"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

http://www.creationism.org/books/index.htm

Thanks for the link to the humourous books, needed a good laugh.
Have you explained to your new buddy,Dead One,that he's dammed as you believe that the only way to be" saved" is through jesus,supposed son of sky fairy, hope you two won't fall out on which fairy tale to follow.

liamw

J C wrote: »

...and many new evidences have come to light...

What do you think is the best evidence for creationism?

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

Thanks for the link to the humourous books, needed a good laugh.
Have you explained to your new buddy,Dead One,that he's dammed as you believe that the only way to be" saved" is through jesus,supposed son of sky fairy, hope you two won't fall out on which fairy tale to follow.

Thanks for your concern.

Myself and Dead One may have minor Theological differences on the One True Omnipotent Creator God of the Universe ... but you guys have major problems in the fairytale department!!!

J C

liamw wrote: »

What do you think is the best evidence for creationism?

Complex Functional Specified Biological Information.

AhSureTisGrand

Creationists themselves are a solid argument against Creationism. God wouldn't make anyone that stupid

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

Thanks for your concern.

Myself and Dead One may have minor Theological differences on the One True Omnipotent Creator God of the Universe ... but you guys have major problems in the fairytale department!!!

Really? Minor differences? you believe jesus is the son of god and died on the cross for your sins,
Dead One believes god had no children,and jesus did not die on the cross,
I'd like to hear how you two will square that one,just for starters.

strobe

J C wrote: »

Complex Functional Specified Biological Information.

Really man? Not irreducible complexity?

sponsoredwalk

Alright JC, first lets look at your original post:

J C wrote: »

If you don't believe me ... perhaps you will believe Prof Dawkins ... when he says the following about the difficulties of the fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view):-
"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 (Evolutionst) 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 both reject this alternative." Prof Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', pp. 229-230

Okay, you quoted one paragraph from Dawkins. 1 Paragraph cut away
from the rest of his text. Notice what you said:

J C wrote: »

perhaps you will believe Prof Dawkins ... when he says the following about the difficulties of the fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view):-

This one paragraph appears as if Dawkin's is conceding that the gaps
in the fossil record present any difficulty "from an Evolutionist point of
view"" which they do not. Your own quote purposely took Dawkin's out
of context in order to make your argument appear to have some
justification from Dawkin's but you, in that characteristic way, were
just trying to deceive us all weren't you?

Dawkins wrote:

there is more than enough evidence for the fact of evolution in the comparative study of modern species and their geographical distribution. We don't need fossils. The case for evolution is watertight without them, so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution. We are lucky to have fossils at all.
link

J C wrote: »

... 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!!!

Yes he was talking about the gradualist/punctuationist controversy &
conceding that between gradualists & punctuationists there is agreement
on certain things. Why are you quoting Dawkin's text regarding the
gradualist/punctuationist controversy to tell us "about the difficulties of
the fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view)"? Why are
you taking Dawkin's conversation on the agreement between punctualists
& gradualists to talk about the unrelated topic of "the difficulties of the
fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view)" when

Dawkins wrote:

We don't need fossils. The case for evolution is watertight without them

?

Why did you make it appear as if Dawkin's is conceding anything when he
says:

Dawkins wrote:

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.
...
the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.

and please tell us how this quote is Prof. Dawkins speaking about "the
difficulties of the fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view)".

Reading all of the little text you wrote in red was fun but I mean it
had nothing to do with the fact you quoted Dawkin's to tell us "about the
difficulties of the fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view)"
especially when we have his own quotes stating that "We don't need
fossils". You can re-interpret Dawkin's all you like but you may as well
have responded with a picture of a baby with a sign criticizing the
burka ban because your response had nothing to do with what I was
talking about when I said you took him out of context.

This is why I call you a charlatan, because you pull standard creationist
tricks that are thoroughly deceitful & do so in the way an honest person
doing something dishonest usually does it - poorly.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Complex Functional Specified Biological Information.

I went through this in detail with you & explained to you that Complex
Functional Specified Information is just Information that is Functional
which, as it becomes more Complex, becomes highly Specified and can
be explained by evolution which could have been initiated along the lines
laid out in the abiogenesis video. I don't know why your permutation of
those words is a justification for religion when the evidence supports my
permutation.

(Information → Functional → Complex → Specified ).

Because the bible says so I suppose :rolleyes:

So your best evidence is a pure trash argument, nice to know

liamw

J C wrote: »

Complex Functional Specified Biological Information.

Again:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66543895&postcount=22593

strobe wrote: »

Really man? Not irreducible complexity?

Yep:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66804532&postcount=22804

sponsoredwalk

liamw wrote: »

Again:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66543895&postcount=22593



Yep:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66804532&postcount=22804

Notice the evolution from CSI to CFSBI

The Mad Hatter

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Notice the evolution from CSI to CFSBI

And yet it's never been more than BS.

sponsoredwalk

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

And yet it's never been more than BS.

ABS

dead one

Galvasean wrote: »

Every time you try to bring Hitler into this people laugh at you.

Let the kids laugh or they will be more than hilter in defense of evolution.

liamw

dead one

liamw wrote: »

:eek::eek:

Galvasean

dead one wrote: »

Let the kids laugh or they will be more than hilter in defense of evolution.

You know squealing 'HITLER!' every time somebody proves you wrong isn't as good an argument as you seem to think it is...

sensibleken

Leys get Jobee in here.

Dead one vs jobee

Its a hitler-off!

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

Really? Minor differences? you believe jesus is the son of god and died on the cross for your sins,
Dead One believes god had no children,and jesus did not die on the cross,
I'd like to hear how you two will square that one,just for starters.

I believe in live and let live ... it is a fact that people can only be Saved by freely believing on Jesus Christ ... but that doesn't mean that I can't have scientific 'common cause' with people with whom I disagree theologically!!!

J C

strobe wrote: »

Really man? Not irreducible complexity?

... that as well!!!:)

Improbable

J C wrote: »

i believe in live and let live ... it is a fact that people can only be Saved by freely believing on Jesus Christ ... but that doesn't mean that I can't agree scientifically with people with whom I disagree theologically!!!

Do not deal with absolutes. That way madness lies.

liamw

J C wrote: »

... that as well!!!:)

Same difference

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Alright JC, first lets look at your original post:
Originally Posted by J C
If you don't believe me ... perhaps you will believe Prof Dawkins ... when he says the following about the difficulties of the fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view):-
"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 (Evolutionst) 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 both reject this alternative." Prof Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', pp. 229-230

Okay, you quoted one paragraph from Dawkins. 1 Paragraph cut away
from the rest of his text.
Could I remind you that all quotes are necessarily 'paragraphs cut away from the rest'.

Notice what you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
perhaps you will believe Prof Dawkins ... when he says the following about the difficulties of the fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view):-


This one paragraph appears as if Dawkin's is conceding that the gaps
in the fossil record present any difficulty "from an Evolutionist point of
view"" which they do not. Your own quote purposely took Dawkin's out
of context in order to make your argument appear to have some
justification from Dawkin's but you, in that characteristic way, were
just trying to deceive us all weren't you?

Of course, the gaps in the fossil record are indeed a difficulty from an Evolutionist Perspective.
It is such a difficulty that Prof Dawkins had to engage in special pleading (on his own admission) to overcome it!!!

Quote:
Prof Dawkins
"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.

Quote:
Prof Dawkins
"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).


Quote:
Prof Dawkins
"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

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I went through this in detail with you & explained to you that Complex
Functional Specified Information is just Information that is Functional
which, as it becomes more Complex, becomes highly Specified and can
be explained by evolution which could have been initiated along the lines
laid out in the abiogenesis video. I don't know why your permutation of
those words is a justification for religion when the evidence supports my
permutation.

(Information → Functional → Complex → Specified ).

This simply doesn't occur without an input of intelligence ... and is a fairytale!!!!

If you still maintain that it does occur please provide one example of it happening.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Because the bible says so I suppose :rolleyes:

Not only the Bible ... maths, science and logic also say that Complex Functional Specified Information can't be generated without an ultimate input of intelligence.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So your best evidence is a pure trash argument, nice to know

The baloney is all on the Evolutionist side of this equation!!!!:eek::)

J C

... and here is another amazing convert from Evolutionism to (Old earth) Creationism ... I give you Noble Prizewinner in Chemistry, for the discovery of a new allotrope of carbon, buckminsterfullerene or 'buckyballs' ... the late Prof Richard Errett Smalley

In relation to the books 'Origins of Life' and 'Who Was Adam?' authored by Old earth creationists Dr. Hugh Ross (astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (biochemist). Prof Richard Smalley had this to say :

"Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading 'Origins of Life', with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, 'Who Was Adam?', is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death."

... and you can read about his life and times here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley

... like I have previously said, Creation Sceintists operate at the very highest levels of conventional science!!!!

Improbable

You neglect to mention that he only converted shortly before his death from cancer. Also, I notice he doesn't give scientific reasons in his little quotes as to why he as a physicist and chemist doesn't think evolution could have happened.

gbee

Improbable wrote: »

You neglect to mention that he only converted shortly before his death from cancer.

Eye, ders no Atheists in dem foxholes, no sirrreeeeee.

sponsoredwalk

Oh jesus, what a waste of time...

I told you that quoting Dawkins text in the way you are doing it is completely
out of context because you deceitfully quoted a paragraph of his that
makes it appear as if he is admitting there is some problem with evolution
because of the fossil record.

You have not defended yourself from this charge so it still stands, because
of this single fact alone (igoring all of the others) you show yourself to be
a charlatan. Quote Dawkin's & respond to him with your red text again for
all I care, it doesn't change the fact that the fossil record is not needed
for the theory of evolution tostand & attacking it just illustrates your poor
education on this topic.

Assuming your god exists he can see what you've been doing throughout
this thread &, in particular, sees that you are lying to your brethren (us)
by misrepresenting one of them (Dawkins). Judging by the high view
count of this thread a good few Jesus/messiah's have seen what you've
been doing along with all of the reincarnated princes & kings & queens

Disclaimer: *This response assumes I'm responding to a religious person & not a troll*

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Disclaimer: *This response assumes I'm responding to a religious person & not a troll*

That's a bigger leap of faith than Abraham took.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Oh jesus, what a waste of time...

I told you that quoting Dawkins text in the way you are doing it is completely
out of context because you deceitfully quoted a paragraph of his that
makes it appear as if he is admitting there is some problem with evolution
because of the fossil record.
You have not defended yourself from this charge so it still stands, because
of this single fact alone (igoring all of the others) you show yourself to be
a charlatan. Quote Dawkin's & respond to him with your red text again for
all I care, it doesn't change the fact that the fossil record is not needed
for the theory of evolution to stand & attacking it just illustrates your poor education on this topic.

Assuming your god exists he can see what you've been doing throughout
this thread &, in particular, sees that you are lying to your brethren (us)
by misrepresenting one of them (Dawkins). Judging by the high view
count of this thread a good few Jesus/messiah's have seen what you've
been doing along with all of the reincarnated princes & kings & queens

Disclaimer: *This response assumes I'm responding to a religious person & not a troll*

... OK ... so you admit that the large 'gaps' in the fossil record exist ... and you then try to 'square the circle' by claiming that "the fossil record is not needed for the theory of evolution to stand" ... so I guess all those Evolutionist paleontologists are out of a job, if you are correct!!!!

... and I didn't deceitfully quote "a paragraph of his that makes it appear as if he is admitting there is some problem with evolution
because of the fossil record" ... there is a problem with the fossil record ... FACT ... there are great big 'holes' in it ... and this is admitted by Prof Dawkins. Whether you try to explain the gaps away by special pleading, as Prof Dawkins has done or you say that the fossil record isn't needed for Evolution to stand, like you have done ... the gaps persist ... and my quote is valid and not misleading in any respect!!!

... does plain english not mean anything to you ... as you squirm and turn and twist ... and lie about honest people like myself by accusing me of lying ... when all I am doing is posting un-abridged, fully referenced quotes from other Evolutionists?