Darwin's theory

M5

endacl wrote: »

So where did he get the idea for the ridiculous haircut?!?

Check mate! Well played!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

... they aren't in the 'Ordovician' layers for the very simple (circular) reason that it would immediately be re-named 'Quaternary', if they were found there.:)

No, it wouldn't. There's a clear order, broken only when the layers themselves are displaced.

AtomicHorror

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Does anyone genuinely still think he isn't trolling? Come on.

If J C is a troll he's a troll with an encyclopaedic knowledge of scripture, a solid knowledge of young Earth creationism and a passable knowledge of intelligent design horse****. A troll who has been trolling on these topics for many years and thousands of posts.

If I found out he was a troll, I'd feel compelled to just play along anyway out of respect for the sheer awesomeness of the epic scale of it.

smcgiff

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If J C is a troll he's a troll with an encyclopaedic knowledge of scripture, a solid knowledge of young Earth creationism and a passable knowledge of intelligent design horse****. A troll who has been trolling on these topics for many years and thousands of posts.

If I found out he was a troll, I'd feel compelled to just play along anyway out of respect for the sheer awesomeness of the epic scale of it.

J C's avatar is a Looney Tunes character. Most apt avatar ever

Calibos

If anyone has seen the trailer for the new Dumb & Dumber film, one of the characters has pretended to be in a vegetative state for 20 years since the events of the last film in order to troll his friend. JC turning out to be a troll would be at that level of legendary trollitude worthy of worldwide acclaim. Come to think of it. It's the perfect way out for him when he finally comes to his senses.

Frank Bullitt

When you are just tired with dealing with creationists or christians, let Christopher Hitchens sort it out.

This mans intellect is terrifying.

EoghanIRL

endacl wrote: »

That's the central flaw with creation 'theory'. It needs a narrative requiring a justification. If Darwin had never made that voyage on the Beagle the process of evolution by natural selection would still have been noticed, observed, and described. Wallace's paper would have emerged at the same time. If not Darwin or Wallace, then certainly some other bright spark. Creation 'Science' requires a bible. It could and would not have been brainfarted out otherwise. It could, granted, have been based on any one of thousands of creation myths from around the world. Why not the creation story of the Mongols, the Toltecs, or the Vikings? They're equally as ludicrous, and yet equally as valid.

All a theory of evolution by natural selection requires is a clever person to notice it. Creation science needs a fairytale to justify. Take away the fairytale and the 'science' collapses.

It's fcuking laughable.

Ever notice that when someone makes a valid point like this then jc doesn't reply to it .

Or he will avoid the question and ramble on about another story .

Claims to be a creationist and a contempory scientist . Oh wait ..

endacl

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Ever notice that when someone makes a valid point like this then jc doesn't reply to it .

Or he will avoid the question and ramble on about another story .

Claims to be a creationist and a contempory scientist . Oh wait ..

That's why I don't really engage in a 'this vs that' dialogue with creationists. I don't post much over on the 'spurious nonsense thread. I (broadly) refuse to argue the merits of evolution by natural selection vs intelligent design (or whatever they're labelling it at the moment). To do so would be to concede a validity to creationism that it neither merits nor can support.

The former is a well considered, evidentially supported, observable, predictable, demonstrable theory. The latter exists only to counter a perceived threat from the former.

The two 'sides' are not equal and opposite. Far from it. They're not even comparable. Whatever they're 'sides' of, it's not the same thing. It's reality vs insecurity. And that's all it is.

Doctor Jimbob

endacl wrote: »

That's why I don't really engage in a 'this vs that' dialogue with creationists. I don't post much over on the 'spurious nonsense thread. I (broadly) refuse to argue the merits of evolution by natural selection vs intelligent design (or whatever they're labelling it at the moment). To do so would be to concede a validity to creationism that it neither merits nor can support.

The former is a well considered, evidentially supported, observable, predictable, demonstrable theory. The latter exists only to counter a perceived threat from the former.

The two 'sides' are not equal and opposite. Far from it. They're not even comparable. Whatever they're 'sides' of, it's not the same thing. It's reality vs insecurity. And that's all it is.

The thing is though, if you just ignore and/or ridicule, people popping in to such threads who don't have the scientific background required to know the claims are nonsense will look at it and think 'maybe he has a point'. If you respond with evidence saying why they're wrong, and why evolution is true, you're more likely to win random viewers over.

Easier said than done though.

endacl

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The thing is though, if you just ignore and/or ridicule, people popping in to such threads who don't have the scientific background required to know the claims are nonsense will look at it and think 'maybe he has a point'. If you respond with evidence saying why they're wrong, and why evolution is true, you're more likely to win random viewers over.

Easier said than done though.

I hear ya. I just don't have the patience/bull5hit tolerance required. Fair play to those who do.

obplayer

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The thing is though, if you just ignore and/or ridicule, people popping in to such threads who don't have the scientific background required to know the claims are nonsense will look at it and think 'maybe he has a point'. If you respond with evidence saying why they're wrong, and why evolution is true, you're more likely to win random viewers over.

Easier said than done though.

Indeed, it's the only reason I get involved in these debates. When so many people believe this garbage we simply cannot just ignore it's proponents, we must demonstrate to the not yet brainwashed what reality means.

EoghanIRL

Jc claims that 90 percent of your neighbours are Christian .
Yet look how many people agree with his views on boards.

osarusan

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Jc claims that 90 percent of your neighbours are Christian .
Yet look how many people agree with his views on boards.

those two groups are hardly mutually exclusive. It would be unfair to conflate the two.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That would require his IQ to at least treble.

As I'm a member of Mensa, that would be as impossible ... as spontaneous evolution.:cool:

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

As I'm a member of Mensa, that would be as impossible ... as spontaneous evolution.:cool:

Not a chance.

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus this thread is bloody scary in places.

I know ... I once was an Evolutionist (with a big 'E') and it was very scary when I began to realize that Evolution from goo to you via the zoo had serious evidential and logical problems.
I have good news for you though ... I quickly recovered from the scare ... when I became a Creation Scientist.:)

obplayer

J C wrote: »

As I'm a member of Mensa, that would be as impossible ... as spontaneous evolution.:cool:

Do I know you?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Not a chance.

Absolutely, I did the IQ test and passed with flying colours.:)

J C

obplayer wrote: »

Do I know you?

Should you?

obplayer

J C wrote: »

Should you?

As someone who was a longstanding and active member of Irish Mensa you might. A quick question; how many newsletters does a member of Irish Mensa receive and how often?

Tail Docker

lanomist wrote: »

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Because Darwin was a muppet. I have a theory on how to attract women. It's crap, same as his is.

obplayer

Tail Docker wrote: »

Because Darwin was a muppet. I have a theory on how to attract women. It's crap, same as his is.

Well reasoned and presented sir! You are a credit to your cause!!

J C

endacl wrote: »

Guys. I read on a website that the Earth is flat. Any thoughts? I'm kind of in the fence meself.

Panrich
Make sure you hang on tight in case she tilts.

No worries Panrich.
As endacl is in the fence ... it looks like he has already come off the fence on this one!!:):D

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

No worries Panrich.
As endacl is in the fence ... it looks like he has already come off the fence on this one!!:):D

I'd suggest you answer obplayer's Mensa question quickly if you want to retain any credibility, J C.

obplayer

obplayer wrote: »

As someone who was a longstanding and active member of Irish Mensa you might. A quick question; how many newsletters does a member of Irish Mensa receive and how often?

Do you have an answer? Is this just another example of your lying? If not the please show us.

obplayer

obplayer wrote: »

Do you have an answer? Is this just another example of your lying? If not the please show us.

And yes I can give evidence of my membership if that is required.

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I'm going with the latter too.

I say that polystrate the result of rapid sedimentation during the the Flood ... and you say they are the result of rapid sedimentations.
You're so close to being a Creationist ... and you don't even realise it.

obplayer

obplayer wrote: »

Do you have an answer? Is this just another example of your lying? If not the please show us.

So yet again you are shown to be an outright barefaced liar. This is why I get involved in these otherwise pointless debates; because sooner or later these people will trip themselves up and at that point the still sane young can say 'if they lie about that how can I trust them about anything?'

Karl Stein

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

Alberto Brandolini

osarusan

obplayer wrote: »

Do you have an answer? Is this just another example of your lying? If not the please show us.

I've not seen this poster around before, but is he claiming to be Irish or claiming membership of Mensa (no idea about how Mensa works ).

I'd have imagined that people who actually believe in creationism come from outside Ireland - I was thinking the same about JC.