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. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Options
1…2223252728…106

Comments

  • Options
    #722
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    What does Nye actually know about evolution? :confused:

    Edit: I think too that I saw him in another debate once and he was absolutely crap. Ham may be a whacky creationist but you still need someone who know's their stuff about evolution and who also happens to be able to express themselves in an eloquent manner. Debating skills are an absolute necessity too. Ham has lots of experience in the latter. What has Nye got?


  • Options
    #723
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,946 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Infinitely more than Ham the Scam, for starters.


  • Options
    #724
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jernal wrote: »
    What has Nye got?
    Credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty, but that's about it.

    None of those are going to be much use in a debate against doctor-doctor Ham.


  • Options
    #725
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    robindch wrote: »
    None of those are going to be much use in a debate against doctor-doctor Ham.

    To be more precise, its doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham versus doctor-doctor-doctor Nye (Ham has 4 honorary PhDs, and Nye 3). A debate between a mechanical Engineer (Nye) and an environmental Biologist (Ham) is unlikely to further our knowledge 0f evolution too much I would say.


  • Options
    #726
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    Looking forward to some new creationist arguments in 2014...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #727
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,946 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    You give J C and his ilk too much credit. :pac:


  • Options
    #728
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    sephir0th wrote: »
    Looking forward to some new creationist arguments in 2014...

    He's been using the same arguments for nearly 10 year now, what makes you think he'll actually start debating now?


  • Options
    #729
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    I was being facetious :)


  • Options
    #730
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You're assuming creationists know what that means.


  • Options
    #731
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty, but that's about it.

    None of those are going to be much use in a debate against doctor-doctor Ham.
    I know Ken Ham personally - and I can vouch for his credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty.
    I'm also sure that Bill Nye is an equally honourable and knowledgeable man ... he is the 'Science Guy' after all ... and I therefore look forward to this debate.
    ... and may the best argument presented by the best man, win!!!:)


    Robin, why do you always accuse every Creationist of being dishonourable and intellectually challenged ... when it is just their ideas that you have a problem with?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #732
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nagirrac wrote: »
    To be more precise, its doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham versus doctor-doctor-doctor Nye (Ham has 4 honorary PhDs, and Nye 3). A debate between a mechanical Engineer (Nye) and an environmental Biologist (Ham) is unlikely to further our knowledge 0f evolution too much I would say.
    I think it will ...
    ... it can only be better than a talk I saw recently by an Evolutionary Biolgist who gave examples of NS in action (something we all agree happens) ... and a few examples of losses of genetic information ... and then made a giant 'leap of faith' with a proclamation that this somehow 'proved' that pondkind evolved into mankind!!!


  • Options
    #733
    Doctor Strange
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭Doctor Strange


    J C wrote: »
    I think it will ...
    ... it can only be better than a talk I saw recently by an Evolutionary Biolgist who gave examples of NS in action (something we all agree happens) ... and a few examples of losses of genetic information ... and then made a giant 'leap of faith' with a proclamation that this somehow 'proved' that pondkind evolved into mankind!!!

    J C your anecdotal points are tedious and add nothing to the discussion.


  • Options
    #734
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'm curious, J C - you quote Dawkins (out of context) in your sig, but have you read his books?

    I recently finished The Greatest Show on Earth, and I find it hard to imagine that anyone who still believes in Creationism has read that book with an open mind.


  • Options
    #735
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »
    J C your anecdotal points are tedious and add nothing to the discussion.
    They prove that even Evolutionary Biologists ... aren't able to coherently explain how Evolution could possibly do anything more profound than produce different kinds of Dogs ... or fish with no eyes ... when what is required as a plausible mechanism to evolve pondkind into mankind is a blind species of fish producing offspring with eyes ... and a cross beteween pedigree Poodles producing anything except more Poodles!!:)


  • Options
    #736
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm curious, J C - you quote Dawkins (out of context) in your sig, but have you read his books?

    I recently finished The Greatest Show on Earth, and I find it hard to imagine that anyone who still believes in Creationism has read that book with an open mind.
    I read it with great interest ... but I still found nothing in it to prove Evolution (from pondkind to mankind) to be true.

    ... and my Dawkins quote is not out of context ... his use of the words 'give the appearance of' is indicative of his belief that they weren't actually designed for a purpose.

    Of course, I believe that they were designed and are purposeful ... and there is the point at which we both meet ... but disagree.

    As a matter of interest, which parts of the book did you find the most compelling in favour of Spontaneous Evolution ... and why?


  • Options
    #737
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,167 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    ...even Evolutionary Biologists ... aren't able to coherently explain how Evolution could possibly do anything more profound than produce different kinds of Dogs

    Evolution didn't produce different breeds of dogs. Man did. This has been explained to you before.

    Clearly, you've never read anything of Dawkins with an open mind.


  • Options
    #738
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    .


  • Options
    #739
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    sephir0th wrote: »
    I was being facetious :)
    Sarky wrote: »
    You're assuming creationists know what that means.
    Interestingly "facetious", together with its colleague "abstemious", are the only two common English words which contain each vowel once and each one in alphabetically correct order. Their adverbial forms, "facetiously" and "abstemiously" are doubly neat, as they include the arguable vowel 'y', also in its alphabetically correct position.

    I have no idea why I posted this.


  • Options
    #740
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    I know Ken Ham personally - and I can vouch for his credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty.
    I've spoken to doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham too and from the moment he started talking until the moment I walked away, he uttered a series of lies that a well-informed child could see through.

    There is nothing credible, knowledgeable, decent or honorable about that bearded jackass that I'm aware of.
    J C wrote: »
    Robin, why do you always accuse every Creationist of being dishonourable and intellectually challenged
    I don't always claim. And I when I do make a claim about creationists as a group, I don't make that claim either.

    I do claim that creationists are either (a) uninformed, which is fair enough, as not everybody has the time to learn enough to have a reliable opinion on some topic; or (b) stupid, since they are unable to understand that the evidence points unambiguously in one way only; (c) gullible, since, for example, they choose accept the word of religious people on scientific matters above the word of scientific people on scientific matters or (d) deceitful, since they know that evolution is the best current explanation for the existence of, and diversity of, life, but are too scared, stupid or dishonest to make this belief public. I'm not especially interested in the first three groups who make up the vast bulk of creationists, but do hold the last group in contempt as a pack of disreputable fools who -- like doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham -- make a pitiful, deceitful living off the disinformation and drivel they propagate.

    Reworking an old line about the Communists, one could say that people who have an opinion on evolution are either smart, honest or creationists, but only two at any one time.


  • Options
    #741
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    I read it with great interest ... but I still found nothing in it to prove Evolution (from pondkind to mankind) to be true.
    J C wrote: »
    They prove that even Evolutionary Biologists ... aren't able to coherently explain how Evolution could possibly do anything more profound than produce different kinds of Dogs ... or fish with no eyes ... when what is required as a plausible mechanism to evolve pondkind into mankind is a blind species of fish producing offspring with eyes ... and a cross beteween pedigree Poodles producing anything except more Poodles!!:)
    So you read Dawkins with your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR WHAT'S WRITTEN HERE"?

    Did you miss the bit where he explains very, very clearly how the offspring of any two members of a species is going to be another member of the same species, and that evolution is something that (generally) happens in geologic time?

    Or am I banging my head against the wall of someone who believes that creation happened a few thousand years ago, and is therefore pathologically incapable of thinking in anything approaching a rational manner?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #742
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    robindch wrote: »
    Reworking an old line about the Communists, one could say that people who have an opinion on evolution are either smart, honest or creationists, but only two at any one time.
    Ooh, I might steal that.


  • Options
    #743
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    robindch wrote: »
    Reworking an old line about the Communists, one could say that people who have an opinion on evolution are either smart, honest or creationists, but only two at any one time.

    That is gaenious


  • Options
    #744
    legspin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    Or am I banging my head against the wall of someone who believes that creation happened a few thousand years ago, and is therefore pathologically incapable of thinking in anything approaching a rational manner?

    That's about the height of it. A more classic case of wilful ignorance you will not find.


  • Options
    #745
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    I've spoken to doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham too and from the moment he started talking until the moment I walked away, he uttered a series of lies that a well-informed child could see through.
    ...and this 'asessment' wasn't biased by your very strong anti-God, anti-Bible and anti-Creationist beliefs???
    ... or the fact that you have never uttered a good word about Creationism or Creationists ... and I mean any Creationist?
    robindch wrote: »
    There is nothing credible, knowledgeable, decent or honorable about that bearded jackass that I'm aware of. I don't always claim. And I when I do make a claim about creationists as a group, I don't make that claim either.
    Now you're resorting to namecalling ... the mark of a lost argument.
    robindch wrote: »
    I do claim that creationists are either (a) uninformed, which is fair enough, as not everybody has the time to learn enough to have a reliable opinion on some topic; or (b) stupid, since they are unable to understand that the evidence points unambiguously in one way only; (c) gullible, since, for example, they choose accept the word of religious people on scientific matters above the word of scientific people on scientific matters or (d) deceitful, since they know that evolution is the best current explanation for the existence of, and diversity of, life, but are too scared, stupid or dishonest to make this belief public. I'm not especially interested in the first three groups who make up the vast bulk of creationists, but do hold the last group in contempt as a pack of disreputable fools who -- like doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham -- make a pitiful, deceitful living off the disinformation and drivel they propagate.
    Not only do Creationists not believe that Evolution provides any plausible explanation for the existence of, or the diversity of, life ... many evolutionists themselves don't believe that Darwinian Theory provides any explanation either (other than small variations within Kinds):-






    robindch wrote: »
    Reworking an old line about the Communists, one could say that people who have an opinion on evolution are either smart, honest or creationists, but only two at any one time.
    One could say the same about Evolutionists ... and with more validity ... given the fact that Communists are Evolutionists ... and not Creationists.


  • Options
    #746
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sephir0th wrote: »
    That is gaenious
    ... more like 'throwing stones in a glasshouse' ... given the strong links between Communism ... and Evolutionism.


  • Options
    #747
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... more like 'throwing stones in a glasshouse' ... given the strong links between Communism ... and Evolutionism.

    You'd do better avoiding such silly stuff if you seriously want people to respect what you post.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #748
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So you read Dawkins with your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR WHAT'S WRITTEN HERE"?

    Did you miss the bit where he explains very, very clearly how the offspring of any two members of a species is going to be another member of the same species,
    That's the Creationist position ... are you saying that Evolutionists are now accepting that living organisms reproduce after their Kinds?
    That's good.:)
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    and that evolution is something that (generally) happens in geologic time?
    ... and therefore has never been observed ... its beginning to look like it is Evolution that is the (unobserved) fairy at the bottom of Prof Dawkins' garden ... and not God!!:):pac:

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Or am I banging my head against the wall of someone who believes that creation happened a few thousand years ago, and is therefore pathologically incapable of thinking in anything approaching a rational manner?
    I am totally rational ... and it is you guys who are behaving irrationally by believing that pondkind can transform itself into mankind therough a process of selecting mistakes.


  • Options
    #749
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    koth wrote: »
    You'd do better avoiding such silly stuff if you seriously want people to respect what you post.

    I fear that ship sailed a long time ago.


  • Options
    #750
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    You'd do better avoiding such silly stuff if you seriously want people to respect what you post.
    What is silly about pointing out the fact that (God-less) Communism has always held Evolution to be the (God-less) explantion for the development of life on Earth ... and Robin reworking old jokes about Communists ... is therefore 'throwing stones in a glasshouse' ... for both Communists ... and Evolutionsts, like himself.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #751
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    What is silly about pointing out the fact that (God-less) Communism has always held Evolution to be the (God-less) explantion for the development of life on Earth ... and Robin reworking old jokes about Communists ... is therefore 'throwing stones in a glasshouse' ... for both Communists ... and Evolutionsts, like himself.:)

    This has been the stance of ALL atheists not just "communists"


Advertisement