"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... and I have cited specific examples of how Spontaneous Evolution, doesn't 'pass muster', in either the logic or evidential stakes!!!

No, you haven't cited any examples. All you have done is parrot off creationist nonsense that has been debunked a 1000 times over. You have not posted one scientifically valid post in this thread yet.

J C

Stile wrote: »

Something as delicate as CFSI would be quickly destroyed by mutations.

You are correct that it would ... but God also realised this ... and designed several automatic correction systems to repair the damage.:)
http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3.rhtml

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Boo
In order to learn from this churning mass of garbage, however, you'd need to know all possible knowledge regarding genetics, evolution, statistics, probability, information theory (true or false); from which you could eliminate the extraneous using JC's posts as a sort of key.

I've never heard Evolution being described as 'a churning mass of garbage' before ... but I must say its a good a descriptor as you are likely to see this side of eternity!!!

BTW, all you actually need to decipher it ... is a little common sense ...
... the kind of common sense that rejects as false, the idea that if you plant a feather in the ground it will grow a hen ... or that life will spontaneously generate itself from dead things ... or that pondslime became a poet after billions of Evolutionist Years of time!!!!:D

The 'wide-eyed' innocence of the Evolutionists on this thread, is perhaps their most endearing quality ... as they await with 'baited-breath' the latest 'tall tale' from their favourite Evolutionst Guru ...
... their least endearing quality is their reflex tendency to 'badmouth' Creation Science at every mention of CFSI !!!:)

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

I've never heard Evolution being described as 'a churning mass of garbage' ... but I must say it has its a good a descriptor as you are likely to see this side of eternity!!!
... and all you actually need to decipher it ... is a little common sense ...
... the kind of common sense that rejects as false, the idea that if you plant a feather in the ground it will grow a hen ... or that life will spontaneously generate itself ... or that pondslime became a poet after billions of Evolutionist Years of time!!!!:D

The 'wide-eyed' innocence of Evolutionists is perhaps their most endearing quality ... as they await with 'baited-breath' the latest tall tale from their favourite Evolutionst Author ...
... their least endearing quality is their reflex tendency to 'badmouth' Creation Science at every mention of the word Creation !!!:)

So you lack basic comprehension skills also. That is reassuring, as it explains some of your mouth-breathing flights of fancy.

I don't see where I bad-mouthed creationist story-telling, all I read is you making unfounded statements about evolution. I don't have a favourite evolutionist author btw. Just FYI, it's a concept I have thought about, observed and learned about from several sources from an early age. From a similar age I used to wait for the "just kidding" that I expected to hear following tales of jesus' magic tricks inthe desert. The punchline was, all the adults had convinced themselves of this.

I am a trained scientist now, an ecologist. Your avoiding any justification of your childish remarks is offensive to me. As are your claims to be a trained scientist without any details, or any sense of rhetorical etiquette.

Debunk the paper. It sounds like it will be a breeze to you, given your flippant disregard for its worth.

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

You're the guys ignoring it ... and providing no evidence for your unfounded beliefs in the magical powers of Pondslime.

I'm steadily providing unchallengable evidence for my scientific hypotheses.

Please, allow me to just clear one thing up.

You contest the Theory of Evolution, because of "unfounded beliefs in the magical powers of Pondslime", but you full accept the existence of an all powerful God which created all life over the course of 7 days, and that Aliens may also have influenced human life.

So, despite the 100% proof of evolution, something which we can observe and see happening around us, have historical records that show evolution of Man, how Humans bodies and features have adapted and changed over time to suit their habitat (e.g. the Scandinavians or the Mongolians, which is evolution) or how more breeds of dog are starting to become capable of seeing images on a T.V. screen, something most dogs couldn't do over the last few decades.

After all this, you still truly think that a space ghost with the cheat codes of existence made us how we are. You're a terrible scientist I must say.

MrPudding

Sonics2k wrote:

After all this, you still truly think that a space ghost with the cheat codes of existence made us how we are. You're a terrible alledgedscientist I must say.

FYP

MrP

J C

Newsflash ... animal life has been around for 450 million evolutionist years less than thought up to now!!!
http://communications.nuim.ie/press/251120112.shtml
Quote: "Their research tackled the puzzling question of why the fossil record – which dates back only to the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ of 500 million years ago when multitudes of complex life forms began to emerge did not tally with the emerging science of molecular biology, which based on studying DNA mutations suggested that animals should have been around 740 million years earlier than that."

... if you take the 'timetree of life' website (www.timetree.org), this presents as the “expert opinion” that the last common animal ancestor was around 1,237 million years ago ... which is 737 million evolutionist years more that is now thought to be the case!!!
... the Evolutionists are moving in the right direction, as they rapidly revise their dates downwards!!!:):D

One reason why there is such a massive 'dating' divergence could be because it all happened very recently indeed!!!
... because life was actually created within the last 10,000 years.:D

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

Please, allow me to just clear one thing up.

You contest the Theory of Evolution, because of "unfounded beliefs in the magical powers of Pondslime", but you full accept the existence of an all powerful God which created all life over the course of 7 days, and that Aliens may also have influenced human life.

The Evolutionist belief that Pondkind spontaneously evolved into Mankind ... isn't even possible in theory.

The CFSI in living organisms required an input of inordinate intelligence to produce it ... so an all-powerful God is certainly a reasonable and logical candidate as the Creator.

Sonics2k wrote: »

So, despite the 100% proof of evolution, .
something which we can observe and see happening around us, have historical records that show evolution of Man, how Humans bodies and features have adapted and changed over time to suit their habitat (e.g. the Scandinavians or the Mongolians, which is evolution) or how more breeds of dog are starting to become capable of seeing images on a T.V. screen, something most dogs couldn't do over the last few decades.

Your cited 'proofs' of 'evolution' are proofs of Natural Selection of existing CFSI within Kinds ... and they aren't proof of the idea that Pondkind could spontaneously turn into Mankind.

Sonics2k wrote: »

After all this, you still truly think that a space ghost with the cheat codes of existence made us how we are. You're a terrible scientist I must say.

It is scientifically established fact that an inordinate intelligence Created life ... whether that 'Intelligence' was the God of the Bible is a matter of Faith.:cool:

Ye guys do have a serious problem separating your Faith from your Science!!!:)

Sarky

Address the paper we keep showing you or gtfo.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Of course, the reality is that all life was actually created within the last 10,000 years.:D

Maybe on planet Zog where you're from, life began only 10,000 years ago. It might explain why it's life is so primitive and incapable of reason and logic.

Tell me genius - Which peer-reviewed dating method did you use to verify that life was created 10,000 years ago?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Address the paper we keep showing you or gtfo.

Charming!!!:(

Is foul-mouthed language something that you specialise in ... when you don't have any answers to my serious ... and civil ... questions?

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Maybe on planet Zog where you're from, life began only 10,000 years ago. It might explain why it's life is so primitive and incapable of reason and logic.

Tell me genius - Which peer-reviewed dating method did you use to verify that life was created 10,000 years ago?

Which 'high priest' of Materialism provided the 'imprimatur' for the particular age of the Universe that you believe in?:)

Like I have said, ye guys do have a serious problem separating your Faith from your Science!!!

[-0-]

It's like watching a car back over a person repeatedly.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Which 'high priest' of Materialism provided the 'imprimatur' for the particular age of the Universe that you believe in?:)

Like I have said, ye guys do have a serious problem separating your Faith from your Science!!!

You're deflecting - and avoiding the question.

I will repeat - What peer-reviewed methodology have you used to verify that life began 10,000 years ago.

The vast array of dating mechanisms accepted by the science community have been peer reviewed, and if you don't find them acceptable - then provide an alternative method for dating the earth and life.

I'll be waiting.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Sarky wrote: »

Address the paper we keep showing you or gtfo.

Charming!!!:(

Is foul-mouthed language something that you specialise in ... when you don't have any answers to my serious ... and civil ... questions?

I'm pretty good at several things. Including evolutionary biology. And spotting bullsh*t shouted by people who haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about.

You are one such person. We are getting tired of your lies, delusion and cowardice. That one paper you keep avoiding- one little paper among so many more!- that one paper demonstrates the utter folly of pretty much all your half-baked, unscientific rubbish claims.

And you keep running away from it. It's pathetic. You need to man up and come clean sooner or later.

scuba8

Originally Posted by J C
Which 'high priest' of Materialism provided the 'imprimatur' for the particular age of the Universe that you believe in?

Like I have said, ye guys do have a serious problem separating your Faith from your Science'


If as you say the universe is 10,000 years old can you explain the existence of the ' Spiral Galaxy NGC 3370 ' http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111029.html

The above is a photograph of the Galaxy which is 100 million light years away.

J C

scuba8 wrote: »

If as you say the universe is 10,000 years old can you explain the existence of the ' Spiral Galaxy NGC 3370 ' http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111029.html

The above is a photograph of the Galaxy which is 100 million light years away.

The current laws of physics didn't exist at Creation ... and indeed Evolutionist physicists also accept that this was the case in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang.

Instant inflation at Creation explains the phenomenon that you have cited.

dlofnep

J C - Stop avoiding my question and provide me with a peer-reviewed dating methodology to confirm your dating of life and the earth at 10,000 years.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Instant inflation at Creation explains the phenomenon that you have cited.

No it doesn't - because the Universe is still expanding.

scuba8

J C wrote: »

The current laws of physics didn't exist at Creation ... and indeed Evolutionist physicists also accept that this was the case in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang.

Instant inflation at Creation explains the phenomenon that you have cited.

That does not explain the existence of the Galaxy. The light used, from the galaxy, to create the photo, left the Galaxy 100 million years ago.

If you are saying that instant inflation, at the time of creation, put that galaxy 100 million light years away, the light from it would not reach here for another 100 million years.

If as you claim the universe, created by God, instantly inflated out of nothing 10,000 years ago, Only objects nearer than 10,000 light years away would be visable. As this is obviously not true, there are an uncountable number of Stars and Galaxys further away than 10,000 light years, this means your theory of devine creation is wrong.

Sonics2k

I love how some Creationists have now started to include the Big Bang Theory into their belief system to try and cover their arses because they denied it for so long.

What's next? God created the Ape and gave us the ability to evolve into Humans?

J C

scuba8 wrote: »

That does not explain the existence of the Galaxy. The light used, from the galaxy, to create the photo, left the Galaxy 100 million years ago.

If you are saying that instant inflation, at the time of creation, put that galaxy 100 million light years away, the light from it would not reach here for another 100 million years.

If as you claim the universe, created by God, instantly inflated out of nothing 10,000 years ago, Only objects nearer than 10,000 light years away would be visable. As this is obviously not true, there are an uncountable number of Stars and Galaxys further away than 10,000 light years, this means your theory of devine creation is wrong.

The light 'inflated' instantly as well and thus it is actually less than 10,000 years 'old'.

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

I love how some Creationists have now started to include the Big Bang Theory into their belief system to try and cover their arses because they denied it for so long.

What's next? God created the Ape and gave us the ability to evolve into Humans?

It wasn't a Big Bang ... it was a Big Whisper ... God said ... and it was.:)

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

It wasn't a Big Bang ... it was a Big Whisper ... God said ... and it was.:)

Prove it.

Show me the 100% verifiable proof, that does not come from the completely biased Bible.

You can't even prove it was a Big Whisper, or a click of the fingers, or maybe God had bad gas and accidentally created the universe.

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

Prove it.

Show me the 100% verifiable proof, that does not come from the completely biased Bible.

You can't even prove it was a Big Whisper, or a click of the fingers, or maybe God had bad gas and accidentally created the universe.

The origins of the Universe cannot be 100% proven one way or the other by science.

The Spontaneous Big Bang Theory resorts to non-scientifically verifiable ideas as well ... and it is inherently illogical ... by claiming that there was nothing ... and it blew up to produce the Universe.:)

Sonics2k

Nicely diverted.

But here's my point. Through Science we are able to separate fact from fiction, how the Universe works, the planets orbit the sun and how the moon orbits Earth.
A few hundred years ago, we didn't know these things, so based on this information and the rate of human progress, we can determine that given enough time, we can discover the origin of the Universe.

Now, why has God given you no way of proving he made the Universe (something the Church once denied was possible), other than some stories written by men with absolutely nothing other than more stories handed down over time by word of mouth, which we all know can change with time.

How do you know that your God made the world, what if it was actually the Incan Gods? Or Hindi? Or, maybe even the Aboriginals are right, and all this is just the dream world.

Y'see, that's the funny thing about Religion, there's so many of them and it could be any of them.
But Science is the same across the world, it changes together, learns together and adapts together. It's not separated, Gravity works the same in New Zealand as it does in Iceland.

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

Nicely diverted.

But here's my point. Through Science we are able to separate fact from fiction, how the Universe works, the planets orbit the sun and how the moon orbits Earth.
A few hundred years ago, we didn't know these things, so based on this information and the rate of human progress, we can determine that given enough time, we can discover the origin of the Universe.

Now, why has God given you no way of proving he made the Universe (something the Church once denied was possible), other than some stories written by men with absolutely nothing other than more stories handed down over time by word of mouth, which we all know can change with time.

How do you know that your God made the world, what if it was actually the Incan Gods? Or Hindi? Or, maybe even the Aboriginals are right, and all this is just the dream world.

Y'see, that's the funny thing about Religion, there's so many of them and it could be any of them.
But Science is the same across the world, it changes together, learns together and adapts together. It's not separated, Gravity works the same in New Zealand as it does in Iceland.

The Creation of the Universe requires an agent of infinite power and infinite knowledge ... who is transcendent to the Universe ... and only the God of the Bible 'fits the bill'.
The Materialist alternative of 'nothing blowing up to produce everything' has no logic to it at all.:)

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

The Creation of the Universe requires an agent of infinite power and infinite knowledge ... who is transcendent to the Universe ... and only the God of the Bible 'fits the bill'.
The Materialist alternative of 'nothing blowing up to produce everything' has no logic to it at all.:)

Hate to tell you this, but the God of the Bible is essentially the same as the God of the Torah and Allah of the Qur'an. In fact, your God is a ret-con of the Jewish God.
Hell, even Zeus apparently created the world according the Greeks.

But all the while, Gravity has remained the same, and moon has kept orbiting.

Give it a hundred years, and the RCC will be allowing homosexuality and contraception, but gravity will still be the same, and we'll still circle the sun once a year.

edit:
As for the power it requires to create the universe, it's just as feasible that it required the collapse of a previous universe to trigger the creation of the current one, it's just as possible as God existing.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

The Creation of the Universe requires an agent of infinite power and infinite knowledge ... who is transcendent to the Universe ... and only the God of the Bible 'fits the bill'.
The Materialist alternative of 'nothing blowing up to produce everything' has no logic to it at all.:)

Bollox. I reckon it is infinitely more likely multivax did it:

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

I love this creation story. Any excuse to post it.

MrP

scuba8

J C wrote: »

The light 'inflated' instantly as well and thus it is actually less than 10,000 years 'old'.

This does not make any scense. The light from galaxy NGC 3370 took 100 million light years to reach earth. We know this from the red shift of the light. It did not leave the galaxy 10,000 years ago. In your scenario all light left every where 10,000 years ago. With your instant inflation ,,all light from every where could only have a red shift of 10,000 years as that is all it has been in existance. This is just not true. Regardless of how far away Stars and Galaxys are they all have different red shifts which means that the light has been travelling from them for different periods of time.

Pelican Nebula, 2,000 light years away,
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111126.html

The Wizard Nebula, 8,000 light years away.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111102.html