"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

Fart Knocker wrote: »

What gets me about these silly intelligent design theories that try to do away with natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is that intelligent processes themselves are most likely driven by some type of mechanisms involving the generating and testing of ideas that is essentially natural selection anyway.

CHECK MATE.

NS isn't the problem with Spontaneous Evolution ... it's the mechanism to produce the CFSI to be selected that nobody has identified and that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics in the absence of applied intelligence.

J C

Robert ninja wrote: »

I know you love ever minute of it... sitting down at your computer, post by post telling us weak mortals how we're wrong and how you have a better understanding of decades of modern science that you never bothered to investigate but are able to sweep away with in an instant because you're just that darn infalible, aren't 'cha?

It certainly beats trying to justify the impossibility of Spontaneous Evolution any day!!!:)

Fart Knocker

J C wrote: »

NS isn't the problem with Spontaneous Evolution ... it's the mechanism to produce the CFSI to be selected that nobody has identified and that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics in the absence of applied intelligence.

The mechanism that creates the material NS selects from essentially is the second law in action. Disorder is continually introduced into organisms as they reproduce and NS carves this down into new designs and adaptations.

seaders

not getting into the species debate, just a random bit about the author, not sure if it's been said before.

when I was 17, I'd already had a random part-time job as a telesalesperson in another place and then got a job with Mr. John J. May himself, selling advertisement for his doomed-from-the-start magazine 'S.I.N.', 'Sex Issues and News From around the world'.

the whole thing was an absolute mess, our 'leads' were going through the yellow pages, starting with all the stupid AAAAAAA companies. but Mr. May was on the phone himself trying to sell ads for his mag and every time he'd start the call saying "Hi, it's John J. May here, yes 'May', as in the merry month of May". then, when he'd get into the call, he'd get into random discussions "Oh yes, I think I remember you, was I up on your roof a year or two ago? Putting up a Sky dish, no? Cleaning your gutters? Anyway, about this ad in my magazine...", because before "S.I.N.", he had had two failed businesses before then, installing Sky dishes and cleaning gutters...

I worked their with one of my mates the same age and at one point, we had our own office to make these random phone calls, and every morning, he'd walk past and say "Good Morning" in a crazy spritely way (if you've not heard him speak, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ax0bqBc_Kg ) and mispronounce both our names, I've an awkward Irish name, so that's fair enough, but my mate is called Aaron, but every time he spoke to him, he'd strongly say 'Ey-ron', which always made us chuckle.

I was only there for a month or something, the thing went bankrupt, but there were loads of ridiculousness that happened, but two of my favourite were when he'd "sold" an ad to some builder, then when he went to some site to sort out all the details, after they wouldn't answer any calls from him, he literally chased the builder through the site, then eventually he drove off from the back of the site. the other time was when he came in all excited and stuff on a morning saying "Brilliant news, I've just been told that the episode 2 has completely sold out in Ranelagh (or some place like that)", which did sound... ok, until we found out that it was only in one shop in Ranelagh and that shop had a grand total of 5 copies. on my last day, the offices that we were in were just jampacked with 10s of thousands of unsold copies of that absurdly bad, stupid magazine that were only fit for the pulp.

ah John J. May, as in the merry month of May, those really are some very odd memories I have, couldn't believe it was him whose book this was.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... go on ...
... and the reason why this is impossible, is precisely because Mankind is a completely separate creation to all animals ... and has an immortal morally-responsible soul.

Its the morally-resposible soul that really sits in judgement on the jury ... and that is why an Ape is never summoned for jury sevice

right..... :rolleyes:


I notice you are now dodging questions that I asked to quantify your experience of jesus as well as requests to discuss the papers.

Jimmy444

Slightly off the current conversation, but did anyone else see John O’Donoghue, former FF minister last night on TV3? I’m sure he said something very like "There was a time in the history of mankind when it was believed that because dinosaurs were always there that dinosaurs would always be there". Has he been influenced by Mr. May and his writings also?

[-0-]

seaders wrote: »

not getting into the species debate, just a random bit about the author, not sure if it's been said before.

when I was 17, I'd already had a random part-time job as a telesalesperson in another place and then got a job with Mr. John J. May himself, selling advertisement for his doomed-from-the-start magazine 'S.I.N.', 'Sex Issues and News From around the world'.

the whole thing was an absolute mess, our 'leads' were going through the yellow pages, starting with all the stupid AAAAAAA companies. but Mr. May was on the phone himself trying to sell ads for his mag and every time he'd start the call saying "Hi, it's John J. May here, yes 'May', as in the merry month of May". then, when he'd get into the call, he'd get into random discussions "Oh yes, I think I remember you, was I up on your roof a year or two ago? Putting up a Sky dish, no? Cleaning your gutters? Anyway, about this ad in my magazine...", because before "S.I.N.", he had had two failed businesses before then, installing Sky dishes and cleaning gutters...

I worked their with one of my mates the same age and at one point, we had our own office to make these random phone calls, and every morning, he'd walk past and say "Good Morning" in a crazy spritely way (if you've not heard him speak, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ax0bqBc_Kg ) and mispronounce both our names, I've an awkward Irish name, so that's fair enough, but my mate is called Aaron, but every time he spoke to him, he'd strongly say 'Ey-ron', which always made us chuckle.

I was only there for a month or something, the thing went bankrupt, but there were loads of ridiculousness that happened, but two of my favourite were when he'd "sold" an ad to some builder, then when he went to some site to sort out all the details, after they wouldn't answer any calls from him, he literally chased the builder through the site, then eventually he drove off from the back of the site. the other time was when he came in all excited and stuff on a morning saying "Brilliant news, I've just been told that the episode 2 has completely sold out in Ranelagh (or some place like that)", which did sound... ok, until we found out that it was only in one shop in Ranelagh and that shop had a grand total of 5 copies. on my last day, the offices that we were in were just jampacked with 10s of thousands of unsold copies of that absurdly bad, stupid magazine that were only fit for the pulp.

ah John J. May, as in the merry month of May, those really are some very odd memories I have, couldn't believe it was him whose book this was.

How many copies of his book do you think he has lying around? :pac:

Also, did he just say 500,000 eggs in that video? He hasn't a clue and is a complete lunatic. He would have been awesome in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - wouldn't have had to act or anything!

[-0-]

This is his facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730793468&sk=wall

Looks like he is touting www.lyoness.ie as well.

JC you quote the following on your website:

We must respect the relevance -- Of testable evidence.

If that's so, then why don't you believe in carbon dating? Please explain how it is not accurate. In your video you go on to say something along the lines of "We weren't there 25 million years ago so how can we know what happened".

If you weren't in your house last night, and I robbed it, you would know about it afterwards wouldn't you? I can't believe you were allowed reproduce. Is Kassandra as bat-**** crazy as you are? Maybe not. I think she saw sense and ran off to Boston to get away from you, right?

J C

... and the President of The Flat Earth Society, Daniel Shenton is an Evolutionist!!!:)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society

The above article states that "the 33-year-old American, ­originally from Virginia but now living and working in London, is happy with the work of Charles Darwin. He thinks the evidence for man-made global warming is strong, and he dismisses suggestions that his own government was involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

... this doesn't actually surprise me ... because anybody who thinks that they are 'pondslime with added mistakes' could believe in almost anything ... including a Flat Earth !!!:D

... ye can all join up here>>>
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=66

Delirium

sounds like your sort of person, JC

you got your first draft of the rebuttal to the paper done yet?

Sarky

Oh, I'm sure he has. Seeing as his use of cfsi as an argument depends on being able to debunk the whole paper, any delays are SURELY just down to him obsessing over the finer details.

I'm certain that whenever he does post up a full rebuttal, it'll be a knockout blow from which modern science will never fully recover. :pac:

[-0-]

Sarky wrote: »

Oh, I'm sure he has. Seeing as his use of cfsi as an argument depends on being able to debunk the whole paper, any delays are SURELY just down to him obsessing over the finer details.

I'm certain that whenever he does post up a full rebuttal, it'll be a knockout blow from which modern science will never fully recover. :pac:

Modern science is still trying to recover from his book. :pac:

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Oh, I'm sure he has. Seeing as his use of cfsi as an argument depends on being able to debunk the whole paper, any delays are SURELY just down to him obsessing over the finer details.

I'm certain that whenever he does post up a full rebuttal, it'll be a knockout blow from which modern science will never fully recover. :pac:

I've already fully rebutted its conclusions ... and ye guys haven't been able to recover your composure to even reply.

... and here is a paper that even questions the ability of NS to select ... due to the effects of antagonistic epistasis ... yet another nail in Dawin's already-bristling coffin!!!:D

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110327191044.htm

This paper shows that both 'fit' and 'unfit' survive ... and thus the supposed basis for 'matching' organisms to their environments doesn't even work in complex environments!!!!

... so not only has evolution no spontaneous mechanism to provide the CFSI upon which it relies for diversity ... NS isn't even capable of efficiently or accurately selecting 'the fittest' either!!!

Sarky

J C wrote: »

I've already fully rebutted its conclusions ... and ye guys haven't been able to recover your composure to even reply.

You're lying again. Seriously, do you not even realise it? All you've done is repeat the chapter titles in question form. you haven't debunked a single point from it.

... and here is a paper that even questions the ability of NS to select ... due to the effects of antagonistic epistasis ... yet another nail in Dawin's already-bristling coffin!!!:D

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110327191044.htm

Except that natural selection has been DEMONSTRABLY proven. Hell, I've done it myself. Nothing has changed here, you're still a lying, fraudulent coward who doesn't understand the first thing about science.

Try harder. So far you still reek of failure and pity.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Except that natural selection has been DEMONSTRABLY proven. Hell, I've done it myself. Nothing has changed here, you're still a lying, fraudulent coward who doesn't understand the first thing about science.

Try harder. So far you still reek of failure and pity.

I've seen NS in action myself as well ... with simple traits and environments ... but it collapses in the face of complex traits and environments due to antagonistic epistasis ... and my cited article says "Darwin's notion that only the fittest survive has been called into question by new research published in the journal Nature"

... and if you doubt me have a look at the first paragraph...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110327191044.htm

PS I would suggest that you stop demolishing your credibility by your unfounded personalised attacks on me ... while you ignore the implications of the evidence I produce!!!

... although you do have every right to be wrong ... and self-destructive in your argumentation!!!

fatmammycat

JC, you really don't understand much of what you read, do you?

Delirium

again with the selective quoting?

what was actually said in the opening paragraph was:

Darwin's notion that only the fittest survive has been called into question by new research published in the journal Nature. A collaboration between the Universities of Exeter and Bath in the UK, with a group from San Diego State University in the US, challenges our current understanding of evolution by showing that biodiversity may evolve where previously thought impossible.

J C

fatmammycat wrote: »

JC, you really don't understand much of what you read, do you?

There are hundreds of ye ... and one of me ... and yet ye lose every argument ye start!!!:D

fatmammycat

J C wrote: »

There are hundreds of ye ... and one of me ... and yet ye lose every argument ye start!!!:D

We don't though, you either avoid the difficult positions or attempt humour or add emoticons to bolster your lack of competent thought. I used to think you were a troll, but now I don't. Now I think you're stuck in a loop and are fearful of change.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

There are hundreds of ye ... and one of me ... and yet ye lose every argument ye start!!!:D

kinda difficult to lose a discussion with you when you purposely avoid reading/discussing most, if not all, of the material posted on this thread.

J C

koth wrote: »

again with the selective quoting?

what was actually said in the opening paragraph was:
Quote:
Darwin's notion that only the fittest survive has been called into question by new research published in the journal Nature. A collaboration between the Universities of Exeter and Bath in the UK, with a group from San Diego State University in the US, challenges our current understanding of evolution by showing that biodiversity may evolve where previously thought impossible.

It actually shows that nothing has changed ... and thus NS doesn't work in complex environments.

The paper admits that "this test tube biodiversity proved controversial when first observed and had been explained away with claims that insufficient time had been allowed to pass for a clear winner to emerge.

The new research shows the experiments were not anomalies."
The reason it was 'controversal' was because it 'drove a horse and four' through Darwinism and its reliance on 'survival of the fittest' to explain how we supposedly evolved from Pondkind.

They are trying to put a positive 'face' on this disaster for Evolution ... but antagonistic epistasis is proving to be fatal to the Spontaneous Evolutionist cause!!!:D

J C

fatmammycat wrote: »

We don't though, you either avoid the difficult positions or attempt humour or add emoticons to bolster your lack of competent thought. I used to think you were a troll, but now I don't. Now I think you're stuck in a loop and are fearful of change.

I just comprehensively win every argument on every level ... and have fun doing so!!!

... and I give all of the credit to the inspiration of Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit.

I love ye all ... in all your misguided innocence!!!:D

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It actually shows that nothing has changed ... and thus NS doesn't work in complex environments.

The paper admits that "this test tube biodiversity proved controversial when first observed and had been explained away with claims that insufficient time had been allowed to pass for a clear winner to emerge.

The new research shows the experiments were not anomalies."
The reason it was 'controversal' was because it 'drove a horse and four' through Darwinism and its reliance on 'survival of the fittest' to explain how we supposedly evolved from Pondkind.

They are now trying to put a positive spin on this disaster for Evolution ... but antagonistic epistasis is proving to be fatal to the Spontaneous Evolutionist cause!!!:D

You really don't read any links on this thread, do you? the article says nothing about evolution being debunked. If anything, it shows that mutations allow different groups to survive depending on the rate of mutation within the groups.

It's no surprise you don't discuss the paper, seeing as you have difficulty comprehending articles that you post yourself.

amacachi

Is no-one else getting a little bored of this? :pac:

Sarky

Everyone else seem to have dealt with the rest of your evidence. Which, interestingly enough, actually goes some way towards proving the exact opposite of what you thought it proved.

So I'll just content myself with:

J C wrote: »

PS I would suggest that you stop demolishing your credibility by your unfounded personalised attacks on me ... while you ignore the implications of the evidence I produce!!!

Oh J C, you poor little mite. Nobody here has even come close to demolishing your credibility the way you manage to do it yourself.

You quote selectively, you use out-of-date, debunked arguments repeatedly, you ignore evidence, you flat out lie to people, and you run away like a little girl whenever you're challenged.

Assuming you even had any credibility to begin with, of course. The way you fail to understand the most basic scientific concepts, I think we can be fairly confident you have little or no scientific background at all like you keep claiming.

So here we are again. You remain a liar, a fraud, and a coward. Your own actions have brought on those labels. The failure is yours, and yours alone.

If you want some credibility, you're going to have to start actually tackling the mountain of evidence we've thrown at you for the last several years. You can start by debunking that paper that shows Dembski's cfsi is rubbish. Because you use cfsi so much in your misinformed posts, you really need to tackle this because it completely undermines about 90% of your argument.

So... Any time now. You've had a lot of time to read that paper and think about it. Weeks, in fact. Still waiting for you to debunk even a single point from it.

We're waiting.

J C

amacachi wrote: »

Is no-one else getting a little bored of this? :pac:

... over a million views here ...and over on the Christianity Thread says NO!!!!

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Everyone else seem to have dealt with the rest of your evidence. Which, interestingly enough, actually goes some way towards proving the exact opposite of what you thought it proved.

So I'll just content myself with:


Oh J C, you poor little mite. Nobody here has even come close to demolishing your credibility the way you manage to do it yourself.

You quote selectively, you use out-of-date, debunked arguments repeatedly, you ignore evidence, you flat out lie to people, and you run away like a little girl whenever you're challenged.

Assuming you even had any credibility to begin with, of course. The way you fail to understand the most basic scientific concepts, I think we can be fairly confident you have little or no scientific background at all like you keep claiming.

So here we are again. You remain a liar, a fraud, and a coward.

... and I love you too!!!:D:)

Sarky

That's all very heartwarming, but could you debunk a few points from that paper that demolishes Dembski's cfsi rubbish?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

That's all very heartwarming, but could you debunk a few points from that paper that demolishes Dembski's cfsi rubbish?

I was hoping you would start the ball rolling by answering my debunking questions.

Sarky

But you see, what you've done is take the chapter titles of that paper and rephrased them as questions. If you'd bothered to read any further than the titles, you'd see the answers to those questions in the paper, a couple of lines beneath where you plagiarised your questions.

You're being dishonest again. You know it, I know it, everyone who contributed to the million views of this thread know it. You're lying about having it read and/or understood that paper. You're being dishonest and fraudulent every time you claim cfsi disproves evolution.

Come clean, start again, read the paper and show us exactly how it fails to debunk Dembski's cfsi. Right now you haven't even come close, as you are well aware but afraid of admitting.

The only way you'll stop being labelled a coward and a liar is if you stop being cowardly and deceitful. I'm sure I mentioned this before, but you seem to have ignored it. It's that simple. I'm not sure you actually realise how much of afool you're making of yourself.