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

Darwin's theory

1…4950525455…78

Comments

  • #1532
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    He's literally ignoring a post while telling the rest of us to stop ignoring his posts :pac:
    I'm asking that my clear post that provides the basis for ID be addressed ... before going any further.

    If you have an answer you can stop this thread dead in it's tracks by disproving ID ... and validating M2M Evolution ... and if you don't then Darwin's Theory will be effectively replaced by ID (in regard to M2M Evolution anyway).


  • #1533
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    Google it, type Dembski into Google and the first things that come up are other scientists demolishing his arguments. It's not hard. God didn't magic those opposable digits out of thin air for you to make other people look stuff up on the internet for you.
    I'm not interested in other peoples hand waving strawman arguments against ID on the internet ... I'm interested in you guys providing me with any flaws that you see in the basis for ID that is summarized in this posting
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1534
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    I'm asking that my clear post that provides the basis for ID be addressed ... before going any further.

    If you have an answer you can stop this thread dead in it's tracks by disproving ID ... and validating M2M Evolution ... and if you don't then Darwin's Theory will be effectively replaced by ID (in regard to M2M Evolution anyway).

    Two posts up^ use your eyes that God created from nothing


  • #1535
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You;ve already shown that you'll just ignore any answer.
    Please provide an answer to my posting and I promise I'll respond.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1536
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    I'm not interested in other peoples hand waving strawman arguments against ID on the internet ... I'm interested in you guys providing me with any flaws that you see in the basis for ID that is summarized in this posting

    But sure that's all you do? Have you any scientific evidence that YOU have proposed that show Intelligent Design more accurate than Evolution Theory? You're the one claiming to be a scientist.


  • Advertisement
  • #1537
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    Nobody has called you any names, stop being so bloody dishonest. You're the boards equivalent of that one person we all knew growing up who was a blatant liar and would just let their lies spiral out of control to the point where they'd try make everyone else out to be wrong. This just keeps getting funnier and funnier.
    One end of your post denies the other ... you claim that nobody is calling me names ... and then you proceed, literally in the next breath, to call me a liar ... while studiously ignoring a posting by me that could prove all that I have claimed for ID to be invalid.
    Come on guys ... answer my post and prove ID to be the fraud ye claim it to be.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1538
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    But sure that's all you do? Have you any scientific evidence that YOU have proposed that show Intelligent Design more accurate than Evolution Theory? You're the one claiming to be a scientist.
    I have given it here in my posting
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1539
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    One end of your post denies the other ... you claim that nobody is calling me names ... and then you proceed, literally in the next breath, to call me a liar ... while studiously ignoring a posting by me that could prove all that I have claimed for ID to be invalid.
    Come on guys ... answer my post and prove ID to be the fraud ye claim it to be.

    Well you have been caught lying in the past so it's an apt description.

    If I called you a scientist, now THAT would namecalling. Referring to you as something you are clearly not.


  • #1540
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    Funny how when it suits you you'll ignore arguments and facts but when you want to divert attention away you'll cry foul on other posters. You're actually farcical at this stage, no wonder you won't tell anyone your scientific credentials, they're probably as valid as mine. As in non existent.

    I beg to differ, your scientific credentials are more valid than JC's. You've read and understood some scientific material, all JC has is "I've read bits of the bible, it is inerrant!!!!!!1111!!!!!1!!!11!!!1oneoneoneoONEONEeleven!!!!!!!"


  • #1541
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    I"m normally not a praying man-but if you are up there please save me, superman;by the great Homer Simson. I am quite certain that dembski could use some dodgy maths to prove that superman is actually not that good at flying.


  • Advertisement
  • #1542
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    I have given it here in my posting

    No you're just quoting Dembski. I mean your research.


  • #1543
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Calling you a liar when you're lying isn't calling you names, it's stating a truth.
    ... and calling me a liar when I'm telling the truth ... makes you the liar ... so lets see which one of us is lying by responding to my proof for ID in this post.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1544
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    No, you've given dembski's claims. Do you not see the hypocrisy in asking us to refute those ourselves, when the very claims you have given aren't your own?
    The claims are my own and Dembski's ... so please address them or if you don't I'll draw the reasonable conclusion that ID is valid ... and so will every objective reader of this thread.


  • #1545
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    I beg to differ, your scientific credentials are more valid than JC's. You've read and understood some scientific material, all JC has is "I've read bits of the bible, it is inerrant!!!!!!1111!!!!!1!!!11!!!1oneoneoneoONEONEeleven!!!!!!!"

    It's basically like having a round hole and a square block and using a mallet of ignorance to try make them fit together.


  • #1546
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    The claims are my own and Dembski's ... so please address them or accept that ID is valid.

    If Dembski's claims were true then why hasn't ID overtaken Evolution as the primary reason for why we are here being the mass scientific consensus? Even among theists Evolution is held more as a valid answer.


  • #1547
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    It's basically like having a round hole and a square block and using a mallet of ignorance to try make them fit together.
    ... then it should be relatively easy to identify the flaws in my posting...
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1548
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I did.

    And I still don't understand why you think it's ok to post someone elses claims, but won't accept someone else's refutation.
    I'm also making the claims ... so please make the refutation to my specific posting.


  • #1549
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    If Dembski's claims were true then why hasn't ID overtaken Evolution as the primary reason for why we are here being the mass scientific consensus? Even among theists Evolution is held more as a valid answer.
    That question only becomes relevant when the basis of ID is refuted or accepted ... please answer my posting and refute or accept it
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1550
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Fucking lol.
    ... and now we have bad language added to all the hand-waving and name calling ... but still no refutation of my posting
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1551
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    That question only becomes relevant when the basis of ID is refuted or accepted ... please answer my posting and refute or accept it
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    Now you're just proposing a logical fallacy. Even if evolution wasn't correct that wouldn't mean ID was. You're supposed to be a scientist and that's a basic principle. "Accept or repent" does fit in nicely with the tyrannical god you worship though.


    I have a genuine question. If God is so great, and you're truly destined for Heaven regardless in all it's pleasures and paradise...why not just kill yourself? You only need ask for forgiveness and himself upstairs would be fine with it. Hell suicide isnt even in his List Of 10 Things I Don't Like list. Why wait around down here for decades when there's an infinite paradise up there for you?


  • Advertisement
  • #1552
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    SW posted a link to someone refuting it. I refuted it myself, which you promised to respond to. You haven't. Making the accusations of 'liar' appropriate. I'd also add hypocrite and charlatan to that. I had made the assumption that you were capable of honest, fair debate once other people would allow you the same courtesy, but it's become clear you're incapable of it. Whether you're trolling or genuinely just that brainwashed I have no idea, but honest, rational debate is clearly beyond you.
    More unfounded name calling ... but no answer to my posting ...
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1553
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    More unfounded name calling ... but no answer to my posting ...

    No they're very founded names. You do have a penchant for the old hypocrisy and trying to pull a fast one despite being called out on it all the time.


  • #1554
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    JC-do you ever say a prayer for Satan??,he is the one sinner that needs all the prayers he can get-hate the sin not the sinner and all that. also what do think of AH??


  • #1555
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    Now you're just proposing a logical fallacy. Even if evolution wasn't correct that wouldn't mean ID was. You're supposed to be a scientist and that's a basic principle. "Accept or repent" does fit in nicely with the tyrannical god you worship though.
    My post presents the basis for the scientific validity of ID ... if it is correct, it invalidates Non-intelligently directed M2M Evolution.
    ... so please tell us what flaws are in my posting, and by extension in ID?

    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    I have a genuine question. If God is so great, and you're truly destined for Heaven regardless in all it's pleasures and paradise...why not just kill yourself? You only need ask for forgiveness and himself upstairs would be fine with it. Hell suicide isnt even in his List Of 10 Things I Don't Like list. Why wait around down here for decades when there's an infinite paradise up there for you?
    Suicide is a very serious issue, and sadly too common in this country ... so I'm not going to dignify this scurrilous posting with a reply.
    Please stop trying to divert the thread away from the core issue ... the validity of ID ... or Darwin's Theory.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1556
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I did answer it. You're ignoring it.
    Please answer my posting point by point.


  • #1557
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,528 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    J C wrote: »
    OK please tell me where this is wrong?
    Quote:-
    (Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.


    These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
    This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
    The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
    ... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other biomolecules working in highly integrate systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.
    SW wrote: »
    Dishonest Dembski: the Universal Probability Bound
    obplayer wrote: »
    His universal probability bound depends on the matter in the Universe generating random sequences until the sequence 'required' is achieved.
    First of all there is no guarantee that the sequence which has produced the life we see is the only one which could produce life. We may well be a product of one of a great number of sequences which could produce some kind of life. "It's life Jim but not as we know it!" Do we know these sequences exist? No, but it makes more sense to look for them than to run like children to your God theory.
    Secondly his calculations depend on the premise that all possible sequences or sub-sequences are equally probable or even possible. There are chemical constraints on which molecules can associate with other molecules, these constraints could reduce the range of possible outcomes enormously. Do we know the details of these constraints? Not yet, but taking such factors into account makes much more sense than childishly using a very simplistic formula to conclude that an unexplained external force did everything.
    SW wrote: »
    here's an excellent dissection of many things JC has been posting for years
    SW wrote: »
    sure. You can start by responding to my post containing a link and text explaining why Dembski is wrong.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Your post is a rehash of dembski's claims. Worded differently, but exactly the same points are being made. If posting someone else's work is fine, refuting said post using someone else's work should also be fine.

    Also at no point in my post did I name call, you even admitted earlier in the threat I debate things fairly. I think you just don't want to address the point and are making excuses.
    5uspect wrote: »
    What percentage of the text in that post is yours and what is copied verbatim from the discredited rantings of Dembski?
    J C wrote: »
    More unfounded name calling ... but no answer to my posting ...
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    You're lying. Remember when you got caught copy pasting stuff from wikipedia into your posts? Remember all the lies you told?


  • #1558
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    No they're very founded names. You do have a penchant for the old hypocrisy and trying to pull a fast one despite being called out on it all the time.
    ... so 'call me' on this posting, if you can.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1559
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    My post presents the basis for the scientific validity of ID ... if it is correct, it invalidates Non-intelligently directed M2M Evolution.
    ... so please tell us what flaws are in my posting, and by extension in ID?


    It's literally been answered a half dozen times now. You're just ignoring it.


  • #1560
    Somecrimesitry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 101 ✭✭Somecrimesitry


    J C wrote: »
    ... so 'call me' on this posting, if you can.

    What's your number?


  • Advertisement
  • #1561
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    It's literally been answered a half dozen times now. You're just ignoring it.
    It hasn't ... OBplayer tried to answer it here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92680492&postcount=1671

    and I answered his posting here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92680702&postcount=1675

    ... and then the trail went cold ... and name calling and diversion took over.

    ... so please answer my posting here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660
    ... or if you want, you could take up where obplayer left off, with my answer here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92680702&postcount=1675


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement