"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

What 'rebuttal'?
I have made my case ... and you have made yours ... and I'll let the observers judge the merits of each case.

No - you copy and pasted nonsense from Answers in Genesis to attempt to validate your claim of a young earth. I refuted those points.

If you are content with not responding, and are content with the case you have presented, then it doesn't bode well for your argument. I think the observers will indeed judge the merits of each case, and see that yours lacks any merit whatsoever.

dead one

at the end of day -- We all have to meet our ends whether it is evolution or creation

"We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us-if at all-not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.

dlofnep

dead one wrote: »

at the end of day -- We all have to meet our ends whether it is evolution or creation

Neither have anything to do with death

dead one

dlofnep wrote: »

Neither have anything to do with death

It has to do --
" In death's dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer-

Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom

looseliver

Has JC just bowed out of the argument?

Sarky

He never bowed IN. All he ever did was ignore evidence and counter arguments and claim victory regardless of what was actually happening in reality.

I like the bit where he says he won a bet though. God doesn't approve of gambling, from what I remember.

Simtech

J C wrote: »

What 'rebuttal'?
I have made my case ... and you have made yours ... and I'll let the observers judge the merits of each case.

I have been observing. Your case has no merit.

dead one

Sarky wrote: »

He never bowed IN. All he ever did was ignore evidence and counter arguments and claim victory regardless of what was actually happening in reality.
I like the bit where he says he won a bet though. God doesn't approve of gambling, from what I remember.

Simtech wrote: »

I have been observing. Your case has no merit.

My killer is also my judge......how can he give a verdict in my favor

dead one

robindch wrote: »

The next time on this forum that you make the deceitful claim that you are being censored -- when in fact, you are the one poster for whose benefit normal forum rules have been suspended -- you will be banned for a week. If, at any point following a future return, you repeat the same deceitful claim, you will be banned permanently from A+A.

Robin, strength of foram is measured by its opposition........ If you start threatening people like this way, then, one day, you will loose all opposition... JC as far as i know is good person, and i know your post has broken his heart ... that's why he has left the foram ... Can you imagine, a person, who is living with you for 6 years, has abandoned your foram in such a way...... You are so attached to this material foram that this attachment makes you to break other people's hearts.--- this attachment is leading you to destroy your own foram.... Hearts which controls all emotions... It is heart which makes you to attach this material foram and inspires you to break other human's heart...... Love is my religion...... I have no Heart...Simply it means, there is no one who could break my heart......so my mission is to support broken hearts.... Don't get me wrong, I would support JC even if he was atheist/agnostic/ or Jew or Hindu ....... on the other hand,you support people on base of creed.... I see you're taking views of JC as personal, as you are threatening him.... There is nothing personal in this strictly business... A moderator should be free of bias before making his decisions .... It would be better if you had PM JC rather openly discussing such matters in Public......... Let us discuss the claim JC which inspires you to break his heart... Let him discuss whatever he wants... this is called freedom of speech.... Are his claim damaging your foram... In simple words, JC's claims have got no value as majority of people here don't support JC.... So why are you taking his claims so personal... it means there is something suspicious... why are you taking his claims so personal

J C wrote: »

I have presented the truth that God exists, created you ... and will one day sit in Judgement on you, if you continue to choose His justice over His loving forgiveness and Salvation.
I wish you all the very best in this life ... and in the next ...
... and now I must be about my Father's business ... elsewhere.
May the peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you all.:)
.

JC, you're good person, i have never seen you attacking someone or breaking someone's heart.... That is thing which makes you above all the poster here..... in my views, all the posters, with their huge material knowledge, are useless.. A knowledge which inspires them to break other people's heart is nothing but a bag loaded with dirt
BTW:

J C wrote: »

... and now I must be about my Father's business ... elsewhere.

I don't get your point, are you taking about material father's business or spiritual father's business i.e father in bible....

Mr. Boo

Again, look at the idiosyncratic posting style.

