"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

AhSureTisGrand

J C wrote: »

This shows just how stubborn you all are!!!:D

... and how determined you are to cling to your belief in Evolution ... even when all logic shouts that it is specious nonesense!!!

A few eccentric scientists=logic?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

This shows just how stubborn you all are!!!:D

... and how determined you are to cling to your belief in Evolution ... even when all logic shouts that it is specious nonesense!!!

And of course by logic you mean idiots who don't actually understand what logic is and trolls who pretend to be those idiots.

AhSureTisGrand

J C wrote: »

All my quotes are within context and not artificially truncated or otherwise manipulated.

Lol

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

You're specious nonsense

Love and peace.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

It is indeed special pleading on Prof Dawkins part ... and thanks for the clarification.

This was your response back then when I called you out for your explicit
truncation of Dawkin's quote.

Let's put it another way, back then you admitted that you took him out of
context but now you tell us "All my quotes are within context and not
artificially truncated or otherwise manipulated."

This is schizo, or a royal troll of 5-year proportions!

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This was your response back then when I called you out for your explicit
truncation of Dawkin's quote.

Let's put it another way, back then you admitted that you took him out of
context but now you tell us "All my quotes are within context and not
artificially truncated or otherwise manipulated."

What quote did I truncate?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

What quote did I truncate?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69961680&highlight=gould#post69961680

strobe

bluewolf wrote: »

You're specious nonsense

lol....

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Taken from "The Quote Mine Project" dedicated to offering context to all
of the out-of-context quotes used by horrendously dishonest creationists
(those whom JC is imitating):

---

Quote #40

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without
any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of
sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of
thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called
scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major
gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil
record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden
appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian
era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."
(Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton &
Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

While it can be gleaned from this quote, it needs to be pointed out
specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and
Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree
with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian
Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.
The part in the ellipsis is an explanation for this, as follows:

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really
does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that
is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few
fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years
ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had
only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize.

If you are a creationist you may think that this is special
pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about
gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in
the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

---

JC, you're either an easily led fool or just a master troller :pac:
I think it's the latter, I'd say he purposely quoted this in order to lure
us into catching him out because the level of stupidity otherwise is
simply too huge.

The quote wasn't truncated ... even the Talkorigins comment admits that it can be gleaned from the quote what Prof Dawkins was talking about ... and the follow-on quote from the good professor goes on to confirm what he has already said i.e the sudden appearance of fossils in the fossil record without any evidence of their gradual evolution (which Prof Dawkins puts down to a "very large gap in the fossil record") ... a claim that he promptly admits could be regarded as special pleading.
So not only was my quote shown to not be truncated ... the follow on quote that you're saying I supposedly truncated off it, is even more devastating for the Evolutionist case ... because it freely admits that the "very large gap in the fossil record" can be regarded as special pleading!!!

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

You're specious nonsense

I bet you say that to all the guys??:)

dead one

J C wrote: »

quite!!!
... if you don't believe Dead One ... perhaps you will believe this:-

"As stated in the Introduction, evolutionist scientists know perfectly well that not one single branch of science has corroborated their theory and that the whole concept is totally groundless. Yet for the sake of ideology, they continue to defend the theory, even while some evolutionists confess that it’s invalid."...:eek::eek::eek:

... Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. . . .The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs;)

Pierre Paul Grassé, author of the book Evolution of Living Organisms New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 8


... or Prof. Derek Ager, who is the former president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (and head of the department of geology and oceanography at University College of Swansea) who said:

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student . . . have now been debunked"
“The Nature of the Fossil Record.” Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132

Exactly and very true my friend,
As we have emphasized many times already, Darwinists have to deceive people to keep their ideology alive. Because the theory of evolution is a huge lie that never has and never can be proved by science. Hence the need for deception and lies to maintain its hegemony over the last 150 years.
The backward level of science 150 years ago made primitive methods of deception more than adequate for Darwinists. Under the influence of primitive science, people believed that the cell really could emerge from muddy water, that life could come into being from inanimate matter and that if given a bit of training, monkeys could turn into human beings.
Then scientific progress entered the equation. It proved that not even a single protein, let alone a whole cell, could come into being spontaneously, by chance. It revealed that life could not emerge from inanimate matter. It showed that all species, including monkeys, have their own unique features and can ‘never’ turn into one another through genetic changes. And when all the claims of evolution were refuted by all branches of science, such as microbiology, molecular biology, genetics and paleontology, and when it was revealed that not a single transitional fossil existed, the position no longer looked at all rosy for Darwinists.
Realizing they could no longer deceive people with primitive methods, Darwinists imagined they could persist with this propaganda by adding a slightly more ‘scientific appearance’ to their frauds. For that reason, they took scientific subjects, scientific developments and scientific findings that had absolutely nothing to do with Darwinism and tried to pass these off as evolution. They amended their ways of describing things, in other words their misleading language. They began not to speak of chance any more, even though evolution is totally founded on chance. Alarmed by the term ‘we are descended from apes,’ which they themselves had invented, they began to speak of ‘an ape-like creature.’ They then raised the frauds we describe under the headings below, which they dressed up in all kinds of scientific terminology, despite their really being very primitive. Their aim was to prevent the lifting of the cunning spell, the hypnosis, that the system of the antichrist had cast over people for the last 150 years.
The subjects we are listing below are the easiest ones for Darwinists to hide behind. If you see a report about evolution somewhere, you can be sure that Darwinists have used one of these categories. They seek to prop their fraudulent theories up by resorting to these ideas. They tell lies, just as they have for 150 years. And like all the rest, these deceptions to which Darwinists resort are all fraudulent and specious.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
It is indeed special pleading on Prof Dawkins part ... and thanks for the clarification

sponsoredwalk
This was your response back then when I called you out for your explicit
truncation of Dawkin's quote.

Let's put it another way, back then you admitted that you took him out of
context but now you tell us "All my quotes are within context and not
artificially truncated or otherwise manipulated."

I admitted no such thing ... the quote wasn't obviously truncated to alter its meaning ... and I was pointing out that it was also special pleading on Prof Dawkins part!!!

... like I have said, all my quotes are within context and are not artificially truncated or otherwise manipulated!!

dead one

Fluffybums wrote: »

Complete Boll*x, non-argument, a good example of ignorance of biology, biochemistry, genetics in fact, science in general. Nice to know my taxes have been so comprehensively wasted on education!

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And so it is.

dead one

housetypeb wrote: »

The big question is whether Dead One is speciation within the JC kind or something new.

Soon you will see the difference, when you run out of your arguments which are totally based on evolution / guess work / theory.
It is fact a hollow base can't stand longer.

dead one

Galvasean wrote: »

Kevin Myers, is that you?

We've got guys with good form, but until we get them in competition, we don't know what they've got,

J C

J C wrote: »

... by far the greatest hazard of belief is when somebody decides to impose their belief on others or silences people of other beliefs from expressing their ideas!!

dead one wrote: »

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And so it is.

Malcom Muggeridge, the British writer and author, once made the following devastaing observation about evolution:-
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. I think I spoke to you before about this age as one of the most credulous in history, and I would include evolution as an example."

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Malcom Muggeridge, the British writer and author, once made the following devastaing observation about evolution:-
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. I think I spoke to you before about this age as one of the most credulous in history, and I would include evolution as an example."

How can someone with no qualifications make a devastaing [sic] observation about something.

Watch as I devastate quantum theory. Quantum theory is like, you know, not right. I think that is a few years time people will realise that it was wrong and people will look back and wonder how anyone could have been so stupid to believe it. Ha. Take that quantum theory and all you losers who have spent year getting qualifications in physics.

Seriously JC, you are incredibly tiresome. Should you not be a church or something...?

MrP

dead one

Galvasean wrote: »

As a side note, the way certain religious people label things that are clearly not religions as religions it makes me wonder if they have any clue as to what they are on about in relation to anything.

Evolutionists claim that the debate between themselves and creationists is a debate between science and religion. Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. We creationist are explaining to people that both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science or history. The issue, therefore, is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion).

The famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhanksy (The American Biology Teacher, volume 35, number 3, March 1973, page 129)

Theodosius Dobzhanksy wrote:

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow."

It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there--no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!

Albert Einstein wrote:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -

robindch

dead one wrote: »

You misunderstood me, What i can do for you, The problem which i wrote [...]

dead one wrote: »

As we have emphasized many times already, Darwinists have to deceive people to keep their ideology alive. Because the theory of evolution is a huge lie that never has and never can be proved by science. Hence the need for deception and lies to maintain its hegemony over the last 150 years.

Gotta say that your English improved one hell of a lot over the last week or so! Congrats!

Ah, oh.

Looks like you stole it from Adnan Oktar's website:

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=2014

I'm sure you're aware that plagiarism, the passing off the work of others as your own work -- even the word of former convicts like Mr Oktar -- is, in intellectual terms, theft.

JC's been plagiarized stuff too, so it seems that islamic creationists (what I assume you are; please correct me if not) have the same kind of dismal standards of personal honesty as christian creationists.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Malcom Muggeridge

Here's the grumpy Malcom Muggeridge being pwnd by John Cleese and Michael Palin -- scroll to one minute in.

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

Here's the grumpy Malcom Muggeridge being pwnd by John Cleese and Michael Palin -- scroll to one minute in.

Is that being narrated by David Tenant?

coffee_cake

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Is that being narrated by David Tenant?

David tennant, swoon.
Does sound like him though, so unused to hearing the scottish accent

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

even the Talkorigins comment admits that it can be gleaned from the quote what Prof Dawkins was talking about ...

Omg... talkorigins says:

While it can be gleaned from this quote, it needs to be pointed out
specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and
Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree
with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian
Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.

When it mentions that "it can be gleaned" they are specifically talking
about charlatans like you who would purposely glean from his comments
something out of context to lie to & deceive people - just like you
are doing right now...

J C wrote: »

I admitted no such thing ...

I'm sorry I guess I presupposed a glimmer of honesty in you, how wrong I
was...I (ignorantly) thought "Thanks for the clarification" was a willingful
acknowledgement that you purposely truncated his comment &
took it out of context. Since he is talking about the common ground
between punctualists & gradualists & discounting your claims I guess I
should have realised...

J C wrote: »

... like I have said, all my quotes are within context and are not artificially truncated or otherwise manipulated!!

This is a lie. How are you quoting Dawkin's in context when you use his
quote to tell us about "the difficulties of the fossil record (from an
Evolutionist point of view)"? Dawkins says the exact opposite in the
second half of his comment - the part you truncated... The part you
cut out explicitly refutes your claims & he explains that both gradualists
& punctualists agree on that.

You deliberately took this quote out of context to imply that Dawkin's
thinks the fossil record leaves major difficulties for evolutionists about
the theory of evolution itself.

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really
does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that
is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few
fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years
ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had
only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize.

If you are a creationist you may think that this is special
pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about
gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in
the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."

In fact Dawkin's is talking about how gaps, such as before the Cambrian
have explanations consistent with evolutionary theory & that that is
something both Punctualists like Gould & Dawkin's both accept. Considering
the clash between these theories it's a sign of common ground in some
fundamental facts of evolution. But you have deliberately taken him out of
context - and he explains in the next sentence (that you truncated off for
some reason (:rolleyes:)) why your answers are nonsense. Sir you are a
deceiver & you lie again when you tell us you are not.

---

Let's get explicit. If I made the statement:

sponsoredwalk wrote:

"Everyone thinks that evolution is crazy & they know they are right!
By everyone I mean religious fundamentalists & yes of course they
think they are right - but it doesn't mean they actually are...".

I'm explicitly calling fundamentalists crazeballs... Still, you would take this
quote and do the following:

(Me as) JC wrote:

Look, even sponsoredwalk knows evolution is a 'fairytale':

sponsoredwalk wrote:

Everyone thinks that evolution is crazy & they know they are right!

So it follows (logically because I use logic! Honests!) that evolution has
neither logic nor science underpinning it.

You purposely take a small bit of my comment & lie to people saying I
believe X. Tell me why what you did to Dawkin's is any different? It isn't
because you did the exact same thing...

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Omg... talkorigins says:
When it mentions that "it can be gleaned" they are specifically talking
about charlatans like you who would purposely glean from his comments
something out of context to lie to & deceive people - just like you...

... When talkorigins said that 'it can be gleaned' they meant that it it can be gleaned by anybody reading the quote that Dawkins was talking about the gradualist/punctuationist controversy within Evolutionism ... so the quote is therefore valid!!!

"While it can be gleaned from this quote, it needs to be pointed out
specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium ..."

So let us look at the talkorigins comments and Prof Dawkins quote

Talkorigins Quote #40
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Reasonable observation by Prof Dawkins ... nobody put these words in his mouth
Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.. Reasonable observation by Prof Dawkins ... and once again, nobody put these words in his mouth
...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, An obvious and valid observation by Prof Dawkins, as the evolutionist hostility to Creationism on this thread also proves
and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. Prof Dawkins admits here that there are real and major gaps in the fossil record (and this is accepted by both Punctuationists and Gradualists).
The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." ... and Prof Dawkins admits here that only possible alternative explanation for the Cambrian Explosion is that Divine Creation occurred, just like Creation Scientists claim ... but he points out that both gradualists and punctuationists reject this hypothesis
(Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton &
Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

While it can be gleaned from this quote, it needs to be pointed out
specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and
Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree
with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian
Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.
The part in the ellipsis is an explanation for this, as follows:
"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really
does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that
is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few
fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years
ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had
only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. Here Prof Dawkins presents the Evolutionist explanation for the 'gaps' by claiming that this was due to the soft bodies of the creatures supposedly in the 'gaps' ... but this gleefully ignores the fact that many 'soft-bodied' creatures are found preserved 'elsewhere' in the fossil record ... and there must have been many shelled creatures as intermediaries between unicells and the supposedly 'advanced' creatures found in the Cambrian Explosion.

If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. Prof Dawkins then concedes that it could be considered as special pleading, for him to account for the gaps by claiming that they were due to 'soft-bodied' creatures (when we have no evidence that they were all soft-bodied ... and even if they were, they could have been fossilised, like other soft-bodied creatures that were fossilised in other parts of the fossil record).
My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'." Here Prof Dawkins points out that both gradualists and punctuationists are of one mind on the problem that the Cambrian Explosion presents for both accounts of Evolution ... something I don't contest ... because I know that both the gradualists and the punctuationists are wrong!!:eek:

J C

robindch wrote: »

Gotta say that your English improved one hell of a lot over the last week or so! Congrats!

Ah, oh.

Looks like you stole it from Adnan Oktar's website:

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=2014

I'm sure you're aware that plagiarism, the passing off the work of others as your own work -- even the word of former convicts like Mr Oktar -- is, in intellectual terms, theft.

JC's been plagiarized stuff too, so it seems that islamic creationists (what I assume you are; please correct me if not) have the same kind of dismal standards of personal honesty as christian creationists.

I got to tell you, Dead One, that Robin has all of the 'moral self-rightousness' of a Pharisee ... he will take you up on the most oblique issue of grammar ... or for not giving 'chapter and verse' in exhaustive (and repetitive) detail on any quote you may use (if you don't he will cry 'plagiarism' ... even if its obvious from the context that you aren't using your own words) ... and yet he has fallen for the Evolution hoax ... and defends all of the Evolutionist baloney, that comes his way, as absolute truth!!!

You should also note that he hasn't questioned the substance of your article (which is so devastating for Evolution) ... he merely quibbles over its proper attribution!!

robindch

J C wrote: »

he calls 'plagiarism' ... even if its obvious from the context that you aren't using your own words)

On the contrary -- and as I made clear in case dead-one is not familiar with the word -- plagiarism takes place when somebody copies large chunks of somebody else's text and passes the work off as their own.

This is what 'dead-one' has done here and it's a career-limiting tactic in online debates.

Still, fun to see that the standards of honesty are the same for creationists whether they've purchased their opinions from a diploma-mill doctor in Kansas or a white-suited Turkish demagogue who been jailed multiple times.

J C

robindch wrote: »

On the contrary -- and as I made clear in case dead-one is not familiar with the word -- plagiarism takes place when somebody copies large chunks of somebody else's text and passes the work off as their own.

This is what 'dead-one' has done here and it's a career-limiting tactic in online debates.

Still, fun to see that the standards of honesty are the same for creationists whether they've purchased their opinions from a diploma-mill doctor in Kansas or a white-suited Turkish demagogue who been jailed multiple times.

... anyway Robin, do you have anything to say about the substance of Dead One's quote ... as distinct from whether he had a copyright lawyer in his back pocket ... when he posted it???

robindch

J C wrote: »

... as distinct from whether he had a copyright lawyer in his back pocket ... when he posted it???

Do you think his dishonesty is acceptable?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Do you think his dishonesty is acceptable?

Of course not ... but quibbling over the most arcane details is also silly.

Dead One was obviously quoting from some other Creationists writings ... you even said it yourself, that you could see from the writing style that these weren't Dead One's own words!!!

It would have been best had Dead One attributed the quote ... but such an oversight pales into insignificance in the light of the quote itself ... which I note you haven't addressed!!!

... indeed, many Creationists have an 'open source' agreement amongst themselves, because sometimes attribution could cause severe problems for the author because of the hostility that some Evolutionists have towards Creationists.

robindch

J C wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Do you think his dishonesty is acceptable?

Of course not

Fine, we're in agreement then!

Topic closed, unless dead-one wishes to say something.