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
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…256257259261262…328

Comments

  • #7742
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C, stop acting like a 7 year old. My nephew conducts himself with more maturity than you.


  • #7743
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    J C, stop acting like a 7 year old. My nephew conducts himself with more maturity than you.
    You could learn a lot from you nephew, then!!!:)


  • #7744
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    My point proved.


  • #7745
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    JC pretends to be a Christian when he isn't so he can troll the religious forums. That seems the biggest deception.
    An interesting admission that the A & A is part of the 'religious forums'.
    ... and please explain why you think that I'm pretending to be a Christian ... when I'm the real deal.


  • #7746
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    An insult straight after you swore blind that you didn't do that sort of thing. You're hopelessly bad at this.


  • Advertisement
  • #7747
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    An insult straight after you swore blind that you didn't do that sort of thing. You're hopelessly bad at this.
    It was Zombrex who said that I was posting on the religious forums ... and I have been exclusively posting on this forum for some time now.
    ... so where is the insult?
    ... except to me, by saying that I'm pretending to be a Christian.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    My point proved.
    Only if your point is ... that you need to learn, from your nephew, about acting maturely .

    Moral and intellectual maturity isn't age related ... I've known 60 somethings who never grew up ... and I've heard five-year olds speak with absolute logic and clarity.


  • #7748
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    How is any of that related to the fact that you just proved yourself a complete liar?

    Or will you now demonstrate the typical transparent way in which you try to change subject when someone calls bullsh*t on you?

    The only arguments in this thread you seem capable of reinforcing with evidence are the ones made against you.


  • #7749
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    How is any of that related to the fact that you just proved yourself a complete liar?

    Where have I done this?
    Please stop making baseless assertions and lying about me

    Or will you now demonstrate the typical transparent way in which you try to change subject when someone calls bullsh*t on you?
    'Calling' something, without proof does nothing for your case.
    Nobody will take you seriously until you prove your 'Bull Faeces' case to be true.
    .


  • #7750
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    There is no such term called M2M Evolution. Please stop making up terms on the fly. The term is Evolution. Please use it. And yes, there is mountains of evidence for Evolution. If you do not agree, then you are lying or ignorant. But please inform us which it is. Thank you.
    ... once again, plenty of 'old guff' ... but still no evidence for M2M Evolution.


  • #7751
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Apart from the hundreds of posts you're trying to pretend don't exist.

    More lies. I told you, you're really bad at this. Try honesty.


  • Advertisement
  • #7752
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    ... once again, plenty of 'old guff' ... but still no evidence for M2M Evolution.

    There is no such term called M2M Evolution. I already asked that you do not make up terms, and stick to the ones used in the scientific community. 'Evolution' will do just fine, and yes - there is more than ample evidence to support evolution by natural selection.


  • #7753
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    you are the liar
    Sarky wrote: »
    [...] you liar.
    Boys and girls, boys and girls. Please cut down on the invective towards your fellow-posters please.


  • #7754
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C has edited a couple of the recent insulting posts, I notice. Interesting, that. One would think that there was no need to change the wording if he never insulted people, like he claimed...


  • #7755
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sarky wrote: »
    J C has edited a couple of the recent insulting posts [...]
    Indeed. Seems one post above has gone through no less than 18 revisions since this morning.

    Regardless of that, please drop the invective towards fellow posters -- everybody.

    thanks.


  • #7756
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Indeed. Seems one post above has gone through no less than 18 revisions since this morning.
    That was an example of the Holy Spirit correcting my Human inadequacies and headstrong tendencies.:)

    I note that the unfounded insults against me haven't been corrected by anybody who made them.


  • #7757
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Apart from the hundreds of posts you're trying to pretend don't exist.
    Please link to one then, that provides evidence for M2M Evolution.
    I have already said that I accept that 'evolution' within Kinds using pre-existing CFSI is an established fact.

    What we disagree on is the source of the CFSI ... and whether it can be created ex nihilo without the appliance of intelligence.


  • #7758
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Please link to one then, that provides evidence for M2M Evolution.

    Please stop using terms that are not used in the Scientific community.


  • #7759
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Please stop using terms that are not used in the Scientific community.
    These terms are used within part of the scientific community (the Creation Science community) ... you need to broaden you horizons ... and start thinking outside the (evolution) box!!!!:)
    Microbes to Man Evolution ... is a completely different intellectual and scientific concept to Grey Moths 'evolving' into White Moths.
    In the former, we are talking about the production of the vast quantities of CFSI ex nihilo that exists between a Microbe and a Human ... while, in the latter, all we are talking about is some genetic drift within a population of Moths using pre-existing Moth CFSI.

    ... and science isn't like a church with unchanging dogma and terminology ... or are you're saying that Evolutionist Science is unchanging in its basic dogma and terminology?


  • #7760
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    They are used within part of the scientific community (the Creation Science community) ... you need to broaden you horizons ... and start thinking outside the (evolution) box!!!!:)

    There is no such thing as Creation science. Please stop using invalid terms. Now you either wish to discuss Evolution (an all encapsulating term), or you don't. But don't make up fake terms, to avoid debating the topic.


  • #7761
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    There is no such thing as Creation science. Please stop using invalid terms. Now you either wish to discuss Evolution (an all encapsulating term), or you don't. But don't make up fake terms, to avoid debating the topic.
    I have already shown how 'evolution' isn't an all encompassing term.

    Microbes to Man Evolution ... is a completely different intellectual and scientific concept to Grey Moths 'evolving' into White Moths.
    In the former, we are talking about the production of the vast quantities of CFSI that exists between a Microbe and a Human ... while, in the latter, all we are talking about is some genetic drift (moderated by NS) within a population of Moths using pre-existing Moth CFSI.


  • Advertisement
  • #7762
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,076 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I have already shown how 'evolution' isn't an all encompassing term.

    Microbes to Man Evolution ... is a completely different intellectual and scientific concept to Grey Moths 'evolving' into White Moths.
    No it's not, the principles are the same for both scenarios.
    In the former, we are talking about the production of the vast quantities of CFSI ex nihilo that exists between a Microbe and a Human ... while, in the latter, all we are talking about is some genetic drift within a population of Moths using pre-existing Moth CFSI.
    CFSI has no scientic basis and nothing to do with evolution. CFSI is part of the creationist realm i.e. not science.

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



  • #7763
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    No it's not, the principles are the same for both scenarios.
    As I agree that the Grey Moth to White Moth type of Evolution is a fact ... all we need to discuss is the Microbes to Man type.
    As I agree that NS is capable of selecting between organisms with different CFSI ... then the only issue on which we disagree is how CFSI is produced ... and whether random processes like mutation are capable of generating it.
    koth wrote: »
    CFSI has no scientic basis and nothing to do with evolution. CFSI is part of the creationist realm i.e. not science.
    Call it genetic information or critical biochemical sequences if you want.
    The prime weakness in the Evolutionist argument is that, just because an organism 'needs' (or could survice better) with an improvement ... doesn't mean that it will ever get an improvement ... and the maths show that it will never get any improvement ... without the appliance of intelligence.

    The ratio of non-functional combinatorial space to specific functional combinatorial space is so vast as to be beyond the Universal Probability Bound (10^150).

    That's why we need doctors to administer specific functional remedies when we are ill ... and its why mutagenesis isn't used by doctors to cure us. It's also the reason why we have Intelligently Designed DNA 'auto-correction' mechanisms to correct damage done by background mutagenesis.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair


  • #7764
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,076 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    As I agree that the Grey Moth to White Moth type of Evolution is a fact ... all we need to discuss is the Microbes to Man type.
    As I agree that NS is capable of selecting between organisms with different CFSI ... then the only issue on which we disagree is how CFSI is produced ... and whether random processes like mutation are capable of generating it.
    CFSI has nothing to do with evolution. might as well argue the absence of unicorn tears as a reason against evolution.
    Call it genetic information or critical biochemical sequences if you want.
    I think the prime weakness in the Evolutionist argument is that, just because an organism needs an improvement ... doesn't mean that it will ever get an improvement ... and the maths show that it will never get any improvement ... without the appliance of intelligence.
    nonsense. evidence has been posted on this thread that completely disproves that assertion.

    The ratio of non-functional combinatorial space to specific functional combinatorial space is so vast as to be beyond the Universal Probability Bound (10^150).
    how did you arrive at that number?

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



  • #7765
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,076 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    That's why we need doctors to administer specific functional remedies when we are ill ... and its why mutagenesis isn't used by doctors to cure us. It's also the reason why we have Intelligently Designed DNA 'auto-correction' mechanisms to correct damage done by background mutagenesis.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

    :rolleyes:

    and yet the doctors use medicine based on scientific understanding of evolution. and i also posted an article that showed mutation in humans from one generation to the next that gave children better odds of survival in their environment.

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



  • #7766
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Your universal probability bound is also bullsh*t, as you're failing to take a whole bunch of factors* into account, like the stereochemistry of nucleotides and the amino acids they encode, amino acids and the sequences they comprise (even you must have heard of protein folding). These properties limit an awful amount of the variability and viability in a potential sequence, whereas you're just assuming that the whole thing is a random assortment of letters, which is beyond stupid, to be honest, and shows a criminal lack of understanding.

    Then there are the probability skews caused by environmental pressures; Hot environments denature DNA with low GC content, which is why the things that live there have 20-30% more guanine and cytosine in the DNA sequences than organisms in colder environments. Scarcity or abundance of various chemicals does similar things. Light, physical agitation, moisture, all these things interact in a complex web to skew the odds well away from your stupid arbitrary cut-off point. And that's not even touching on the gross stupidity of conflating low probability with "impossible". Whoever told you that is, quite frankly, a moron.

    It's quite clear you don't actually know anything about basic biology or even elementary statistics, I'm afraid. There are any number of books I could recommend on the subject that should clear up most of the fallacies you keep employing. Of course, I don't expect you to read them, because you're not interested in learning how you're wrong.

    Now, we've covered this several times in the past, and you're refusing to acknowledge it every time. This means you're deliberately presenting false information as true, even when you know you're wrong. It's shameful behaviour on your part, and we'd like it very much if you acknowledged that and apologised for it.

    *There are more factors than I've covered here of course, but we all know J C is going to ignore most of this post anyway, and I have a weekend to enjoy so I'm not going to bother my arse telling him stuff he's already supposed to know as a "conventionally qualified scientist" and originally "one of the best" proponents of evolution.


  • #7767
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    CFSI has nothing to do with evolution. might as well argue the absence of unicorn tears as a reason against evolution.
    Like I have said you can call it genetic information or critical biochemical sequences if you want.

    koth wrote: »
    nonsense. evidence has been posted on this thread that completely disproves that assertion.
    Link Please.
    koth wrote: »
    how did you arrive at that number?
    Quote:-
    "Scientists have learned that within the known physical universe there are about 10^80 elementary particles ... Scientists also have learned that a change from one state of matter to another can't happen faster than what physicists call the Planck time. ... The Planck time is 1 second divided by 10^45 ... Finally, scientists estimate that the universe is about fourteen billion years old, meaning the universe is itself millions of times younger than 10^25 seconds. (Note ... it's actually 10^17 seconds) If we now assume that any physical event in the universe requires the transition of at least one elementary particle (most events require far more, of course), then these limits on the universe suggest that the total number of events throughout cosmic history could not have exceeded 10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150.
    This means that any specified event whose probability is less than 1 chance in 10^150 will remain improbable even if we let every corner and every moment of the universe roll the proverbial dice. The universe isn't big enough, fast enough or old enough to roll the dice enough times to have a realistic chance of randomly generating specified events that are this improbable."

    (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, pp. 68-69 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).)


  • #7768
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    and yet the doctors use medicine based on scientific understanding of evolution. and i also posted an article that showed mutation in humans from one generation to the next that gave children better odds of survival in their environment.
    Link please.


  • #7769
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,076 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Like I have said you can call it genetic information or critical biochemical sequences if you want.
    No. regardless of the title, CFSI has nothing to do with evolution.

    Quote:-
    "Scientists have learned that within the known physical universe there are about 10^80 elementary particles ... Scientists also have learned that a change from one state of matter to another can't happen faster than what physicists call the Planck time. ... The Planck time is 1 second divided by 10^45 ... Finally, scientists estimate that the universe is about fourteen billion years old, meaning the universe is itself millions of times younger than 10^25 seconds. (Note ... it's actually 10^17 seconds) If we now assume that any physical event in the universe requires the transition of at least one elementary particle (most events require far more, of course), then these limits on the universe suggest that the total number of events throughout cosmic history could not have exceeded 10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150.
    This means that any specified event whose probability is less than 1 chance in 10^150 will remain improbable even if we let every corner and every moment of the universe roll the proverbial dice. The universe isn't big enough, fast enough or old enough to roll the dice enough times to have a realistic chance of randomly generating specified events that are this improbable."

    (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, pp. 68-69 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).)
    where is their list (or number of) transitions of all stages of evolution to arrive at homo sapien? that's without even getting into their 'random generating specified events' misunderstanding of evolution.
    J C wrote: »
    Link please.
    currently on my phone, so can't post any links (which you'll probably ignore yet again) until tomorrow at the earliest.

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



  • #7770
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Your universal probability bound is also bullsh*t, as you're failing to take a whole bunch of factors* into account, like the stereochemistry of nucleotides and the amino acids they encode, amino acids and the sequences they comprise (even you must have heard of protein folding). These properties limit an awful amount of the variability and viability in a potential sequence,
    These factors aren't limiting ... they're actually part of the non-functional combinatorial space of these biomolecules ... and thus are part of the explanatory probem for M2M evolution.

    Sarky wrote: »
    whereas you're just assuming that the whole thing is a random assortment of letters, which is beyond stupid, to be honest, and shows a criminal lack of understanding...
    ... Whoever told you that is, quite frankly, a moron.
    Robin asked you to be nice to me ... so that I can be nice to you.
    Make love ... not war!!!:)
    ... and it's nice to be nice.
    Sarky wrote: »
    Then there are the probability skews caused by environmental pressures; Hot environments denature DNA with low GC content, which is why the things that live there have 20-30% more guanine and cytosine in the DNA sequences than organisms in colder environments. Scarcity or abundance of various chemicals does similar things. Light, physical agitation, moisture, all these things interact in a complex web to skew the odds well away from your stupid arbitrary cut-off point.
    The point is that the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) isn't arbitrary ... it's an absolute physical limit.
    ... and the environmental factors, that you have cited, only select from pre-existing CFSI ... just like cold climates favour hairy varieties of animal ... and if the selection pressure is very high, the population could even becomes obligate cold dwellers ... who would die out if moved to hot climates ... due to the elimination of the CFSI for short hair from the population.
    Sarky wrote: »
    And that's not even touching on the gross stupidity of conflating low probability with "impossible".
    Ignoring the gratuitous insult ... in accordance with the law of large numbers ... a probability of 1:10^150 is a statistical impossibility.
    Sarky wrote: »
    It's quite clear you don't actually know anything about basic biology or even elementary statistics, I'm afraid. There are any number of books I could recommend on the subject that should clear up most of the fallacies you keep employing. Of course, I don't expect you to read them, because you're not interested in learning how you're wrong.

    Now, we've covered this several times in the past, and you're refusing to acknowledge it every time. This means you're deliberately presenting false information as true, even when you know you're wrong. It's shameful behaviour on your part, and we'd like it very much if you acknowledged that and apologised for it.
    ... and you're still making unfounded vague generalisations ... that are backed up by nothing but hot air.
    Sarky wrote: »
    There are more factors than I've covered here of course, but we all know J C is going to ignore most of this post anyway, and I have a weekend to enjoy so I'm not going to bother my arse telling him stuff he's already supposed to know as a "conventionally qualified scientist" and originally "one of the best" proponents of evolution.
    ... and pigs will fly ... just because you say so.

    One small piece of definitive evidence ... is worth a thousand words of vague waffle ... and unfounded prejudicial personal insults.:)


  • Advertisement
  • #7771
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    And you haven't managed to supply any to support your case. It's either because you're rubbish at getting your point across, or because there IS no point for you to get across.

    EDIT: Oh, you're getting it from something Dembski wrote. Fair enough, that broadens the options to either "you heard it off a moron", or "you heard it off a blustering liar".


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement