"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I watched the two videos that you posted at about 11 am ... and my post was responding to these two videos.

Yes, I know that! That is what the post says, doesn't it? Why are you
going off posting about me saying I have problems with time

J C wrote: »

... are you also having problems with the time that you post Robin ... just like Sponsoredwalk ... why do Evolutionists have such problems with time?

when I never had a problem, I understood what happened & even explained
to TMH how you posted to 2 videos instead of 3 because I added the
third one a minute or so later. You obviously just had an old window
open. What's worse is that you have to go off claiming you didn't insult
me

J C wrote: »

... are you also having problems with the time that you post Robin ... just like Sponsoredwalk ... why do Evolutionists have such problems with time?

and claim I didn't correct the time mix up:

J C wrote: »

I have no desire to insult anybody ... I just proclaim the truth ... to set you free.

You certainly didn't correct TMH time mix-up in this post!!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68063195&postcount=581

when that is exactly what I did. I think you're just so confused...

J C wrote: »

Here is the Post you have referred to:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68063053&postcount=578

How does this invalidate anything I have written?

Yes I know, I quoted it to make sure you knew the context.
It invalidates everything you've written in this thread because what you
said is that evolution explains why there are so many different species
on this planet. Here is the full thing again:

J C wrote: »

.. all evidence of a common designer ... and not common descent.

Evolution 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.

What you are saying here is that evolution may explain the diversity of
life but it doesn't explain the origin of life. That is true JC, evolution is not
supposed to explain the "arrival of the fittest". That is a whole seperate
theory called abiogenesis, totally different from evolution.
The very fact you wrote the above quote shows how uneducated you are.
You & John May are the same, both can't tell the difference. Read his
7 points & you'll see the man is just as confused as you are.
Both can't tell the difference between theory A & theory B.
That would be fine, I wouldn't fault you for it at all except you have to go
online claiming evolution is false yada yada yada even though you know
nothing about it. You can't answer anyone asking for evidence, because
you have nothing. You must have been misled & indoctrinated because
you can't respond to anything anybody asks of you & instead resort
to cheap comments. It's tiring...

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is the strangest thing you've done, offer a video that gives no
evidence as evidence and refer to it as evidence
I was even able to give you a serious explanation that scientists found
over many years, just read the writing in the link I gave.
TO READ ME CLICK ME

I asked you a specific question, how did Michael Behe & Jonathan Wells
et al give unquestionable evidence for ID at the Pajaro converence?
The evidence given was about the flagella? Is that what you're saying?
If that is the case then their evidence has been scientifically proven to
be false & ridiculous. If the video you gave is the sole evidence then
you've just shown ID to be a joke & every point you make in favour of ID
is incorrect. I feel sorry for you JC, to fall for such ridiculous arguments
on behalf of John May, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, seriously

I gave you a video link to how scientists first produced the ID synthesis ... and you 'went off at half cock' ... and tried to reduce ID to the Flagellar Motor (FM).

Evolutionists are in a peculiar situation in relation to the FM ... they accept that it could never occur in one step ... but they then bizzarely claim that it could occur in two steps (an excretory organ followed by a flagellum and motor).

Could I gently point out that having an excretory organ gets you no further towards a flagellum and motor than not having an excretory organ.

Its like arguing that 'evolving' an arm gets you 'closer' to producing a penis!!!!

... please note that such an argument doesn't explain how either the excretory organ or the flagellar motor could evolve by non-intelligently directed processes.

mohawk

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Again I ask. What evidence will you accept?
You keep asking for it., People keep supplying it. You brush it aside with some juvenile comment about your God or discrimination/ hoax/ conspiracy.
Please tell me what evidence can possible get through this screening process of your.?

I have a mental picture of JC trying to cover both his eyes and ears and shouting lalalala to protect himself from all the links being posted on here.

J C

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Again I ask. What evidence will you accept?
You keep asking for it., People keep supplying it. You brush it aside with some juvenile comment about your God or discrimination/ hoax/ conspiracy.
Please tell me what evidence can possible get through this screening process of your.?

Look ... it's not me that you need to convince ... you need to produce water-tight evidence that you can rely on not be completely invalidated by the first Creation Scientist who examines it!!!

Ghost Buster

J C wrote: »

Look ... it's not me that you need to convince ... you need to produce water-tight evidence that you can rely on not be completely invalidated by the first Creation Scientist who examines it!!!

It is you because you keep asking for it.
I AM ASKING YOU WHAT EVIDENCE YOU WILL ACCEPT AS YOU KEEP ASKING FOR IT.
Im sure creation scientists invalidate evidence in exactly the same way as you.
Messed up infinitely interpretable desert tribe text first
followed by
Non science paranoid conspiracy theory cods wallop next.

Its a neat trick. It works for you and your happy clappy kind but not for the sane.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Look ... it's not me that you need to convince ... you need to produce water-tight evidence that you can rely on not be completely invalidated by the first Creation Scientist who examines it!!!

We know we can't convince you because you're delusional and simply not living on the same planet as the rest of us.

We've plenty of overwhelming evidence we do rely on. But you are neither invalidating or examining anything.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I gave you a video link to how scientists first produced the ID synthesis ... and you 'went off at half cock' ... and tried to reduce ID to the Flagellar Motor (FM).

Evolutionists are in a peculiar situation in relation to the FM ... they accept that it could never occur in one step ... but then bizzarely claim that it could occur in two steps (an excretory organ followed by a flagellum and motor).

Could I gently point out that having an excretory organ gets you no further towards a flagellum and motor than not having an excretory organ.

Its like arguing that 'evolving' an arm gets you 'closer' to producing a penis!!!!

Seriously? Is that the meat of ID? You tell me I "went off at half-cock"
saying ID was just about the FM but you then, in typical ID fashion,
provide no evidence to show how I was wrong in thinking ID was all about
the FM. Here is an important point JC, I'm asking specifically about the
Pajaro conference you said had specifically provided evidence of ID.

By the way, you're video gave no evidence whatsoever that ID explained
the flagella, if anybody watched that video they'd see that all it said was
the flagella was complex. That's all it said! Tha's not evidence JC.
Please stop lying by saying you've provided a video with scientists
showing ID synthesis, the whole video talks about cell structure as
scientists understood it at the time, scientists JC, this is coming from
Bio 101, then the video talks about the flagella. That is the interesting
thing. The rest of the video is Bio 101. When we discuss ID we're talking
about the flagella because that is the only ID related thing in it, I was
not half-cocked I was going off the "evidence" you gave us.

The way you explained the flagella evolution is ridiculous

An approach to the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum is
suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components is similar to
the Type III secretory and transport system.
All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the
function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the
flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the
bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very
similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar
mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other
cells. It is also a possibility that the flagellum could have evolved from a
currently undiscovered system with similar flagellar traits or a currently
extinct organelle/organism.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I As such, the type three
secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from
a simpler bacterial secretion system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

There are no misleading penis jokes in this JC & certainly nothing ID
ever argued for... Can you explain to me how your horrible video
gave evidence to prove ID's validity, let alone explain the flagella,
let alone act as evidence in-and-of itself :rolleyes:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Here is the Post you have referred to:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=578

How does this invalidate anything I have written?


sponsoredwalk
Yes I know, I quoted it to make sure you knew the context.
It invalidates everything you've written in this thread because what you
said is that evolution explains why there are so many different species
on this planet. Here is the full thing again:

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Evolution 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.


sponsoredwalk
What you are saying here is that evolution may explain the diversity of
life but it doesn't explain the origin of life. That is true JC, evolution is not
supposed to explain the "arrival of the fittest". That is a whole seperate
theory called abiogenesis, totally different from evolution...

The 'arrival of the fittest' is the the origin of the entire genome of specified functional complex information present in living systems i.e. the supposed 'evolution' of Pond creatures to Man.
I wasn't referring to Abiogenesis at all.

FionnMatthew

J C wrote:

Either it is wrong or it is right ... if it is wrong lets all decently join the A & A ... or some other faith that has a modicum of truth to it

fionnmatthew wrote:

What would it take to convince you it was wrong? The smoking gun?

J C wrote:

... as far as I see all of the evidence and logic stacks up in favour of the Genesis account!!!

fionnmatthew wrote:

You didn't answer the question. Answer the question.

J C wrote:

I did ... just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I didn't answer your question.

You did not answer the question. You prevaricated. You avoided answering the question.

An answer to my question would look like,

"The only thing that would convince me Genesis was false is God telling me it is false"

or

"I would be convinced Genesis was wrong if we found incontrovertible fossil evidence of transitional species."

or even

"It is impossible for there ever to be any evidence that would convince me that Genesis is wrong."

As in, an answer that says what sort of evidence, if any, would convince you Genesis was wrong. I don't have to like it, but it does have to be an actual answer to the question I asked, which was, just to make it really really clear:

FIONNMATTHEW wrote:

WHAT SORT OF EVIDENCE WOULD CONVINCE YOU THE ACCOUNT IN GENESIS IS FALSE?

Now please answer the question, and stop being a git.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

We know we can't convince you because you're delusional and simply not living on the same planet as the rest of us.

We've plenty of overwhelming evidence we do rely on. But you are neither invalidating or examining anything.

If you do have this evidence, then you don't have to worry about an ordinary Dub like John May (or any of the thousands of eminent conventionally qualified ID and Creation Sceintists around the World) looking into a camera and listing off several obvious invalidities in the theory ... before anybody can say 'Specious Nonesense'!!!!

Of course, the problem is that you don't have evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution' that would stand up to scrutiny by a five-year old.

FionnMatthew

Answer the question.

FionnMatthew

J C wrote: »

Of course, the problem is that you don't have evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution' that would stand up to scrutiny by a five-year old.

What would that evidence look like?

Fill in the blank:

"Evidence that would convince me that Genesis is wrong would be ________________________________________."

King Mob

J C wrote: »

If you do have this evidence, then you don't have to worry about an ordinary Dub like John May (or any of the thousands of eminent conventionally qualified ID and Creation Sceintists around the World) looking into a camera and listing off several obvious invalidities in the theory ... before anybody could say 'Specious Nonesense'!!!!

We don't, cause luckily we have guys like you and them who show exactly how bereft of logic, science, honesty and sense your bull**** is and just how ill educated, ignorant and plenty dense you and the people like you who promote this bollocks actually are.

How do you rationalise all the ignoring of questions you're doing?
How is that "telling the truth"?

J C

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Fill in the blank:

"Evidence that would convince me that Genesis is wrong would be ________________________________________."

"Evidence that would convince me that Genesis is wrong would be evidence that Materialistic Evolution (from Pondkind to Mankind) ever occurred.

... please fill in any evidence you have for this on this line____________.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

The 'arrival of the fittest' is the the origin of the entire genome of specified functional complex information present in living systems i.e. the supposed 'evolution' of Pond creatures to Man.
I wasn't referring to Abiogenesis at all.

BUt evolution does explain that, of course it does, that is just one small
part of the theory. Why doesn't evolution explain this JC? Can you
explain why we can trace our genome back from 98%-ish similarities to
90% similarities to 5% with dogs/mouses etc...


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/genetsims.shtml

You see that complexity originates gradually? You do understand that
something simple becomes more complex over time? That is the essence of
evolution, an organism becomes more complex as it adapts to it's
environment or genetically diverges into something new.

You're spitting out waffle about complexity, basically Michael Behe's
argument, that "how could functional complexity arise from pond
creatures". Well it did happen, from pond to man:

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/040415/armbone.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Lungless_frog_could_shed_light_on_evolution_scientist_999.html
http://evolutiondiary.com/2006/12/07/missing-link-from-fish-to-land-animals-found/




(For the last link).

King Mob

J C wrote: »

"Evidence that would convince me that Genesis is wrong would be evidence that Materialistic Evolution (from Pondkind to Mankind) ever occurred.

And what evidence would convince you that evolution has happened?

mohawk

J C wrote: »

"Evidence that would convince me that Genesis is wrong would be evidence that Materialistic Evolution (from Pondkind to Mankind) ever occurred.

... please fill in any evidence you have for this on this line____________.

Once again that didn't answer the question.
Are you hoping someone will build you a time machine prehaps??

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Of course, the problem is that you don't have evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution' that would stand up to scrutiny by a five-year old.

I didn't see this golden spam nugget a second ago, so you can explain all
of the fossils mentioned in the links in my post above showing the transition
"from pond to man"?:D

JC, this is it, showtime! Direct question, can you or can't you disprove the
fossil evidence I mentioned in the links above?



In case you magically forget where the links are:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

BUt evolution does explain that, of course it does, that is just one small
part of the theory. Why doesn't evolution explain this JC? Can you
explain why we can trace our genome back from 98%-ish similarities to
90% similarities to 5% with dogs/mouses etc...


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/genetsims.shtml

You see that complexity originates gradually? You do understand that
something simple becomes more complex over time? That is the essence of
evolution, an organism becomes more complex as it adapts to it's
environment or genetically diverges into something new.

You're spitting out waffle about complexity, basically Michael Behe's
argument, that "how could functional complexity arise from pond
creatures". Well it did happen, from pond to man:

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/040415/armbone.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Lungless_frog_could_shed_light_on_evolution_scientist_999.html
http://evolutiondiary.com/2006/12/07/missing-link-from-fish-to-land-animals-found/




(For the last link).

FionnMatthew

J C wrote: »

"Evidence that would convince me that Genesis is wrong would be evidence that Materialistic Evolution (from Pondkind to Mankind) ever occurred.

Once again, you did not answer the question, you just identified basically coreferential terms. Yes, evidence for evolution would be evidence against Gen. I was asking you WHAT THAT EVIDENCE WOULD LOOK LIKE. What you said above is basically as uninformative as saying "evidence that would convince me Genesis is wrong would be evidence that would convince me Genesis is wrong."

Therefore, once again, you did not answer the question.

"Evidence that would convince me Genesis is wrong would be ________________"

Name something specific, from your ostensively vast store of knowledge on the subject of evolution, which would cause you to change your mind. Something specific.

J C

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Once again, you did not answer the question, you just identified basically coreferential terms. Yes, evidence for evolution would be evidence against Gen. I was asking you WHAT THAT EVIDENCE WOULD LOOK LIKE. What you said above is basically as uninformative as saying "evidence that would convince me Genesis is wrong would be evidence that would convince me Genesis is wrong."

Therefore, once again, you did not answer the question.

"Evidence that would convince me Genesis is wrong would be ________________"

Name something specific, from your ostensively vast store of knowledge on the subject of evolution, which would cause you to change your mind. Something specific.

I answered it here:-

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68095053&postcount=765

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I answered it here:-

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68095053&postcount=765

That's not an answer, that's just you saying you think there is no evidence
to show how man evolved from "the pond". I've given you links showing
fossil evidence. Did you offer £10,000 for an answer to this question by
any chance?

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

I answered it here:-

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68095053&postcount=765

No you didn't.

FionnMatthew

No. You did not answer it. I have already specified why that was not an answer to the question. What gall you have, quoting the very post in which I explained why you had not answered the question while linking me to the post I was talking about.

I've already said, to answer the question, you have to give an example of the evidence that would convince you. You have to be specific.

Answer the question, and stop being intellectually dishonest.

We'll even make it multiple choice for you.

"Evidence that would convince me Genesis was wrong would be ____________________________________________________"

a) Fossil evidence of speciation.
b) Credible hypotheses for abiogenesis
c) The full tree-map of the clades
d) other (please fill in)
e) God telling me
f) No evidence will ever convince me. You may have facts, but I have faith. All the facts in the world, established to an insane degree of epistemic closure, will be ignored in favour of my prior commitment to the truth of the Genesis account. I will prevaricate, selectively ignore and obfuscate to maintain my faith above all else.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I answered it here:-

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68095053&postcount=765

Do you not read others posts, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Or maybe it's because you can't understand more complex arguements...

But he explained exactly why that silly post of yours isn't an answer.

But seriously JC keep going the way you're going.
You're making a great case against the bull**** you support.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

BUt evolution does explain that, of course it does, that is just one small
part of the theory. Why doesn't evolution explain this JC? Can you
explain why we can trace our genome back from 98%-ish similarities to
90% similarities to 5% with dogs/mouses etc...


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/history/genetsims.shtml

You see that complexity originates gradually? You do understand that
something simple becomes more complex over time? That is the essence of
evolution, an organism becomes more complex as it adapts to it's
environment or genetically diverges into something new.

You're spitting out waffle about complexity, basically Michael Behe's
argument, that "how could functional complexity arise from pond
creatures". Well it did happen, from pond to man:

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/040415/armbone.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Lungless_frog_could_shed_light_on_evolution_scientist_999.html
http://evolutiondiary.com/2006/12/07/missing-link-from-fish-to-land-animals-found/




(For the last link).

We can speculate endlessly about how different creatures are 'related' to each other ... you can say they are related by common descent ... and I can say they are related by common design ... the insurmountable problem for Evolution, however, is origin of the Complex Specified Functional information present in living organisms.

There is simply too much non-functional combinatorial space out there for NS to be able to 'home in on' functional biomolecules wherever and whenever these biomolecules are needed to evolve each putative step between fish and men.

sponsoredwalk

JC, nobody is speculating except you. I've given you evidence & you've
called it speculation. You're a conniving liar at this stage, there's no
other way to explain the cheap, lazy & blinded response you've just given
me.

How can you call evidence "speculation"???

Do you understand that combinatorics has nothing to do with the
question you've just asked. You're using big words to sound like you're
making a point.

You're saying "it's just too difficult for molecules to work", that's all you're
saying. No molecules magically turned a fish into a man, you're a joke to
even suggest that.

mohawk

J C wrote: »

We can speculate endlessly about how different creatures are 'related' to each other ... you can say they are related by common descent ... and I can say they are related by common design ... the insurmountable problem for Evolution, however, is origin of the Complex Specified Functional information present in living organisms.

There is simply too much non-functional combinatorial space out there for NS to be able to 'home in on' functional biomolecules wherever and whenever these biomolecules are needed to evolve each putative step between fish and men.

Do you ever think to yourself - Why did god create so many animals that became extinct? What a waste of time on his/her part. You would think that a creator as all knowing and powerful as this alleged god is would know better.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

JC, nobody is speculating except you. I've given you evidence & you've
called it speculation. You're a conniving liar at this stage, there's no
other way to explain the cheap, lazy & blinded response you've just given
me.

How can you call evidence "speculation"???

Do you understand that combinatorics has nothing to do with the
question you've just asked. You're using big words to sound like you're
making a point.

You're saying "it's just too difficult for molecules to work", that's all you're
saying. No molecules magically turned a fish into a man, you're a joke to
even suggest that.

Stop generating 'heat' ... and please provide some 'light' ... and look at the video above.

J C

mohawk wrote: »

Do you ever think to yourself - Why did god create so many animals that became extinct? What a waste of time on his/her part. You would think that a creator as all knowing and powerful as this alleged god is would know better.

That's an interesting Theological Question ... but let's stick with the science for the time being!!

King Mob

You see, you guys are making the mistake of trying to use reality to debate with JC.
But it should be pretty clear that him and reality aren't on speaking terms anymore.

Then again I tried asking him about his delusional world, but he ignored those questions too. seems he can't even get his own nonsense straight.