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.

1…4546485051…101

Comments

  • #1412
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    If someone says their religion and religious practice provides them with a positive outcome such as reduced anxiety or increased happiness in their lives, then I find this completely rational and who the hell am I to question them.

    If they simply assert that then I do not "find this completely rational" like you do. I would question them. With the intention of checking for things like correlation-causation errors, and actual links between their religious belief and the effects they claim to observe.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    if however they tell me that all religious people are irrational because they base their religious beliefs on conditioning due to life experience and cultural factors, I tend to find this irrational as they are forgetting or ignoring that their own life experience and cultural factors lead to their personal beliefs or lack of beliefs.

    More bull from you here. You acquire beliefs. You do not acquire lack of beliefs. You are born without them. so suggesting "life experience and cultural factors lead to lack of beliefs" is just a nonsense from you. All that has happened is they have not had the factors which cause them to acquire the belief.


  • #1413
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    ... it could also be because of an a priori commitment to only publish evidence that doesn't allow explantions that involve God.

    This materialistic attitude is typified by Dr Richard Lewontin's frank admissions in this regard:-
    "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdidy of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
    ... sounds like ID wouldn't get much of a 'look in' under such a worldview - indeed any evidence for ID would be ruled inadmissable a priori ... and without ever being evaluated.

    ... and this a priori commitment to materialism isn't a new phenomenon ... here is what James Hutton (1726–1797), ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed in 1785, before examining the evidence:-

    ‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added).

    ... all of which is fair enough, if you are a committed Materialist ...

    ... but this also means that Creation Scientists and ID proponents have a definite role to play in examining the physical and circumstantial evidence for the actions of God in the Universe.

    Somebody has to do it ... and we certainly cannot expect Materialists to do so - and I have no issue with them for not wishing to do so -and I fully accept that "it's not their cup of tea".

    ... just please stop claiming that materialistic science has any interest in objectively evaluating the evidence for the existence of God ... because it doesn't ... and indeed it rules out on principle and a priori any such evaluation.
    This is fair enough ... it is materialistic science, after all.
    So what are you trying to argue for here? That science journals are being biased against creationist because they only publish peer reviewed science?

    Why would they publish something that isn't actually science? Should we make legal journal publish childrens stories?

    Here's an idea, if you want to get published in a peer reveiwed science journal why don't you try doing some actual science?

    MrP


  • #1414
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,812 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    JC, you really are an [PROSE DELETED]


  • #1415
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ^^^ None of that kind of comment, please.


  • #1416
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    So JC, since you are well versed in biology, science and statistics, can you explain to us precisely what this would be?

    What sort of change in genes specifically would constitute a spontaneous increase in Complex Specified Functional Information.

    Please detail what we should be able to see in a lab in such an experiment should evolution be true.
    We should be able to see random changes to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information in living creatures predominantly producing 'improvements' in this information ... to support the hypothesis that pondkind evolved spontaneously into Mankind.
    Instead, we find that such random changes degrade this information.


  • Advertisement
  • #1417
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You acquire beliefs. You do not acquire lack of beliefs. You are born without them. so suggesting "life experience and cultural factors lead to lack of beliefs" is just a nonsense from you. All that has happened is they have not had the factors which cause them to acquire the belief.
    A belief in the non-existence of God is a belief ... just like a belief in His existence, is also a belief.
    Somebody can acquire either a belief in God or a belief in His non-existence - and many people go through phases of doubt where they neither believe totally in God's existence ... or His non-existence - and some people swing backwards and forwards between both beliefs.

    Both beliefs can also be held stongly by their respective 'believers' ... and, where they are held strongly, both beliefs tend to lead to different worldviews and outlooks on life that follow on from each belief.

    ... all part of the rich cultural diversity of Mankind, that enriches all of our lives.

    My uncle was an atheist ... and he was one of my best friends ... and since he died, I miss his profiund insights and our discussions on the meaning of life and his challenging opinions, from an Atheistic perspective.


  • #1418
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    So what are you trying to argue for here? That science journals are being biased against creationist because they only publish peer reviewed science?

    Why would they publish something that isn't actually science? Should we make legal journal publish childrens stories?

    Here's an idea, if you want to get published in a peer reveiwed science journal why don't you try doing some actual science?

    MrP
    As an operative conventional scientist, I have no issue with conventional science journals only publishing peer-reviewed papers in accordance with the principles of exclusively materialistic explanations - and I would not wish them to do anything else.

    However, as a Creation Scientist, I clearly see the need to apply science to the physical evidence for the actions of God in the Universe. This should be conducted outside of the realm of Materialistic Science - and doesn't need to involve any scientists who don't wish to be involved in such research.


  • #1419
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    However, as a Creation Scientist...

    Can I sue you for the cost of my blood pressure meds?


  • #1420
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Can I sue you for the cost of my blood pressure meds?
    You certainly cannot ... the fact that I'm a conventional scientist and a Creation Scientist should have no effect whatsoever on your B P.

    I find that prayer and thinking loving thoughts are very good for reducing stress-related blood pressure.

    Of course, if somebody has consistently elevated blood pressure, modern medication is also very effective and necessary to manage it.


  • #1421
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    We should be able to see random changes to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information in living creatures predominantly producing 'improvements' in this information ... to support the hypothesis that pondkind evolved spontaneously into Mankind.
    Instead, we find that such random changes degrade this information.
    Now now JC, you don't have to dumb it down for us. Please be as technical as you can.

    What would a random change to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information look like?
    What improvement would constitute this change?

    Feel free to use hypothetical examples.


  • Advertisement
  • #1422
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Now now JC, you don't have to dumb it down for us. Please be as technical as you can.

    What would a random change to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information look like?
    It would (and does) look like a mutation.

    King Mob wrote: »
    What improvement would constitute this change?
    No substantive improvement, that I am aware of ... and many deleterious ones of varying degrees of seriousness.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Feel free to use hypothetical examples.
    Here's the thing ... we cannot even imagine hypothetically, how functional structures could go through the sort of changes necessary to evolve Pondkind into Mankind and still retain sufficient functionality, at every step along the way, to ensure that each step will be selected.


  • #1423
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    J C wrote: »
    It would (and does) look like a mutation.
    What kind of mutation though? And how would it be different from a mutation which you say would always be harmful?
    Would it be a mutation that is not harmful, or a mutation that alters or adds a function?
    Again I appreciate you avoiding any heavy science or technical terms. But I assure you that I think I can keep up if you use them.
    J C wrote: »
    No substantive improvement, that I am aware of ... and many deleterious ones of varying degrees of seriousness.
    But what would count as an improvement?
    J C wrote: »
    Here's the thing ... we cannot even imagine hypothetically, how functional structures could go through the sort of changes necessary to evolve Pondkind into Mankind and still retain sufficient functionality, at every step along the way, to ensure that each step will be selected.
    I'm not asking you to imagine all those changes. I'm just asking you what any good scientist who knows why evolution isn't true scientifically would have thought about.
    Since you're a scientist and all, sure you would have thought about a prediction or experiment that would confirm or falsify evolution.

    So what should we have seen in the lab if evolution is true?


  • #1424
    sephir0th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    J C wrote: »
    We should be able to see random changes to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information in living creatures predominantly producing 'improvements' in this information ... to support the hypothesis that pondkind evolved spontaneously into Mankind.
    Instead, we find that such random changes degrade this information.

    Nothing ever changes around here eh... Sam Vimes where art thou - the nostalgia is pouring in.

    groundhog-day-o.gif


  • #1425
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    J C wrote: »
    We should be able to see random changes to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information in living creatures predominantly producing 'improvements' in this information ... to support the hypothesis that pondkind evolved spontaneously into Mankind.
    Instead, we find that such random changes degrade this information.

    Are you sure this is correct terminology? You appear to be the only person on the internet to have used it.


  • #1426
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,028 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    Are you sure this is correct terminology? You appear to be the only person on the internet to have used it.

    He actually is the person who coined the phrase. Yet can't tell us what would be evidence of it.

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



  • #1427
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    We should be able to see random changes to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information in living creatures predominantly producing 'improvements' in this information ... to support the hypothesis that pondkind evolved spontaneously into Mankind.
    Instead, we find that such random changes degrade this information.

    I've asked this before, and don't think I got an answer: is it your contention that it is impossible for a random change to result in an improvement?


  • #1428
    sephir0th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    Are you sure this is correct terminology? You appear to be the only person on the internet to have used it.

    Pretty sure William Dumbski used a similar phrase/concept but ended up completely retracting his position. J.C. missed the memo years ago.


  • #1429
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sephir0th wrote: »
    Nothing ever changes around here eh... Sam Vimes where art thou - the nostalgia is pouring in.

    groundhog-day-o.gif
    Perhaps because it's difficult to improve on the truth of what actually happened

    ... and irony of all ironies you try to prove your point with a link to a situation where random changes are being made to a Complex Functional Specified Clock Radio ... and the inevitable result is disaster!!!
    ... just like mutagenesis (the supposed 'engine' of evolutionary change) actually.:)


  • #1430
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've asked this before, and don't think I got an answer: is it your contention that it is impossible for a random change to result in an improvement?
    Highly Complex Functional Specified machines often have considerable built-in redundancy and minor random changes can produce quirky, even interesting results ... like poking a stick into a machine or hitting a loudspeaker with a hammer ... but a repetition or a build up of such random impacts will inevitably produce disaster.


  • #1431
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    Are you sure this is correct terminology? You appear to be the only person on the internet to have used it.
    It's correct ... and you guys are privileged to be recipients of the 'cutting edge' in ID theory.:)


  • Advertisement
  • #1432
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sephir0th wrote: »
    Pretty sure William Dumbski used a similar phrase/concept but ended up completely retracting his position. J.C. missed the memo years ago.
    I must have missed it ... could you please copy me in on it??:D


  • #1433
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Since you're a scientist and all, sure you would have thought about a prediction or experiment that would confirm or falsify evolution.

    So what should we have seen in the lab if evolution is true?
    We should be able to see a series of random changes to a number of Complex Functional Specified Machines producing sustained improvements in at least some of the machines.


  • #1434
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,028 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It's correct ... and you guys are privileged to be recipients of the 'cutting edge' in ID theory.:)

    Amazing that it hasn't improved much since the bible passages were first written. Quite illogical to dismiss modern science in favour of the bible.

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



  • #1435
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,028 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    We should be able to see a series of random changes to a number of Complex Functional Specified Machines producing sustained improvements in at least some of the machines.

    Here's a paper showing the multitude of problems with the whole CFSI arugment.

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



  • #1436
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Here's a paper showing the multitude of problems with the whole CFSI arugment.
    ... and here is my critique of this very paper starting here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=486

    Enjoy :)


  • #1437
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,028 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... and here is my critique of this very paper starting here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=486

    can you link to the actual post as the link you gave doesn't have any posts from you on the page it opens?

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



  • #1438
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    can you link to the actual post as the link you gave doesn't have any posts from you on the page it opens?
    There is a series of posts ... and they start with post 7276 on the thread I linked to.

    Can some of the Mods help with the link to the correct page ... the link I posted works on my computer where it is page 486 of that thread.

    Here is a link to the first post 7276
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76631058&postcount=7276


  • #1439
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,028 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Link to the post

    FYI, the post number is a direct link to the post ;)

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



  • #1440
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    Can some of the Mods help with the link to the correct page ... the link I posted works on my computer where it is page 486 of that thread.

    You can link to the correct page by linking to the correct post!!

    By the way, can you address this:
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've asked this before, and don't think I got an answer: is it your contention that it is impossible for a random change to result in an improvement?

    Can you explicitly answer the question without silly analogies about poking machines with sticks?


  • Advertisement
  • #1441
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,028 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... and here is my critique of this very paper starting here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=486

    Enjoy :)

    What relevance is that? You just offer opinion/response to the paper but don't actually debunk the paper.

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



Advertisement