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…252253255257258…328

Comments

  • #7622
    swiftblade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭swiftblade


    J C wrote: »
    It's the inspiration of The Holy Spirit in action.:)

    If you are in constant contact with the holy spirit, can you ask what CFSI is/means? Maybe he/it/she knows.


  • #7623
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swiftblade wrote: »
    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.
    Consisting of multiple integrated components or processes.

    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.
    Having a clear purpose, activity and/or effect.

    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".
    Specific critical sequences ... which, if changed randomly, reduces or eliminates functionality.

    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.
    The ordered multi-level sequence of symbols/signals (stored and transmitted on DNA) that provides the instructions to produce the highly integrated functional biological systems and processes observed in living organisms..

    It still doesn't explain much, JC. Any help here?
    The meaning of CFSI, in the context of living organisms, is in blue above.


  • #7624
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swiftblade wrote: »
    If you are in constant contact with the holy spirit, can you ask what CFSI is/means? Maybe he/it/she knows.
    You must be psychic!!!
    ... see my last post!!!:)


  • #7625
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    And you've been told countless times why that isn't good enough, J C.


  • #7626
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The meaning of CFSI, in the context of living organisms, is in blue above.

    rephrasing individual definitions of each word doesn't equal a definition for CFSI.

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



  • Advertisement
  • #7627
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    And you've been told countless times why that isn't good enough, J C.
    ... it's as real as it gets!!!!

    Why do you guys have such a problem with the blindingly obvious ... that living organisms contain vast quantities of highly integrated CFSI of such sophistication that they makes super-computers look like pocket calculators??


  • #7628
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    rephrasing individual definitions of each word doesn't equal a definition for CFSI.
    I can take you to water ... but I can't make you drink!!!

    You always have the right to continue to be wrong.

    You aren't the first person to be so fixated with your own worldview that you defy logic and the physical evidence before your eyes ... to maintain your beliefs ... and you won't be the last.:)

    I too was that soldier ... when I was an Evolutionist.


  • #7629
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I can take you to water ... but I can't make you drink!!!

    You always have the right to continue to be wrong.

    You aren't the first person to be so fixated with your own worldview that you defy logic and the physical evidence before your eyes ... to maintain your beliefs ... and you won't be the last.:)

    I too was that soldier ... when I was an Evolutionist.

    considering that you haven't been able to describe what CFSI is, I'm not too concerned about being wrong from your point of view.

    If you can't define what CFSI is, then no one can try to examine the concept of CFSI to see if it holds up to scrutiny. I'm actually beginning to think you're purposely being evasive because you know it won't hold up to scrutiny.

    feel free to define CFSI though if you wish to prove otherwise.

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



  • #7630
    swiftblade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭swiftblade


    I wouldn't mind if he wasn't defining it, but you could find info about it somewhere else. The fact is, when you type CFSI into google, not one website comes up relating to what JC is talking about.

    In conclusion JC, I find it hard to believe anything you say or have faith, in what you say, if you can't simply explain this CFSI stuff, that from the looks of it you base all your beliefs on.


  • #7631
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    considering that you haven't been able to describe what CFSI is, I'm not too concerned about being wrong from your point of view.

    If you can't define what CFSI is, then no one can try to examine the concept of CFSI to see if it holds up to scrutiny. I'm actually beginning to think you're purposely being evasive because you know it won't hold up to scrutiny.

    feel free to define CFSI though if you wish to prove otherwise.
    Read my previous posts if you want to know what CFSI is ... and if you don't want to know ... then ignorace of CFSI ... may well be bliss for you.:)


  • Advertisement
  • #7632
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    And another one slips through his holy spirit enhanced grasp.

    This is why you'll always be a laughing stock, J C. Even dead one started asking why you kept dodging simple questions.


  • #7633
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Read my previous posts if you want to know what CFSI is ... and if you don't want to know ... then ignorace may well be bliss for you.

    I have read your posts, and I do want to know. And not being a scientist, I find your attempts at defining CFSI too vague to be of any use.

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



  • #7634
    swiftblade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭swiftblade


    koth wrote: »
    I have read your posts, and I do want to know. And not being a scientist, I find your attempts at defining CFSI too vague to be of any use.

    What he said. I read nearly all your posts relating to CFSI, JC. I still don't know what it actually is. I know it's an argumnet for intelligent design, but I have yet to see you describe it simply enough.

    Think about it. How can anybody take you seriously if you can't define the one thing you're basing most of your arguments on.


  • #7635
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swiftblade wrote: »
    What he said. I read nearly all your posts relating to CFSI, JC. I still don't know what it actually is. I know it's an argumnet for intelligent design, but I have yet to see you describe it simply enough.

    Think about it. How can anybody take you seriously if you can't define the one thing you're basing most of your arguments on.
    You don't need to take me seriously if you don't want to.

    You don't need to do or believe anything if you don't want to.

    You have the free will ... to be right ... or wrong.

    ... and you have the freedom ... to be Saved ... or not.

    That's just the way it is ... and I wouldn't change it, even if I could ... because it would remove your freedom as a sovereign Human Being.


  • #7636
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    You don't need to take me seriously if you don't want to.

    You don't need to do or believe anything if you don't want to.

    You have the free will ... to be right ... or wrong.

    You have the freedom ... to be Saved ... or not.

    That's just the way it is ... and I wouldn't change it, even if I could ... because it would remove your freedom as a sovereign Human Being.

    so are you washing your hands with regards to defining CFSI then?

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



  • #7637
    swiftblade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,551 ✭✭✭swiftblade


    See this is why I wasn't posting on this thread. I think this is fitting...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg


  • #7638
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    so are you washing your hands with regards to defining CFSI then?
    No ... I'm washing my hands with regards to your games of verbal ping pong.


  • #7639
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    No ... I'm washing my hands with regards to your games of verbal ping pong.

    so you are refusing to define CFSI then. No problemo.

    Then have you anything credible that would help support the creationist myth?

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



  • #7640
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    so you are refusing to define CFSI then. No problemo.

    Then have you anything credible that would help support the creationist myth?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77095022&postcount=7708


  • #7641
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77095022&postcount=7708
    So it's still a no.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    For the sake of argument I'm going to accept your definition of CFSI J C. Even accepting this, I can point out the flaws. You talk about how CFSI is evidence of intelligent design. CFSI found in cave markings/man made cave can be shown to be created by a designer as we find evidence of human tools used to make the markings. Same with books, we know humans write books, it's not a huge leap of faith to assume old books we find with unknown authors were also written by humans. What I'm saying is there is evidence that these had a designer, so you can say they have CFSI. There is no evidence of any tools use to create life. There is no proof that it had a designer. CFSI is too broad of a term to be used to imply a common source. It would be like me saying because my skin is the same colour as my jacket, they were both made by Wrangler. Or my bed is the same colour as my wall, therefore they're both beds.

    I know I'm not being very clear, it's been a long day.
    Exactly, Doc. That's the same problem that I pointed out to JC.

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



  • Advertisement
  • #7642
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    For the sake of argument I'm going to accept your definition of CFSI J C. Even accepting this, I can point out the flaws. You talk about how CFSI is evidence of intelligent design. CFSI found in cave markings/man made cave can be shown to be created by a designer as we find evidence of human tools used to make the markings. Same with books, we know humans write books, it's not a huge leap of faith to assume old books we find with unknown authors were also written by humans. What I'm saying is there is evidence that these had a designer, so you can say they have CFSI. There is no evidence of any tools use to create life. There is no proof that it had a designer. CFSI is too broad of a term to be used to imply a common source. It would be like me saying because my skin is the same colour as my jacket, they were both made by Wrangler. Or my bed is the same colour as my wall, therefore they're both beds.

    I know I'm not being very clear, it's been a long day.

    If markings (i.e. writings or drawings) were found on a cave wall but we could not deduce from those markings what tools were used to make them would it be justifiable for us to conclude (based on this fact alone) that they were not intelligently designed? Surely not. Just because we don't know what tools were used to make the markings shouldn't really affect the conclusion that the markings were intelligently designed. Knowing what tools were used does nothing to add to or take away from the conclusion that intelligent agency was involved in the markings.

    If the debate was about how the markings were made then this would be important but the debate is not about that at all. Its about whether or not we are able to detect intelligent causation of the markings by just scrutinising the markings themselves. Finding markings consistent with erosion, pressure or heat is evidence for erosion, pressure and heat but finding patterns that are recognisable to intelligent scrutinisers (us) to have come from an intelligent source i.e. writings or drawings etc is evidence of intelligent causation for those markings. To say that there is no proof it was caused by intelligent agency because we don't know how they made the markings is just being silly.


  • #7643
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    There are plenty of examples in this thread, in linked papers and across the web where naturally occurring patterns contain plenty of cfsi. These are dismissed by creationists without explanation. Sometimes they say something like "well we KNOW it wasn't done by humans so it can't contain cfsi", despite the fact that by any method of measuring cfsi they can give, the example they dismissed contains tonnes of it.

    You can't do that and maintain scientific credibility. Either that natural phenomenon that happens to look like a smiley face contains cfsi, or cfsi is too poorly defined to be any use. The minute you introduce an arbitrary cutoff point like that for no good reason, you may as well conclude "IT'S F*CKING MAGIC".

    It's just one of many reasons why cfsi just doesn't cut it. Wiki is a good start to showing just how many holes there are to poke fun at.


  • #7644
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    There are plenty of examples in this thread, in linked papers and across the web where naturally occurring patterns contain plenty of cfsi. These are dismissed by creationists without explanation. Sometimes they say something like "well we KNOW it wasn't done by humans so it can't contain cfsi", despite the fact that by any method of measuring cfsi they can give, the example they dismissed contains tonnes of it.
    Creation Scientists say no such thing. What are these 'examples' that you are talking about?

    I'll answer Doctor Jimbob, Koth and S W when we have this out of the way.


  • #7645
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Creation Scientists

    Please do not use this term. There is no such thing as a creation scientist.


  • #7646
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Completely agree with this, in my last post I was just simplifying things in a (probably poor) attempt to show that even assuming all these things DO contain 'CFSI', it still doesn't make a good argument for an intelligent designer of life.

    As he's decided to evade even this simplified version of the argument by once again attempting to derail the conversation completely, screw it, I can't be bothered.
    I'm not derailing or evading anything ... I've specifically promised to answer your posting ... BUT ... first I want to deal with Sarky's.

    Sarky made a specific claim that I believe to false ... that 'naturally occurring patterns contain plenty of cfsi'.

    It's important to follow this through ... because, if it is true, then intelligence isn't required to produce CFSI ... so it goes to the very heart of the CFSI issue. It also touches on your post.
    ... so what are the examples that Sarky is talking about?


  • #7647
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    a short video of Derren Brown giving his thoughts on ID.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay8G3t8xp7s

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



  • #7648
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... so, just as I thought ... there are no examples.


  • #7649
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    ... so, just as I thought ... there are no examples.

    Well as you admitted, lipid structures.


  • #7650
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    a short video of Derren Brown giving his thoughts on ID.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay8G3t8xp7s
    The 'Banana' argument is now only a 'strawman' ... no Creation Scientist would use it for the very reasons stated by Darren Brown.

    Equally, M2M Evolution is a very extraordinary claim ... that defies all logic and therefore requires extraordinary proof ... in accordance with the principle that Darren Brown proposes for claims in relation to the existence of God.

    CFSI is now where it is at ... as Creation Science has moved far beyond Intelligent Design.


  • Advertisement
  • #7651
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    well as soon as you define what CFSI is, we'll see if it holds up to scrutiny.

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



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement