"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

King Mob wrote: »

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.

I love and forgive you all.

... but I think that the debate would be better, if ye stick to the ideas under discussion ... and give the Ad Hominem remarks a rest!!!:)

Sarky

The debate would be better if you actually engaged in it, and amended your arguments when they were shown to be incorrect.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

The debate would be better if you actually engaged in it, and amended your arguments when they were shown to be incorrect.

The only problem, for ye guys, is that practically all of my arguments haven't been shown to be incorrect.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I love and forgive you all.

... but I think that the debate would be better, if ye stick to the ideas under discussion ... and give the Ad Hominem remarks a rest!!!:)

We've tried that JC.
But you are incapable of engaging in any sort of discussion for the exact reasons above.
So we are content to point out why you fail so miserably at honest debate as it shows how low you have to go intellectually to be a creationist.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

We've tried that JC.
But you are incapable of engaging in any sort of discussion for the exact reasons above.
So we are content to point out why you fail so miserably at honest debate as it shows how low you have to go intellectually to be a creationist.

Ad Hominem remarks are the weakest form of debate ... and the widespread use of these remarks, by ye guys, indicates that the evidence in favour of Darwinian Evolution is even weaker.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Ad Hominem remarks are the weakest form of debate ... and the widespread use of these remarks, by ye guys, indicates that the evidence in favour of Darwinian Evolution is even weaker.

But you see JC, they aren't ad hominem when they are true and are the specific reasons why one side (ie. you) is incapable in engaging in an honest, adult debate.
We are getting the only use you and this thread are good for, showing how dishonest and ignorant you need to be to hold creationism as true.

And you are doing a fantastic job.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

The only problem, for ye guys, is that practically all of my arguments haven't been shown to be incorrect.

Except that they have.

You see? You're making a claim that has been shown to be false. You KNOW your claim is false, but you're making it anyway. Here is just one example from hundreds where we have shown your claims to be incorrect, and yet you still make them in full knowledge that the claim is false.

That's lying, J C. It's not an ad hominem. You are indisputably wrong.

Unless, of course, you have evidence to disprove that paper. We've been challenging you to disprove it for months, but the best you've managed so far is to claim the paper is wrong without any supporting evidence.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

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 ...

To put it mildly - If I was your professor in University, and your conclusion of the first chapter of The Blind Watchmaker was that Dawkins believes that things are designed for a purpose - you would get a big fat F.

You haven't read the book. All you have done is copy and pasted from yet another creationist website, which takes quotes out of context. If your argument was really that compelling - you would have to repeatedly do this time and time again.

The book was written in great detail to explain why animals are not designed. That is the conclusion of the book - and not your non-contextual, selective quote.

dead one

dlofnep wrote: »

The book was written in great detail to explain why animals are not designed. That is the conclusion of the book -

The book was written in great detail to explain why animal need no god -- to explain in detail the belief of no god -- Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe... Does it make the difference

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... more unfounded Ad Hominem remarks ... and no evidence for the validity of Darwinian Evolution.
Don't you ever feel embarrassed at believing in an unfounded myth???:)

People better than I have repeatedly, over the last 5 or 6 years, given the reasons why evolution is a fact and why creationism is bullsh1t of the highest order. You have ignored it and continued to spout your lies. Why would I bother?

MrP

Lucy8080

wow this is thread has some legs on it.

its evolved a lot since its creation.

Genghiz Cohen

Lucy8080 wrote: »

wow this is thread has some legs on it.

its evolved a lot since its creation.

Had you posted yesterday this thread would have risen after 3 days (of inactivity).
Unlucky.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

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!!!

Have I got the definition of irony wrong now too?

Sometimes you are so convinced of these wrong-headed statements that I forget what colour the sky is. Thankfully I can recalibrate my perception by looking out the window for some empirical data.

clever_name

Lucy8080 wrote: »

wow this is thread has some legs on it.

its evolved a lot since its creation.

It has not evolved!

The thread was always planned to be this way!

John J May

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75505443

John J May wrote: »

Eh no there must be somone else who does that. I am the John J May who wrote the book THE ORIGIN OF SPECIOUS NONSENSE WHICH HAS 22 PAGES OF EMINENT SCIENTISTS (Quotes in the index!) WHO REJECT EVOLUTION AS THE UTTER BULL**** IT TRULY IS.

Have you read it? or are you like the closed minded Christians who wont read the brilliant writer Richard Dawkins books?

Incidently I am also anti war.

P S
Lyoness is saving millions of people money on their shopping in 38 countries and a small number have decided to make a career of it and fair play to them. Its better than spending ones life studying monkies and bananas and hilariously claiming "welcome to your ancestors folks!"

I have sent him a link to this thread!

Sarky

Can't be him. He's not using truckloads of alliteration to make himself look clever and distract from the total absence of actual content.

dlofnep

If that is him, I have sent him an invite to partake in this thread.

legspin

dlofnep wrote: »

If that is him, I have sent him an invite to partake in this thread.

Why?

Do we not have enough medacious mallet heads around here already?

The Quadratic Equation

legspin wrote: »

Why?

Do we not have enough medacious mallet heads around here already?

Don't be so hard on yourselves.

Delirium

so you don't agree with the theory of evolution?

The Quadratic Equation

koth wrote: »

so you don't agree with the theory of evolution?

Of course I do, it is a very important, but limited physical field.
Unlike Dawkins, the discipline itself, rightly and scientifically, does attempt to stray into areas outside its own, including metaphysics.

Delirium

So why did you imply that people who have been arguing the case against creationism to be mallet heads?

fatmammycat

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Of course I do, it is a very important, but limited physical field.
Unlike Dawkins, the discipline itself, rightly and scientifically, does attempt to stray into areas outside its own, including metaphysics.

Fine, but John J May, who this thread is originally about, does NOT believe in evolution, nor does JC or Dead One, despite being presented with evidence which undermines their belief based creationism. There's no need for your perpetual snide non sequiturs.

dlofnep

legspin wrote: »

Why?

Do we not have enough medacious mallet heads around here already?

Because he is the author of the book. Who better to debate with?

legspin

dlofnep wrote: »

Because he is the author of the book. Who better to debate with?

If I remember correctly, there is some video footage of the man himself in a post near the beginning of this thread. You will realise a minute in that this gob****e has about as much of a clue of evolution as a bucket of rectums. You can debate with him if you want, but the conversation will amount to...


JJ May. - "Unintelligible, uneducated waffle with wild supposition about subject he knows nothing about"
You. - "Reasoned and rational rebuttal of said inexcrable nonsense"
JJ May- " Massive moving of goalpoats to hide ignorance of said response"
or
JJ May- " Lalalala..I'm not listening..lalalala"
or
Silence.

You won't get a reasoned reponse in return because he is incapable of one. So, debate away but please do somewhere we don't have to watch. And if you think I'm exaggerating for effect, we have almost 6500 posts on this thread and we still haven't go a truthful answer out of the resident religious fúcktards.

The Quadratic Equation

fatmammycat wrote: »

Fine, but John J May, who this thread is originally about, does NOT believe in evolution, nor does JC or Dead One, despite being presented with evidence which undermines their belief based creationism. There's no need for your perpetual snide non sequiturs.

I was asked a question, I answered it, the snideness and Non sequitur is all your own.
So try practicing what you preach.

Sarky

You're doing it again. You come across as rather bitter about something.

The Quadratic Equation

Yet, ironically, rather than discuss the subject, you just seem intent on trying to pretend to project an emotion on another that you have no real life knowlege of. I'm lying on my comfy leather recliner, with a small Jameson while fully enjoying this site. You really should lighten up. If anything I actually feel sorry for you guys.

The Mad Hatter

We're devastated, I'm sure.

Incidentally, there was no question directed at you when you implied that all the non-creationists on this thread were mallet-heads.

J C

clever_name wrote: »

It has not evolved!

The thread was always planned to be this way!

You're very clever indeed!!!:)