"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

fatmammycat

J C wrote: »

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

Of course it sounds like that to you, but it isn't.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

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.

I was referring to the fact that it was you who described yourself as a "mean-spirited satan-worshipper trying to test (my) faith". I don't know if this is true ... but I'll take your word for it ... unless or until you deny it.

Sarky wrote: »

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".

Evolutionism doesn't have exclusive rights to the word 'science' ... and whether you're sad or not about this fact, this is your problem.

Sarky wrote: »

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.

I meant that ID was an example of something that is proven mathematically, but which you claim to be false. For clarity, I have edited my posting to make this clear.
... and your continuously repeated unfounded allegation that I am a liar, is just empty posturing.

Sarky wrote: »

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?

The onus on you is to answer questions on any paper you cite.

Sarky wrote: »

That is not peer-reviewed.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 was actually peer reviewed ... and it was accepted for publication.

Sarky wrote: »

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

OK ... you don't like what it says or how it says it ... please tell me something new!!!:eek:

Sarky wrote: »

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.

If you can pull yourself away from the personal hatred of me for a minute, we could dicuss the paper!!!
The point made in the paper is that adding more energy to a system has no effect (or even) a deleterious effect i.e. "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 could I ask you again, if you could please tell us what that 'something' might be!!!!
... without going into fits of apoplexy ... and personal abuse directed at me ... simply because your religious worldview is imploded by this paper.!!!

Sarky wrote: »

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?

It is you who is saying that you are bound for eternal damnation ... and it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy ... if you don't repent and ask Jesus to Save you!!!!
Unfortunately, I cannot Save you ... that is a matter strictly between yourself and the Lord Jesus Christ.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
'vocal damnation' sounds like a religiously motivated action!!!

fatmammycat
Of course it sounds like that to you, but it isn't.

Last time I checked, damnation was a religious word.
... so it objectively is a religious word !!!

Of course, I'm not surprised that religious terminology is being used by you guys ... because the 'origins issue' is the place where the Theistic and Atheistic religions meet.
Both Creationists and Evolutionists apply science to examining the evidence for their respective positions ... but, I must say, as a former 'died in the wool Evolutionist' ... that the Spontaneous Evolutionist scientific case simply doesn't exist ... and it is only faith (in the non-existence of God) that keeps you guys going on about it!!!

fatmammycat

Language, like humans, evolve. JC.

Sarky

Hate you? Don't flatter yourself, I'm pretty indifferent to you, actually. You are a non-entity in my life. Sorry if you were led to think I was singling you out personally for special attention. It wasn't my intention.

All I have issue with is the stuff you keep saying which is patently untrue. I've shown several times how something you have said is absolutely untrue. So have most other contributors to this thread. That's what makes you a liar, JC. Not people ganging up on you, not your massive persecution complex, not any supernatural force trying to tempt you from the alleged light. It's simply the fact that pretty much every claim you make is untrue, and you KNOW it to be untrue, and yet you go ahead and claim it anyway.

If you want me to stop calling you a liar, you're just going to have to bite the bullet and stop lying. It's pretty clear cut. whether or not you think I'm just calling you names is irrelevant. I would say don't worry, Jesus still loves you, but after the mind-boggling amount of dishonesty you've contributed here, I wouldn't be so sure.

J C

fatmammycat wrote: »

Language, like humans, evolve. JC.

If you mean by this, that Humans evolved from Apes, then that is also a religiously held belief ... with no evidential foundation

Sarky

Except for the evidence people in this thread have given you.

But you're still running away from all that.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

If you mean by this, that Humans evolved from Apes

Humans are Apes. They evolved alongside other Apes. This is not up for discussion. Hominidae is the scientific classification of the family.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Hate you? Don't flatter yourself, I'm pretty indifferent to you, actually. You are a non-entity in my life. Sorry if you were led to think I was singling you out personally for special attention. It wasn't my intention.

All I have issue with is the stuff you keep saying which is patently untrue. I've shown several times how something you have said is absolutely untrue. So have most other contributors to this thread. That's what makes you a liar, JC. Not people ganging up on you, not your massive persecution complex, not any supernatural force trying to tempt you from the alleged light. It's simply the fact that pretty much every claim you make is untrue, and you KNOW it to be untrue, and yet you go ahead and claim it anyway.

If you want me to stop calling you a liar, you're just going to have to bite the bullet and stop lying. It's pretty clear cut. whether or not you think I'm just calling you names is irrelevant. I would say don't worry, Jesus still loves you, but after the mind-boggling amount of dishonesty you've contributed here, I wouldn't be so sure.

Ad hominem attacks are the final resort of those unable to prove their case ... so lets concentrate on the facts ... and leave the personal insults at home!!!

... so do you have an answer to the point made in the paper that adding more energy to a system has no effect (or even) a deleterious effect i.e. 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 could I ask you again, if you could please tell us what that 'something' might be ... from a Materialist point of view!!!!

Sarky

I'd hardly call it an ad hominem when you say something that turns out to be wrong and you keep saying it. That is probably a very accurate definition of lying, J C. Hence, it is safe to say you are a liar.

Now, instead of being hypocritical, why don't you debunk the paper I showed you first? I think that's only fair if you're expecting me to debunk the one you showed me. Even if the killing blow you extracted from it was, by its own admission, a tautology.

Go on then. You've had over a week to prepare, so I'm at a disadvantage here. You should be able to mop the floor with me.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Humans are Apes. They evolved alongside other Apes. This is not up for discussion. Hominidae is the scientific classification of the family.

An unfounded statement followed by an unfounded assertion followed by a closure of the discussion ... you're starting to sound like a Medieval Pope speaking 'infallibly' ... but in reality very fallibly ... actually dowright wrong ... due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics ... and the levels of CFSI in all living creatures ... including Apes and Humans!!!

Sarky

All for which you have repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of understanding.

Come on J C, try harder.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

I'd hardly call it an ad hominem when you say something that turns out to be wrong and you keep saying it. That is probably a very accurate definition of lying, J C. Hence, it is safe to say you are a liar.

Now, instead of being hypocritical, why don't you debunk the paper I showed you first? I think that's only fair if you're expecting me to debunk the one you showed me. Even if the killing blow you extracted from it was, by its own admission, a tautology.

Go on then. You've had over a week to prepare, so I'm at a disadvantage here. You should be able to mop the floor with me.

You may believe many nasty things about me ... but repeating your prejudices does nothing for your case.

... so lets stick to discussing the facts ... and proving our points and lets leave the personal animosity stuff out of it.

Sarky

Exactly. discussing facts.

So you can debunk that paper any time now. I'll do your paper afterwards, I promise.

robindch

J C wrote: »

The onus on you is to answer questions on any paper you cite.

So, have you met these Jesus and God characters whom you claim wrote/inspired the bible?

J C

robindch wrote: »

So, have you met these Jesus and God characters whom you claim wrote/inspired the bible?

Changing the subject ... are we Robin???

Anyway ... to answer your question I have encountered Jesus Christ in His Word and presence in the Bible. I also have a personal relationship with Him that is mediated by His Holy Spirit, that indwells me since I was Saved.

Sarky

So no then.

robindch

J C wrote: »

to answer your question I have encountered Jesus Christ in His Word and presence in the Bible.

And I've met Bilbo Baggins via his presence in The Lord of The Rings.

So, have you met these Jesus and God characters whom you claim wrote/inspired the bible?

J C

robindch wrote: »

And I've met Bilbo Baggins via his presence in The Lord of The Rings.

So, have you met these Jesus and God characters whom you claim wrote/inspired the bible?

I have met Jesus and God The Father via His Holy Spirit ... and He inspires me ... and has told me that He is a God of perfect love and perfect justice who wants to Save all men and women ... from themselves ... and their sins.

Sarky

Still sounds like a no.

So, are you going to debunk that paper yet?

Robert ninja

Aka in your mind.

robindch

J C wrote: »

I have met Jesus and God The Father via His Holy Spirit

Where and when?

coffee_cake

robindch wrote: »

Where and when?

and did you bring a camera

J C

robindch wrote: »

Where and when?

All the time since I was Saved.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

An unfounded statement followed by an unfounded assertion followed by a closure of the discussion ...

The discussion on whether man is an ape is absolutely closed, as it is scientific fact. Hominidae is the family of which the sub-families of homo (homo-sapien), Pan (Chimpanzees / Bonobos), Pongo (Orangutans) and Gorilla (Gorillas) are included.

This is a biological fact, and a scientific classification. It is backed up by biological commonalities, and DNA.

Your inability to accept science is baffling. There is nothing else to say on this matter. The debate has been over for a century. Deal with it.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I have met Jesus and God The Father via His Holy Spirit ... and He inspires me ... and has told me that He is a God of perfect love and perfect justice who wants to Save all men and women ... from themselves ... and their sins.

what colour eyes did Jesus have, what height was he, what was he wearing?

did he have accent when he spoke? did he give any information about other worlds that contain intelligent life?

did he explain what the lost highway movie is about or why he created so many things on things on this planet that can kill us?

and why didn't he provide you with even the tiniest sliver of an argument to refute the paper you've been avoiding thus far?

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

and did you bring a camera

I didn't ... but then I also believe in many other phenomena because of their effects.
I have never directly seen an atom ... or an electron ... yet I know they exist because of their effects.

Nobody knows who made many archaeological artefacts ... yet we know they were intelligently designed ... because of their CFSI.

Sarky

Which is debunked in that paper you're hiding from. The more you talk about cfsi, the more laughable your posts become. You really should read that paper. Yes, you'll be embarrassed for a while as you realise you've been talking rubbish all this time, but you'll get over that.

robindch

J C wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Where and when?

All the time since I was Saved.

The world has plenty of people who are just as sure they've met Allah.

How do I know that you're not hallucinating?

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

The discussion on whether man is an ape is absolutely closed, as it is scientific fact. Hominidae is the family of which the sub-families of homo (homo-sapien), Pan (Chimpanzees / Bonobos), Pongo (Orangutans) and Gorilla (Gorillas) are included.

This is a biological fact, and a scientific classification. It is backed up by biological commonalities, and DNA.

Your inability to accept science is baffling. There is nothing else to say on this matter. The debate has been over for a century. Deal with it.

Nothing is ever 'closed' in science ... and this particular belief has never been established, in the first place ... something which is proven by your indecent haste to 'close' the issue.

You are behaving exactly like a churchman when one of his prime articles of faith is challenged ... his preferred first resort is often to engage in similar 'handwaving' about it being closed to any examination!!!!