"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

gbee

sensibleken wrote: »

it doesnt work like that and neither will there be a sudden departure. and if it did the water would all swish around causing flooding.

I annoys me when people take me up on something and then prove it themselves in their own reply. :cool:

sensibleken

gbee wrote: »

I annoys me when people take me up on something and then prove it themselves in their own reply. :cool:

bleeding typo. I meant wouldnt. it wouldnt swish around causing flooding

dead one

gbee wrote: »

We should have been off this God forsaken rock ages ago.

This planet is killing us, we are dying relatively young due to background radiation which is considered 'normal' ~ it's only considered so because we just don't know better right now.

Our planet is unstable and had totally destroyed all life and partially destroyed all life many times over. The emergence of man was ironically due to a series of world wide extinction events which wiped out the dominant species at that time.

These forces are still active today, we can expect the super volcano in Yellow Stone to change the world and throw us back to the Stoneage.

We have vast quantities of absorbed CO2 which is or has reached saturation point in the seabed and is about to be released, plunging us back into the Ice Ages.

We have long distant contact with an unknown body that has entered our near system and may be tracking towards us, its arrival will be chaotic and more destructive than the Moon's arrival.

The Moon itself is moving away from us with acceleration and will cause orbit fluctuations, wobbles and tidal tsunamis on massive scales.

The Sun blasts us with destructive CMEs from time to time, one large one could wipe out all electronic technology leaving us without money or power. A more ferocious event could stripe the planets surface like an orange obliterating all life and leaving the earth a desolate rock, never again to see life for eternity.

If religion had not held us back, we might, just might have figured out just how badly off we are on this rock and done something about it.

You pick part of my statement and explained it completely out of context. Let me explain what i am trying to say. Million and Million of dollars are spent annually on S.E.T.I (Search for Extra Terrestrial intelligence) projects. These activities are funded by atheist elements in scientific community driven by need to confirm their beliefs that human life is product of an accident. Since there are billion of Galaxies containing billion of Stars, planet like earth must have formed around many suns and accident must have repeated it number of times. Now why they are wasting All this money because they say we are product of an accident. If that money which is being wasted, spent on the inhabitants of earth who are living a life poverty, It is for sure that wasted money can save lives of trillion. Those poor are exact meaning of my phrase

life on earth is in great danger

I hope try to read what i said, whey you r hungry?:)

J C

gbee wrote: »

We should have been off this God forsaken rock ages ago.

This planet is killing us, we are dying relatively young due to background radiation which is considered 'normal' ~ it's only considered so because we just don't know better right now.

Our planet is unstable and had totally destroyed all life and partially destroyed all life many times over. The emergence of man was ironically due to a series of world wide extinction events which wiped out the dominant species at that time.

These forces are still active today, we can expect the super volcano in Yellow Stone to change the world and throw us back to the Stoneage.

We have vast quantities of absorbed CO2 which is or has reached saturation point in the seabed and is about to be released, plunging us back into the Ice Ages.

We have long distant contact with an unknown body that has entered our near system and may be tracking towards us, its arrival will be chaotic and more destructive than the Moon's arrival.

The Moon itself is moving away from us with acceleration and will cause orbit fluctuations, wobbles and tidal tsunamis on massive scales.

The Sun blasts us with destructive CMEs from time to time, one large one could wipe out all electronic technology leaving us without money or power. A more ferocious event could stripe the planets surface like an orange obliterating all life and leaving the earth a desolate rock, never again to see life for eternity.

If religion had not held us back, we might, just might have figured out just how badly off we are on this rock and done something about it.

Have you been reading Nostradamus ... or something???

This is a wonderful world ... but not nearly as nice as Heaven ...

... so please let's try to enjoy it, and all the wonderful things it has to offer, without needlessly fretting about things over which we have no control ... as we await our heavenly reward!!!:D

gbee

dead one wrote: »

You pick part of my statement and explained it completely out of context.

Not really explain, just emphasising a point. We are on this earth through several means, any or one route made us what we are.

If we find advanced technologies they MAY, just MAY be able to advance us and free the world of hunger, it won't happen on earth because people are just too greedy and won't do anything without a profit, in general.

It's also almost impossible to feed the world directly anyway as Sir Bob found out the hard way, they have to help themselves in situ.

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

Look my friend there is simple reason, those who deny the existence of God, those who say our creation is a chance, They are still trying and struggling to find chance but it is very true "chance" had no role in creation of universe or anything.

That didn't answer my question. You claim evolutionary biology can't do anything. What do you think the thousands of researches with their billions of dollars have been doing for the last 50 years?

dead one wrote: »

They send satellite to find chance of life outside the earth

Who does?

dead one wrote: »

Infact life on earth is in danger. If all that money is spent on inhabitant of earth, I am sure Africa will rich, where people can't get one time bread.

What does that have to do with the original question I asked you?

dead one wrote: »

Now please tell, Why billion and million of $$$$ are spend to find chance of life outside the earth where those billion and million can save lives of trillions.

What does that have to do with the original question I asked you?

Whether or not NASA spends billions (and millions?) of dollars to search for planets outside of the solar system has really nothing to do with the question of whether there is evidence for biological evolution, or whether biologists use evolution as a working theory the same way NASA uses gravity as a working theory.

Are you simply avoiding my question?

dead one wrote: »

What an irony of chance you are living my friend. Try to be realist.

I am which is why I asked you the original question. A realist would wonder why corporations who are only interested in making money would waste hundreds of billions of dollars on a scientific theory that doesn't work and has no evidence to support it.

This question hasn't seemed to occur to you, and when presented with it you seem to be rather bizarrely trying to change the subject to the search for extra terrestrial life.

dead one wrote: »

I am talking about evidence and you are talking about theory of chance.

I don't remember mentioning anything about the "theory of chance"

I'm talking about the evidence for evolution and you are decided instead to talk about satellites.

It seems to be a rather silly deflection tactic more akin to certain other regular posters on this forum. Interesting ....

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

It seems to be a rather silly deflection tactic more akin to certain other regular posters on this forum. Interesting ....

... very, very interesting !!!:eek:

coffee_cake

in fairness wick there's probably more than one fundie on the internet :pac:

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

in fairness wick there's probably more than one fundie on the internet :pac:

... OK ... so you're one 'fundie' ... who is the other 'fundie' ?!!!:eek:

coffee_cake

J C wrote: »

... OK ... so you're one 'fundie' ... who is the other 'fundie' ?!!!:eek:

how am I a fundie JC

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

how am I a fundie JC

... you said that there was a 'fundie' around ... so I assumed that you were talking about yourself.

Are you a 'kali fundie' ... or just somebody who wants some fun????

coffee_cake

J C wrote: »

... you said that there was a 'fundie' around ... so I assumed that you were talking about yourself.

No, just you

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

No, just you

... you think that I am a fun kind of guy ... well thank you kindly!!!:D

coffee_cake

J C wrote: »

... you think that I am a fun kind of guy ... well thank you kindly!!!:D

JC: putting the "mental" into "fundamentalist"

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

JC: putting the "mental" into "fundamentalist"

...I don't know about you ... but I put the fun into fundamental!!:D
... love and peace to you.

stevoslice

On the moon departing us topic, it's not expected to happen for another while yet.
it's distance from earth is growing at about 4cm per year, so while there is a possibility of it happening, it won't be until about 10 billion years or so, but, long before that may occur, we'll all be engulfed by the growing inferno of awesomeness that will be the sun god when it becomes angry a red giant, which will happen 12/12/2012 in about 5 billion years or so...

dead one

Wicknight wrote: »

That didn't answer my question. You claim evolutionary biology can't do anything. What do you think the thousands of researches with their billions of dollars have been doing for the last 50 years?

Here it goes, in context

The post in which you posed question is related to theory of evolution vs theory of gravity. Theory of evolution is not well tested as theory of gravity. So they r Wasting Time and Energy on the Hopelessly Implausible to prove it. i am sure you will get the point what is the real meaning behind the post. The problem with most Darwinists is that they have no real-world experience in any hard-science discipline with real-world accountability. Suppose there is greater lie and i struggle hard to prove that lie as truth. Will i be succeeded in my inevitable attempts.

robindch

dead one wrote: »

The problem with most Darwinists is that they have no real-world experience in any hard-science discipline with real-world accountability.

Quite a broadly accusation, I have to say.

My own sister-in-law is a PhD-level researcher and has been working for the last fifteen or so years here in Dublin on gene therapies for a range of debilitating diseases of the eye. Her work has been published in the world's leading scientific journals and has made real and exciting progress in treating the diseases she's been studying.

Should I assume that you think that she has "no real-world experience in any hard-science discipline" and is unable to demonstrate "real-world accountability"?

Or would you like to withdraw your thunderingly ignorant and insulting comment?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Quite a broadly accusation, I have to say.

My own sister-in-law is a PhD-level researcher and has been working for the last fifteen or so years here in Dublin on gene therapies for a range of debilitating diseases of the eye. Her work has been published in the world's leading scientific journals and has made real and exciting progress in treating the diseases she's been studying.

Should I assume that you think that she has "no real-world experience in any hard-science discipline" and is unable to demonstrate "real-world accountability"?

Or would you like to withdraw your thunderingly ignorant and insulting comment?

I think that what Dead One meant was that Darwinists have no real-world experience in any hard-science discipline with real-world accountability in which they actually have to use their Darwinism to produce their results.
The therapies you describe are not dependent on Materialistic Evolution being true ... and there are Creationists involved in similar conventional medical reserarch ... and doing similar excellent work, like your sister-in-law is also doing.

sensibleken

thebhoy wrote: »

we'll all be engulfed by the growing inferno of awesomeness that will be the sun god when it becomes angry a red giant, ..

The sun will do what??? That guy sounds wrathful. Quick better get a-sacrificin'

dead one

robindch wrote: »

Quite a broadly accusation, I have to say.

My own sister-in-law is a PhD-level researcher and has been working for the last fifteen or so years here in Dublin on gene therapies for a range of debilitating diseases of the eye. Her work has been published in the world's leading scientific journals and has made real and exciting progress in treating the diseases she's been studying.

Should I assume that you think that she has "no real-world experience in any hard-science discipline" and is unable to demonstrate "real-world accountability"?

?

====================================

You misunderstood me, What i can do for you, The problem which i wrote with most Darwinists is that they have no real=world experience (such as engineering), in which a proposed solution or mechanism must first pass the test, and then be empirically verified to be capable of what is claimed for it. Storytelling doesn’t cut it in real science, but that’s basically all Darwinists have left, especially in light of the fact that the underlying mechanisms of living systems are fundamentally based on the most sophisticated computer program ever written.

coffee_cake

there really is just no arguing sometimes

sensibleken

bluewolf wrote: »

there really is just no arguing sometimes

Yes there is

coffee_cake

sensibleken wrote: »

Yes there is

:pac:

keppler

dead one wrote: »

====================================

You misunderstood me, What i can do for you, The problem which i wrote with most Darwinists is that they have no real=world experience (such as engineering), in which a proposed solution or mechanism must first pass the test, and then be empirically verified to be capable of what is claimed for it. Storytelling doesn’t cut it in real science, but that’s basically all Darwinists have left, especially in light of the fact that the underlying mechanisms of living systems are fundamentally based on the most sophisticated computer program ever written.

Well I'm rather confused then...........................so is it only in 'Creation Science':D that storytelling cuts it?

robindch

J C wrote: »

I think that what Dead One meant [...]

I'm assuming that dead-one meant what he/she wrote. I trust you will forgive me for taking somebody at their word.

dead one wrote: »

The problem which i wrote with most Darwinists is that they have no real=world experience (such as engineering), in which a proposed solution or mechanism must first pass the test, and then be empirically verified to be capable of what is claimed for it.

I have already explained that my sister-in-law, as firm an advocate of evolution as I am myself, is researching gene therapies to help cure diseases of the eye. Her research, as I have also already explained, has lead to genuine advances in medicine and has been published in leading scientific journals. If making the blind see isn't a useful empirical test of a research outcome -- what she is expecting to achieve over the next ten years or so -- then I can't really think what might be.

Rather than make ridiculous comments (which is fine) regarding your understanding of evolution, instead you have chosen to insult "Darwinists" in general (which is certainly not fine).

Consequently, you have insulted her work and her integrity, and I would like you to retract your comment.

Galvasean

dead one wrote: »

Theory of evolution is not well tested as theory of gravity.

With respect to the theory of gravity, I would disagree. Evolution by means of natural selection has been routinely challenged and tested since it's conception. Even to this day tests are performed which time and time again show it's validity. Constant challenges from Creationists have put the theory under intense scrutiny. However, the more scrutiny it is put under the more robust the theory appears.
By contrast, the theory of gravity has not been scrutinized/challenged nearly as much.

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

Here it goes, in context

The post in which you posed question is related to theory of evolution vs theory of gravity. Theory of evolution is not well tested as theory of gravity.

Well I'm not sure how someone compares how well tested a theory is compared to another theory, but if your point is that evolution is not well tested that is a falsehood. It has been tested for the last 150 years and is currently used by thousands of biologists around the world, and has billions of dollars of R&D money based around it, a fact that you seem to be continuously ignoring.

dead one wrote: »

So they r Wasting Time and Energy on the Hopelessly Implausible to prove it.

They aren't trying to prove it, it has already been established as highly accurate. They are using the theory to do things.

Now if you are suggesting that large multinational bio-tech firms have been spending billions of dollars for the last 30 years trying to use a theory that doesn't do anything I think you really need to re-evaluate what you think you know about evolution.

dead one wrote: »

i am sure you will get the point what is the real meaning behind the post.

I tend to go on what people say. You said that that evolution doesn't work and can't be used to do anything because of this. I pointed out that bio-tech firms have been using it to do things for the last 30 years, with huge amounts of money being invested, which seems bizarre if the theory doesn't work.

You seem to have no real response to this, which suggests to me that your original comment was made when you were originally ignorant of these facts.

Would you perhaps like to re-evaluate your position with regard to evolution? No one would think less of you for doing so, it is better to change your position in light of new evidence than to simply hold to a position that you originally had despite the new evidence.

dead one wrote: »

The problem with most Darwinists is that they have no real-world experience in any hard-science discipline with real-world accountability.

Again the existence of the multi-billion dollar bio-tech industry (who make products and who are accountable in financial terms if they don't work) contradicts that claim. So perhaps you would like to re-consider it?

dead one wrote: »

Suppose there is greater lie and i struggle hard to prove that lie as truth. Will i be succeeded in my inevitable attempts.

Depends on if you are a multi-national corporation with shareholders and products that either work or don't work. In which case you won't.

Which makes it odd that these corporations have succeeded for so long if evolution is a lie. A more rational conclusion is that it isn't and that people who think it is simply haven't understood it or are motivated by religious dogma.

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

Storytelling doesn’t cut it in real science, but that’s basically all Darwinists have left, especially in light of the fact that the underlying mechanisms of living systems are fundamentally based on the most sophisticated computer program ever written.

You apparently don't understand the theory of evolution particularly well.

It is bizarre then that you would attempt to tell Robin that his sister works in an area of science based solely on "storying telling".

This is even before we get to the question of why if Robin's sister's science didn't work people would continue to pay her for the last 15 years.

Can you provide a plausible alternative explanation for why scientists like Robin's sister, and the hundreds of thousands of others who work in the bio-tech industry, all still have jobs if all they are doing is basically story telling, and why these bio-tech firms still exist at all of the products they are making have no grounding in reality?

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

The problem with most Darwinists is that they have no real-world experience in any hard-science discipline with real-world accountability.

Let me guess dead one, you do have real-world experience in any hard-science discipline with real-world accountability, but are unwilling to tell us what that science is for fear of being victimised by the darwinist agenda?