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

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…6263656768…334

Comments

  • Options
    #1922
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    If I ever work in advertising I'm going to put "Evolution is a hoax" and "We evolved from animals" in big letters on the top of whatever I want to be at the centre of attention.


  • Options
    #1923
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    To all you smart ass evolutionists, if we evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys around today?


  • Options
    #1924
    GO_Bear
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭GO_Bear


    Or why don't we see Crocoducks ?


  • Options
    #1925
    optogirl
    Registered Users Posts: 2,975 ✭✭✭optogirl


    liamw wrote: »
    To all you smart ass evolutionists, if we evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys around today?


    :eek:Oh my! You clearly don't understand evolution man. Seriously.


  • Options
    #1926
    GO_Bear
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭GO_Bear


    optogirl wrote: »
    :eek:Oh my! You clearly don't understand evolution man. Seriously.

    He's taking the piss mate :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1927
    keppler
    Registered Users Posts: 389 ✭✭keppler


    liamw wrote: »
    To all you smart ass evolutionists, if we evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys around today?

    YEAH SMART ASSES!!!

    If we evolved from fish then why are there still fish around today?

    And what about all the gaps in the fossil record.............and ha ha the flagellar, clearly irriducibly complex evolutionists will never be able to explain that one ( I certainly wont, because there is clearly no point in even trying)............ why do evolutionists just keep on believing in a lie...:confused:


  • Options
    #1928
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    It possibly could be a material intelligent being
    So when you said it couldn't were you lying or just mistaken?
    J C wrote: »
    ... in any event, theorising that a 'material being' created life on Earth immediately raises the question of who/what created the putative 'material being'

    No actually it doesn't, since no one has ever observed this being and thus we cannot say from its structure that it had to be created by some other intelligence.
    J C wrote: »
    ... and the ultimate cause of all life can therefore only be a transcendent intelligence of divine proportions

    Based on what logic?

    Once again you display your bias for religion over science.


  • Options
    #1929
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    ... since no one has ever observed this being and thus we cannot say from its structure that it had to be created by some other intelligence.
    ... OK so can we agree that it was an intelligence or intelligences of unknown origins (which is actually the scientifically-valid conclusion).

    ... and you can theorise that it was Aliens ... and I can believe it was God!!!


  • Options
    #1930
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    J C wrote: »
    ... OK so can we agree that it was an intelligence or intelligences of unknown origins (which is actually the scientifically-valid conclusion).

    ... and you can theorise that it was Aliens ... and I can believe it was God!!!

    Which one? Or does that matter?


  • Options
    #1931
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ... OK so can we agree that it was an intelligence or intelligences of unknown origins (which is actually the scientifically-valid conclusion).

    ... and you can theorise that it was Aliens ... and I can believe it was God!!!

    But you said you PROVED it couldn't be material and thus had to be God.

    So again when you said that were you lying or just mistaken?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1932
    GO_Bear
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭GO_Bear


    J C wrote: »
    ... OK so can we agree that it was an intelligence or intelligences of unknown origins (which is actually the scientifically-valid conclusion).

    ... and you can theorise that it was Aliens ... and I can believe it was God!!!

    You can believe what you want , its only when you try and spread your beliefs you are required to back it up with evidence.

    Why does it have to be an intelligence, why can't it be a "whole" which is derived from individual components that follow a certain set of rules. Much like all planets are spherical because of Gravity. A set of rules that we have yet to find, and hopefully the Large hadron collider will let us know before it kills us all.

    Well thats what I think. But I certainly think in the next 10 years the LHC will be the think to keep an eye on.


  • Options
    #1933
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Still waiting for that mathematical proof of ID you've spoken about.
    We don't want to add another lie to the mountain :)


  • Options
    #1934
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    GO_Bear wrote: »
    Well thats what I think. But I certainly think in the next 10 years the LHC will be the think to keep an eye on.

    You and your false gods, don't you know!!!! :( being deceived by fantasies
    of evolution by your LHC god.


  • Options
    #1935
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Wicknight wrote: »
    But you said you PROVED it couldn't be material and thus had to be God.

    So again when you said that were you lying or just mistaken?
    ... the mathematical proof is that materialistic processes alone are incapable of producing life ... and a massive input of intelligence was required.

    Who/what that intelligence was/is is not capable of being scientifically established at present.

    ... so, like I have said ... you can believe it was 'Aliens' ... and I can believe it was God!!!


  • Options
    #1936
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    GO_Bear wrote: »
    Well to be honest , materials are tangible, no belief or faith are required ...
    ... The explanitory power of Materialism is valid up to a point ... and indeed I too am a 'Materialist' ... up to a point, as well!!!

    To take an everyday example ... a car runs by materialistically explicable means ...
    ... when I flick the light switch, the lights come on as mechanically produced and chemically stored electricity runs through the circuit that is established via the wires and the switch to energise the light filaments.
    Equally, when I turn the steering wheel, the front wheels respond and the car 'goes' where the I steer it, using chemically released energy that is mechanically captured and harnessed via the engine, the gearbox and the driveshaft.

    However, the original manufacture of the car required both materialistic processes and a very significant input of intelligent design and direction in order to produce it ... and it would never be produced by non-intelligently directed, purely materialistic processes alone.

    ... and ditto with life ... although it is now capable of self-directed existence and reproduction using materialistic processes ... its massive levels of CFSI mathematically proves that it was originally intelligently designed by a massive input of design and direction.

    ... lets agree to differ on the intelligence ... you may religiously say it was Aliens ... and I can believe it was God!!!

    The appliance of intelligence is a virtual (and distinctly immaterial) process that can have dramatic effects that would never happen by spontaneous materialistic processes alone.


  • Options
    #1937
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    GO_Bear wrote: »
    You can believe what you want , its only when you try and spread your beliefs you are required to back it up with evidence.
    Why does it have to be an intelligence, why can't it be a "whole" which is derived from individual components that follow a certain set of rules. Much like all planets are spherical because of Gravity. A set of rules that we have yet to find, and hopefully the Large hadron collider will let us know before it kills us all.

    Well thats what I think. But I certainly think in the next 10 years the LHC will be the think to keep an eye on.
    Could I respectfully suggest that when you try to spread your beliefs that we are glorified pondslime going to eternal oblivion ... that you should take your own advice ... and back up these beliefs with evidence ... and specifically, you will need to invalidate the mathematical proof that life had an intelligently directed and designed origin by an intelligence of divine proportions ... before you (or your buddies) go indoctinating Christian Children with your unfounded Materialism!!!


  • Options
    #1938
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    ... the mathematical proof is that materialistic processes alone are incapable of producing life ... and a massive input of intelligence was required.

    So your joke proof is your ID proof as well :pac:


  • Options
    #1939
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    ye Go_Bear, stop being so nihilistic. Try following JCs book... a bit of child sacrifice, gay hating, pillaging, get a slave, rape someone daughter for 50 pieces of silver.. much better


  • Options
    #1940
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    ... lets agree to differ on the intelligence ... you may religiously say it was Aliens ... and I can religiously believe it was God!!!

    The fact that you left that out when talking about yourself is hilarious :D


  • Options
    #1941
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
    The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
    "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
    "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
    -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p 50

    One could substitute bacterial flagella for Babel fish, if like JC et.al. you think it could not have evolved:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1942
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    GO_Bear wrote: »
    You have to be some one on an alt account taking the piss


    I have not seen it but tonight (Friday) at 9pm on BBC2 is a show with David Attenborough looking into Abiogenesis.

    ... should be very interesting ...



  • Options
    #1943
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    The fact that you left that out when talking about yourself is hilarious :D
    I am not religious ... but I am a person of faith ... in the One True God.


  • Options
    #1944
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
    The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
    "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
    "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
    -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p 50

    One could substitute bacterial flagella for Babel fish, if like JC et.al. you think it could not have evolved:D
    I'm sorry, but I don't follow the logic of this posting???

    ... and the explantion provided by David Attenborough for the origin of life is that 'its a mystery!!'
    ... and the explantion for the origins of complex creatures that 'appeared in an evloutionary blink of an eye' ... is ... you guessed it .... 'also a mystery!!!':eek:

    ... and no explanation was provided for how CFSI, in just one biomolecule, could have been spontaneously produced without an input of intelligence.

    ... and then we were introduced to a sponge ... that apparently hasn't evolved at all in over 600 million years ... so what was wrong with the sponge ... that it never evolved ... was it simply a 'stick in the mud'???:D


  • Options
    #1945
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    I am not religious ... but I am a person of faith ... in the One True God.

    Okay, you believe in god but aren't religious. Evolutionismists may or may not
    believe in god but they have a religion. I'm starting to understand the
    joke-ness of ID logic, but it'll take a lot more lying to myself before I
    see your joke-proof as anything but the product of lying to myself (or a
    bad education)    .


  • Options
    #1946
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    ... the mathematical proof is that materialistic processes alone are incapable of producing life ... and a massive input of intelligence was required.
    Another lie JC. You don't have mathematical proof.

    I would hope there isn't a God if I were you, I hear he doesn't take kindly to liars.


  • Options
    #1947
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    J C wrote: »
    ... the mathematical proof is that materialistic processes alone are incapable of producing life ... and a massive input of intelligence was required.

    That's not a proof, it's a statement.


  • Options
    #1948
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azMgKrkJ5lA


  • Options
    #1949
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    J C wrote: »
    ... should be very interesting ...

    Looks like a good documentary:
    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/

    Summary: Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary.


  • Options
    #1950
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    J C wrote: »
    Could I respectfully suggest that when you try to spread your beliefs that we are glorified pondslime going to eternal oblivion ... that you should back up these beliefs with evidence ... and specifically, you will need to invalidate the mathematical proof that life had an intelligently directed and designed origin by an intelligence of divine proportions ... before you (or your buddies) go indoctinating Christian Children with your Materialism!!!

    You make me feel ill, and sad.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1951
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ... the mathematical proof is that materialistic processes alone are incapable of producing life ... and a massive input of intelligence was required.

    So the intelligence that produced life on Earth (the only life we have ever observed) could not be material in nature, it had to be supernatural?

    That directly contradicts what you just said here
    It possibly could be a material intelligent being

    So when you said that were you lying or merely mistaken?

    Or was it when you said you had PROVE it could not have been material were you lying or mistaken then?
    J C wrote: »
    Who/what that intelligence was/is is not capable of being scientifically established at present.

    Yet you can say it was not material?

    When you said it could be material were you lying or merely mistaken?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement