"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

RichieC

J C wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

Super eruptions are global events.

Yea, they can result in extra dust in the atmosphere on the far side of the Earth ... but they don't have the precision that they result in demise of everybody on Earth ... but for just one family!!!!

Noones saying it did. They say it left about a thousand humans.

dlofnep

Also J C - it might be beneficial to you if you could also inform us that you are aware of the existence of Nuclear DNA, which isn't inherited matrilineally... And perhaps elaborating how it fits into your idea of all humans are descended from Adam and Eve.

Sarky

His answer will probably involve cfsi, and thus be complete horse sh*t.

Queue J C claiming ad hominems and dodging intellectual honesty like it was the plague.

Doctor Jimbob

Sarky wrote: »

His answer will probably involve cfsi, and thus be complete horse sh*t.

Queue J C claiming ad hominems and dodging intellectual honesty like it was the plague.

You forgot about the bolded bits and smilies :eek: to take attention away from said horse****

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I have just shown you why the common male ancestor of all mankind logicaly had to be either Adam ... or somebody who was the common male ancestor of the survivors of a near-extinction event ... the survivors of which were the ancestors of all Humans ... and Noah's Flood is the only plausible candidate for the latter!!!

So you read the linked page, decided most of it was bull**** anyway, then took a small part of it that vaguely backed up what you had to say?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

So you read the linked page, decided most of it was bull**** anyway, then took a small part of it that vaguely backed up what you had to say?

I read the the whole thing.

Love you all ... and Jesus loves you too.:)

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

I read the the whole thing.

Love you all ... and Jesus loves you too.:)

Really?

Last time I met Jesus he punched me in the gut because I'd said his girlfriend looked like a saggy, less attractive Selma Hayak.

Wait. Are we talking about the same guy?

joseph brand

J C wrote: »

I read the the whole thing.

Love you all ... and Jesus loves you too.:)

Is this real love? You see, I'm rather cynical. And we haven't even met. It's a very sweeping statement.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

I have already asked which dimension to the CFSI found in the genomes of living creatures, you are denying.

... are you denying that it is Complex?
... or Functional?
... or Specified?
... or Information?

... and the silence that these questions have received proves that CFSI is a valid scientific descriptor of genetic information.

It has already been said, more than once, that the fact that genetic information is complex (which is debatable, given that it consists of a fairly basic code), functional, specified does not mean that it fits your CFSI. This CFSI is simply a creationist concoction formulated after years of questioning backed up by mounting, impartial scientific evidence.

The last sentence quoted here points out the flaw in your thought process. Just because every spurious emission you post here is not answered, does not make you right.

Sarky

There's a gay joke there, if anyone's got the time to bother.

Me, I'll just patiently wait for J C to debunk that paper like he promised he would. Any day now he shall justify his continued use of cfsi as some kind of non-horsesh*t argument.

He's the one who cited it after all. It falls to him to explain why it's not a pile of ****. You see J C, even if we play by your rules, you still need to back yourself up with non-crap evidence.

Either way, you're going to run up against that paper or another dozen like it. Apart from admitting you don't have an argument, you just don't have any options left that don't make you either misinformed or a liar.

Mr. Boo

Sarky wrote: »

Me, I'll just patiently wait for J C to debunk that paper like he promised he would. Any day now he shall justify his continued use of cfsi as some kind of non-horsesh*t argument.

Your faith...it's almost religious.

dlofnep

J C - anytime you'd like to answer my question(s) - I'd greatly appreciate it. Of course, you could simply tell us that you don't actually know what it means, and spare us the bullshít?

devilsad

I'm not getting involved in this and I haven't read through the thread, but I will say this; I can't believe you've given him this much coverage. 7,000+ comments. It's almost as insane as he is. Why anyone would continue to allow this guy to promote his nonsense book is beyond me. I went to the launch and haven't laughed as much in a long time. It's probably been mentioned but he produced a box of tennis balls and said that the chances of him throwing the tennis balls in the air and getting them to land in a perfect circle was zero. He then threw the balls in the air, they didn't land in a perfect circle and he said: 'See!'. Anyone who continues to give this guy the opportunity to promote this hogwash anymore by continuing to argue with him is as mad as he is.

Sarky

Oh yeah, I'd completely forgotten about the book and its loopy author this thread was originally about. I'd wager everyone else did too. Most of these posts are about J C being laughably misinformed. The mods mentioned several times that it's here because J C does more to reveal how crazy religion is than any amount of rational, informed discussion.

devilsad

Sarky wrote: »

Oh yeah, I'd completely forgotten about the book and its loopy author this thread was originally about. I'd wager everyone else did too. Most of these posts are about J C being laughably misinformed. The mods mentioned several times that it's here because J C does more to reveal how crazy religion is than any amount of rational, informed discussion.

Again, I've no interest in going through the thread, but I'm assuming J C is the loopy author, no?

RichieC

devilsad wrote: »

Again, I've no interest in going through the thread, but I'm assuming J C is the loopy author, no?

I thought so at first but he says he isnt. Ive never heard john bang on about the love of god and all that shyte when Ive spoken to him.

Delirium

devilsad wrote: »

Again, I've no interest in going through the thread, but I'm assuming J C is the loopy author, no?

No, JC isn't the author. And the author actually refused to discuss his book when he made a brief appearance on the site.

Turtwig

koth wrote: »

No, JC isn't the author. And the author actually refused to discuss his book when he made a brief appearance on the site.

Oh my God, when did the author appear on this site? :o How did I miss it?

Delirium

Jernal wrote: »

Oh my God, when did the author appear on this site? :o How did I miss it?

He appeared back in November, this is his account. dlofnep made contact with him to discuss the book on this thread and the author refused.

Turtwig

koth wrote: »

He appeared back in November, this is his account. dlofnep made contact with him to discuss the book on this thread and the author refused.

He refused. Aww pity.

dlofnep

Yes, I invited him to the thread to defend his position. He basically said - What for? And that his book was a response to pseudo-science, adding that Dawkins' work was 'laughable unscientific speculation'.

Delirium

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes, I invited him to the thread to defend his position. He basically said - What for? And that his book was a response to pseudo-science, adding that Dawkins' work was 'laughable unscientific speculation'.

Well Mr.May would know all about that, seeing as he spent so much effort filling a book with that sort of stuff :pac:

sponsoredwalk

Should we all simultaneously send pm's to May asking him to come on
here and debate his book?

:eek:

In fact, I have a fantastic idea!

I got another book on evolution out of the library just yesterday.
I picked this specific book because there is a video course on evolution
that follows the book perfectly:
http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior
The videos are all on youtube, just search the titles as given in the yale
link or even just "yale evolution youtube".

I was just going to go through this on my own but here's a better idea:
Why don't a lot of people send a pm to John J May asking him to
join us in watching the video lectures over the course of the next few
weeks & discussing the flaws & lies that are presented in the lectures.
To make this even better, I'll post notes of the essential points of each
chapter to expand upon anything that needs to be expanded upon!
I'm thinking 1 lecture a week (it's only an hour). By the end everybody
will have concrete knowledge of evolutionary theory :cool: & we have May
to point out any of the flaws in evolutionary theory. Basically everybody
watches the lecture, I'll post summaries of anything in the book & then
we ask May to point out the lies etc... I bet he'll learn a lot & so will we.

If a few people post their support in the next day or two in this thread
then I'll post in this thread a post that we'll all edit together & then we'll
all simultaneously send May a pm of this post.

You jelly?

Sarky

Surely one ridiculously misinformed (or just plain old dishonest) poster obsessed with ignoring a mountain of facts and evidence in favour of a shoddily-written book is enough for this thread?

sponsoredwalk

I spent about 3 months giving JC the benefit of the doubt.
I am willing to give John J May the benefit of the doubt by seeing how
accurately & honestly he can engage an actual course on evolution as
it seemed to me from his radio interviews that he didn't know his stuff
as regards evolution. Now I may be wrong but that's irrelevant really.
If he knows everything about evolution then these videos should be
nothing more than a means to teach us philistines how we're being lied to.
Furthermore he'd be taking down a course at Yale which would be no small
achievement. If he doesn't know everything then well here he can learn.
If he's an honest person, unlike JC (as has been proven time and again),
then he'll own up & correct the specious nonsense in his book.
The only thing at stake here is knowledge.

devilsad

How you expect someone who says 'the chances of me throwing these tennis balls in the air and them landing in a perfect circle are zero', who then goes on to throw the balls in the air and when they don't land in a perfect circle says 'see!', to engage with you on any kind of intellectual level is beyond me.

By the way, the above excercise was to somehow show that things don't happen randomly as he (incorrectly) says evolutionists claim things happen... or some such other bollox.

robindch

devilsad wrote: »

How you expect someone who says 'the chances of me throwing these tennis balls in the air and them landing in a perfect circle are zero', who then goes on to throw the balls in the air and when they don't land in a perfect circle says 'see!', to engage with you on any kind of intellectual level is beyond me.

(a) the chances are small, but not zero and (b) as a metaphor, a creationist showing up to his book-launch with a load of balls is almost unbeatable.

devilsad

robindch wrote: »

(a) the chances are small, but not zero and (b) as a metaphor, a creationist showing up to his book-launch with a load of balls is almost unbeatable.

Yeah... That's kinda why I posted it. I didn't think the fact that the chances can't possibly be zero needed to be pointed out.

In fact his launch descended into farce as a particularly loud member of the audience who was 't buying his particular brand of bollox pointed out this fact to him he gave a bullsh!t answer and his 'heavies' stepped in at which point it pretty much broke down.

sephir0th

robindch wrote: »

(a) the chances are small, but not zero

No, it isn't possible to make a perfect circle because of plancks distance.

devilsad

sephir0th wrote: »

No, it isn't possible to make a perfect circle because of plancks distance.

Even though I don't know the man, having listened to him speak and having read through his website, I can say with certainty that he didn't have this in mind when saying the tennis balls wouldn't land in a perfect circle. What he meant was a symmetrical circle.