I'm glad, and upset that this pseudodebate is over.

Sarky

It would have been nice to get one honest post out of him before he ran off.

Oh well. I propose that we now turn on each other like a pack of rabid dogs. Mr. Boo, I find your views comical and lacking in evidence!

Genghiz Cohen

Sarky wrote: »

Oh well. I propose that we now turn on each other like a pack of rabid dogs. Mr. Boo, I find your views comical and lacking in evidence!

Sarky, your posting style is arrogant and smells of cheap wine!
Your avatar is also too small.

pH

Sarky wrote: »

It would have been nice to get one honest post out of him before he ran off.

Oh well. I propose that we now turn on each other like a pack of rabid dogs. Mr. Boo, I find your views comical and lacking in evidence!

Well as long as we're all in agreement as to who's ultimately to blame for J C! May I draw everyone's attention to the following evidence from 2005.

Danno wrote:

Dear Mods and fellow Boards Members.

I wish to open this thread to discuss the Bible and Creationism, and to hear peoples opinions on what can be viewed as the most fundamental part of the origins of man, and also to tease out what prophecy has to offer in where we came from and where we are going.

Dades wrote:

I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

J C wrote:

This is your LUCKY DAY!!!

I'm amazed that you haven’t met at least one Creation Scientist (on or offline) – there are many out there!!!!

Michael Behe certainly isn’t one – BUT I AM!!!

Dades

pH wrote: »

Well as long as we're all in agreement as to who's ultimately to blame for J C! May I draw everyone's attention to the following evidence from 2005.

Dades wrote:

I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

Ah, yes. I still remember the day I posted that remark.

The day the music died.

swampgas

I suspect JC had to bow out because he had worn out the '!' key on his keyboard.

Mr. Boo

Sarky wrote: »

It would have been nice to get one honest post out of him before he ran off.

Oh well. I propose that we now turn on each other like a pack of rabid dogs. Mr. Boo, I find your views comical and lacking in evidence!

Job 8:21 "He will yet fill your mouth with laughter, and your lips with shouting."

So I think you will find that it is you, sarky who are comical and lacking in evidence. :pac:

Sarky

Oh. Well... That's actually pretty reasonable.

This being wrong lark is hard, how did J C do it all the time?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

So you're going to run even further from that paper?

No ... I just don't wish to continue posting on a forum where I can get banned for 'soapboxing' ... when I am doing no more 'soapboxing' whatever way you define the term, than anybody else on the forum!!!!

I understand, and fully accept, the rules of 'parliamentary behaviour' ... but I don't accept that it is practical or reasonable to ban somebody for 'soapboxing' ... when most threads on most fora are one 'gynormous' soapbox ... for everybody involved ... and indeed, filibustering (which is an 'uber' form of soapboxing) is a time-honoured parliamentary tradition ... although I have never (and would never) engage in filibustering on any thread myself !!!!

I may not 'take any prisoners' when I have debated on other A & A threads ... but that is surely no reason to ban me from them.

Ironically, I am happy, in the cause of peace between myself and ye guys, to voluntarily confine myself to this thread, in general ... but I don't want to feel that I risk a ban, if I want to make a comment that 'so needs to be made' on some other thread on your forum!!!
I am genuinely disappointed ... that Atheists seem to believe that their worldview is so vulnerable to reasoned criticism, that ye guys want to confine me to this thread ... rather than debate an issue, whatever it may be, with me in a courteous manner, on other threads.
I can accept your sensitivities on this vulnerability ... because it is real ... and I'll try to 'pull my punches' and be more sensitive to your fellings of vulnerability, in future ... but what I am having difficulties with ... is that I could apparently be banned off the boards for pointing out these vulnerabilities in a courteous and truthful manner.

... and while we are talking about 'un-parliamentary' behaviour, I am also fed up with the continuous and un-relenting 'Ad Hominist' remarks that are made about me ... just because ye guys have no answers to my debating points ... ye attack the man ... and not the ball ... which is illegal in all contact sports ... and debate situations.:)

... with love and best wishes to you all.:)

robindch

J C wrote: »

I just don't wish to continue posting on a forum where I can get banned for 'soapboxing'

To quote the first three sentences of [url=]this post[/url]:

robindch wrote:

I have pointed out to you innumerable times that you are not banned. On the contrary, you're explicitly allowed to continue posting here, in violation of the forum's "no soapboxing" rule, because your continual soapboxing is actually doing the cause of atheism a minor favour.

J C wrote: »

Atheists seem to believe that their worldview is so vulnerable to reasoned criticism, that ye guys want to confine me to this thread

Yet again, JC, you are confined to this thread because of your juvenile posting style. If you choose to post as a mature adult -- for example, by making an attempt to debut the paper that people have been asking you for months to do, or on any other topic you wish to post in a clear and concise manner that makes a positive contribution to the debate -- then as I said above, you can post anywhere you like in this forum:

robindch wrote:

If you learn how to post while adhering to the forum's straightforward rules (one or two of you posts elsewhere in this forum over the last week or so were fine, and for which I applaud you) then you can post wherever you like within A+A, upon whatever topic you like. Nevertheless, so long as you continue to soapbox, you will be required to stay here. If you do not, the forum moderators reserve the right to move to this thread, any posts you make elsewhere.

J C wrote: »

I could apparently be banned off the boards for pointing out these vulnerabilities in a courteous and truthful manner.

You are being threatened with a ban because you are claiming that you are being censored, when in fact, the normal rules of the forum have been suspended so as to to allow you to continue to post here. It is completely dishonest of you to claim censorship and frankly, I've no interest in providing you with a platform to do so. If you want to traduce this forum, you can do it somewhere else.

J C wrote: »

I am also fed up with the continuous and un-relenting 'Ad Hominist' remarks that are made about me

Again, if you feel a post is directly insulting towards you personally, then please report the post and one or other of the forum moderators will take whatever action is deemed necessary, up to and including a forum ban.

J C

robindch wrote: »

To quote the first three sentences of [url=]this post[/url]:Yet again, JC, you are confined to this thread because of your juvenile posting style.

... I'm beating the debating pants off you guys ... in civil and polite debate ... and if that is 'juvenile' ... then 'juvenile' is the way to go!!!

robindch wrote: »

If you choose to post as a mature adult

... here is yet another example of the unfounded ad hominem remarks directed at me , that wouldn't be tolerated in any parliamentary forum, worthy of the name ... and yet it is tolerated and facilitated on this thread!!:eek:

robindch wrote: »

-- for example, by making an attempt to debut the paper that people have been asking you for months to do,

... this is the subject of a clear procedural issue ... whether somebody should defend their own cited paper i.e. the evolutionists should prosecute their case in relation to their own cited paper ... or whether I am under an obligation to 'debunk' it.
I don't think that the normal rules of debate oblige me to do so ... but they do oblige the Evolutionists citing this paper to prosecute whatever case they believe it makes for their cause!!!
... the many ad hominem attacks on me for pointing out these debating realities only adds insult to injury on this issue, (and gravely weakens the Evolutionist case by your continued refual to prosecute your own case, in relation to your own cited paper) as far as I (and any objective observer) is concerned.

robindch wrote: »

-- or on any other topic you wish to post in a clear and concise manner that makes a positive contribution to the debate --

... and what happens, if you deem me to have made a 'negative contribution' to a thread ... because you disagree with what I have said ?

What you seem to be saying is that this forum should be some kind of a 'mutual admiration society' for Atheists ... with a ban held in reserve, for anybody with the temerity to 'burst your bubble' ... by not making a 'positive contribution' to this pleasant state of affairs!!!!

