"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky

J C wrote: »

I've done it here -
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74257371&postcount=5486

No. No you have not. All you have done is ask questions that are clearly answered in that paper. You would know that if you had read beyond the header for each section. Or if you understood the whole paper.

You're lying again. That's disappointing, but at this stage not at all surprising. You know, it's ok to be honest with atheists. We won't judge you for it. Come on. Man up. Read the paper, and post some criticisms of it. You may need to read up on what actually constitutes a criticism first, but that's very straightforward, shouldn't take you more than 5 minutes.

IrishKnight

So about my question. Any answer on that yet? I sorta want to know, as I am making an assumption that you follow something where you might be following something else. Want everyone reading from the same page as it were...

Monty Burnz

I'm still hoping for JC's explanation of how Jonah lived inside the big fish. It will give us great insights into how ID works in practice.

JC, can you address this issue? Or will this be another one that you ignore?

Sarky

Aw, cut the poor chap a break. It's hard enough running away from one question at a time.

J C

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm still hoping for JC's explanation of how Jonah lived inside the big fish. It will give us great insights into how ID works in practice.

JC, can you address this issue? Or will this be another one that you ignore?

ID doesn't study miracles like Human Beings being rescued by large marine creatures.

ID is the scientific study of the creation of life by an intelligence/intelligences unknown.

Creation Science studies the scientifically verifiable evidence for the actions of God as recorded in the Bible.

J C

Today is the First Anniversary of this thread !!!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584

... and ... surprise surprise ... after over 5500 posts and 160 thousand views ... Spontaneous Evolution is still looking like Specious Nonesense!!!!:D:):eek::cool:.

Sarky

And you haven't made one honest post in all that time. congratulations. Even Satan tells the truth occasionally.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

And you haven't made one honest post in all that time. congratulations. Even Satan tells the truth occasionally.

Ah Sarky ... you're very ... er ... 'sarky'!!!:D:)

Sarky

Your powers of deduction truly are astounding. Now perhaps you could focus your prodigious talent on that paper I linked to a few days ago? I note that you still haven't shown us a single flaw in its reasoning. Or, perhaps you could just admit that you don't have any evidence against it? Either's fine.

The Mad Hatter

koth wrote: »

No you haven't and you know this. 5 days and you still refuse to discuss the paper.

I'm thinking we'll break 7 days and you'll still be ignoring it.

Optimistic...

Mr. Boo

Nonesense?

This has gone completely to the ghey, btw.

Delirium

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Optimistic...

I know, but I'm ever so curious as to what happens if rationality/logic ever takes a foothold in the brain of JC :eek::P

Monty Burnz

J C wrote: »

ID doesn't study miracles like Human Beings being rescued by large marine creatures.

ID is the scientific study of the creation of life by an intelligence/intelligences unknown.

But surely your proposed intelligence was also behind the episode of the guy living in the fish? Can you please explain the mechanism by which he did this, which would presumably include some novel design features in said fish?

Robert ninja

J C wrote: »

Today is the First Anniversary of this thread !!!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056030584

... and ... surprise surprise ... after over 5500 posts and 160 thousand views ... Spontaneous Evolution is still looking like Specious Nonesense!!!!:D:):eek::cool:.

J C wrote: »

Ah Sarky ... you're very ... er ... 'sarky'!!!:D:)

[-0-]

I can't believe this train wreck is still going.

Actually I can. The guy is an idiot.

scuba8

• Home
• About
• Join Us
• Propaganda
• Sightings
• HateMail
• Store

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.
What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

As can be seen from the above letter J.C. is just plain wrong about I.D. Pastafarians are the true believers.

J C

scuba8 wrote: »

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster ...

... As can be seen from the above letter J.C. is just plain wrong about I.D. Pastafarians are the true believers.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory is already being taught in school ... and it's called Spontaneous Evolution ... which, if it were true, would rapidly jumble our DNA into something that looked like tangled Spaghetti.

As the great John J May has said about 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Evolution ... and all of its noodley appendages ... "its a fantasy of farraginous, farcical, fatuous, feculent, facile, facetiousness"!!!:)

Delirium

over a week of avoiding the paper, and at this stage I think you'll never discuss it, JC.

scuba8

If JC is right then all the followers of other religions are wrong. They are delusional. So are Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists all followers of a religion that is a fantasy of farraginous, farcical, fatuous, feculent, facile, facetiousness"!!!

Sarky

I don't think J C has been right in a long, long time. Seems far more interested in being a fraudulent liar who runs scared from the simplest questions rather than admit he doesn't understand them.

Doesn't stop other religions being wrong though. Using J C as a yardstick for the truth of anything is doomed to hilarious failure, really.

J C

koth wrote: »

over a week of avoiding the paper, and at this stage I think you'll never discuss it, JC.

At the risk of repetition, can I say that I have already raised questions about the paper ... and I am awaiting a response.

Sarky

All of those questions are answered by the paper. In fact, it looks awfully like most of your questions are just the section titles rephrased as questions. Do you mean to say you still haven't read it? That's shamefully lazy. I'm finishing up a masters thesis this month and I still found time to read it. What's holding you back? Prayer? God's supposed to be a patient woman, I'm sure she can wait while you read, understand and debunk a couple of points from one little scientific paper.

Come on J C, grow a pair and read it for yourself. You claim to have been a scientist, so you'll have no trouble understanding most or even all of the concepts and words in there. Assuming, of course, you weren't lying about having any scientific background. That would be a pathetic and cowardly lie, if it happened to be the case.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

I don't think J C has been right in a long, long time. Seems far more interested in being a fraudulent liar who runs scared from the simplest questions rather than admit he doesn't understand them.

This thread shows the veracity of the following comment that I recently received from a fellow Creationist (and with which I empathise totally):-
"I was an atheist and an evolutionist for many years. Now that I am a Christian and a creationist I am seen by some people as deluded, deceived, dishonest, ignorant, unscientific, etc., etc.
I wasn't called any of these things before I became a Christian and a creationist. So what happened?
Did I suddenly become incapable of discerning truth? Did I suddenly lose my ability to think rationally? Did I become mentally ill? Did I have part of my brain removed?
No, the only thing that happened was that I changed my worldview. Different worldviews, not 'scientific proof' is what this battle is really all about."
... and changing ones worldview from Evolutionism to Creationism is simply not acceptable to some secular zealots on this thread, who use the most appalling sectarian language about anybody who questions their worldview ... and especially its foundational doctrine ... Spontaneous Evolution!!
Calling me a 'fraudulent liar' ... and worse ... is a typical example of this appalling behaviour.

... and, of course, you never provide any proof of why Spontaneous Evolution could ever occur ... just the occasional example of losses of CFSI being selected.:)

Delirium

still not discussing the paper, JC?

Sarky

Oh don't be put out, J C! I don't call you a liar and a fraud and a coward just because of some difference of opinion or because I want to exclude you or because I'm some mean-spirited satan-worshipper trying to test your faith.

I do it because you claim things that are completely false, because you repeatedly peddle pseudoscience that has been proven years ago to be complete bunkum, and because you run away for weeks at a time whenever anyone gives you any evidence that points out the above, and when you slink back, you pretend that none of it ever happened.

In short, J C, you do it entirely to yourself. If you stopped engaging in deceitful, fraudulent and cowardly behaviour, nobody would be calling you a deceitful, fraudulent coward. It really can't be made more simple than this.



Now, back on topic:

Either show us that the paper disproving Dembski is wrong somehow, or admit that CFSI is a stupid concept that has no merit, and stop trying to use it as some sort of proof of God. It's a very simple challenge. just saying something is false isn't good enough, kiddo. You have to show WHY, too. We've been doing that for years. It's high time you did the same.

Tell you what, I'll sweeten the deal: You show us all in detail how that paper is wrong in its entirety, in your own words (or, if you must use someone else's words, provide a credible peer-reviewed source), and I'll immediately convert to whatever faith it is you think I should be. Go on. Save my soul. You know you want to. It might even make up for your past behaviour in god's eyes!

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Oh don't be put out, J C! I don't call you a liar and a fraud and a coward just because of some difference of opinion or because I want to exclude you or because I'm some mean-spirited satan-worshipper trying to test your faith.

... OK ... but it's YOU who is saying this!!!

Sarky wrote: »

I do it because you claim things that are completely false, because you repeatedly peddle pseudoscience that has been proven years ago to be complete bunkum, and because you run away for weeks at a time whenever anyone gives you any evidence that points out the above, and when you slink back, you pretend that none of it ever happened.

In short, J C, you do it entirely to yourself. If you stopped engaging in deceitful, fraudulent and cowardly behaviour, nobody would be calling you a deceitful, fraudulent coward. It really can't be made more simple than this.

... except I'm here most days ... and ye are the guys refusing to discuss your own cited paper!!!
... and the pseudo-science is entirely your own invention!!

Sarky wrote: »

Now, back on topic:

Good!!

Sarky wrote: »

Either show us that the paper disproving Dembski is wrong somehow, or admit that CFSI is a stupid concept that has no merit, and stop trying to use it as some sort of proof of God. It's a very simple challenge. just saying something is false isn't good enough, kiddo. You have to show WHY, too. We've been doing that for years. It's high time you did the same.

I agree, that saying that something that has been mathematically proven, like, for example, ID, is false ... certainly isn't good enough.

Sarky wrote: »

Tell you what, I'll sweeten the deal: You show us all in detail how that paper is wrong in its entirety, in your own words (or, if you must use someone else's words, provide a credible peer-reviewed source), and I'll immediately convert to whatever faith it is you think I should be. Go on. Save my soul. You know you want to. It might even make up for your past behaviour in god's eyes!

Its your cited paper ... so you have to show how it is right ... but here is another peer-reviewed paper that proves Spontaneous Evolution to be an impossiblity.

It argues that "if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable’’ ... so lads its over to ye to tell us what that 'something' is !!!!
... without going into fits of apoplexy ... because your worldview is being demolished by this paper.!!!

http://creationism.org.pl/groups/ptkrmember/spor/ewo-krea-2006/Sewell%2C%20A%20Second%20Look%20at%20the%20Second%20Law.pdf?set_language=en&cl=en

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR-Nc1Pyle0

fatmammycat

Good to see more vocal damnation of the 'creation' myth and its prettier yet equally vapid sister, ID.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schools

Sarky

J C wrote: »

... OK ... but it's YOU who is saying this!!!

Oh, I get it. It's because my name is Sarky and what I type can be read as being sarcastic! Well done, you. I'd give you a shiny star, only they're actually trillion-tonne balls of pressurised hydrogen. I'm not here to mollycoddle you or spare your precious feelings. you're talking bollocks and lying, and I'm calling you out on it and showing people WHY you're lying. Nothing else to it. but go on, feel persecuted if you like. You're overdue for another round of comparing real scientists to jew-murdering Nazis.

... except I'm here most days ... and ye are the guys refusing to discuss your own cited paper!!!
... and the pseudo-science is entirely your own invention!!

If you're here most days then why haven't you answered any questions about that paper? You've obviously had plenty of time, by your own admission. And we'll just add pseudoscience to the long, long list of things you don't understand. I note with sadness that the list also includes the word "science".

I agree, that saying that something that has been mathematically proven, like ID, is false ... certainly isn't good enough.

You twist words again. that's lying, J C. ID has no proof behind it that can stand up to even a casual mathematical critique. Of course, you'd know about that if you'd read and understood that paper on how Dembski's cfsi is complete tosh. So you're either lying about having read it, or you're lying about having understood it. Both are pathetic.

Its your cited paper ... so you have to show how it is right

That's not how this works. I've shown you evidence. The paper itself goes into detail about WHY it is right. The onus is on you to find fault with those reasons. For someone who claims to have been a scientist, you're really having trouble remembering how it works. Are you also lying about being a scientist?

... but here is another peer-reviewed paper that proves Spontaneous Evolution to be an impossiblity.

That is not peer-reviewed. Try harder. It will help if you find sources from sites that do not contain the word "creationism" in them. Or you could keep lying about knowing what peer-review is.

It argues that "if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable’’ ... so lads its over to ye to tell us what that 'something' is !!!!
... without going into fits of apoplexy ... because your worldview is being demolished by this paper.!!!

Bloody hell, it's so poorly phrased. Your idea of peer-reviewed is shoddy, to put it mildly.

Nevertheless: The sun. I don't know how many times it's been explained to you without you grasping it. A constant supply of energy means this planet is not a closed system. The fact that the sun only hits this planet with a tiny fraction of the total energy it emits causes an overall increase in entropy. The fact that the planet gets a constant supply of energy is quite good at explaining the extremely localised increase in complexity you see and in your case constantly misinterpret. But being a scientist, I'm sure you know all about thermodynamics and such, and I don't have to explain this to you, and that that video at the end was an unfortunate typo. Because, well, if you think that you've just overturned thermodynamics, you're deluded. As well as a lying, fraudulent coward.

I guess my soul is bound for eternal damnation after all. My offer was genuine, you know. You really could have saved me, but you chose not to. How are you going to justify that to yourself, I wonder?

J C

fatmammycat wrote: »

Good to see more vocal damnation of the 'creation' myth and its prettier yet equally vapid sister, ID.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schools

'vocal damnation' sounds like a religiously motivated action!!!

Sarky

That may be because you can't see anything else.

So how about debunking that paper? Any time now would be nice.