"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Fecking hell I had heard about this and I taught it was just a media scandal that Brian Lenihan had endorsed this book. (Edit: he didn't in the end did he)

This book is a ****ing outrage haha, I mean I went onto the website there and took this little snippit

"It is sacrificing reason on the altar of treason to accept that the greatest construction of all time.. a human being with a brain is the result of chance, randomness and destructive mutations. It is the irrational three legged chair of hopeless speculation that bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality and observable functioning perfect order."

Man :rolleyes:

And then I read the 7 little facts

1: It teaches us to be satisfied with - not understanding origins.

2: It promotes the dangerous nonsense of no first cause - no supreme scientist and suggests order came from disorder.

3: It is a metaphysical speculation, a doctrine dressed up in scientific garb.

4: Anyone who teaches evolution is either ignorant or deliberately suppressing the known scientific facts.

5: It is a toxic poisonous mind virus which destroys the hearts immune system against hope and common sense.

6: It is an anesthetic against reason.

7: It cripples sanity, promotes myths, obscures reality and elevates matter above a maker.

Lol , any plans to spam his forum or anything because I kinda want to get into a movement that actively impairs this type of deliberately stupid and obtuse arsehole.

despite the obvious fact that J C has hijacked this thread for the purposes of his own education......;)

I thought maybe we could get a little back on track? I was just wondering if anyone knows if this book is on sale in any decent or well known book shops?????

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

He admits natural selection occurs, i.e. nature chooses in the way

But he doesn't accept evolution because

... I accept that NS occurs ... but I don't accept that Evolution of new CFSI occurs ... because evolution supposedly has two components ... the production of variety by random mutation (which I don't accept)... and the selection of that variety by sexual/natural selection (which I accept).

Like I have said, I accept that selection occurs ... the question is how the variety actually originated ... and given the fact that random processes are incapable of generating even one specific functional biomolecule ... even harnessing all of the time and matter in the Universe ... the only rational conclusion is that the CFSI (genetic diversity) was intelligently designed.

Even leading evolutionists like Prof Dawkins admit that intelligent design is not only a distinct possibility ... but that the 'signature' of this intelligent design should be there in the genome!!!
... of course for (non-God) religious reasons he maintains the mantra that the 'Intelligent Designer' must itself have been designed by 'Darwinian means' somewhere else in the Universe.



... so lads can you at least bring yourselves to accept, like Prof Dawkins that life COULD HAVE BEEN intelligently designed by a Higher Intelligence (that was itself produced by a Darwinian process) ... and then try to explain how this process could have worked.

J C wrote: »

... when all is said and done it's simple really ...

... you either demonstrate how random mutational changes could 'navigate' efficiently across non-functional combinatorial space ... or you shut up and accept that materialistic evolution is a fairy-tale ... and a rather disingenuous fairy-tale at that!!!

... I couldn't have said it better myself.

Snap out of it guys ... and face the reality that Materialistic Evolution from Pondkind to Mankind never happened ... and could never happen.

J C wrote: »

... I accept that NS occurs ... but I don't accept that Evolution of new CFSI occurs ... because evolution supposedly has two components ... production of variety by random mutation ... and the selection of that variety by sexual/natural selection.

Like I have said, I accept that selection occurs ... the question is how the variety actually originated ... and given the fact that random processes are incapable of generating even one specific functional biomolecule ... even harnessing all of the time and matter in the Universe ... the only rational conclusing is that the CFSI (genetic diversity) was intelligenly designed.

Even leading evolutionists like Prof Dawkins admit that intelligent design is not only a distinct possibility ... but the 'signature' of this intelligent design should be there in the genome!!!
... of course for (non-God) religious reasons he maintains the mantra that the 'Intelligent Designer' must itself have been designed by 'Darwinian means' somewhere else in the Universe.

... so lads can you at least bring yourselves to accept, like Prof Dawkins that life COULD HAVE BEEN intelligently designed by a Higher Intelligence (that was itself produced by a Darwinian process) ... and then explain how this process could have worked.

J C im really sick of you stating that you are not ignoring our questions......:mad:
the above is total and absolute proof that you are doing just that!!!!!!!!!
Now sponsored walk, fluffybums, king mob morbert and myself have made nothing but reasonable requests from you such to modify your silly 'back of a beer mat' calculation.
WHY HAVE YOU NOT DONE THIS......?
WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT BY BRINGING UP R.DAWKINS AND ALIENS....?
J C if the figure your proof arrived at is correct then that would mean that nothing we see in this universe could exist not even basic elements such as iron, gold, helium etc not to mention isotopes and ions...... but yet they do because there are physical forces at work inside stars which for lack of a better word 'force' them to form!!!!!!!!!

NOW im telling you jc once again... your proof is utter nonsense.....it is wrong on so many levels that i dare not to count!
PLEASE GRAB ANOTHER BEER MAT J C AND RE-DO YOUR PROOF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE VARIATIONS WHICH MYSELF, SPONSOREDWALK, KING MOB, FLUFFY BUMS HAVE STATED...:mad:
Oh and while your at it please account for the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics ........ otherwise you shut up and you admit that an intelligent designer does not explain the huge jumble of ad-hoc 'barely functioning' bits and bobs that make up most of the life on this planet!

keppler wrote: »

J C im really sick of you stating that you are not ignoring our questions......:mad:
the above is total and absolute proof that you are doing just that!!!!!!!!!
Now sponsored walk, fluffybums, king mob morbert and myself have made nothing but reasonable requests from you such to modify your silly 'back of a beer mat' calculation.
WHY HAVE YOU NOT DONE THIS......?

What is wrong with my calculation?

J C wrote: »

What is wrong with my calculation?

As we have constantly pointed out, it's not a proof and you're using made up figures.

So basically it's another lie you've told in defence of your bull**** and you've ignored every single point against it.

King Mob wrote: »

As we have constantly pointed out, it's not a proof and you're using made up figures.

So basically it's another lie you've told in defence of your bull**** and you've ignored every single point against it.

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!!

Morbert wrote: »

You have not quantified "practically all". Unless you do this, your 'proof' is irrelevant.

... for all practical purposes ... and you're grasping at straws!!!

liamw wrote: »

That is just so utterly pathetic how you knowingly misrepresent Dawkin's position on ID. His point, quite obviously, was that even if you could show evidence in support of ID, it would likely be from a species that had itself evolved from a process akin to Darwinian natural selection.

Dawkins is NOT giving credence to your particular sky fairy.

... but he is giving credence to an Alien Fairy ... and has openly admitted that he thinks that ID could very well have happened to life on Earth.

So are ye all going to remain like some kind of Materialistic 'luddites' ... or are ye going to follow Prof Dawkins and admit that ID is a distinct and intriguing possibility!!!

wrote:

liamw
BTW JC, I still think you could be a troll. You're still fitting that Creationist stereotype all too well.

... and you're fitting the gullible Evolutionist stereotype too well also!!!:D

King Mob wrote: »

This number:
1.27E+130 Is made up by you JC.
This has no basis in reality.
Using your bull**** numbers you have shown it is possible as 1.27E+130 is a finite number.

Even if it wasn't fiction your bull**** does not constitute a mathematical proof.
I think at this stage you're actually going to have to supply a definition of a proof or admit to either be lying or incompetent.


Also I notice you've gone from a snail crossing the universe to running permutations all of a sudden yet are using the same number.
Another lie of yours to add to the pile.

The number is identical because it measure the combiantorial space for a 100 critical chain protein ... which I used in both examples.

... and when I saw this I thought of you!!!



.

J C wrote: »

The number is identical because it measure the combiantorial space for a 100 critical chain protein ... which I used in both examples.

Bull****. You are lying again.

And even if you weren't lying you still haven't actually show a proof. Just that one number is larger than another.

I can do that too actually.

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

The chances of God existing are 1 in 1.27E+130.

Therefore God is impossible.

J C wrote: »

... and when I saw this I thought of you!!!



.

Funny how you have time to find stupid comics yet don't seem to have the time to actually address most of my points.

JC, define what a mathematical proof is.
If you ignore this question, which you are, it will show that you are both incompetent in maths and were lying when you said you had proof.

J C wrote: »

The number is identical because it measure the combiantorial space for a 100 critical chain protein ... which I used in both examples.

How many of these are beneficial/advantageous?

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins context is very clear in the video ... he is saying that an advanced alien civilisation could have designed life and 'seeded' it onto the Earth ,.. and he calls this an intriguing possibility.

If the English language means anything this is a direct endorsement of the possibility of the Intelligent Design of life ... so when are you going to crawl out from your luddite bunkers ... and join the ID scientific adventure ... apparently Prof Dawkins believes that this could provide a very intriguing research path!!!

So you can't even be honest enough to list some very simple definitions of the dishonest tactics you are using.

You do realise how dishonest you are being JC right?
Or are you so deluded you can't?

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins context is very clear in the video ... he is saying that an advanced alien civilisation could have designed life and 'seeded' it onto the Earth ,.. and he calls this an intriguing possibility.

If the English language means anything this is a direct endorsement of the possibility of the Intelligent Design of life ... so when are you going to crawl out from your luddite bunkers ... and join the ID scientific adventure ... apparently Prof Dawkins believes that this could provide a very intriguing research path!!!

Evolution is supported by scientific evidence.