... almost any contribution, on any thread, could be arbitrarily deemed to breach a rule requiring contributions to be 'clear, concise and make a positive contribution' ... and that is a very good reason why such a rule doesn't exist ... so why are you applying it to me ... with the threat of a ban, if you think I'm not complying?

robindch wrote: »

-- then as I said above, you can post anywhere you like in this forum:You are being threatened with a ban because you are claiming that you are being censored, when in fact, the normal rules of the forum have been suspended so as to to allow you to continue to post here.

... I don't want any 'special treatment' on this forum ... nor do I think that the 'normal rules of the forum' should be suspended to allow me to post here.
I have good reason to believe that, because of the levels of antagonism shown to me (and what I stand for), by practically everybody on this forum ... that any breach by me of even the most minute rule, would be cited against me. I would think, for example, if I called any other poster a liar (which I am routinely and unfoundedly called) I would be called to account in double quick time!!!

robindch wrote: »

-- it is completely dishonest of you to claim censorship and frankly, I've no interest in providing you with a platform to do so.

... unless the word 'censorship' has lost all objective meaning, it is an objective fact that I am indeed 'censored' from expressing my views on this forum by being under house arrest on this thread ... with any contribution by me to other threads being subject to some kind of all encompassing 'impramatur' requirement (that they must be clear, concise and 'positive' as well as not 'soapboxing') :eek:

robindch wrote: »

-- If you want to traduce this forum, you can do it somewhere else.Again, if you feel a post is directly insulting towards you personally, then please report the post and one or other of the forum moderators will take whatever action is deemed necessary, up to and including a forum ban.

Your use of the word 'traduce' implies that I am dishonestly making my points ... when I am not ... and what you are talking about is a difference of opinion (which is to be expected in an exchange of views between an Atheist and a Christian on fundamental issues of their respective faiths).

I have no wish to upset your forum ... I accept that some threads allow you guys to have 'in-house' jokes amongst yourselves ... and discussions about other religions and I am prepared to respect this, by not interrupting your pleasure from this activity.
I also have no wish to have myself, or anybody else, banned ... and the ad hominem stuff that is directed against me is so blatant (and routine), that it is known to everybody ... and it has lost most of its currency ... and there is therefore no point in reporting it.

I want to have an open positive debate with you guys ... and banning anybody (or engaging in Ad Hominem remarks) doesn't facilitate this.

J C

swampgas wrote: »

I suspect JC had to bow out because he had worn out the '!' key on his keyboard.

I got a new keyboard!!!!:):eek:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Dades
I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

Dades wrote: »

Ah, yes. I still remember the day I posted that remark.

Don't feel too bad about it ... to err is human!!!:)

Dades wrote: »

The day the music died.

I don't think so!!!
... That was the day that JFK was shot !!!!:eek:

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

I'm glad, and upset that this pseudodebate is over.

The thing is bitter-sweet for me as well !!!:)

J C

J C wrote:

This has been a fascinating exercise in sociology ... and, in the process, I have won a bet, that Atheists will behave in exactly the same way as all religious persons do, when their core beliefs are challenged.

Sarky wrote: »

I like the bit where he says he won a bet though. God doesn't approve of gambling, from what I remember.

I don't think that God minds ... many things in life are a gamble!!

In any event, my bet wasn't a gamble ... it was a certainty ... Human Nature being what it is!!!!:)

John Charles McQuaid would empathise with ye!!!!:eek::D

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... I'm beating the debating pants off you guys ... in civil and polite debate ... and if that is 'juvenile' ... then 'juvenile' is the way to go!!!

What's the debate? Because you surely aren't beating anyone on the topic at hand in this thread - as you've avoided a mountain of points which have destroyed your argument.

sephir0th

Here is a summary of the debate:

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

J C

Here are some cartoons







... and here is a real debate on Spontaneous Evolution

Enjoy!!!

J C

dr.bollocko

That must have taken literally 25 seconds of googling.

"Ratings have been disabled for this video."

Indeed.

J C

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That must have taken literally 25 seconds of googling.

... 24 seconds actually!!!!:)