"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... I can't speak for you ... but there are no Apes in my family!!!:)

Only child were you? Probably explains why you believe in an invisible man. Invisible friends are very common in lone children.

J C wrote: »

... not too good (no sinful Human is really good this side of eternity) ... I'm just too different to be classified as an Ape.

And yet - more alike a chimp biologically than an Orangutan is. You're not too different to be an ape, it is a fact that you are an ape.

J C wrote: »

It all depends on what sequence you choose to examine ... but in any event I don't expect to see a Chimp ... or a Gorilla driving to work ... or debating the merits of evolution anytime soon!!!:)

Nor would you expect to find them do that. Evolution makes no such statements, so I'm unsure why you continually bring up such absurd strawmen.

J C wrote: »

I present scientific, philosophical, logical ... and Biblical evidence.
... and I have yet to see a single piece of scientific evidence that unabiguously supports W2M Evolution.

No, you haven't I'm afraid. There has been ample support of Evolution in this thread. If you don't see it, then it's because you have consciously decided to ignore it. That's ignorance on your behalf, not lack of evidence for Evolution.

Monty Burnz

dlofnep wrote: »

Evolution makes no such statements, so I'm unsure why you continually bring up such absurd strawmen.

I think we all know why he has to rely on absurd strawmen...

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Only child were you? Probably explains why you believe in an invisible man. Invisible friends are very common in lone children.

As is so happens I'm not an only child ... so you are drawing on your fertile Evolutionist imagination again!!!

dlofnep wrote: »

And yet - more alike a chimp biologically than an Orangutan is. You're not too different to be an ape, it is a fact that you are an ape.

... so just because you're more like an Elephant biologically than a Crocodile ... does this make you an Elephant???:eek:

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
It all depends on what sequence you choose to examine ... but in any event I don't expect to see a Chimp ... or a Gorilla driving to work ... or debating the merits of evolution anytime soon!!!

dlofnep
Nor would you expect to find them do that. Evolution makes no such statements, so I'm unsure why you continually bring up such absurd strawmen.

Your saying that we're all Apes ... and I'm proving that we are radically different with an enormous (and un-bridgeable) qualitative gap between Mankind and any other creature in God's Creation, including Apes.

dlofnep wrote: »

No, you haven't I'm afraid. There has been ample support of Evolution in this thread. If you don't see it, then it's because you have consciously decided to ignore it. That's ignorance on your behalf, not lack of evidence for Evolution.

There is plenty of 'support' for Evolution from the Evolutionists on this thread ... but no evidence!!!

shizz

J C wrote: »

There is plenty of 'support' for Evolution from the Evolutionists on this thread ... but no evidence!!!

Oh you missed it? Start from page 1.

Barr125

koth wrote: »

and yet you can't provide a simple definition of what it is and how it's detected/measured so we can see if it holds up to scrutiny.

I think he means this koth CFSI


Just a note, I'm not in anyway promoting JC's ramblings, just sourcing what he is trying (very badly) to explain.

J C

dead one wrote: »

JC you're straight forwarded person. I like it.... If i were you, i would act like like evolutionists in this foram. I would go in state of denial. I would try to deny reality. You're fighting with ignorance and arrogance. People like dlofnep etc are doing great job against evolution... They are creating harted in mind of common folk against evolution.... Their way of presenting evolution as fact is so rough and arrogant that i don't think that common would take it as fact.... Even if it were fact... ..... See i am neutral person, I find evolutionist arrogant and they are going against reality... So i would like take your side as there is no arrogance in your quotes. Your quotes reflect reality in netural and free of bias mind

Thanks for the kind comments, dead one.
I have found that the more people know ... the more humble they become ... at the awesomeness of everything.

dead one wrote: »

What do you think evolutionist in the foram. Why are they going against reality. I mean what is difference, when you were evolutionist and their career as evolutionist. Do you think ignorance is stubborn.

I think that they are frightened ... that the bottom is about to fall out of their worldview.
Unlike Theists they have no 'Plan B' ... as Materialistic Evolution and Abiogenesis is the only origins 'game in town' for them.
Theists can move between Divine Creation and Theistic Evolution ... and a myriad of other possible 'origns' ideas.

I can therefore empathise with them ... even when they are angry with me.

shizz

J C wrote: »

I think that they are frightened ... that the bottom is about to fall out of their worldview.
Unlike Theists they have no 'Plan B' ... as Materialistic Evolution and Abiogenesis is the only origins 'game in town' for them.
Theists can move between Divine Creation and Theistic Evolution ... and a myriad of other possible 'origns' ideas.

The fact that you can move between these 'Origin' ideas as you like just shows how little evidence there is for any of them. Because if any proper scientific study was done into them by Creationists they would either realise that they are all ridiculous, or in the unlikely even that there was an alarming amount of evidence for one of the theories, they would follow that one and not sweep between a myriad of 'Origin ideas'.

There can't be an equal amount of evidence in favour for all of them if they are drastically different ideas on origin.

Barr125

J C wrote: »

I have found that the more people know ... the more humble they become ... at the awesomeness of everything.

I think that they are frightened ... that the bottom is about to fall out of their worldview.
Unlike Theists they have no 'Plan B' ... as Materialistic Evolution and Abiogenesis is the only origins 'game in town' for them.
Theists can move between Divine Creation and Theistic Evolution ... and a myriad of other possible 'origns' ideas.

I can therefore empathise with them ... even when they are angry with me.

You must not be very humble then JC.

I'm not frightened. If anything, I'm relieved. It allows me to live my life more, as we only have one shot at life, and I intend to do anything and everything to make it the best.
Why should there be a ''Plan B''? What's wrong with ''Plan A''? Why should there be more than one explanation? And actually....;
The Neutral Theory of Evolution

And we're not angry, we're just tired. Tired of you ignoring the facts that have been repeatedly given to you everytime you ask for them and then claim that no one has given them to you.

J C

koth wrote: »

well you should read what JC has been posting, because you said that you have chosen to agree with him. And he said that the world is only a few thousand years old. So either you choose to side with him, and as a side-effect agree that world is only a few thousand years old. Or you don't agree with him, and therefore need to rethink your choice.

this is why it's usually a good idea to read up on what you're agreeing to before you decide to agree with someone.

People can agree with some things that other people believe ... and they can disagree about other things ... that is normal civilised behaviour.
dead one is obviously a very civilised person who agrees to differ with me on some things ... and me with him ...
... and we respect each other even though we don't share every belief that we hold.
... I know some brilliant Creation Scientists who are Muslim ... and of course, they don't share my faith ... but so what!!!!
... they are quite entitled to believe what they like ... and I respect them all and deeply value their friendship.
... you guys should try this some time.:)

... try respecting dead one and me , for example.

Delirium

the problem is dead one doesn't necessarily agree with anything you've said. at the minute, it's a purely symbolic show of support.

J C

shizz wrote: »

The fact that you can move between these 'Origin' ideas as you like just shows how little evidence there is for any of them. Because if any proper scientific study was done into them by Creationists they would either realise that they are all ridiculous, or in the unlikely even that there was an alarming amount of evidence for one of the theories, they would follow that one and not sweep between a myriad of 'Origin ideas'.

There can't be an equal amount of evidence in favour for all of them if they are drastically different ideas on origin.

There are many 'origins' beliefs ... but Intelliegent Creation has the scientific and logical 'edge' on all other origins beliefs.
Who the Creator(s) was/were is an open question ... but the fact that life was intelligently created is beyond all reasonable doubt.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

There are many 'origins' beliefs ... but Intelliegent Creation has the scientific and logical 'edge' on all other origins beliefs.
Who the Creator(s) was/were is an open question ... but the fact that life was intelligently created is beyond all reasonable doubt.

I look forward to your presentation of scientific evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that creationism is true.

Sarky

Still no mathematically sound definition of cfsi.

At this stage we can all assume you just don't have one, and that your silence on the matter is an explicit and unreserved apology for wasting so much time with bluster and insubstantial, vague hand-waving on the topic. You said you read every post, so obviously you'll have no trouble with this as it was part of the challenging I issued. I even gave you a second chance and a generous time limit both times, so it's not like you were put on the spot.

I hope it's safe to assume you won't be so foolish in future.

Show's over folks, J C has admitted defeat and apologised.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Show's over folks, J C has admitted defeat and apologised.

... in your dreams!!!:)

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Sarky wrote: »

Show's over folks, J C has admitted defeat and apologised.

... in your dreams!!!:)

I have better things to dream about. You failed a challenge to back up cfsi. Then you failed it again. I gave you multiple chances and a generous time limit, and you still failed. It should have been easy for you, if such evidence existed as you always claim it does. And yet, here you are empty handed. You failed. You forfeit. Forfeit was admitting failure and an apology.

Deal with it.

POINTBREAK

You Guys ever get that uneasy feeling that it might be wrong to constantly poke the mentally ill with a stick, even if they do seem to like it?

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... so just because you're more like an Elephant biologically than a Crocodile ... does this make you an Elephant???:eek:

No, nor was my statement anything even remotely close to what you're suggesting. Another strawman.

To recap - If you accept that a chimp and an orangutan are both apes (which you do) - And also accept that chimps are more biologically closer to humans than chimps are to orangutans (which you do) - Then it makes perfect sense to classify humans as apes.

I really don't see what the big problem is. It's merely a taxonomic classification.

Our of curiosity J C - Do you accept that other apes shared a common ancestor? Gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangutans...?

J C wrote: »

Your saying that we're all Apes ...

It's a biological fact that we are apes. I'm not the only one saying it I'm afraid. World renowned biologists agree. But I suppose you know better, right?

J C wrote: »

and I'm proving that we are radically different with an enormous (and un-bridgeable) qualitative gap between Mankind and any other creature in God's Creation, including Apes.

I agree that humans are radically different, all perfectly explainable by the theory of evolution. And we can see that radical change occurring all the way from homo habilis right up to modern homo sapiens.

J C wrote: »

There is plenty of 'support' for Evolution from the Evolutionists on this thread ... but no evidence!!!

We've presented you with evidence, but you insulted those who presented it by ignoring it.

RichieC

J C Humans are Great Apes.

Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, common chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Alternatively, the hominidae family are collectively described as the great apes

I like that this bugs these deniers.

J C

POINTBREAK wrote: »

You Guys ever get that uneasy feeling that it might be wrong to constantly poke the mentally ill with a stick, even if they do seem to like it?

I have to defend the Evolutionists on this thread on this one ... there is no evidence that any of them are suffering from mental illness .
Wishful thinking is simply wishful thinking!!!:)

Sarky

Wishful thinking would be trying to pretend you haven't admitted defeat and apologised after failing utterly to provide evidence for your claims.

Kind of like what you're doing right now, J C. Surely you haven't forgotten how you were asked to either provide evidence you claimed you had twice, with the caveat that failure would be an explicit admission that no such evidence exists, as well as an apology for wasting our time with nonsense? I mean it was only a couple of pages ago and you read every post.

Don't worry though, we're a forgiving lot. And I'm sure you won't be so careless or foolish enough to ever make an outlandish claim again without hard evidence. Not to mention insulting and disrespecting everyone who went to the trouble of typing nice informative posts on evolution to educate you.

Apology accepted, J C. Go in peace, and don't sin again. Of course contunuing to bang on about stuff you just admitted was false would be seen as very dumb. So I'm sure you'll take that into account before your next post. Oh, I can't wait to see what you post about now that you've admitted cfsi is a pile of ****.

dead one

koth wrote: »

well you should read what JC has been posting, because you said that you have chosen to agree with him. And he said that the world is only a few thousand years old. So either you choose to side with him, and as a side-effect agree that world is only a few thousand years old. Or you don't agree with him, and therefore need to rethink your choice.

this is why it's usually a good idea to read up on what you're agreeing to before you decide to agree with someone.

The Earth is 10000 years old or 10000000 years old--There is no moral ill in believing it --- The earth is round like an egg or it is flat ---there is no moral virtue in believing that --- there is no moral sickness in it... The maker made this world as the only world or he made million of worlds like... There is no moral virtue in it...

therefore need to rethink your choice

Now you need to rethink

Delirium

From the wiki about CFSI, which had to be provided by Barr125 and not JC.

The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems, or biology

Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, if a coin is tossed randomly 1000 times, the probability of any particular outcome occurring is roughly one in 10300. For any particular specific outcome of the coin-tossing process, the a priori probability that this pattern occurred is thus one in 10300, which is astronomically smaller than Dembski's universal probability bound of one in 10150. Yet we know that the post hoc probability of its happening is exactly one, since we observed it happening. This is similar to the observation that it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win. Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

The Earth is 10000 years old or 10000000 years old--There is no moral ill in believing it --- The earth is round like an egg or it is flat ---there is no moral virtue in believing that --- there is no moral sickness in it... The maker made this world as the only world or he made million of worlds like... There is no moral virtue in it...
Now you need to rethink

I'm not talking about morality, so I've no idea why you've gone off on a pointless tangent. I guess it's better than admitting you made a rash decision without examining the information first.

dead one

Sarky wrote: »

And then you get arrested .

I am the spirit of a pirate... I was the pirate of this unreal world...with my actions --- I tried to save this pirated world

---

but my own piracy is to forever remain in the shadows--- My blood ran through the heart of this unreal world... My ship floats in the bottoms of this unreal sea... The ships contains shipment of games/movies -- No one is here to arrest me ... There are no passengers at my ship -- There are no laws in seas of desires... There are no restrictions where i am living... As world's poor veins slowly filled with agony and pain, the aftereffect were felt everywhere... Sarkyfell first, infected by some foul desire.... My journey lasted forever.... playing masseffect 3 at insanity -- It's fresh like fresh hell-- I began my day running from home-- This new world is my home...

dead one

koth wrote: »

I'm not talking about morality, so I've no idea why you've gone off on a pointless tangent. I guess it's better than admitting you made a rash decision without examining the information first.

Religion creates moral codes --- So if i agree with JC that world is 10000 is years old.... It doesn't effect me

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

OK ... so here is a fossil and artists impression of this particular worm-like creature ... that was fossilised in Noahs Flood 6,000 +/- 1,000 yrs BP.

... and there were many radically different chordates Created during Creation Week ... along with creatures that are classified as echinodermata and hemichordata.

... once again you are making evolutionist assumptions that these dead creature were fossilised over millions of years ... when the evidence is that they were fossilised instanteously ... and certainly within weeks/months of death such is the perfection of the preservation of their bodies.

etc. etc.

OK, I'm going to start with this because I wish to avoid repetition in the rest of my post. JC, even you at this point must realise from the amount of hard scientific data and comments and requests that proper peer-reviewed evidence is going to be the only thing that is given any merit in this discussion and the only thing likely to give your claims any credence. So, for the first and only time, where is the scientific evidence for your claims like the one in bold above?

J C wrote: »

These are just a classification keys for identifying / describing / classifying organisms by their common physical characteristics ... and not some kind of Evolutionary sequence.

Yes, these are classification terms. I've already explained this to you multiple times. The only dividing line of any import is speciation because this is the point where macroevolution kicks in. The other terms are labels that we use to categorise the massive amounts of different species that we have catalogue. Originally this was done purely through morphological similarity but over the last half-century the existing picture has been reinforced and in some cases changed thanks to new information provided by genetic analysis.
These groups still provide an evolutionary sequence though. When an offspring is born with extra features or without features indicative of its parents doesn't mean it didn't arise from them. For example, if a child is born without arms and we define humans as having four limbs (which we do) then we don't say that the child is still human because it lacks a defining characteristic. So the addition or subtraction of features that we see as we move through the fossil record is evidence of common ancestry.

J C wrote: »

Yet an other classifcation diagram ... but no proof that these organisms share a common ancestry.

I've already provided a specific example of the common ancestry between humans and other apes and how this information is reinforced through multiple fields of study. Since you didn't bother to refute those, I don't know why you have a problem with this now.

Oh, and saying "you're wrong" is not a refutation. Saying "you're wrong and here are the pieces of evidence which explain why" is a refutation.

J C wrote: »

an at least equally logical conclusion is that it is a record of catastrophic burial of different contemporaneous creatures ... with different characteristics

It is an evidential conclusion that we seek, JC, not one based only on logic and none of the evidence supports the biblical flood.

J C wrote: »

There are living examples of most these Classes alive today ... and they appear to an objective observer to be totally distinct creatures ... with no identifiable intermediates between them ... indicating that they are examples of Created Kinds.

So what? We have living examples of the class Myxini if you want to go back even further. However, you still seem not to have listened to all the posters who have patiently explained selection pressure to you.
Secondly, why would we expect to find an intermediate form between two sister groups. We only expect to find them between descendant branches. Since acanthodii and osteichthyes didn't evolve from each other, we don't expect to find an intermediate between them.
Oh, so now you're changing your definition of a kind to class. I see, shifting the goalposts again because your last definition of kind was shown to be bull****. You cretins make me laugh.

J C wrote: »

... while having them neither in or out or a mix-up between in and out usually results in all kinds of nasty complications ... which would likely kill or make sterile any intermediates thereby ruling out the so-called 'split' or 'divergence' that you are talking about.

Oh, not the "half-an-eye" argument again. You really don't understand how evolution works, do you or is it that you just like your strawman better?

Is this the best response you could come up with? For shame JC. Ken Ham would not be happy.

Sarky

It's ok, oldrnwisr, he's admitted failure and apologised for it.

oldrnwisr

Sarky wrote: »

It's ok, oldrnwisr, he's admitted failure and apologised for it.

Oh, great. Sorry I was just catching up after the weekend. Cool, apology accepted JC.

Delirium

Team sheds light on upright walking

Mankind's ancestors may have started walking on two legs simply because it allowed them to carry more food away in their hands, boosting their chance of survival, scientists believe.

Anthropologists studying chimpanzees found that the great apes, who usually walk on all fours, walk upright and free their hands for carrying when they need to monopolise hard-to-find resources by swiping more at a single attempt in the face of fierce competition.

RichieC

I've heard a few of these, another is that after they got out of the tree's the savannah grasses required them to raise their heads up to keep an eye out for predators, another, and afaik more controversial was when we made it to the sea it enabled us to wade along the shore collecting shell fish. If i was a betting man I'd say it was a combination of these.