Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
Just read this and thought it would be at home here
Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon.
You could be the greatest player in the world, but the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces, sh1t on the board and strut around triumphantly.0 -
You wouldn't be confusing different separately created eye mechanism and mechanisms that have degenerated since their Creation in line with the Laws of Thermodynamics ... with your belief that these represent separate stages on a putative 'evolutionary' ... would you?
No, I wouldn't be confusing anything. I was pointing out that separately to the massive amounts of evidence acquired through research into genetics, biochemistry and palaeontology, the existence of intermediate stages of eye development in extant creatures helps us to understand how an eye as complex as ours developed in the first place. Darwin himself said it best:
"if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
Laws of Thermodynamics, eh?
Maybe you could point out which of these you think causes a problem in what I've posted:
0th Law: If system A and system B are individually in thermal equilibrium with system C, then system A is in thermal equilibrium with system B
1st Law: Increase in internal energy of a system = heat supplied to the system - work done by the system.
2nd Law: The entropy of any closed system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases.
3rd Law: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero.... so are you saying ... as the late Tommy Cooper might say ... that this happened 'just like that'???!!!
Do you realise the the inordinate levels of Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information required to produce sustain and utilise even a simple 'light sensitive patch of skin'???
No, not like that - like that!
I have already posted the origin of light sensitivity in C. elegans as well as the origin of opsin although you seem to have problems making it past the abstract. Like I have said, the evolution of photosensitivity is well understood and supported by research. Since actual research papers seem to be beyond your comprehension maybe these might be more suitable:
Eyespot apparatus
Evolution of the eye
Failing that you may, as koth suggested, want to invest in a good dictionary instead. Baby steps, JC.
The only thing I realise about CFSI is that it is a meaningless term which you have been unwilling or unable to define, quantify or support and which you spout whenever anybody posts something to which you have no response.Another great story ... but anybody with a cold can tell you that mucus never sponteously forms a lens ... it just forms a useless snot!!!
Who said anything about spontaneously. This isn't I Dream of Jeannie! This is a change that occurred gradually. OK, maybe I oversimplified the process but silly me, there I was thinking about you claiming to be a scientist. What a foolish assumption.
The lens of the eye developed through a gradual build-up of mucus secreting cells resulting in the development of a layer of transparent epithelial cells. The modern human lens is derived from epithelial cells which contain a high degree of crystallin. Evidence supporting this can be seen throughout nature in dogs, cats and birds. If you own a dog or cat, you will have noticed (or maybe not) that dogs and cats have vestigial traces of what are known as nictitating membranes. These transparent third eyelids protect and moisten the eye while retaining visibility.
Anyway, not that I expect you to read any of this but for anyone else interested in the evolution of the lens and the key components such as crystallin, some of the research:
Molecular Evolution of the βγ Lens Crystallin Superfamily: Evidence for a Retained Ancestral Function in γN Crystallins?
Eye evolution: Lens and cornea as an upgrade of animal visual system
Genetics of crystallins: Cataract and beyondGregor Mendel also discovered that practically all mutations are deleterious and recessive ... therby indicating that we are dealing with a once-perfect Creation that is 'running down' ... and not some Evolutionist 'pipe dream' that is capable 'running up' from a Worm to a Man!!!
Wow, a blatant lie and a dishonest misrepresentation all rolled into one moronic comment.
Firstly, Mendel discovered no such thing. Mutations can be beneficial as well as deleterious and I have already pointed that out to you here, here and here.
Secondly, lots of posters here have already corrected your pathetic strawman about the directionality of evolution. Evolution is not a ladder upward toward humanity as you seem to think biologists claim or downward from supposed creation as you claim. It's more like a treadmill.... so the Octopus has a snot in its eyes ... and can see clearly???
... come on oldrnwisr ... just think about what you're saying.
You really are that stupid huh?
It seems even basic physics escapes you. Tell you what.
Buy one of these:
Optics (4th Edition), Eugene Hecht and get back to me.
The rest of your post is just the same repetitive CFSI horse**** with no evidence offered as a counterargument so I'll leave it there. When you come up with some actual evidence, I'll still be here.
Oh, and one final final comment on ad hominems. Since you either didn't understand or didn't read the link I provided let me make it simple for you.
This is an ad-hominem fallacy:
You're wrong BECAUSE you're an idiot.
This is what I have been saying:
You're wrong AND you're an idiot.
See the difference?0 -
I think oldrnwisr killed JC 0.o0
-
-
... that is your outrageous Anti-Christian biased opinion ... and it's untrue ... like all other forms of sectarianism!!:(You did not. You lied about Dawkins to start with, and your follow-ups were similarly dishonest.I haven't said it for a while, but I'll say it here, lest you think there might be some confusion on the topic. Honest questions demand honest answers, but dishonesty deserves nothing but contempt. Creationism, like the religion which acquired it, is nothing but organized dishonesty, preying upon the gullible and the uninformed for the temporary benefit of their dissolute leaderships.
All of the Creation Scientists that I know are honourable decent people, of the highest intellectual and moral probity.
... and Prof Dawkins is indeed somewhat Agnostic about the existence of God ... he has recently said "On a scale of seven, where one means I know he (God) exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six."
... and if you don't believe me perhaps you will believe the Daily Mail on this issue:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html
... and Prof Dawkins is also somewhat Agnostic about conventional Abiogenesis and Evolution and even ID as well ...
... and if you don't believe me perhaps you will believe his own words on this issue
... he admits here that he believes that the idea that aliens could have intelligently designed life on Earth is an intriguing possibility ... and he is therefore somewhat Agnostic about conventional accounts of W2M Evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AknD2JyMdmI&feature=related
If you are talking about the oldrnwisr posts, I have answered them here:-No honest question will ever be banned here, but it is unacceptable for posters to post questions which elicit long and careful answers from honest forum members; answers which are then ignored because the questioner couldn't be bothered to read or even thank the reply. It takes less than five seconds to thank a post, and you clearly didn't even have that much time.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77645167&postcount=8680
... and followed on here.
... and I have comprehensively answered oldrnwisr's post about the eye here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77731203&postcount=8871
... and if you were as concerned, as you claim to be about showing respect to oldrnwisr's posts you would have allowed myself and oldrnwisr to debate with each other uninterrupted ... instead of jumping in with false allegations levelled against my good name ... and the good names of my fellow Creationists!!!:(
It wasn't even a question ... it was a statement (that we know ... or at least, we should know ... that no unambiguous evidence for W2M Evolution has been produced on this thread ... or anywhere else).Originally Posted by J C
You and I both know that no unambiguous evidence for W2M Evolution has been produced on this thread ... or anywhere else.
robindch
That's dishonest questioning and quite apart from forum etiquette here, even in your own terms, it effectively breaks your own ninth commandment about bearing false witness -- pretending to be one thing, when in fact, you're quite another.Masses of evidence for the evolutionary history of mankind has been produced in this thread and its predecessors by oldrnwisr, and many other posters who've come, posted their evidence, seen you ignore it, and left again. And as it was with them, so it is with oldrnwiser -- you appear too lazy or too uninterested to read it and reply with anything other than creationist clichés.
You're the one bearing false witness against me and my fellow Creationists.:(
... and like I have already said if you had any unambiguous evidence for W2M Evolution you wouldn't be just claiming that the evidence exists (without presenting any) ... you'd be 'rubbing my nose in it' by repeatedly posting the evidence and asking for a refutation. The fact that this hasn't been done means that any objective observer will agree with me that none exists.
... and if you had any evidence of dishonesty on the part of Creation Science, you would also have gleefully published it.
... so Robin, it's time to 'put up' or 'shut up' in relation to your repeated outrageous allegations against Creationism ... and the honourable Christians, Muslims and Jews who believe that God Created them.
As no unambiguous evidence has been provided and Prof Dawkins has conceded that life could have been Intelligently Designed on Earth by Aleins 'seediing' it here (thereby eliminating the need for gradual evolution in order to account for the presence of Humans and other life on Earth) ... I'd say that there are considerable problems with the evidence ... or more accurately the lack of evidence for W2M Evolution.That's a problem with you, m'dear, not the evidence.0 -
Advertisement
-
JC did you just cite the Daily Mail?????
and you wonder why you have so little credibility?0 -
... so Robin, it's time to 'put up' or 'shut up' in relation to your repeated outrageous allegations against Creationism ... and the honourable Christians, Muslims and Jews who believe that God Created them.
It's funny. I always thought that the biggest evidence against religion is the fact that there is more than one.
When you really think about that and comprehend it's meaning for a second, you really can only come to the conclusion that its a load of rubbish.0 -
Perhaps Sir would like to read The Telegraph account instead ...Doc_Savage wrote: »JC did you just cite the Daily Mail?????
and you wonder why you have so little credibility?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100139447/richard-dawkins-is-an-agnostic-but-we-knew-that-already/
... it says the same thing!!!:)0 -
you still chose to cite the daily mail there buddy!0
-
Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous atheist (© all newspapers) is, it turns out, an agnostic! What a climbdown! Not so cocky now, eh, professor?
line one from the article.... if it's not obvious to you whats wrong with it then you clearly don't understand how misconstrued that statement is!0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not like Dawkins didn't saw that in one of his own books a very long time ago. The media have only seized on it now. Of course we should all know by now that almost all atheists are somewhat agnostic.0
-
Atheistic Humanism is also a faith-based belief (in the non-existence of God).It's funny. I always thought that the biggest evidence against religion is the fact that there is more than one.
When you really think about that and comprehend it's meaning for a second, you really can only come to the conclusion that its a load of rubbish.
All Faiths are seeking after truth ... and I believe that Christianity has the truth.
However, I also accept that honourable people can hold many alternative beliefs ... including the belief that God doesn't exist.
... anyway, when it comes to science ... objective observable evidence is what it's all about ... so does this deflection mean that you also don't have any unambiguous evidence for W2M Evolution?0 -
... that's fair enough.It's not like Dawkins didn't saw that in one of his own books a very long time ago. The media have only seized on it now. Of course we should all know by now that almost all atheists are somewhat agnostic.
... so is it true that there are 'no Atheists in Foxholes' then???:)
Anyway, the issue is Robin's accusation that I have somehow lied about Prof Dawkins on this issue.
I clearly haven't ... so I don't expect a repetition of this untrue allegation about me.0 -
anyone else loving the way JC has changed "evidence" to "unambiguous evidence" since oldrnwisr has started putting up those belters of posts?0
-
-
No you haven't. Especially when you respond with reference to the bible (Noah's flood) or "well, that's just your evolutionist biasis" (which is dismissing the post without actually addressing it).
If you are talking about the oldrnwisr posts, I have answered them here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77645167&postcount=8680
... and followed on here.
Not even close to answering it, seeing as you repeatedly reference CFSI, which has no place in a scientific discussion. And I find it extremely ironic that you accuse oldrnwsr of using science to fit his world-view, when you post in favour of the bible origin myth.... and I have comprehensively answered oldrnwisr's post about the eye here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77731203&postcount=8871
This thread is overflowing with evidence for evolution to claim otherwise is a lie or ignorance of the evidence. Since you say you've read all posts, we can therefore conclude you are being dishonest.It wasn't even a question ... it was a statement (that we know ... or at least, we should know ... that no unambiguous evidence for W2M Evolution has been produced on this thread ... or anywhere else).
You're the one bearing false witness against me and my fellow Creationists.:(
Addressed above.... and like I have already said if you had any unambiguous evidence for W2M Evolution you wouldn't be just claiming that the evidence exists (without presenting any) ... you'd be 'rubbing my nose in it' by repeatedly posting the evidence and asking for a refutation. The fact that this hasn't been done means that any objective observer will agree with me that none exists.
... and if you had any evidence of dishonesty on the part of Creation Science, you would also have gleefully published it.
More dishonesty. You're inferring something from that video that was never said. At best, you could say that Dawkins that abiogenesis mightn't been necessary to explain the origin of life on Earth. But nowhere did he say that the 'seeding' by an alien lifeform would remove the need for evolution. But then you do have your quota for mispresenting Dawkins to maintain.As no unambiguous evidence has been provided and Prof Dawkins has conceded that life could have been Intelligently Designed on Earth by Aleins 'seediing' it here (thereby eliminating the need for gradual evolution in order to account for the presence of Humans and other life on Earth) ... I'd say that there are considerable problems with the evidence ... or more accurately the lack of evidence for W2M Evolution.
So, I'll say it again, JC. Kindly raise the standard of your posts. how about using science to back up your opinions instead of the bible? That right there would really help your support of creationism, and raise the standard of your posts at the same time.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Doc_Savage wrote: »anyone else loving the way JC has changed "evidence" to "unambiguous evidence" since oldrnwisr has started putting up those belters of posts?
Meh, it's what she does. Demand evidence. Ignore evidence. When backed into a corner with repeated evidence, ignore it and demand "unambiguous" evidence. Eventually she'll probably pick up on the fact that oldrnwisr taught himself about evolution, and try and say that his posts, replete as they are with verifiable peer-reviewed data and evidence and citations, somehow just don't count because he's not a doctor. He'll probably point proudly to such creationist "doctors" (bahahahaha) as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, conveniently forgetting things like Kent Hovind buying his degree in a shed in the arse end of nowhere, and being in jail for tax evasion. Not to mention everything they write being utterly, laughably poor. And how they use their own version of peer review because creationist "papers" just don't meet the standards required of real science. They miss just about every requirement, but especially the "independently repeatable and verifiable" bit.
Oh, and don't forget the constant ad hominems while swearing blind she doesn't engage in such things, all the while whining about people doing the same to her, when they really aren't. Like oldrnwisr was so kind to point out, there's a big difference between "you're wrong because you're an idiot" and "you're wrong AND you're an idiot". A big difference that is, of course, lost on someone like J C.
J C has so far supplied nothing but excuses, and lies, and more excuses. All of which are pathetically transparent. This thread is nearing the 10K post limit, and I like to think that J C will eventually admit her rampant dishonesty and inability to provide even a shred of evidence for her claims.
But I'm an optimist like that.0 -
For the last seven years, you've been presented with a massive range of evidences that would convince a demented goat. For religious reasons, you refuse to accept any of this and that's fine, but the responsibility for this failure of imagination lies with you, and not with the evidence.... and like I have already said if you had any unambiguous evidence for W2M Evolution you wouldn't be just claiming that the evidence exists (without presenting any)
BTW, as you insist on using the unhappy creationist term "W2M Evolution" to refer to the evolutionary history of mankind, I think it's fair that supporters of evolution on this thread use the terms "D2C Creationism" to refer to creationism -- ie, "dirt to christian creationism", since the genesis 2:7 text claims that humans were formed from dirt.
Are people happy to refer to JC's brand of creationism as "D2C Creationism"?0 -
No, much prefer "Golem-To-Man Creationism".
If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
It'd be rather a step down from the term "big steaming pile of ****" that I normally use, but it has a catchier ring to it, I'll admit.0
-
Advertisement
-
This thread is nearing the 10K post limit, and I like to think that J C will eventually admit her rampant dishonesty and inability to provide even a shred of evidence for her claims.
Never going to happen. Only thing that mighthappen is that J.C comes out after 10 years and admits to trolling everyone for all that time.0 -
... there you go again, saying that there is "a massive range of evidences" for Evolution ... without giving any.For the last seven years, you've been presented with a massive range of evidences that would convince a demented goat. For religious reasons, you refuse to accept any of this and that's fine, but the responsibility for this failure of imagination lies with you, and not with the evidence.
I would accept 'D2M Creation' i.e Dust to Man Creation. If you insist on calling it 'Dirt to Christian' Creation ... I'll have to start referring to 'Worm to Atheist' Evolution !!! :eek:BTW, as you insist on using the unhappy creationist term "W2M Evolution" to refer to the evolutionary history of mankind, I think it's fair that supporters of evolution on this thread use the terms "D2C Creationism" to refer to creationism -- ie, "dirt to christian creationism", since the genesis 2:7 text claims that humans were formed from dirt
Are people happy to refer to JC's brand of creationism as "D2C Creationism"?0 -
-
That isn't quote mining ... it's truncation.:)
I see you didn't get the dictionary. Allow me to help, as you seem to be missing the point of the image.Quote Mining.
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Please take your own advice and consult a dictionary ... the passage is truncated ... here is the full Ps14:1 ... this is it:-I see you didn't get the dictionary. Allow me to help, as you seem to be missing the point of the image.
Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
The message is very clear once a full sentence is quoted.
Quoting a partial sentence is truncation.Quote Mining.
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
I always quote full sentences with full references to allow everybody to see it's context.0 -
Please take your own advice and consult a dictionary ... the passage is truncated ... here is the full Ps14:1 ... this is it:-
Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
The message is very clear once a full sentence is quoted.
Quoting a partial sentence is truncation.
I always quote full sentences with full references to allow everybody to see it's context.
Truncation means shortening a sentence to make it smaller. It doesn't necessarily mean taking something out of context to give it the appearance of backing up your argument, where as quote mining is exactly that.0 -
Please take your own advice and consult a dictionary ... the passage is truncated ... here is the full Ps14:1 ... this is it:-
Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
The message is very clear once a full sentence is quoted.
Quoting a partial sentence is truncation.
I always quote full sentences with full references to allow everybody to see it's context.
The response above shows that you've completely missed the point of the image and the clarification I provided.
I never said that the text wasn't truncated. You just choose to focus as a distraction from the the actual meat of the image/post you replied to, i.e. the definition of quote mining.
I do hope this has clarified your confusion. If you require any further assistance, don't hesitate to ask.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Message from God ... just in:-
RECALL NOTICE:
The Maker of all Human Beings (GOD) is recalling all units manufactured, regardless of make or year, due to a serious defect in the primary and central component of the heart.
This is due to a self-inflicted malfunction in the original prototype units code named Adam and Eve, resulting in the reproduction of the same defect in all subsequent units.
This defect has been identified as "Subsequential Internal Non-morality," more commonly known as S.I.N., as it is primarily expressed.
Some of the SIN symptoms include:
1. Loss of direction
2. Foul vocal emissions
3. Amnesia of origin
4. Lack of peace and joy
5. Selfish or violent behavior
6. Depression or confusion
7. Fearfulness
8. Idolatry
9. Rebellion
The Manufacturer, who is neither liable nor at fault for this defect, is providing factory-authorized repair and service free of charge to correct this defect.
The Repair Technician, JESUS, has most generously offered to bear the entire burden of the staggering cost of these repairs. There is no additional fee required.
The number to call for repair in all areas is: P-R-A-Y-E-R.
Once connected, please upload your burden of SIN through the REPENTANCE procedure.
Next, download ATONEMENT from Jesus, into the heart component.
No matter how big or small the SIN defect is, Jesus will replace it with:
1. Love
2. Joy
3. Peace
4. Patience
5. Kindness
6. Goodness
7. Faithfulness
8. Gentleness
9. Self control
Please see the operating manual, the B.I.B.L.E. (BEST Instructions Before Leaving Earth) for further details on the use of these fixes.
WARNING: Continuing to operate the human being unit without correction voids any manufacturer warranties, exposing the unit to dangers and problems too numerous to list, and will result in the human unit being permanently impounded at death. For free emergency service, call on Jesus.
- GOD
P.S. You may contact the Father any time by 'Knee mail'!
Because HE Lives ... and Loves You!!!0 -
I think we broke him....0
-
Advertisement
-
Message from God ... just in:-
RECALL NOTICE:
The Maker of all Human Beings (GOD) is recalling all units manufactured, regardless of make or year, due to a serious defect in the primary and central component of the heart.
This is due to a self-inflicted malfunction in the original prototype units code named Adam and Eve, resulting in the reproduction of the same defect in all subsequent units.
This defect has been identified as "Subsequential Internal Non-morality," more commonly known as S.I.N., as it is primarily expressed.
Some of the symptoms include:
1. Loss of direction
2. Foul vocal emissions
3. Amnesia of origin
4. Lack of peace and joy
5. Selfish or violent behavior
6. Depression or confusion
7. Fearfulness
8. Idolatry
9. Rebellion
The Manufacturer, who is neither liable nor at fault for this defect, is providing factory-authorized repair and service free of charge to correct this defect.
The Repair Technician, JESUS, has most generously offered to bear the entire burden of the staggering cost of these repairs. There is no additional fee required.
The number to call for repair in all areas is: P-R-A-Y-E-R.
Once connected, please upload your burden of SIN through the REPENTANCE procedure.
Next, download ATONEMENT from Jesus, into the heart component.
No matter how big or small the SIN defect is, Jesus will replace it with:
1. Love
2. Joy
3. Peace
4. Patience
5. Kindness
6. Goodness
7. Faithfulness
8. Gentleness
9. Self control
Please see the operating manual, the B.I.B.L.E. (BEST Instructions Before Leaving Earth) for further details on the use of these fixes.
WARNING: Continuing to operate the human being unit without correction voids any manufacturer warranties, exposing the unit to dangers and problems too numerous to list, and will result in the human unit being permanently impounded. For free emergency service, call on Jesus.
- GOD
P.S. You may contact the Father any time by 'Knee mail'!
Because HE Lives ... and Loves You!!!
I make a well intended offer of help and God gets passive aggressive on your behalf?
that seems like a very childish response, especially when considered against the age of the deity. Of course the logical explanation is that it's another poor attempt at wit to deflect attention from the egg on your face.
If you're unwilling to engage like an adult on this thread, why do you continue to post here?If you can read this, you're too close!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement