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

Brian Shanahan

Pherekydes wrote: »

Do you teach science to kindergartners, by any chance?

It's the only explanation I can come up with for the infantile drivel you consistently come out with.

Much more likely is that JCs science knowledge was gained one afternoon when he had a talk with a four year old with a big imagination, who had previously been told lots of science beyond their comprehension (bit like the Rugrats, really).

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and now we have confirmation bias.

... from you.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Where logical fallacy bingo is concerned, you're the gift that won't stop giving.

No matter how much we wish you would.

... no logical fallacies on my part ... but your confirmation bias seems to be confusing you on this issue.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

... from you.

... so far no logical fallacies on my part ... but your confirmation bias seems to be confusing you on this issue.

And now we've descended from logical fallacies to kindergarten grade "I know you are but what am I?"

Doctor Jimbob

oscarBravo wrote: »

And now we've descended from logical fallacies to kindergarten grade "I know you are but what am I?"

It goes quite well with the kindergarten grade science.

RikuoAmero

J C wrote: »

Lets recap.
It is a scientifically established fact that we are all descended from one man and one woman.
It is a scientifically established fact that the evolutionist time ranges for both of them overlaps thereby indicating their possible contemporaneous existence.

Evolutionist assumptions about gradualism are used to estimate the timelines involved - but apart from that I agree with the results obtained.

Did the research pointing towards M.Eve and Y-C Adam indicate, anywhere at all, that these two individuals must have been the first two humans? The article you linked to says otherwise, it says there were other humans who lived at the same time as them and before, who all had lines of descendants who all died out.
This is you cherry picking. You've got research saying something, and only accepting that which supposedly aligns with what you previously believed (that there was an Adam and Eve) and completely disregarding everything else that that research indicates (the time scales).

As for them overlapping...did you not look at the numbers at the start of the article? The newest research indicates they're much closer than what was previously believed, but they're still off by about 30 to 40 thousand years.

I also have to question why creationists like yourself bother with this scientific "evidence" at all. Creationists believed there was an Adam and Eve for centuries, long before research into M. Eve and Y-C Adam was started. The lack of research there didn't stop creationists from believing the biblical account. Since you already believed, what possible use could this research have been for you?

Colonialboy

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It goes quite well with the kindergarten grade science.

pot kettle black....

Doctor Jimbob

Colonialboy wrote: »

pot kettle black....

Ah you're back. Any chance of an actual contribution this time?

Brian Shanahan

Colonialboy wrote: »

pot kettle black....

And what relevance does the colour of kitchen implements have to the discussion over whether a 2,500 year old disproven fairy stories should have equal footing with oneof the best evidenced scientific theories, which well explains the eatablised factual phenomenon of evolution?

And yes I do see what you're trying to do there. But falsely equating the rest of us with JC doesn't change the fact that the creationism belief you and he share is wrong, and an utterly disproven fantasy.

oscarBravo

Colonialboy wrote: »

pot kettle black....

Welcome back. Let's see... oh yes: you were about to make an intelligent point about Dmanisi skulls.

Michael OBrien

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Did the research pointing towards M.Eve and Y-C Adam indicate, anywhere at all, that these two individuals must have been the first two humans? The article you linked to says otherwise, it says there were other humans who lived at the same time as them and before, who all had lines of descendants who all died out.
This is you cherry picking. You've got research saying something, and only accepting that which supposedly aligns with what you previously believed (that there was an Adam and Eve) and completely disregarding everything else that that research indicates (the time scales).

As for them overlapping...did you not look at the numbers at the start of the article? The newest research indicates they're much closer than what was previously believed, but they're still off by about 30 to 40 thousand years.

I also have to question why creationists like yourself bother with this scientific "evidence" at all. Creationists believed there was an Adam and Eve for centuries, long before research into M. Eve and Y-C Adam was started. The lack of research there didn't stop creationists from believing the biblical account. Since you already believed, what possible use could this research have been for you?

There were no first humans, the mitochondrial eve issue does not address that, only that scientists state they traced the DNA of the mitochondria in modern women back as far as that 'eve' allegedly, not that was the start of it or that it was the DNA of the WOMEN. The mitochondria have their OWN dna and that is only carried down on the female side.
These 'adam and eve' never met, lived tens of thousands of years apart and have nothing to do with the religious adam and eve.
Don't let creationists try to tell you otherwise, it's bull.

RikuoAmero

Michael OBrien wrote: »

There were no first humans, the mitochondrial eve issue does not address that, only that scientists state they traced the DNA of the mitochondria in modern women back as far as that 'eve' allegedly, not that was the start of it or that it was the DNA of the WOMEN. The mitochondria have their OWN dna and that is only carried down on the female side.
These 'adam and eve' never met, lived tens of thousands of years apart and have nothing to do with the religious adam and eve.
Don't let creationists try to tell you otherwise, it's bull.

I know. You just repeated basically all of my points for me. Thanks, I guess, but that was unnecessary to say as a response to me.

Michael OBrien

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I know. You just repeated basically all of my points for me. Thanks, I guess, but that was unnecessary to say as a response to me.

Sorry, I guess I was only reinforcing the issue. Especially that the issue is the wrong dna (as far as first humans), as its not the women, but the mito's dna.

Colonialboy

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

doesn't change the fact that the creationism belief you and he share is wrong, and an utterly disproven fantasy.

this is where it gets really hilarious for me, i mean your talking belly laughs, load guffaws that make everyone around me wonder whats the joke.....

You have already decided I believe in creationism and I havent (as most peopel on here will testify) expressed a position.... and then the best part is you want me to enter into a scientific debate with someone who cant even recognise that they cant grasp that fact.

You have already declared my positon as wrong and i havent even expressed it... seriously dude , theres no chance of discussing science with people who have made up their mind before Ive even hit 'submit reply' .

And then the saddest part for science is this type of attitude is supported on this thread. It reflects poorly on classical sceintific debate.. maybe thats what passes for neo-scientific debate.

Doctor Jimbob

Colonialboy wrote: »

this is where it gets really hilarious for me, i mean your talking belly laughs, load guffaws that make everyone around me wonder whats the joke.....

You have already decided I believe in creationism and I havent (as most peopel on here will testify) expressed a position.... and then the best part is you want me to enter into a scientific debate with someone who cant even recognise that they cant grasp that fact.

You have already declared my positon as wrong and i havent even expressed it... seriously dude , theres no chance of discussing science with people who have made up their mind before Ive even hit 'submit reply' .

And then the saddest part for science is this type of attitude is supported on this thread. It reflects poorly on classical sceintific debate.. maybe thats what passes for neo-scientific debate.

As has been pointed out before, most of the drive bys on this thread 'without a position' turn out to be obvious creationists. We could of course be wrong, but you're doing nothing to make anyone think otherwise. It's almost as if you know your stance would be blatantly ridiculous so you won't even state what it is.

There's also no chance of discussing science with those who are too cowardly to take a stance of their own and just drop in every few days with a couple of posts that boil down to 'lol you're wrong'.

The only laughable thing here is you criticising the standard of scientific debate while contributing absolutely nothing to the thread.

oscarBravo

Colonialboy wrote: »

this is where it gets really hilarious for me, i mean your talking belly laughs, load guffaws that make everyone around me wonder whats the joke.....

You have already decided I believe in creationism and I havent (as most peopel on here will testify) expressed a position.... and then the best part is you want me to enter into a scientific debate with someone who cant even recognise that they cant grasp that fact.

You have already declared my positon as wrong and i havent even expressed it... seriously dude , theres no chance of discussing science with people who have made up their mind before Ive even hit 'submit reply' .

And then the saddest part for science is this type of attitude is supported on this thread. It reflects poorly on classical sceintific debate.. maybe thats what passes for neo-scientific debate.

Hi there. You were going to say something scientific about Dmanisi skulls?

Brian Shanahan

Colonialboy wrote: »

You have already decided I believe in creationism and I havent (as most peopel on here will testify) expressed a position.

The evidence for you supporting creationism:
1) You come on here and the first post you make is in defence of ardent creationist JC.
2) You ridicule the evidence for evolution (a proven fact) and the various scientific theories explaining it, as ridiculous, inadequate and wrong.
3) You ridicule posters who support evolutionary theory, simply because they do.
4) You have offered no alternative explanations to evolutionary theory apart from creationism.

The evidence against you supporting creationism:
1) A few very weak assertions, without supporting evidence, that you don't. Please note that this isn't really strong enough to qualify as evidence, I only include it out of completeness and courtesy.

So unless the evidence changes, it is fair to theorise that you are a creationist. Prove to us that you are not.

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

\\\MOD:\\\

What's more amazing is how awful to a constructive discussion your postings on this thread have been. Suffice to say if you don't start contributing positively to a discussion your involvement in this thread won't continue.

Colonialboy wrote: »

Obviously posts that SPECULATE and ASSIGN a position to another poster qualify as constructive on this thread and require no censuring.
anyways its been revealing.
So long and thanks for all the loaves and fishes... (i know some of you are going to read loads into that last statement, relax dont waste your time, its just a humourous quip combining 2 popular quotes)

Ok see ya.

Colonialboy wrote: »

against my better judgement but I cant let that go without a making a modern uptodate and unbiased scientific contribution, cos someone needs to make truly modern scientific contributions to this thing.

Its a pretty picture just dont mention the Damnisi skulls....

This time Im really done, I really dont like mutual admiration societys pretending to be science and am just too busy in my work.

Err ok bye?

Colonialboy wrote: »

pot kettle black....

Thought you were going.

Colonialboy wrote: »

this is where it gets really hilarious for me, i mean your talking belly laughs, load guffaws that make everyone around me wonder whats the joke.....

You have already decided I believe in creationism and I havent (as most peopel on here will testify) expressed a position.... and then the best part is you want me to enter into a scientific debate with someone who cant even recognise that they cant grasp that fact.

You have already declared my positon as wrong and i havent even expressed it... seriously dude , theres no chance of discussing science with people who have made up their mind before Ive even hit 'submit reply' .

And then the saddest part for science is this type of attitude is supported on this thread. It reflects poorly on classical sceintific debate.. maybe thats what passes for neo-scientific debate.

And you're done here.

When your ban lifts, don't post in this thread.

Thanks.

J C

Very interesting.

TheChizler

J C wrote: »

Very interesting.

Amateurs, eh?

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Very interesting.

This is the best post you've ever composed.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

but the fact that Crocodiles have remained unchanged during the 200 million evolutionist years that they have supposedly existed, while something that looked like a glorified rat has 'evolved' into Humans over the same period ... says that crocodiles aren't 200 million actual years old and the glorified rats ... were actual rats ... and remained so.

Late to the party but still.

Mr. CooL ICE

But I thought Adam and Eve's remains would have been destroyed in the flood, right? Therefore, who's skulls are MC Adam and M Eve? Noah and Emzara?

RikuoAmero

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

But I thought Adam and Eve's remains would have been destroyed in the flood, right? Therefore, who's skulls are MC Adam and M Eve? Noah and Emzara?

Nope, like everything else in the bible...magic. God would have magically made sure that the skulls survived.
FYI...it's Y-C (Y Chromosome) Adam, not MC.

Mr. CooL ICE

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Nope, like everything else in the bible...magic. God would have magically made sure that the skulls survived.
FYI...it's Y-C (Y Chromosome) Adam, not MC.

MC Adam sounds better. Like a prehistoric rapper

kingchess

:cool:IT seems Zeus/Odin/Superman or some one may have put Life on Mars some time in the past( Some time in the past 9000 years if it happened the same time as on Earth-can not be any older if we "believe" some Posters here.):o

72DSpecial

J C wrote: »

It is when it comes to evaluating historical timescales ... that this divergence occurs ... for example, an evolutionist will look at a living crocodile and then claim that crocodile fossils are 200 million years old ... when they could literally have been fossilised a hundred years ago.
The reason for the 200 million year time tag is because long ages of time are required to give any semblance of plausibility to the idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' ... but the fact that Crocodiles have remained unchanged during the 200 million evolutionist years that they have supposedly existed, while something that looked like a glorified rat has 'evolved' into Humans over the same period ... says that crocodiles aren't 200 million actual years old and the glorified rats ... were actual rats ... and remained so.

How many times do idiotic creatards have to use this argument before they realise how dumb it is?
Until their god or preacher tells them otherwise I suppose.
There is no point having a logical discussion with people like JC. How can you use logic to argue with someone who doesn't accept logic?

Doctor Jimbob

72DSpecial wrote: »

How many times do idiotic creatards have to use this argument before they realise how dumb it is?
Until their god or preacher tells them otherwise I suppose.
There is no point having a logical discussion with people like JC. How can you use logic to argue with someone who doesn't accept logic?

Don't say his name. You might summon him.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Don't say his name. You might summon him.

Happy Christmas guys and gals.:)

J C

72DSpecial wrote: »

How many times do idiotic creatards have to use this argument before they realise how dumb it is?
Until their god or preacher tells them otherwise I suppose.
There is no point having a logical discussion with people like JC. How can you use logic to argue with someone who doesn't accept logic?

Logic would be good ... but all I see in your post are a few gratuitous insults and a bit of name calling.;):p

J C

kingchess wrote: »

:cool:IT seems Zeus/Odin/Superman or some one may have put Life on Mars some time in the past( Some time in the past 9000 years if it happened the same time as on Earth-can not be any older if we "believe" some Posters here.):o

It must be Christmas or something ... but I find myself in agreement with you.:)