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. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

14344464849101

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Think it's a great idea. Mods should take it one further and only let him post in this thread in A&A If nothing else it stops him clogging up other threads with his made up nonsense.
    I can understand the logic with this alright and have often thought the mods should consider this. The problem is idiot boy isn't constrained by logic and all attempts at trying to cajole or force him towards it have been pointless.

    Every time I see his name in any thread I just feel humanity has regressed a little so as few threads as possible would suit.

    Actually, does anyone else find his posts are cyclical in nature. Not the content (even though the levels of wrong make my stomach turn) but the periodic nature. Lots of stupid, then nothing for a while, more stupid, nothing for a while. I may be seeing what I want but there is something of the manic about it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    legspin wrote: »
    I can understand the logic with this alright and have often thought the mods should consider this. The problem is idiot boy isn't constrained by logic and all attempts at trying to cajole or force him towards it have been pointless.

    Every time I see his name in any thread I just feel humanity has regressed a little so as few threads as possible would suit.

    Actually, does anyone else find his posts are cyclical in nature. Not the content (even though the levels of wrong make my stomach turn) but the periodic nature. Lots of stupid, then nothing for a while, more stupid, nothing for a while. I may be seeing what I want but there is something of the manic about it.

    Hmmmmmmm


    We should check if it's a lunar cycle. Maybe he is a werewolf (as believable as a magic sky god) and cannot post for the days when the moon is full.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    legspin wrote: »
    I don't see why the resident [OFFENSIVE TERM DELETED] had to be given his own thread.
    No need for that kind of name-calling.

    Also, thread merged with the specious nonsense thread.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    Reiver wrote: »
    Some interesting points JC. The references to behemoth and leviathans was particularly intriguing.

    Not really, look at any medieval depictions of these creatures and you'll see no resemblance to any dinosaur. The description is vague enough that dinosaurs can be shoe-horned in by those with the agenda to do so. Have a look at the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,144 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Behemoth sounds like the name of a giant cyborg in an anime.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    Behemoth sounds like the name of a giant cyborg in an anime.

    20130928020125!Behemoth.png


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    legspin wrote: »
    I can understand the logic with this alright and have often thought the mods should consider this. The problem is idiot boy isn't constrained by logic and all attempts at trying to cajole or force him towards it have been pointless.

    Every time I see his name in any thread I just feel humanity has regressed a little so as few threads as possible would suit.

    Actually, does anyone else find his posts are cyclical in nature. Not the content (even though the levels of wrong make my stomach turn) but the periodic nature. Lots of stupid, then nothing for a while, more stupid, nothing for a while. I may be seeing what I want but there is something of the manic about it.

    There's always the ignore list. Since he went on mine the amount of crazy non-sequitur hypotheses I read here went down c. 97.24%.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    20130928020125!Behemoth.png

    I always pictured him as in FF5, but that's mainly because of the solo single class reports I read from that game.
    640px-Bahamut_Battle_FFV.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    There's always the ignore list. Since he went on mine the amount of crazy non-sequitur hypotheses I read here went down c. 97.24%.
    He was the very first name I put in mine. I still see his quoted words though.

    It's just every time I see this thread has ascended from the bowels again, I wince at the nonsense being expounded yet once more. I really can't fathom the patience shown by the other posters in answering him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    legspin wrote: »
    It's just every time I see this thread has ascended from the bowels again, I wince at the nonsense being expounded yet once more. I really can't fathom the patience shown by the other posters in answering him.

    I think it's become a kind of sport legspin. See how much of the endless crazy you can draw out, refute and disprove before imploding. I can't read it anymore either.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,569 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    mickrock wrote: »
    Atheists have the strange belief that nature itself and the evolutionary process are unintelligent.

    Maintaining this belief must require a lot of faith and cause some cognitive dissonance when the obvious conclusion is that intelligence must be inherent in the natural world.

    belief & faith?
    seriously?

    :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 107 ✭✭Penny 4 Thoughts


    mickrock wrote: »
    Atheists have the strange belief that nature itself and the evolutionary process are unintelligent.

    Maintaining this belief must require a lot of faith and cause some cognitive dissonance when the obvious conclusion is that intelligence must be inherent in the natural world.

    Hi mickrock

    Can you expand on what you mean by intelligence in that statement. Are you a pantheist? If so I would be very interested in what you believe the intrinsic nature of intelligence to actually be, as pantheism has always fascinated me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Hi mickrock

    Can you expand on what you mean by intelligence in that statement. Are you a pantheist? If so I would be very interested in what you believe the intrinsic nature of intelligence to actually be, as pantheism has always fascinated me.

    Mick's a YEC, pantheism would probably horrify him as much as my atheism does.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Mick's a YEC, pantheism would probably horrify him as much as my atheism does.

    I'm not a YEC and I find pantheism very appealing. I don't find your atheism horrifying, just amusing and irrational.

    (BTW it's a bit presumptuous of you to assume you know what I believe and don't believe.)

    Anyway, the idea of nature being intelligent can't be even mentioned here because it's apparently "nonsense". How very open minded.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    Anyway, the idea of nature being intelligent can't be even mentioned here because it's apparently "nonsense". How very open minded.
    Feel free to talk as much as you like about creationism here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    mickrock wrote: »
    I'm not a YEC

    Well then, why are you so quick to defend creationism? It's not like it's got any validity, at all, after all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 276 ✭✭Bellatori


    mickrock wrote: »
    ...Anyway, the idea of nature being intelligent can't be even mentioned here...

    I am sure you can mention it all you like. You probably need to explain what you mean by nature and then explain how it is intelligent. I look forward to reading your post on the matter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    mickrock wrote: »
    I don't find your atheism horrifying, just amusing and irrational.

    I am unsure what is "irrational" about failing to believe unsubstantiated assertion? Perhaps you can enlighten me.

    And the claim there is a god is, thus far, unsubstantiated assertion. No one is providing the first shred of a scrap of evidence that a non human intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe. Much less you.

    So no, there is nothing irrational about simply rejecting that assertion.
    mickrock wrote: »
    Anyway, the idea of nature being intelligent can't be even mentioned here because it's apparently "nonsense". How very open minded.

    Except you did just mention it. And the world has not ended. So stop making things up about the forum that are not true.

    "Nonsense" is not the word I would use. "Unsubstantiated" is. The idea nature is intelligent is simply unsubstantiated by anyone here. Much less you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Although reading this thread normally gives me a headache and I should know better, there is one issue on the whole creationism versus evolution argument that needs clarification, and that is it's an argument that suffers from two logical fallacies, it is both a category error and a false dichotomy.

    Creationism in its various flavors offers a non testable i.e. non scientific hypothesis for how the universe we inhabit started and how life emerged, the work of some kind of supreme intelligence. Evolution has nothing to do with this question, it is a scientific theory based on mountains of evidence that is our best current theory on how DNA based life evolved once it got started. That is the category error. Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe started, if it started, or how life emerged from inanimate matter.

    Creationism versus evolution is also a false dichotomy as it fails to consider other alternatives. Leaving aside panspermia, the most obvious middle ground is that nature in its broadest meaning is both purposeful and intelligent in ways that we are only beginning to understand.

    The question was asked what do we mean by nature and what do we mean by intelligence? For the purpose of this discussion I would use the broad wiki definition of "the phenomena of the physical world, including all of life, from the subatomic to the cosmic". By definition this has to include all the laws of nature that determine how the universe evolves and how life emerged and evolves.

    Intelligence is a very difficult concept to pin down, in particular in light of modern scientific discovery. It is imo a supremely arrogant position of humans to assign intelligence to themselves, and deny it to other species. It is also a very Christian concept that places humans at the pinnacle of evolution, disregarding the fact that other species have been around for hundreds of millions of years longer than we have and will most likely be still around millions of years after we have gone, assuming we have not destroyed their habitat.

    There are two scientific findings in recent years that anyone interested in this topic should think long and hard about. One is the work of Toshiyuki Nakagaki in Japan, recently duplicated by a group in the US, demonstrating that unicellular amoeba can learn to navigate a maze.

    http://www.nature.com/news/how-brainless-slime-molds-redefine-intelligence-1.11811

    The second is even more fascinating which is the phenomena of honeybee waggle dances, a sophisticated language first studied by the Nobel prize winning Karl von Frisch. The attached paper explains this behavior in detail, but in short when a worker bee returns to the hive after finding a source of food, it communicated both the distance and direction to the food source using a dance routine which translates the horizontal direction of the food source relative to the position of the sun, to a vertical direction of dance routine. In other words if the food source is located 60 degrees horizontally to the left of the sun, the dance will be performed 60 degrees left of vertical. This is quite the feat considering that the sun moves constantly during the day and the angle of the dance has to be adjusted to reflect this.

    http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/entomology/apiculture/pdfs/1.11%20copy.pdf

    The trivial answer one hears is this is just instinct, which doesn't tell us anything. The truth is we have no idea currently how honeybees accomplish this, with their less than a million neurons compared our trillion, not to speak of the amoeba that have no neurons at all. Behaviors like these are clearly somehow embedded in DNA, as all the evidence demonstrates that honeybees emerge with this ability and no evidence to suggest any training is involved.

    The scientific community is slowly coming to terms with the fact that all of nature is teeming with what we refer to as intelligence, based on information processing. We simply cannot dismiss this because of our current lack of knowledge of how this intelligence emerges and what mechanisms are utilized in it's application.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Creationism in its various flavors offers a non testable i.e. non scientific hypothesis for how the universe we inhabit started and how life emerged

    Not so sure I accept that as default. I do not think non testability is true by default. Perhaps we fail to think of any tests now or perhaps the tests we can think of are just beyond our current ability to engage with. But declaring by fiat from the outset that the claims are untestable is quite the assertion.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    the most obvious middle ground is that nature in its broadest meaning is both purposeful and intelligent in ways that we are only beginning to understand.

    I have seen no substantiation for the hypothesis above however. That nature is purposeful or intelligent is a claim you have tried to carry on these fora before but you retreated quiet quickly from it when pressed on it. You simply ran away.

    You clearly WANT to think nature is intelligent in some way. You however seemingly lack even the smallest basis for doing so.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Intelligence is a very difficult concept to pin down

    Yet on the thread you retreated from with your tail firmly tucked away, you posted a very specific list of definitions and attributes of it. Which I systematically unpacked and showed how not only few but NONE of the attributes applies to evolution.

    Not only did you not reply to this in your retreat, you appear to have ignored it and have decided to pop up in this thread espousing the same baseless nonsense again as if it was not sufficiently decimated before.

    That there is continuum of intelligence across the species on our planet is not something I would disagree with. That many species are "higher" on this continuum than we might have previously placed them is also not contentious to me, nor is the idea some species might be closer to us on that continuum than we thought.

    But your efforts to suggest nature itself is intelligent.... is to date something you have supported by nothing but repetition of the claim. And repetition of an assertion does not substantiation make.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    The idea nature is intelligent is simply unsubstantiated by anyone here.

    But neither is there any substantiation that the origin of life and its evolution can be explained by materialistic means.

    You have your own creation stories/myths about how blind and dumb matter/energy/forces were responsible.

    Apparently life came about accidently (abiogenesis) and blindly evolved slowly and gradually (Darwinism). This is the story you like to believe although it is without proof. There's no proof of abiogenesis. Darwinism can account for basic adaptations but hasn't the creative power to produce novelty.

    The creation story you choose to believe in is flimsy and unsubstantiated. You may also believe that in the future materialistic science will be able to explain it all, a faith that Karl Popper wryly called "promissory materialism".


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    mickrock wrote: »
    Darwinism can account for basic adaptations but hasn't the creative power to produce novelty.
    Why can't it exactly? How is magic/god able to produce this? (Please be specific with mechanisms and process)
    mickrock wrote: »
    You may also believe that in the future materialistic science will be able to explain it all, a faith that Karl Popper wryly called "promissory materialism".
    Again why can't it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    mickrock wrote: »
    But neither is there any substantiation that the origin of life and its evolution can be explained by materialistic means.

    Substantiation there in fact is actually. 100% proof no, but substantiation is there. So on one hand we have an ENTIRELY unsubstantiated hypothesis based at its foundation on a similarly ENTIRELY unsubstantiated assertion (that a god exists).... and on the other hand we have hypotheses based on at least some arguments, evidence, data and reasoning.

    So your attempt to conflate and compare the two monumentally fails.

    There simply is no support at all.... certainly none coming from you.... that any intelligence whatsoever exists behind the creation, operation and/or maintenance of our universe.

    If you feel you have any then I am all ears. Or eyes. As the case may be.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    mickrock wrote: »
    Darwinism can account for basic adaptations but hasn't the creative power to produce novelty.
    This seems to be one of the favoured creationist repeat-a-lie-often-enough tropes.

    Who says that "creative power" is required to "produce novelty"? Assuming you accept that genes can mutate during reproduction, why do you argue that the mutations are not novel?

    Even a random number generator produces novelty. As specious arguments go, that one's a doozie.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    mickrock wrote: »
    But neither is there any substantiation that the origin of life and its evolution can be explained by materialistic means.

    You have your own creation stories/myths about how blind and dumb matter/energy/forces were responsible.

    Apparently life came about accidently (abiogenesis) and blindly evolved slowly and gradually (Darwinism). This is the story you like to believe although it is without proof. There's no proof of abiogenesis. Darwinism can account for basic adaptations but hasn't the creative power to produce novelty.

    The creation story you choose to believe in is flimsy and unsubstantiated. You may also believe that in the future materialistic science will be able to explain it all, a faith that Karl Popper wryly called "promissory materialism".

    The origin of life is not explained by evolution. I don't think the origin is even explained by materialistic means (there are theories and models, but I think we're still a ways from a definitive one). Evolution however, is actually about as well proven as a theory as gravity is.
    If you were to tell me that God created the world and evolution, with the knowledge of the exact course that evolution would take, I would consider that a reasonable belief. If you were to tell me you also knew the nature of God, I'd be skeptical, but still ok with it. When you tell me that any serious scientific evidence for evolution is either wrong or put there by God to test us, I put that in the same category as magic and elves.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,144 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    mickrock wrote: »
    Darwinism can account for basic adaptations but hasn't the creative power to produce novelty.

    Can you please define these "novelties"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    The origin of life is not explained by evolution. I don't think the origin is even explained by materialistic means (there are theories and models, but I think we're still a ways from a definitive one).

    You're wrong there about the non-material origin of life bit. The main reason we don't have a settled theory of abiogenesis is not (as it would be with a lot of uncertain science) that we lack any hypotheses that adequately explain the evidence, but that we have too many. We know that there are ways of creating life without any outside agency, Miller-Urey proved that, but due to the fact that we don't know what the exact conditions were on early earth, how quickly life got going, and the competing hypotheses we cannot say how exactly it happened.

    It always amuses me when the creationists try and use the lack of an explanation of abiogenesis as a way of shoehorning god into the equation, we have the usual "just because A doesn't explain, it doesn't follow that B does", but in addition we have the issue as I stated above, that the problem with abiogenesis is not a lack of plausible explanations but too many!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    It always amazes me when posters make claims for science that science itself would never make. Gaynorvader above is 100% correct and Brain Shanahan could not be more incorrect if he tried. Miller-Urey demonstrated 50 years ago that a range of amino acids, among many other compounds, could be made if you mix methane, water, ammonia and hydrogen in a flask and fired sparks across electrodes within the flask to simulate lightning. To claim that this demonstrates "there are ways of creating life without any outside agency" is one of the most baffling statements of scientific illiteracy I have ever read on any internet forum, but I suppose belongs on this thread, specious nonsense indeed.

    The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates that chemistry is a thing, and if you mix certain compounds with others in the right conditions you produce more complex compounds. Nature is pretty good at this already, there are over 500 known naturally occurring amino acids, of which 20 are used in the various organisms we refer to as life. Amino acids have not just been found in chemistry lab flasks, the same compounds have been found inside meteorites. It is quite reasonable to suggest that the amino acids used in life forms came from naturally occurring reactions in the early earth's atmosphere, or that they were deposited here by meteorites, but to suggest this demonstrates a way of creating life is truly baffling.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 276 ✭✭Bellatori


    nagirrac wrote: »
    ..

    I would point out that more recent experiments on early earth conditions have produced RNA strands... Even more importantly was an important step to understanding the RNA-> DNA issue here

    The arguments for abiogenesis are getting whittled down to - it happened here...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    I don't think the origin is even explained by materialistic means (there are theories and models, but I think we're still a ways from a definitive one).

    Really? What else could be involved so?

    Evolution however, is actually about as well proven as a theory as gravity is.

    I'm not disputing evolution, just the unquestioned assumption that it has all happened by blind, unintelligent means. There's no evidence to back this up whatsoever.

    Intelligence is ruled out from the outset, just because it's seen as unappealing and has too much baggage, and everyone ends up clinging to the blind-and-dumb explanations because that's all that's left


Advertisement