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…202203205207208…334

Comments

  • Options
    #6122
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    robindch wrote: »
    Wright's views, and those of her supporters, might be moronic, but they have a right to hold them. And while both sets of people are unlikely to the point of certainty, never to make a positive or useful contribution to the sum total of human knowledge or human honesty, that's the way they have chosen to spend their limited time alive. It's a crying shame that they've made this choice, but it's not a crying shame that they exist -- that judgement is one that they can only make for themselves.

    I understand that the right of stupidity is a right of the beholder... but look at the destruction of Alexandria, regardless of whether they are entitled to be idiotic negates the fact that that idiocy has set humankind back thousands of years.


  • Options
    #6123
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    Wendy metaphorically 'sliced and diced' the good professor ... he just kept bringing up points ... and Wendy knocked them all down
    Are you really so deluded that you think she did? Like, seriously, all bullshit aside? I'm asking because I can only feel embarrassed that somebody could be (a) so stupid as Wright and (b) so stupid as to claim, let alone believe, that she is not stupid.

    A child of five could see through that.


  • Options
    #6124
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    [-0-] wrote: »
    I understand that the right of stupidity is a right of the beholder... [...] idiocy has set humankind back thousands of years.
    People have a right to believe whatever patent drivel they want to, and have an equal right to waste their lives on whatever crap they deem most useful. They do not, however, have a right to put the implications of their delusional worldviews into practice.
    [-0-] wrote: »
    destruction of Alexandria
    Agora is worth a look :)


  • Options
    #6125
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    robindch wrote: »
    People have a right to believe whatever patent drivel they want to, and have an equal right to waste their lives on whatever crap they deem most useful. They do not, however, have a right to put the implications of their delusional worldviews into practice.Agora is worth a look :)

    Danke, checking it out now, it's on Netflix. :)


  • Options
    #6126
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    robindch wrote: »
    They do not, however, have a right to put the implications of their delusional worldviews into practice.
    very well said, robindch, They do not have right, however, you do have a right to put the implications of your delusional worldviews into practice

    The :confused: is, just why do you require to counter the God, what is need of all this , The reality is that materialistic evolutionists put faith in materialistic evolution because they want to. It is their wish at all price to elobrate the beginning of everything without a maker--- They have a greater right to put the implications of their delusional worldviews into practice --- Very true, i think you should be awarded noble prize :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6127
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    no he isn't, that's just a rephrasing of the distortion you already posted.
    Did Prof Dawkins recommend that Theists could/should consider Darwinian Evolution as an expression of the glory of God?
    Did Prof Dawkins also accept that Darwinian Evolution is such a thoroughly nasty system that it should never be applied to society?
    What does this imply about God?
    Prof Dawkins point in the interview was that Evolution and 'survival of the fittest' is a nasty competitive system involving death and disease in nature ... but this shouldn't alter the fact that, if it exists, we should accept that it does ... but we shouldn't construct our societies along its nasty 'survival of the fittest' principles.

    Prof Dawkins logic is correct ... if Darwinian Evolution exists, the fact that it is nasty shouldn't stop us accepting that it exists and doing all within our power to not model our societies on it ... where his logic fails is when he recommends that Theists should consider a nasty system like Darwinian Evolution to be to the glory of a loving God.
    Prof Dawkins is also correct that Theistic Evolutionists do presumably view that this nasty system is an expression of the glory of God ... but I have yet to hear one of them justify how they can logically reconcile this belief with the goodness and love of God.


  • Options
    #6128
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Did Prof Dawkins recommend that Theists could/should consider Darwinian Evolution as an expression of the glory of God?
    nope. his Christian colleagues consider it as an expression of God and asked why Wendy couldn't do likewise.
    Did Prof Dawkins also accept that Darwinian Evolution is such a thoroughly nasty system that it should never be applied to society?
    no, he never said that evolution is nasty. you're making that up, and I've explained what was actually said twice already.

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



  • Options
    #6129
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    People have a right to believe whatever patent drivel they want to, and have an equal right to waste their lives on whatever crap they deem most useful. They do not, however, have a right to put the implications of their delusional worldviews into practice.
    ... spoken like a true Medieval Churchman, Robin ... when are you going to establish the 'Evolutionist Inquisition' ... to root out and destroy all Creationist 'Heretics' ... to prevent them from putting the implications of their worldview into practice?:(

    ... things like forming churches, opening mosques and synagogues, educating their children in the Word of God ... and the truth as uncovered by Creation Science.
    ... things like coming onto this forum and posting on any thread that they may wish to post on ... without being subjected to ad hominem attacks.
    ... things like getting and maintaining employment in conventional science jobs that they are conventionally qualified to hold.

    ... things that are taken for granted in any liberal multi-cultural society, worthy of the name.


  • Options
    #6130
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    nope. his Christian colleagues consider it as an expression of God and asked why Wendy couldn't do likewise.
    Prof Dawkins is correct that Theistic Evolutionists do (illogically) believe that this nasty system is an expression of the glory of God ... but I have yet to hear one of them justify how they can logically reconcile this belief with the goodness and love of God. Prof Dawkins mistake was when he recommended this logically inconsistent belief (within Theistic Evolutionism) to a logically minded Creationist.
    koth wrote: »
    no, he never said that evolution is nasty. you're making that up, and I've explained what was actually said twice already.
    He did say it was thoroughly unpleasant ... at 5.20 on the video.

    I agree with Prof Dawkins that ecosystems can be very nasty, due to their fallen nature. He also repeatedly stated that he would not like to live in any Society that was based on Darwinian Principles ... but made the point that because Darwinian Evolution is nasty doesn't affect its veracity, one way or the other. He is also correct in this assertion ... look at the video from 4:50 onwards to see his comments on this issue.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsaa3RxjTWA


  • Options
    #6131
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Oh look, J C is distorting truth, failing to understand basic concepts and lying again. Like particularly deluded clockwork.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6132
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Oh look, J C is distorting truth, failing to understand basic concepts and lying again. Like particularly deluded clockwork.
    Don't lose whatever bit of credibility you think you possess by denying what Prof Dawkins patently said.


  • Options
    #6133
    Doc_Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Doc_Savage


    J C wrote: »
    Don't lose whatever bit of credibility you think you possess by denying what Prof Dawkins patently said.

    hmmmm.... your signature comes to mind!


  • Options
    #6134
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doc_Savage wrote: »
    hmmmm.... your signature comes to mind!
    He said that as well ... its a direct, fully referenced quote.
    Why do you guys have such problems with facts ... and the English language???


  • Options
    #6135
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Are you really so deluded that you think she did? Like, seriously, all bullshit aside? I'm asking because I can only feel embarrassed that somebody could be (a) so stupid as Wright and (b) so stupid as to claim, let alone believe, that she is not stupid.

    A child of five could see through that.
    What 'stupid' things did Wendy Wright say (bearing in mind that she is just an ordinary American Housewife up against one of the leading scientists in the world)?

    BTW, I think Prof Dawkins gave as good an account of Evolution as it is possible to make. He is a very intelligent and articulate man ... and nobody could have provided any better defense of Evolution than he did ... but he was labouring under the reality that Spontaneous Evolution never (and indeed, couldn't) happen.


  • Options
    #6136
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Prof Dawkins logic is correct

    /JC-mode

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



  • Options
    #6137
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    What 'stupid' things did Wendy Wright say (bearing in mind that she is just an ordinary American Housewife up against one of the leading scientists in the world)?

    That there are no transitional fossils for a start. That, and she demonstrated that she doesn't have the slightest idea as to what the theory of evolution actually entails.

    tiktaalik-transitional-fossil.png


  • Options
    #6138
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    That there are no transitional fossils for a start. That, and she demonstrated that she doesn't have the slightest idea as to what the theory of evolution actually entails.
    Living amphibians and air-breathing fish, like 'walking catfish' (Clarias batrachus) currently exist ... but nobody would call them 'transitional' between fish and mammals ... they are simply specialised amphibians and fish.

    AIG has the following to say about supposed missing links:-
    The climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) not only breathes air and “walks” on land but is even capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish.

    It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

    No fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking” in only the most trivial sense of the word.

    In their review article on Tiktaalik, Ahlberg and Clack (Nature 440(7085):747–749) tell us that “the concept of ‘missing links’ has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative.” The authors concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”

    Sadly, “unfounded notions” of this kind continue to be uncritically taught and accepted in the popular media and in our schools.


  • Options
    #6139
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Does J C actually have any thoughts on this of his own, or does he just copy and paste nonsense from answeringensis.org, that has been routinely refuted?

    Firstly - The Walking Catfish has evolved to allow it to move across short spans of land. And no, nobody would call them a transition between anything - because we cannot see into the future to see what the descendants of Clarias batrachus evolve into, in a few million years from now.

    So while it is evolving, to make an absurd statement like "but nobody would call them 'transitional' between fish and mammals" demonstrates that you simply don't understand what the theory of evolution is. Unless of course, you are privy to the ability to travel through time.

    Here's an idea - How about you formulate your own thoughts in the matter, and stop copying and pasting your way through the discussion?


  • Options
    #6140
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    300324_10150343276347428_509082427_8574909_1588182247_n.jpg


  • Options
    #6141
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Does J C actually have any thoughts on this of his own, or does he just copy and paste nonsense from answeringensis.org, that has been routinely refuted?

    Firstly - The Walking Catfish has evolved to allow it to move across short spans of land. And no, nobody would call them a transition between anything - because we cannot see into the future to see what the descendants of Clarias batrachus evolve into, in a few million years from now.

    So while it is evolving, to make an absurd statement like "but nobody would call them 'transitional' between fish and mammals" demonstrates that you simply don't understand what the theory of evolution is. Unless of course, you are privy to the ability to travel through time.

    Here's an idea - How about you formulate your own thoughts in the matter, and stop copying and pasting your way through the discussion?
    Another gross exaggeration!!!
    I always make it clear when I'm directly quoting from some source ... and I rarely quote AIG ... but I reserve the right to do so, when it is relevant to the point that I would like to make.
    The points I'm making about Tiktaalik ... is that:-
    1. Its a true fish ... and doesn't have any intermediate structures.
    2. Even if it did have structures that appear to be intermediate ... this still wouldn't prove it to be intermediate between fish and men (or indeed anything else) ... and you have accepted this in relation to the Walking Catfish, for example.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6142
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    300324_10150343276347428_509082427_8574909_1588182247_n.jpg
    Nice drawings ... no physical evidence.

    I'll say this much ... many Evolutionists are great artists ... its a pity they are not as good at science!!!:eek::)


  • Options
    #6143
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    The points I'm making about Tiktaalik ... is that:-
    1. Its a true fish ... and doesn't have any intermediate structures.

    Yes it does. It demonstrates a clear division between fish and tetrapods. It's head structure was not of a normal fish, and it's limbs served to support it's weight outside of water.
    J C wrote: »
    2. Even if it did have structures that appear to be intermediate ... this still wouldn't prove it to be intermediate between fish and men ...

    Once again, you demonstrate a clear ignorance of what the theory of evolution is. It is not there to demonstrate the evolution of fish to man, it is there to demonstrate the evolution of fish to tetrapods. No one fossil could ever demonstrate the evolution from fish to man - that is such an absurd requirement on your behalf.

    When we combine all of our fossils together, we get a relatively good picture of the evolution of life on earth.

    Please, read a book on evolution. It will save me having to explain the most basic tenets of it when we are discussing the topic.


  • Options
    #6144
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Nice drawings ... no physical evidence.

    They are sketches, based on fossil records (physical evidence).
    J C wrote: »
    I'll say this much ... many Evolutionists are great artists ... its a pity they are not as good at science!!!:eek::)

    Evolutionary biology is a science I'm afraid. As much as it hurts you.


  • Options
    #6145
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    They are sketches, based on fossil records (physical evidence).
    ... where are the photos of the fossils upon which these imaginary creatures are based??

    dlofnep wrote: »
    Evolutionary biology is a science I'm afraid. As much as it hurts you.
    ... so some of what Evolutionists call 'science' ... is actually 'art'!!!!:D:eek:


  • Options
    #6146
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    ... where are the photos of the fossils upon which these imaginary creatures are based??

    They are readily available online or in museums. You seem to be uneducated with regards to how one can gain an insight into the physical appearance of a animal based on fossil evidence.
    J C wrote: »
    ... so some of what Evolutionists call 'science' ... is actually 'art'!!!!:D:eek:

    So basically, when you're losing the argument - you resort to frivolous asininity.


  • Options
    #6147
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Yes it does. It demonstrates a clear division between fish and tetrapods. It's head structure was not of a normal fish, and it's limbs served to support it's weight outside of water.
    ... so what? ... there are many fish that don't have 'normal' heads ... for example flatfish, hammer-head sharks, etc.!!!
    ... and its fins, at best, only allowed the Tiktaalik to slither along on land ... like a 'Walking Catfish' does today!!!


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Once again, you demonstrate a clear ignorance of what the theory of evolution is. It is not there to demonstrate the evolution of fish to man, it is there to demonstrate the evolution of fish to tetrapods. No one fossil could ever demonstrate the evolution from fish to man - that is such an absurd requirement on your behalf.

    When we combine all of our fossils together, we get a relatively good picture of the evolution of life on earth.
    There is no continuum of fossils (or living specimens) between fish locomotion structures ... and mammalian structures ... its all in the (artistic) imaginations of some Evolutionists!!!:)


  • Options
    #6148
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    They are readily available online or in museums. You seem to be uneducated with regards to how one can gain an insight into the physical appearance of a animal based on fossil evidence.



    So basically, when you're losing the argument - you resort to frivolous asininity.
    Drawing is an artistic endeavour!!!

    ... so, do you have a link to photos of the fossils that gave rise to the drawings you just posted?


  • Options
    #6149
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Tiktaalik.


  • Options
    #6150
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Tiktaalik.
    Looks like it was just an unusual flatfish.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6151
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Looks like it was just an unusual flatfish.:)

    It might appear that way to an unevolved primate - but to a modern homo sapien, it appears like a transitional fossil.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement