"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C · 20-03-2012 11:05PM

koth wrote: »

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.

Long on Ad Hominem generalities ... but very short on specifics and evidence.

koth wrote: »

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.

The production of a few specific sequences in a required specific cascade is mathematically impossible ... so forget about it when it comes to the eye ... with thousands of these highly specified biomolecular systems.

koth wrote: »

Quote:
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.

Doesn't tell us how this was achieved. Removing one gene that controls sugar digestion isn't proof of anything if there are several other intelligently designed back-up genes or auto-correction / redundancy mechanisms present.

koth wrote: »

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.

Breaking down something requires relatively low levels of CFSI ... simple fire and other oxidising processes can destroy very complex artefacts and systems ... but creating them is another matter entirely.

J C · 20-03-2012 11:08PM

cowzerp wrote: »

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.

You should try it some time!!!:)

Delirium · 20-03-2012 11:13PM

J C wrote: »

Long on Ad Hominem generalities ... but very short on specifics and evidence.

For the love of Spongebob, would you please look up the definition of Ad Hominem so that you might use it at least once in the way it's meant to be used.

The production of a few specific sequences in a required specific sequence is mathematically impossible ... so forget about it when it comes to the eye ... with thousands of these highly specified biomolecular systems.

Only when viewed through the prism of creationism as you have to re-enforce the idea that an eye can't be created naturally without a creator.

You're presuming that evolution had the modern human in mind when the first mutations began in the simplest organisms. That simply isn't the case.

J C · 20-03-2012 11:21PM

Sarky wrote: »

J C never addressed any of the problems listed on the wiki page.

Done!!!

Sarky wrote: »

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.

... So I'm a 'failed scientist' now ... I suppose it's progress from saying that I'm not a scientist.:(

J C · 20-03-2012 11:37PM

koth wrote: »

Only when viewed through the prism of creationism as you have to re-enforce the idea that an eye can't be created naturally without a creator.

You're presuming that evolution had the modern human in mind when the first mutations began in the simplest organisms. That simply isn't the case.

I'm just wondering how something as highly specified and complex as an eye could ever come about through a combination of random mutation ... which destroys CFSI ... and a natural/sexual selection mechanism ... for the destroyed CFSI:eek:
Perhaps you'd like to explain it.

Sarky · 20-03-2012 11:41PM

You're still trying to push cfsi despite the fact that you can't define it in any useful way.

And despite the fact that when faced with the option of providing such a definition or admitting defeat, you chose defeat. Remember that; You chose defeat. Oh, and despite Dembski being shown as a lying scumbag. We get the point. You're dishonest and unrepentant about it. We knew that years ago.

And Christ on a bike, the eye thing has been covered so many times in this thread already. So you lied about reading every post, and you lied about understanding the ones you DID read. You FAILED, J C. You have admitted as much. Get over it. This latest bout of whining is just pathetic, even by your usual rock-bottom standards.

Delirium · 20-03-2012 11:42PM

CFSI isn't a biological property so it can't be destroyed, never mind that it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. It's a failed attempt by a creationist to try and resolve the bible with the natural world.

Monty Burnz · 21-03-2012 12:07AM

J C wrote: »

I'm just wondering how something as highly specified and complex as an eye could ever come about through a combination of random mutation ... which destroys CFSI ... and a natural/sexual selection mechanism ... for the destroyed CFSI:eek:
Perhaps you'd like to explain it.

Um...you are preaching to the wrong crowd here - the eye one has been done to death and very convincing explanations have been put forward. Try here for a start.

Try the eye one on a less knowledgeable audience. I'm sure Jesus approves of lying and manipulation if it's for the 'right' reasons.

dlofnep · 21-03-2012 12:55AM

Where does CFSI come into the wings of a Kiwi?

Sarky · 21-03-2012 12:56AM

I doubt he'll come up with anything better than "God thinks they look nice."

sephir0th · 21-03-2012 10:34AM

Sarky wrote: »

I doubt he'll come up with anything better than "God thinks they look nice."

Indeed, it says so in the thread tags.

cowzerp · 21-03-2012 03:17PM

Sarky wrote: »

I doubt he'll come up with anything better than "God thinks they look nice."

He forgot the cfsi/fairy dust for the wings, same with the wings of the ostrich

Barr125 · 21-03-2012 07:33PM

cowzerp wrote: »

He forgot the cfsi/fairy dust for the wings, same with the wings of the ostrich

That, and God decided to screw with them by having Kiwi's lay the largest egg in relation to body size.

The egg weighs about a quarter of their own body weight. I can't imagine sh*tting something that weighs 4 stone! That's cruel and unusual. :pac:

Also for your enjoyment, animals God has apparently devised, very badly too

J C · 21-03-2012 08:29PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Um...you are preaching to the wrong crowd here - the eye one has been done to death and very convincing explanations have been put forward. Try here for a start.

Quote:
Evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of taxa. Certain components of the eye, such as the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry – that is, they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times[1] – using many of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction.

A story laced full of hand-waving unfounded assumptions (that the eye evolved at all) ... and blatant special pleading (on the one hand, the pigments supposedly evolved once and on the other hand, image forming eyes sup[posedly evolved 50-100 times).
... and still nothing to explain how something as highly specified and complex as an eye could ever come about through a combination of random mutation ... which destroys CFSI ... and a natural/sexual selection mechanism ... for the destroyed CFSI.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how destroying CFSI can lead to anything ... but disaster ... in the absence of other CFSI autocorrection mechanisms.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Try the eye one on a less knowledgeable audience. I'm sure Jesus approves of lying and manipulation if it's for the 'right' reasons.

Less ot the old guff, please ... and less of the Ad Hominism about the God who Created you ... and will one day Judge you.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how destroying CFSI can lead to anything ... but disaster ... in the absence of other CFSI autocorrection mechanisms.

J C · 21-03-2012 08:32PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Where does CFSI come into the wings of a Kiwi?

It seems that the CFSI for flight never was there ... and therefore never will be there.

Delirium · 21-03-2012 08:33PM

J C wrote: »

Less ot the old guff, please ... and less of the Ad Hominism about the God who Created you ... and will one day Judge you.

LOL

Ad Hominism ( term incorrectly used again) about God

Perhaps you'd like to explain how destroying CFSI can lead to anything ... but disaster ... in the absence of other CFSI autocorrection mechanisms.

How about you show some scientific merit to the idea of CFSI, since nobody in the realm of science seems to agree with you.

Delirium · 21-03-2012 08:34PM

J C wrote: »

It semms that it never was there ... and therefore never will be there.

so why do kiwis get exemption from CFSI, but humans don't?

MrPudding · 21-03-2012 08:37PM

J C wrote: »

Quote:
Evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of taxa. Certain components of the eye, such as the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry – that is, they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times[1] – using many of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction.

A story laced full of hand-waving unfounded assumptions (that the eye evolved at all) ... and blatant special pleading (on the one hand, the pigments supposedly evolved once and on the other hand, image forming eyes sup[posedly evolved 50-100 times).
... and still nothing to explain how something as highly specified and complex as an eye could ever come about through a combination of random mutation ... which destroys CFSI ... and a natural/sexual selection mechanism ... for the destroyed CFSI.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how destroying CFSI can lead to anything ... but disaster ... in the absence of other CFSI autocorrection mechanisms.

Less ot the old guff, please ... and less of the Ad Hominism about the God who Created you ... and will one day Judge you.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how destroying CFSI can lead to anything ... but disaster ... in the absence of other CFSI autocorrection mechanisms.

A couple of points. First, I seem to recall an actual scientist that specialised in eyes and eye disorders handed you your ass on this point a couple of years ago on the big thread over the fence.

Second, do you not see how utterly retarded of is to ask someone to explain something relate to something, csfi, which they think is rubbish and which you have yet to define in a meaningful way. It is akin to asking someone why they don't think Santa can deliver all the presents in one night.

MrP

J C · 21-03-2012 08:52PM

koth wrote: »

so why do kiwis get exemption from CFSI, but humans don't?

We don't have the CFSI for flight either ... at least we didn't ... until the Wright Brothers came along!!!:)

Delirium · 21-03-2012 08:55PM

J C wrote: »

We don't have the CFSI for flight either ... at least we didn't ... until the Wright Brothers came along!!!:)

The Wright Brothers created genetically engineered humans capable of flight?

J C · 21-03-2012 09:00PM

koth wrote: »

Ad Hominism ( term incorrectly used again) about God

Jesus Christ was both God and Man ... so it was an Ad Hominem comment that Monty made about Him.

Sarky · 21-03-2012 09:02PM

Why are you still talking about cfsi when you've admitted it's a crock of sh*t? It's not like you've managed to provide so much as a simple definition for it, so it's still completely invalid and every one if your posts that mentions it is invalid.

It's like you forgot your multiple total failures at science already.

Delirium · 21-03-2012 09:03PM

J C wrote: »

Jesus Christ was both God and Man ... so it was an Ad Hominem comment about Him.

Unless God has posted on this thread and someone has said, "pay no attention to that dufus, it's only God" it really isn't.

J C · 21-03-2012 09:07PM

koth wrote: »

The Wright Brothers created genetically engineered humans capable of flight?

The Wright Brothers created the Complex Functional Specified Information that produced a Machine Design that was capable of flight.

Delirium · 21-03-2012 09:14PM

J C wrote: »

The Wright Brothers created the Complex Functional Specified Information that produced a Machine Design that was capable of flight.

So CFSI applies to inorganic human made devices. Gotcha

Then that means it really doesn't apply to evolution.

dlofnep · 21-03-2012 09:54PM

J C wrote: »

It seems that the CFSI for flight never was there ... and therefore never will be there.

So why do they have functionless wings?

Sarky · 21-03-2012 09:54PM

As long as nobody has a robust definition, or a way to measure it, it doesn't apply to anything.

Besides, J C admitted he can't provide any of those.

dlofnep · 21-03-2012 10:03PM

Hey J C - Why do Whales have functionless hind limbs?

sephir0th · 21-03-2012 10:48PM

Can we rename this thread to 'Ask The Creationist a Question'. People can just drop in and have a bit of fun.

J C · 21-03-2012 10:50PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Why don't you accept it?

Thats a fair point. Unfortunately for you, it might be relevant if anyone was claiming we are chimps. No one is claiming this. What we are claiming is that humans and chimps are both apes.
Yes, we are biologically more like an elephant than a crocodile. And of course that doesn't make us elephants. It does, however, mean both us and elephants are mammals. Just like humans and chimps are both apes.

... OK ... we're not Elephants ... we're not Crocodiles ... and we're not Apes.
We're Specially Created Humans ... and that is why we drive cars ... debate Evolution on the Boards.ie ... and none of the other creatures will ever do so.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Why exactly is it thought that all apes are seperate kinds, while all big cats are the same kind? It wouldn't be because if we were accepting all the apes as one kind we'd also have to include humans would it? Becuase that would just be dishonest, and we all know you aren't dishonest J C.

... it's because the Big Cats are interfertile with each other to some degree ... while the Great Apes aren't interfertile with each other ... and they're also not interfertile with Humans.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

READ A BOOK ON EVOLUTION.

I have read many such books ... and that is why I'm certain what I'm saying is true.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't understand how you can scientifically say DNA is the same as writing.

It stores and transmits genetic information ... so it's CFSI is much more sophisticated than any written CFSI.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing relevant in that paragraph. You'd have been as well writing an essay on donkeys.

I hit the nail on the head ... and you have no answer!!!
... It is indeed 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!!

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments