"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C · 15-02-2012 10:52PM

King Mob wrote: »

Well as you admitted, lipid structures.

If the 'lipid structures' aren't functional or specified then they don't contain CFSI.

J C · 15-02-2012 11:21PM

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.

The point is that CFSI is independent of tools or a designer being identified as it's author.
If we find information that is complex, functional and specified then we can conclude that it had an intelligent author ... even if we don't know who the author was or what methods/tools were used to produce it.

We can scientifically conclude that life on Earth had an intelligent author or authors ... whether this/these author(s) was/were Aliens or the God of the Bible is an open question, that science may never answer.

Prof Dawkins even accepts that life on Earth could to have been Intelligently Designed and 'seeded onto' the Earth ... by Aliens and he admits that you could find a 'signature' of these designers in the details of biochemistry / molecular biology ...
Prof Dawkins is correct ... and Creation Scientists and ID proponents have found this 'signature' ... it's CFSI.
I suspect that Prof Dawkins has also found this 'signature'!!!

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

Delirium · 15-02-2012 11:36PM

J C wrote: »

The point is that CFSI is independent of tools or a designer being identified as it's author.
If we find information that is complex, functional and specified then we can conclude that it had an intelligent author ... even if we don't know who the author was or what methods/tools were used to produce it.

so without any evidence of any sort you can just claim that a designer created life. That's very convenient for Team Creationism.

We can scientifically conclude that life on Earth had an intelligent author or authors ... whether this/these author(s) was/were Aliens or the God of the Bible is an open question, that science may never answer.

You can't scientifically conclude anything if there is an absence of scientific evidence or documentation in favour of creationism.

Prof Dawkins even accepts that life on Earth could to have been Intelligently Designed and 'seeded onto' the Earth ... by Aliens and he admits that you could find a 'signature' of these designers in the details of biochemistry / molecular biology ...
Prof Dawkins is correct ... and Creation Scientists and ID proponents have found this 'signature' ... it's CFSI.
I suspect that Prof Dawkins has also found this 'signature'!!!

That was in response to a question of whether there could ever be an explanation that might have ID as the cause. And the team behind that film actually barred the scientists (that the recognised) from entering the screening of the movie. Although they didn't recognise Dawkins.

It's just more dishonest creationist nonsense to try and invalidate their opponents in the eyes of the viewers.

swiftblade · 15-02-2012 11:43PM

He also never admitted to your form of creation. Sure life could have begun somewhere else, and have been transported here by say, an asteroid.
Evolution still needed to take place. Or perhaps you believe a cow, goat, horse and dinosaur came here on a rocket.

Dawkins isn't saying evolution didn't happen.

J C · 15-02-2012 11:48PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And my point is that you look at man made things and say 'oh, this is complex and was intelligently designed', then look at life and say 'oh, this is more complex, this must have had a designer too! yay! proof for CFSI!'
It's like me looking at my laptop and saying this is grey and made by dell, then looking at my socks and saying 'these are grey too, dell must have made them too!'

... it's like you looking at the complex functional specified components in your laptop and any other artefact that also has complex functional specified components ... and concluding that they were both intelligently designed.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What's your point? I haven't even watched the video, but even if dawkins does say that, which I doubt, that doesn't mean everyone else who has an issue with intelligent design has to listen to. Dawkins isn't some kind of leader we all have to follow.

My point is that Prof Dawkins has admitted that it is possible to identify the 'signature' of Intelligent Design.
Prof Dawkins is one of the leading Evolutionist academics on Earth ... so if you won't believe me ... perhaps you will believe him.

... or is your commitment to anti-ID rhetoric so deep that you must stay in denial of objective reality ... an 'interesting' place for a Materialist and a skeptic to find himself!!!:)

J C · 15-02-2012 11:52PM

swiftblade wrote: »

He also never admitted to your form of creation. Sure life could have begun somewhere else, and have been transported here by say, an asteroid.
Evolution still needed to take place. Or perhaps you believe a cow, goat, horse and dinosaur came here on a rocket.

Dawkins isn't saying evolution didn't happen.

You see ... there is the rub ... for both of us ... ID doesn't necessarily invalidate Evolution ... or prove Creation ... so why are you guys so 'dead set' against it?

swiftblade wrote: »

Or perhaps you believe a cow, goat, horse and dinosaur came here on a rocket.

I don't believe this, as it happens ... but it makes more sense that believing that they developed from a slimeball!!!!:eek:

swiftblade · 15-02-2012 11:54PM

J C wrote: »

... it's like you looking at the complex functional specified components in your laptop and any other artefact that also has complex functional specified components ... and concluding that they were both intelligently designed.

My point is that Prof Dawkins has admitted that it is possible to identify the 'signature' of Intelligent Design.
Prof Dawkins is one of the leading Evolutionist academics on Earth ... so if you won't believe me ... perhaps you will believe him.

... or is your commitment to anti-ID rhetoric so deep that you must stay in denial of objective reality ... an 'interesting' place for a Materialist and a skeptic to find himself!!!:)

He said it might be possible to identify a signature. But you would need something to compare it too, ie. two different sets of DNA.

Delirium · 15-02-2012 11:55PM

J C wrote: »

You see ... there is the rub ... for both of us ... ID doesn't necessarily invalidate Evolution ... or prove Creation ... so why are you guys so 'dead set' against it?

I don't believe this, as it happens ... but it makes more sense that believing that the developed from a slimeball!!!!:EEK:

the same can be asked as to why you're so dead set against evolution?

swiftblade · 15-02-2012 11:57PM

J C wrote: »

You see ... there is the rub ... for both of us ... ID doesn't necessarily invalidate Evolution ... or prove Creation ... so why are you guys so 'dead set' against it?

I don't believe this, as it happens ... but it makes more sense that believing that the developed from a slimeball!!!!:EEK:

No but, what your saying does. Or are you telling me you now believe we have evolved from a more primitive being? I think not...

J C · 16-02-2012 12:08AM

swiftblade wrote: »

He said it might be possible to identify a signature. But you would need something to compare it too, ie. two different sets of DNA.

Why would Prof Dawkins say that it might be possible to identify the 'signature' of Intelligent Design ... if this is impossible ... as you guys seem to maintain?

Lads, stop the 'fooling around' ... and start 'smelling the roses' ... the reality is that the 'signature' of Intelligent Design has been identified by Creation Scientists, ID Proponents and (I suspect) many M2M Evolutionists as well.

They may not have told you guys ... yet !!!!:)

swiftblade · 16-02-2012 12:15AM

By signature, you're talking about something completley different. He was refering to the possibility of maybe sharing some of the same characteristics within DNA. As I said before though, we don't have anyhting to compare it to. Unless you have access to an alien lifeform?

I think you're refering to your CFSI stuff again. Appologies if I can't understand it. It was never explained to me.

16-02-2012 12:16AM

J C wrote: »

If the 'lipid structures' aren't functional or specified then they don't contain CFSI.

So why does one form of lipid structure, say a bilayer or a micelle have no CFSI, but a liposome does?
Remember I asked you this before but you tacitly admitted you can't answer it, thereby making your point stupid and unsupported.

Delirium · 16-02-2012 12:16AM

J C wrote: »

Why would Prof Dawkins say that it might be possible to identify the 'signature' of Intelligent Design ... if this is impossible ... as you guys seem to maintain?

he was answering a hypothetical question asked by the interviewer.

J C · 16-02-2012 12:21AM

koth wrote: »

the same can be asked as to why you're so dead set against evolution?

I'm not dead set against Evolution ... within Kinds ... I fully accept it.
It's the M2M variety that I see reject ... because neither logic nor evidence supports it.

swiftblade · 16-02-2012 12:22AM

Wait, what evolution do you believe in? Where do you say believe a horse or rabbit came from? This should be interesting...

J C · 16-02-2012 12:24AM

King Mob wrote: »

So why does one form of lipid structure, say a bilayer or a micelle have no CFSI, but a liposome does?
Remember I asked you this before but you tacitly admitted you can't answer it, thereby making your point stupid and unsupported.

If the bilayer can be produced by deterministic processes then it isn't specified ... and
intelligence therefore isn't required to produce it.

swiftblade · 16-02-2012 12:26AM

J C wrote: »

If the bilayer can be produced by deterministic processes then it isn't specified ... and
intelligence therefore isn't required to produce it.

You just admitted what he said was correct. You have yet to say why.

J C · 16-02-2012 12:30AM

swiftblade wrote: »

By signature, you're talking about something completley different. He was refering to the possibility of maybe sharing some of the same characteristics within DNA. As I said before though, we don't have anything to compare it to. Unless you have access to an alien lifeform?

Prof Dawkins was talking about identifying a 'signature' of Intelligent Design i.e. an objective scientifically verifiable method of identifying ID.

A 'signature' isn't a comparison ... it's something that is uniquely imposed by the phenomenon that produced it ... in this case Intelligence.

J C · 16-02-2012 12:32AM

swiftblade wrote: »

You just admitted what he said was correct. You have yet to say why.

Who said what was correct?
... please clarify.

swiftblade · 16-02-2012 12:34AM

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins was talking about identifying a 'signature' of Intelligent Design i.e. an objective scientifically verifiable method of identifying ID.

A 'signature' isn't a comparison ... it's something that is uniquely imposed by the phenomenon that produced it ... in this case Intelligence.

