Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
The truth will set you free ... even if it may be painful at first.
This is the sweetest irony I could find after painfully reading the crazy that
has accumulated over the 2 days I've been gone drinkin' but even a
hangover isn't enough to get me to ignore JC's nonsense
... are you also having problems with the time that you post Robin ... just like Sponsoredwalk ... why do Evolutionists have such problems with time?
Eh, where did I have a problem with the time of your post JC? I think
you're confusing me with the Mad Hatter in your quest to try to insult
atheists. Is an apology from you worth anything from you? I doubt it
seeing as you're so fond of posting one thing only to post later on saying
the exact opposite, I'll show you why this is true [evidence?] below.I used to think that also ... when I was an Evolutionist.
Okay, a while ago you said the exact same thing:I used to have a closed mind ... when I was an evolutionist ... and it took me 10 years to prize it open!!!
and in response to this post I gave you reasons why you were never an
evolutionist. Here is that post & I also mentioned some of the proofs of
evolution in it, you never replied & instead choose to continue repeating
something that was shown to be false.The truth will set you free ... even if it may be painful at first.
:rolleyes:... one problem with Prof Dawkin's idea is that ... if it has the appearance of quacking like a duck and has the appearance of swimming like a duck and has the appearance of looking like a duck ... then it can be safely concluded that it is a duck!!!!
... so Prof Dawkin's conclusion that living processes give the appearance of being designed for a purpose ... means that it can be safely concluded that they were so designed!!!
This is not true, a platypus looks similar to a duck and even got it's name
from this similarity yet we can't concluse a platypus is a duck based on
your shoddy logic, I'm sorry but this just wont do. Can you explain the
evolutionary history of the platypus that has been found through molecular
clocks and genetic sequencing by better logic than that you've given above?
Can you explain why this evolutionary lineage is incorrect if it's been found
through collecting evidence? If you've got a reason why this evidence is
wrong submit it to the journal nature & collect prize after prize.... Prof Dawkins has indeed said that living organisms give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose ... and he then promptly denies this by claiming that blind evolutionary processes did it ...
... but materialistic processes are incapable of producing CSI ... and we have the maths to prove it!!!
How can he deny something which he just said was true? You are
purposely misunderstanding the quote to go off bashing these atheists you
hate so much. He said that one could get the idea things were
designed for a purpose but that animals, fulfilling their biological urges to
survive & reproduce, will of course have the appearance of being
designed. They give off this impression because they are suited to their
environment in a way that lets them survive & reproduce. If they weren't
"designed" to survive in their environment then they would die off as a
species. Think of it this way, if humans couldn't survive under the cold
conditions up at the north pole then they are not going to live there.
They may have tried but would have died off. This is an example of
evolution designing a species, unless some humans developed a gene
that produced more adipose tissue (fat) or some other protection the
humans there will not survive. If a human develops a genetic benefit then
his/her children will carry this resistance & then the species can start
to multiply & survive up there. If you look at humans their are plenty of
examples of this, think about why people's skin went from black to white,
melanin was not needed as much as people migrated north.
Oh, and lets see the mathematics you've read on this topic please :cool:... just like the original Charles Darwin also wasn't up to much either ... he claimed to know all there was to know about heredity and the origins of species ... and ended up marrying his own first cousin ... while claiming that this would somehow 'improve' their childrens' genetics??!!!
You liar! Quote Darwin on this! I dare you!
Making things up to lie about
the atheist evolutionists you hate so much. Darwin knew very little about
how heredity occurred, he never knew the mechanism by which this was
accomplished. The strange thing is that Gregor Mendel sent Darwin his
paper on heredity but it seems Darwin never read it. The thing about
evolution is that because heredity wasn't known in Darwin's day it was a
more contentious topic of discussion than it is now. Still, there was plenty
of evidence given by Darwin to show evolution by natural selection to be
an adequate means of explaining the diversity of life on earth.
I doubt you'll read anything that goes against the lies you're making up
but I'd advise you to watch a show on the internet called "What Darwin
Never Knew" to get some visual explanations of these things.The truth will set you free ... even if it may be painful at first.
:pac:I have found that the 'best' Evolutionist writers have a good lierary style ... and write a good story ...
... as Creationism is now 'coming of age' ... it was almost inevitable that some good literature (as well as science) would be written about it ... and John May seems to be the man!!!!... I have read the 'free bit' of his book on his website ... and it has considerable literary merit.
This man may have literary talent that can convince someone like you that
evolution is wrong. But normal, unbiased people, wont fall for shoddy
logic. I mean a poster on here quoted the 7 reasons of his why evolution
is wrong and (s)he responded showing how ignorant the man is.
Furthermore he seems to think babies don't wrinkle coming out of the
womb based off his "scientific" research on the subjct. You know what
that research is? His own meagre experience... I feel sorry for you seeing
as you can be so easily led by others. Evidence is the deciding factor
for most people, with you it's John May's odd grammar, I mean the man
usually uses two words that describe the very same thing when
describing something, he is just a master of tautology & his choice of
using two words describing the same thing hardly points to mastery of
the english language, rather a need to over-emphasize.When it comes to Evolution and Evolutionism, I find that many words don't mean what anybody would think they do!!!!
... as well as subverting science ... Evolutionism ... is also perverting the English language ... with 'weasel' words and arguments that continuously 'morph' ... depending on circumstances ... like some kind of linguistic 'Chameleon'!!!
Yes, and the word "Work" means something different when used in a physics
context compared to everyday usage. Basically you're like a student who
is complaining that a subject like biology needs to be very specific in it's
choice of words. If these aren't specific then people like you will use the
openness of the word chosen to try to attack the subject. Well, that is
really a side-consequence, it's mainly because you want to teach a bloody
concept. Your weaselly & childish arguments here have pretty much shown
us you were never "speaking as a scientist". This is something a child
learns, were you ever in a science class, ever????????????????????????????
After all the ridiculous points you'd made earlier you admit you understand
what evolution is really saying & that there is a difference between
abiogenesis & evolution.
But then you come out with some ridiculous statements, like theEvolution may explain the 'survival of the fittest' (via NS/SS of existing genetic information) ... but it doesn't explain the 'arrival of the fittest' i.e. the origin of the specified functional complex information present in living systems.
"speaking as an evolutionist" thing again.
Why are you playing these games even though you apparently understand
that evolution does in fact explain the diversity of life? I mean, the above
quote you wrote shows that you do not agree with John May's thesis.
You either really don't understand the whole idea of evolution, let alone
John May's argument, or are just trolling or satisfying some mental issue.
There is no other explanation, you've tripped yourself up with your own
words on Friday yet all weekend have been returning to spam the
thread talking about how evolution is incorrect. What's really going on JC?The truth will set you free ... even if it may be painful at first.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement