"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

darjeeling

darjeeling (Dec 2009) wrote: »

Sorry, JC, but in almost 3000 posts from you in this thread, I've seen nothing but soap-boxing, trollery and clowning. I have no further intention of responding to anything you write in reply to my posts.

.

smokingman

John, are you ready to reach out yet? Have you accepted the need for help? Have you accepted the need for friendships yet? You are alone if you have the smiles of many facing you, yet not, if they smile with you. Help us help you, help love help loneliness!

sponsoredwalk

Okay I'm not reverse trolling anymore. JC I don't care if you're a troll or not
comments like this:

J C wrote: »

The debate on Materialistic Evolution should also be short-lived ... but Evolutionists have shown themselves to be very inventive at prolonging it ... despite the thing being a nonesense!!!

where you dash off another Proustian one-liner so devoid of content are
not rebuttals to evolution. Every single claim you've made about evolution,
every single sentence, every single word has all been refuted & put in
your face, your proof has been invalidated by us in more than one different
way. You have had absolutely no argument for a long time here & you
have too many unanswered questions that you've skillfully (& deceitfully)
ignored [or half-assedly responded with easily refutable lies] for a long
time.

What are you still doing here? You've given no arguments at all, all you've
done is spoken about religion in a thread on evolution or repeated the
things that we've shown in excruciating detail to be wrong. What are
you doing here?

J C

darjeeling wrote: »

... I've seen nothing but soap-boxing, trollery and clowning...

That just about describes you darjeeling!!!

J C

smokingman wrote: »

John, are you ready to reach out yet? Have you accepted the need for help? Have you accepted the need for friendships yet? You are alone if you have the smiles of many facing you, yet not, if they smile with you. Help us help you, help love help loneliness!

... OK John (whoever you are) ... I'm here to help you too ... just reach out and believe on Jesus Christ ... and you will be Saved.

smokingman

J C wrote: »

... OK John (whoever you are) ... I'm here to help you too ... just reach out and believe on Jesus Christ ... and you will be Saved.

Don't fight it, let me in. Let me heal you.

King Mob

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

where you dash off another Proustian one-liner so devoid of content are
not rebuttals to evolution. Every single claim you've made about evolution,
every single sentence, every single word has all been refuted & put in
your face, your proof has been invalidated by us in more than one different
way. You have had absolutely no argument for a long time here & you
have too many unanswered questions that you've skillfully (& deceitfully)
ignored [or half-assedly responded with easily refutable lies] for a long
time.

You see SW he knows all this. He knows his argument is stupid and that he's told lies and had his ass handed to him.

But he's a troll and doesn't care.

Now, I'm just enjoying seeing him flail around in his sad attempts to provoke more pointless argument.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

You see SW he knows all this. He knows his argument is stupid and that he's told lies and had his ass handed to him.

But he's a troll and doesn't care.

Now, I'm just enjoying seeing him flail around in his sad attempts to provoke more pointless argument.

If you don't believe me ... perhaps you will believe Prof Dawkins ... when he says the following about the difficulties of the fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view):-
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists...
Both schools of (Evolutionst) thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative." Prof Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', pp. 229-230

King Mob

J C wrote: »

If you don't believe me ... perhaps you will believe Prof Dawkins ... when he says the following about the difficulties of the fossil record (from an Evolutionist pointof view):-
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists...
Both schools of (Evolutionst) thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative." Prof Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', pp. 229-230

What part of "we know you don't believe this" aren't you getting JC? Or are you really that desperate to troll?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

If you don't believe me ... perhaps you will believe Prof Dawkins ... when he says the following about the difficulties of the fossil record (from an Evolutionist point of view):-
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists...
Both schools of (Evolutionst) thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative." Prof Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind Watchmaker', pp. 229-230

Taken from "The Quote Mine Project" dedicated to offering context to all
of the out-of-context quotes used by horrendously dishonest creationists
(those whom JC is imitating):

---

Quote #40

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without
any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of
sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of
thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called
scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major
gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil
record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden
appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian
era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."
(Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton &
Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

While it can be gleaned from this quote, it needs to be pointed out
specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and
Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree
with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian
Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.
The part in the ellipsis is an explanation for this, as follows:

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really
does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that
is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few
fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years
ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had
only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize.

If you are a creationist you may think that this is special
pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about
gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in
the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

---

JC, you're either an easily led fool or just a master troller :pac:
I think it's the latter, I'd say he purposely quoted this in order to lure
us into catching him out because the level of stupidity otherwise is
simply too huge.

darjeeling

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'd say he purposely quoted this in order to lure
us into catching him out because the level of stupidity otherwise is
simply too huge.

Trolls post to goad people into replying. Good trolls manage to set bona fide posters against each other, then take some warped enjoyment from watching the fight. Poor trolls just get slapped down for their obvious trolling; they only keep going because any attention is better than none.

Monsieur M

I used to come on boards.ie about 4-5 years ago and remember arguing with JC about 'gaps' in the fossil record etc. It is amazing that he is a troll of biblical proportions and incapable of learning anything.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Taken from "The Quote Mine Project" dedicated to offering context to all
of the out-of-context quotes used by horrendously dishonest creationists
(those whom JC is imitating):

---

Quote #40

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without
any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of
sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of
thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called
scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major
gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil
record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden
appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian
era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."
(Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton &
Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

While it can be gleaned from this quote, it needs to be pointed out
specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with
Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and
Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree
with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian
Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.
The part in the ellipsis is an explanation for this, as follows:

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really
does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that
is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few
fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years
ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had
only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize.

If you are a creationist you may think that this is special
pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about
gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in
the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

It is indeed special pleading on Prof Dawkins part ... and thanks for the clarification.

J C

darjeeling wrote: »

Trolls post to goad people into replying. Good trolls manage to set bona fide posters against each other, then take some warped enjoyment from watching the fight. Poor trolls just get slapped down for their obvious trolling; they only keep going because any attention is better than none.

To which category of Troll do you belong ... or are you trying to tell us that you are a poor Troll that is trying, without much success, to be a good one?

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Okay I'm not reverse trolling anymore.

An open admission of trolling ... if ever I saw one!!!

King Mob

Now JC if you really thought we were all trolls and you really were an innocent (but apparently completely stupid) creationist, you'd just stop posting here and leave.

But instead you're trying another silly and sad tactic to provoke an argument, because you are a troll.

liamw

J C

liamw wrote: »

Does it talk ... as well??

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Now JC if you really thought we were all trolls and you really were an innocent (but apparently completely stupid) creationist, you'd just stop posting here and leave.

But instead you're trying another silly and sad tactic to provoke an argument, because you are a troll.

I keep to the truth ... and whether or not you are trolling ... or just in denial is a moot point!!!

... as ye steadily lose credibility every time ye try to defend the indefensible!!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I keep to the truth ... and whether or not you are trolling ... or just in denial is a moot point!!!

... as ye steadily lose credibility every time ye try to defend the indefensible!!!!

Again, you try to provoke an argument you're not going to get JC.

You are a troll. It's as plain as day.
Drop the act.

liamw

J C wrote: »

Does it talk ... as well??

What's your point? If it could talk, then intelligent design is ruled out?

You make no sense.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you try to provoke an argument you're not going to get JC.

You are a troll. It's as plain as day.
Drop the act.

I lay before you life and death ... choose eternal life.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I lay before you life and death ... choose eternal life.

You see, the harder you try the more obvious it becomes that you are a troll.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I lay before you life and death ... choose eternal life.

This was in the disney film Aladdin right?

sponsoredwalk

liamw wrote: »

What's your point? If it could talk, then intelligent design is ruled out?

You make no sense.

No, obviously if it could talk it would be in favour of creationism because
remember the talking snake in the bible :eek: :rolleyes: makes sense right?

I think whacking day from the simpsons would become real & more
violent though because the christians would purposely target them
calling snakes Satan & feel a holy justification for embarking on a
holy massacre of our slithery brethren. Maybe Harry Potter
fanatics might get a bit uppity too with that anti-Voldemort bias

It's amazing what fictional writing could potentially lead to

smokingman

You know it's time you brought this to a head, you've known for years that no-one seemed interested in what you had to say, you've known since that people may have done if your fantasies were true...if you could just grab their attention...
Your sense of self has nearly disappeared in all this, hasn't it...it's time to move on.
It's time to move on to a stage where you have something of your own to say, where you can stand there and converse, keeping the attention because you're an interesting human being and not just a robot. Let me help you break free, let me show you the delights of the really real world...let me in for your own sake.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

Evolutionism is just one big Troll itself!!!

Ah yes, the full title of that famous book was IIRC, 'On The Origin Of Species By Heans Of Natural Selection Or How I Successfully Trolled the Christians' by Charlie Darwin.

King Mob

Galvasean wrote: »

Ah yes, the full title of that famous book was IIRC, 'On The Origin Of Species By Heans Of Natural Selection Or How I Successfully Trolled the Christians' by Charlie Darwin.

But you can't drop the "preferred races" bit. How else would the creationists be able to accuse him of racism?

liamw

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

No, obviously if it could talk it would be in favour of creationism because
remember the talking snake in the bible :eek: :rolleyes: makes sense right?

Ye, but it doesn't talk so J.C isn't making an argument in favour of creationism at all!

Ahhh, who cares.. it's JC. He crazy

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Galvasean
Ah yes, the full title of that famous book was IIRC, 'On The Origin Of Species By Heans Of Natural Selection Or How I Successfully Trolled the Christians' by Charlie Darwin.


King Mob
But you can't drop the "preferred races" bit. How else would the creationists be able to accuse him of racism?

So are you saying that Darwin was a racist ... and a Troll?