But that's not what he was talking about. Your back to your CFSI. There is no deffinate way to say "Yup, that's ID". There isn't a little "Made by ID" placed on everything.

But to save you from replying. Blah, blah, specified funtion blah, blah. Yea I get it.

swiftblade · 16-02-2012 12:35AM

J C wrote: »

Who said what was correct?
... please clarify.

Sorry, Misread that.

J C · 16-02-2012 12:38AM

koth wrote: »

That was in response to a question of whether there could ever be an explanation that might have ID as the cause.

... and like many answers, it revealed more that the question may have asked.
In this case, the fact that it might be possible to identify a 'signature' of intelligent action within living organisms using biochemistry and molecular biology.

J C · 16-02-2012 12:42AM

swiftblade wrote: »

There is no deffinate way to say "Yup, that's ID". There isn't a little "Made by ID" placed on everything.

Prof Dawkins has said that it might be possible ... and I'm saying that it is possible ... and has been done.

swiftblade · 16-02-2012 12:44AM

J C wrote: »

swiftblade wrote: »

But that's not what he was talking about. Your back to your CFSI. There is no deffinate way to say "Yup, that's ID". There isn't a little "Made by ID" placed on everything.

Prof Dawkins has said that it might be possible ... and I'm saying that it is possible ... and has been done.

Yes, to find a signature withim DNA. But for that, you need a comparrison set.

J C · 16-02-2012 12:51AM

swiftblade wrote: »

Yes, to find a signature withim DNA. But for that, you need a comparrison set.

You don't need a comparison set ... the presence of CFSI in Genetic Information carried on any DNA is the 'signature' of intelligent action.

16-02-2012 12:55AM

J C wrote: »

If the bilayer can be produced by deterministic processes then it isn't specified ... and
intelligence therefore isn't required to produce it.

Ok, so then what makes a bi layer more different than a Liposome that makes one more impossible than the other.

You keep dodging this very simple question.

J C · 16-02-2012 01:12AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes, that's my point, it's coming to a conclusion without evidence.

Its coming to a conclusion based on direct comparison between evidence.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Probably because as a scientist he is willing to remain open to any possibility in the event that there is evidence produced for it. You see unlike creation 'scientists', real scientists don't just sweep evidence under the rug when it doesn't suit their theories.
In answer to your second point, science would never get anywhere if everyone just agreed with whoever happens to be the leader in their field. Science evolves (ha) as we discover new things. While the pile of evidence under the creationist's rug gets bigger. (See, I can tell bad jokes too!).

The guys doing all of the sweeping under the rug on this thread ... are the Evolutionists

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The man who supports a theory without as shred of evidence against one with mountains of evidence is claiming I'm in denial of reality. Interesting.

... 'mountains' of evidence that have never been produced on this thread ... or anywhere else, that I'm aware of.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Stating that all life forms were designed and popped into existance in a similar form to their current form doesn't invalidate the theory that they achieved their current form gradually over millions of years? Care to explain how that makes sense?

If an Alien came to Earth ... and genetically engineered advanced like forms ... then they would 'pop into existence' at the time they were produced by the Alien ... but if the Alien was very sophisticated ... the life forms could have sufficient CFSI built in to evolve and change to match environmental niches using NS ... so ID per se doesn't rule out Evolution ... indeed it is the only plausible mechanism that we can think of to provide the functional variety from which NS can select.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Becuase current scientific evidence shows us that it is impossible. If new evidence comes up that show's it possible, no real scientist is going to deny it just because they don't like it.

Having seen the emotional outbursts on this thread, I don't think that the Evolutionists posting here are the cool objective detached people that they would like to think they are.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If any scientist had discovered this 'signature' and could actually prove it, we'd know about it very quickly.

That's obviously not how it works - the basic instinct of all power structures is self-preservation ... and the Evolutionists on this thread are no different in this regard to any other group.

robindch · 16-02-2012 01:24AM

J C wrote: »

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

You're aware that William Dumbski, the fool who came up with CSFI, has abandoned it?

Didn't you get the newsletter?

J C · 16-02-2012 01:41AM

robindch wrote: »

You're aware that William Dumbski, the fool who came up with CSFI, has abandoned it?

Didn't you get the newsletter?

I'm aware of no such thing ... and please ease off on the unfounded ad hominisms.

... and Robin could you also please use the basic courtesy of spelling peoples names correctly ... he is Dr William Dembski ... and yes they are earned doctorates from conventional Universities.

According to Wikipedia, Dr Dembski completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and masters degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago respectively), and a Master of Divinity in theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary (1996).

Sarky · 16-02-2012 01:44AM

And yet he still couldnt define the very concept he tried to push as proof of god.

That's pretty dumb by anyone's standards.

Ooh, maybe you could do it instead!

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments