"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

mohawk

J C wrote: »

... but let's stick with the science for the time being!!

Science :rolleyes:!! You have ignored all scientific evidence posted on this thread thus far so I thought it was pointless in wasting my time discussing science with you.

FionnMatthew

Once again, J C. Answer my question. Give an honest answer.

An example of a piece of evidence that would convince you to drop your commitment to Gen.

If you CANNOT meet this very basic standard of discussion, you have absolutely no weight in this discussion. For as long as you prevaricate, you fool nobody, and you disserve entirely the view you are defending.

sponsoredwalk

1) That video uses the same hack creation philosopher who argued,
incorrectly, for creationism in the other video too. This man is clearly biased.

2) This video has nothing to do with my question about how ID was validated
at the Pajaro conference.

3) This video also uses the flagella argument for complexity. This is now 2
videos using the same argument for ID. Am I still half-cocked assuming
that there is anything else to ID other than the flagella argument?

4) The flagella argument has been shown to be incorrect, we've found a
natural, materialistic explanation for this as well. I gave you two links
already that give an evolutionary explanation that is accepted.
If we concluded intelligent design because of this flagella we would have
lied to ourselves & to truth because we never would have discovered there
was a real, naturalistic, explanation. You would rather people not have
found the real answer as opposed to some imaginary ID one. Sick stuff JC.

5) Where is the proof of ID using a video that just says something
complex was made by intelligent degodsign when the basis of their
theory, the flagella, was shown to be wrong?

6) Why do you say things like this:

J C wrote: »

The evidence must stand up to scrutiny ... and 'handwaving' simply won't 'pass muster'!!

and then, when I give you evidence, you tell us that it's no good.
This is something a charlatan would do, why are you lying to yourself?
I've shown you transitional fossils that have been found, they exist in
a lab/museum & are there for you to see for yourself. You can't change
the fact that this exists. This is one proof of the idea that organisms
came from the sea and moved onto land.


You see that by evolution all of these species evolved. It took
billions of years JC, it was slow, but complexity came slowly. It
built up gradually, things got more and more complicated. We are
just one part of the ongoing process, things may get more complex
over time, maybe not. Most likely they will...

robindch

mohawk wrote: »

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.

Allow me:

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

/QUOTE]

That picture is fucking awesome!

With regards to JC, I once tried to get him to do a role swap whereby we would argue for creation science and He would argue for evolution in an effort to get us to understand both sides better. He declined, if that's not closedmindedness, and reluctance to examine ones beliefs I don't know what is.:(

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

/QUOTE]

That picture is fucking awesome!

With regards to JC, I once tried to get him to do a role swap whereby we would argue for creation science and He would argue for evolution in an effort to get us to understand both sides better. He declined, if that's not closedmindedness, and reluctance to examine ones beliefs I don't know what is.:(

OK roleswap ...
I once was an Evolutionist...

I believed all of the wonderful stories I was told ... and I was deeply impressed with all of the colourful diagrams based on the 'fossil reecord' I was shown ... and then I realised that the stories were unfounded ... and the diagrams had a better explanation ... the 'fossil record' is obviously a record of burial in Noah's Flood ... sea floor dwelling creatures and land plants first ... and mobile land animals and fish last ... as they would be the last to succum to the flood processes.

The so-called 'Tree of Life' ... is actually a 'Tree of Death' i.e. it is based on the death of dead fossils!!!

I now wish to repeat ... by popular demand ”An Evolutionary Bed Time Story” ...

Although written in an ironic style, it does genuinely make me somewhat sad as well.
I too spent the best part of my childhood and young adulthood believing in the Evolution Fairytale ... and all of the “characters” in the Evolutionary Zoo evoke ‘special’ memories for me also.

Enjoy!!!

Quote from
An Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
”In the fossil record, transition from one species to another is usually abrupt in most geographic locales -- no transitional forms are found. In short, it appears that species remain unchanged for long stretches of time and then are quickly replaced by new species. However, if wide ranges are searched, transitional forms that bridge the gap between the two species are sometimes found in small, localized areas. For example, in Jurassic brachiopods of the genus Kutchithyris, K. acutiplicata appears below another species, K. euryptycha. Both species were common and covered a wide geographical area. They differ enough that some have argued they should be in a different genera. In just one small locality an approximately 1.25m sedimentary layer with these fossils is found. In the narrow (10 cm) layer that separates the two species, both species are found along with transitional forms. In other localities there is a sharp transition.”

An Evolutionary Bed Time Story
Here is your bedtime story boys and girls, of my recent visit to the Evolutionary Zoo.

Once upon a time, when I was very, very young the Evolutionary Zoo was full of many wonderful and strange Beasts. Indeed, there were so many, that it used to take me a whole day to see them all, whenever I visited the Evolutionary Zoo!!

You can imagine, my disappointment when I recently visited the Evolutionary Zoo and I found only the above very sad little beasties, with names that I couldn't even begin to pronounce, all on their own, squeezed into just one “small localised area”.

I found that the Hopeful Monster’s Enclosure was completely unenclosed – with not a Monster in sight. I also found that the Archaeopteryx had “flown it’s coop” – because it was a REAL bird, after all.

I went looking for the Zoo Keeper and I found him over in the Dinosaur Enclosure, MILKING a large Dinosaur!!
The Keeper told me that he thought that it was a actually a large MAMMAL Dinosaur.
“However,” says the Keeper, “the Evolutionists continue to insist that it is a warm-blooded, hairy, lactating LIZARD!!! Either way,” says he, “I have found that the milk tastes great on me Porridge and it's full of Calcium!!”

I then got talking with the Keeper and I asked him what ever happened to the “little horsies” that used to take people for a ride down on the ‘Missing Links Carousel’ and he told me that the Evolutionary Scientists had shot them all – apparently because they weren’t actually Missing Links (or horses) at all, at all.

“Do you know” says the Keeper, “that an evolutionary Doctor once told me that me Hair Lice evolved from me Skin Lice?” – and looking at the state of his personal hygiene, I could well believe it!!
“Anyway,” says he, “I have found that this stuff kills the lot of them”. And he reached for a tin of Louse Powder and proceeded to pour copious quantities of it down his trousers. “There”, says he smugly, “they’ll all be ‘As Dead as Evolution’ in a few minutes!!”

As we swapped stories of days that are gone, the Keeper told me that both Peking Man and Java Man had gone and disappeared – when he came into work one morning, they just weren’t there any more – they were reported to the Police as missing ‘Missing Links’ so to speak – but all to no avail, and they were never, ever seen again!!!

I then asked about Piltdown Man who used to live in the cage next to Nebraska man. The keeper shook his head and said that Piltdown Man was only pretending to be a Missing Link – he was actually a MAN with a jaw transplanted from an Ape.
Very, very painful boys and girls – and don’t ever, ever, try this at home!!

As for Nebraska Man, the darndest thing happened – he “morphed” into a little piggies tooth!!. When I asked how on Earth such a thing could happen - the Keeper muttered about it being an example of “Punctuated Evolution or something”!!.

I cried a little tear for all of the Great Evolutionary Beasts of my childhood, alas no more – the recapitulated embryos that didn’t recapitulate (serves them right for not recapitulating anyway), the ‘evolving’ grey/brown/white Moths that didn't actually evolve, Darwin’s Finches that are, how do you say it, still FINCHES, the Cro-Magnon Man that was a MAN and Little Lucy, the Monkey – who surprise, surprise, boys and girls, turned out to be an APE!!

A chance meeting with the Organ Grinder prompted me to ask him what ever happened to the hundreds of Vestigial Organs – that used to be ‘hung out’ all along the wall at the front gate.
“Ah!”, says the Organ Grinder, “there hasn’t been a squeak out of them for years – not since the Medics found out what they all did and put me out of business!”

Many things brought the memories flooding back. The empty perch at the back gate reminded me of the great big ‘Evolutionary Turkey’ that used to sit there, spewing forth vast quantities of gobbledygook onto any unsuspecting visitor who ventured too close to it.
The rusted sign over the Triceratops Enclosure was a reminder that the Triceratops had been found to be a 'Rhinoceros with Attitude' ... and a large bony frill and the long horns to prove it!!
The profusion of Ostrich feathers blowing on the breeze reminded me of the vulnerability of the ‘Ostrich Dinosaur’ to mauling by the ‘Lion Dinosaur’.

Some things DID remain the same however, in the Evolutionary Zoo. The 300 million year old Coelacanth fish was still swimming in it's tank alongside a 300 million year old Shark and neither of them had changed a bit!!!
Equally a 400 million year old starfish was nibbling away at a 500 million year old Clam while a 600 million year old jellyfish was floating aimlessly about beside them in it’s tank.

Meanwhile, a 500 million year old snail was busily munching-away at what was left of the flowerbed – and it also hadn’t changed (or evolved) one iota during all that time!!!

I called into the ‘Chip Shop’ before leaving and I noticed that the ‘Menu Special’ was ‘Dinosaur Burger a la chips’ – apparently the Palaeontologist had brought in a ‘fresh’ T. Rex leg that morning!!
The waitress looked at me with that wide eyed, faith-filled expression common to many Evolutionists, and proceeded to re-assure me that even though it was 90 million years old, the meat was still perfect – and it tasted great.
I decided that she might be as wrong about the quality of the meat as she was about it’s age – and so I went for a freshly caught Coelacanth ‘Fish and Chips’ instead!!!

As I was leaving, I read a notice on the gate, which said that the Evolutionary Zoo was closing down due to a lack of exhibits.

Aaah, the terrible price we pay for SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS boys and girls!!!

And WHO do you think I met on the way in as I was on the way out?

You guessed it – a guy called ‘Ham' with a group of 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’!!!

So I asked Ken what he was doing there. He said, that he had just bought the Evolutionary Zoo and he had asked the 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’ to draw up plans to redevelop the site – as a Creation Science Research Facility!!!


Nighty, nite boys and girls – sleep tight – and don’t let the bedbugs bite!!!

checkyabadself

John J May has had his say in today's Times.....

Madam, there have been many letters and press reports by people who have not read my book. With arrogant smugness they write with blithe indifference as to their ignorance.
It is an easy thin to ridicule a minority view.
I asked an evolutionist, my friend Conor Lenihan, to
launch my book The Origin of Specious Nonsense as I felt it would show respect for those who would hold a different point of view to mine.

-Yours etc,
John J May
Tallaght
Dublin

I don't need to read his book to dismiss it. A brief description of it leaves me thinking his next book will be challenging Gallelio

MagicMarker

J C wrote: »

I believed all of the wonderful stories I was told ... and I was deeply impressed with all of the colourful diagrams based on the 'fossil reecord' I was shown ... and then I realised that the stories were unfounded ... and the diagrams had a better explanation ... the 'fossil record' is obviously a record of burial in Noah's Flood

I stopped here.

Improbable

For the people who claim that no transitional species exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

But the sad thing is, take 2 species for example. A transitional species between those 2 species is found. Now, creationists say that we need 2 more transitional species to explain the new "gaps".

FionnMatthew

J C,

It's been a long while since I've stuck around internet forums debating whackos long enough to see a post as brain-damagingly retarded as the one you just posted.

J C wrote: »

Quote from
An Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
”In the fossil record, transition from one species to another is usually abrupt in most geographic locales -- no transitional forms are found. In short, it appears that species remain unchanged for long stretches of time and then are quickly replaced by new species. However, if wide ranges are searched, transitional forms that bridge the gap between the two species are sometimes found in small, localized areas. For example, in Jurassic brachiopods of the genus Kutchithyris, K. acutiplicata appears below another species, K. euryptycha. Both species were common and covered a wide geographical area. They differ enough that some have argued they should be in a different genera. In just one small locality an approximately 1.25m sedimentary layer with these fossils is found. In the narrow (10 cm) layer that separates the two species, both species are found along with transitional forms. In other localities there is a sharp transition.”

If you are going to use a reference to the lack of fossil evidence of speciation in Jurassic era reptiles as evidence in your favour, it pays to remember that JURASSIC denotes a GEOLOGICAL PERIOD stretching from 200 million years ago till 145 million years ago. It is, for you, fruit of the poisonous tree, since any knowledge of species in the Jurassic era comes from A PERIOD AT LEAST 144994000 years before, according to you, the world began. The sheer absurdity of your pitiful crusade is at this point mind-boggling. You are happy, in favour of the idea that the earth is 6000 years old, to draw on evidence about prehistoric animals any knowledge of which is complexly linked with the verification of a geological timescale that dwarfs your proposed Earth history by a multiple of AT LEAST 24166. I mean, precisely what purchase do you expect the word 'Jurassic' to have? You obviously don't believe in the Jurassic period if you think all of our fossil records date from a divinely ordained mass extinction event 5400 years ago?

The clincher is, however, that the passage you quote appears to quite comprehensively serve as a counterexample to your claim that there are no transitional species, and yet you selectively pick out the phrases whose connotations sound agreeable to you, and expect that to serve as your argument.

I just wonder about people like you. Are you taking the piss? Or are you really so fundamentally damaged in your ability to reason correctly that you think you're coming up with some sort of killer argument? What the **** is wrong with you?

And then, as if the thread needed to be any more delirious, this.

An Evolutionary Bed Time Story

Here is your bedtime story boys and girls, of my recent visit to the Evolutionary Zoo.

Once upon a time, when I was very, very young the Evolutionary Zoo was full of many wonderful and strange Beasts. Indeed, there were so many, that it used to take me a whole day to see them all, whenever I visited the Evolutionary Zoo!!

You can imagine, my disappointment when I recently visited the Evolutionary Zoo and I found only the above very sad little beasties, with names that I couldn't even begin to pronounce, all on their own, squeezed into just one “small localised area”.

I found that the Hopeful Monster’s Enclosure was completely unenclosed – with not a Monster in sight. I also found that the Archaeopteryx had “flown it’s coop” – because it was a REAL bird, after all.

I went looking for the Zoo Keeper and I found him over in the Dinosaur Enclosure, MILKING a large Dinosaur!!
The Keeper told me that he thought that it was a actually a large MAMMAL Dinosaur.
“However,” says the Keeper, “the Evolutionists continue to insist that it is a hot-blooded, hairy, lactating LIZARD!!! Either way,” says he, “I have found that the milk tastes great on me Porridge and it's full of Calcium!!”

I then got talking with the Keeper and I asked him what ever happened to the “little horsies” that used to take people for a ride down on the ‘Missing Links Carousel’ and he told me that the Evolutionary Scientists had shot them all – apparently because they weren’t actually Missing Links (or horses) at all, at all.

“Do you know” says the Keeper, “that an evolutionary Doctor once told me that me Hair Lice evolved from me Skin Lice?” – and looking at the state of his personal hygiene, I could well believe it!!
“Anyway,” says he, “I have found that this stuff kills the lot of them”. And he reached for a tin of Louse Powder and proceeded to pour copious quantities of it down his trousers. “There”, says he smugly, “they’ll all be ‘As Dead as Evolution’ in a few minutes!!”

As we swapped stories of days that are gone, the Keeper told me that both Peking Man and Java Man had gone and disappeared – when he came into work one morning, they just weren’t there any more – they were reported to the Police as missing ‘Missing Links’ so to speak – but all to no avail, and they were never, ever seen again!!!

I then asked about Piltdown Man who used to live in the cage next to Nebraska man. The keeper shook his head and said that Piltdown Man was only pretending to be a Missing Link – he was actually a MAN with a jaw transplanted from an Ape.
Very, very painful boys and girls – and don’t ever, ever, try this at home!!

As for Nebraska Man, the darndest thing happened – he “morphed” into a little piggies tooth!!. When I asked how on Earth such a thing could happen - the Keeper muttered about it being an example of “Punctuated Evolution or something”!!.

I cried a little tear for all of the Great Evolutionary Beasts of my childhood, alas no more – the recapitulated embryos that didn’t recapitulate (serves them right for not recapitulating anyway), the ‘evolving’ grey/brown/white Moths that didn't evolve, Darwin’s Finches that are, how do you say it, still FINCHES, the Cro-Magnon Man that was a MAN and Little Lucy, the Monkey – who surprise, surprise, boys and girls, turned out to be an APE!!

A chance meeting with the Organ Grinder prompted me to ask him what ever happened to the hundreds of Vestigial Organs – that used to be ‘hung out’ all along the wall at the front gate.
“Ah!”, says the Organ Grinder, “there hasn’t been a squeak out of them for years – not since the Medics found out what they all did and put me out of business!”

Many things brought the memories flooding back. The empty perch at the back gate reminded me of the great big ‘Evolutionary Turkey’ that used to sit there, spewing forth vast quantities of gobbledygook onto any unsuspecting visitor who ventured too close to it.
The rusted sign over the Triceratops Enclosure was a reminder that the Triceratops had been found to be a 'Rhinocerous with Attitude' ... and a large bony frill and the long horns to prove it!!
The profusion of Ostrich feathers blowing on the breeze reminded me of the vulnerability of the ‘Ostrich Dinosaur’ to mauling by the ‘Lion Dinosaur’.

Some things DID remain the same however, in the Evolutionary Zoo. The 300 million year old Coelacanth fish was still swimming in it's tank alongside a 300 million year old Shark and neither of them had changed a bit!!!
Equally a 400 million year old starfish was nibbling away at a 500 million year old Clam while a 600 million year old jellyfish was floating aimlessly about beside them in it’s tank.

Meanwhile, a 500 million year old snail was busily munching-away at what was left of the flowerbed – and it also hadn’t changed (or evolved) one iota during all that time!!!

I called into the ‘Chip Shop’ before leaving and I noticed that the ‘Menu Special’ was ‘Dinosaur Burger a la chips’ – apparently the Palaeontologist had brought in a ‘fresh’ T. Rex leg that morning!!
The waitress looked at me with that wide eyed, faith-filled expression common to many Evolutionists, and proceeded to re-assure me that even though it was 90 million years old, the meat was still perfect – and it tasted great.
I decided that she might be as wrong about the quality of the meat as she was about it’s age – and so I went for a freshly caught Coelacanth ‘Fish and Chips’ instead!!!

As I was leaving, I read a notice on the gate, which said that the Evolutionary Zoo was closing down due to a lack of exhibits.

Aaah, the terrible price we pay for SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS boys and girls!!!

And WHO do you think I met on the way in as I was on the way out?

You guessed it – a guy called ‘Ham' with a group of 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’!!!

So I asked Ken what he was doing there. He said, that he had just bought the Evolutionary Zoo and he had asked the 1,000 engineers called ‘Steve’ to draw up plans to redevelop the site – as a Creation Science Research Facility!!!


Nighty, nite boys and girls – sleep tight – and don’t let the bedbugs bite!!!

I have no idea what role this risibly inept fable is supposed to play, but unless it is to serve to baffle and frustrate, it has failed utterly. It is offensively stupid.

I'm happy, in fact have been long ago, that you have absolutely nothing solid to offer here. Seek help.

J C

MagicMarker wrote: »

I stopped here.

How open-minded of you!!!

Improbable

J C wrote: »

How open-minded of you!!!

Personal attacks... nice...

How about you justify statements like:

J C wrote: »

the 'fossil record' is obviously a record of burial in Noah's Flood

Ghost Buster

JC.
I have politely asked a number of times as to what evidence for evolution you would accept and very rudely and unchristian like you have ignored my question.
Im sure most folk here would love to be able to help you but as I've already said we have a problem:
If you are going to either swat evidence away with your bible because the evidence conflicts with its contents
or
You will dismiss other wise valid scientific evidence as an elaborate hoax/ conspiracy
Then in what format will you accept evidence?

Please answer.



(Edit - Christian like)

robindch

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Seek help.

Be nice.

amacachi

Improbable wrote: »

But the sad thing is, take 2 species for example. A transitional species between those 2 species is found. Now, creationists say that we need 2 more transitional species to explain the new "gaps".

Yup, I've pointed that out to several people as being just one of the many ways Creationists twist logic to suit themselves.

equivariant

Are we going to have another 20K post thread? Should this not be merged with the BCP thread (seeing as it is pretty much covering exactly the same territory now)? J C has already demonstrated conclusively that what he lacks in reason/logic/lucidity, he more than makes up for with stamina. Do we really need 2 separate threads to prove this?

pH

equivariant wrote: »

Are we going to have another 20K post thread? Should this not be merged with the BCP thread (seeing as it is pretty much covering exactly the same territory now)? J C has already demonstrated conclusively that what he lacks in reason/logic/lucidity, he more than makes up for with stamina. Do we really need 2 separate threads to prove this?

You know posts like this amaze me, if new people want to debate/argue with J C (or even some old hands try again) why not? It's one thread, if people are interested they'll participate, those that aren't just ignore it (and yes I appreciate that the mods mightn't have this choice.

These are discussion boards, if new people want to discuss something that has been discussed before who are we to stop them?

Personally I dropped out of the BCP thread long before the lock. While there was certain fun in backing J C into corners to make him declare that distant galaxies were probably smears on astronomers lenses, or that the chalk of the cliffs of Dover could be laid down in a particularly wet weekend, I personally tired of the triviality and stupidity of the whole thing.

However, if the next generation want to go at him, why not? Maybe the thread could be appropriately labelled - I suggest "Contains J C"

FionnMatthew

robindch wrote: »

Be nice.

Alright.

equivariant

pH wrote: »

You know posts like this amaze me, if new people want to debate/argue with J C (or even some old hands try again) why not? It's one thread, if people are interested they'll participate, those that aren't just ignore it (and yes I appreciate that the mods mightn't have this choice.

These are discussion boards, if new people want to discuss something that has been discussed before who are we to stop them?

Personally I dropped out of the BCP thread long before the lock. While there was certain fun in backing J C into corners to make him declare that distant galaxies were probably smears on astronomers lenses, or that the chalk of the cliffs of Dover could be laid down in a particularly wet weekend, I personally tired of the triviality and stupidity of the whole thing.

However, if the next generation want to go at him, why not? Maybe the thread could be appropriately labelled - I suggest "Contains J C"

I'm all for the next generation or anyone else having a go - that's why BCP is there. My understanding was that one of the reasons that BCP was kept open was so that all the creationist nonsense would not spread out and randomly pollute other threads in the christianity and A+A forums. (But maybe I am mistaken on this.)

FionnMatthew

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Then in what format will you accept evidence?

Please answer.

Why, J C will accept evidence in the following form: evidence that he will take on board! That sort of evidence!

Couldn't be simpler.

sponsoredwalk

All we have is JC ignoring mountains of evidence in this thread, hardly an
example of creationism spewing out all over the place.

My hope is that John May will eventually sit down and read this thread and
come across all the evidence, find all of our mentions of his own points and
their flaws etc... so I'd really hope this thread wouldn't be cut up again,
especially when the latest posts had so much gold!

JC has completely shown him/her-self to be afraid of evidence, I mean we
have the quotes insulting us for not giving evidence then calling evidence
I gave him/her "speculation". Any impartial reader will see how full of bs
(s)he was.

If you read about, or heard, Phil Plait's talk about being nice to people
you're trying to argue with then you'll see how his theory will not work in
this case. We have nearly 50 pages of JC ignoring evidence and spouting
waffle. All we can do is continue to offer up serious evidence every time
(s)he responds & let it take it's course

I'm still waiting to hear how ID was validated at Pajaro in 1993, let alone
evidence why the "tree of death" somehow validates Noah's flood.
It's even stranger to see how this will show the fish transitional
fossil's to be incorrect destroying the pond-to-man idea JC can't accept.
Also waiting to hear how ID has anything more to it than this flagella idea
I went off half-cocked about only to receive a second video spouting
the exact same nonsense with most of the same people in it

darjeeling

Oh dear, this is all getting rather fraught.

As a diversion, I offer the current spat between creationists over the origins of gorillas and girls, centred on the recently-discovered ~2M year old South African ape fossil Australopithecus sediba.

Palaeontologists place sediba in the increasingly bushy family tree that evolved after our ancestors split from the proto-chimps. Creationists see things differently, and they're busy trying to decide whether it is human or ape.

humans are apes!

:eek:

Creationist Todd Wood - who forever seems on the verge of seeing the evolutionary light - published a Creation Science (TM) paper that lumped A. sediba in with the humans, whilst grouping the much older A. afarensis (popularly known as 'Lucy') with modern day chimps and gorillas. Lots of other creationists got very upset and denied this, citing various weird and wonderful theological problems they dreamed up. And now Todd's gotten cross right back at them.

So we have creationists arguing over whether a fossil ape is related to chimps or to humans. But of course, as they insist on telling us, there are no transitional fossils!

This would all be quite funny were it not that mixed in amongst the Hovinds and Hams are some genuinely talented people who are sadly wasting their careers with this rubbish, and persuading their students to follow them.

sponsoredwalk

darjeeling wrote: »

Oh dear, this is all getting rather fraught.

As a diversion, I offer the current spat between creationists over the origins of gorillas and girls, centred on the recently-discovered ~2M year old South African ape fossil Australopithecus sediba.

Palaeontologists place sediba in the increasingly bushy family tree that evolved after our ancestors split from the proto-chimps. Creationists see things differently, and they're busy trying to decide whether it is human or ape.

humans are apes!

:eek:

Creationist Todd Wood - who forever seems on the verge of seeing the evolutionary light - published a Creation Science (TM) paper that lumped A. sediba in with the humans, whilst grouping the much older A. afarensis (popularly known as 'Lucy') with modern day chimps and gorillas. Lots of other creationists got very upset and denied this, citing various weird and wonderful theological problems they dreamed up. And now Todd's gotten cross right back at them.

So we have creationists arguing over whether a fossil ape is related to chimps or to humans. But of course, as they insist on telling us, there are no transitional fossils!

This would all be quite funny were it not that mixed in amongst the Hovinds and Hams are some genuinely talented people who are sadly wasting their careers with this rubbish, and persuading their students to follow them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zew3DsNBSPE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxM-UMWtv3o

robindch

darjeeling wrote: »

This would all be quite funny were it not that mixed in amongst the Hovinds and Hams are some genuinely talented people who are sadly wasting their careers with this rubbish, and persuading their students to follow them.

In five years or so of observing the creationist movement, I've never come across anybody whom I'd have thought was genuinely talented in biology. Now, there are plenty of people who can bullshit convincingly to the uninformed, the credulous and the well-meaning, but certainly nobody who's made any genuine contribution, no matter how small, to the sum total of human knowledge in their career as a creationist.

Here's Ken Ham, btw, to explain why being a creationist is a good thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCENATFV7E8

For comparison, here he is from a few years back before his mutton chops went white and before it seems he started developed what seems to have become be a fairly cold and nasty hatred of non-creationists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siJVuVfett0

darjeeling

robindch wrote: »

In five years or so of observing the creationist movement, I've never come across anybody whom I'd have thought was genuinely talented in biology. Now, there are plenty of people who can bullshit convincingly to the uninformed, the credulous and the well-meaning, but certainly nobody who's made any genuine contribution, no matter how small, to the sum total of human knowledge in their career as a creationist.

I'd agree that creationism is a scientific dead end, but I do think there are some people working in it who have the potential to achieve something if they were to drop it and go into real science instead.

Turtwig

darjeeling wrote: »

Oh dear, this is all getting rather fraught.

As a diversion, I offer the current spat between creationists over the origins of gorillas and girls, centred on the recently-discovered ~2M year old South African ape fossil Australopithecus sediba.

Palaeontologists place sediba in the increasingly bushy family tree that evolved after our ancestors split from the proto-chimps. Creationists see things differently, and they're busy trying to decide whether it is human or ape.

humans are apes!

:eek:

Creationist Todd Wood - who forever seems on the verge of seeing the evolutionary light - published a Creation Science (TM) paper that lumped A. sediba in with the humans, whilst grouping the much older A. afarensis (popularly known as 'Lucy') with modern day chimps and gorillas. Lots of other creationists got very upset and denied this, citing various weird and wonderful theological problems they dreamed up. And now Todd's gotten cross right back at them.

So we have creationists arguing over whether a fossil ape is related to chimps or to humans. But of course, as they insist on telling us, there are no transitional fossils!

This would all be quite funny were it not that mixed in amongst the Hovinds and Hams are some genuinely talented people who are sadly wasting their careers with this rubbish, and persuading their students to follow them.

Yep mass delusion, depressing in all its glory and so easy to fall into too. The tobacco industry practically wrote the book on how to do it. It's really easy too. First, get some "scientist" to publish a journal in a piece of crap journal. Next get some other scientist to write a serious article (usually a review paper) for a prestigious journal and include in that paper citations to paper published in piece of crap [POC] journal. If possible make as many references to a plethora of papers published in POC journals. Next over the course of a few months use the fact that you have pseudoscience referenced in a genuine peer review paper to argue that your pseudoscience is science and you are now ready to begin phase II.

Inform the Public of the new emerging opinion in science and most importantly be sure to inform them about the motives of those who hold the actual scientific view. Science, has ironically, shown that the majority of public simply trust scientists and the quality of their science on the basis of what they perceive these scientists motives to be. So in the case of the creationism crap, all you have to merely do is point to stuff like nazism being apparently linked to evolution. As we all know, the aforementioned pseudoscience paper will not get published in an genuine journal, this is where we begin phase III.

By now the proponents of the pseudoscience should have the public significantly confused, in which case, once the pseudoscience paper is rejected they brew up a media **** storm by declaring they are being censored by the traditionalist and closed mind views of those in the scientific community. These pseudoscientists are the new modern day "Galileo's" - They aren't, but they just portray themselves in the public light as being so. Again, such is human nature, that this notion agrees with the lay person's notion that authority is being forceful and unfair. At which point the journal has only two options, publish the paper or reject it.

Publishing the paper is undoubtedly lowering the quality of science. Rejecting the paper, is seen as censorship in the general eyes of the public and they lose trust in the scientific community. It's a lose, lose situation that preys on the ignorance of everyday people. It's scary because it's true and Climate science has been riddled with it so effectively. Minority dissent in science is so important, it's what helps keep science in check, but when these folks get washed over by an ideological movement then the standard and rate of progress in science undoubtedly drops.

Also at this point you usually have enough confusion spread across the public that many scientists themselves and potential scientists have been hoodwinked into thinking the pseudoscience is genuine.

mackerski

robindch wrote: »

Here's Ken Ham, btw, to explain why being a creationist is a good thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCENATFV7E8

"There's incredible answers out there"

Yup.

Newaglish

pH wrote: »

You know posts like this amaze me, if new people want to debate/argue with J C (or even some old hands try again) why not? It's one thread, if people are interested they'll participate, those that aren't just ignore it (and yes I appreciate that the mods mightn't have this choice.

These are discussion boards, if new people want to discuss something that has been discussed before who are we to stop them?

Personally I dropped out of the BCP thread long before the lock. While there was certain fun in backing J C into corners to make him declare that distant galaxies were probably smears on astronomers lenses, or that the chalk of the cliffs of Dover could be laid down in a particularly wet weekend, I personally tired of the triviality and stupidity of the whole thing.

However, if the next generation want to go at him, why not? Maybe the thread could be appropriately labelled - I suggest "Contains J C"

You see, the problem is that the thread is supposed to be concerned with the launch of a book and the participation of a Minister of State in said launch. It was quite an interesting thread. Granted, the launch has now passed and discussion of the actual content of the book would perhaps be a logical next step.

What is has turned into is a series of largely unreadable posts and something which no civilised person would call a debate. It's essentially a bunch of posters responding (ill-advisedly) to what is clearly trolling.

If people want to have a ridiculous debate that goes nowhere, that's fine, I just wish it wasn't inserted into the middle of a thread I was actually enjoying. At least I could then ignore it.

darjeeling

pH wrote: »

You know posts like this amaze me, if new people want to debate/argue with J C (or even some old hands try again) why not? It's one thread, if people are interested they'll participate, those that aren't just ignore it (and yes I appreciate that the mods mightn't have this choice.

These are discussion boards, if new people want to discuss something that has been discussed before who are we to stop them?

^^ I agree

It's long been a rite of passage for red-blooded young boardsies to click over to the BC&P thread and have a go at the resident creationists, who have always been game and - one suspects - grateful for the attention. And when the thrill has worn off there's been a constant supply of new recruits to take up the cudgels.

With this forum going into overdrive, it wouldn't be surprising for it to become the new home of creationism bashing, though this - of course - is in the lap of the mods.

Newaglish wrote: »

You see, the problem is that the thread is supposed to be concerned with the launch of a book and the participation of a Minister of State in said launch. It was quite an interesting thread. Granted, the launch has now passed and discussion of the actual content of the book would perhaps be a logical next step.

I did enjoy the JJ May stuff too (even if Robin's photo never appeared for me), but that may have run its course. I'm not sure you can say that a thread is 'supposed to be' about something, when most of the posters have decided it's about something else. Such is the happy, anarchic nature of message boards.

Dades

Newaglish wrote: »

If people want to have a ridiculous debate that goes nowhere, that's fine, I just wish it wasn't inserted into the middle of a thread I was actually enjoying. At least I could then ignore it.

Well, like you say, the subject of the thread is done with. The launch is over and nobody else is going to buy the book. So hence the thread can wander.

I have a feeling it may be running down an evolutionary dead end, however. And it's never too late for a meteorite strike.