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…5152545657…106

Comments

  • Options
    #1592
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Not bunk ... just evidentially challenged ... and with the same validity as a bedtime story.:)
    Yes, but enough about the bible, it is off topic for this thread.

    MrP


  • Options
    #1593
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The quote is valid allright ... and here is a quote along a similar vein from another Evolutionist, Dr Richard Lewontin (b. 1929) PhD Zoology Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University
    "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. " Review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" The New York Review, January 9 1997.
    http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
    oh dear.
    ... Spontaneous Evolution is not the current scientific understanding regarding how Humans came to be ... it is the current materialistic explanation (and a very shaky one indeed) for how Humans came to be.
    Evolution is the current scientific understanding of the development of life on this planet.

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



  • Options
    #1594
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Not bunk ... just evidentially challenged ... and with the same validity as a bedtime story.:)

    You're contradicting yourself. You say it's not bunk and then equate evolution to a bedtime story.

    And there is a certain irony in a creationist dismissing evolution for being evidentially challenged while stating the account in Genesis is actually how humans came to be.

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



  • Options
    #1595
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    J C wrote: »
    I never said that these people think that Evolution is bunk ... they clearly are Evolutionists ... but they have serious doubts over how and whether it occurs like the modern synthesis suggests it does.

    You did indeed present it as examples of people doubting evolution, as opposed to doubting if the details of evolution work the way we have at certain points assumed it to have functioned.

    In fact you continue to do so now when you say that these evolutionists have doubt whether evolution occurs? Amazing... I would think a better way to describe people who doubt if evolution occurs as "non-evolutionists".

    What you present is like saying that because we now understand more about how a retrovirus works, we are casting doubt on the "theory" that aids is a communicable disease.


  • Options
    #1596
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Yes, but enough about the bible, it is off topic for this thread.

    MrP
    Its not off topic ... just not relevant to the quote cited by you.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1597
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    oh dear.

    Evolution is the current scientific understanding of the development of life on this planet.
    ... not among conventional scientists who are Creationists and ID Proponents ... nor indeed among many scientists who are materialists, in moments when they have a crisis of faith ... and start expressing grave doubts about it's validity!!!:)


  • Options
    #1598
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    You're contradicting yourself. You say it's not bunk and then equate evolution to a bedtime story.
    What I meant is that I never used the word 'bunk' to describe Evolution ... I just presented a quote from an evolutionist describing gradualism within the fossil record as little more than a bedtime story ... and you guys concluded that I was saying that it was bunk ... when all I did was quoted an Evolutionist on the subject.

    I'm only the messenger in all of this!!:)
    SW wrote: »
    And there is a certain irony in a creationist dismissing evolution for being evidentially challenged while stating the account in Genesis is actually how humans came to be.
    The physical evidence for the intelligent design of life by an intelligence of inordinate capacity AKA God is simply overwhelming and scientifically valid.
    Whether it was the God of the Bible acting in accordance with the Genesis account is a matter of faith.


  • Options
    #1599
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users Posts: 11,652 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    J C wrote: »
    What I meant is that I never used the word 'bunk' to describe Evolution ... I just presented a quote from an evolutionist describing gradualism within the fossil record as little more than a bedtime story ... and you guys concluded that I was saying that it was bunk ... when all I did was quoted an Evolutionist on the subject.

    I'm only the messenger in all of this!!:)

    The physical evidence for the intelligent design of life by an intelligence of inordinate capacity AKA God is simply overwhelming and scientifically valid.
    Whether it was the God of the Bible acting in accordance with the Genesis account is a matter of faith.

    Do yourself a favour and call this statement faith based also, you really won't get away with that.


  • Options
    #1600
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... not among conventional scientists who are Creationists and ID Proponents ... nor indeed among many scientists who are materialists, in moments when they have a crisis of faith ... and start expressing grave doubts about it's validity!!!:)
    really? creationists don't accept evolution. I think I need a sit down after that revelation.
    J C wrote: »
    What I meant is that I never used the word 'bunk' to describe Evolution ... I just presented a quote from an evolutionist describing gradualism within the fossil record as little more than a bedtime story ... and you guys concluded that I was saying that it was bunk ... when all I did was quoted an Evolutionist on the subject.

