"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky

J C, you are making yourself look very stupid. Again.

cfsi is not a valid argument. The evidence for this is a peer reviewed paper which we have been showing you for many months.

So far your only response has been to claim it is incorrect, when you aren't avoiding it entirely. At no point have you ever elaborated on WHY you think it is incorrect.

I know this is difficult for you, seeing as in all your time on Boards.ie you have shown that you don't seem to know how even basic science and mathematics work, but you're going to have to do more than wave your hand dismissively and refuse to elaborate.

We have shown you evidence that what you say about cfsi is just not true. You need to show how this evidence is wrong, or you must admit that your arguments about cfsi have no merit. These are the only two options available to you.

The more you avoid choosing, the bigger an idiot you make yourself out to be.

Either choice is fine. Please choose soon though. As I said many times before, we are quite tired of your feeble attempts at misdirection.

What will it be? Will you finally engage the rest of us like a grown-up, or will you lie, run away and dodge questions like you have been doing since you got here?

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

... and I'm still waiting for you to bunk it!!!:)

People have been asking for weeks now for you to debunk the paper, but you haven't.

So please, you first, or do you intend to keep dancing around this?

The Mad Hatter

Sonics2k wrote: »

People have been asking for weeks now for you to debunk the paper, but you haven't.

*months.

Sarky

I'm pretty sure I got the link to that paper from a post in this very thread, from over a year ago.

You'd think that J C would have been able to at least make a start in debunking it, after all this time. If I didn't think he was lying about having scientific qualifications, or about having read any of the evidence we've given him, or about understanding any of the arguments that have so thoroughly destroyed the copy/paste rubbish he keeps posting years before he even mentioned them here, I would be kind of disappointed.

dlofnep

I see J C still hasn't provided a dating methodology to verify his claims of it (the earth & life) being 10,000 years old.

Sarky

Odd, that. It's almost like he has nothing but shoddy rhetoric to go with his ridiculous claims.

dead one

J C wrote: »

... and Santa Claus is coming to you!!!!:)

Thong of Generosity was given to Santa Claus. Santa Claus is corrupted by the [Thong of Generosity] and its upto death spank -- He is coming for Santa Claus

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Odd, that. It's almost like he has nothing but shoddy rhetoric to go with his ridiculous claims.

... says the guy who believes that the very complex, tightly specific and highly functional genetic information found in the DNA of all living organisms ... was a cosmic accident ... that was the result of selected mistakes ... any one of which could kill you!!!

J C

dead one wrote: »

Thong of Generosity was given to Santa Claus. Santa Claus is corrupted by the [Thong of Generosity] and its upto death spank -- He is coming for Santa Claus

... there probably is a subliminal in there somewhere, trying to get out!!!!:)
... but then an old man (who has a name that is an anagram of Satan) who breaks into houses and crawls secretly into children's bedrooms to give them lavish presents, for no apparent reason ... is so full of subliminals ... that the 'thong of generosity' seems to be particularly appropriate in a weird kind of way!!!

Delirium

but you still can't debunk the paper. People have provided a wealth of scientific evidence for evolution, as well as plenty of information why the creation myth has no basis in science.

If you had the data to back up your wild claims, you'd have debunked the paper months ago instead of vanishing anytime a link to it is provided.

dead one

koth wrote: »

but you still can't debunk the paper. People have provided a wealth of scientific evidence for evolution, as well as plenty of information why the creation myth has no basis in science.

If you had the data to back up your wild claims, you'd have debunked the paper months ago instead of vanishing anytime a link to it is provided.

Dembski is human and to error is to human, He could be right and He could be wrong -- What his paper has got to do with JC -- I think it is poor argument to ask JC to answer someone else's claims --

dead one

J C wrote: »

... there probably is a subliminal in there somewhere, trying to get out!!!!:)
... but then an old man (who has a name that is an anagram of Satan) who breaks into houses and crawls secretly into children's bedrooms to give them lavish presents, for no apparent reason ... is so full of subliminals ... that the 'thong of generosity' seems to be particularly appropriate in a weird kind of way!!!

JC it is game, I am talking about game, I hope you wouldn't mind it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV2zdMyL8f4

Of all the thongs, one thong of generosity -- It was given to santa

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

Dembski is human and to error is to human, He could be right and He could be wrong -- What his paper has got to do with JC -- I think it is poor argument to ask JC to answer someone else's claims --

No it's not, otherwise how would anyone discuss science (or any other subject for that matter)?

JC makes claims based on documents that Dembinski produced, why shouldn't JC have to discuss any links/articles he provides.

dead one

JC, why don't you answer paper, Is there anything wrong--- please clear me
i want to hear something from you

robindch

dead one wrote: »

JC, why don't you answer paper, Is there anything wrong

There's no response to that paper. That's JC has failed to produce one.

housetypeb

dead one wrote: »

JC, why don't you answer paper, Is there anything wrong--- please clear me
i want to hear something from you

Et tu, Brute?

Sarky

dead one wrote: »

Dembski is human and to error is to human, He could be right and He could be wrong -- What his paper has got to do with JC -- I think it is poor argument to ask JC to answer someone else's claims --

Dembski is wrong. There are no two ways about it. The paper J C keeps trying to avoid shows this very clearly. It points to many flaws in Dembski's claims, including the fact that he hasn't even defined cfsi and uses it in several contradictory ways. It also examined the mathematics he uses to try and proove his badly defined concepts, and shows indisputably that Dembski's mathematics are fatally flawed and without merit. It even provides advice in the form of challenges as to how Dembski could make his claims hold up to peer review. None of which creationist have managed so far.

But J C keeps claiming cfsi as proof of intelligent design. We have shown him very strong evidence that this simply isn't true. He can claim the universe was created by god all he likes, but it is obvious to anyone who reads the paper that if god WAS behind it all, he certainly didn't use cfsi. If he can find something else that could be seen as evidence for intelligent design, he is welcome to post it up for scrutiny, and if no flaw can be found in it, we can seriously consider his intelligent design claims. But if he continues to talk about cfsi, nobody will listen, because it has been clearly shown to be rubbish.

At this point J C must either admit that cfsi is stupid and refrain from using it as an argument, or he must show that the mathematics used in that paper are flawed. So far, he has done neither, and makes himself look more foolish every time he avoids the choice he has to make. He will claim he has debunked the paper, but that is a lie. The closest he has come so far is to say he disagrees. At no point has he explained WHY he disagrees. At no point has he shown how the paper debunking cfsi is incorrect.

This is why we will keep asking him to either back up his claims, or admit that his claims are flawed. He claims to be a scientist and to have great knowledge of what he's talking about, so if the paper is flawed he should easily be able to debunk it. And yet he finds it easier to hide from it and keep lying about it.

All we want is a little honesty from him for a change. I'm admittedly surprised, but quite delighted to see you asking the same from him.

J C

koth wrote: »

but you still can't debunk the paper. People have provided a wealth of scientific evidence for evolution, as well as plenty of information why the creation myth has no basis in science.

... or so you say ... without ever providing any of this supposed "wealth of scientific evidence for evolution" ... or indeed any of the supposed information why Creation has no basis in science.
I continue to provide devastating examples of why Creation occurred and why Spontaneous Evolution didn't!!!

koth wrote: »

If you had the data to back up your wild claims, you'd have debunked the paper months ago instead of vanishing anytime a link to it is provided.

What 'wild claims' are you talking about?

Delirium

actually I've posted many articles and links providing the proof for evolution.

but you prefer to wrap yourself in the comfort of the bible rather than explore science.

J C

dead one wrote: »

JC, why don't you answer paper, Is there anything wrong--- please clear me
i want to hear something from you

The paper that the Evolutionists want me to 'debunk' is their cited paper ... and protocol demands that they stand up their cited paper ... and its not up to me to waste my time debunking it.
If it remotely lives up to their claims, that it provides the evidence to invalidate CFSI, they should be shouting this information from the rooftops (like I do with my evidence against Evolution and in favour of Creation).
Instead they keep nagging me to debunk their paper ... rather than positively presenting any evidence that it is supposed to contain in favour of their position.

Also, last time I started debunking the paper they posted several tangents to raise a 'smokescreen' around the paper.

I have already committed to anwering any postings on specific claims in the paper ... and I'll now stretch a point and commit to debunking the paper, paragraph by paragraph, if the Evolutionists nominate one poster to respond to my postings ... and stick to postings on the paper until we have reviewed the entire paper.

Sonics2k

Burden of Proof JC.

You've made a claim that the paper is invalid, and now you need to prove it.
We've shown our evidence proving evolution, and we have also debunked the creationist theory.

As an good scientist, lawyer or debater knows, you now have to prove us wrong.

Until you can do so, you may as well stop posting here and wasting everyone's time.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

What 'wild claims' are you talking about?

That the earth and life is 10,000 years old for a start. I'm still waiting on you to provide a dating methodology to verify your claims. You've repeatedly ignored it, because you simply can't justify your wild claims.

Sarky

The entire paper needs debunking if you want to have any credibility, J C. The fact that you'll take any opportunity to seize a tangent does not change the fact that you've been running away from debunking it.

In case you've forgotten how science works (which seems to happen regularly, for some crazy reason.):

We have provided evidence that your claims about cfsi are false in the form of a scientific paper. You need to prove that this evidence is incorrect IN ITS ENTIRETY, or you need to admit that your claims are false and find some other argument in favour of intelligent design. That's how it works. No amount of avoidng the issue, no amount of childish insults or ad hominems, NOTHING besides choosing between backing up your claims that the paper is flawed or admitting your argument is flawed will do.

It's not a big paper. You continually say that you're a pretty good scientist, and that your'e particularly good at the subject on which you're expounding. Debunking this paper in one post should be a doddle, if it is possible to do so.

Why then have you avoided doing so for months? Are you unwilling? Unable? Scared?

Regardless of the reason, your inaction just makes you look stupid. If you want to be taken at all seriously, you need to fully debunk that paper. If you're ok with being labelled a clueless moron with no interest in debating and learning like an adult, then just say so, it will make everything much easier for everyone involved.

But until you do that or act like a real grown-up and engage in real debate, you have no right whatsoever to complain about people suspecting you of being a lying, fraudulent intellectual coward. Because until you do that, that's EXACTLY what you are.

If that offends you, you can easily prove me wrong by debunking, in its entirety, the paper you dismissed in its entirety without a word ad to why you did so. Like I stated several times before, there's a full, unreservedly apology waiting for you if you do. I'll also convert instantly to your religion. You could save a soul, here. Think of how proud Jesus would be if you converted an unbeliever.

All you have to do is debunk one tiny little scientific paper. The holy spirit is allegedly on your side. How can this be taking you so long? You're awfully quick to get whatever little (and incredibly poorly-phrased, I might add, as a professional troll) dig you can in about evolution, but you always take forever to produce hard data. Why dies the holy spirit only have insults and rhetoric? Did it never go to college? Was it out having a poo while the other two thirds of god was getting some science done?

Come on, J C. Make your choice. Either prove us wrong, admit you have no argument, or make yourself look even more uselessly, cretinously moronic by avoiding the first two choices.

dead one

J C wrote: »

I have already committed to anwering any postings on specific claims in the paper ... and I'll now stretch a point and commit to debunking the paper, paragraph by paragraph, if the Evolutionists nominate one poster to respond to my postings ... and stick to postings on the paper until we have reviewed the entire paper.

JC wants Evolutionists to nominate one poster to respond his postings .....and stick to postings on the paper until youhave reviewed the entire paper, Any evolutionist would like to respond -- It seems, here, i am acting as the "arbitrator"

---

It's not personal, It's strictly business...

Sarky wrote: »

Dembski is wrong. There are no two ways about it. The paper J C keeps trying to avoid shows this very clearly. It points to many flaws in Dembski's claims, including the fact that he hasn't even defined cfsi and uses it in several contradictory ways. It also examined the mathematics he uses to try and proove his badly defined concepts, and shows indisputably that Dembski's mathematics are fatally flawed and without merit. It even provides advice in the form of challenges as to how Dembski could make his claims hold up to peer review. None of which creationist have managed so far.

We human could be wrong as our knowledge is based on assumptions and theories -- These assumptions are created by others human to whom we prefer to follow -- Sometime, we blindly follow these human --- Mistakes lie with in our-selves as we don't recognize ourselves but keep recognizing others. Heart is source of main corruption in the world, Corrupt hearts produce corrupt desires -- Corrupt hearts bring corruption in human ego -- So we should purify ourselves first -- We should see a light of lamp in ourselves . If JC don't want to answer your paper then there is no need to mention it again and again -- This would hurt JC -- Don't break other people's heart, why am i saying this because this is humanity, we are human, we should respect other people's faith, We should respect other people's faith even if we know what they believe isn't true-- We should respect other's feeling, you need not to call JC liar, he knows what is he in his innerself, If he isn't honest himself then he is damaging his own existence, He is bringing harm to himself -- You need not to call JC as fraud -- I am human, i seek no sides in matter of truth --- Before judging other we must judge ourselves --
I give you example, Suppose person "A" believes that ''p'' is truth but, on the other hand, he doesn't know "p" isn't truth -- Person "A" starts telling other people what he believes is truth, people call him liar, fraud -- -- In above example, "A" isn't liar or faud -- People are liars as they don't know the truth and truth lies in hearts, even if "A" knows he is liar then you need not to point him again and again, for this purpose God has created conscience in every soul -- Conscience and heart are enough to point him again --

Sarky wrote: »

At this point J C must either admit that cfsi is stupid and refrain from using it as an argument, or he must show that the mathematics used in that paper are flawed. So far, he has done neither, and makes himself look more foolish every time he avoids the choice he has to make. He will claim he has debunked the paper, but that is a lie. The closest he has come so far is to say he disagrees. At no point has he explained WHY he disagrees. At no point has he shown how the paper debunking cfsi is incorrect.

See, it very hard to change religion of a person, JC couldn't change yours-- You couldn't his religion -- JC believes, he is true, you believe, you are true -- If cfsi is stupid and JC couldn't bring argument then JC's heart and conscience are enough to damn him again and again -- You need not to judge him again and again like he is liar, fraud etc -- also pay consideration what JC said, above

J C wrote: »

I have already committed to anwering any postings on specific claims in the paper ... and I'll now stretch a point and commit to debunking the paper, paragraph by paragraph, if the Evolutionists nominate one poster to respond to my postings ... and stick to postings on the paper until we have reviewed the entire paper.

Sarky wrote: »

This is why we will keep asking him to either back up his claims, or admit that his claims are flawed. He claims to be a scientist and to have great knowledge of what he's talking about, so if the paper is flawed he should easily be able to debunk it. And yet he finds it easier to hide from it and keep lying about it.

You know in your heart, he is wrong, He knows in his heart if he is wrong -- see, if you keep asking him again and again, you wouldn't be able to change him --

Sarky wrote: »

All we want is a little honesty from him for a change. I'm admittedly surprised, but quite delighted to see you asking the same from him.

i had asked JC, because i wanted JC to speak for himself. I don't want to see JC in other people's words -- He is what, he is, you are what you are -- I can't see you in words of JC, similarly JC can't be seen in your words, I am sure after this JC would respond your Paper with condition

Originally Posted by J C
I have already committed to anwering any postings on specific claims in the paper ... and I'll now stretch a point and commit to debunking the paper, paragraph by paragraph, if the Evolutionists nominate one poster to respond to my postings ... and stick to postings on the paper until we have reviewed the entire paper.

dead one

housetypeb wrote: »

Et tu, Brute?

It's not personal, It's strictly business..

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

I'll now stretch a point and commit to debunking the paper, paragraph by paragraph, if the Evolutionists nominate one poster to respond to my postings ... and stick to postings on the paper until we have reviewed the entire paper.

"Paragraph by paragraph?" So you can resort to your usual dishonesty, out-of-context quotes, willful misinterpretation, cherry picking and self-contradiction, right?

Mr. Boo

I've only just now noticed the similarities in posting between JC and deadone....maybe it's just my imagination----but it all looks like one big troll now.

sephir0th

Creationism is one giant troll.

dlofnep

J C - I'm still waiting for your methodology you use to date the Earth to 10,000 years. If you do not respond to this post, the conclusion will be that you don't actually have a dating methodology and you accept that your argument is completely and utterly a load of bollocks.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

J C - I'm still waiting for your methodology you use to date the Earth to 10,000 years. If you do not respond to this post, the conclusion will be that you don't actually have a dating methodology and you accept that your argument is completely and utterly a load of bollocks.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/

Enjoy!!!:)