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

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…285286288290291…328

Comments

  • #8612
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    ... so just because you're more like an Elephant biologically than a Crocodile ... does this make you an Elephant???:eek:

    No, nor was my statement anything even remotely close to what you're suggesting. Another strawman.

    To recap - If you accept that a chimp and an orangutan are both apes (which you do) - And also accept that chimps are more biologically closer to humans than chimps are to orangutans (which you do) - Then it makes perfect sense to classify humans as apes.

    I really don't see what the big problem is. It's merely a taxonomic classification.

    Our of curiosity J C - Do you accept that other apes shared a common ancestor? Gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangutans...?

    J C wrote: »
    Your saying that we're all Apes ...

    It's a biological fact that we are apes. I'm not the only one saying it I'm afraid. World renowned biologists agree. But I suppose you know better, right?
    J C wrote: »
    and I'm proving that we are radically different with an enormous (and un-bridgeable) qualitative gap between Mankind and any other creature in God's Creation, including Apes.

    I agree that humans are radically different, all perfectly explainable by the theory of evolution. And we can see that radical change occurring all the way from homo habilis right up to modern homo sapiens.
    J C wrote: »
    There is plenty of 'support' for Evolution from the Evolutionists on this thread ... but no evidence!!!

    We've presented you with evidence, but you insulted those who presented it by ignoring it.


  • #8613
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    J C Humans are Great Apes.
    Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, common chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Alternatively, the hominidae family are collectively described as the great apes

    I like that this bugs these deniers. :)


  • #8614
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    POINTBREAK wrote: »
    You Guys ever get that uneasy feeling that it might be wrong to constantly poke the mentally ill with a stick, even if they do seem to like it?
    I have to defend the Evolutionists on this thread on this one ... there is no evidence that any of them are suffering from mental illness .
    Wishful thinking is simply wishful thinking!!!:)


  • #8615
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Wishful thinking would be trying to pretend you haven't admitted defeat and apologised after failing utterly to provide evidence for your claims.

    Kind of like what you're doing right now, J C. Surely you haven't forgotten how you were asked to either provide evidence you claimed you had twice, with the caveat that failure would be an explicit admission that no such evidence exists, as well as an apology for wasting our time with nonsense? I mean it was only a couple of pages ago and you read every post.

    Don't worry though, we're a forgiving lot. And I'm sure you won't be so careless or foolish enough to ever make an outlandish claim again without hard evidence. Not to mention insulting and disrespecting everyone who went to the trouble of typing nice informative posts on evolution to educate you.

    Apology accepted, J C. Go in peace, and don't sin again. Of course contunuing to bang on about stuff you just admitted was false would be seen as very dumb. So I'm sure you'll take that into account before your next post. Oh, I can't wait to see what you post about now that you've admitted cfsi is a pile of ****.


  • #8616
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    well you should read what JC has been posting, because you said that you have chosen to agree with him. And he said that the world is only a few thousand years old. So either you choose to side with him, and as a side-effect agree that world is only a few thousand years old. Or you don't agree with him, and therefore need to rethink your choice.

    this is why it's usually a good idea to read up on what you're agreeing to before you decide to agree with someone.

    The Earth is 10000 years old or 10000000 years old--There is no moral ill in believing it --- The earth is round like an egg or it is flat ---there is no moral virtue in believing that --- there is no moral sickness in it... The maker made this world as the only world or he made million of worlds like... There is no moral virtue in it...
    therefore need to rethink your choice
    Now you need to rethink ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #8617
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,071 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    From the wiki about CFSI, which had to be provided by Barr125 and not JC.
    The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems, or biology
    Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening. This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."

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



  • #8618
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,071 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dead one wrote: »
    The Earth is 10000 years old or 10000000 years old--There is no moral ill in believing it --- The earth is round like an egg or it is flat ---there is no moral virtue in believing that --- there is no moral sickness in it... The maker made this world as the only world or he made million of worlds like... There is no moral virtue in it...
    Now you need to rethink ;)

    I'm not talking about morality, so I've no idea why you've gone off on a pointless tangent. I guess it's better than admitting you made a rash decision without examining the information first.

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



  • #8619
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Sarky wrote: »
    And then you get arrested .
    I am the spirit of a pirate... I was the pirate of this unreal world...with my actions --- I tried to save this pirated world
    but my own piracy is to forever remain in the shadows--- My blood ran through the heart of this unreal world... My ship floats in the bottoms of this unreal sea... The ships contains shipment of games/movies -- No one is here to arrest me ... There are no passengers at my ship -- There are no laws in seas of desires... There are no restrictions where i am living... As world's poor veins slowly filled with agony and pain, the aftereffect were felt everywhere... Sarkyfell first, infected by some foul desire.... My journey lasted forever.... playing masseffect 3 at insanity -- It's fresh like fresh hell-- I began my day running from home-- This new world is my home... ;)


  • #8620
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    I'm not talking about morality, so I've no idea why you've gone off on a pointless tangent. I guess it's better than admitting you made a rash decision without examining the information first.
    Religion creates moral codes --- So if i agree with JC that world is 10000 is years old.... It doesn't effect me


  • #8621
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    J C wrote: »
    OK ... so here is a fossil and artists impression of this particular worm-like creature ... that was fossilised in Noahs Flood 6,000 +/- 1,000 yrs BP.

    ... and there were many radically different chordates Created during Creation Week ... along with creatures that are classified as echinodermata and hemichordata.

    ... once again you are making evolutionist assumptions that these dead creature were fossilised over millions of years ... when the evidence is that they were fossilised instanteously ... and certainly within weeks/months of death such is the perfection of the preservation of their bodies.

    etc. etc.

    OK, I'm going to start with this because I wish to avoid repetition in the rest of my post. JC, even you at this point must realise from the amount of hard scientific data and comments and requests that proper peer-reviewed evidence is going to be the only thing that is given any merit in this discussion and the only thing likely to give your claims any credence. So, for the first and only time, where is the scientific evidence for your claims like the one in bold above?

    J C wrote: »
    These are just a classification keys for identifying / describing / classifying organisms by their common physical characteristics ... and not some kind of Evolutionary sequence.

    Yes, these are classification terms. I've already explained this to you multiple times. The only dividing line of any import is speciation because this is the point where macroevolution kicks in. The other terms are labels that we use to categorise the massive amounts of different species that we have catalogue. Originally this was done purely through morphological similarity but over the last half-century the existing picture has been reinforced and in some cases changed thanks to new information provided by genetic analysis.
    These groups still provide an evolutionary sequence though. When an offspring is born with extra features or without features indicative of its parents doesn't mean it didn't arise from them. For example, if a child is born without arms and we define humans as having four limbs (which we do) then we don't say that the child is still human because it lacks a defining characteristic. So the addition or subtraction of features that we see as we move through the fossil record is evidence of common ancestry.

    J C wrote: »
    Yet an other classifcation diagram ... but no proof that these organisms share a common ancestry.

    I've already provided a specific example of the common ancestry between humans and other apes and how this information is reinforced through multiple fields of study. Since you didn't bother to refute those, I don't know why you have a problem with this now.

    Oh, and saying "you're wrong" is not a refutation. Saying "you're wrong and here are the pieces of evidence which explain why" is a refutation.
    J C wrote: »
    an at least equally logical conclusion is that it is a record of catastrophic burial of different contemporaneous creatures ... with different characteristics

    It is an evidential conclusion that we seek, JC, not one based only on logic and none of the evidence supports the biblical flood.

    J C wrote: »
    There are living examples of most these Classes alive today ... and they appear to an objective observer to be totally distinct creatures ... with no identifiable intermediates between them ... indicating that they are examples of Created Kinds.

    So what? We have living examples of the class Myxini if you want to go back even further. However, you still seem not to have listened to all the posters who have patiently explained selection pressure to you.
    Secondly, why would we expect to find an intermediate form between two sister groups. We only expect to find them between descendant branches. Since acanthodii and osteichthyes didn't evolve from each other, we don't expect to find an intermediate between them.
    Oh, so now you're changing your definition of a kind to class. I see, shifting the goalposts again because your last definition of kind was shown to be bull****. You cretins make me laugh.

    J C wrote: »
    ... while having them neither in or out or a mix-up between in and out usually results in all kinds of nasty complications ... which would likely kill or make sterile any intermediates thereby ruling out the so-called 'split' or 'divergence' that you are talking about.

    Oh, not the "half-an-eye" argument again. You really don't understand how evolution works, do you or is it that you just like your strawman better?

    Is this the best response you could come up with? For shame JC. Ken Ham would not be happy.


  • Advertisement
  • #8622
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    It's ok, oldrnwisr, he's admitted failure and apologised for it.


  • #8623
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Sarky wrote: »
    It's ok, oldrnwisr, he's admitted failure and apologised for it.

    Oh, great. Sorry I was just catching up after the weekend. Cool, apology accepted JC.


  • #8624
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,071 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Team sheds light on upright walking
    Mankind's ancestors may have started walking on two legs simply because it allowed them to carry more food away in their hands, boosting their chance of survival, scientists believe.

    Anthropologists studying chimpanzees found that the great apes, who usually walk on all fours, walk upright and free their hands for carrying when they need to monopolise hard-to-find resources by swiping more at a single attempt in the face of fierce competition.

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



  • #8625
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    I've heard a few of these, another is that after they got out of the tree's the savannah grasses required them to raise their heads up to keep an eye out for predators, another, and afaik more controversial was when we made it to the sea it enabled us to wade along the shore collecting shell fish. If i was a betting man I'd say it was a combination of these.


  • #8626
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    http://www.theonion.com/articles/openminded-man-grimly-realizes-how-much-life-hes-w,19273/
    The Onion wrote:
    CLEVELAND—During an unexpected moment of clarity Tuesday, open-minded man Blake Richman was suddenly struck by the grim realization that he's squandered a significant portion of his life listening to everyone's bullshit, the 38-year-old told reporters.

    A visibly stunned and solemn Richman, who until this point regarded his willingness to hear out the opinions of others as a worthwhile quality, estimated that he's wasted nearly three and a half years of his existence being open to people's half-formed thoughts, asinine suggestions, and pointless, dumbfuck stories.

    "Jesus Christ," said Richman, taking in the overwhelming volume of useless crap he's actively listened to over the years. "My whole life I've made a concerted effort to give people a fair shake and understand different points of view because I felt that everyone had something valuable to offer, but it turns out most of what they had to offer was complete bullshit."

    "Seriously," Richman added, "what have I gained from treating everyone's opinion with respect? Nothing. Absolutely nothing."

    [...]


  • #8627
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Oh, great. Sorry I was just catching up after the weekend. Cool, apology accepted JC.
    Not so oldrnwisr ... just Sarky dreaming again!!!!
    Here was the exchange:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77676721&postcount=8776


  • #8628
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/openminded-man-grimly-realizes-how-much-life-hes-w,19273/

    Originally Posted by The Onion
    CLEVELAND—During an unexpected moment of clarity Tuesday, open-minded man Blake Richman was suddenly struck by the grim realization that he's squandered a significant portion of his life listening to everyone's bull****, the 38-year-old told reporters.

    A visibly stunned and solemn Richman, who until this point regarded his willingness to hear out the opinions of others as a worthwhile quality, estimated that he's wasted nearly three and a half years of his existence being open to people's half-formed thoughts, asinine suggestions, and pointless, dumb**** stories.

    "Jesus Christ," said Richman, taking in the overwhelming volume of useless crap he's actively listened to over the years. "My whole life I've made a concerted effort to give people a fair shake and understand different points of view because I felt that everyone had something valuable to offer, but it turns out most of what they had to offer was complete bull****."

    "Seriously," Richman added, "what have I gained from treating everyone's opinion with respect? Nothing. Absolutely nothing."
    I know the feeling!!!
    ... but I still think that I was right to respect the opinions of the Evolutionists on this thread nonetheless!!!!:)


  • #8629
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You left out the important part, where you were given about a day to provide your cfsi definition or admit there was none and apologise for wasting everyone's time. And then, because I'm generous, I offered you a second chance.

    You failed twice. Nobody to blame but yourself. Trying to deny it just makes you look stupid.

    But that's ok, we've accepted your apology, and we've known all along you were wasting everyone's time with your half-baked waffle, misdirection and lies. You don't need to do anything else.


  • #8630
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    J C Humans are Great Apes.
    Some Evolutionists are ... but I find that the Creationists aren't!!!!:)
    RichieC wrote: »
    I like that this bugs these deniers. :)
    The Creation Deniers are easily bugged allright!!!!:)


  • #8631
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,071 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    @JC have you anything credible to support creationism, as CFSI can be dismissed based on the information in the wiki that was linked to earlier today.

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



  • Advertisement
  • #8632
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    He isn't dreaming. He said if you can't define the CFSI nonsense you keep spouting, then you're admitting defeat.

    You haven't defined it. Put up or shut up.
    Which part of 'Complex Functional Specified Information' do you not understand?


  • #8633
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Which part of "that's a sh*tty definition and you need to do better" do YOU not understand?

    Are you now pretending that you HAVEN'T failed miserably at providing a robust definition? Because I'd you haven't noticed, you failed miserably. I gave you two chances and a generous time limit, and you failed both times.

    As far as science, logic, common sense and honesty go, you're a failure, J C, and you have nobody left to blame.


  • #8634
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,071 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You've had this explained to you 1000 times. We aren't asking you to explain the words, we're asking you what it means in a scientific sense.

    have a read of the wiki page about it

    another bit of text from the page.
    A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results".[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation".[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance.

    and
    Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall published research demonstrating that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[24] Another widely cited example is the discovery of nylon eating bacteria that produce enzymes only useful for digesting synthetic materials that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in 1935.

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



  • #8635
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C never addressed any of the problems listed on the wiki page. Neither, it can be noted, did Dembski, the man you came up with it. If Dembski failed at it, I have no idea how a failed scientist like J C could think he'd fare any better.


  • #8636
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,071 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Sarky wrote: »
    J C never addressed any of the problems listed on the wiki page. Neither, it can be noted, did Dembski, the man you came up with it. If Dembski failed at it, I have no idea how a failed scientist like J C could think he'd fare any better.

    That's why I'm curious to see if JC hanging on by the fingernails to CFSI as there is nothing else to hold onto in support of creationism.

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



  • #8637
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You don't think he'd go back on his explicit admission of fault and his unreserved apology, do you? That would be pretty low.


  • #8638
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, nor was my statement anything even remotely close to what you're suggesting. Another strawman.

    To recap - If you accept that a chimp and an orangutan are both apes (which you do) - And also accept that chimps are more biologically closer to humans than chimps are to orangutans (which you do) - Then it makes perfect sense to classify humans as apes.
    I don't accept that Chimps are more biologically closer to humans than chimps are to orangutans ... you can get an individual sequences that fits your description ... but other ones that don't ... and the same is true across the Animal Kingdom.

    Like I have already said, just because you're more like an Elephant biologically than a Crocodile ... this doesn't make you are an Elephant ... or a Crocodile

    dlofnep wrote: »
    Out of curiosity J C - Do you accept that other apes shared a common ancestor? Gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangutans...?
    It's thought that Gorillas, Chimps and Orangutans are separate Kinds

    Chimpanzees are blood group A, minimal O, never B.
    Gorillas are blood group B, minimal O, but never A.
    Humans are predominantly O, but also have A and B. The AB blood group is entirely missing in both Chimpanzees and Gorillas - and only Humans have it.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    It's a biological fact that we are apes. I'm not the only one saying it I'm afraid. World renowned biologists agree. But I suppose you know better, right?
    Humans are no more Apes than Lemurs or Meerkats are Apes.
    Humans are a separate and special Creation of God ... and that is why we will never see Chimps driving cars or arguing about Evolution on the Boards.ie.
    You even agree that we are radically different....
    dlofnep wrote: »
    I agree that humans are radically different, all perfectly explainable by the theory of evolution. And we can see that radical change occurring all the way from homo habilis right up to modern homo sapiens.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    We've presented you with evidence, but you insulted those who presented it by ignoring it.
    Ye didn't actually present any evidence.


  • #8639
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    From the wiki about CFSI, which had to be provided by Barr125 and not JC.
    The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems, or biology
    Specified Complexity is an obvious fact. All Human language and meaningful writing is specified complex information ... as is the genetic information stored in DNA.
    koth wrote: »
    Quote:
    Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening. This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."
    ... Its the additional requirement of specificity for functional information that makes the non-intelligently directed generation of CFSI a mathematical impossibility.
    Any old series of numbers drawn will be the 'winning numbers' in a Lottery ... but functional living systems requires highly specific series of biomolecules to produce functional living systems and processes. Its the equivalent of saying that any draw other than 3, 5, 12, 18, 19 and 25 will be invalid in the Lottery next Saturday night and a different specific sequence will be required to win the following Saturday night ... and a prize will only be awarded to people who have 10 winning tickets in a row!!


  • #8640
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You've ignored everything to repost the same shoddy crap again. Is there something wrong with you? Apart from your previous total failures, I mean?


  • Advertisement
  • #8641
    cowzerp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    JC fair play to you for admitting defeat and not backing up the cfsi question.

    It takes a big man to accept he was wrong.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement