The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder if Dr Lumsden's alcoholism and "conversion" to creationism are related. Perhaps he was in a vulnerable state and preyed upon by some Salvation Army-type.

... one of his students was the person who challenged his evolutionism and his unbelief.

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

C'mon,J C, update your material-nobody likes a comedian telling the same joke over and over.

From a quote on youtube...
In typical creationist style this presentation is completely misrepresenting the truth and the facts. Dr. Richard Lumsden won the Baldwin Award in 1975. The 90 peer reviewed articles were also in the 70's.
In the 90's when he lost his marbles and became a creationist mouthpiece, he was a has been, and nothing was published up to his death in 1997.
The interesting part is that the creationists actually admit that he was an alcoholic in the obituary of their hero
"Unfortunately, years of unhealthy habits as an unbeliever, including alcohol and tobacco abuse, took their toll on his body, and he died too soon, at age 59, in 1997.

Originally Posted by J C
I have highlighted the appropriate part of the quote.

Originally Posted by J C
Please be nice ... you can make your point without resorting to such deeply prejudicial unfounded remarks about eminent intelligent people.

SW
do try post according to the standard you only recently demanded of others.

I was posting according to high standards.
Housetype said that Creationists admitted that Dr. Lumsden was an alcoholic ... I merely pointed out that he drank to excess when he was an unbeliever ... drinking to excess isn't necessarily evidence that somebody is an alcoholic ... and he gave up the drink when he became a Christian ... alas too late to save his health. These are the facts of the matter ... facts that apply specifically to Dr Lumsden's case and there is no inference that it applies to any other persons.

The only people making unfounded personal remarks, are the people calling Dr. Lumsden an alcoholic and of unsound mind.
The man in the video is neither drunk nor of unsound mind, as far as I can see.

housetypeb

To be honest, my reply to you -post 2124- was merely pointing out that all his peer reviewed work and high awards were from the 70's.
To that end I quoted in full -and clearly attributed -a post from you tube, in hindsight I should have cut it off before mention of his problem with drink and tobacco.

Frank Bullitt

So JC, are all the people in this video wrong then? You should probably get in touch with them.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

So JC, are all the people in this video wrong then? You should probably get in touch with them.

No need to do so as they have actually presented no evidence for spontaneous Evolution,

Creationists don't want evolution removed from schools ... when all they want is for the evidence against evolution to also be taught along with the evidence in favour of it.
Creationists and ID proponents don't engage in peer review and don't present their ideas to be critiqued at science conferences ... because ID is defined as 'supernatural' and is therefore banned a priori from scientific consideration.
Equally, the idea that America 'would turn into Iran' if Creation was found to be valid, is unsupported, given the fact that the US didn't turn into Iran, in the 19th and early 20th Century when Creation was the dominant belief of how we originated ... and it is still held to be true by 42% of the US population.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

This video summarizes where evolution is wrong :-

Delirium

So any video you post is evidence but any others posted are not? Seems the criticism of creationist regarding fairness equally applies to this thread.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

No need to do so as they have actually presented no evidence for spontaneous Evolution,

... plenty of scaremongering, strawmen and questionable conclusions than you could shake a stick at allright.
For example, the strawman allegation that Creationists want evolution removed from schools ... when all they want is for the evidence against evolution to also be taught along with the evidence in favour of it.
The erroneous allegation that Creationists and ID proponents don't engage in peer review and don't present their ideas to be critiqued at science conferences ... when ID is defined as 'supernatural' and is therefore banned a priori from scientific consideration.
Equally, the scaremongering idea that America 'would turn into Iran' if Creation was found to be valid, is unsupported, given the fact that the US didn't turn into Iran, in the 19th and early 20th Century when Creation was the dominant belief of how we originated ... and it is still held to be true by 42% of the US population.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

This video summarizes where evolution is wrong :-

And this video goes through all of the arguments you have presented, and failed to present thus far.

Any other pseudoscience you wish to put forward?

J C

Here is a video which summarises the attempts ... and failures at trying to prove a spontaneous origin for life and its evolution.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

No need to do so as they have actually presented no evidence for spontaneous Evolution,

... plenty of scaremongering, strawmen and questionable conclusions than you could shake a stick at allright.

really? lets see....

For example, the strawman allegation that Creationists want evolution removed from schools ... when all they want is for the evidence against evolution to also be taught along with the evidence in favour of it.
The erroneous allegation that Creationists and ID proponents don't engage in peer review and don't present their ideas to be critiqued at science conferences ... when ID is defined as 'supernatural' and is therefore banned a priori from scientific consideration.

so creationists want evidence against evolution to be taught alongside evolution? even though you subsequently admit that creationism can't provide any scientific evidence?

Equally, the scaremongering idea that America 'would turn into Iran' if Creation was found to be valid, is unsupported, given the fact that the US didn't turn into Iran, in the 19th and early 20th Century when Creation was the dominant belief of how we originated ... and it is still held to be true by 42% of the US population.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

and then science discovered information that showed how life evolved on Earth. But some religious people rejected it because it contradicts their religious beliefs.

J C wrote: »

Here is a video which summarises the attempts ... and failures at trying to prove a spontaneous origin for life and its evolution.

Care to summarise? 80 minutes is a long time to dedicate to creationist arguments.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

Here is a video which summarises the attempts ... and failures at trying to prove a spontaneous origin for life and its evolution.

Ah this one again, more creationist garbage, no evidence, no peer reviewed papers, nothing.

How many of these straws do you have to keep clutching at?

J C

SW wrote: »

really? lets see....

so creationists want evidence against evolution to be taught alongside evolution? even though you subsequently admit that creationism can't provide any scientific evidence?

I was talking about the scientific evidence that M2M evolution didn't occur.

SW wrote: »

and then science discovered information that showed how life evolved on Earth. But some religious people rejected it because it contradicts their religious beliefs.

Not quite ... Pasteur discovered that life doesn't spontaneously generate ... and irreligious people rejected it and believe that life can spontaneously generate with no evidence for their belief other than the circular argument that if there is no God ... then life would have to be spontaneously generated.

SW wrote: »

Care to summarise? 80 minutes is a long time to dedicate to creationist arguments.

It's all about the theory of evolution ... not Creationism.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I was talking about the scientific evidence that M2M evolution didn't occur.

still doesn't get creationism into the science class as by your own admission no scientific evidence exists for it.

Not quite ... Pasteur discovered that life doesn't spontaneously generate ... and irreligious people rejected it and believe that life can spontaneously generate with no evidence for their belief other than the circular argument that if there is no God ... then life would have to be spontaneously generated.

You clearly don't do science if you believe that people of all religious stripes only accept evolution because there is no God.

It's all about the theory of evolution ... not Creationism.

and it's from a creationist viewpoint. so care to summarise the 80 minute video?

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

I was talking about the scientific evidence that M2M evolution didn't occur.

You've yet to show this, what you use isn't science its pseudoscience and hilariously bad math masquerading as fact.

Squeedily Spooch

SW wrote: »

You clearly don't do science if you believe that people of all religious stripes only accept evolution because there is no God.

I think it's widely a given that JC isn't a scientist at this point, he keeps digging that hole thought and it keeps getting funnier.

Brian Shanahan

Gintonious wrote: »

Ah this one again, more creationist garbage, no evidence, no peer reviewed papers, nothing.

How many of these straws do you have to keep clutching at?

Seeing as you're acquainted with this garbage, any chance of a tl;dr?

I'm not wasting over an hour of my life to watch the pewk JC throws up.

Frank Bullitt

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Seeing as you're acquainted with this garbage, any chance of a tl;dr?

I'm not wasting over an hour of my life to watch the pewk JC throws up.

The very first line tells you most of the agenda of it "the theory of evolution that was advanced in the 19th century, denies this evident fact of creation", and it goes on from there. The bold part was all you need to know about the agenda of this "documentary".

Its effectively JC's argument in video form, lots of rhetoric and the like.

Frank Bullitt

Not to turn this into a video battle, I think the guys in this firmly hit the nail on the head. Really well.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

Some of it is here

That link starts off with the line "Here is the evidence for ID presented by me:-"

Do try and read my posts before replying to them. That is not what I asked you for. Try again.

J C wrote: »

He confided that he was "full on" not knowing what he was talking about allright ... when he was an evolutionist.:)

Also not what I said. Keep trying.

Vivisectus

OK, so we agree that 10^150 is a reasonable estimate for the Universal Probability Bound.

That is the ratio of the event under consideration to the UPB, not the UPB itself which remains as a reasonable estimate of 10^150.

The problem is that we have already seen this is neither here nor there... the proposed way of modelling the likelihood in terms of probability is quite wrong. You then deal with that by simply repeating the claim that this is not so.

---

It proves that the Complex Specified Functional information found in all living cells could not have been produced by the simple deterministic physical and chemical processes ...

... how did it prove this? All you have done is say that there is a sort of practical upper limit to probability

and then you claim that the creation of simple proto life is beyond this limit by saying "Even a single chain of amino acids is too unlikely to form": the chances of a 120 amino acid with 20 possibilities forming is 120 ^ 20.

But that is just plain wrong, as has been extensively demonstrated. It assumes that there is a huge amino-acid soup, in which these molecules are randomly linking and unlinking to make chains - which is what your mathematician modelled. But that is not what is proposed at all: it is a strawman argument.

All you are doing is repeating the same one, over and over, even though it has been shown for what it is.

I fully accept that ‘natural’ processes are extensive and offer
adequate explanations for many aspects of living organisms.

here you graciously admit that bio-chemistry exists... hurray!

However, there are features to life which the interaction of NS and mutatgenesis cannot explain, such as the evidence for design in nature, and the emergence of genetic information and conscious life.

And another claim, based on your earlier one, repeated.

ID offers objective proof of the intelligent design of life.

...no, it offers claims.

ID doesn't cast doubt on the mechanisms you have cited as precursors of life as we know it ... ID proves that only an intelligence of inordinate power could have the necessary overview and creative capacity to overcome the multiple UPB levels of non-functional combinatorial space observed between the specific functional biomolecules that are integrated into the closely co-ordinated systems observed in life.

And more claims...

Really all this just boils down to you beating the dead horse of the UPB.

Squeedily Spooch

Dembski claims the UPB is that because...well because he says so, and that's basically his argument.

I say it's 10^ 167, because I say so. So there.

PopePalpatine

It's obviously 1 googolplex squared. :pac:

robindch

Formerly well-known creationist, diploma-mill-doctor Kent Hovind -- the poor man's Ken Ham -- was jailed to ten years in the slammer in 2006 for a range of offences against the state. While he's due for release, I believe next year, it seems that his troubles with reality are likely to continue for many years to come:

http://www.pnj.com/story/news/2014/11/08/dr-dino-facing-new-legal-woes/18730293/

Pensacola News Journal wrote:

A Pensacola evangelist known as Doctor Dino has long maintained that all of his ministry's finances and property belong not to him, but to God, and that the Almighty's belongings are not subject to humanity's tax laws. Naturally, the federal government disagrees with the good doctor, and in 2006 Kent Hovind was sentenced to a decade in prison for failing to report some $430,000 in taxable income and employee wages.

Hovind, 61, is approaching the end of that sentence, but he is now facing a new suite of charges on allegations that he tried to stymie the government's efforts to collect on his outstanding debt. According to an Oct. 21 federal indictment filed against Hovind and Paul John Hansen — a Nebraska man known for his vigorous opposition of government tax and property laws — the duo has been charged with mail fraud and criminal contempt for interfering with the sale of Pensacola properties Hovind was forced to forfeit as a result of the 2006 case.

The indictment says that in 2011, Hansen filed liens on nine of Hovind's forfeited properties on North Palafox Street, Cummings Road and Oleander Drive. In 2012 the government was granted an injunction ordering that neither Hovind nor any agent acting on his behalf file or attempt to file any "liens, notices, financing titles and claims of whatever nature ... to cloud the title of the properties."

The following year, both Hovind and Hansen reportedly mailed additional documents disputing the ownership of the property. Both men were charged with mail fraud, attempt and conspiracy to commit mail fraud and criminal contempt. Mail fraud can be punishable by up to 20 years in prison and as much as $500,000 in fines when involving an organization.

Hovind is scheduled to stand trial in Pensacola on Dec. 1, according to court records. He is currently being held in Santa Rosa County Jail. Hovind has gained a degree of national notoriety for his views on creation. His ministry, Creation Science Evangelism Enterprises, supports a literal interpretation of the Bible and espouses that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago in six 24-hour days.

One of the ministry's contentions is that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time. Prior to his arrest, Hovind operated a Pensacola theme park and museum called Dinosaur Adventure Land, billed as "the place where dinosaurs and the Bible meet."

Vivisectus

Is this one of those eminent creation scientists, or are we talking nutjob material here? And can someone please explain the difference? I find it very confusing.

Michael OBrien

Vivisectus wrote: »

Is this one of those eminent creation scientists, or are we talking nutjob material here? And can someone please explain the difference? I find it very confusing.

There isn't one. Ken is a dishonest nutjob. His son Eric has gotten a little band of equally crazy nuts like Ray Comfort and Sye Ten Bruggencate to further spread the crazy messages of Young Earth Creationism.
Ken is famous for his bad science and false claims. Have you ever heard of the youtuber Tunderf00t? He is a scientist and atheist that has done a series debunking Ken and his type. Worth a watch.

Squeedily Spooch

Vivisectus wrote: »

Is this one of those eminent creation scientists, or are we talking nutjob material here? And can someone please explain the difference? I find it very confusing.

Ken Ham? He runs a Creationist museum that displays humans riding dinosaurs.

With saddles.

So, yeah...

Is Ray Comfort the guy who thinks because humans can eat a banana so easily God must have made it that way? He's another fruitloop.

Vivisectus

I can see "dr" dino agrees with JC about there having been a world-covering climate-equalizing cloud... is that a position unique to Hovind or is it a common one in creationist circles?

I can find some reference to it on a hugely entertaining site called "creation concepts" - I highly recommend visiting it. It has lots of educational information about the dangers of fluoride, UFO's, the non-existence of global warming, the way the ozone layer scare is a conspiracy, and prehistoric human populations in excess of 7 billion.

And guess why their ideas are not accepted? You guessed it: it is because scientists believe in an orthodoxy without proof. Which is bad, because it is not their orthodoxy, namely the existence of God and (their selective reading of) the Bible being his message to all of us.

BuilderPlumber

J C wrote: »

No need to do so as they have actually presented no evidence for spontaneous Evolution,

Creationists don't want evolution removed from schools ... when all they want is for the evidence against evolution to also be taught along with the evidence in favour of it.
Creationists and ID proponents don't engage in peer review and don't present their ideas to be critiqued at science conferences ... because ID is defined as 'supernatural' and is therefore banned a priori from scientific consideration.
Equally, the idea that America 'would turn into Iran' if Creation was found to be valid, is unsupported, given the fact that the US didn't turn into Iran, in the 19th and early 20th Century when Creation was the dominant belief of how we originated ... and it is still held to be true by 42% of the US population.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

This video summarizes where evolution is wrong :-

Only problem was that Iran turned into something else in 1979. Something more akin to a watered down version of Pol Pot's Cambodia or Nazi Germany. The REAL Iran was a different, far more enlightened place than the 1979 onwards fascist voodoo dictatorship we have now. It is unfortunate that a good country like Iran has been saddled with a truly bad and poor regime since 1979.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

Not to turn this into a video battle, I think the guys in this firmly hit the nail on the head. Really well.

Yes its full of name calling, ad hominem and the old strawmen of comparing gravity (which everybody accepts) with evolution (which is a weasel word that means different things simultaneously) ... and is accepted to varying degrees, as a result.
... and they rolled out the old brown/white moth population changes as evidence for evolution ... when all it is is evidence for NS within a species ... which everybody accepts as occurring.

It turned out to be a two person commentary with both persons taking the evolutionist side ... and nobody from the Creationist side being allowed to put their case. Balanced broadcasting it certainly wasn't.

One would have thought that we would have got to hear exactly why these Christian people are taking a case against the state, in their own words, rather than a second-hand account of their reasons from two evolutionists who made no secret of the contempt that they held these Christian parents in.

Now can we please get back to answering my post - where hard facts have been presented that prove an intelligent origin for life.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92944247&postcount=2112

... like the guy said in the video ... you can only deny that two plus two equals four for so long ... so have a look at the math in my posting ... and tell me where it is wrong.

He also said that one of the reasons the case was being taken is that the people taking the case didn't want their propaganda to be the only propaganda taught to their children and wanted the evolutionist propaganda to be 'shut up'.
The irony is that the only 'propaganda' (to use his words) allowed to be taught in public schools in America is the Evolutionist version of events ... and therefore the only people who are currently 'shut up' are the Christians ... who are apparently supposed to sit idly bye ... while evolutionist propaganda is taught to their children ... with no balancing point of view taught or even allowed mention ... in school ... and apparently on that TV programme as well.

J C

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Only problem was that Iran turned into something else in 1979. Something more akin to a watered down version of Pol Pot's Cambodia or Nazi Germany. The REAL Iran was a different, far more enlightened place than the 1979 onwards fascist voodoo dictatorship we have now. It is unfortunate that a good country like Iran has been saddled with a truly bad and poor regime since 1979.

I agree with all you say ... and I would point out that Pol Pots regime was a totalitarian murderous Atheistic Communist Dictatorship ... and Hitler's Nazis took Dawinism's 'selection of the fittest' ... to its perverted extreme ... and millions of people were murdered in cold blood, by both regimes.

Doctor Jimbob

It doesn't matter how much bullshit you post, creationism will continue to be nonsense.