The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

14-09-2014 05:50PM

J C wrote: »

You're trying to put incorrect words in my mouth!!

Gosh and we all know that incorrect words would never enter or exit your mouth.

J C wrote: »

... other Evolutionists are more nuanced about what they accept about evolution and they have grave doubts about significant aspects of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

So do these grave doubts make the people you quoted reject evolution?
Or do they still believe that evolution is true?

J C · 14-09-2014 06:03PM

King Mob wrote: »

Gosh and we all know that incorrect words would never enter or exit your mouth.

Absolutely ... and thanks for pointing this out.

King Mob wrote: »

So do these grave doubts make the people you quoted reject evolution?

They don't seem to ... I guess hope (of some solution) springs eternal, as far as they are concerned.

King Mob wrote: »

Or do they still believe that evolution is true?

Only they know the answer to that.
I guess it depends on how grave their doubts are and how much of the Modern Synthesis is affected, in each of their cases.
When I was an Evolutionist and some of its weaknesses were brought to my attention, I dreamed of getting solutions and being feted by my fellow Evolutionists, for doing so.
Eventually, when the cause seemed hopeless, I gave up trying to defend indefensible concepts, like mutagenesis being the driver towards perfection ... when everything about it is actually destructive of life and limb.

14-09-2014 06:30PM

J C wrote: »

Absolutely ... and thanks for pointing this out.

Oh, except for that lie you told about all the fathers of science not studying and believing astrology you told. Whoops.

J C wrote: »

They don't seem to

Only they know the answer to that.
I guess it depends on how grave their doubts are and how much of the Modern Synthesis is affected, in each of their cases.

So if they don't reject evolution, why are they expressing doubts that you are saying point to massive flaws in it?

If these flaws are as fatal as you are saying, why would any one of them still believe in evolution?

If you are going to claim that they are controlled or deluded by evolutionist belief, why would they express doubts at all?

And why do you keep randomly adding and starting sentences with ellipsises exactly?
Do you think that's proper grammar or is it just to annoy people?

J C · 14-09-2014 06:58PM

King Mob wrote: »

Oh, except for that lie you told about all the fathers of science not studying and believing astrology you told. Whoops.

What lie?
The 'Fathers of Modern Science' ... are the fathers of modern science ... and they were nearly all Creationists.

King Mob wrote: »

So if they don't reject evolution, why are they expressing doubts that you are saying point to massive flaws in it?

I guess they have faith that their doubts will be resolved by further research. Like I say, hope can spring eternal.:)

King Mob wrote: »

If these flaws are as fatal as you are saying, why would any one of them still believe in evolution?

I guess they have faith that their doubts will be resolved by further research. Like I say, hope can spring eternal.:)

King Mob wrote: »

If you are going to claim that they are controlled or deluded by evolutionist belief, why would they express doubts at all?

They're people of the highest integrity and scientific eminence ... who 'call it like it is'.

King Mob wrote: »

And why do you keep randomly adding and starting sentences with ellipsises exactly?
Do you think that's proper grammar or is it just to annoy people?

It's evolving grammar ... and I'm it's leading proponent.:)

J C · 14-09-2014 10:14PM

King Mob wrote: »

So they all believe that evolution is completely and utterly wrong and that creationism is right?

Here is one eminent Evolutionist who said exactly what ID proponents of my acquaintance say ... indeed this is the very statistical method used to prove the existence of ID :-

Prof. Francis Crick (1916–2004) Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Nobel laureate 1962, Professor at the Salk Institute

"To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA) which will be described in outline in Chapter 5. Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?

This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!

This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry by comparison to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense." Life Itself (1981) p. 51-52.

... so, was Prof. Crick one of the first ID proponents? ... this writing would certainly lead one to believe that he was.

Discovering this quote over 30 years later, is an amazing experience for me, having discovered these figures and ratios myself only 10 years ago.

It is often said in jest on this thread, that if ID were correct, then an ID proponent would have got a Nobel Prize already ... and now it seems to actually be the case that they have!!!

I am speechless, at this amazing discovery!!!
... and as you all know, it takes a lot to make me speechless!!!:)

15-09-2014 01:32AM

J C wrote: »

What lie?
The 'Fathers of Modern Science' ... are the fathers of modern science ... and they were nearly all Creationists.

But people pointed out that some of the important ones believed in nonsense like astrology. You claimed they didn't. You were shown to be wrong.

Now either you are as educated in science as you claim to be and knew this, so you deliberately lied. Or you didn't know this, so therefore lied about how educated you are.

Also, you never actually responded to me pointing out your lie so it's also a lie of omission.

J C wrote: »

They're people of the highest integrity and scientific eminence ... who 'call it
like it is'.

But if they really did "call it like it is" then surely they would say that evolution is wrong and creation is right, no?
So why don't they?

J C wrote: »

It's evolving grammar ... and I'm it's leading proponent.:)

I like it. It sounds like you pause randomly to process what nonsense you are going to make up and spout next.

endacl · 15-09-2014 01:34AM

Haven't checked this thread in ages. Probably since the days of MickRock. Anything new at all?

15-09-2014 01:35AM

J C wrote: »

... so, was Prof. Crick one of the first ID proponents? ... this writing would certainly lead one to believe that he was.

Discovering this quote over 30 years later, is an amazing experience for me, having discovered these figures and ratios myself only 10 years ago.

It is often said in jest on this thread, that if ID were correct, then an ID proponent would have got a Nobel Prize already ... and now it seems to actually be the case that they have!!!

Well if a Nobel prize winner says something, it must be true unquestioningly.
Good thing the majority of those winners don't all believe in evolution or you might be a little stuck and confused.

legspin · 15-09-2014 02:01AM

endacl wrote: »

Haven't checked this thread in ages. Probably since the days of MickRock. Anything new at all?

Not really.
J.C. is still hoisting himself with his own petard, everyone else is still facepalming at the knots he ties himself into with his answers (if you can call that gibberish answers) and I still cant believe he hasn't managed a Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent manoeuvre yet.

endacl · 15-09-2014 02:02AM

legspin wrote: »

Not really.
J.C. is still hoisting himself with his own petard, everyone else is still facepalming at the knots he ties himself into with his answers (if you can call that gibberish answers) and I still cant believe he hasn't managed a Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent yet.

Cool. Nice one. Will check in again in a year.

Brian Shanahan · 15-09-2014 11:39AM

endacl wrote: »

Haven't checked this thread in ages. Probably since the days of MickRock. Anything new at all?

I believe JC has almost hit that point south of New Zealand that is his antipode, so furiously is he digging down.

Vivisectus · 17-09-2014 01:52PM

Where to begin? So much silliness, so little time… Let’s just pick a few of the major points.

First off, abiogenesis and evolution are two very different things. Evolution can be true with or without abiogenesis happening on earth.

Your professor Crick, for instance, was a staunch supporter of evolution even though he had some doubts about the ultimate origin of life itself. At first he favoured the panspermia hypothesis, which states that life is spread through the universe after an accidental start.

Later on he changed his mind, and decided that he had been too pessimistic about the chances of spontaneous abiogenesis following some experiments that managed to create some primitive amino acids in proposed early earth conditions.

What you quoted was him speaking about abiogenesis, not evolution. And as I already pointed out, evolution is not disproven if abiogenesis would ever end up being disproven. It merely gets a new starting point. It is a common ploy by ID proponents to pretend that evolution and abiogenesis are linked to such a degree that if you can cast doubt on one, you can cast doubt on the other, but that is simply not the case.

Then there is the other common ploy that says that mutation can never improve anything… which is clearly nonsense. We only have to look at the way bacteria have used mutations in their genetic material to develop resistance to antibiotics. How does ID explain this rather dangerous new development? Is God altering their design somehow in order to give people more bacterial infections?

72DSpecial · 17-09-2014 02:01PM

Vivisectus -

Thanks for adding some badly needed clarity.

Mr. CooL ICE · 17-09-2014 02:37PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

Is God altering their design somehow in order to give people more bacterial infections?

Well, he does work in mysterious ways...

Vivisectus · 17-09-2014 03:14PM

Apart from that we are still waiting to find out why a Giraffe has such a long laryngial nerve when a short one would be much more efficient. Also, why does the Loa Loa or African eye-burrowing worm exist?

Genghiz Cohen · 17-09-2014 05:41PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

Apart from that we are still waiting to find out why a Giraffe has such a long laryngial nerve when a short one would be much more efficient. Also, why does the Loa Loa or African eye-burrowing worm exist?

I believe the given answer was an artistic flair from a loving creator.
I may be slightly off but that was the gist of J C's answer.

robindch · 17-09-2014 10:39PM

A reporter visits Ken Ham's dreary, humorless world:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/the-genesis-code/379341/

mickrock · 18-09-2014 04:51AM

Vivisectus wrote: »

Apart from that we are still waiting to find out why a Giraffe has such a long laryngial nerve when a short one would be much more efficient. Also, why does the Loa Loa or African eye-burrowing worm exist?

Haha, you're so right! Life forms are so shoddily and haphazardly put together!

And the layout of my TV remote control isn't great. What's going on there?!

Brian Shanahan · 18-09-2014 08:44AM

mickrock wrote: »

Haha, you're so right! Life forms are so shoddily and haphazardly put together!

And the layout of my TV remote control isn't great. What's going on there?!

On your first sentence; glad that you finally accept evolution one of the most well evidenced and explanatory scientific theories.

On your second sentence there are a few competing hypotheses 1) you may have bought a cheap tv from lack of money, 2) you may have bought a tv without considering the remote design first, 3) your evolved hand could be a bad fit for the decently designed remote, or 4) you could be making it up as a bad analogy to show that a designer ins't perfect (it is bad because of the claim that god, the being you are baselessly asserting is real, is perfect, as laid out in the three monotheistic cults).

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 01:54PM

mickrock wrote: »

Haha, you're so right! Life forms are so shoddily and haphazardly put together!

And the layout of my TV remote control isn't great. What's going on there?!

Ah, a proponent of unintelligent design! Indeed: what we see around us is compatible with that. But then again, a lot of things are. The Loch Ness monster, for instance, is perfectly compatible with what we know so far.

But intelligent, benign design we can rule out based on what we can observe, however.

mickrock · 18-09-2014 08:40PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

you could be making it up as a bad analogy to show that a designer ins't perfect (it is bad because of the claim that god, the being you are baselessly asserting is real, is perfect, as laid out in the three monotheistic cults).

I never mentioned god or a supernatural being.

It's obvious that life, nature and evolution in themselves are creative and creativity implies intelligence.

In the near future the idea that the evolutionary process is blind and dumb will be regarded as naive and childlike.

Simon G. Powell has written a book called "Darwin's Unfinished Business: The Self-Organizing Intelligence of Nature" of which Lynn Margulis said:

"Simon G. Powell forcefully but gently demonstrates that intelligence (modes of being that acquire information, learn, and meaningfully respond to larger contexts) is intrinsic to our natural world. People who deny the intelligence of the living (microbes, plants, other animals) are abysmally, indeed dangerously, ignorant."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaq0LTqQvyc

endacl · 18-09-2014 09:10PM

endacl wrote: »

Haven't checked this thread in ages. Probably since the days of MickRock. Anything new at all?

Whoops. I withdraw the above.

mickrock wrote: »

Haha, you're so right! Life forms are so shoddily and haphazardly put together!

And the layout of my TV remote control isn't great. What's going on there?!

Although, there is a certain feeling of deja vu...

oscarBravo · 18-09-2014 10:54PM

mickrock wrote: »

It's obvious that life, nature and evolution in themselves are creative...

"It's obvious..." is hand-waving, not argument.

Brian Shanahan · 18-09-2014 11:05PM

mickrock wrote: »

I never mentioned god or a supernatural being.

It is painfully obvious from your posting history that you are a christian YEC. You do not have to explicitly mention it every time you post, we know that your vision has god at its centre.

It's obvious that life, nature and evolution in themselves are creative and creativity implies intelligence.

A) How is it obvious that all you say is creative?

How does creativity imply intelligence?
These two claims are so large and so extraordinary that you are obliged to provide evidence for them. Until you do, I am perfectly correct and right in dismissing them as baseless.

Thus I dismiss these two baseless assertions. Next.

In the near future the idea that the evolutionary process is blind and dumb will be regarded as naive and childlike.

Unless humanity descends into a state of theocratic luddism this isn't going to happen. We know how evolution works to a large extent (through genetics, and we're getting a good handle on non-genetic factors too), and why it works (natural selection in response to changes in environmental surroundings, both natural and man-made). So your confidence that we are going to ditch this mountain of evidence is sadly misplaced unless the world is literally turned upside down and our system of government worldwide is replaced by a monstrous regiment of priests (to misquote John Knox)

Simon G. Powell has written a book called "Darwin's Unfinished Business: The Self-Organizing Intelligence of Nature"of which Lynn Margulis said:

"Simon G. Powell forcefully but gently demonstrates that intelligence (modes of being that acquire information, learn, and meaningfully respond to larger contexts) is intrinsic to our natural world. People who deny the intelligence of the living (microbes, plants, other animals) are abysmally, indeed dangerously, ignorant."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aaq0LTqQvyc

Could you please give a synopsis of what the book is about rather than an hour long youtube video. What you have done right now is "I claim this man has proven Darwin wrong, therefore GODIDIT". That is an extremely mendacious and base tactic to use.

mickrock · 19-09-2014 02:05AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Thus I dismiss these two baseless assertions.

Yet you cling to the baseless assertions that evolution is blind and dumb.

You can't handle the truth. The notion that nature is intelligent must give you the heebie jeebies.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What you have done right now is "I claim this man has proven Darwin wrong, therefore GODIDIT". That is an extremely mendacious and base tactic to use.

I never mentioned God. You seem to have a fixation on God and can't get it out of your mind.

In his book and in the video Simon G. Powell talks of how life and nature are intelligent in themselves, rather than as a result of supernatural intervention.

Brian Shanahan · 19-09-2014 01:28PM

mickrock wrote: »

Yet you cling to the baseless assertions that evolution is blind and dumb.

Evolution is one of the best evidenced theories in any branch of science. The fact that you bring up this non-argument shows the paucity of your point of view and the inability of yourself to be able to change your position on the available evidence.

To paraphrase Spock quoting Napoleon: "You would argue against evolution. I pray you excuse me, I have no time to listen to such nonsense."

mickrock · 20-09-2014 12:28AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

To paraphrase Spock quoting Napoleon: "You would argue against evolution. I pray you excuse me, I have no time to listen to such nonsense."

You seem to be a bit hard of thinking.

I'm not arguing against evolution.

oscarBravo · 20-09-2014 03:04PM

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not arguing against evolution.

No; you're arguing that evolution is "intelligent", your evidence for which is "it's obvious".

J C · 23-09-2014 08:28PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

We know how evolution works to a large extent (through genetics, and we're getting a good handle on non-genetic factors too), and why it works (natural selection in response to changes in environmental surroundings, both natural and man-made).

That's fine ... Natural Selection is a fact ... but it's the source of the genetic diversity upon which NS acts, that is the issue.
... and no, taking a proverbial 'mutagenic sledgehammer' to the finely tuned and irreducibly complex systems observed in living processes won't do it.

Here is what an Agnostic had to say about the dilemma he found himself with, as a scientist:-

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law."

Dr Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, (1981), p. 19.

This is what Wikipedia says about him.
Dr. Jastrow went to Columbia University for college and graduate school, where he received his A.B., A.M. and PhD in theoretical physics, in 1948. Afterwards he joined NASA when it was formed in 1958.

He was the first chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, which established the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings. At the same time he was also the Chief of the Theoretical Division at NASA (1958–61). He became the founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1961, and served until his retirement from NASA in 1981. Concurrently he was also a Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University.

After his NASA career he became a Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College (1979–1992), and was a Member of the NASA Alumni Association. Jastrow was also a Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, and Director Emeritus of Mount Wilson Observatory and Hale Solar Laboratory.

oscarBravo · 23-09-2014 10:06PM

J C wrote: »

This is what Wikipedia says about him.
Dr. Jastrow went to Columbia University for college and graduate school, where he received his A.B., A.M. and PhD in theoretical physics, in 1948. Afterwards he joined NASA when it was formed in 1958.

He was the first chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, which established the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings. At the same time he was also the Chief of the Theoretical Division at NASA (1958–61). He became the founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1961, and served until his retirement from NASA in 1981. Concurrently he was also a Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University.

After his NASA career he became a Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College (1979–1992), and was a Member of the NASA Alumni Association. Jastrow was also a Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the George C. Marshall Institute, and Director Emeritus of Mount Wilson Observatory and Hale Solar Laboratory.

You missed a bit:

Jastrow together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg established the George C. Marshall Institute to counter the scientists who were arguing against Reagan's Starwars Initiative, arguing for equal time in the media. This institute later took the view that tobacco was having no effect, that Acid Rain was not caused by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides were not environmentally harmful and it was also critical of the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming. Jastrow acknowledged the earth was experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be natural variation.

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Comments