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…212213215217218…334

Comments

  • Options
    #6422
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Welcome back J C.


  • Options
    #6423
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    J C wrote: »
    You're very clever indeed!!!:)

    Any progress on that paper?


  • Options
    #6424
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    It appears the author will not be joining us in a discussion, citing that: "Most people who critisise my scientific book have not read it. "


  • Options
    #6425
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    legspin wrote: »
    Why?

    Do we not have enough medacious mallet heads around here already?
    legspin wrote: »
    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.
    Although many of the Evolutionists on this thread are deeply religious Atheists ... and they haven't yet provided any evidence for Spontaneous Evolution ... calling them '****tards' isn't nice ... and I don't think that they are 'mendacious' or 'mallet heads' either!!!!
    ... they're simply wrong!!!!

    Some of my best friends are Evolutionists ... and they are very intelligent and excellent scientists.
    I disagree with their beliefs ... but I love and respect them all ... and they me.:)


  • Options
    #6426
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dlofnep wrote: »
    It appears the author will not be joining us in a discussion, citing that: "Most people who critisise my scientific book have not read it. "

    he published another book? :pac:

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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6427
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Oh, it's J C. Have you come up with a rebuttal of that paper yet? Or are you going to keep lying about cfsi?


  • Options
    #6428
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    legspin wrote: »
    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.

    Now tell us the one about the religious fúcktards that agree with the theory of evolution.


  • Options
    #6429
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Now tell us the one about the religious fúcktards that agree with the theory of evolution.

    They aren't resident in this thread.


  • Options
    #6430
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Now tell us the one about the religious fúcktards that agree with the theory of evolution.
    I thought he just did!!!!:)


  • Options
    #6431
    Mr. Boo
    Registered Users Posts: 347 ✭✭Mr. Boo


    "'Avoision'; it's a crime, look it up!"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6432
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Focus, J C. You're supposed to be pointing out flaws in a scientific paper that shows most of your arguments up as complete twaddle.


  • Options
    #6433
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Focus, J C. You're supposed to be pointing out flaws in a scientific paper that shows most of your arguments up as complete twaddle.
    ... or so you claim ... but you have never pointed to any evidence that this paper does anything of the sort!!!


  • Options
    #6434
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I've shown you a scientific paper. It's been peer reviewed, all its citations were peer reviewed. It IS evidence. Do you not understand anything about how science works?


  • Options
    #6435
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    he published another book? :pac:
    One book was enough to completely invalidate evolution !!!


  • Options
    #6436
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    One book was enough to completely invalidate evolution !!!

    feel free to provide a link to this book. Strange that you'd forget to mention this book for so long.

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



  • Options
    #6437
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Could J C Debunk that paper before diving blindly off onto some other moronic tangent?


  • Options
    #6438
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by legspin
    Do we not have enough medacious mallet heads around here already?.

    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.
    Well said Mad Hatter!!

    I agree that this wasn't nice ... but I hope that legspin will 'man up' and withdraw it ... because it is clearly isn't true!!!

    Everybody on this thread are honourable people with sincerely held beliefs.


  • Options
    #6439
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Well, you do lie and run from questions a lot, so maybe not everyone.


  • Options
    #6440
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Well, you do lie and run from questions a lot, so maybe not everyone.
    I haven't been asked a question that I was unable to answer yet!!!!

    ... and, as I don't lie, it is you who are speaking untruths about me!!!!:(


  • Options
    #6441
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    J C wrote: »
    I haven't been asked a question that I was unable to answer yet!!!!

    ... and, as I don't lie, it is you who are speaking untruths about me!!!!:(

    You read the paper, yes/no?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6442
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    J C wrote: »
    I haven't been asked a question that I was unable to answer yet!!!!

    So what field of science is your qualification in?

    Why haven't you addressed the evidence in that paper?

    Why do you deliberately misrepresent what is said by people in order to support your own point of view?


  • Options
    #6443
    Mr. Boo
    Registered Users Posts: 347 ✭✭Mr. Boo


    Pulling away on another unrelated tangent.

    Either offer some criticism of worth about the paper, or stop. The ball is in your court JC. As was mentioned, the paper is peer-reviewed evidence that CFSI is nonsense. We're all waiting now, and it's getting boring.


  • Options
    #6444
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    I haven't been asked a question that I was unable to answer yet!!!!

    ... and, as I don't lie, it is you who are speaking untruths about me!!!!:(

    That's two more lies right there. How about you Debunk that paper before you embarrass yourself any further? We have been asking you to do that for a very long time now, and you haven't even come close.


  • Options
    #6445
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    So what field of science is your qualification in?
    No can do!!!

    Why haven't you addressed the evidence in that paper?
    There is no evidence in the paper that invalidates CFSI.

    Why do you deliberately misrepresent what is said by people in order to support your own point of view?
    I don't.
    .


  • Options
    #6446
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Two more lies and a cop out.


  • Options
    #6447
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    That's two more lies right there.
    Untrue.

    Sarky wrote: »
    How about you Debunk that paper before you embarrass yourself any further? We have been asking you to do that for a very long time now, and you haven't even come close.
    There is nothing to debunk ... the paper doesn't provide any evidence against CFSI ... not surprising really ... because the CFSI in living things is a repeatably observable (i.e. scientific) FACT!!!:)


  • Options
    #6448
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    you plead the fifth? The right not to incriminate yourself? I imagine that's unintentionally appropriate to the question that was asked.

    At least it explains your difficulties with basic science.

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



  • Options
    #6449
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Embarrassing yourself further it is, then. Disappointing, but entirely predictable. You just can't do it, can you? And you can't even admit it.


  • Options
    #6450
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    you plead the fifth? The right not to incriminate yourself? I imagine that's unintentionally appropriate to the question that was asked.

    At least it explains your difficulties with basic science.
    It's explained by the emotional state of many Evolutionists on this thread when their religious beliefs on the 'origins question' are destroyed by Creation Science.:)
    They start looking around for some misfortunate Creationist ... to sack ... or to make unfounded personal remarks about them ... so that they can feel better about Evolution!!!!:eek:

    Creationism is the last great love that dare not speak its name!!!:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6451
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It's actually explained by the emotional reactions of many Evolutionists when their religious beliefs on the 'origins question' are destroyed by Creation Science.:)

    Creationism is the last great love that dare not speak its name!!!:eek:

    in that case, woo me, JC. Debunk the paper.

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



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement