Darwin's theory

J C

SW wrote: »

here's an excellent dissection of many things JC has been posting for years

... and I answered oldrnwisr here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74921610&postcount=6098

... anyway, can we get back to examining the basis for Intelligent Design
in my posting here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... and I answered oldrnwisr here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74921610&postcount=6098

... anyway, can we get back to examining the basis for Intelligent Design
in my posting here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

That's been answered, you're just choosing to ignore it.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and I answered oldrnwisr here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74921610&postcount=6098

... anyway, can we get back to examining the basis for Intelligent Design
in my posting here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

sure. You can start by responding to my post containing a link and text explaining why Dembski is wrong.

J C

5uspect wrote: »

So after over 1600 posts we're down to laughable lies by, Dembski, a highly discredited creationist shill and, as yet, not a single mathematical definition of CFSI or whatever made up unscientific rubbish J C likes to trot out. It's like comparing the theory of reproduction to storks.

All by someone who claims that he's a scientist but doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even say what area he is qualified in. All this because he craves attention for his utter nonsensical beliefs so that they somehow become respectable by being given the time of day.

Unless J C is willing to put forward actual data from peer reviewed sources, then there is no point engaging with him - or treating him as anything other than a petunia child. He has carried on this charade for almost a decade now and in all his time his tactics have never once changed. Starve him of the oxygen he so desires.

If I'm all the things that your unfounded name calling of me says ... then you should be able to point out any logical, mathematical or factual inaccuracies in my post here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

kingchess

"the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance,it is the illusion of knowledge"-/ you fit the illusion part of that quote JC. you quote dembski as if his crackpot theories and dodgy maths actually amount to something. a quick google search will throw up plenty of articles by real experts from around the world pointing out his many many mistakes. but your main problem is you are trying to make the facts fit to an old book written by men over 2000 years ago

5uspect

J C wrote: »

If I'm all the things that your unfounded name calling of me says ... then you should be able to point out any logical, mathematical or factual inaccuracies in my post here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

At least this time you're honest about just copy/pasting stuff from the Internet.
Remember that? All those times you got caught being dishonest for Jesus?

J C

SW wrote: »

sure. You can start by responding to my post containing a link and text explaining why Dembski is wrong.

Your post was a rehash of somebody else's views on Dembski.
I'll respond if you respond to my posting.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Your post was a rehash of somebody else's views on Dembski.
I don't expect you to respond to me posting somebody else's views ... and neither should you ... I'll respond if you respond to my posting.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

But....your post was just stating what Dembski had said

J C

kingchess wrote: »

"the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance,it is the illusion of knowledge"-/ you fit the illusion part of that quote JC. you quote dembski as if his crackpot theories and dodgy maths actually amount to something. a quick google search will throw up plenty of articles by real experts from around the world pointing out his many many mistakes. but your main problem is you are trying to make the facts fit to an old book written by men over 2000 years ago

Stop squrming and trying to wriggle away from addressing the kernal of ID ...
... this is your big opportunity to find the flaw(s) in ID...
Please respond to my posting and show us all where ID is a the 'crackpot theories (with) dodgy maths' that you claim it to be
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

5uspect

Have you ever done an original work of science? Have you ever published a peer reviewed paper in any field? How do you feel about lying for Jesus?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Stop squrming and trying to wriggle away from addressing the kernal of ID ...
... this is your big opportunity to find the flaw(s) in ID...
please respond to my posting
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

I've been trying to engage in civil debate in this thread, but this is getting ridiculous. You post dembski's claims almost word for word, then refuse to argue with a rebuttal of said claims because they're just getting it from somewhere else which is exactly what you did when you posted the claims in the first place.

Doctor Jimbob

Quoted myself instead of editing. Oops

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Your post was a rehash of somebody else's views on Dembski.
I'll respond if you respond to my posting.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Yes, I'm aware I quoted someone else. Now kindly respond to it.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But....your post was just stating what Dembski had said

They are also my views as well ... and my post condenses the basis of ID ... so, rather than hand waving and name calling ... please address my post ... and stop engaging in diversionary tactics.
Here is the basis for ID ... now please point out the flaws, if you can find any.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

They are also my views as well ... and my post condenses the basis of ID ... so, rather than hand waving and name calling ... please address my post ... and stop engaging in diversionary tactics.
Here is the basis for ID ... now please point out the flaws, if you can find any.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Your post is a rehash of dembski's claims. Worded differently, but exactly the same points are being made. If posting someone else's work is fine, refuting said post using someone else's work should also be fine.

Also at no point in my post did I name call, you even admitted earlier in the threat I debate things fairly. I think you just don't want to address the point and are making excuses.

FutureGuy

Lol sorry lads, didn't know JC's history here. Thought he was a random poster who happen to wade into the argument in hand.

I can see that his arguments have been destroyed pretty conclusively many times over. Saves me a lot of typing :-)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I've been trying to engage in civil debate in this thread, but this is getting ridiculous. You post dembski's claims almost word for word, then refuse to argue with a rebuttal of said claims because they're just getting it from somewhere else which is exactly what you did when you posted the claims in the first place.

We're all currently arguing over whether Dembski is correct ... so please stick with the point at issue ... and a point that has the potential to settle the issue of M2M Evolution once and for all ... on way or another.
Please respond to my posting
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Brian Shanahan

rozeboosje wrote: »

Interestingly, though:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-young-earth-theory-is-almost-blasphemous-argues-bible-should-not-be-used-as-science-book-128136/

That's been the way for generations. Christian scientists are often the earliest and most vehement when they see their religious leaders trying to butt in on scientific matters without going to the bother of learning about what they are talking about. For example here is what Msgr. Georges Lemaitre said when he heard that the then current pope was trying to claim his Big Bang theory as proof for god:

As far as I see, such a theory [of the primeval atom] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in non-singular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt to familiarity with God, as were Laplace's chiquenaude or Jeans' finger. It is consonant with the wording of Isaiah speaking of the 'Hidden God' hidden even in the beginning of the universe ... Science has not to surrender in face of the Universe and when Pascal tries to infer the existence of God from the supposed infinitude of Nature, we may think that he is looking in the wrong direction.

That as anyone would admit is a hefty if polite beat down.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

We're all currently arguing over whether Dembski is correct ... so please stick with the point at issue ... and a point that has the potential to settle the issue of M2M Evolution once and for all ... on way or another.
Please respond to my posting
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

It's not going to settle anything if you keep ignoring posts refuting the evidence.

Edit: Also, I am sticking with the point.

J C

FutureGuy wrote: »

Lol sorry lads, didn't know JC's history here. Thought he was a random poster who happen to wade into the argument in hand.

I can see that his arguments have been destroyed pretty conclusively many times over. Saves me a lot of typing :-)

I have a relatively short and clear posting that provides the basis for ID ... so please stop hand-waving' and destroy this posting (and ID to boot) conclusively if you can.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Doctor Jimbob

FutureGuy wrote: »

Lol sorry lads, didn't know JC's history here. Thought he was a random poster who happen to wade into the argument in hand.

I can see that his arguments have been destroyed pretty conclusively many times over. Saves me a lot of typing :-)

Yeah, I really don't know why some of us keep it up tbh :pac:

J C

I'm sorry guys ... I have spent 10 years debating with ye ... and following you up every cul de sac of Evolution.

... no please focus on this one posting ... and show everybody where ID is wrong.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

Squeedily Spooch

5uspect wrote: »

Have you ever done an original work of science? Have you ever published a peer reviewed paper in any field? How do you feel about lying for Jesus?

"Lying for Jesus' sounds like a Christian rock band

Brian Shanahan

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Flash Gordon. Next question!

Who created BRIAN BLESSED? Surely he is the unmoved mover?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I'm sorry guys ... I have spent 10 years debating with ye ... and following you up every cul de sac of Evolution.

... no please focus on this one posting ... and show everybody where ID is wrong.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

:pac:

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

"Lying for Jesus' sounds like a Christian rock band

I'm not going to follow you anywhere until you address my posting on the basis for ID ... ye guys claim it is invalid ... now please show us where it is invalid by responding to this posting ... and stop running away from it. This is your big opportunity to show where ID is wrong ... I'd have thought that ye would be chomping at the bit to disprove it ... why the reticence and all the hand waving and deflections?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

5uspect

J C wrote: »

I have a relatively short and clear posting that provides the basis for ID ... so please stop hand-waving' and destroy this posting (and ID to boot) conclusively if you can.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

What percentage of the text in that post is yours and what is copied verbatim from the discredited rantings of Dembski?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I'm not going to follow you anywhere until you address my posting on the basis for ID ... ye guys claim it is invalid ... now please show us where it is invalid by responding to this posting ... and stop running away from it. This is your big opportunity to show where ID is wrong ... I'd have thought that ye would be chomping at the bit to disprove it ... why the reticence?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

There has already been a post that refutes it, and you're ignoring it. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously until you actually respond to it.

kingchess

J C wrote: »

I'm not going to follow you anywhere until you address my posting on the basis for ID ... ye guys claim it is invalid ... now please show us where it is invalid by responding to this posting ... and stop running away from it. This is your big opportunity to show where ID is wrong ... I'd have thought that ye would be chomping at the bit to disprove it ... why the reticence?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

you do not know how to google?? plenty on google proving what a con-man dembski is:p

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

I'm sorry guys ... I have spent 10 years debating with ye ... and following you up every cul de sac of Evolution.

Funny how when it suits you you'll ignore arguments and facts but when you want to divert attention away you'll cry foul on other posters. You're actually farcical at this stage, no wonder you won't tell anyone your scientific credentials, they're probably as valid as mine. As in non existent.