simply indicates that the leader of that organization is not, as far as he is concerned, welcome in this country. He is not stopping the pope form visiting, he is not trampling on anyone’s right to do anything, he is merely pointing out that, in his opinion we, as a country, should not welcome a child rapist protecting cnut that disrespects our country to our country.
    That's your (repeatedly expressed) opinion of the Pope ... but that still doesn't give you, or anybody else the right to disrespect him ... or any other person, for that matter. Exhibiting disrespect for somebody in their physical presence is classified as behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace ... and is a criminal offense.

    You really do need to separate your attitiude to the person and his/her ideas. Respect the person ... and politely challenge their ideas all you want.
    MrPudding wrote: »
    And I will respect a christian’s right to believe whatever crap they want. I still won’t respect the Christian himself unless he give a reason other than he believes some crap.
    Are you saying that you disrespect people you meet every day when their beliefs are not in accordance with your beliefs?

    Your social interactions must be very 'interesting'.:eek:
    MrPudding wrote: »
    I would agree with you fort his type fo thing. However, where the beleiver’s belief is in conflict with someone else’s protected rights then the court will not protect it. The relate counselor that said he would not counsel gay people or the registrar that said she would not resister gay relationships show us this.
    People must do their job ... and if I am a Marriage Registrar, for example, I must register all lawful marriages, without fear of favour to the personal beliefs or lifestyles of the the parties involved ... and I don't really understand why anybody would have a problem doing so.
    I'd even marry you, (to your chosen partner) provided you behaved yourself and showed respect for yourself and myself during the ceremony!!!!:):eek:


  • #7598
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you never answered any of my questions, then when I warned you that if you continued to do so it would be an admission that you cannot answer them.

    You ignored that and the questions, so I took that to mean that you can't answer them and therefore forfeit the points.

    And yet here you are still spouting CFSI when you've tacitly admitted it is bull****.
    This is dishonesty JC.
    Its not dishonesty ... just boredom with the non-questions that you have been repeatedly asking!!!:(

    I have told you what CFSI is ... and gave examples of what CFSI is ... and what it isn't.

    If you want to get the 'brownie points' you need to show where I am wrong ... or cite an example of a non-intelligently directed system producing CFSI:)


  • #7599
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    Its not dishonesty ... just boredom with the non-questions that you have been repeatedly asking!!!:(

    I have told what CFSI is ... and gave examples of what is CFSI ... and what isn't.

    If you want to get the 'brownie points' you need to show where I am wrong ... or cite an example of a non-intelligently directed system producing CFSI:)
    But you have done neither because you are talking out of your ass, which you admitted by ignoring the questions.

    You could still answer some of them if you need to hang on to the nonsense you spout.
    But if you don't answer them, yet continue to use CFSI, you are being dishonest.


  • #7600
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Yeah.. it's catchy isn't it?

    There's a huge difference between criticism of RCC based on prejudice/bigotry, and criticism of RCC based on its appalling record and its continuing behaviour and attitude in relation to its massive child rape conspiracy.

    If you can't see the difference, well, *shrug*. I was brought up a Catholic by the way. I'll be keeping organised religion well away from my kids.

    Also your response to my earlier post just made no sense at all.
    I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with organised religion. Just bear in mind that there are many organised religions out there ... and they include ones that deny God ... as well as ones that believe in Him.

    In any event, all persons should be given respect ... and allowed the freedom to travel and meet people wherever they wish.

    Do unto others ... as you would have them do unto you. It isn't always reciprocated ... but you will always have the higher moral authority as a result.

    ... and people will respect you even more if you can rise above your experiences ...and not do onto them ... as they have done onto you.:)

    ninja900 wrote: »
    He can come here if he likes, I can't stop him. I don't have to like it and I don't have to pretend to. I can urge people to oppose a visit if I like, and if he does visit I can urge people to protest if I like. None of this makes me either sectarian or intolerant. Organised religions should be held accountable for their actions and this is far from the case with the RCC's criminal activities in Ireland.
    All quite reasonable and logical ... so I would ask you, as a friend, to reconsider your signature ... which I think, detracts from the valid message that you wish to get across.


  • #7601
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you have done neither because you are talking out of your ass, which you admitted by ignoring the questions.

    You could still answer some of them if you need to hang on to the nonsense you spout.
    But if you don't answer them, yet continue to use CFSI, you are being dishonest.
    ... so please tell me specifically, where I am wrong on CFSI ...

    ... or better still, give us an example of the production of CFSI via a non-intelligently directed process.


  • Advertisement
  • #7602
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... so please tell me specifically, where I am wrong on CFSI ...

    ... or better still, give us an example of the production of CFSI via a non-intelligently directed process.

    how can anyone hope to give an example of something that has yet to be defined?

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



  • #7603
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    ... so please tell me specifically, where I am wrong on CFSI ...

    ... or better still, give us an example of the production of CFSI via a non-intelligently directed process.

    Simple, you are unable to explain how one form of lipid structure is possible and one is not without magic stepping in.
    I have asked you this question repeatedly and you ignored which you agreed meant you forfeited the point.

    And as koth says, I can't provide you with an example of something I don't think exists.


  • #7604
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Simple, you are unable to explain how one form of lipid structure is possible and one is not without magic stepping in.
    I have asked you this question repeatedly and you ignored which you agreed meant you forfeited the point.

    And as koth says, I can't provide you with an example of something I don't think exists.
    Intelligence isn't magic ... its the product of a mind.


  • #7605
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    I have told you what CFSI is ... and gave examples of what is CFSI ... and what isn't.
    Just FYI - you haven't.


  • #7606
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Intelligence isn't magic ... its the product of a mind.

    a supernatural deity creating all existence and life contained within it is magic.

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



  • #7607
    sephir0th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    JC attempted to present a way to mathemically determine the CFSI of a string of letters here:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64185114&postcount=20396

    When Sam Vimes debunked this, you can see where JC says that you have to first establish that something is functional (how?) and then use the equation:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64196677&postcount=20423

    It was then established that CFSI was nothing more than a claim of irreducible complexity, since the claim is that the specific sequence of DNA cannot be functional in any subsequence (or with any mutations) i.e. have evolved.


  • #7608
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    Intelligence isn't magic ... its the product of a mind.
    The way you are using it, you may as well define it as magic.

    And since you yet again ignored the questions you were asked, you forfeit them.

    So any further mention of CFSI from you as an argument will be complete dishonesty.


  • #7609
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sephir0th wrote: »
    JC attempted to present a way to mathemically determine the CFSI of a string of letters here:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64185114&postcount=20396

    When Sam Vimes debunked this, you can see where JC says that you have to first establish that something is functional (how?) and then use the equation:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64196677&postcount=20423

    It was then established that CFSI was nothing more than a claim of irreducible complexity, since the claim is that the specific sequence of DNA cannot be functional in any subsequence (or with any mutations) i.e. have evolved.
    You establish that it is functional ... by observing functionality or purpose as a result of it.

    DNA per se isn't irreducibly complex ... it is specific critical sequences of biomolecules that are irreducibly complex. DNA is the medium upon which was written the CFSI of life by God.


  • #7610
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    J C wrote: »
    You establish that it is functional ... by observing functionality or purpose as a result of it.

    And if you don't see and immediate purpose or functionality?


  • #7611
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    And if you don't see and immediate purpose or functionality?
    Look harder.

    God wouldn't waste energy or appear to be stupid by designing things that don't have a purpose!


  • Advertisement
  • #7612
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    robindch wrote: »
    Look harder.

    God wouldn't waste energy or appear to be stupid by designing things that don't have a purpose!

    How do you know??!
    HUH?!?!
    HUH!?!

    Jebus can do whateva he wants.


  • #7613
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    And if you don't see and immediate purpose or functionality?
    ... then you can't definitively conclude that it's CFSI.

    ... this may be an issue with abiotic CFSI ... but it isn't an issue with the functional CFSI found in living organisms.


  • #7614
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    How do you definitively conclude something has no CFSI.


  • #7615
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Look harder.

    God wouldn't waste energy or appear to be stupid by designing things that don't have a purpose!
    ... er no Robin ... scientifically speaking, the author(s) of the CFSI in life is/are unknown.

    I don't wish to dampen your 'enthusiasm' for ID science ... but I think that you should let me answer the questions ... until you have done a little more study on CFSI.:):D


  • #7616
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    How do you definitively conclude something has no CFSI.
    It is extremely difficult to scientifically prove a negative because absence of evidence isn't conclusive evidence of absence.
    This applies to all types of phenomena ... and not just CFSI.


  • #7617
    swiftblade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭swiftblade


    I haven't posted in this thread yet beacause, well, I see it as a wasted effort, but I can't help but laugh when I read something like this. I have to hand it too you JC. You have a real way with words. :)
    J C wrote: »
    absence of evidence isn't conclusive evidence of absence.

    :confused:


  • #7618
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    swiftblade wrote: »
    I haven't posted in this thread yet beacause, well, I see it as a wasted effort, but I can't help but laugh when I read something like this. I have to hand it too you JC. You have a real way with words. :)

    It'd be nice if he'd bothered to reference the original, but he does have a bit of a problem when it comes to providing citations.

    It's not wasted effort posting here. Just ignore J C's terrible attempts at science and there's loads of cool stuff to read.


  • #7619
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    It'd be nice if he'd bothered to reference the original, but he does have a bit of a problem when it comes to providing citations.
    The original what ??? its a logical fact that absence of evidence isn't conclusive evidence of absence

    ... and I have no problem with citation ... have a look at my sig ... it's fully referenced!!!:)
    Sarky wrote: »
    It's not wasted effort posting here. Just ignore J C's terrible attempts at science and there's loads of cool stuff to read.
    ID and Creation Science are not only cool ... they're awesome!!!!.:)


  • #7620
    swiftblade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭swiftblade


    I honestly haven't a clue what the whole CFSI thing is either. Tried looking it up, not much use. Could you explain it in plain english JC? I can't even find a website relating to it. I did honestly try looking.

    If I take your advise, in that, it's self explanatory,

    Complex- Adjective:

    Consisting of many different and connected parts.

    Functional- Adjective:
    • Of or having a special activity, purpose, or task; relating to the way in which something works or operates.
    • Designed to be practical and useful, rather than attractive.
    Specified- Verb:
    • Identify clearly and definitely: "he did not specify a date".
    • State a fact or requirement clearly and precisely: "the agency failed to specify that the workers were not their employees".
    Information- Noun:
    • Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
    • A formal criminal charge lodged with a court or magistrate by a prosecutor without the aid of a grand jury.
    It still doesn't explain much, JC. Any help here?


  • Advertisement
  • #7621
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swiftblade wrote: »
    I haven't posted in this thread yet beacause, well, I see it as a wasted effort, but I can't help but laugh when I read something like this. I have to hand it too you JC. You have a real way with words. :)
    It's the inspiration of The Holy Spirit in action.:)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement