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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…2829313334…201

Comments

  • #1502
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    wiki
    Created kinds are organisms that are defined by creation biology as sharing a common ancestry. The phrase refers to the Genesis account of the creation week during which God created many kinds of plants and animals. They are also referred to as "original kinds," "Genesis kinds," and more formally by creation scientists as baramin. The term barmin was coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The study of baramin (known as Baraminology) is a rapidly growing field of creation science involved with the identification of the created kinds


    back to the bible for jc, one old book explains everything.


  • #1503
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Improbable wrote: »
    Mutagenesis is neither good nor bad, its impartial and doesn't have feelings...
    So would you undergo Mutagenesis then ... because it's 'impartial'?

    ... you first honey (again)!!!:eek:
    Improbable wrote: »
    The bit that I was referring to was: "If it is a critical sequence, the entire shape of the protein, and therefore its current functionality will be destroyed". That is just wrong.
    Why is the sequence found to be 'critical' then ?


  • #1504
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    :rolleyes:

    Everytime he repeats himself I get reminded of god saying "don't they know
    that every painting had to have a painter, every building had to have a
    builder" in this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrX__ILDd3w

    J C wrote: »
    ... this is a load of baloney ... it is equivalent to saying that adjusting the seats or steering wheel in a car, using the pre-existing 'built-in' mechanisms for doing so is the same as designing and manufacturing the car (or indeed the adjustment mechanisms) in the first place.

    A load of baloney? Why? Because you say so! Again! :D
    It's not my fault you weren't educated properly J C.

    evolution.douglas.futuyma.jpg
    http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Douglas-J-Futuyma/dp/0878931872

    Give it a read and educate yourself, I can't continue arguing with someone
    who knows nothing about what he's talking about. You sir are the perfect
    example of an idiot - someone who argues virulently on a subject in
    which they have no knowledge and doesn't admit they were wrong when
    they are shown to be incorrect. You've lied about evolution relying on
    chance solely, told us macroevolution is incorrect because, well no reason,
    and still can't answer most people's questions. Sick of it J C.


  • #1505
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Wtf is Barmin? The only thing I can find is a Russian surname Barmin and
    dog collars by Barmin, is this creationist "nomenclature" :D
    Such a thirst for knowledge of Creation Science!!
    housetypep has given you the answer here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68318523&postcount=1503


  • #1506
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Such a thirst for knowledge of Creation Science!!
    housetypep has given you the answer here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68318523&postcount=1503

    Yes I can read thanks, you've been spelling it wrong so I couldn't
    find it online, makes perfect sense as a concept... :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #1507
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    The definitive test for a Created Kind is the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within a Kind.

    Many members of Barmin are also allocated to various Kinds provisionally on the basis of phenotype, even though they don't cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within the particular Kind.

    Zillah
    Er, "barmin" aside, you're saying that your methods are completely incapable of understanding or investigating extinct species, who, by definition, cannot breed with anything?
    Extinct species can be allocated provisionally to a particular Barmin on the basis of phenotype. Research is currently ongoing into establishing a genetic basis for the allocation of these provisionally allocated species.


  • #1508
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Extinct species can be allocated provisionally to a particular Barmin on the basis of phenotype. Research is currently ongoing into establishing a genetic basis for the allocation of these provisionally alocated species.

    A lot of big science words in those two sentences J C, let us know when
    they've finally reache their conclusions - will it be the first ever actual
    scientific piece of work these hucksters do? :cool:


  • #1509
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Yes I can read thanks, you've been spelling it wrong so I couldn't
    find it online, makes perfect sense as a concept... :rolleyes:
    Great that we have established that.


  • #1510
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    In case it wasn't clear, this is creation science:

    The Global Flood or Biblical Flood of Noah
    (17 Bul 1656 AM23 October 2348 BC 17 Cheshvan 1413 He 17 Bul 1656 AM)
    is an event     described in the Biblical book of Genesis, wherein the entire
    world was     covered with water as divine punishment, and only a small
    number of     humans and animals survived.

    In The Genesis Record, Henry Morris states:
    “ The word for “flood” (mabbul), used here for the first time, applies only
    to the Noahic Flood; other floods are denoted by various other words in
    the original. This was the “mabbul,” unique in all history...Similarly, when
    the Genesis Flood is referred to in the New Testament, the Greek term
    kataklusmos     is uniquely employed (Matthew 24:39; Luke 17:27; 2 Peter
    2:5; 3:6) instead of the usual Greek word for “flood.” This Flood was not to
    be comparable to other later local floods; it was to be absolutely unique in
    all history.[1]     ” The account in Genesis is the best known and the most
    detailed account,     but the event recorded in ancient histories in various
    forms across cultures     worldwide. It is described in the Islamic Qur'an, the
    Book of Jubilees, and     the Book of Enoch. Direct references occur in the
    Critias and Timaeus of     Plato, and the ancient Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh.
    ...

    Purpose

    Destruction of the Wicked
    Main Article: Noah

    According to the book of Genesis 6:9 ,"Noah was a righteous man,
    blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God".[2]
    However, Noah lived at a time when men became more and more corrupt,
    and God determined to rid the Earth of its wicked population.[3] Because
    of Noah's righteousness, God entered into a covenant with him, with a
    promise of deliverance from the impending Deluge.[4] He was accordingly
    commanded to build an ark[5] to save himself and his family.

    It is seen as significant by most that the Bible mentions a human race
    known as the Nephilim immediately prior to God's proclamation to destroy
    the Earth by flood. Their presence may have been responsible for or
    contributed to the corruption of humankind.
    "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth." - Genesis 6:4-7
    http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood


  • #1511
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Give it a read and educate yourself, I can't continue arguing with someone
    who knows nothing about what he's talking about    . You sir are the perfect
    example of an idiot     - someone who argues virulently on a subject in
    which they have no knowledge and doesn't admit they were wrong when
    they are shown to be incorrect. You've lied about evolution relying on
    chance solely,     told us macroevolution is incorrect because, well no reason, and still can't answer most people's questions. Sick of it J C.
    I was wondering when you would start to erect a smoke-screen around my mathematical proof ... in order to protect the nakedness of Evolution!!!
    ... and there it comes ... ad hominism all the way!!


  • Advertisement
  • #1512
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    In case it wasn't clear, this is creation science:
    ... and on cue ... a complete switch of direction ... in order to avoid my mathematical proof ... and so that you can say several pages later that no mathematical proof was provided!!!


  • #1513
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    I was wondering when you would start to erect a smoke-screen around my mathematical proof ... in order to protect the nakedness of Evolution!!!
    ... and there it comes ... ad hominism all the way!!

    No J C, it's based on factual evidence in this thread. It's the logical
    conclusion when you act the way you have. Tell us why macroevolution
    is baloney? It's defined as microevolution ffs, but you accept microevolution.
    I've caught you out as a filthy double standards holding huckster but you
    just respond "baloney" when you've been caught. Oh, and you never gave a
    proof for anything whatsoever, you're lying about this proof. All you did
    was show some figures that were incorrect and then claim you have a
    proof. That is a good definition of lying.


  • #1514
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    ... and on cue ... a complete switch of direction ... in order to avoid my mathematical proof ... and so that you can say several pages later that no mathematical proof was provided!!!

    Your figures were incorrect, your concept has nothing to do with evolution.
    All you "proved" was that you can't use correct figures, can't admit you
    used bad information and you also proved that you think a snail could
    move an electron across the universe thereby proving evolution is wrong.
    Why did you also lie stating that evolution is just random? I gave 6 different
    mechanisms and you haven't responded - because you've been caught out as
    a liar.


  • #1515
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Why did you also try to mislead everyone by telling us that iron filings and
    ferric oxide when mixed is supposed to create a human, well that evolutionists
    think so? This just shows how ignorant you are of chemistry, biology and physics.


  • #1516
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Always happens to dissappear when direct challenges are brought against
    him for some reason :rolleyes:


  • #1517
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Your figures were incorrect, your concept has nothing to do with evolution.
    All you "proved" was that you can't use correct figures, can't admit you
    used bad information and you also proved that you think a snail could
    move an electron across the universe thereby proving evolution is wrong.
    Why did you also lie stating that evolution is just random? I gave 6 different
    mechanisms and you haven't responded - because you've been caught out as
    a liar.
    ... so you are simply going to ignore my mathematical proof while shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ... just like I said you would!!


  • #1518
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Why did you also try to mislead everyone by telling us that iron filings and
    ferric oxide when mixed is supposed to create a human, well that evolutionists
    think so? This just shows how ignorant you are of chemistry, biology and physics.
    Why can't you read plain English ... and understand what I said?

    Is it because you actually believe that your brain is 'evolved' from Pondslime without any intelligent input ... and you are acting accordingly?


  • #1519
    Dougla2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭Dougla2


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you are simply going to ignore my mathematical proof while shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ... just like I said you would!!
    you have deluded yourself into believing you have posted proof or evidence i have seen no evidence or proof .


  • #1520
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    No J C, it's based on factual evidence in this thread. It's the logical
    conclusion when you act the way you have. Tell us why macroevolution
    is baloney? It's defined as microevolution ffs, but you accept microevolution.
    I've caught you out as a filthy double standards holding huckster but you
    just respond "baloney" when you've been caught. Oh, and you never gave a
    proof for anything whatsoever, you're lying about this proof. All you did
    was show some figures that were incorrect and then claim you have a
    proof. That is a good definition of lying.
    Why do you keep making up stories about how I don't behave ... whilst gleefully ignoring the substance of my postings?

    Is it because you have no substantive answers to my substantive posting on the mathematical proof of the invalidity of spontaneous evolution?


  • #1521
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you are simply going to ignore my mathematical proof while shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ... just like I said you would!!

    Did I ignore it? I answered it J C, I gave you a proper answer. What's wrong
    with my answer? That I called you on giving incorrect figures and that you
    were actually using 3 incorrect figures in that calculation. How about when
    I said you didn't show any work whatsoever in your proof, you only gave
    the numbers, incorrect as they are, that you would be using and showed
    no evidence of a calculation. In first year maths you're taught to show your
    work so that if you mess up you'll get correct marks for illustrating the
    procedure, you obviously missed that day in school...

    Now, why are you ignoring me? Why have you ignored the question of
    macroevolution as defined by microevolution? Where do you think the
    concept comes from? What about your lies about evolution being solely
    about chance? I gave 6 different aspects & you never responded.


  • Advertisement
  • #1522
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Why can't you read plain English ... and understand what it said?

    Is it because you actually believe that your brain is 'evolved' from Pondslime without any intelligent input ... and you are acting accordingly?

    Don't dare tell me what I believe, you seriously haven't a clue what I believe.
    You have shown yourself to be extremely ignorant by proclaiming that I
    believe the stupid passage you posted about iron filings. You are even
    more ridiculous seeing as you wanted to say "evolutionists" believe that,
    You think that's what evolution is and we're all embarrassed for you, nobody
    else thinks that means anything. I've explained to you why your nonsense is
    wrong but you're repeating it again, I feel so sorry for you & I can't believe
    you are an adult while posting this, it's scary...


  • #1523
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Dougla2 wrote: »
    you have deluded yourself into believing you have posted proof or evidence i have seen no evidence or proof .
    There are none so blind as he who will not see!!

    Here is it again for you to address ... try looking through your fingers ... that way you can instantly shut your mind off when you get to the bottom where you will be faced with the proof!!

    If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
    So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!


  • #1524
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    There are none so blind as he who will not see!!

    Here is it again for you to address ... try looking through your fingers ... that way you can instantly shield your mind when you get to the bottom where you will be faced with the proof!!

    If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
    So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!
    But this machine would have been intelligently designed by beings made of
    proteins and obviously intelligently designed.


  • #1525
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    There are none so blind as he who will not see!!

    Here is it again for you to address ... try looking through your fingers ... that way you can instantly shut your mind off when you get to the bottom where you will be faced with the proof!!

    If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
    So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!

    Again this 1.27E+130 pemrutations number is entirely made up by creationists like you who have no idea what they are talking about and can't grasp simple concepts. We've been asking you for the last few dozen pages for you to back this nonsense up but you've ignored the question every single time. This is pretty much the same as lying about it.
    Please stop lying JC, it's only showing how dishonest you and creationism are.


  • #1526
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    But this machine would have been intelligently designed by beings made of
    proteins and obviously intelligently designed.
    Quite.


  • #1527
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Quite.

    Therefore your gedankenexperiment is wrong


  • #1528
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    J C wrote: »
    If it is along a critical sequence, it will completely destroy the functionality of the protein. It's the same with any other information-rich system ... and the only way of overcoming the vastness of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there for all information-rich systems is the appliance of intelligence.
    Trying to 'search' it using random processes like Mutation will be defeated by the sheer scale of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there.

    As another graduate biochemist (B.Sc.(Hons) Abdn, M.Sc, and 20 years working as a scientist) may I point out that his is not true as Improbable pointed out a single amino acid change can destroy the protein, have no effect or improve its function. If you take the mutation back to the DNA level a single point mutation might not alter the amino acid sequence at all.


  • #1529
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again this 1.27E+130 pemrutations number is entirely made up by creationists like you who have no idea what they are talking about and can't grasp simple concepts. We've been asking you for the last few dozen pages for you to back this nonsense up but you've ignored the question every single time. This is pretty much the same as lying about it.
    Please stop lying JC, it's only showing how dishonest you and creationism are.
    The 1.27E+130 is the number of premutations choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at every point along a 100 Amino Acid sequence protein chain ... it is 20^100 which is equal to 1.27E+130.
    This is the enormous combinatorial space that faces any non-intelligently directed system that is 'searching' for a specific functional sequence to perfor a specific function.
    If Materialistic Evolution is true this problem must have been overcome billions of times, because living organisms have literally billions of these specific functional sequences throughout their cells.
    I have yet to see any non-intelligently directed mechanism that can do this.


  • #1530
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    As another graduate biochemist (B.Sc.(Hons) Abdn, M.Sc, and 20 years working as a scientist) may I point out that his is not true as Improbable pointed out a single amino acid change can destroy the protein, have no effect or improve its function. If you take the mutation back to the DNA level a single point mutation might not alter the amino acid sequence at all.

    Funny how J C leaves that out when he's talking about it :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #1531
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    The 1.27E+130 is the number of premutations choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at every point along a 100 Amino Acid sequence protein chain ... it is 20^100 which is equal to 1.27E+130.
    This is the enormous combinatorial space that faces any non-intelligently directed system that is 'searching' for a specific functional sequence to perfor a specific function.
    If Materialistic Evolution is true this problem must have been overcome billions of times, because living organisms have literally billions of these specific functional sequences throughout their cells.
    I have yet to see any non-intelligently directed mechanism that can do this.
    Again no sourse for any of that. Therefore it's bull**** like the rest of the nonsense you spout.
    Seriously JC do you not realise how dishonest you are being?


  • #1532
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Therefore your gedankenexperiment is wrong
    I was illustrating the fact that even if we could 'harness' every cubic millimetre of space with some kind of 'tiny pinhead' pseudo-life ... even this vast number of 'things' could only 'explore' a tiny fraction of the combiatorial space of a 100 chain protein ... even with each 'tiny pinhead' 'churning out' a compete sequence every second during 13.9 billion years!!


  • #1533
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    1) Why did you lie telling everyone evolution involves only 1 mechanism -
    chance? I gave a list of 6 factors in this post.
    J C wrote: »
    ... and yet the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

    :confused:

    Were you honestly lying or is it just your mis-education speaking?

    2) Why are you ignoring the fact that a mutation to a protein can
    beneficially alter the protein making it better?
    J C wrote: »
    If it is along a critical sequence, it will completely destroy the functionality of the protein. It's the same with any other information-rich system ... and the only way of overcoming the vastness of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there for all information-rich systems is the appliance of intelligence.
    Trying to 'search' it using random processes like Mutation will be defeated by the sheer scale of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there.

    3) Why are you lying about people who believe evolution to be true?
    you claimed we believe that iron filings mixed with ferric oxide will
    produce a human - nobody believes that! Was it you just plain lying or
    were you serious - as your response certainly made clear - and you really
    know nothing?

    4) Why are you still referring to a "proof" that
    a) Showed no evidence you actually calculated it
    b) Gave completely incorrect figures for 3 of the ingredients of your calculation
    c) Is talking about a snail moving an electron when snails can't move in
    space, electrons aren't rigid or pushable by a snail etc... :P
    d) Didn't show how you arrived at your final figure using all those ingredients you used...
    If one link in the chain of a mathematical proof is wrong the whole thing
    crumbles, we've found 3 wrong in your theory so why are you claiming
    it's still correct? Furthermore, it has nothing to do with evolution.
    Your theory is talking about probability theory combinatorics etc...
    This has nothing to do with evolutionary mechanisms of which there are
    6 that I've quoted in the post above. This bull∫hit you've quoted doesn't
    answer any of the bullet point mechanisms in the post linked to in my
    first point.

    5) Why are you ignoring the question of macroevolution.
    You clearly stated you believe microevolution to be true. Now, if
    microevolution is true, as you believe, it instantly makes macroevolution
    true seeing as they are the exact same process. The only difference is
    that macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution events.
    J C wrote: »
    I accept that micro-evolution (using pre-existing CFSI) occurs, indeed it appears to have been Intelligently Designed into organisms at Creation.
    I don't accept that either Macro-evolution or abiogenesis occurred.
    Evolutionists freely admit that they don't have a clue about how Abiogenesis occurred ... and life started

    6) Why do you reject the idea of abiogenesis when it has been shown to
    occur in a labratory using only materialistic ingredients that simulated
    the early earth. You are telling us that evidence is wrong and giving
    no reason why. You are telling us reality in front of our eyes is wrong.
    It clearly isn't seeing as we've got evidence. Why?
    J C wrote: »
    I don't accept that either Macro-evolution or abiogenesis occurred.
    Evolutionists freely admit that they don't have a clue about how Abiogenesis occurred ... and life started

    :confused:


  • #1534
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    J C wrote: »
    The 1.27E+130 is the number of premutations choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at every point along a 100 Amino Acid sequence protein chain ... it is 20^100 which is equal to 1.27E+130.
    This is the enormous combinatorial space that faces any non-intelligently directed system that is 'searching' for a specific functional sequence to perfor a specific function.
    If Materialistic Evolution is true this problem must have been overcome billions of times, because living organisms have literally billions of these specific functional sequences throughout their cells.
    I have yet to see any non-intelligently directed mechanism that can do this.

    Sorry but I don't get how this proves anything. Are you trying to 'prove' that the chance of life appearing on this planet by the mechanism proposed in an earlier post are infinitesimally small?


  • #1535
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Oh my god, in my first point above he referred to NS, i.e. Natural Selection,
    as being a question of chance - I think he was confusing the evolutionary
    mechanism known as natural selection with the entire concept of
    evolution seeing as he responded to a question about evolution as a
    whole by talking specifically about natural selection. :pac:

    It's funny because in this post he said that this was "the heart of the
    matter" :D J C, you know evolution does not rest solely on the concept of
    natural selection? You know there is a distinction? You know natural
    selection interacts and responds to an organisms phenotypic characteristics?
    You understand that by basic genetic shuffling, phenotypic variations are
    bound to occur regardless of mutations? You understand that natural
    selection works off of this kind of process? Need we talk about
    geographical environment or sexual selection? Tell me how [latex] 1.27 \ x \ 10^{130}[/latex]
    is involved in this?


  • #1536
    smokingman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,754 ✭✭✭smokingman


    So the pagan cries out and demands people look at him, throwing his toys out of his cot, time and time again.
    J C wrote: »
    Things that are dead remain dead

    So pagan, you still haven't answered why you call yourself a christian when you deny the resurrection and even an afterlife by the above statement.

    Oh, I know why!
    J C wrote: »
    I don't know what the HELL is going on in Rome these days!!!!

    So he doesn't pay any heed to anything the spiritual descendant of Peter the apostle, Jesus' wingman, has to say.

    Does he actually hate real christians?
    J C wrote: »
    ... some of the stuff that I have seen so-called 'religious types' engaging in would make you laugh ... if you didn't cry first!!!

    Does he enjoy his creationism?
    J C wrote: »
    ... are you trying to start up the Creationist Thread over here ... I don't want that ...

    Why's that then?
    J C wrote: »
    Why am I such an embarassment to you?

    oh, that's why...is there a reason for this?
    J C wrote: »
    Creationism leads to retardation and should be wiped from the face of the earth

    All the above are actual quotes from him - check and verify if you don't believe. So we have a pagan who doesn't believe anything he actually says for years. He claims to be christian and yet, is not.

    If I was trying to debate with a creationist, methinks I'll try and fine one that has faith first.


  • Advertisement
  • #1537
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    All those comments are hidden behind the pink limo, aren't they? :P


  • #1538
    smokingman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,754 ✭✭✭smokingman


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    All those comments are hidden behind the pink limo, aren't they? :P

    Right beside the bumper sign that says "Evolution is rubbish, you can't reproduce with half a penis or quarter a vagina" :pac:


  • #1539
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    So ye have decided to not seriously address the subject at issue ... and to create a smokescreen to hide the fact that Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

    Guys ... you can fool some of the people all of the time ... but you can't fool all of the people all of the time!!!

    Love you all ... and Jesus Christ loves you all too.


  • #1540
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    So ye have decided to not seriously address the subject at issue ... and to create a smokescreen to hide the fact that Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

    You can fool some of the people all of the time ... but you can't fool all of the people all of the time!!!

    Love you all ... and Jesus Christ loves you all too.

    Haha! :D You tripped yourself up with your own pure bull**** and now you
    can't answer us! Haha! Oh man, how funny. There are 6 questions above
    showing how foolish you are, how foolish your proofs are and how foolish
    your whole outlook is on evolution. J C, I feel sorry for you having to run
    off because you can't withstand a bit of discussion, go off the the big
    creationist thread and indulge in your fantasies - it may be a delusion but
    if it makes you happy enjoy it. Time spent happy isn't wasted time -
    just know there are 6 questions waiting for you should you be willing to
    face reality.


  • #1541
    Marcus.Aurelius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    J C wrote: »
    So ye have decided to not seriously address the subject at issue ... and to create a smokescreen to hide the fact that Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

    You have failed to even comprehend the facts that make your assertion baseless. You cannot begin with a conclusion.

    Welcome to Circular Reasoning, a common enough tool of those who suffer with religiously-inspired cognitive dissonance, and another method of false argumentation.

    Evolution has nothing to do with chance, it merely exists as a process that by its very nature ensures that sucessful genes are passed down through subsequent successful generations. If you cannot understand the difference between natural selection and your ridiculous lottery-style all-or-nothing reply, then you are wasting the intellect of all your interlocutors thus far.

    Having said all of that, I have found you to be one of the most polite creationists I have come across in a long time, although your quips have failed to divert attention from your obvious lack of understanding of quite basic scientific facts and understanding. I would implore you to research through scientist-authored books/journals/articles that favour the evolution side, look at the evidence and the argumentation employed, compare it to that of creationists, and you will soon see where the dishonest argumentation truly lies. I was a Jehovah's Witness for some time, they have the same problem of fundamentally misunderstanding evolution, they also repeat the mantra of "chance".

    Good luck.


  • Advertisement
  • #1542
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    House wrote: »
    although your quips have failed to divert attention from your obvious lack of understanding of quite basic scientific facts and understanding.

    Not for lack of trying ;)

    J C, I've lost it a bit with you & I apologise, you have to understand
    that we've been dealing with you constantly ducking our responses and
    repeating the same things we've answered already. If we didn't stick with
    some of these arguments you would have continued using this stuff as
    ammunition on your side although we'd all read it previously and seen these
    things debunked. It gets frustrating. There are 6 questions up there for you,
    I hope you'll give them honest answers and not dishonestly repeat debunked
    assertions.


  • #1543
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    So ye have decided to not seriously address the subject at issue ... and to create a smokescreen to hide the fact that Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

    What's there to address JC? You see you are making stuff up at this stage. You don't have any mathematical proof despite claiming you did. This is called a lie.
    We've called you on this lie and you've refused to even try and back up your claims.

    So it's kinda rich that you're bitching about us "Not addressing something".
    But it's not a surprise really that you're a hypocrite as well as a liar.
    Suppose you have to be to be a creationist.


  • #1544
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    J C wrote: »
    There are none so blind as he who will not see!!

    Here is it again for you to address ... try looking through your fingers ... that way you can instantly shut your mind off when you get to the bottom where you will be faced with the proof!!

    If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
    So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!

    I take it this is to refute abiogenesis. If you remember the post by Sponsoredwalk no.1371 and the wee video with Beethoven's 9th Choral symphony "Ode to Joy" as the musical accompaniment, the chemicals required were present on the earth rather than bombing about randomly in the universe. Your mathematical proof seems to rely on there not being any planets present on which the chemicals are trapped in various phases which therefore increase the likelihood of thermodynamics driving their association.

    (I'm guessing things will now move onto the origin of the universe rather the addressing the above point which in itself does not concern evolution)


  • #1545
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    (I'm guessing things will now move onto the origin of the universe rather the addressing the above point which in itself does not concern evolution)

    Just like nearly everything John May says in his videos and radio interviews :pac:


  • #1546
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Just like nearly everything John May says in his videos and radio interviews :pac:

    Settle down boys and girls ... and let's get back on topic ... so let's hear some words of wisdom from John May ...
    "I now address myself to scientists who proclaim evolution as fact...
    ... The social carnage of the 20th century can surely be placed at the door of evolution and her "high priests of the highly improbable foisting the impossible on the impressionable!"
    Evolution is intellectual defecation, mental pollution, cognitive dissonance; it is cocaine for some in the thinking classes to give a false high for a true low!
    As a theory it has nothing to recommend it, nothing to support it, (and) nothing to be proud of."

    DISCUSS


  • #1547
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    Settle down boys and girls ... and let's get back on topic ... so let's hear some words of wisdom from John May ...


    DISCUSS

    Nope we're done discussing that idiot and his long debunked bull****.

    Now we're focusing on your bull****.
    Answer the questions you keep dodging. Or are you, like we can all plainly see by now a liar who is incapable of an actual discussion?


  • #1548
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    I take it this is to refute abiogenesis. If you remember the post by Sponsoredwalk no.1371 and the wee video with Beethoven's 9th Choral symphony "Ode to Joy" as the musical accompaniment, the chemicals required were present on the earth rather than bombing about randomly in the universe. Your mathematical proof seems to rely on there not being any planets present on which the chemicals are trapped in various phases which therefore increase the likelihood of thermodynamics driving their association.

    (I'm guessing things will now move onto the origin of the universe rather the addressing the above point which in itself does not concern evolution)

    Discuss


  • #1549
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    Discuss
    OK 'Fluffy' here are the figures:-

    light yrs diameter of the Universe 9.30E+10 Light Years
    Km in one light year 9.46E+12 Km
    mm in one light year 9.46E+18 mm
    Radius of the Universe in mm 4.40E+29 mm
    Volume within the Universe in mm cubed 3.57E+89 mm^3
    Seconds in 13.7 billion years 4.38651E+17 Seconds

    If every mm^3 of the Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively could only produce in 20 billion years 1.56E+107 Possible number of permutations 'explored'

    ... and the number of AA permutations in a 100 chain protein is 1.27E+130 number of permutations .

    If non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce a specific biomolecule where and when it is needed, then the whole Evolutionist bandwagon collapses ... and the high priests of the highly improbable will find it increasingly difficult to continue foisting the impossible on the impressionable!


  • #1550
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »

    ... and the number of AA permutations in a 100 chain protein is 1.27E+130.
    JC we aren't impressed with math you've copy pasted from some nonsense site.
    Specially when this number you keep quoting is entirely made up.

    Back it up with a proper source in the next post or you will have admitted you are making it up.
    Cause we both know you've no intention or ability to actually back it up.


  • #1551
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    J C wrote: »
    OK 'Fluffy' here are the figures:-

    light yrs diameter of the Universe 9.30E+10 Light Years
    Km in one light year 9.46E+12 Km
    mm in one light year 9.46E+18 mm

    Radius of the Universe in mm 4.40E+29 mm

    Volume within the Universe in mm^3 3.57E+89 mm^3


    Seconds in 13.7 billion years 4.38651E+17 Seconds
    If every mm^3 of the Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively could only produce in 20 billion years 1.56E+107 Possible number of permutations 'explored'

    ... and the number of AA permutations in a 100 chain protein is 1.27E+130 number of permutations .

    If non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce a specific biomolecule where and when it is needed, then the whole Evolutionist bandwagon collapses ... and the high priests of the highly improbable will find it increasingly difficult to continue foisting the impossible on the impressionable!

    But my point was that the molecules that could have come together via thermodynamics as outlined in Sponsoredwalk's post were NOT bombing around randomly in the universe so how is the above applicable?


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement