"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Turtwig

Serious question :

Why the fuck does this thread have a 3-star rating? :mad:

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Serious question :

Why the fuck does this thread have a 3-star rating? :mad:

Please be patient ... it will eventually get a 5-star rating.:):D

robindch

J C wrote: »

All generalistions tend to be false

Self-pwnd.

Sarky

J C himself is quite interesting, albeit only as an example of just how deluded and incorrect religion can make a person. It's actually fascinating, the level of cognitive dissonance he can hold without appearing the least bit uncomfortable.

I only read because it puts the kind of expression in my face one might see on the faces of a black civil rights movement as they watch the pope get up in front of them and make racist jokes.

[-0-]

I read it because it makes me feel so good about myself.

Temptamperu

In the case of neanderthal man its been proven they split off and left Africa thousands of years before homo-sapiens.

MrPudding

Temptamperu wrote: »

In the case of neanderthal man its been proven they split off and left Africa thousands of years before homo-sapiens.

You see, there's your problem. Proven. She you are terrified of death and possibly even more terrified of life nothing can be proven that contradicts the fairy tale that you believe that makes you think it is all going to be ok.

People who are religious, and YECs in particular it seems, invest an awful lot in their worldview, for whatever reason. They are not going to let a little thing life proof get in the way of their happy thoughts.

MrP

Temptamperu

MrPudding wrote: »

People who are religious, and YECs in particular it seems, invest an awful lot in their worldview, for whatever reason. They are not going to let a little thing life proof get in the way of their happy thoughts.

MrP

If they where to go by the story of a 6000 year old earth (lawl) we wouldnt have any stars in the sky, fossils in the earth or any of the "proof" they allude too.
but proof pah who cares about proof when they have a badly written book with all the answers already.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
All generalisations tend to be false.

robindch
Self-pwnd.

... I didn't say are false.

Generalisations about people groups are almost invariably untrue ... you tend to get good, bad and indifferent on almost any issue, within every people group.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

J C himself is quite interesting, albeit only as an example of just how deluded and incorrect religion can make a person. It's actually fascinating, the level of cognitive dissonance he can hold without appearing the least bit uncomfortable.

Unlike most of the Atheistic Humanists on this thread, I am not a religious person ... I have a Saving Faith in Jesus Christ ... and a well founded scientific position on the 'origins issue' ... and that's about it!!!

You guys have an unfounded religious belief that God doesn't exist ... and ye have built your 'shaky' worldview around this equally 'shaky' belief ... even when all logic tells you that materialistic processes, in the absence of a virtual input of intelligence, cannot produce the levels of CFSI found in living organisms.

... and when it comes to cognitive dissonance (and 'ignoring the elephant in the room')... nobody can beat the Evolutionists and their 'myth of evolution' ... which only explains how CFSI may be naturally/sexually selected ... but doesn't explain how CFSI can be spontaneously produced in the first place.

... yet Evolutionists claim that it explains how pondkind supposedly 'evolved' into mankind ... when the odds of spontaneously producing just one specific biomolecule for just one link in a biochemical cascade, at any point in time or space, is a number greater then the number of electrons in the supposed 'Big Bang' Universe .... and to produce even a so-called simple cell would required hundreds of thousands of such materialistic miracles, in highly specific sequences and spatial relationships!!!

The 'Myth of Evolution' also has an inherent self-contradiction within itself ... it supposedly explains how transitions occur from one functional structure to another functional structure, via a series of non-functional intermediates, by the simple expedient of claiming that that non-functional intermediates remain non-functional for millions of years ... but the 'Myth of Evolution' is supposedly 'driven' by NS acting upon functional intermediaries to select the best ... and without any functionality, all supposed intermediaties can't be naturally or sexually selected ... and thus we end up with blind chance 'running the show' ... and therefore 'mount improbable' ... is actually 'mount impossible'.!!!

For example, we are expected to believe that 'extra' bones in the the reptillian jaw 'migrated' over millions of years to become the highly specialised bones within the mammalian ear ... !!!!
... this gleefully ignores the fact that all intermediaries would be functionally inferior to either the original lizard (as it would effecively have a dislocated jaw in the supposed 'early' stages and a useless number of 'floating' bones within its head in the supposed 'later' stages) ... while the mammal would remain profoundly deaf until the the bones were specifically arranged within the ear, together with all of the other requirements for hearing, including the neurological requirements ... and again, all intermediates, would have no functionality, for NS to select ... indeed the intermediaries would have serious disadvantages ... and that is why lizards have extra bones in their jaws ... and the supposed 'migration' of these bones is entirely in the imaginations of Evlutionists.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... yet Evolutionists claim that it explains how pondkind supposedly 'evolved' into mankind ... when the odds of spontaneously producing just one specific biomolecule for just one link in a biochemical cascade, at any point in time or space, is a number greater then the number of electrons in the supposed 'Big Bang' Universe .... and to produce even a so-called simple cell would required hundreds of thousands of such materialistic miracles!!!

Still claiming this nonsense even though you've been shown why that's an ignorant, entirely wrong point that has no basis in reality but rather your inability to perform basic math.

This shows either your profound ignorance, complete dishonesty or that you are unable to type anything beyond a few rehearsed, rehashed paragraphs.
I'm beginning to think that you are some form of spam-bot designed for trolling.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

Unlike most of the Atheistic Humanists on this thread, I am not a religious person . .. and have a well founded scientific position on the origins issue.

Sig Gold Here! !

JC ADMITS HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN ! !

Sarky

King Mob wrote: »

Still claiming this nonsense even though you've been shown why that's an ignorant, entirely wrong point that has no basis in reality but rather your inability to perform basic math.

This shows either your profound ignorance, complete dishonesty or that you are unable to type anything beyond a few rehearsed, rehashed paragraphs.
I'm beginning to think that you are some form of spam-bot designed for trolling.

It's not an either/or scenario. It shows J C's profound ignorance AND complete dishonesty AND inability to perform basic mathematics AND inability to type anything beyone a few rehearsed rehashed paragraphs.

He's like the total opposite of a polymath.

MrPudding

Sarky wrote: »

It's not an either/or scenario. It shows J C's profound ignorance AND complete dishonesty AND inability to perform basic mathematics AND inability to type anything beyone a few rehearsed rehashed paragraphs.

He's like the total opposite of a polymath.

Meh, I am going for stroke victim or being repeatedly dropped on his head as a child.

MrP

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Still claiming this nonsense even though you've been shown why that's an ignorant, entirely wrong point that has no basis in reality but rather your inability to perform basic math.

This shows either your profound ignorance, complete dishonesty or that you are unable to type anything beyond a few rehearsed, rehashed paragraphs.
I'm beginning to think that you are some form of spam-bot designed for trolling.

Sarky wrote: »

It's not an either/or scenario. It shows J C's profound ignorance AND complete dishonesty AND inability to perform basic mathematics AND inability to type anything beyone a few rehearsed rehashed paragraphs.

He's like the total opposite of a polymath.

Mr P wrote:

Meh, I am going for stroke victim or being repeatedly dropped on his head as a child.

Plenty of Ad Hominem statements ... that carefully avoid addressing any of my substantive points that demolish Spontaneous Evolution.

Can I gently point out that calling me names does not address the points that I have made about the complete illogicality and invalidity of Evolution.

... and if ye don't believe me that neo-Darwinian Evolution has about as much scientific credibility as 'the man in the moon', perhaps you'll believe these people (emphasis mine):-

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127


"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216


"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."
Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105



"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."
John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802


"We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. ...Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution."
Pierre-Paul Grassé (Chair of Evolutionary Biology at Sorbonne University in Paris for thirty years ) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88


"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28



"Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better ... 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."
Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error". Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125)


"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."
J. E. O'Rourks, "Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy". American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47

Sarky

Oh no! Not selective quoting! Our one weakness!

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Oh no! Not selective quoting! Our one weakness!

Ad Hominist statements ... and not addressing the serious deficiencies of Darwinian Evolution are your 'weaknesses'.

Selective answering is your problem ... and not selective quoting.:)

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Plenty of Ad Hominem statements ... that carefully avoid addressing any of my substantive points that demolish Spontaneous Evolution.

Can I gently point out that calling me names does not address the points that I have made about the complete illogicality and invalidity of Evolution.

The problem is, JC, that only a person that has suffered form a stroke, been dropped repeatedly or, I will allow, suffers from some other mental illness could be of the opinion that he had demolished evolution in this thread. I left out the spontaneous bit because, as you have been told repeatedly over the last handful of years, no one is really arguing for that.

And JC, I am genuinely worried for you health. You might have an undiagnosed mental illness or a brain bleed, ok, brain bleed is unlikely given how long you have been spouting your delusional crap, but you get the idea.. Please seek professional help.

Think of it as the MrPudding Trilemma; JC either deceived everyone he ever spoke to by conscious fraud, or he was himself deluded and self-deceived, or he was dropped on his head as a child.

MrP

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

[...] addrssing [...]

Aphasia, I am going with stoke.

MrP

Delirium

Great job on the copy-pasta from Creationism.org, JC.

Have you any thoughts of your own? Care to show any evidence to support your creation myth?

Wibbs

One of the problems(other than the selective nature) with your quotes JC are their ages. Things have moved on a lot in the last 30+ years. Genetic research alone has pretty much gone from the horse and cart to the space shuttle. Research that has filled in a lot of the gaps. The radiocarbon dating method another one that has come on in provable leaps and bounds. Provable by tree ring data, ice cores, among other things.

By the by JC, I'm not a "hard" atheist. An in the middle agnostic as one can get. You show me the data/evidence for a claim and I'll genuinely try and step back and go "ehhh hang on, by Jove Carruthers old bean, he may be onto something". There are quite a number of current scientific theories and positions I'd take issue with(don't get me started on dark matter/energy to fluff the figures IMH) and have done so in the past. Indeed in a couple of forums on Boards on things like human evolution. IN a couple of cases and with the passing of time I've been able to gloat and say "I told you so" as new evidence came to light. Im only slightly guilty re the gloating part. Mind you, I did have trouble resisting going "na na na na na"... So if you or one of your mates in creation science can give me cause to ask WTF?? Bring it on. Indeed one guy I found through one of your links did just that on a couple of points re Neandertal dentition. Though I would dispute his in extremis findings, I would agree that the current accepted ages for some of the skeletons are too low. EG IMHO(and it is H) the Old man of La Chapelle is a couple of decades older than the age of 40 ish currently ascribed to the chap. Given other Neandertals in far better condition are ascribed ages very close to his. Unless he was an odd lad on a completely different diet and lifestyle his dentition loss and general arthritic condition don't make sense to me. That creationist chap made a damn good case on that score.

The 'Myth of Evolution' also has an inherent self-contradiction within itself ... it supposedly explains how transitions occur from one functional structure to another functional structure, via a series of non-functional intermediates, by the simple expedient of claiming that that non-functional intermediates remain non-functional for millions of years ... but the 'Myth of Evolution' is supposedly 'driven' by NS acting upon functional intermediaries to select the best ... and without any functionality, all supposed intermediaties can't be naturally or sexually selected ... and thus we end up with blind chance 'running the show' ... and therefore 'mount improbable' ... is actually 'mount impossible'.!!!

Oh it can certainly seem... well not quite Mount Impossible, more like Mount slightly Implausible at first glance, but when you consider clearly observable micro evolution and add in damn near incomprehensible timescales, it's a helluva lot more probable and the fossil record does bear this probability out.

On the other hand any creationist theory I've read while asking questions(sometimes interesting enough questions BTW) doesn't come within an asses roar of providing answers that stand up. Science does. Not all of the time and not always right at the time, but over time it gets way closer to describing and even predicting reality. Certainly when comparing the scientific literature with stories of a Bronze age guy building an impossibly large ship. Out of wood. Ask any structural engineer.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

The problem is, JC, that only a person that has suffered form a stroke, been dropped repeatedly or, I will allow, suffers from some other mental illness could be of the opinion that he had demolished evolution in this thread. I left out the spontaneous bit because, as you have been told repeatedly over the last handful of years, no one is really arguing for that.

And JC, I am genuinely worried for you health. You might have an undiagnosed mental illness or a brain bleed, ok, brain bleed is unlikely given how long you have been spouting your delusional crap, but you get the idea.. Please seek professional help.

Think of it as the MrPudding Trilemma; JC either deceived everyone he ever spoke to by conscious fraud, or he was himself deluded and self-deceived, or he was dropped on his head as a child.

MrP

... more unfounded Ad Hominem remarks ... and no evidence for the validity of Darwinian Evolution.

dlofnep

J C's copy and pastes put into context: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

Since he has no interest in an honest discussion. As for your signature - if you actually read the Blind Watchmaker, you'd see why Dawkins does not believe that they were designed and explains exactly why it is they were not.

Stop selective quoting, and start being honest. I thought honesty was a Christian virtue?

Sarky

Obviously not his sect. Maybe he's one of those Michigan people who are trying to legalise bullying as long as it's for religious reasons?

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

One of the problems(other than the selective nature) with your quotes JC are their ages. Things have moved on a lot in the last 30+ years. Genetic research alone has pretty much gone from the horse and cart to the space shuttle. Research that has filled in a lot of the gaps. The radiocarbon dating method another one that has come on in provable leaps and bounds. Provable by tree ring data, ice cores, among other things.

Things have moved on allright ... but the 'elephant in the room' (for Darwinian Evolution) has only got bigger.

Wibbs wrote: »

By the by JC, I'm not a "hard" atheist. An in the middle agnostic as one can get. You show me the data/evidence for a claim and I'll genuinely try and step back and go "ehhh hang on, by Jove Carruthers old bean, he may be onto something". There are quite a number of current scientific theories and positions I'd take issue with(don't get me started on dark matter/energy to fluff the figures IMH) and have done so in the past. Indeed in a couple of forums on Boards on things like human evolution. IN a couple of cases and with the passing of time I've been able to gloat and say "I told you so" as new evidence came to light. Im only slightly guilty re the gloating part. Mind you, I did have trouble resisting going "na na na na na"... So if you or one of your mates in creation science can give me cause to ask WTF?? Bring it on. Indeed one guy I found through one of your links did just that on a couple of points re Neandertal dentition. Though I would dispute his in extremis findings, I would agree that the current accepted ages for some of the skeletons are too low. EG IMHO(and it is H) the Old man of La Chapelle is a couple of decades older than the age of 40 ish currently ascribed to the chap. Given other Neandertals in far better condition are ascribed ages very close to his. Unless he was an odd lad on a completely different diet and lifestyle his dentition loss and general arthritic condition don't make sense to me. That creationist chap made a damn good case on that score.

Good point.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh it can certainly seem... well not quite Mount Impossible, more like Mount slightly Implausible at first glance, but when you consider clearly observable micro evolution and add in damn near incomprehensible timescales, it's a helluva lot more probable and the fossil record does bear this probability out.

The problem that I have discovered is that time (no matter how long) doesn't solve the problem of producing novel functional complex specified information. I have no doubt that NS is a scientific fact ... and Darwin (amongst others, like Wallace) should be credited with this very important discovery (and its description) ...
... but it is only half of the story ... because it only actually accounts for the selection of existing CFSI ... but not its production.
I agree with what Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), in "The return of hopeful monsters". Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-Jule 1977, p. 28, had to said about this issue:-
"No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."
In other words, while Darwinism may explain the survival of the fittest ... it doesn't explain the production of the fittest.

Wibbs wrote: »

On the other hand any creationist theory I've read while asking questions(sometimes interesting enough questions BTW) doesn't come within an asses roar of providing answers that stand up. Science does. Not all of the time and not always right at the time, but over time it gets way closer to describing and even predicting reality. Certainly when comparing the scientific literature with stories of a Bronze age guy building an impossibly large ship. Out of wood. Ask any structural engineer.

I agree that there many issues in Creation Science that require further research, but the basic issue of whether intelligence was needed to produce living systems has been scientifically settled, in the affirmative ... and the continued denial of this reality by Darwinists does no favours to the Evolutionist cause ... or indeed the progress of science itself.
You seem to be somebody who is open-minded and a realist ... just like I am ... so perhaps we can agree on what has actually been scientifically validated about Creationism and Evolutionism.

robindch

Folks -

Please drop the personal invective -- it's unbecoming of the forum.

Just to clarify policy here: you are permitted to criticize as you like, whatever ideas you wish to criticize. You are also allowed to criticize, generally as you wish, the leaders of the creationist movement and occasionally, to comment upon the wisdom and intellectual precision of the general membership of the wider creationist movement.

You are not allowed, however, to insult other forum posters, regardless of how much you might happen to think it's justified.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Obviously not his sect. Maybe he's one of those Michigan people who are trying to legalise bullying as long as it's for religious reasons?

Can I say that I believe that bullying is wrong, whatever its motivation.

... and can I ask you to have a look at the following postings ... and tell me who is trying to bully whom on this thread?

Originally Posted by King Mob
Still claiming this nonsense even though you've been shown why that's an ignorant, entirely wrong point that has no basis in reality but rather your inability to perform basic math.

This shows either your profound ignorance, complete dishonesty or that you are unable to type anything beyond a few rehearsed, rehashed paragraphs.
I'm beginning to think that you are some form of spam-bot designed for trolling.

Originally Posted by Sarky
It's not an either/or scenario. It shows J C's profound ignorance AND complete dishonesty AND inability to perform basic mathematics AND inability to type anything beyone a few rehearsed rehashed paragraphs.

He's like the total opposite of a polymath.


Originally Posted by Mr P
Meh, I am going for stroke victim or being repeatedly dropped on his head as a child.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Can I say that I believe that bullying is wrong, whatever its motivation.

... and can I ask you to have a look at the following postings ... and tell me who is trying to bully whom on this thread?

It's not really bullying if they objective facts JC.

If you think that us accusing you of these things is bad, then perhaps you should stop doing them.

Sarky

I can't speak for everyone, but when people have demonstrably shown your mathematics are wrong, and shown what you say is ignorant of the facts, and shown that despite being corrected you go ahead and say something that isn't true with full knowledge that it is, in fact, a lie, then it looks very much like you are not very good at mathematics, you are ignorant of facts, and you lie.

Still waiting for the rebuttal of that paper that disproves dembski's cfsi by the way. You haven't forgotten about it, have you?

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Since he has no interest in an honest discussion. As for your signature - if you actually read the Blind Watchmaker, you'd see why Dawkins does not believe that they were designed and explains exactly why it is they were not.

Stop selective quoting, and start being honest. I thought honesty was a Christian virtue?

Prof Dawkins quote says that living things give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose ... and that is indeed what Prof Dawkins believes and said ...
... he, of course, believes that they weren't designed for a purpose, or for any other reason.
... I believe that they were purposefully designed ... and I therefore think that Prof Dawkins quote is quite ironc!!!