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…2728303233…106

Comments

  • Options
    #872
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I'm just convincing myself he's the most persistant troll of all time.

    He has to be.

    Doesn't he?

    Ah but did he start out as one or did he EVOLVE???:eek:


  • Options
    #873
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Ah but did he start out as one or did he EVOLVE???:eek:

    If steam is evolved from water why are there still oceans!!


  • Options
    #874
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    kiffer wrote: »
    If steam is evolved from water why are there still oceans!!

    :confused:

    What?


  • Options
    #875
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,564 ✭✭✭swampgas


    kiffer wrote: »
    If steam is evolved from water why are there still oceans!!

    Didn't you know that steam and water are both of the same "kind"? No evolution required.


  • Options
    #876
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    bumper234 wrote: »
    :confused:

    What?

    Looks like someone has forgotten their chemistry!
    The liquid was heated and a gas was seen to evolve.
    Boom! evolution observed in the lab...
    what's next intelligent boiling?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #877
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    swampgas wrote: »
    Didn't you know that steam and water are both of the same "kind"? No evolution required.

    I'd like to see you try to drink steam, they are clearly different and steam was created by God on the 4th day right after slood.


  • Options
    #878
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    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?

    What's worse, it's one of those things that Darwin Himself (blessed be his brain), before the creationists got their stupid in:
    The Atheist GOD wrote:
    To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree, If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

    Of course a frequent creatard "argument" is to quote the first bit up to "absurd in the highest possible degree", without quoting the rest of it, and go "a-ha! We have proof that even the creator of evilution didn't really believe in his false religion!", as amply shown by this piece of idiocy in Answers in Genesis (WARNING:Clicking on the link may cause anyone but JC to catch a terminal case of stupid).


  • Options
    #879
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ninja900 wrote: »
    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
    More wishful thinking and myths than you could shake a stick at.

    The first problem is that multiple specific processes must arise simultaneously and together in the one organism, for even the most basic component to arise ... and this rapidly becomes a statistical impossibility ... using even the most optimistic assumptions.

    The second problem is that there will be many interacting negative traits in such a randomly produced creature that will prevent the trait being passed on ... NS only works in perfectly created organisms that still retain practically all of their perfection.

    The third problem is that intemediary structures will be non-functional and will therefore be a liability instead of a NS asset.

    ... and the fourth problem is that there are no gradual pathways to the perfection of an eye ... any missing component means that it will be blind.
    Evolution is like trying to produce a car from a bicycle via gradual steps ... while retaining functionality at each step ... by hitting it randomly with sledge-hammer and selecting any 'improvements'.:)

    The thing is a nonesense ... and it would have been abandoned years ago ... if it had any plausible replacement, that would allow Atheists to retain their faith in the non-existence of God.:)


  • Options
    #880
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I didn't think it was possible for you to get any more clueless or dishonest, but by gum you found a way. Could you please just stop until you've at least read a junior cert book on biology? The utter rubbish you come out with is just offensive recently.


  • Options
    #881
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kiffer wrote: »
    Looks like someone has forgotten their chemistry!
    The liquid was heated and a gas was seen to evolve.
    Boom! evolution observed in the lab...
    what's next intelligent boiling?
    Intelligent boiling would be a steam engine ... and it has just the same chance of being spontaneously 'evolved' by inflicting random damage and selecting from the resulting junk ... as any other intelligently designed process ... including literally millions of unique processes in living organisms.

    ... and that chance is zero.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #882
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,643 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Sarky wrote: »
    I didn't think it was possible for you to get any more clueless or dishonest, but by gum you found a way. Could you please just stop until you've at least read a junior cert book on biology? The utter rubbish you come out with is just offensive recently.

    Junior cert? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

    cover.png


  • Options
    #883
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    I didn't think it was possible for you to get any more clueless or dishonest, but by gum you found a way. Could you please just stop until you've at least read a junior cert book on biology? The utter rubbish you come out with is just offensive recently.
    ... when you stop name calling ... you might consider posting a substantive rebuttal to the substantive points I have made about the logical invalidity of Evolution.:)


  • Options
    #884
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    More wishful thinking and myths than you could shake a stick at.
    said the creationist without a hint of irony :pac:

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



  • Options
    #885
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... when you stop name calling ... you might consider posting a substantive rebuttal to the substantive points I have made about the logical invalidity of Evolution.:)

    You're proving Sarkys point about dishonesty with that claim. He didn't call you any name in the post you quoted.

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



  • Options
    #886
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    said the creationist without a hint of irony :pac:
    strange ... but quite true ... when it comes to Evolution!!:)


  • Options
    #887
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,643 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    ... when you stop name calling ... you might consider posting a substantive rebuttal to the substantive points I have made about the logical invalidity of Evolution.:)

    J C, this is why I think you have to be trolling. Many, many, posters over the years have tried to debate evolution with you, and you've never atempted to over a rebuttal. Your entire argument boils down to 'God did it'.


  • Options
    #888
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    strange ... but quite true ... when it comes to Evolution!!:)

    cute, but you really don't have much authority to bash evolution given your cringe-worthy behaviour regarding ignoring science and slinging mud at posters on the this thread. Your entire position is based on your holy book and the terror that science disagrees with what it says.

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



  • Options
    #889
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Intelligent boiling would be a steam engine ... and it has just the same chance of being spontaneously 'evolved' by inflicting random damage and selecting from the resulting junk ... as any other intelligently designed process ... including literally millions of unique processes in living organisms.

    ... and that chance is zero.:)
    Just so we're clear: it's your firmly-held belief that it's completely impossible for a random change to result in an improvement? You're telling us that your faith requires you to believe that it can never, ever, ever happen that a random change can be beneficial?


  • Options
    #890
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Basic mathematics from oldrnwisr has shown him to be wrong on that half a dozen times or more at this stage. He knows damn well he's wrong. But he continues to lie about it nevertheless.


  • Options
    #891
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,643 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Sarky wrote: »
    Basic mathematics from oldrnwisr has shown him to be wrong on that half a dozen times or more at this stage. He knows damn well he's wrong. But he continues to lie about it nevertheless.

    Oooh, i bet he'll go with ad hominem for this one!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #892
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Sarky wrote: »
    Basic mathematics from oldrnwisr has shown him to be wrong on that half a dozen times or more at this stage. He knows damn well he's wrong. But he continues to lie about it nevertheless.

    Isn't telling lies a sin? Oh dear JC it looks like you will be joining me down below in the fire and brimstone.


  • Options
    #893
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Just so we're clear: it's your firmly-held belief that it's completely impossible for a random change to result in an improvement? You're telling us that your faith requires you to believe that it can never, ever, ever happen that a random change can be beneficial?
    A random change may result in an improvement ... but such changes are so rare that they will be statistically overwhelmed by the random changes that result in disimprovements.
    its like banging your car randomly with a hammer a thousand times ... one bang may smooth out a superficial dinge somewhere on the car's paintwork ... but the other 999 bangs do nothing but destroy the parts that you hit ... probably completely immobilising the engine ... and making a wreck out of the car.


  • Options
    #894
    sea_monkey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 755 ✭✭✭sea_monkey


    J C wrote: »
    A random change may result in an improvement ... but such changes are so rare that they will be statistically overwhelmed by the random changes that result in disimprovements.
    its like banging your car randomly with a hammer a thousand times ... one ban may smooth out a superficial dinge somewhere on the car's paintwork ... but the other 999 bangs do nothing but destroy the parts that you hit ... probably completely immobilising the engine ... and making a wreck out of the car.

    Yes so the other 999 are no good and you dont keep those, the one bang is good so you keep that.

    Then you bang each of the 999 bad ones until you get a good one.

    Now you have 2 good ones! lets keep banging for a few hundred million years and see what we get.
    That was a really nice analogy for evolution JC, mind if i steal it?


  • Options
    #895
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    J C, this is why I think you have to be trolling. Many, many, posters over the years have tried to debate evolution with you, and you've never atempted to over a rebuttal. Your entire argument boils down to 'God did it'.
    My arguments and rebuttals have been wide-ranging and objectively based.
    With a few notable exceptions, ye engage in namecalling or regurgitating some Evolutionist tome, that sounds superficially plausible ... until it's forensically dissected by me ... and when it falls flat on its face ... ye cover up the mess by going off on some Biblical tangent or other.


  • Options
    #896
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    That's probably the biggest misrepresentation yet.


  • Options
    #897
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sea_monkey wrote: »
    Yes so the other 999 are no good and you dont keep those, the one bang is good so you keep that.

    Then you bang each of the 999 bad ones until you get a good one.

    Now you have 2 good ones! lets keep banging for a few hundred million years and see what we get.
    That was a really nice analogy for evolution JC, mind if i steal it?
    The problem is that you will rapidly run out of cars as the damage is cumulative (and overwhelming) ... and that is why people don't randomly bang their cars ... or indeed expose themselves to mutagenesis ... which is also overwhelmingly (and cumulatively) damaging.

    ... randomly banging your car and expecting anything other than a disaster, would require very great faith indeed ... and selecting between the resulting 'bangers' thereby created won't improve matters either.
    ... ditto with mutagenesis and life.


  • Options
    #898
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    My arguments and rebuttals have been wide-ranging and objectively biblically based.

    FYP
    With a few notable exceptions, ye engage in namecalling or regurgitating some Evolutionist tome,
    Does anyone ever buy that nonsense?
    that sounds superficially plausible ...
    says the poster who once suggested that continents were whizzing around the globe at 3mph and the planet didn't rip itself apart.
    until it's forensically dissected by me ...
    that's pretty insulting to anyone involved in actual forensics.
    and when it falls flat on its face ... ye cover up the mess by going off on some Biblical tangent or other.
    It truly is a pity that you don't actually read the wonderful and informative posts that many posters went to the effort of compiling.

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



  • Options
    #899
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    A random change may result in an improvement ... but such changes are so rare that they will be statistically overwhelmed by the random changes that result in disimprovements.
    Yes. Most mutations are probably harmful. So those mutants are at a disadvantage, and are less likely to survive to pass on their genes. Similarly, the individuals that have been improved by the rare useful mutation are more likely to survive to pass on the improvements.

    It's really a very elegant and economical explanation. It does require quite a long time to work effectively, but that's OK: we've had four billion years. Speaking of which, you haven't actually produced any evidence for your claims of unreliable geological clocks or fossil trees spanning millions of years' worth of sediments.
    its like banging your car randomly with a hammer a thousand times ... one bang may smooth out a superficial dinge somewhere on the car's paintwork ... but the other 999 bangs do nothing but destroy the parts that you hit ... probably completely immobilising the engine ... and making a wreck out of the car.
    Except it's not like that at all, because the thousand mutations don't happen to a single member of the species.


  • Options
    #900
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes. Most mutations are probably harmful. So those mutants are at a disadvantage, and are less likely to survive to pass on their genes. Similarly, the individuals that have been improved by the rare useful mutation are more likely to survive to pass on the improvements.
    That assumes that the very rare 'beneficial' mutation doesn't occur in an organism with other deleterious mutations that will kill or seriously disadvantage it. As the negative mutations vastly outweigh the beneficial ones this is always going to be the case. Also, even so-called 'beneficial' mutations are always observed to result in a loss of genetic information.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's really a very elegant and economical explanation. It does require quite a long time to work effectively, but that's OK: we've had four billion years.
    The point is that mutagenesis doesn't 'work' at all ... except to produce overwhelming damage ... and the occasional 'unusual' organism ... always with a loss of CFSI.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Speaking of which, you haven't actually produced any evidence for your claims of unreliable geological clocks or fossil trees spanning millions of years' worth of sediments.
    I did it here and here.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Except it's not like that at all, because the thousand mutations don't happen to a single member of the species.
    ... one mutation can be enough to kill or seriously debilitate an organism ... and the 'negative' ones vastly outweigh the odd 'positive' one ... that always involves a loss of genetic CFSI ... and that is why mutagenesis is avoided like the plague!!!
    ... by everyone ... including Evolutionists ... whose faith in the generative powers of mutagenesis over supposed billions of years somehow falters when it come to today ... and themselves.:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #901
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    FYP
    My arguments and rebuttals have been wide-ranging and objectively biblically based.

    Does anyone ever buy that nonsense?

    says the poster who once suggested that continents were whizzing around the globe at 3mph and the planet didn't rip itself apart.

    that's pretty insulting to anyone involved in actual forensics.

    It truly is a pity that you don't actually read the wonderful and informative posts that many posters went to the effort of compiling.
    ... a biblical tangent ... and a few name callings and a 'smart ass' jibe ... not much of a rebuttal SW.

    Must do better (a bit like Evolution actually)!!:D
    SW wrote: »
    FYP
    says the poster who once suggested that continents were whizzing around the globe at 3mph and the planet didn't rip itself apart.
    Without getting side-tracked into this biblical tangent raised (when evolution was destroyed by me) ... can I gently point out that Mt Everest is less than 6 miles high ... so the average movement over the hundred or so years of most of the seismic activity surrounding Noah's flood, would only need to 'whizz' it upwards at 0.000006849 MPH or roughly a half an inch per hour ... or the 'speed' of the hour hand on a small clock!!!!!!:eek:


Advertisement