    I'm only the messenger in all of this!!:)
    Pull the other one, JC. If someone said that something was a fairytale, most people would read that to mean 'bunk'.
    The physical evidence for the intelligent design of life by an intelligence of inordinate capacity AKA God is simply overwhelming and scientifically valid.
    Whether it was the God of the Bible acting in accordance with the Genesis account is a matter of faith.
    Creationism is attempting to shoehorn Genesis into the realm of science. There is no suporting evidence for the biblical account for the origin of mankind. Evolution however does have evidence to support it.

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



  • Options
    #1601
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Must... Destroy... Smiley faces...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1602
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Must... Destroy... Smiley faces...
    Smile ... and the world smiles with you.


  • Options
    #1603
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Pull the other one, JC. If someone said that something was a fairytale, most people would read that to mean 'bunk'.

    Henry Gee used the fairytale word ... and you used the bunk word ... and I merely joined the dots!!!:eek:


  • Options
    #1604
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,805 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Henry Gee used the fairytale word ... and you used the bunk word ... and I merely joined the dots!!!:eek:
    but Gee didn't say that evolution is a fairytale. Something that you mistakenly claimed he did say. Prettymuch all the quotes you provided fall under the category of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the quote.

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



  • Options
    #1605
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    Years later, and J.C. is still finding new victims. The ultimate troll as Wicknight/Zombrex believed.


  • Options
    #1606
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    but Gee didn't say that evolution is a fairytale. Something that you mistakenly claimed he did say. Prettymuch all the quotes you provided fall under the category of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the quote.

    This is what he said
    Quote:-

    "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.116-7

    ... I guess most, if not all, of the so-called 'fossil evidence' for evolution 'bites the dust' on that one.

    Quite obviously no Evolutionist is going to say that Evolution is 'bunk' ... and if they did, they would effectively cease to be an evolutionist.

    However, many cast doubt on various critical aspects of evolution - and I agree with their assessments in this regard.


  • Options
    #1607
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    This is what he said
    Quote:-

    "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.116-7

    ... I guess most, if not all, of the so-called 'fossil evidence' for evolution 'bites the dust' on that one.

    Quite obviously no Evolutionist is going to say that Evolution is 'bunk' ... and if they did, they would effectively cease to be an evolutionist.

    However, many cast doubt on various critical aspects of evolution - and I agree with their assessments in this regard.
    So are you claiming that all of these evolutionists agree with all of your arguments, secretly or otherwise?


  • Options
    #1608
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,805 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    This is what he said
    Quote:-

    "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.116-7

    ... I guess most, if not all, of the so-called 'fossil evidence' for evolution 'bites the dust' on that one.

    An entire field of science bites the dust because one scientist makes a rather specious claim about it?

    I know it probably hasn't occurred to you that Henry Gee might be wrong, because he said something that you can claim is supportive of your views (and I'm pretty certain he would laugh in your face if you tried to claim him as a supporter of Creationism), but there are those who have disagreed - eloquently - with him.

    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/nature-editor-henry-gee-goes-all-anti-science/

    In other words, has it occurred to you that someone who apparently agrees with you might be wrong?


  • Options
    #1609
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    So are you claiming that all of these evolutionists agree with all of your arguments, secretly or otherwise?
    I'm not claiming that they agree with all of my arguments.
    If they did, that would make them Creationists ... and they certainly aren't Creationists.

    They are Evolutionists who are honestly and objectively looking at the various serious evidential and logical weaknesses in the theory that evolution is the source of the genetic diversity of life.

    These are very capable and eminent scientists ... and I suppose they reckon that the first thing to be done is to identify the weaknesses of Evolution ... and then to try and test various alternative ideas that will overcome the weaknesses with more plausible and evidentially supported new hypotheses.

    This is a totally legitimate activity and it is how science progresses ... so I applaud them for doing so.

    I have serious doubts that they will succeed ... but I fully support them in trying.

    ... and perhaps you may also be surprised to learn that I have no problem with my 'tax dollars' being used for such pure and fundamental research.

    That is, after all, what academic freedom and respect for diversity of opinion is all about.


  • Options
    #1610
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    An entire field of science bites the dust because one scientist makes a rather specious claim about it?
    Not just one scientist ... but many eminent Evolutionists are finding serious issues with the theory ... and are 'calling it like it is'.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I know it probably hasn't occurred to you that Henry Gee might be wrong, because he said something that you can claim is supportive of your views (and I'm pretty certain he would laugh in your face if you tried to claim him as a supporter of Creationism), but there are those who have disagreed - eloquently - with him.
    Of course he could be wrong on this issue ... and indeed I might be wrong on many issues ... but try as I might ... and I did make a mighty effort, when I was an Evolutionist, I couldn't overcome these fundamental issues with Evolution, myself.
    I don't know the man personally, so I have no idea what he would make of me ... but I'm sure he would reciprocate the respect I have for him as a scientist of absolute integrity and obviously eminent ability.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/nature-editor-henry-gee-goes-all-anti-science/

    In other words, has it occurred to you that someone who apparently agrees with you might be wrong?
    Dr Henry Gee expressed honestly held reservations about Evolution Theory and in particular, the non-scientific nature of conclusions being drawn in relation to the so-called 'fossil record' in support of Evolution.
    Expressing such reservations is quite legitimate, and occurs in every area of science, about particular aspects of various hypotheses.
    What is unique to Evolution, is that any hint of criticism is often viewed as some kind of 'anti-science' remark ... when it is actually an attempt to develop, even evolve, if you will, the Theory.

    Such criticism of honest questioning, can be stifling of proper scientific assessment of the undoubted weaknesses of Evolution ... and indeed it can affect progress in developing the Theory.
    ... and even if Creation Scientists, like myself, latch on to the reservations ... Evolution Theory, if it is valid, should be robust enough to be defended against such criticism ... but here is the rub ... it hasn't largely been able to be so defended.

    Now, what does that tell you about it?


  • Options
    #1611
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    I'm not claiming that they agree with all of my arguments.
    If they did, that would make them Creationists ... and they certainly aren't Creationists.

    They are Evolutionists who are honestly and objectively looking at the various serious evidential and logical weaknesses in the theory that evolution is the source of the genetic diversity of life.

    So they all believe that evolution is completely and utterly wrong and that creationism is right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1612
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    So they all believe that evolution is completely and utterly wrong and that creationism is right?
    You're trying to put incorrect words in my mouth!!

    I never said, nor do I believe that "all believe that evolution is completely and utterly wrong and that creationism is right".
    There are aspects to evolution, like Natural Selection of pre-existing genetic diversity that are objectively true ... and some Evolutionists believe everything positive that is said about evolution and none of the negative things.
    ... other Evolutionists are more nuanced about what they accept about evolution and they have grave doubts about significant aspects of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.
    ... and there are other (former) Evolutionists, like myself, who are now Creationists or ID proponents.;)


  • Options
    #1613
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    You're trying to put incorrect words in my mouth!!
    Gosh and we all know that incorrect words would never enter or exit your mouth.
    J C wrote: »
    ... other Evolutionists are more nuanced about what they accept about evolution and they have grave doubts about significant aspects of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.
    So do these grave doubts make the people you quoted reject evolution?
    Or do they still believe that evolution is true?


  • Options
    #1614
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Gosh and we all know that incorrect words would never enter or exit your mouth.
    Absolutely ... and thanks for pointing this out.

    King Mob wrote: »
    So do these grave doubts make the people you quoted reject evolution?
    They don't seem to ... I guess hope (of some solution) springs eternal, as far as they are concerned.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Or do they still believe that evolution is true?
    Only they know the answer to that.
    I guess it depends on how grave their doubts are and how much of the Modern Synthesis is affected, in each of their cases.
    When I was an Evolutionist and some of its weaknesses were brought to my attention, I dreamed of getting solutions and being feted by my fellow Evolutionists, for doing so.
    Eventually, when the cause seemed hopeless, I gave up trying to defend indefensible concepts, like mutagenesis being the driver towards perfection ... when everything about it is actually destructive of life and limb.


  • Options
    #1615
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    Absolutely ... and thanks for pointing this out.
    Oh, except for that lie you told about all the fathers of science not studying and believing astrology you told. Whoops.
    J C wrote: »
    They don't seem to

    Only they know the answer to that.
    I guess it depends on how grave their doubts are and how much of the Modern Synthesis is affected, in each of their cases.
    So if they don't reject evolution, why are they expressing doubts that you are saying point to massive flaws in it?

    If these flaws are as fatal as you are saying, why would any one of them still believe in evolution?

    If you are going to claim that they are controlled or deluded by evolutionist belief, why would they express doubts at all?

    And why do you keep randomly adding and starting sentences with ellipsises exactly?
    Do you think that's proper grammar or is it just to annoy people?


  • Options
    #1616
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Oh, except for that lie you told about all the fathers of science not studying and believing astrology you told. Whoops.
    What lie?
    The 'Fathers of Modern Science' ... are the fathers of modern science ... and they were nearly all Creationists.
    King Mob wrote: »
    So if they don't reject evolution, why are they expressing doubts that you are saying point to massive flaws in it?
    I guess they have faith that their doubts will be resolved by further research. Like I say, hope can spring eternal.:)
    King Mob wrote: »
    If these flaws are as fatal as you are saying, why would any one of them still believe in evolution?
    I guess they have faith that their doubts will be resolved by further research. Like I say, hope can spring eternal.:)
    King Mob wrote: »
    If you are going to claim that they are controlled or deluded by evolutionist belief, why would they express doubts at all?
    They're people of the highest integrity and scientific eminence ... who 'call it like it is'.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And why do you keep randomly adding and starting sentences with ellipsises exactly?
    Do you think that's proper grammar or is it just to annoy people?
    It's evolving grammar ... and I'm it's leading proponent.:)


  • Options
    #1617
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    So they all believe that evolution is completely and utterly wrong and that creationism is right?
    Here is one eminent Evolutionist who said exactly what ID proponents of my acquaintance say ... indeed this is the very statistical method used to prove the existence of ID :-

    Prof. Francis Crick (1916–2004) Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Nobel laureate 1962, Professor at the Salk Institute

    "To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA) which will be described in outline in Chapter 5. Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?

    This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!

    This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry by comparison to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense."     Life Itself (1981) p. 51-52.

    ... so, was Prof. Crick one of the first ID proponents? ... this writing would certainly lead one to believe that he was.

    Discovering this quote over 30 years later, is an amazing experience for me, having discovered these figures and ratios myself only 10 years ago.

    It is often said in jest on this thread, that if ID were correct, then an ID proponent would have got a Nobel Prize already ... and now it seems to actually be the case that they have!!!

    I am speechless, at this amazing discovery!!!
    ... and as you all know, it takes a lot to make me speechless!!!:)


  • Options
    #1618
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    What lie?
    The 'Fathers of Modern Science' ... are the fathers of modern science ... and they were nearly all Creationists.
    But people pointed out that some of the important ones believed in nonsense like astrology. You claimed they didn't. You were shown to be wrong.

    Now either you are as educated in science as you claim to be and knew this, so you deliberately lied. Or you didn't know this, so therefore lied about how educated you are.

    Also, you never actually responded to me pointing out your lie so it's also a lie of omission.
    J C wrote: »
    They're people of the highest integrity and scientific eminence ... who 'call it
    like it is'.
    But if they really did "call it like it is" then surely they would say that evolution is wrong and creation is right, no?
    So why don't they?
    J C wrote: »
    It's evolving grammar ... and I'm it's leading proponent.:)
    I like it. It sounds like you pause randomly to process what nonsense you are going to make up and spout next.


  • Options
    #1619
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,311 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Haven't checked this thread in ages. Probably since the days of MickRock. Anything new at all?


  • Options
    #1620
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    ... so, was Prof. Crick one of the first ID proponents? ... this writing would certainly lead one to believe that he was.

    Discovering this quote over 30 years later, is an amazing experience for me, having discovered these figures and ratios myself only 10 years ago.

    It is often said in jest on this thread, that if ID were correct, then an ID proponent would have got a Nobel Prize already ... and now it seems to actually be the case that they have!!!
    Well if a Nobel prize winner says something, it must be true unquestioningly.
    Good thing the majority of those winners don't all believe in evolution or you might be a little stuck and confused.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1621
    legspin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    endacl wrote: »
    Haven't checked this thread in ages. Probably since the days of MickRock. Anything new at all?

    Not really.
    J.C. is still hoisting himself with his own petard, everyone else is still facepalming at the knots he ties himself into with his answers (if you can call that gibberish answers) and I still cant believe he hasn't managed a Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent manoeuvre yet.


Advertisement