"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

koth wrote: »

we now have you misrepresenting yourself? Are we witnessing the slow distancing of yourself from your creationist claims?:eek:

I'm a person of Faith in Jesus Christ ... but I'm not into man-made religion.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I'm a person of Faith in Jesus Christ ... but I'm not into man-made religion.

that makes you a Christian. Christianity is a religion.

So you were either unaware you are a religious person or you misrepresented yourself.

Sarky

Probably both.

J C

koth wrote: »

that makes you a Christian. Christianity is a religion.

So you were either unaware you are a religious person or you misrepresented yourself.

Christianity is a Saving Faith ... the denominations like Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc are religions

The Mad Hatter

koth wrote: »

J C wrote: »

I'm a person of Faith in Jesus Christ ... but I'm not into man-made religion.

that makes you a Christian. Christianity is a religion.

So you were either unaware you are a religious person or you misrepresented yourself.

J C's claim is that Christianity is not a religion because it was made by a god, not by people.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Christianity is a Saving Faith ... the denominations like Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc are religions

You're wrong. Christianity is a religion. You don't get to redefine the English language to suit yourself.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

J C's claim is that Christianity is not a religion because it was made by a god, not by people.

he might want to alert the people that publish dictionaries as they don't agree with his (mis)understanding of the word.

J C

koth wrote: »

You're wrong. Christianity is a religion. You don't get to redefine the English language to suit yourself.


he might want to alert the people that publish dictionaries as they don't agree with his (mis)understanding of the word.

Quote:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

... Sounds like Evolutionism is also a religion!!!

... but being a Christian per se isn't a religion ... although most Christians do belong to some religion ... like Protestantism, Roman Catholocism ... and even Evolutionism!!!!:);)

Delirium

Thank you for proving that (a) Christianity is a religion and (b) that you don't understand the difference between religion and science.

Try digging up, JC

J C

koth wrote: »

Thank you for proving that (a) Christianity is a religion and (b) that you don't understand the difference between religion and science.

Scientism is also a religion.
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Scientism is also a religion.
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

I said science, not scientism. but at least the language in your post shows an acceptance of Christianity being a religion.

If we could get a fraction of that growth to occur with regards to science we might actually makes some progress. You might even find the time to discuss the paper we've asked you to discuss.

Sonics2k

Hehehehehe.

"Christianity is not a religion."

"Not made by man"

Bit of advice, before you get around to debunking that paper, maybe you should read a history book or two. :pac:

Galvasean

This thread just gets weirder n' weirder...

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

This thread just gets weirder n' weirder...

It is certainly living up to the 'mega-thread' moniker!!!:)

J C

robindch wrote: »

Need my five-year old to go "Awwwlllllright!" at this point

Has s/he also started to question Evolution, Robin?:)

J C

koth wrote: »

I said science, not scientism. but at least the language in your post shows an acceptance of Christianity being a religion.

Most of you guys are scientists ... but your worldview is based on Scientism and its offshoot, Evolutionism.
You are quite entitled to do this ... but it does mean that ye believe in 'Microbes to Microbiologists' Evolution through faith alone.:)
... and please don't insult the lurkers intelligence by saying 'we have loads of evidence' ... and then fail to produce any!!!

koth wrote: »

If we could get a fraction of that growth to occur with regards to science we might actually makes some progress. You might even find the time to discuss the paper we've asked you to discuss.

Ready, whenever you are.;)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Most of you guys are scientists ... but your worldview is based on Scientism and its offshoot, Evolutionism.
You are quite entitled to do this ... but it does mean that ye believe in 'Microbes to Microbiologists' Evolution through faith alone.:)
... and please don't insult the lurkers intelligence by saying 'we have loads of evidence' ... and then fail to produce any!!!

You're making an assumption that someone who doesn't accept the creation parable of the bible as fact has their worldview based on scientism. They could easily have a Christian, Muslim or Jewish worldview while at the same time accepting evolution.

As for your comment regarding the lurkers, they are free to join the discussion and challenge any ideas put forward on the thread. Plenty of evidence is present on the thread and they can view that for themselves. If they disagree they can post here and explain/put forward a different explanation.

Ready, whenever you are.;)

Excellent. So, based on your reading of the paper, can you provide one error on the paper with regards to the analysis of CFSI? And can you then provide some proof from a peer reviewed scientific work to back up your claim?

I look forward to your reply.

Sarky

Wouldn't it be great if his next reply was actually a presentation of the flaws in that paper? J C has a great opportunity to prove to us, and the whole scientific community no less, that there is actually merit to what he's been claiming.

But to do that he would have to go through that paper in detail and show beyond reasonable doubt that the authors were wrong. He'd have to answer the challenges at the end of the paper.

It would probably just be easier for him to post up another pathetically transparent attempt to avoid the argument, making him look foolish and then ramble on falsely about ad hominems when someone calls bullsh*t on his dishonesty.

I really hope I'm wrong. Nothing would please me more than J C finally growing the backbone to engage in debate instead of the misinformed evasive rubbish he's been posting for half a decade.

Come on J C. Do yourself a favour. By actually debating, you'll be doing the rest of us a favour too, we are pretty sick of your childish tactics by now and would welcome a constructive debate. Hell, you'll be doing the WORLD a favour if you can debunk that paper and demonstrate that cfsi isn't a pile of wishey-washy crap that everyone was wrong to debunk for the last decade or so. If they were all flawed in their destroying your favourite claims, show us where they went wrong.

The only person who can stop you looking like a fool is you.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if his next reply was actually a presentation of the flaws in that paper?

Yes, it would be.

<sigh>

Sarky

Yeah, sorry, I know I'm a terrible person for getting so much amusement out of watching someone completely fail to do anything but dig a deeper hole as if the very concept of "up" was alien to them.

legspin

Sarky wrote: »

. as if the very concept of "up" was alien to them .

Sure have you never heard of Intelligent Falling?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Come on J C. Do yourself a favour. By actually debating, you'll be doing the rest of us a favour too, we are pretty sick of your childish tactics by now and would welcome a constructive debate. Hell, you'll be doing the WORLD a favour if you can debunk that paper and demonstrate that cfsi isn't a pile of wishey-washy crap that everyone was wrong to debunk for the last decade or so. If they were all flawed in their destroying your favourite claims, show us where they went wrong.

I always engage in constructive debate ... ye are the guys engaging in ad hominems ... and refusing to present the supposed points in favour of your argument, in the paper ye keep talking about.

Come on guys and 'put up or shut up' about this 'pet' paper of yours.

J C

legspin wrote: »

Sure have you never heard of Intelligent Falling?

... is it something that Evolutionists engage in?:eek::pac:

J C

robindch wrote: »

Yes, it would be.

<sigh>

Robin, please stop sighing ... like some kind of 'love sick' teenager ... and help your Evolutionist colleagues 'save some face' on this paper that they keep talking about ... but which doesn't seem to provide any evidence for the claims being made about it.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Ready, whenever you are.;)

guess you're still not ready to discuss the paper after all.

J C

koth wrote: »

guess you're still not ready to discuss the paper after all.

Your claims about this paper is like everything else about evolution, on this thread ... long on claims ... but short on evidence!!!:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Your claims about this paper is like everything else about evolution ... long on claims ... but short on evidence!!!:)

so why did you avoid the question I put to you earlier today?

For someone so confident in the lack of substance to the the paper, you're remarkably shy about discussing it.

Sarky

More dodging and insults from J C. Again you make yourself look stupid. You should be ashamed of yourself. But no, you're just going to keep going on and on with arguments that nobody with any sense has believed in a decade or more. you could silence us all by debunking that paper you've been cowering from since September. We'd acknowledge that we were wrong and adjust our perceptions of reality accordingly.

But you can't, can you? You have nothing to defend your claims with, and you have nothing to attack ours with. And you have too much pride to admit it. All you're doing is showing us that intelligent design is the most idiotic thing to ever sully this planet. It's as tragic as it is comic.



Well, maybe a little more comic.

Turtwig

Semantic satiation beginning to set in here. What exactly is this "paper"? What is meant by "debunk" again?

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

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?

Count me in. I'll follow a 1hr lecture with another hour of reading per week if needs be.

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

Semantic satiation beginning to set in here. What exactly is this "paper"?

This paper. Takes apart cfsi and shows why it's a load of bollocks. Not like it's hard, but still...

What is meant by "debunk" again?

Show flaws in, expose as a lie or untruth, that sort of thing. Most of us have been asking J C since September to show us a single flaw in that paper. So far he made one attempt. His arguments were shown to be flawed. He hasn't tried again, ignoring that his arguments just don't work.

If there were any errors with the paper's conclusions, I would have thought someone would have been able to expose them by now. The paper itself is over 9 years old at this stage. Maybe I'd get better results by asking a real scientist to play devil's advocate?