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

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…178179181183184…334

Comments

  • Options
    #5402
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You going to disprove even one point from that paper? Or are you going to run away from it like you do every time you're confronted with a problem? Come on, stop being a coward, J C. It's no way to live.


  • Options
    #5403
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    ... but if you are talking about the 'Pondkind to Mankind' type of 'Evolution' there is no evidence for that ... a

    Yes there is.


  • Options
    #5404
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    The reason I believe that the God of the Bible did it, is held by me through faith alone.
    Which renders every single thing you say completely redundant. You believe that God did it all in the same way that I believe Scarlett Johanson is the best looking woman in the world. And you are equally right.


  • Options
    #5405
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    You going to disprove even one point from that paper? Or are you going to run away from it like you do every time you're confronted with a problem? Come on, stop being a coward, J C. It's no way to live.
    I am not running anywhere ... I have looked at the paper and I didn't find anything that disproved ID in it.
    If you think there is ... then point it out ... and I will then comment on it.


  • Options
    #5406
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Which renders every single thing you say completely redundant. You believe that God did it all in the same way that I believe Scarlett Johanson is the best looking woman in the world. And you are equally right.
    Why does my belief in God render anything I might say redundant? ...
    ... if your belief the God doesn't exist doesn't remove your right to express your opinions ... then my belief that He does exist doesn't remove my right to express my opinons on all kinds of issues either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5407
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... but if you are talking about the 'Pondkind to Mankind' type of 'Evolution' there is no evidence for that.

    dlofnep
    Yes there is.
    If you have such evidence then please stop hiding it under your skirts ... and slap it up here, so that we all can take a look at it.:)


  • Options
    #5408
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I am not running anywhere ... I have looked at the paper and I didn't find anything that disproved ID in it.
    If you think there is ... then point it out ... and I will then comment on it.

    go on then. explain to us where the paper is wrong.

    You claim to have knowledge that it is wrong, why are you so reluctant to share the knowledge on the thread?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5409
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    koth wrote: »
    J C wrote: »
    I am not running anywhere ... I have looked at the paper and I didn't find anything that disproved ID in it.
    If you think there is ... then point it out ... and I will then comment on it.

    Come on, J C. If you had read the paper you'd know that there are a whole bunch of problems with Dembski's cfsi rubbish. None of those problems have been addressed. Not by the hack that first coined the phrase, not by you. Start there.

    You're going to have to stop lying at some point. You can't run like a coward forever. Are you a lying, fraudulent coward, or are you actually the things you like to claim you are? Prove that paper wrong, J C. Sh*t, as they say, or get the hell off the pot.


  • Options
    #5410
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »

    Come on, J C. If you had read the paper you'd know that there are a whole bunch of problems with Dembski's cfsi rubbish. None of those problems have been addressed. Not by the hack that first coined the phrase, not by you. Start there.

    You're going to have to stop lying at some point. You can't run like a coward forever. Are you a lying, fraudulent coward, or are you actually the things you like to claim you are? Prove that paper wrong, J C. Sh*t, as they say, or get the hell off the pot.
    You're the 'constipated one' groaning on the pot ... and producing nothing but Methane and water!!!:D

    I haven't the least intention of wasting my time addressing non-issues ...
    ... and if you can find any proofs for the invalidity of ID in the paper, then slap them up here and I will have a look at them!!!:)

    ... so its over to you.


  • Options
    #5411
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    a truly lame excuse for not addressing any points in the paper, JC.

    If every point, from your perspective, is without merit why is it taking you so long to back up these claims of yours?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5412
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    a truly lame excuse for not addressing any points in the paper, JC.

    If every point, from your perspective, is without merit why is it taking you so long to back up these claims of yours?
    You're the one citing the paper ... so tell us where it debunks ID.


  • Options
    #5413
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    You're the one citing te paper ... so tell us where it debunks ID.

    sorry, but you may read the paper yourself. you can then explain how it's wrong.

    I won't be providing you with a summary to discuss. Read it yourself ;)

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5414
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Come on, J C. You're stalling again. Man up and face it. Why are you so scared of one little paper?


  • Options
    #5415
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    You're the 'constipated one' groaning on the pot ... and producing nothing but Methane!
    A position you're all too familiar with, I believe.


  • Options
    #5416
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    sorry, but you may read the paper yourself. you can then explain how it's wrong.

    I won't be providing you with a summary to discuss. Read it yourself ;)
    ... so you're agreeing with me that it doesn't debunk ID.

    ... glad we have got that clarified then.

    ... next item!!!:)

    ... mbeep!!!:D


  • Options
    #5417
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you're agreeing with me that it doesn't debunk ID.

    ... glad we have got that clarified then.

    ... next item!!!:)

    ... mbeep!!!:D

    did no such thing. another lame attempt to avoid addressing the paper.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5418
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Come on, J C. You're stalling again. Man up and face it. Why are you so scared of one little paper?
    ... you're the ones stalling ... you guys have cited this paper in favour of your argument ... and I am asking you to tell us where it does so.


  • Options
    #5419
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    enough with the empty posturing, just address the points in the paper.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5420
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    enough with the empty posturing, just address the points in the paper.
    What points?


  • Options
    #5421
    Doc_Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Doc_Savage


    anyone else notice that jc has evolved?

    from a joke..... to a meme!

    boom!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5422
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    What points?

    I thought you'd read the paper. :confused:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5423
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    What points?

    The ones in the paper. The ones you would have seen if you had read the paper. Quit running away from the question. Your dishonesty and cowardice are just pathetic.


  • Options
    #5424
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    I thought you'd read the paper. :confused:
    I have ... and I don't see any valid points that support your argument.


  • Options
    #5425
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doc_Savage wrote: »
    anyone else notice that jc has evolved?

    from a joke..... to a meme!

    boom!
    Mbeep ... Mbeep!!!:)


  • Options
    #5426
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I have ... and I don't see any valid points that support your argument.

    please give one example from the paper that you don't consider a valid argument and explain your reasoning.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5427
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    please give one example from the paper that you don't consider a valid argument and explain your reasoning.
    ... it's your cited paper ... why have you done so?


  • Options
    #5428
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... it's your cited paper ... why have you done so?

    eh, no it's not.

    so you're unable to give one example that you consider an invalid argument in the paper.

    you either agree with the paper or didn't read it.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5429
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... it's your cited paper ... why have you done so?

    koth
    eh, no it's not.
    ... so you're not citing it in your argument against ID then?

    Fair enough !!!

    Mbeep ... Mbeep!!!!:D


  • Options
    #5430
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you're not citing it in your argument against ID then?

    Mbeep ... Mbeep!!!!:D

    :rolleyes:

    I guess you just can't address any of the points in the paper after all.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5431
    EI_Flyboy
    Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭EI_Flyboy


    I'm not really sure who's the biggest zealot here anymore but there are a helluva lot of people exercising their right to be dumb. Haven't you all got something better to do than waste your time arguing with trolls? And JC, if it weren't for this place I reckon your hands would be very very idle.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement