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…2627293132…106

Comments

  • Options
    #842
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Why not ask him to do something less harmful? Like drinking a pint of glue?


  • Options
    #843
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    Sarky wrote: »
    Why not ask him to do something less harmful? Like drinking a pint of glue?

    I tried to eat a cup of salt once. Didn't work out so well.


  • Options
    #844
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Sarky wrote: »
    Why not ask him to do something less harmful? Like drinking a pint of glue?

    How about a 200 post conversation with JC without pulling all of his hair out?


  • Options
    #845
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ninja900 wrote: »
    It is only an appearance of having been designed for a purpose. It is not real. It is an artifact of our brains' overwhelming desire to impose order and meaning on things regardless of whether they are possessed of both, either, or none.
    What it certainly is not, is science.
    ... just like a duck has the appearance of being a duck ... and you guys have the appearance of being Evolutionists (and Atheists) ... life has the appearance of being designed for a purpose.:)

    ... and it certainly does lend itself to forensic science ... as the phenomena concerned are physically observable.
    ninja900 wrote: »
    It is the same urge that finds Jesus on a slice of toast or the Virgin Mary on a tree stump.
    ... its the same urge as looking at a Lion ... and 'seeing' a common ancestor that looked like an Amoeba.:):eek:

    ... and a boundless imagination is required in both instances.:D


  • Options
    #846
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Read the Creationizm thread and take it seriously.
    Good advice, Robin.:)

    ... its not just a pre-requisite to be a mod on the A & A ... it's a requirement for anybody seriously considering a career as an Evolutionary Biologist as well.:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #847
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    [-0-] wrote: »
    I tried to eat a cup of salt once. Didn't work out so well.
    Were you an Evolutionist, at the time?:confused::)


  • Options
    #848
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,643 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    Good advice, Robin.:)

    ... and not just a pre-requisite to be a mod on the A & A ... it's a requirement for anybody seriously considering a failed career as an Evolutionary Biologist as well.:D
    FYP.


  • Options
    #849
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    ... it's a requirement for anybody seriously considering a failed career as an Evolutionary Biologist as well.
    FYP.
    All careers in Evolutionary Biology don't end in failure ... you'll put off all budding Evolutionary Biologists, with these negative generalisations!!!!:)


  • Options
    #850
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,643 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    I just want to drive nails slowly into my eyes.


  • Options
    #851
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I just want to drive nails slowly into my eyes.
    I've never had such urges myself ... not since I became a Creationist, anyway!!!

    ... are you in such denial ... that you would prefer to blind yourself, rather than see the truth that is Creation Sceince ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #852
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,643 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    I've never had such urges myself ... not since I became a Creationist, anyway!!!

    ... are you in such denial ... that you would prefer to blind yourself, rather than see the truth that is Creation Sceince ?

    Yes J C, you're right, thats exactly it.

    Rejoice! For I am converted!


  • Options
    #853
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C, you said earlier that you agreed with the facts in Dawkins' books. I asked whether that included the fact that the Earth is over four billion years old, and you didn't answer. Care to do so?


  • Options
    #854
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    J C, you said earlier that you agreed with the facts in Dawkins' books. I asked whether that included the fact that the Earth is over four billion years old, and you didn't answer. Care to do so?
    That isn't a fact ... it's just an opinion based on a 'long ages' interpretation of the facts.


  • Options
    #855
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    How about a 200 post conversation with JC without pulling all of his hair out?
    Stop right there ... I need all of the hair I've got!!!:):D


  • Options
    #856
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    That isn't a fact ... it's just an opinion based on a 'long ages' interpretation of the facts.
    OK, let's go with that. Which of the geological dating "clocks" he describes do you think are inaccurate, and what is your evidence for their inaccuracy?


  • Options
    #857
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, let's go with that. Which of the geological dating "clocks" he describes do you think are inaccurate, and what is your evidence for their inaccuracy?
    They're 'all over the shop' ... with discordant dates ... between them ... but the most damning evidence that they're wrong is polystrate fossils, like fossil trees that run up through rock strata that supposedly took millions of years to lay down (based on the geological ages attributed to these layers (by various geological dating 'clocks).

    polystratefossil.jpg

    FossilRecordBigFish.jpg

    polystrate_trees_wide.jpg


  • Options
    #858
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 35,072 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    J C wrote: »
    ... just like a duck has the appearance of being a duck

    Yet again you miss the point J C.
    Only a fool bases his or her interpretation of reality upon appearances alone.
    It appears to the casual observer that a complex biological structure e.g. the eye, must have been designed, but that does not make it so.

    ... and you guys have the appearance of being Evolutionists (and Atheists) ...

    Appearances aren't always deceptive, but you need other evidence to be sure.
    ... its the same urge as looking at a Lion ... and 'seeing' a common ancestor that looked like an Amoeba.:):eek:

    You're just being silly now. We can look at modern creatures like lions and look at their ancestors in the fossil record, and their ancestors, and so on and so on. Most religious people accept that evolution is a scientific fact, it's not an atheist or agnostic thing.

    © 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd



  • Options
    #859
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 35,072 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    J C wrote: »
    but the most damning evidence that they're wrong is polystrate fossils, like fossil trees that run up through rock strata that supposedly took millions of years to lay down

    It is a misconception that sedimentation must always be slow, it can be extremely rapid in certain areas for a certain period of time. You need to demonstrate that the dating of the entire fossil record depends on these areas or else your argument fails.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossils
    The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically only found in creationist publications.

    That tells its own story.

    © 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd



  • Options
    #860
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    They're 'all over the shop' ... with discordant dates ... between them ...
    Do you have a specific example of contradictory geologic clocks?
    ... but the most damning evidence that they're wrong is polystrate fossils, like fossil trees that run up through rock strata that supposedly took millions of years to lay down (based on the geological ages attributed to these layers (by various geological dating 'clocks).
    Do you have a specific example of such a fossil tree, with the specific layers and their geologic ages?


  • Options
    #861
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Yet again you miss the point J C.
    Only a fool bases his or her interpretation of reality upon appearances alone.
    It appears to the casual observer that a complex biological structure e.g. the eye, must have been designed, but that does not make it so.
    ... but when we look at any aspect of the eye ... from its physical structures ... to the chemical cascades that are used to produce sight ... to the underlying genetic information that produces the eye ... they all show design ... and extremely complex and sophisticated design at that.

    Its like arguing that the Hubble Telescope was produced by a fly banging its head against a window pane ... the proposed spontaneous mechanisms simply don't have the capacity to do what they are supposed to have done.
    ninja900 wrote: »
    Appearances aren't always deceptive, but you need other evidence to be sure.
    I agree ... but the 'other evidence' in the case of life is overwhelmingly indicative of intelligent design.
    ninja900 wrote: »
    You're just being silly now. We can look at modern creatures like lions and look at their ancestors in the fossil record, and their ancestors, and so on and so on. Most religious people accept that evolution is a scientific fact, it's not an atheist or agnostic thing.
    ... but we don't have such continuums ... what we have is discreet Kind Groups in the fossil record ... just like we have discreet Kind Groups within the biosphere today.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #862
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ninja900 wrote: »
    It is a misconception that sedimentation must always be slow, it can be extremely rapid in certain areas for a certain period of time. You need to demonstrate that the dating of the entire fossil record depends on these areas or else your argument fails.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossils
    This is special pleading ... you cannot maintain that sedimentation was slow (measured in millions of years) in some places and effectively instantaneous in other places ... and then continue to argue for the Geological Uniformitarianism upon which the assumptions underpinning 'Long Ages' Geology is built.

    Polystrate fossils are damning evidence in favour of the rapid deposition of practically all sedimentary rock as a result of Noah's Flood ... and not their gradual deposition over millions of years ... upon which 'Long Ages' Geology is founded.

    ninja900 wrote: »
    That tells its own story.
    It sure does ... and its not a happy one ... from an Evolutionist perspective!!:D


  • Options
    #863
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    This is special pleading ... you cannot maintain that sedimentation was slow (measured in millions of years) in some places and effectively instantaneous in other places ...
    You're claiming that it's impossible for sedimentation to happen at different rates?
    ... and then continue to argue for the Geological Uniformitarianism upon which the assumptions underpinning 'Long Ages' Geology is built.
    If you think uniformitarianism requires a constant rate of sedimentation at all times and in all places, you have some more reading to do.


  • Options
    #864
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,643 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    This is special pleading ... you cannot maintain that sedimentation was slow (measured in millions of years) in some places and effectively instantaneous in other places ... and then continue to argue for the Geological Uniformitarianism upon which the assumptions underpinning 'Long Ages' Geology is built.

    Where to even begin with this..... Of course you can maintain this. Lets look at a very simple modern day example for comparison. Which will result in more sediment being laid down: Sand settling at the bottom of a calm lake, or a landslide? The former might result in a few millimetres of sediment per decade, the other could result in tens of metres in seconds. Clearly though we can add Geology to the long list of things you have absolutely no clue about.
    Polystrate fossils are damning evidence in favour of the rapid deposition of practically all sedimentary rock as a result of Noah's Flood ... and not their gradual deposition over millions of years ... upon which 'Long Ages' Geology is founded.

    Everything is evidence of the flood in your eyes.

    It sure does ... and its not a happy one ... from an Evolutionist perspective!!:D

    :rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Options
    #865
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    There's no point, you'd be as well debating quantum mechanics with a washing machine.

    Actually there'd be more point, because the washing machine would be more likely to develop a brain to properly understand and communication equipment to debate QM with you than JC doing the same thing re Evolution.


  • Options
    #866
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 35,072 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    J C wrote: »
    ... but when we look at any aspect of the eye ... from its physical structures ... to the chemical cascades that are used to produce sight ... to the underlying genetic information that produces the eye ... they all show design ... and extremely complex and sophisticated design at that.

    Nope. We can see how the vertibrate eye evolved (a long time before legs, why aren't legs contentious to creationists??) We can see how eyes evolved in other creatures, at other times, in other ways. The similarities they have are because that's what works but there are also enough differences to show that they evolved independently. Bear in mind that good vision is a strong selective pressure for most creatures, so any positive change can be rapidly favoured in the population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#Evolutionary_baggage

    © 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd



  • Options
    #867
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    ... but when we look at any aspect of the eye ... from its physical structures ... to the chemical cascades that are used to produce sight ... to the underlying genetic information that produces the eye ... they all show design ... and extremely complex and sophisticated design at that.

    I realise that J C is beyond rational discussion but for any intelligent 12 year olds reading the thread this lecture is first rate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E


  • Options
    #868
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    We've covered the evolution of the eye several times, in several ways. Isn't it interesting how J C is ignoring years of us showing that he's wrong, and how he's wrong, in order to keep peddling the same old lies?


  • Options
    #869
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,564 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Sarky wrote: »
    We've covered the evolution of the eye several times, in several ways. Isn't it interesting how J C is ignoring years of us showing that he's wrong, and how he's wrong, in order to keep peddling the same old lies?

    I suppose he's being consistent, as a Creationist his understanding of the world must remain ... unevolved.


  • Options
    #870
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    <sunglasses>

    <YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH>


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #871
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,643 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Sarky wrote: »
    We've covered the evolution of the eye several times, in several ways. Isn't it interesting how J C is ignoring years of us showing that he's wrong, and how he's wrong, in order to keep peddling the same old lies?

    I'm just convincing myself he's the most persistant troll of all time.

    He has to be.

    Doesn't he?


Advertisement