"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This just refutes your whole argument. Another one of those brilliantly
ironic utterances out of your own e-mouth You agree with the idea of
those "evolutionists", that mutations occur, but for some reason you
are arguing with me... So strange

This is like leading a lamb to the slaugherhouse, I mean it's so ridiculous
how you trip yourself up

How does your miraculous explanation account for people born without a tailbone?
I don't see the correlation to "bipedalism" in these circumstances :rolleyes:
I suppose these people walk funny eh? What a joke J C...

...your above link has the following to say about the importance of the coccyx and the adverse affects of its removal:
Without the coccyx and its attached muscle system, humans would need a radically different support system for their internal organs which would require numerous design changes in the human posterior Concerning the coccyx and its importance, Allford concluded that:


"The posterior surfaces [of the coccyx] serve as attachments for the gluteus maximus muscle and the sphincter and externus muscles. The gluteus maximus muscle is essential for defecation and labor during childbirth. The sphincter ani externus muscle is needed to keep the anal canal and orifice closed. These are obviously very important functions. The interior surfaces of the coccygeal vertebrae also serve as important attachments for muscles that aid in the containment of feces within the rectum . . . [as well as control of] defecation, and the expulsion of the fetus during labor. For these important reasons, the coccyx can never be classified as a rudimentary or vestigial rudiment of our ancestors. Aliford (1978:42)
Franks dealt with coccyx malfunction as follows:

"Individuals who injure the tailbone may develop a painful condition called coccydynia. Removal of the coccyx presumably because it is thought to be nonessential seems to be a poor operation. I counsel my patients with tailbone pain to resist removal of the coccyx if ever suggested" . Franks (1988:24)
The coccyx is not the only support system of the internal organs; the diaphragm and other muscles also help fulfill this role. If the coccyx is surgically removed, enough surrounding supporting structures exist in adults so one can live fairly normally. The three to five small bones are obviously part of a larger support structure consisting of bones, cartilage, muscle, ligaments, and tendons, all of which participate.

Concerning surgery of the coccyx, Shute noted that the vestigial organ argument is not realistic:


Take it away and patients complain; indeed the operation for its removal has time and again fallen into disrepute, only to be revived by some naive surgeon who really believes what the biologists have told him about this useless ‘rudiment: Shute (1961:40)
... without your coccyx ... every time you stand up ... you would have a 'fluffybumb'!!!:D

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

J C, if those people who were born with external testes could not survive
due to their external thingamajigs then they, I mean we, would not be
around today. We survived & obviously this was not enough of a flaw to
ruin the survival of the species.

A neat piece of self-serving circular reasoning, if ever I saw one!!!

That was my point, it isn't bad design because it hasn't had any adverse effects on survival or sexual performance ... and is appreciated by men and (some priveliged women) as an example of excellent design!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C ... even the title of Prof Dawkins' book illustrates the irony of its thesis ... a blind human watchmaker wouldn't be able to produce and assemble the fine detail and CFSI in a watch ... and ditto with any other 'blind watchmaker' being able to produce the fine detail and CFSI in living organisms!!!

sponsoredwalk
J C, I hate to break it to you, but there is no blind watchmaker aiming to make fine detail... There is absolutely no way you understood that book if you wrote the above.

I didn't say it was aiming to do anything ... I merely observed that blind non-intelligently directed forces are not able to produce the fine design details found in the CFSI of living organisms.

wrote:

sponsoredwalk
I'm sure you know how mitochondrial eve originated ...
thesis, right? I'd like to hear it

She was directly created by God.:)

J C

King Mob wrote: »

No it's not.
You clearly have issues dealing with junior cert physics.


No it's not.
That's not how a red-shift works. That's not how light works. That's not why sunsets sets are red.

Mainly because it's not a red-shift, also because that's not how physics works.

... of course red sunsets are a spectral shift ... as indeed are rainbows.

J C

fontanalis wrote: »

But i don't think the Y Adam and Mitochondrial Eve as termed by geneticists existed at the same time.

... more of the irrationality of some evolutionists ... they think that the female common ancestor of all men and women existed thousands of years apart from the male common ancestor of all men.
... these guys mustn't have heard about sex ... and the requirement that both parties be present in the same time and space to 'get it together'!!!;)

... yet another example of Evolutionist 'clocks' being 'all over the shop'!!!!:)

... must be because they were made by a blind clockmaker!!!!:eek:

Improbable

J C wrote: »

... more of the irrationality of some evolutionists ... they think that the common ancestor of all men and women existed thousands of years apart from the common ancestor of all men.
... these guys musn't have heard about sex ... and the requirement that both parties be present in the same time and space to 'get it together'!!!;)

You've clearly misunderstood what a matrilineal ancestor is. I would go do some research as to what mitochondrial eve actually is as opposed to what you think it is.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... of course red sunsets are a spectral shift ... as indeed are rainbows.

No they aren't.
Here's how you solve this problem you're having JC.
Go get a Junior cert science book (and maybe a dictionary for the big words) then read it.

J C

Improbable wrote: »

You've clearly misunderstood what a matrilineal ancestor is. I would go do some research as to what mitochondrial eve actually is as opposed to what you think it is.

... so evolutionists 'get down on it' ... with their great great ... great grannies!!!:)

J C

King Mob wrote: »

No they aren't.
Here's how you solve this problem you're having JC.
Go get a Junior cert science book (and maybe a dictionary for the big words) then read it.

... try it yourself ... and you might find out how a spectral shift can occur!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... try it yourself ... and you might find out how a spectral shift can occur!!!

I know how spectral shifts occur.

Neither red skies at dusk or rainbows are products of them.

I am now pretty certain you don't actually know what they are or what a doppler shift actually is.

I suppose that's what happens when you flush out everything in your brain and listen to crank's delusions.

fontanalis

J C wrote: »

... so evolutionists 'get down on it' ... with their great great ... great grannies!!!:)

Wow, time to revaluate science with that put down.

keppler

J C wrote: »

... the point is that a loss of information is going in the wrong direction to what is required to 'evolve' pondkind CFSI into the much greater Mankind CFSI.

first of all JC I take it that by 'loss of information' you are referring to your previous statement 'observation of mutation' whereby the mutation results in loss of exons. J C even I (with only a basic understanding of the basics of genetics) can conclude that the theory of evolution by means of natural selection does not require evolution to move in a direction which is proportional to a gain in magnitude of functional D.N.A!!!!!!!!! IT BLATANTLY DEFIES THIS IDEA AND INSTEAD IMPLIES THAT YOUR SO CALLED DIRECTION COULD GO EITHER WAY DEPENDING ON THE PRESSURE PUT ON SPECIES BY NATURE TO SURVIVE. Having a tail while walking upright on the ground instead of hanging from trees is sure to pick up more disease and therefore put pressure on those with a shorter tail to survive. this apparent loss of function is clearly not going in a backwards direction in your evidently wharped 'wrong direction' view of darwinian evolution!


More importantly J C your stated reason for apparent loss of function was that it was due to specious explosion and The Flood. Please stop trying to change the subject by stating that 'the point is'. The real point is J C that you have failed to give any reasons why marching a man,woman and a bunch of animals two by two onto a boat and killing the rest of humanity could possibly account for the presence of intron's!!!
Once again J C PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION

J C

King Mob wrote: »

I know how spectral shifts occur.

Neither red skies at dusk or rainbows are products of them.

I am now pretty certain you don't actually know what they are or what a doppler shift actually is.

I suppose that's what happens when you flush out everything in your brain and listen to crank's delusions.

The 'take home' point is that a spectral shift can occur in different ways.

... and therefore you cannot rely on stellar redshift to measure anything!!!!:)

J C

keppler wrote: »

first of all JC I take it that by 'loss of information' you are referring to your previous statement 'observation of mutation' whereby the mutation results in loss of exons. J C even I (with only a basic understanding of the basics of genetics) can conclude that the theory of evolution by means of natural selection does not require evolution to move in a direction which is proportional to a gain in magnitude of functional D.N.A!!!!!!!!! IT BLATANTLY DEFIES THIS IDEA AND INSTEAD IMPLIES THAT YOUR SO CALLED DIRECTION COULD GO EITHER WAY DEPENDING ON THE PRESSURE PUT ON SPECIES BY NATURE TO SURVIVE. Having a tail while walking upright on the ground instead of hanging from trees is sure to pick up more disease and therefore put pressure on those with a shorter tail to survive. this apparent loss of function is clearly not going in a backwards direction in your evidently wharped 'wrong direction' view of darwinian evolution!


More importantly J C your stated reason for apparent loss of function was that it was due to specious explosion and The Flood. Please stop trying to change the subject by stating that 'the point is'. The real point is J C that you have failed to give any reasons why marching a man,woman and a bunch of animals two by two onto a boat and killing the rest of humanity could possibly account for the presence of intron's!!!
Once again J C PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION

The 'take home' point is that so called 'junk DNA' is the remnant of the originally functional DNA that provided the genetic diversity which caused the two major speciation events ... after creation and immediately following the Flood.:)

Zillah

J C wrote: »

The 'take home' point is that so called 'junk DNA' is the remnant of the originally functional DNA that provided the genetic diversity which caused the two major speciation events ... after creation and immediately following the Flood.:)

Are you aware that you're just making stuff up or do you think you have evidence for any of this?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

The 'take home' point is that a spectral shift can occur in different ways.

... and therefore you cannot rely on stellar redshift to measure anything!!!!:)

And none of the other ways explain the red-shift of distant galaxies.
The doppler effect does. therefore the galaxies appear to be moving away.
(this isn't exactly what's happening, but then I doubt you'll be able to grasp the concept as it's not taught until after kids pass junior cert science.)

Also the red colour of sunlight at dusk and rainbows are not spectral shifts.

So the "take home point" JC, is this:
You have no idea what you're ****eing on about.

J C

Zillah wrote: »

Are you aware that you're just making stuff up or do you think you have evidence for any of this?

... this is a bit rich coming from evolutionists who believe that a frog evolved into a Prince ... using nothing but time and selected mistakes!!!:eek:

J C

Another quote from John May's book:-

"A distinguished university Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts, Dr Lynn Margulis, wrote as recorded in Darwin's Black Box, Page 26: "History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology". At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to "name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accunulation of mutations" Her challenge goes unmet."

Discuss

.

keppler

J C wrote: »

It is possible that light waves exchange energy during their movement across space and lose some energy in the process. A loss of light energy is equivalent to a "reddening" of its light. The red sunsets at dusk are a form of redshift dues to energy loss in the atmosphere ... and nobody is arguing that the Sun is moving away from the Earth ... or that you can measure the distance to the Sun using it!!!

OK "Scientist Myself" now you have yet again clearly demonstrated that you are a moron and have no understanding of physical science whatsoever! this time you have really been caught out.
J C i suggest that you take King Mob's advice and read a junior cert science book. It is no mystery jc that white light(light from the sun) is made up of electromagnetic radiation of different wavelength's OK. YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF A PHENOMENON KNOWN AS A RAINBOW BEFORE!

First of all J C it is true that there is a red sky at sunset however J C this is clearly not caused by red shift. you see jc when white light is travelling through a medium of certain density and enters a medium of different density its speed will change (slow down) and direction will change according to the wavelenght of the wave entering the medium. in otherwords J C whitelight will be separated into its constituent wavelength's(color) this is called refraction of light jc and the degree to which the wave is refracted/diffused is called the angle of refraction. This behaviour J C is completely different from redshift of light which states that all wavelengths are shifted towards the red spectrum and not bent/diffused/refracted into its constituent wavelengths.
this jc is why we dont see a red sky during the day instead we see a blue sky (which according to your theory should appear red due to tired light).
in other words J C while you are observing a blue sky the people who are simultaneously viewing a red sky sunset are only seeing it because the red light that was originally directed at you is being slowed down due to its longer wavelength, therefore undergoing a greater angle of refraction and ultimately more of it ends up being directed at them.


second of all Jc the earth is moving away from the sun?

thirdly 'you can measure the distance to the sun using it' ...
J C RED SHIFT IS NOT USED TO CALCULATE THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN IT IS USED TO CALCULATE DISTANCES TO OTHER GALAXIES!!!! OMG

Furthermore JC once again you have not answered my previous simple question. Are you argueing that redshift is not a viable means for calculating distances to other galaxies and therefore implying that our estimated age of the universe at 13.5 billion years incorrect and therefore implying that god did make the heavens in one day 6000 years ago????

IN OTHERWORDS JC STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT AND JUST ANSWER THE ****ING QUESTION!!!

keppler

J C wrote: »

The 'take home' point is that so called 'junk DNA' is the remnant of the originally functional DNA that provided the genetic diversity which caused the two major speciation events ... after creation and immediately following the Flood.:)

J C once again you have not answered the question this reply again just states that introns are the result of creation and the flood. Please give an explanation of what these two specious events are what happened during these events and how these events ultimately turned exons into introns??

jc you cannot provide an explanation for how exons could possibly turn into introns in a two or three sentence responce. so dont give me anymore 'take home points' proper explanations only please..

J C

keppler wrote: »

OK "Scientist Myself" now you have yet again clearly demonstrated that you are a moran and have no understanding of physical science whatsoever! this time you have really been caught out.
J C i suggest that you take King Mob's advice and read a junior cert science book. It is no mystery jc that white light(light from the sun) is made up of electromagnetic radiation of different wavelength's OK. YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF A PHENOMENON KNOWN AS A RAINBOW BEFORE!

First of all J C it is true that there is a red sky at sunset however J C this is clearly not caused by red shift. you see jc when white light is travelling through a medium of certain density and enters a medium of different density its speed will change (slow down) and direction will change according to the wavelenght of the wave entering the medium. in otherwords J C whitelight will be separated into its constituent wavelength's(color) this is called diffraction of light jc and the degree to which the wave is diffracted/diffused is called the angle of diffraction. This behaviour J C is completely different from redshift of light which states that all wavelengths are shifted towards the red spectrum and not bent/diffused/diffracted into its constituent wavelengths.
this jc is why we dont see a red sky during the day instead we see a blue sky (which according to your theory should appear red due to tired light).
in other words J C while you are observing a blue sky the people who are simultaneously viewing a red sky sunset are only seeing it because the red light that was originally directed at you is being slowed down due to its longer wavelength, therefore undergoing a greater angle of diffraction and ultimately more of it ends up being directed at them.


second of all Jc the earth is moving away from the sun?

thirdly 'you can measure the distance to the sun using it' ...
J C RED SHIFT IS NOT USED TO CALCULATE THE DISTANCE TO THE SUN IT IS USED TO CALCULATE DISTANCES TO OTHER GALAXIES!!!! OMG

Furthermore JC once again you have not answered my previous simple question. Are you argueing that redshift is not a viable means for calculating distances to other galaxies and therefore implying that our estimated age of the universe at 13.5 billion years incorrect and therefore implying that god did make the heavens in one day 6000 years ago????

IN OTHERWORDS JC STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT AND JUST ANSWER THE ****ING QUESTION!!!

Your distinctions are specious nonesense!!!

The spectrometers used to measure stellar redshift use the principle of diffraction to produce the spectrograms upon which all this is based.
... and you are correct that passage through the atmosphere is the reason why sunlight is dramatically redshifted in the evenings and mornings because it arrives tangentially to the atmosphere relative to the observer - while it is blueshifted dramatically during the middle of the day when it is coming in directly through the atmosphere.

coffee_cake

are you people not bored yet?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Your distinctions are specious nonesense!!!

The spectrometers used to measure stellar redshift use the principle of diffraction to produce the spectrograms upon which all this is based.
... and you are correct that passage through the atmosphere is the reason why sunlight is dramatically redshifted in the evenings and mornings because it arrives tangentially to the atmosphere relative to the observer - while it is blueshifted dramatically during the middle of the day when it is coming in directly through the atmosphere.

That's not red-shift. It's called scattering. It's covered in the junior cert which it's clear you couldn't pass with a cheat sheet and a blind examiner.

J C

keppler wrote: »

J C once again you have not answered the question this reply again just states that introns are the result of creation and the flood. Please give an explanation of what these two specious events are what happened during these events and how these events ultimately turned exons into introns??

jc you cannot provide an explanation for how exons could possibly turn into introns in a two or three sentence responce. so dont give me anymore 'take home points' proper explanations only please..

We see evidence of very significant speciation (recently and rapidly) within Created Kinds all around us. The Cattle Kind has over 100 different species with different degrees of cross-fertility between them ... ditto the Horse Kind, the Cat Kind, the Dog Kind, etc.

Most of the major speciatiation appears to have already occurred and speciation is now very limited in its extent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfQAJnF6ST8

J C

King Mob wrote: »

That's not red-shift. It's called scattering. It's covered in the junior cert which it's clear you couldn't pass with a cheat sheet and a blind examiner.

it's scattering via differential diffraction of blue light when the light travels directly through the atmosphere during the day and the differential attenuation of the blue/green spectrum when light is travelling tangentially through the atmosphere in the morning/evening ... thererby producing the 'weak red' light you say doesn't exist.

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

are you people not bored yet?

... its all the excitement of Creation Science that has them all 'rivetted' to their computers!!!:eek:

King Mob

J C wrote: »

it's scattering via differential diffraction of blue light when the light travels directly through the atmosphere during the day and the differential attenuation of the blue/green spectrum when light is travelling tangentially through the atmosphere in the morning/evening ... thererby producing the 'weak red' light you say doesn't exist.

So it's not a redshift at all?
Have you figured that out?
Do you see how this is different to the bull**** you've originally claimed?
Can you explain why this somehow effects actual redshift of galaxy.

Of course not because you are incapable of honest discussion.

Fluffybums

I was really trying to gain an understanding of the ID/Creationism point of view and its arguments concerning evolution. However your nonsense about red sunsets has indicated beyond all reasonable doubt that you have little or no scientific education, knowledge, training or understanding! It's been a long time since I did physics, but even a rudimentary understanding of optics explains red sunsets, as has been explained very clearly and accurately its about the light diffracting (or is it refraction, can never remember - goes to consult a science textbook, rather than Wikipedia) when moving between phases, along the lines of a prism, and has nothing what so ever to do with redshift.

Your explanation about the myriad of human kind does, as has been pointed out, owe more to evolution than anything else.

keppler

Fluffybums wrote: »

I was really trying to gain an understanding of the ID/Creationism point of view and its arguments concerning evolution. However your nonsense about red sunsets has indicated beyond all reasonable doubt that you have little or no scientific education, knowledge, training or understanding! It's been a long time since I did physics, but even a rudimentary understanding of optics explains red sunsets, as has been explained very clearly and accurately its about the light diffracting (or is it refraction, can never remember - goes to consult a science textbook, rather than Wikipedia) when moving between phases, along the lines of a prism, and has nothing what so ever to do with redshift.

Your explanation about the myriad of human kind does, as has been pointed out, owe more to evolution than anything else.

fluffbums it is refraction of course i often get these words confused myself i will currently edit my last post to correct this
im surprised J C didnt pick up on my error being a "scientist himself"

equivariant

J C wrote: »

There was no reference to the CNRS in the quote attributed to Prof Louis Bounoure.
Your link confirms that he is Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg.

more importantly, the link also points out that he did not say the quote that you attribute to him. I think the fact that you (and Mr May) lied about what he actually said is slightly more important than whether or not you gave his affiliation correctly.

But as usual, the creationist deliberately misses the point and sets out to obscure the truth.

BTW, the link does not at all confirm that he was "President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg". It actually says that he was a professor at the university of strasbourg (At least read the link before spouting yet more lies)