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…4748505253…101

Comments

  • #1472
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »
    Hi JC

    As an operative conventional scientist as well (love the title by the way :)), could you give me a quick overview of the theories, and the evidence supporting them, concerning the actions of God in the universe.

    Before coming to this website I hadn't heard of the such theories, and I remain skeptical, but also open to listening.

    Thanks
    Penny :)
    Hi Penny. My apologies for the delay in answering your question ... but I was otherwise engaged.

    Anyway ... Creation Science traces its academic pedigree right back to the 'Fathers of Modern Science' ... who were nearly all Creationists.

    Modern Creation Scientists are all eminently qualified conventional scientists, who apply the scientific method to the evaluation of the physical evidence for Creation across all of the scientific disciplines.

    Whole mega-threads that had to be truncated because they threatened to cause 'melt-down' of the Boards servers (or some such) have been written about the theories and the evidence underpinning the theories of Creation Science.:)
    Here is just one link to the evidence for Intelligent Design ... which is but one scientific discipline in which Creation Scientists (and other scientists) excel.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=486


  • #1473
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    In order to assume a guiding intelligence is somehow involved we would need to see things for which some guiding intelligence is the best explanation.
    How about the almost infinite levels of Complex Function Specified Information observed in living organisms?
    Vivisectus wrote: »
    But it is hard to see how we could create a coherent theory about how this is happening. How would such an intelligence be doing this exactly?
    Infinite Intelligence who did effectively infinite actions over an effective infinity of space.
    Vivisectus wrote: »
    It would be comforting to think there is one, for sure.
    Only if you knew the Infinite Intelligence was benign ... and loved you personally and wanted you to spend eternity in Heavenly Bliss with Him.
    If the Infinite Intelligence was malevolent and hated me ... it could be quite disconcerting ... to say the least.
    Vivisectus wrote: »
    At least I would have someone to complain to about the design that is clearly not fit for purpose. Someone seems to have included an organ in my digestive tract that does nothing except occasionally get inflamed, threatening my life! And how come I have a laryngial nerve that runs from my brain to below my heart and back up to my throat? And if you think THAT is bad, then think again: Giraffes have the same arrangement!
    You can blame Adam and Eve for that ... but it won't do much good ... because they are dead ... and not taking messages on their celestial 'message minder'!!!:)

    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Also, some cowboy designer seems to have thought it was a good idea to hook up my reproductive channel to the waste disposal chute. That is just plain gross.
    Never found much of a problem with this myself ... I must say ... but then I'm a happily married man with a beautiful sexy wife ... so I might be biased in my opinions on this issue!!!:)
    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Perhaps the question is not why we are not looking into the possibility that there is an intelligent designer, but what it is exactly that is so intelligent about the design?
    Both questions are equally valid ... and are pursued with equal vigor by Creation Scientists.


  • #1474
    Miguel Squeaking Teenager
    Posts: 0 ✭ Miguel Squeaking Teenager


    J C wrote: »
    How about the almost infinite levels of Complex Function Specified Information observed in living organisms?

    I imagine that this has been linked before, but I can't find much about this. Is there a link / definition of what this is available?

    I've never heard of it.


  • #1475
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I imagine that this has been linked before, but I can't find much about this. Is there a link / definition of what this is available?

    I've never heard of it.
    It is self-defining and self-explanatory ... it is information that is observed to be Complex Functional and Specified ... and wherever it is observed and it's ultimate source is identified it is always found to be the result of applied intelligence.

    This has been observed so extensively and so often that it now has the status of a Scientific Law.


  • #1476
    Miguel Squeaking Teenager
    Posts: 0 ✭ Miguel Squeaking Teenager


    J C wrote: »
    It is self-defining and self-explanatory ... it is information that is observed to be Complex Functional and Specified ... and wherever it is observed and it's ultimate source is identified it is always found to be the result of applied intelligence.

    This has been observed so extensively and so often that it now has the status of a Scientific Law.

    I'm thoroughly confused. Is there a link to some information you have on this?


  • Advertisement
  • #1477
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm thoroughly confused. Is there a link to some information you have on this?
    What is confusing you about Complex Functional Specified Information being the product of Intelligent activity?


  • #1478
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    I knew something was missing lately from my boards experience: CFSI!

    AKA drivel.


  • #1479
    Miguel Squeaking Teenager
    Posts: 0 ✭ Miguel Squeaking Teenager


    J C wrote: »
    What is confusing you about Complex Functional Specified Information being the product of Intelligent activity?

    I don't know what "Complex Functional Specified Information" is or is supposed to be. I'm asking you for some info on it if you have any available?


  • #1480
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,025 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I imagine that this has been linked before, but I can't find much about this. Is there a link / definition of what this is available?

    I've never heard of it.

    There's no real definition of CFSI/CSI. In all the time I've seen these threads move along, I've yet to see anyone find an actual defintion as to what CFSI is or how it's observed.

    You can read more about it here.
    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.

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



  • #1481
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    Hi Penny. My apologies for the delay in answering your question ... but I was otherwise engaged.

    Anyway ... Creation Science traces its academic pedigree right back to the 'Fathers of Modern Science' ... who were nearly all Creationists.

    Modern Creation Scientists are all eminently qualified conventional scientists, who apply the scientific method to the evaluation of the physical evidence for Creation across all of the scientific disciplines.

    Whole mega-threads that had to be truncated because they threatened to cause 'melt-down' of the Boards servers (or some such) have been written about the theories and the evidence underpinning the theories of Creation Science.:)
    Here is just one link to the evidence for Intelligent Design ... which is but one scientific discipline in which Creation Scientists (and other scientists) excel.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584&page=486

    The Fathers of Modern Science lived in eras where almost everyone was a Theist and to not be, or to be open about not being, was an unforgivable social sin. They were also 'The Fathers' because science was very much in it's infancy and we know more now.

    "I'm not saying you're more intelligent than Aristotle, or wiser. For all I know, Aristotle's the cleverest person who ever lived. That's not the point. The point is only that science is cumulative, and we live later.”
    ― Richard Dawkins
    J C wrote: »
    Modern Creation Scientists are all eminently qualified conventional scientists, who apply the scientific method to the evaluation of the physical evidence for Creation across all of the scientific disciplines.


    Name three please so I can check.


  • Advertisement
  • #1482
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    There's no real definition of CFSI/CSI. In all the time I've seen these threads move along, I've yet to see anyone find an actual defintion as to what CFSI is or how it's observed.

    You can read more about it here.
    Thanks for providing a link. I'll now address the quote you provided (my comments in blue).

    Quote:
    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." Very strong on claims but distinctly weak on supporting evidence

    [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."
    Intelligent Design Theory doesn't calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't need to do this as its a certainty (because eyes exist).
    What can be calculated is the probability that an eye came about by non-intelligently directed processes ... and the probability is zero.

    [6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance. Its an argument supported by repeated observation with not a single exception ever being found ... to the point where it now has the status of a Creation Science Law.


  • #1483
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I don't know what "Complex Functional Specified Information" is or is supposed to be. I'm asking you for some info on it if you have any available?

    Best of luck with that quest.


  • #1484
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,025 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Thanks for providing a link. I'll now address the quote you provided (my comment in blue.

    Quote:
    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." Very strong on claims but distinctly weak on supporting evidence

    [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."
    Intelligent Design Theory doesn't calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't need to do this as its a certainty (because eyes exist).
    What can be calculated is the probability that an eye came about by non-intelligently directed processes ... and the probability is zero.

    [6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance. Its an argument supported by repeated observation with not a single exception ever being observed to the point where it now has the status of a Creation Science Law.

    You haven't provided a definition of CFSI or how it's observed/measured. Would you like to try again?

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



  • #1485
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    The Fathers of Modern Science lived in eras where almost everyone was a Theist and to not be, or to be open about not being, was an unforgivable social sin. They were also 'The Fathers' because science was very much in it's infancy and we know more now.

    "I'm not saying you're more intelligent than Aristotle, or wiser. For all I know, Aristotle's the cleverest person who ever lived. That's not the point. The point is only that science is cumulative, and we live later.”
    ― Richard Dawkins
    I'm in full agreement with you on all of this.
    obplayer wrote: »
    Name three (Creation Scientists) please so I can check.
    Oh ye of little faith !!!:)
    Oops ... I almost forgot ... I'm on the A & A where ye are of no Faith.;)
    Anyway ... here is a list (of considerably more than 3 Creation Scientists)
    http://creation.com/creation-scientists


  • #1486
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    Best of luck with that quest.
    At least he is questing ... so you never know ... he just might reach the 'Holy Grail' of scientific endeavor ... and become a Creation Scientist.
    It happened to me ... so there is every reason to hope that it could happen to him.


  • #1487
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    You haven't provided a definition of CFSI or how it's observed/measured. Would you like to try again?
    Does this mean that you are happy that I have adequately addressed (and demolished) your quote?

    I have also already said that CFSI is self-defining and and self-explanatory ... it is Information that is observed to be Complex Functional and Specified ... and wherever it is observed and it's ultimate source is identified it is always found to be the result of applied intelligence.

    This has been observed so extensively and so often that it now has the status of a Scientific Law.

    What more can I say ... without repeating myself??


  • #1488
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    I'm in full agreement with you on all of this.

    Oh ye of little faith !!!:)
    Oops ... I almost forgot ... I'm on the A & A where ye are of no Faith.;)
    Anyway ... here is a list (of considerably more than 3 Creation Scientists)
    http://creation.com/creation-scientists

    If you are in full agreement then why do you cite the 'Fathers of Science' in modern discussions?

    The Creation Ministries International formerly known as Answers in Genesis - Australia and Creation Science Foundation set up by Ken Ham is not a sensible or balanced place to quote from, however I will take three people from the list and see what I can find out. I will return tomorrow.

    And by the way we do have faith, faith in science, reason and logic.


  • #1489
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    At least he is questing ... so you never know ... he just might reach the 'Holy Grail' of scientific endeavor ... and become a Creation Scientist.
    It happened to me ... so there is every reason to hope that it could happen to him.

    I have asked before but I will ask again...
    What are your scientific credentials? Where did you study? What qualifications did you earn?


  • #1490
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    I have asked before but I will ask again...
    What are your scientific credentials? Where did you study? What qualifications did you earn?
    It doesn't matter ... I don't want to know your qualifications ... and I'm certainly not going to identify mine.

    This is a discussion forum ... not a scientific forum where my (obvious) eminence as a scientist might be germane.


  • #1491
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    If you are in full agreement then why do you cite the 'Fathers of Science' in modern discussions?
    ... because Creation Science traces its scientific pedigree right back to the 'founding fathers' of Modern Science ... and it isn't a group of 'bible-bashing back-woods' people as is often portrayed in the popular media.
    obplayer wrote: »
    The Creation Ministries International formerly known as Answers in Genesis - Australia and Creation Science Foundation set up by Ken Ham is not a sensible or balanced place to quote from,
    We're dealing in objectively verifiable fact here (in relation to eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists) ... so it doesn't really matter where the list/quote comes from.
    obplayer wrote: »
    however I will take three people from the list and see what I can find out. I will return tomorrow.
    Thanks.
    obplayer wrote: »
    And by the way we do have faith, faith in science, reason and logic.
    As also do Creation Scientists.:)
    ... but we do lack faith in Spontaneous Evolution ... I guess we're therefore 'Evolutionary Atheists' (if that's not a contradiction in terms) !!!:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #1492
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,025 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Dos this mean that you are happy that I have adequately addressed (and demolished) your quote?
    No.
    I have also already said that CFSI is self-defining and and self-explanatory ... it is Information that is observed to be Complex Functional and Specified ... and wherever it is observed and it's ultimate source is identified it is always found to be the result of applied intelligence.

    This has been observed so extensively and so often that it now has the status of a Scientific Law.

    What more can I say ... without repeating myself??

    "CFSI is CFSI" isn't a definition. It would be nice to finally have one.

    Also, do rocks or water contain CFSI?

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



  • #1493
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    "CFSI is CFSI" isn't a definition. It would be nice to finally have one.
    You're correct that CFSI isn't a definition ... its an acronym for Complex Functional Specified Information ... which is self-defining and and self-explanatory.
    SW wrote: »
    Also, do rocks or water contain CFSI?
    No ... not in and of themselves - but a carved rock that has become a tombstone, for example, would contain some CFSI.


  • #1494
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C, you disappeared in the middle of our conversation. Would you mind replying to the last post that I addressed to you?


  • #1495
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    No...

    Huh? You mean water wasn't designed by the guy who designed everything else just for the human race?


  • #1496
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I imagine that this has been linked before, but I can't find much about this. Is ther,, ie a link / definition of what this is available?

    I've never heard of it.

