"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

dr.bollocko wrote: »

That must have taken literally 25 seconds of googling.

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

dr.bollocko wrote: »

"Ratings have been disabled for this video."

Indeed.

Sorted

Have a look at 7.10 onwards ... Dr Ward sets a test that would, according to himself, completely falsify Evolutionary Biology, as currently understood.
... and what would this be ?
... the discovery of a fossilised Human head in a Dinosaur jaw!!!
... I have bad news for Dr Ward ... I recently saw a man (he may even have been an evolutionst) ... put his head into the jaws of a live Crocodile ... whose fossils are found alongside the fossils of dinosaurs ... so I guess that falsifies Evolutionary Biology then!!!!

He has a second test ... seeing a monkey sitting amongst Devonian Brachiopods ... it is entrirely possible for a living monkey to dine on living mussels (that are Devonian Brachiopod 'living fossils')!!!
... so I guess that falsified Evolutionary Biology again!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiopod

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Have a look at 7.10 onwards ... Dr Ward sets a test that would, according to himself, completely falsify Evolutionary Biology, as currently understood.
... and what would this be ?
... the discovery of a fossilised Human head in a Dinosaur jaw!!!
... I have bad news for Dr Ward ... I recently saw a man (he may even have been an evolutionst) ... put his head into the jaws of a live Crocodile ... whose fossils are found alongside the fossils of dinosaurs ... so I guess that falsifies Evolutionary Biology then!!!!

that's really bottom of the barrel stuff, JC.

You saw a man put his head into the mouth of a crocodile and you consider that to be the same as if a fossilised human head was found in a dinosaur jaw, thus you state that this disproves evolution.

Your conclusion doesn't prove the premise, and anyone who grasps the basics of scientific reasoning would understand that.

Sonics2k

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

I honestly stopped responding to JC because his writing style is so annoying, disjointed and childish.

I honestly have a hard time believing this is a reasonable adult responding to us, simply based on his illogical and flawed arguments, and absolute disregard of basic grammar and punctuation. That and the fact he seems to believe the Evolutionists claim humans "spontaneously" hopped out of slime pond instead of evolving over thousands of years.

J C

koth wrote: »

that's really bottom of the barrel stuff, JC.

You saw a man put his head into the mouth of a crocodile and you consider that to be the same as if a fossilised human head was found in a dinosaur jaw, thus you state that this disproves evolution.

Your conclusion doesn't prove the premise, and anyone who grasps the basics of scientific reasoning would understand that.

The Croc is the equivalent of a dinosaur ... as they both have the same Evolutionst 'age'.
What it proves is that the only difference between Dinosaurs and Crocodiles is that the former are extinct ... and the latter aren't.
The age of their fossils are identical ... and very recent indeed ... as proven by the connective tissue that has been recovered from Dino fossils ... and the fact that living Crocs are identical to their millions of 'evolutionst years' old fossilised equivalents!!!

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

I honestly stopped responding to JC because his writing style is so annoying, disjointed and childish.

I honestly have a hard time believing this is a reasonable adult responding to us, simply based on his illogical and flawed arguments, and absolute disregard of basic grammar and punctuation. That and the fact he seems to believe the Evolutionists claim humans "spontaneously" hopped out of slime pond instead of evolving over thousands of years.

Plenty of Ad Hominem accusations ... but no examples of what you are talking about!!!

... and I happen to agree with you that Human 'evolution' has only occurred over thousands (and not the millions) of years, that your evolutionist colleagues claim!!!:)

You have the potential to become an excellent Creation Scientist ... and you're even starting to think like one!!!:D

... and no, I don't say that evolutionists claim that Humans 'hopped' out of slime ponds ... what I am saying is that the production of the extra CFSI in a in Human could never be spontaneously produced because the supposed mechanism for its production (mutagenesis) destroys CFSI .

Delirium

so where is the evidence of a fossilised human head in a dinosaurs jaw?

That's what you were trying to show as evidence against evolution, but somehow went off on a tangent about a man putting his head into a crocodiles mouth.

pH

J C wrote: »

Plenty of Ad Hominem accusations ... but no examples of what you are talking about!!!

Let's read what actually was said shall we?

I honestly have a hard time believing this is a reasonable adult responding to us, simply based on his illogical and flawed arguments, and absolute disregard of basic grammar and punctuation.

Now Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy that goes something like:

Person X is an idiot therefore the claim Y they made is false.
http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/adhomterm.htm

But what you (and many others who like to give the appearance of being smart and educated) fail to understand that the corollary of that statement is nothing to do with "ad hominem"

So to be clear:

A) Person X is an idiot therefore the claim Y they made is false.
This is a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem

Person X had made false claims: Y & Z therefore they're an idiot.
This is nothing to do with Ad Hominem, it's a perfectly reasonable logical deduction.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

You have the potential to become an excellent Creation Scientist!!!:D

Is that the field you work in? What's with all the post editing? I always forget to ask...

Now I'll probably be sorry I did.

Sarky

J C, didn't you say you were leaving? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you were lying. Just about everything else you've posted is untrue.

Perhaps now you're back, you could have a go at debunking that paper you've been running away from for several months? You see, like I've said before, the longer you avoid either debunking the paper or admitting that you are wrong, the more stupid you make yourself look.



I think this video sums up my feelings on the matter. It is very important to watch it to the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dys8KUnwGGg

I also predict that J C will leap upon it and say that this is what evolutionists are like. Maybe not immediately, but soon.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

The Croc is the equivalent of a dinosaur ... as they both have the same Evolutionst 'age'.
What it proves is that the only difference between Dinosaurs and Crocodiles is that the former are extinct ... and the latter aren't.
The age of their fossils are identical ... and very recent indeed ... as proven by the connective tissue that has been recovered from Dino fossils ... and the fact that living Crocs are identical to their millions of 'evolutionst years' old fossilised equivalents!!!

Before you try to start-up a new discussion, based on your own ignorance - Perhaps you'd care to address the rebuttals to your previous nonsense?

As for the crocodile - crocodiles have indeed evolved.. But they are successful in their environment, so the evolutionary changes have been small.

Originally, the predecessors to modern crocodiles would have been far more terrestrial than modern crocodiles - so they would have been less splayed in their stance. The snout of the crocodile is well documented through it's evolutionary history, and has changed over time.

Some adaptations we can see today. For example the Gharial's snout is longer and weaker than the Nile crocodile. The Nile crocodile is much more robust, and has far more pressure in it's bite.

Nile Crocodile:



Gharial:



The reason's for this are clear. The Gharial's diet consists of fish, and it's jaw is adapted best for catching fish. The Nile Crocodile catches far larger prey, and is more robust to ensure that it has the power to control it's prey.

These are evolutionary changes that we can see between modern crocodilia. Others include the ability to tolerate sea-water better between Crocodiles and Alligators, and the snout differences between them also.

And we certainly don't see the likes of Sarcosuchus around anymore, as the huge prey that they attacked are no longer around either.

You do yourself no favours, or your argument no favours when you consistently create an argument from personal incredulity.

J C

koth wrote: »

so where is the evidence of a fossilised human head in a dinosaurs jaw?

That's what you were trying to show as evidence against evolution, but somehow went off on a tangent about a man putting his head into a crocodiles mouth.

Crocodiles and Dinosaurs are found together in the fossil record of Flood Drowning ... but the Evolutionists 'date' them both as about 200 million Evolutionist 'years' old.
A Croc is the same Evolutionist 'age' as a Dinosaur ... so a man's head in a Crocodile's mouth is equivalent to a man's head in a Dinosaur's mouth.

.... and Dr Ward was most emphatic that such a thing completely falsifies Evolutionary Biology ... and I agree with him!!!!:)

Sarky

J C, you have enough to deal with debunking that paper you're still ignoring. You really don't need to post more things you don't actually understand. Your current levels of ignorance are already ridiculously high.

Paper. Debunk. Now.

J C

pH wrote: »

Let's read what actually was said shall we?

I honestly have a hard time believing this is a reasonable adult responding to us, simply based on his illogical and flawed arguments, and absolute disregard of basic grammar and punctuation.

Now Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy that goes something like:

Person X is an idiot therefore the claim Y they made is false.
http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/adhomterm.htm

But what you (and many others who like to give the appearance of being smart and educated) fail to understand that the corollary of that statement is nothing to do with "ad hominem"

So to be clear:

A) Person X is an idiot therefore the claim Y they made is false.
This is a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem

Person X had made false claims: Y & Z therefore they're an idiot.
This is nothing to do with Ad Hominem, it's a perfectly reasonable logical deduction.

You would first have to prove that the claims are false (and known to be false) to person X ... and if you don't do so ... it is you who is lying ... and your comments are Ad Hominem!!!

Basically, you must prove someone is a liar ... and if you do so ... you don't need to say they are.
On the other hand, merely saying someone is a liar doesn't prove that they are ... and is an Ad Hominem logical fallacy ... and an actionable libel if you publicly identify a person that you are baselessly accusing of lying.

... and could I also point out that expressing a difference of opinion on a matter isn't lying either.

... so go prove your case ... and stop the baseless Ad Hominem accusations!!!!

Sarky

We've shown time and again that you're incorrect on just about everything you've ever posted. You know this. You're lying.

Now quit whining and debunk that paper. You know. The one that proves that what you've said about cfsi is a load of bollocks.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

I think this video sums up my feelings on the matter. It is very important to watch it to the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dys8KUnwGGg

I also predict that J C will leap upon it and say that this is what evolutionists are like. Maybe not immediately, but soon.

Are you the little pink guy??:eek:

Sarky

Sarky wrote: »

I also predict that J C will leap upon it and say that this is what evolutionists are like. Maybe not immediately, but soon.

Like clockwork. Intellectually dishonest clockwork that runs from the simplest of questions, but clockwork nonetheless.

Perhaps you could stop with the crappy insults and get on with debunking that paper you've been hiding from?

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Before you try to start-up a new discussion, based on your own ignorance - Perhaps you'd care to address the rebuttals to your previous nonsense?

As for the crocodile - crocodiles have indeed evolved.. But they are successful in their environment, so the evolutionary changes have been small.

Originally, the predecessors to modern crocodiles would have been far more terrestrial than modern crocodiles - so they would have been less splayed in their stance. The snout of the crocodile is well documented through it's evolutionary history, and has changed over time.

Some adaptations we can see today. For example the Gharial's snout is longer and weaker than the Nile crocodile. The Nile crocodile is much more robust, and has far more pressure in it's bite.

Nile Crocodile:



Gharial:



The reason's for this are clear. The Gharial's diet consists of fish, and it's jaw is adapted best for catching fish. The Nile Crocodile catches far larger prey, and is more robust to ensure that it has the power to control it's prey.

These are evolutionary changes that we can see between modern crocodilia. Others include the ability to tolerate sea-water better between Crocodiles and Alligators, and the snout differences between them also.

And we certainly don't see the likes of Sarcosuchus around anymore, as the huge prey that they attacked are no longer around either.

You do yourself no favours, or your argument no favours when you consistently create an argument from personal incredulity.

The Nile Crocodile catches larger prey because it can do so ... because its Complex Functional Specific Phenome allows it to do so ... using its originally created CFSI.
Nobody is arguing that the Crocodiles Kind hasn't speciated and adapted to various environmental niches ... the argument is over the source of the genetic CFSI that has allowed them to do so.

You guys say it all came about by a long series of selected 'happy mistakes' ... and I say it was Intelligently Created.
There is no logical or mathematical basis for your claim ... whilst my claim is in line with all of the Laws of Science, so far discovered.

Sarky

You're using cfsi again. You know damn well it's a pile of crap, unless you can debunk that paper I keep mentioning. How much further do you think you can run from it?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Now quit whining and debunk that paper. You know. The one that proves that what you've said about cfsi is a load of bollocks.

Exactly where does it do this?

Ye guys are very 'long' on general claims ... and equally general allegations ...
... but very 'short' on any specific proofs or evidence to support your claims and allegations.

Sarky

Have you even read it yet? Or are you still lying about having read and/or understood evidence that others post?

It's a very simple paper. Stop being such a whiny liar and debunk it.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

It's a very simple paper. Stop being such a whiny liar and debunk it.

Please stop being a whiny liar yourself ... and present whatever case you are claiming that it makes.

Sarky

Do you think me presenting it will somehow make it less effective against your rubbish?

Come on J C, grow up.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Do you think me presenting it will somehow make it less effective against your rubbish?

Come on J C, grow up.

It will establish what exactly your claims are for the paper ... and we can take it from there.

Delirium

If you read the paper, JC, you'd know what the claims are.

Sarky

We've already done that. Pay attention.

Now, show us why the paper can't be relied upon as proof that cfsi is a stupid argument, used only by people who don't understand basic science/probability/information theory, and thus completely invalid in any debate about evolution.

Your continual dodging and laughably transparent attempts at changing the subject need to be put on hold. Debunk the paper. Go on, debunk even half of the points in there.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

You're using cfsi again.

... so which part of the term Genetic CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) do you not understand/accept?

1. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Complex?
This is surely self-evident, especially since the decocoding of the Human Genome ... which required millions of hours of Human .
effort ... and the assistance of a super computer ... and we are still discovering vast new arrays of hidden complexities within the decoded Genome.

2. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Functional?
This is also self-evident - genetic information codes for highly functional living organisms and their individual highly functional processses and features.

3. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Specified?
This again is also self-evident - the link between a particular codon and the production of a specific Amino Acid is absolute ... living systems and functional proteins rely on critical sequences of amino acids, where even one amino acid mssing or changed will result in the biomolecule being non-functional or with severely degraded functionality.

4. Do you have a problem with genetic information being described as Information?
This is what it surely is ... Genetic Information.

"Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. It seems amazing to me now that one great teacher made chemistry endlessly fascinating while I found biology totally boring."
(Gates, The Road Ahead, Penguin: London, Revised, 1996 p. 228) (emphasis mine).

All working computer programmes consist of Complex Functional Specified Information (CFSI) ... and Bill Gates (who is one of the World's leading experts on Digital Information and computer programming) has confirmed that DNA is like an Intelligently Designed Computer Programme ... only far more advanced than any software ever created.

We have already entered the 'Information Age' in Molecular Biology ... despite the refual of some Evolutionists to accept the existence of the obvious ... Genetic CFSI ... and its critical importance in our scientific understanding in all areas of Biomedical Science!!:)

... we have also seen the beginning of the end of boring (evolutionist) biology ... and its invalid dogmatic teachings!!!!:)

Thanks be to God ... and with a little help from Creation and ID Scientists!!!:)

Sarky

I have no problem with genetic information being any of those things, as defined by real scientists. I'm a microbiologist and bioinformatician, I think I can safely say I know a couple of things about genetic information. whereas you could have a degree in homeopathy you won off the back of a Kinder surprise for all we know, because you're too scared to tell us.

No, J C, what I take issue with is the way that you and your idols deliberately muddy the definitions to try and make a point with extremely shoddy science. You lie, you misrepresent, you pull every dirty trick in the book to present utter horseh*t as something plausible.

Of course, if you'd read the paper you told us you're committed to debunking, you might be aware of the problems anyone who managed to get through school would have with the rubbish you're trying to spread.

Any day now though, right? It's not like you haven't had months to prepare a detailed refutation... Oh, right. You haven't managed to challenge a single point from the paper because you're only playing at being a scientist but when push comes to shove you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Debunk the paper, J C. Or admit you can't. You have no other options.

Sonics2k

I got you this to help you dig that hole you're in JC.

Even us non-Christians like to help people out

J C

J C wrote:

... so which part of the term Genetic CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) do you not understand/accept?


Sarky
I have no problem with genetic information being any of those things, as defined by real scientists. .

Creation Scientists are all conventionally qualified scientists ... so we have the same scientific standing as yourself and you fellow evolutionsists.

Sarky wrote: »

I'm a microbiologist and bioinformatician, I think I can safely say I know a couple of things about genetic information. whereas you could have a degree in homeopathy you won off the back of a Kinder surprise for all we know, because you're too scared to tell us
No, J C, what I take issue with is the way that you and your idols deliberately muddy the definitions to try and make a point with extremely shoddy science. You lie, you misrepresent, you pull every dirty trick in the book to present utter horseh*t as something plausible.

... you are the guy admitting that you have no problem with the fact that Genetic CFSI exists ... and you then promptly deny that it exists!!!
Pull yourself together man!!
Alas all of the lying unfounded Ad Hominem attacks are being made by ye guys on me ... because ye have nothing positive to say in defense of your defunct neo-Darwinian Spontaneous Evolution Theory.

Sarky wrote: »

Of course, if you'd read the paper you told us you're committed to debunking, you might be aware of the problems anyone who managed to get through school would have with the rubbish you're trying to spread.

Any day now though, right? It's not like you haven't had months to prepare a detailed refutation... Oh, right. You haven't managed to challenge a single point from the paper because you're only playing at being a scientist but when push comes to shove you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Debunk the paper, J C. Or admit you can't. You have no other options.

There is no further need to debunk any paper ... you have just admitted that you have "no problem" with genetic information being Complex, Functional, Specified and Information ...
... and Creation Scientists also fulfil your other requirement ... that real scientists come up with this conclusion!!!:)

... and indeed, you are a resl scientist yourself ... and you have also concluded that Genetic CFSI exists!!!

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

I got you this to help you dig that hole you're in JC.



Even us non-Christians like to help people out

... we both can use the shovel to give Spontaneous Evolution a decent Burial ... its already dead ... and very badly decomposed !!!!:):eek::D