"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

sponsoredwalk

You genuinely thought that a comment about shoving a carrot up the rear
end of a lawnmower, thereby destroying it, fit perfectly right after a
comment in which you tell us that the "Manufacturer's Instructions" are for
sex to be for a man & a woman (note the subtle hate in that comment) &
that this is in no way gay bashing?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Sure. All straight.

It happens!!

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You genuinely thought that a comment about shoving a carrot up the rear
end of a lawnmower, thereby destroying it, fit perfectly right after a
comment in which you tell us that the "Manufacturer's Instructions" are for
sex to be for a man & a woman (note the subtle hate in that comment) &
that this is in no way gay bashing?

Please stop embarassing yourself!!!
... and trivialising a serious issue ... real violence and hatred against homosexual people ... and other minorities.

Corkfeen

J C wrote: »

Please stop embarassing yourself!!!
... and trivialising a serious issue ... real violence and hatred against homosexual people ... and other minorities.

You know words can be just as filled with hatred as acts of violence. Your post clearly has obvious homophobic undertones. No one is trivialising homophobia although to a point we're trivialising your denial of the underlying implication of the post.. Also Direct creation and intelligent design aren't facts, no matter how much you claim them to be.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

It happens!!

Uh-huh. You tell yourself that the next time he puts something phallic into a hole he shouldn't. I'm sure you could pray harder to make sure.

J C

Corkfeen wrote: »

You know words can be just as filled with hatred as acts of violence. Your post clearly has obvious homophobic undertones. No one is trivialising homophobia although to a point we're trivialising your denial of the underlying implication of the post.. Also Direct creation and intelligent design aren't facts, no matter how much you claim them to be.

The hate-filled words on this thread were directed at the Amish.

... and the advocacy of religious-based job discrimination was directed against Creationists

... and you are complaining because I made an obvious statement of fact ... that it is best to follow the Manufacturers Instructions because things work best when you do ... get over it!!!

Unlike you guys, nobody is saying that you must follow any instructions ... or that you should hate or discriminate against anybody who doesn't!!!

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Uh-huh. You tell yourself that the next time he puts something pallic into a hole he shouldn't. I'm sure you could pray harder to make sure.

... very rude and crude!!!:(

Corkfeen

J C wrote: »

... very rude and crude!!!:(

The exact same could be said about the post that you don't want us to criticise.

J C wrote: »

The hate-filled words on this thread were directed at the Amish.

... and the advocacy of religious-based job discrimination was directed against Creationists

... and you are complaining because I made an obvious statement of fact ... that it is best to follow the Manufacturers Instructions because things work best when you do ... get over it!!!

Unlike you guys, nobody is saying that you must follow any instructions ... or that you should hate or discriminate against anybody who doesn't!!!

Could you link to some posts that do this as I don't have time to wade through 480 pages.... And I can't help but doubt the truthfulness of your statements....

baldric

why do you guys correspond with JC...he's stealing your life, post by post.... do him a favour and ignore him ...sh*t...he just stole 40 precious seconds from me
....bye

amacachi

It was dead for 2 days damnit!

sephir0th

Talking about ignoring...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r0a582B9hQ

J C

amacachi wrote: »

It was dead for 2 days damnit!

... and on the third day ... it came back to life!!!:pac:

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

Talking about ignoring...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r0a582B9hQ

I suppose there are only so many 'amusing stories' about Evolution ... that even Black Adder can stomach!!!:):eek:

sponsoredwalk

JC do you have access to a library?

sponsoredwalk

If so, pick any one of the following books:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Oxford-Readers-Mark-Ridley/dp/0199267944/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325807964&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Second-Douglas-Futuyma/dp/0878932232/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Biology-Douglas-J-Futuyma/dp/0878931899/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325884210&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Stephen-Stearns/dp/0199255636/ref=sr_1_45?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325884107&sr=1-45

http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Analysis-Scott-Freeman/dp/0132275848/ref=pd_sim_b_6

Since you're such an expert on evolution every one of the above books
will be a piece of cake, bedtime fairytale reading. Thus it should be easy
for you to go through line by line whichever of the above books you pick
& point out the flaws & lies to us all. I have/can get any of these books
so I'd like you to teach me why evolution is flawed, on a technical level,
& convert me to creationism - in this very thread. Think of it as a way to,
through me, convert every reader of this thread to creationism because
if you dismantle the technical arguments we have nothing. I'm talking
serious, chapter by chapter, dismantling - in the name of converting
evolutionismists on their own ground. Well?

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If so, pick any one of the following books:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Oxford-Readers-Mark-Ridley/dp/0199267944/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325807964&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Second-Douglas-Futuyma/dp/0878932232/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Biology-Douglas-J-Futuyma/dp/0878931899/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325884210&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Stephen-Stearns/dp/0199255636/ref=sr_1_45?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325884107&sr=1-45

http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Analysis-Scott-Freeman/dp/0132275848/ref=pd_sim_b_6

Since you're such an expert on evolution every one of the above books
will be a piece of cake, bedtime fairytale reading. Thus it should be easy
for you to go through line by line whichever of the above books you pick
& point out the flaws & lies to us all. I have/can get any of these books
so I'd like you to teach me why evolution is flawed, on a technical level,
& convert me to creationism - in this very thread. Think of it as a way to,
through me, convert every reader of this thread to creationism because
if you dismantle the technical arguments we have nothing. I'm talking
serious, chapter by chapter, dismantling - in the name of converting
evolutionismists on their own ground. Well?

The e-books are copyright and don't allow copying.

If you can put up your own selected extracts I will be happy to address them.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

The e-books are copyright and don't allow copying.

If you can put up your own selected extracts I will be happy to address them.

You'll notice I first asked you whether you had access to a library.
This way you can pick your favourite of the above books, read a chapter
& then post your thoughts on it & let us know where the flaws are. I (&
anybody else who wants to join in) can then see how well your analysis
of the chapter is. Then either you poke holes in the fairytale of evolution,
spreading the word of god to those of us who have been lied to all our
lives or else maybe you'll start to see that evolution makes a bit of
sense.

If what you're saying is really true this should be easy & you'd literally
be doing gods work by not only getting people to question religion
again but you would be spreading the truth to us indoctrinated souls.
If it's not flawed then you'd have sought out truth. I don't see why this
is something you wouldn't want to do...

joseph brand

J C wrote: »

God was the Prime Cause ... of everything ... and He therefore didn't require a designer Himself.:)

It amazes me that someone living in the developed world, using apparent technology would say something like this. I'm also 'presuming' you have an education.

Sarky

J C would never go near a library unless it was full of bibles. Gods forbid he might learn something not allegedly said by Jebus.

joseph brand

robindch wrote: »

Can't hear his name without thinking of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism

Doesn't the word Santorum refer to an icky brownish liquid?

J C

joseph brand wrote: »

It amazes me that someone living in the developed world, using apparent technology would say something like this. I'm also 'presuming' you have an education.

It's even more amazing that someone living in the developed world, using apparent technology (that all required Intelligent Design of significant quantity and quality) would believe that the vastly greater 'hi-tec' processes found in living systems were spontanously produced using random processes ... with a bit of 'selection' done after the damage was/is done by random mutagenesis!!!

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

It's even more amazing that someone living in the developed world, using apparent technology (that all required Intelligent Design of significant quantity and quality) would believe that the vastly greater 'hi-tec' processes found in living systems were spontanously produced using random processes ... with a bit of 'selection' done after the damage was/is done by random mutagenesis!!!

This little gem shows why the opportunity to enlighten us all offered by sponsoredwalk's suggestion will not be seized upon. JC does not understand evolution; merely some bastardized version of same, cobbled together from various jagwagons' opinions read on creationist websites.

RichieC

Im a little confused, jc. are you attacking abiogenisis or the process of evolution? is your argument that god created everything as is found today?

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

This little gem shows why the opportunity to enlighten us all offered by sponsoredwalk's suggestion will not be seized upon. JC does not understand evolution; merely some bastardized version of same, cobbled together from various jagwagons' opinions read on creationist websites.

Being a former evolutionist I understand it all too well.
... but, if I am wrong, this is your opportunity to enlighten me ... and showcase your knowledge of the subject.

Reading through the Book 'Evolution' by Mark Ridley, I find myself in agreement with many things that he writes.

However, my critical disagreement with the modern synthesis is the assumption that because creatures clearly change over generations, such as bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics (by selection and loss of pre-existing CFSI) that Bacteria can therrefore eventually become Beauticians and Butchers (which would involve the acquisition of gargantuan quantities of high quality new CFSI).
The conclusion that because small changes occur using pre-existing CFSI that large changes can occur by producing new CFSI is a logical fallicy known as a non-sequitur ... because the conclusion does not follow from its premises.

J C

RichieC wrote: »

Im a little confused, jc. are you attacking abiogenisis or the process of evolution? is your argument that god created everything as is found today?

I am not 'attacking' anything ... merely following wherever the evidence leads.

... and yes, both Abiogenesis and macro-evolution have the same difficulties ...
... the problems are accepted by Evolutionists in the case of Abiogenesis ... but not acknowledged by Evolutionists in the case of macro-evolution.

... and my argument isn't that God created everything as it is found today ... speciation and micro-evolution by Natural/Sexual/Artificial Selection within Kinds (of existing CFSI) are observable facts.
... my argument is that macro-evolution ... from Prokaryotes to Piano Players ... (which involves the production of vast quantities of new CFSI) is an impossibility.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

Being a former evolutionist I understand it all too well.
... but, if I am wrong, this is your opportunity to enlighten me ... and showcase your knowledge of the subject.

Reading through the Book 'Evolution' by Mark Ridley, I find myself in agreement with many things that he writes.
However, my critical disagreement is his assumption that because creatures clearly change over generations, such as bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics (by selection and loss of pre-existing CFSI) that the Bacteria can eventually become Beauticians and Butchers (which would involve the acquisition of gargantuan quantities of high quality new CFSI).

But it's already been shown on this thread that the entire concept of CSFI is meaningless pseudoscientific bulldung.

RichieC

So you are saying that all creature are as they have always been? by what process do you think god used in their creation

Sarky

Oh, you brought up cfsi again. Does this mean you finally found the spine to debunk that paper which shows cfsi up to be utter rubbish?

J C

RichieC wrote: »

So you are saying that all creature are as they have always been? by what process do you think god used in their creation

No ...
... my argument isn't that God created everything as it is found today ... speciation and micro-evolution by Natural/Sexual/Artificial Selection within Kinds (of existing CFSI) are observable facts.
... my argument is that macro-evolution ... from Prokaryotes to Piano Players ... (which involves the production of vast quantities of new CFSI) is an impossibility.

RichieC

Just to be clear. Youre hypothesis allows for a land animal to over time evolve into creatures like whales?