"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

keppler

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.

'Your distinctions are specious nonsense' now thats the kind of answers i love getting from J C.
what a joke.

Yes J C telescopes are fitted with spectrometers which measure wavelength of light and also obtain emission spectra and ultimately can be used to calculate redshift. congrats J C your power's of deduction are amazing!!

JC you cannot simply say that dispersion is redshift they are two completely different things! Rayleigh scattering is scattering none the less NOT REDSHIFT
JC THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF HYPOTHESES AS TO WHAT MAKES THE SKY BLUE AND RED BUT NONE OF THEM INVOLVE SHIFT.

OH and J C you still 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????
IT'S A YES OR NO ANSWER

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... without your coccyx ... every time you stand up ... you would have a 'fluffybumb'!!!:D

This is the quality of J C's refutations :pac: Nice stuff J C...

J C wrote: »

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!!

There is absolutely nothing circular about this whatsoever, I don't think
you understand the idea of circularity as it applies to logic. Are you
seriously going to argue an external bullseye target sack that contains
all of the information required to propagate the species is good design?

J C wrote: »

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.



She was directly created by God.

Have you any evidence that "blind non-intelligently directed forces are not
able to produce the fine design details found in the CFSI of living
organisms."



I believe the scientific evidence that shows how the flagella motor is
formed is more than enough evidence to show what you've just written to
be a barefaced lie...

sponsoredwalk

keppler wrote: »

Yes sponsored walk. The basics are absolutely vital in physics. Without which you will never understand theoretical physics or the arguments for or against theories.
I can understand why you find it strange as I find genetics strange mainly because you dont really think from a practical and spacial point of view as you should in physics.
Look i dont want you to feel insulted or anything but even a higher level leaving cert physics book is enough to give a fairly good understanding of the basics(this course is surprisingly comprehensive in mechanics, light etc but yet dosn't get bogged down in Newtonian laws) But i assume that you did Science at Uni. in which case you probably would have done physics modules before specializing in genetics?
i dont really know why you are following an engineering text, I did engineering degree at uni but to be honest i would try and revolve around basic thoery and experimental proof.
as for me and genetics im ashamed to admit that i havn't even got a basic understanding of the basics yet so when you mention txt books sponsoredwalk im looking for something along the lines of 'genetics for dummies'. :rolleyes:

A basic leaving cert physics book is a travesty, yes I worked through the
damn thing on my own & felt even stupider just accepting "Work is the
product of a force times a distance" yada yada yada... I got a university
physics book and realised I needed calculus so I went and learned calculus
and now understand all of it fine. A bit of calculus makes about 15
chapters of leaving cert physics rote memorization completely obsolete
and rederivable in a matter of seconds. What I meant about the basics
was that I know I should just plow through the book and then re-do
everything on a higher scale but the way I'm doing it is alright too, just
gets on my nerves If you find a show called the mechanical universe
online I've gone through all that on my own already and am aware of
what's coming just I'd like to do it in a lot of detail now.
My point about the engineering book was that I wanted to understand how
to understand more real-life examples of the stuff in my physics book so
I'm doing just that at the moment and happier for it :cool:

As for biology, I'd recommend Raven Biology for the theory and Schaum's
Biology to test yourself with questions. If you do something like this
you'll have the perfect background to go on to take on a proper genetics
book also using schaum's genetics to practice questions
Perhaps someone else will have better suggestions than these but I think
you'd do great with this much under your belt. Chemistry is important to
get a proper understanding, I mean I do alright with minimal chem
knowledge. Try www.khanacademy.org along with Schaum's Beginning
Chemistry and I think you'd crack it pretty quickly

J C

equivariant wrote: »

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)

I don't have access to the original documentation of the quote ... and the internet just provides repeated versions of either the quote or the talkorigins critique of the quote.
So lets examine what your talkorigins link has said about this quote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

"The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist."

So here we have an equally eminent biologist (and Evolutionist) who apparently says that Transformism is a fairy tale ...

This reminds me of the following quote (and this time I can quote 'chapter and verse'):
"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" (Prof Geoge Wald, 1967 joint Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine and formenr Professor of Biology in Harvard in "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).
this was followed in the August 1954 edition of Scientific American by the following admission:-

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

Here we have an eminent Scientist saying that Evolutionists choose to believe the impossible!!!

... going back to your talkorigins link in realtion to Prof Bounoure it continues as follows:-

The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude is taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following: "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."
So effectively, the original quote that you call a lie ... is substantially proven to be an accurate reflection of Prof Bounoure's position that evolutionism is a theory without value and that none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on this theory
i.e. it is a fairy tale, if ever there was one ... and whether Bounoure or the even more eminent Rostand actually pronounced it to be a fairy tale ... is a moot point, as far as the ultimate validity of Evolution is concerned !!!

J C

keppler wrote: »

'Your distinctions are specious nonsense' now thats the kind of answers i love getting from J C.
what a joke.

Yes J C telescopes are fitted with spectrometers which measure wavelength of light and also obtain emission spectra and ultimately can be used to calculate redshift. congrats J C your power's of deduction are amazing!!

JC you cannot simply say that dispersion is redshift they are two completely different things! Rayleigh scattering is scattering none the less NOT REDSHIFT
JC THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF HYPOTHESES AS TO WHAT MAKES THE SKY BLUE AND RED BUT NONE OF THEM INVOLVE SHIFT.

... the Rayleigh scattering results in an observed shifting of the emission spectra ... and you are correct that nobody attributes this to a Doppler Effect ... because we know this is not true ... so why do we attribute much smaller stellar spectral shifts to doppler effects?

keppler wrote: »

OH and J C you still 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????
IT'S A YES OR NO ANSWER

Some of the distances may be even greater ... but redshift isn't a fool-proof way of measuing these distances.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is the quality of J C's refutations :pac: Nice stuff J C...

... sometimes you just have to laugh!!!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing circular about this whatsoever, I don't think
you understand the idea of circularity as it applies to logic. Are you
seriously going to argue an external bullseye target sack that contains
all of the information required to propagate the species is good design?

... that is objectively the case ... and it is indeed good design.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Have you any evidence that "blind non-intelligently directed forces are not
able to produce the fine design details found in the CFSI of living
organisms."

The spontaneous non-intelligently directed generation of Complex Functional Specified Information has never been observed and is mathematically impossible.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I believe the scientific evidence that shows how the flagella motor is
formed is more than enough evidence to show what you've just written to
be a barefaced lie...

I may be mistaken, on some things, but I am not a liar and I would ask you to observe the normal courtesies of civilised debate.
... and there is no valid scientific evidence that shows how the CFSI in a flagellar motor could be spontaneously i.e. non-intelligently generated.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... the Rayleigh scattering results in an observed shifting of the emission spectra ...

Bull****. As usual.
Are you aware you're lying or is it on purpose?

J C wrote: »

and you are correct that nobody attributes this to a Doppler Effect ... because we know this is not true ...

Cept you, cause you keep referring to it as a red shift, because you have no idea what you are saying.

J C wrote: »

so why do we attribute much smaller stellar spectral shifts to doppler effects?

Because astronomers, unlike you, are educated in physics and understand what is going on.

J C wrote: »

Some of the distances my be even greater ... but redshift isn't a fool-proof way of measuing these distances.

So by how much are they off? Can you provide some maths to back this up?
(Math is the one with the numbers btw.)

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote:

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.

Your statement.

Your evidence? Earlier in the thread you used the flagella motor to back up
your claims.

Let us repeat that you used the flagella motor as evidence of nature not
being able to produce the fine design details...

I gave you evidence that scientists have indeed shown how the flagella
can originate by "blind natural processes".

You're still spouting off claims like the above, that "that blind
non-intelligently directed forces are not able to produce the fine design
details".

I think that is the definition of a lie, when you knowingly state something
that isn't true. I'd ask you to observe the courtesies of civilized debate by
holding back on the false claims if you don't mind. We could also question
why you're still spouting off nonsense about evolution creating princes
from frogs that came out of this pond even though many times in the
thread have you admitted you understand evolution, understand it goes
off "existing" material etc...

You can subjectively claim "good design" all you want but you have to
explain to us why many other species have better design that offers
more protection for their genitals while humans and many other species,
those found to share similar genetic material and to spring from a similar
evolutionary lineage, do not have this better protection.

I take it you'd prefer a joke to explain the variability of a coccyx to the
explanation evolution has given you. Nobody said it was a nice or
particularly happy explanation but we can't alter the facts to fit out
pre-conceived biases J C.

coffee_cake

King Mob wrote: »

Are you aware you're lying or is it on purpose?

Considering his previous "I have read literally every single book on evolution" "no you havent " "yes I have, literally every book" turned into "well I was only speaking figuratively" when called on it...

King Mob

bluewolf wrote: »

Considering his previous "I have read literally every single book on evolution" "no you havent " "yes I have, literally every book" turned into "well I was only speaking figuratively" when called on it...

Well he could just be so deluded he might not actually understand the concept of lying. I was just curious about whether or not he was aware of it.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

I don't have access to the original documentation of the quote ... and the internet just provides repeated versions of either the quote or talkorigins critique of the quote.
So lets examine what your talkorigins link has said about this quote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

"The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist."

So here we have an equally eminent biologist (and Evolutionist) who says that Transformism is a fairy tale ... and promptly cconfirms that, despite this, it is accepted as a fact and that is there is no discussion amongst scientists on it being a fact (even though he has apparently just admitted that it is a fairy tale)!!!

This reminds me of the following quote (and this time I can quote 'chapter and verse'):
"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" (Prof Geoge Wald, 1967 joint Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine and formenr Professor of Biology in Harvard in "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).
this was followed in the August 1954 edition of Scientific American by the following admission:-

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

Here we have an eminent Scientist saying that Evolutionists (including himself) choose to believe what they know to be impossible!!!

... going back to your link in realtion to Prof Bounoure it says as follows:-

The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude is taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following: "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements." So effectively, the original quote that you call a lie ... is substantially proven to be an accurate reflection of Prof Bounoure's position that evolutionism is a theory without value and that none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on this defunct theory!!!

LOL! such a load of crap. You misquoted somone and took their quote out of context and now you write a mini essay trying to justify your dishonesty. Utter rubbish. Have some decency, admit to your lie and move on. You would deserve some respect then, at least.

Also trying to obscure your original misquote by quoting someone else is pointless. The simple fact is that you attributed a quote to someone that THEY NEVER SAID i.e. you lied. However, it fits in very well with your track record on these forums Professor Plumb, doesn't it?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

The spontaneous non-intelligently directed generation of Complex Functional Specified Information has never been observed and is mathematically impossible.

If it is mathematically impossible you should be able to prove it mathematically.

So JC can you provide this proof?
Or are you still having problems with long division as well as junior cert science?

sponsoredwalk

King Mob wrote: »

So by how much are they off? Can you provide some maths to back this up?
(Math is the one with the numbers btw.)

J C wrote: »

... Prof Dawkins has indeed said that living organisms give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose ... and he then promptly denies this by claiming that blind evolutionary processes did it ...
... but materialistic processes are incapable of producing CSI ... and we have the maths to prove it!!!

J C appears to be very skilled in mathematics, he has proof that
materialistic processes are incapable of producing CSI (crime scene
investigations?) so he should have no problems calculating the discrepancies
in redshift calculations yada yada [insert big word taken from creationist website here]
yada...

Dave!

/"unfollows" thread

sponsoredwalk

J C four posters have accused you of lying in 1 page, that has to be some
record on boards, especially seeing as all 4 claims of lying come from totally
different conversations!

coffee_cake

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

J C four posters have accused you of lying in 1 page, that has to be some
record on boards, especially seeing as all 4 claims of lying come from totally
different conversations!

It's obviously a big evolutionist conspiracy. We're all so blind to the truth we're accusing him of lying.

sponsoredwalk

Being an evolutionist is like being hooked into the matrix to J C, and Neo, I
mean J C, is going to save the world by destroying us damned evolutionists
under the guidance of Morpheus John May.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

J C four posters have accused you of lying in 1 page, that has to be some
record on boards, especially seeing as all 4 claims of lying come from totally
different conversations!

I suppose when you have no answer to the argument ... you just make unfounded accusations about the man.

Unfounded accusations of lying are routinely made by some Evolutionists against Creationists on this thread and others ... I guess they must think that everybody else is like themselves!!!

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

It's obviously a big evolutionist conspiracy. We're all so blind to the truth we're accusing him of lying.

The truth will out ... you are indeed blinded to the truth ... and your denial is causing you to make unfounded charges against me!!!

Your own words condemn you !!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Unfounded accusations of lying are routinely made by Evolutionists against Creationists ... I guess they think that everybody else is like themselves!!!

You claimed to have mathematical proof for something.

Show this mathematical proof, if you cannot then you are a liar.

The reason that such accusation are thrown at you, is because you lie all the time.

So prove us wrong, show us this mathematical proof.

If you don;t do it in your next post, you may as well admit to lying.

liamw

bluewolf wrote: »

It's obviously a big evolutionist conspiracy. We're all so blind to the truth we're accusing him of lying.

haha oh man that's EXACTLY what I was just about the type. We know them all too well

sponsoredwalk

This is hilarious, I've never encountered this in such a blatantly obvious
fashion before

J C

equivariant wrote: »

LOL! such a load of crap. You misquoted somone and took their quote out of context and now you write a mini essay trying to justify your dishonesty. Utter rubbish. Have some decency, admit to your lie and move on. You would deserve some respect then, at least.

Also trying to obscure your original misquote by quoting someone else is pointless. The simple fact is that you attributed a quote to someone that THEY NEVER SAID i.e. you lied. However, it fits in very well with your track record on these forums Professor Plumb, doesn't it?

I am not conceding that the original quote is incorrect ... I don't have access to the book 'Determinism and Finality' ... so I can't confirm or deny whether Bounoure or the even more eminent Rostand actually pronounced Evolution to be a fairy tale ...
... in any event, it is a moot point, as far as the ultimate validity of Evolution is concerned, whether it was Bounoure or Rostand who actually pronounced Evolution to be a fairy tale !!!
Talk about 'sweating the small stuff'!!!

BTW your silence is deafening on all of the other equally devastating quotes on Evolution by Evolutionists ... you could start here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68179370&postcount=1010

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

it is a moot point, as far as the ultimate validity of Evolution is concerned !!!
Talk about 'sweating the small stuff'!!!

Something tells me there will be 3 more responses along these lines

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by bluewolf
It's obviously a big evolutionist conspiracy. We're all so blind to the truth we're accusing him of lying.

liamw
haha oh man that's EXACTLY what I was just about the type. We know them all too well

Another Freudian Slip' no doubt!!!

Your own words condemn you ... and all your Evolutionist 'buddies' ... who are engaged in the advocacy (and, if given the chance, presumably, the actuality) of crass discrimination against Creationists and ID proponents!!!


Your own words indicate that you are blinded to the truth that Evolution is invalid ... or do you know the truth ... and you just continue to defend the impossible for religious anti-God reasons!!!

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Something tells me there will be 3 more responses along these lines

Something also tells me that there will also be no substantive response to my postings!!!

King Mob

So three posts later and not a whiff of maths.

You ready to admit to lying yet JC?

coffee_cake

J C wrote: »

The truth will out ... you are indeed blinded to the truth ... and your denial is causing you to made unfounded charges against me!!!

Your own words condemn you !!!

lol
Man, I didn't think you were THAT bad.

That's ok, we know you've lied.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Something also tells me that there will also be no substantive response to my posting!!!

There is nothing substantial in anything you've said J C, nothing...

It's become tiresome to see you tie yourself up in this ball of yarn, I'm still
waiting to hear your evidence for ID, your evidence that the flagella motor
is not an example of unconscious natural processes, how a variable
coccyx, i.e. people being born without one, actually backs up your claim
that, in fact, people are born with a coccyx to aid walking etc... Oh, and
that little topic of mathematical proof for why natural processes cannot
form complex structures and your mathematical proof on this topic of
redshifts that tire out light but somehow lead to our skies the way they
are. There is more nonsense I'm awaiting answers to, such as how
intelligent design was validated at Pajaro in 1993, your evidence for the
flood due to your tired light hypothesis, your explanation of the evolution
of drug resistant bacteria, all this fun stuff

keppler

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

As for biology, I'd recommend Raven Biology for the theory and Schaum's
Biology to test yourself with questions. If you do something like this
you'll have the perfect background to go on to take on a proper genetics
book also using schaum's genetics to practice questions
Perhaps someone else will have better suggestions than these but I think
you'd do great with this much under your belt. Chemistry is important to
get a proper understanding, I mean I do alright with minimal chem
knowledge. Try www.khanacademy.org along with Schaum's Beginning
Chemistry and I think you'd crack it pretty quickly

Thanks sponsored walk for the recommendations something tells me i have a looooong road ahead of me. I dont envisage much problems with basic biology but chemistry! is and always will be my nemesis.
i hate it. i hate it i hate it.
Maybe J C could buy some of these books and possibly read from them as opposed to (AIG)!
lol Im not going to find alot of time to read these books while argueing here with J C.
Sponsoredwalk you obviously have a rock solid understanding of physics obviously to the point where you definitely dont need my help! as for engineering i think you will find this very fullfilling. I used to Know a few people who were aeronautical engineers (they always seemed excited by what they did. a far cry from my own experience, I just seemed to find what i was doing interesting at most). they would indeed highly recommend this avenue to anyone with an interest in engineering.