"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dead one

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's curious though, because countries that undergo an Islamic revolution typically move backwards (see Iran for example) in terms of rights for women. Is a cultural problem in Iran as well?

Iran isn't an Islamic state as outlined by the Quran ...In traditional Islam the Khalifat with the khalifa elected by the public is the benchmark whilst SHIA Islam takes an infallible leader chosen by God as the legal ruler over the Islamic state. To be aware of the true reality of Iran one needs to understand the true integral base of post-revolutionary Iran.... A close view of the Iranian political system and comparison with the early islamic state of Prophet Muhammad will show Iran as very much a human made legislative democracy lounged in an Islamic garb which is against from the Western example only to the degree that it doesnt merged liberal social values in it political culture, it ain't a liberal democracy so to speak. Don't judge Islam by using the example of iran of Afghanistan...

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Most ironic post on Boards.ie this year?

Sarcasm: the last defence of the truly witless

robindch wrote: »

And your nasty attitude isn't hostile to women?

Are you woman?.... .. my attitude/teachings aren't hostile towards women, they are hostile towards your desires.... It is your desires to see open women with binkies -- skirts....... I want to see pure women with pure dress... So, robindch, tell what makes your nasty desires hostile to women?....
What makes you so blind to accept truth....

Pygmalion wrote: »

Oh ok.
Women aren't second-class citizens, they're just not in charge because they can't be trusted with equal responsibility.
Thanks for clearing that up.

believe what you prefer to believe...

robindch

dead one wrote: »

I want to see pure women with pure dress...

Why not just wear a black bag over your head?

Oh, sorry, that's what women have to do.

J C

Apparently 200 members of the Secular Student Alliance visited the Creation Museum as part of their annual conference ... and P Z Myers flew in one day earlier so that he could visit too ... he even got to ride a Triceratops!!!!

... all good clean fun!!!!:)

papu

Would Really like to hear your thoughts on this

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html

NASA-funded researchers have evidence that some building blocks of DNA, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions for life, found in meteorites were likely created in space. The research gives support to the theory that a "kit" of ready-made parts created in space and delivered to Earth by meteorite and comet impacts assisted the origin of life.

"People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life," said Dr. Michael Callahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space." Callahan is lead author of a paper on the discovery appearing in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Seems we could all just be Spacejunk

Mr. Boo

Home of the vegetarian T-rex?

Nothing good and clean about teaching kids that tripe.

himnextdoor

papu wrote: »

Would Really like to hear your thoughts on this

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html



Seems we could all just be Spacejunk

Yes, I mentioned this ages ago; cold-loving molecules and heat-loving molecules are present in living organisms.

Hydrogen, carbon and oxygen, elements one, four and eight were around for a long time before the formation of the solar system. Therefore, organic chemistry was too.

Add 'phospholipids' and you have a lottery that may well roll over for weeks on end but there was eventually one winner; life.

himnextdoor

Good luck.

Over and out.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Apparently 200 members of the Secular Student Alliance visited the Creation Museum as part of their annual conference ... and P Z Myers flew in one day earlier so that he could visit too ... he even got to ride a Triceratops!!!!

... all good clean fun!!!!:)

Not when they're promoting biblical passages as fact. It might be something of a novelty to see, but telling people that it is a centre for science is extremely dishonest.

and since you may have missed this earlier in the thread, any chance you could quit ducking and diving and maybe respond to my post, JC?

J C

papu wrote: »

Would Really like to hear your thoughts on this

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html



Seems we could all just be Spacejunk

I suppose it makes a change from believing that we are all just Pondjunk!!!:)

J C

koth wrote: »

Not when they're promoting biblical passages as fact. It might be something of a novelty to see, but telling people that it is a centre for science is extremely dishonest.

P Z Myers seemed to thoroughly enjoy himself at the Museum!!!

He grumbled a little ... but overall a good time was had by all.:)

... next stop ... a joint peer-review ... of evolution ... perhaps????

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Home of the vegetarian T-rex?

Nothing good and clean about teaching kids that tripe.

Truth ... Mr Boo ... not 'tripe'!!!!:)

... and its a very welcome development to see young atheists having their worldviews and comfort zones challenged ... and contributing to the financial success of the Creation Museum !!!

... and great to see P Z Myers proving to himself that the Triceratops was intelligently designed to be a transport animal for Humans.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

P Z Myers seemed to thoroughly enjoy himself at the Museum!!!

He grumbled a little ... but overall a good time was had by all.:)

... next stop ... a joint peer-review ... of evolution ... perhaps????

Evolution has already been peer-reviewed. And visiting a biblical equivalent of Disney-land doesn't mean that the creation myth is now a valid idea explaining the origins of things.

And I noticed that you avoided responding to the post I've asked you to address yet again

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

Yes, I mentioned this ages ago; cold-loving molecules and heat-loving molecules are present in living organisms.

Hydrogen, carbon and oxygen, elements one, four and eight were around for a long time before the formation of the solar system. Therefore, organic chemistry was too.

Add 'phospholipids' and you have a lottery that may well roll over for weeks on end but there was eventually one winner; life.

10^130 are the odds of this particular 'lottery' ... and this is the odds of producing just one functional specific 100 chain protein ... and you still have to produce and organise all of the other proteins and biomolecules required for each living organism!!!

... I'd call that an impossibility ... rather than a lottery!!!!:D

Doc_Savage

J C wrote: »

10^130 are the odds of this particular 'lottery' ...

How did you arrive at this number?

J C

koth wrote: »

Evolution has already been peer-reviewed. And visiting a biblical equivalent of Disney-land doesn't mean that the creation myth is now a valid idea explaining the origins of things.

And I noticed that you avoided responding to the post I've asked you to address yet again

Evolution has been peer-reviewed by Creation Scientists ... and Evolutionists separately ... but I am proposing that it be jointly peer-reviewed by them.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Evolution has been peer-reviewed by Creation Scientists ... and Evolutionists separately ... but I am proposing that it be jointly peer-reviewed by them.

why?? creationists don't even use science to explain the origin of things, they use a holy book. Not very scientific.

And any idea as to when you'll answer this post?

robindch

J C wrote: »

I am proposing that it be jointly peer-reviewed by them.

Why on earth would a trained scientist who's making some genuine contribution to the sum total of human knowledge want to waste time trying to explain something to some idiot creationist who has no interest in it? And who views the scientist and his/her work as leading directly to the gas chambers of Auschwitz?

The Mad Hatter

koth wrote: »

why?? creationists don't even use science to explain the origin of things, they use a holy book. Not very scientific.

And any idea as to when you'll answer this post?

We've seen this behaviour before. Search the other thread for AtomicHorror's list of questions unanswered by J C - he got backed into a corner and, iirc, first avoided the questions (as he's doing with you now), then disappeared for several weeks (so keep it up!), then started spamming the thread with copy-pasted essays in green text, then began claiming that he had comprehensively answered the questions.

Sarky

Considering how completely, shamelessly dishonest he's been throughout this thread, and presumably the threads before it, odds are that J C's best tactic to make anyone doubt evolution would be to start backing it.

Just saying, is all.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

Truth ... Mr Boo ... not 'tripe'!!!!:)

... and its a very welcome development to see young atheists having their worldviews and comfort zones challenged ... and contributing to the financial success of the Creation Museum !!!

... and great to see P Z Myers proving to himself that the Triceratops was intelligently designed to be a transport animal for Humans.:)

Really?

IrishKnight

koth wrote: »

And any idea as to when you'll answer this post?

He did the same with a few of my posts. Nothing odd here, normal enough tacit. Don't know how to answer something? Don't answer it and hope it goes away...

Genghiz Cohen

IrishKnight wrote: »

He did the same with a few of my posts. Nothing odd here, normal enough tacit. Don't know how to answer something? Don't answer it and hope it goes away...

Plus the list of like 5 kinds that he copied from answers in genesis.

J C

koth wrote: »

why?? creationists don't even use science to explain the origin of things, they use a holy book. Not very scientific.

And any idea as to when you'll answer this post?

Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists ... and therefore they can, and do, use science to engage in origins research.

Ironically, it is the evolutionists who are making the wild 'leap of faith' ... when they try to deny the intelligent design of life ... by claiming that it all happened by accident!!!:eek:

... and I have already comprehensively answered you about your video ... the one that presents most of the main points against Theistic and Materialistic Evolution ... and doesn't even mention Creation at all.:)
I've covered it in my posts #4972, #4974, #4978, #4980 and #4981

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists ... so they can and do use science to do origins research.

Ironically, it is the evolutionists who are making the wild 'leap of faith' ... when they try to deny the intelligent design of life ... by claiming that it all happened by accident!!!:eek:

Sadly you display a lack of understanding as to how science works.

You don't for example, read a holy book and then start making things up to fit your religious belief. That is the antithesis of what science is.

... and I have already comprehensively answered you points about your video ... the one that presents most of the main points against Theistic and Materialistic Evolution ... and doesn't even mention Creation at all.:)

Afraid not. You have dodged answering this post, please address the points raised in the post.

And the proof of this is you claiming that it doesn't raise questions about the creationist myth. That is a totally incorrect. So please answer the post I've linked to.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Why on earth would a trained scientist who's making some genuine contribution to the sum total of human knowledge want to waste time trying to explain something to some idiot creationist who has no interest in it? And who views the scientist and his/her work as leading directly to the gas chambers of Auschwitz?

Just think of it as renewing old friendships!!!!:)

J C

koth wrote: »

Sadly you display a lack of understanding as to how science works.

You don't for example, read a holy book and then start making things up to fit your religious belief. That is the antithesis of what science is.

... I agree ... you should always know the difference between your science and your faith.
Creation science evaluates the physical evidence for a worldwide catastrophic Flood Hypothesis ... and the physical evidence for the Complex Functional Specific Information in biological systems and the hypothesis that CFSI can only be produced by intelligence.
Christian Faith is a belief in the Saving power of Jesus Christ for all sinners who repent and believe on Him.

Evolutionism is the unfounded belief that Pondkind can spontaneously morph into Mankind with nothing added but time and mistakes.
As there is no observable evidence for this belief, it is strictly outside of science ... but because some evolutionists have science degrees ... they believe that their relgion is their science ... and sometimes their science is their religion.:)

koth wrote: »

Afraid not. You have dodged answering this post, please address the points raised in the post.

And the proof of this is you claiming that it doesn't raise questions about the creationist myth. That is a totally incorrect. So please answer the post I've linked to.

The only myths questioned in the video are Evolutionist ones!!!

Where exactly does the video address young Earth Creationism???

J C

Doc_Savage wrote: »

How did you arrive at this number?

Its the number of non-functional permutations of amino acids in a critical 100 chain sequence randomly choosing between the 20 common Amino Acids at each point on the chain.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... I agree ... you should always know the difference between your science and your faith.
Creation science evaluates the physical evidence for a worldwide catastrophic Flood Hypothesis ... and the physical evidence for the Complex Functional Specific Information in biological systems and the hypothesis that CFSI can only be produced by intelligence.
Christian Faith is a belief in the Saving power of Jesus Christ for all sinners who repent and believe on Him.

Creationism doesn't evaluate anything. It attempts to get people to accept the creation myth as a fact. Thats not science, it's a perversion of science in an attempt to discredit actual science.

Evolutionism is the unfounded belief that Pondkind can spontaneously morph into Mankind with nothing added but time and mistakes.
As there is no observable evidence for this belief, it is strictly outside of science ... but because some evolutionists have science degrees ... they believe that their relgion is their science ... and sometimes their science is their religion.:)

More dishonesty to try and discredit scientific research. Just because you give great importance to your religious beliefs, doesn't mean you can distort science to reassure your faith.

Where exactly does the video address young Earth Creationism???

So now you won't even read the post I'm linking to?

The post I've been linking to explains how it addresses ALL creationists. Please respond to the post I've linked to.

D1stant

I cant believe there are over 5000 posts on something so bloody obvious

J C

D1stant wrote: »

I cant believe there are over 5000 posts on something so bloody obvious

Yes it does seem quite obvious, that if you require the appliance of intelligence to produce something relatively simple, like a bicycle, for example, it requires the appliance of infinitely greater intelligence to produce something infinitely more complex, like a living organism!!!

... but, of course, there are none as blind as those who will not see!!!