    Emmet, it's a term invented by William Dumbski to cover the fact that he doesn't understand the basics of evolution, like how natural selection gets around the random nature of mutations; because as evolution is reactive to the species' environment, the processof "choosing" which mutations are kept is no longer random, but based on the organism's success at surviving and procreating.


  • #1497
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Emmet, it's a term invented by William Dumbski ...
    He is Dr William Dembski ... and I would ask you to do the courtesy of using people's proper names rather than using derogatory modifications. It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with somebody ... there is no reason to descend to 'name-calling' ... and anybody who does, automatically loses whatever argument or credibility they may wish to generate.

    Anyway, Dr Dembski is eminently and conventionally qualified to scientifically evaluate Intelligent Design ... which has mathematical, statistical and philosophical-theological dimensions.

    The following are Dr Dembski's educational qualifications:-
    Quote Wikipedia:-
    "Completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and masters degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), and a Master of Divinity in theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary (1996)."

    Dr Dembski comes from a liberal Roman Catholic background ... as 'mainstream' as you can get on matters of religion and Evolution:-
    Quote Wikipedia:-
    "(Dr.) Dembski was born in Chicago, Illinois, the only child of Catholic parents, his mother an art dealer and his father a college professor and lecturer. His father held a D.Sc. in biology from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg and taught evolutionary biology; while growing up Dembski was neither particularly religious nor did he question the theory of evolution.[6][7] He attended an all-male Catholic preparatory school in Chicago. Dembski finished high school a year early, excelling in math and finishing a calculus course in one summer. After high school he attended the University of Chicago."

    This guy was an Evolutionist true and true ... but he saw that Spontaneous Evolution makes no sense - and has been trying (and largely succeeding) in producing a scientifically and logically valid alternative through his researches into the Intelligent Design of life.
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    ... to cover the fact that he doesn't understand the basics of evolution, like how natural selection gets around the random nature of mutations; because as evolution is reactive to the species' environment, the process of "choosing" which mutations are kept is no longer random, but based on the organism's success at surviving and procreating.
    There is no issue over the fact that nature selects 'less fit' organisms to die / fail to reproduce. However, Natural Selection can only select from the genetic diversity available to it ... and such genetic diversity can only be produced by applied intelligence, as genetic information is observed to be Complex Functional and Specified ... and random changes to such information (which mutations are) result in the loss of CFSI ... often catastrophically so.
    While NS is a well proven system for selection ... mutagenesis is observed to be damaging to CFSI ... and is therefore a totally inadequate mechanism to explain the supposed emergence through NS of the highly sophisticated Complex Functional and Specified mechanisms observed in living organisms.


  • #1498
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,025 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    what is CFSI? How is it observed /measured? What peer reviews have confirmed Dembinskis claims?

    How were planets created if rocks and water contain no CFSI (as you have said)?

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



  • #1499
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I have been busy recently, and have not been keeping up with scientific news as much as I would like. I assume this is the reason I was not aware that CSFI had been elevated to the position of scientific law.

    Can anyone provide me with a link to confirm its new status?

    MrP


  • #1500
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Huh? You mean water wasn't designed by the guy who designed everything else just for the human race?
    That wasn't what I said ... the question posed to me was focussed on CFSI and whether rocks or water contain CFSI.
    I state that in and of themselves, water and rocks didn't contain CFSI - but a carved rock that has become a tombstone, for example, would contain some CFSI.

    Intelligent Design (and it's product CFSI) is most dramatically found in living organisms ... so we can definitively and scientifically confirm that living organisms were Intelligently Designed ... who the Intelligent Designer(s) was/were isn't currently amenable to scientific investigation ... but, of course, the question of who the Designer was is amenable to philosophical and theological investigation.


  • Advertisement
  • #1501
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I have been busy recently, and have not been keeping up with scientific news as much as I would like. I assume this is the reason I was not aware that CSFI had been elevated to the position of scientific law.

    Can anyone provide me with a link to confirm its new status?

    MrP
    It has the status of a Law because of the fact that wherever CFSI is observed and the author is identified, the CFSI is invariably (and with no exceptions) found to be the product of the application of Intelligence ... this means that it will remain a Law ... until proven otherwise.

    So, rather than looking for links ... could I respectfully suggest that you try and disprove this Law and be forever remembered as the person who disproved the Law of CFSI.

    You could be as famous as Dr Dembski ... or indeed Ken Ham ... now there is a challenge for you ... Mr P.:)


Advertisement