"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky

dead one wrote: »

"Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass"

All the single ladies [7x]

Now put your hands up!

[Verse 1:]
Up in the club, we just broke up
I'm doing my own lil' thing
You decided to dip and now you wanna trip
Cuz another brother noticed me
I'm up on him, He up on me
Don't pay him any attention
just cried my tears, gave you three good years
You can't be mad at me

[Chorus:]
Cuz if you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it
If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it
Don't be mad once you see that he want it
Cuz if you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it
Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!
Whoa! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!

Cuz if you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it
Don't be mad once you see that he want it
Cuz if you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it
Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!
Whoa! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!

[Verse 2:]
I got gloss on my lips, a man on my hips
hold me tighter than my Dereon jeans
acting up, drank in my cup
I could care less what you think
I need no permission, did I mention
Don't pay him attention
Cuz you had your turn
And now you gonna learn
What it really feels like to miss "B"

[Chorus]

[Verse 3:]
Don't treat me to these things of the world
I'm not that kinda girl
Your love is what I prefer, what I deserve
Here's a man that makes me then takes me
And delivers me to a destiny, to infinity and beyond
Pull me into your arms
Say I'm the one you want
If you don't, you'll be alone
And like a ghost I'll be gone

All the single ladies [7x]

Now put your hands up!

Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!
Whoa! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!
Whoa! Oh! Oh!
Cuz if you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it
Don't be mad once you see that he want it
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it

Whoa! Oh! Oh!
Cuz if you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it
Don't be mad once you see that he want it
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it
Whoa! Oh! Oh!

I'd say that's checkmate, dead one.

dead one

Sarky wrote: »

All the single ladies [7x]

Now put your hands up!

I'd say that's checkmate, dead one.

kind lady, i never put my hand upon ladies-- I never hit anyone in my whole life... I would prefer getting beaten up by a lady than to hit her kindness.... On the other hand, i would prefer to break 32 teeth of 100 men who try to disturb any lady around me.... You see, i seek no desires in matter of ladies... you've right to kill me but you've no right to judge me... Don't think you're exclusive, if i find any one disturbing you, then i know how to create pain in minds.. Minds full arrogance --full of desires-- full of pride--- Wasted mind with wasted imagination

sephir0th

J.C, can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?

Genghiz Cohen

dead one wrote: »

kind lady, i never put my hand upon ladies-- I never hit anyone in my whole life...

Unless, of course, it was your wife/daughter that wanted to get a job that would keep them from spending every moment in the house, or to date some guy who was not Muslim?
Didn't you say that that sort of thing was fine?

pH

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Unless, of course, it was your wife/daughter that wanted to get a job that would keep them from spending every moment in the house, or to date some guy who was not Muslim?
Didn't you say that that sort of thing was fine?

I may be mistaken, but I thought it was just his way of coming out!

kind lady, i never put my hand upon ladies--
Kinda obvious

I never hit anyone in my whole life...
Still talking about ladies ... presume he meant "hit on"

I would prefer getting beaten up by a lady than to hit her kindness....
I'm guessing "hit her kindness" is some euphemism, seems to be saying his interest in women is strictly limited to S&M.

On the other hand, i would prefer to break 32 teeth of 100 men who try to disturb any lady around me....
Who knows?

You see, i seek no desires in matter of ladies...
There we go!

you've right to kill me but you've no right to judge me...
Acceptance that under Islam death is the rightful punishment for being gay.

Don't think you're exclusive,
Obviously not only coming out as gay but also keeps multiple lovers.

if i find any one disturbing you, then i know how to create pain in minds.. Minds full arrogance --full of desires-- full of pride--- Wasted mind with wasted imagination

dead one

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Unless, of course, it was your wife/daughter that wanted to get a job that would keep them from spending every moment in the house, or to date some guy who was not Muslim?
Didn't you say that that sort of thing was fine?

Woman aren't for work -- It is very shameful that men like you rest in homes and women go out to feed your bellies... Bellies full of hunger, full of desires ---- What a shameful situation for your kind, I would like to provide all necessities of life to my wife at my own expenses... I would like to suffer for my wife rather to put her in suffering.... Like i always said, you're immune to understand what i am saying... you enjoy to make woman suffer.... Now let me clear, pure Muslim woman don't date with strange men.......

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

spending every moment in the house

Pure muslim women spend their time in house or any place at their will.... There is no compulsion in this business... But you have to answer me...

what makes your wife/daughter to get a job that would keep them from spending every moment with accompany of other strange men?
what are you doing in this whole business----eating pop corn at expense of your daughter/wife ---

Genghiz Cohen

dead one wrote: »

Woman aren't for work -- It is very shameful that men like you rest in homes and women go out to feed your bellies... Bellies full of hunger, full of desires ---- What a shameful situation for your kind, I would like to provide all necessities of life to my wife at my own expenses... I would like to suffer for my wife rather to put her in suffering.... Like i always said, you're immune to understand what i am saying... you enjoy to make woman suffer.... Now let me clear, pure Muslim woman don't date with strange men.......

Pure muslim women spend their time in house or any place at their will.... There is no compulsion in this business... But you have to answer me...

what makes your wife/daughter to get a job that would keep them from spending every moment with accompany of other strange men?
what are you doing in this whole business----eating pop corn at expense of your daughter/wife ---

Actually, I work to support both of us. And guess what, she wants to work anyway. Fancy that!

Zillah

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Actually, I work to support both of us. And guess what, she wants to work anyway. Fancy that!

Well then I think there's only one reasonable course of action to dissuade her then, don't you?

Dades

Man, I hate posting in this thread.

But can people STOP talking about women and dead one's unique (to this forum anyway) views on the fairer sex?

KTHXBYE.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

That's great and all, but it carries no weight because you do not apply the same logic to your 'intelligent designer', who must be more complex than the Universe itself - and thus require an intelligent designer themselves.
Of course, you excuse this intelligent designer of the requirement for a designer because it doesn't suit your argument.

There logically has to be an 'Ultimate Designer' that is Transcendent to the Universe that they designed. This isn't made up to suit my argument ... but is a logical deduction from the known Laws of the Universe.

dlofnep wrote: »

You expect us to believe that a Deity designed a decaying Universe, full of black holes, exploding stars and planet-seeking asteroids, an imperfect body incapable of synthesizing vitamin and an appendix that is willing to explode at any given moment.

The Universe is 'running down' allright ... but this is actually one of the reasons why the CFSI in life can't arise spontaneously ... and perpetual motion machines can't exist.

dlofnep wrote: »

A designer that look on with indifference at the Earth for over 13 billion years, and then decided to plant the seed of humanity and wait another 100,000 or so before he 'saved' us with his only begotten son. You seriously can't be expected to present a theory in 2011 and not be ridiculed. It's simply preposterous.

This is the Theistic Evolutionist position ... and I agree with you that it is illogical and self-contradictory.

On the other hand a recent Direct Creation by a loving just God ... and a Satanically inspired Fall by our common ancestors Adam and Eve, does explain how a perfect God Created a perfect Universe ... that still retains most of its perfection ... but also has the imperfections you describe.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

That's another thing, you keep refusing to acknowledge that the only person on this thread who keeps talking about "spontaneous evolution" is you.

Nobody else is, quite frankly, woefully misinformed enough to think that's how evolution happened. Just you. Do you not ever feel a little embarrassed about that? Or are you content to keep posting things that have been shown time and again to be totally untrue?

You should probably read something on evolution that was printed AFTER what Darwin wrote. Seriously, most of his ideas have been improved upon or replaced with something better at this stage. You could do yourself a favour and read up on your favourite creationist heroes too, and acknowledge that most of them don't have any relevant qualifications.

Please educate yourself, J C. Nobody with the qualifications you claim to have would keep getting it so wrong. Stop making a fool of yourself. Either debunk that paper, or admit that you're not the scientist you claim to be. And if you ARE a scientist, let us know how you came to be so BAD at it.

Oh, and if you could see your way to debunking that paper soon, that'd be nice too. I've been showing you since September, but you've been almost totally silent on the matter. I mean, you "committed" to responding to it, but you're taking an awfully long time about it, and if you don't do it soon I think we're all just going to conclude that you cant, that 90% of your posts are lies, and move on without you.

There are basically two general types of Evolution ... the Spontaneous variety, which claims that life 'evolved' from Pondkind to Mankind via a series of naturally/sexuallly selected spontaneous genetic information 'mistakes' ... and the Theistic variety, which claims that an external intelligence 'directed' the process and/or created the laws and original CFSI and/or intervened at undefined moments to 'tweak' the process in various undefined ways.

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

J.C, can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?

1. Objective scientific proof that Pondkind Spontaneously Evolved into Mankind over millions of years ... or that such a thing is even theoretically possible.
2. Objective Scientific disproof of ID - by demonstrating that CFSI can be produced spontaneously i.e. by non-intelligently designed systems.

Now, would you please tell us if you can envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?

Links234

J C wrote: »

and perpetual motion machines can't exist.

This thread seems evidence to the contrary! :pac:

The Mad Hatter

Links234 wrote: »

J C wrote: »

and perpetual motion machines can't exist.

This thread seems evidence to the contrary! :pac:

It keeps going and going without ever getting smarter.

J C

wrote:

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
and perpetual motion machines can't exist.

Links234
This thread seems evidence to the contrary! :pac:

... only because the thread is Intelligently Designed!!!:pac:

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It keeps going and going without ever getting smarter.

I wouldn't say that ... the thread continues to probe the various invalidities of Spontaneous Evolution and the evidence for Creation and ID .... without any substantive response from ye guys.

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't say that ... the thread continues to probe the various invalidities of Spontaneous Evolution and the evidence for Creation and ID .... without any substantive response from ye guys.

Hang on have I been reading a different thread. Many substantive responses have been put to you. Various things that you have repeatedly refused to respond to. Well if you do respond at all it's by changing the goalposts yet again.

Zillah

JC is literally the only person on my ignore list. Normally I find myself going "Oh, they're not that bad and I'm curious what they're saying" and take them off the list.

Not JC.

Never JC.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

There are basically two general types of Evolution ... the Spontaneous variety, which claims that life 'evolved' from Pondkind to Mankind via a series of naturally/sexuallly selected spontaneous genetic information 'mistakes' ... and the Theistic variety, which claims that an external intelligence 'directed' the process and/or created the laws and original CFSI and/or intervened at undefined moments to 'tweak' the process in various undefined ways.

That is laughably inaccurate. Neither of those actually exist. This "pondkind to mankind" thing must be your own invention, because in all my years studying evolution, nobody has ever suggested it happened the way you seem to think it does. Do you not even realise that "spontaneous" and "evolution" in the same sentence is a contradiction in terms? What am I saying, considering the things about which you've already demonstrated a complete lack of understanding, something like a two word contradiction in terms is small fry...


Debunk that paper. I've lost count of how many times I've said it, but you have no other options. Well, unless you want to make yourself look dumber.

Lucy8080

as both sides seem to reject spontaneous evolution...for various reasons...

im outing myself as a spontaneous evolutionist.

could the "mod riot squad" form a circle round me please when i get back...

il be back to explain...im just off out to buy a helmet and some shinpads..elbow and knee pads...etc...

Lucy8080

o.k. for j.c...." a recent direct creation by a loving god" ...the hole in this argument is the word recent. a timeless being would have no history.

for sarky..."spontaneous evolution "...although on first look this seems totally contradictory...it may have possibilities.

timelesss spontanaiety would mean nothing has ever existed before. not even god. not even timeless spontanaity.

not even this thread...hurrah!

this would mean that evolution and every bit of evidence for it....have never existed before.

copeyhagen

is it at all possible that JC is the greatest troll ever and you have all fallen victim to his cunning joke?

Beruthiel

copeyhagen wrote: »

is it at all possible that JC is the greatest troll ever and you have all fallen victim to his cunning joke?

I find it the more acceptable explanation.

Lucy8080

according to my " spontaneous evolution" theory...the last poster on this thread is the real troll. he/ she would be the reason for it all.


instantaneously giving rise to all posts that precede it.

is that guy still offering a $10,000 reward?

sephir0th

Lucy8080, I could write a bot that makes more sense than you.

Sarky

copeyhagen wrote: »

is it at all possible that JC is the greatest troll ever and you have all fallen victim to his cunning joke?

I would be overjoyed if this turned out to be the case. I often thought he was just a troll who missed his opportunity to cast off his cunning disguise and go "Problem?" at us.

But the longer he goes, the more I reckon he really just is a criminally misinformed evangelist with no grasp of the most basic scientific concepts. If he is a troll, the moment where it would have been lulz-worthy is long gone by about 3-4 years, making him a very crappy troll indeed.

Mark Hamill

Sarky wrote: »

copeyhagen wrote:

is it at all possible that JC is the greatest troll ever and you have all fallen victim to his cunning joke?

If he is a troll, the moment where it would have been lulz-worthy is long gone by about 3-4 years, making him a very crappy troll indeed.

And such is the biggest irony of being a troll - when you are the greatest, you are also the worst.

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

Hang on have I been reading a different thread. Many substantive responses have been put to you. Various things that you have repeatedly refused to respond to. Well if you do respond at all it's by changing the goalposts yet again.

Give me one example of a substantive proof for the spontaneous (i.e. non-intelligent) production of CFSI.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Give me one example of a substantive proof for the spontaneous production of CFSI.

you want Wibbs to prove what you've been arguing in favour of?

you don't get more spontaneous than a creator.

J C

Lucy8080 wrote: »

o.k. for j.c...." a recent direct creation by a loving god" ...the hole in this argument is the word recent. a timeless being would have no history.

... although God is transcendent (and therefore timeless) He Created time and space, as we know them, which therefore had a beginning.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

for sarky..."spontaneous evolution "...although on first look this seems totally contradictory...it may have possibilities.

timelesss spontanaiety would mean nothing has ever existed before. not even god. not even timeless spontanaity.

not even this thread...hurrah!

this would mean that evolution and every bit of evidence for it....have never existed before.

... spontaneous evolution never existed before ... and it doesn't exist now, either!!!