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…158159161163164…201

Comments

  • #8002
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    sephir0th wrote: »
    your comments never, ever evolve.
    I've made the point every now and then on this and the Other Thread(*), and I'm with koth above: I've learned a lot about evolutionary biology via great posts like Sarky's two recent ones as well as hundreds of others by other first-rate posters -- a sincere thanks to everybody who's contributed. JC's posts, on the other hand, haven't changed in the slightest. What I believe is his/her first one was seven years and four days ago, here, and other than the evolution of the trivially discreditable IFSC nonsense, I don't see any evidence of JC having learned a thing.

    That's a great pity.
    J C wrote: »
    ... the truth doesn't need to evolve.
    Religious learning never evolves -- how many centuries has it been since religion produced anything worthwhile? -- but science certainly does as real researchers make real advances.

    (*) shocked to see it was closed down last November and the follow-on thread never caught on.


  • #8003
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    ... so are you now denying Evolution????;)

    Would you stop with that childish nonsense. For someone who claims to be a Christian (which you clearly aren't), you're quick to continuously misrepresent comments to try and have a cheap pop at people.

    How about trying to have an honest discussion for once, and stop being obtuse?


  • #8004
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    ... so are you now denying Evolution????;)


    Oh I see what they did there. They took the title of Dawkin's book and changed the gord god to evolution. That's cute :)


  • #8005
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Oh I see what they did there. They took the title of Dawkin's book and changed the gord god to evolution. That's cute :)
    So Creationists do change ... after all!!!!:)


  • #8006
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Would you stop with that childish nonsense. For someone who claims to be a Christian (which you clearly aren't), you're quick to continuously misrepresent comments to try and have a cheap pop at people.

    How about trying to have an honest discussion for once, and stop being obtuse?
    I wasn't misrepresenting ... I was presenting how your comments sound from your perspective!!!!:)

    Ye are the guys with the 'cheap shots' ... and the foul language descriptions.


  • #8007
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    ... the truth doesn't need to evolve.

    So is the Bible completely accurate, and are all of it's teachings still true? In particular - Leviticus 25:44-46 (Slavery) and Exodus 21:7-11 (Child slavery).


  • #8008
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    I wasn't misrepresenting ... I was presenting how your comments sound from your perspective!!!!:)

    No, you weren't. Stop being deceitful. For someone who claims to be Christian, you're not a very honest or moral person.


  • #8009
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    I've made the point every now and then on this and the Other Thread(*), and I'm with koth above: I've learned a lot about evolutionary biology via great posts like Sarky's two recent ones as well as hundreds of others by other first-rate posters -- a sincere thanks to everybody who's contributed. JC's posts, on the other hand, haven't changed in the slightest. What I believe is his/her first one was seven years and four days ago, here, and other than the evolution of the trivially discreditable IFSC nonsense, I don't see any evidence of JC having learned a thing.
    ... we're growing old together, Robin.:)
    robindch wrote: »
    That's a great pity.Religious learning never evolves -- how many centuries has it been since religion produced anything worthwhile? -- but science certainly does as real researchers make real advances.
    Both religion and science (and indeed Atheism) have produced many wonderful things ... and many horrific ones as well.
    They're all part of the amazing tapestry that is Human history.

    Ye guys accuse me of being 'uni-dimensional' in my belief in Creation ... but here's the thing ... I freely recognise the achievements of both Creationists and Evolutionists ... it is ye guys who are the real 'stick in the muds' seeing no good in Creationists ... and no problem with Evolution.
    You deny that it is possible to scientifically evaluate the Creation theory while accepting that it is possible to scientifically evaluate the Abiogenesis-Evolution theory. I accept that we can evaluate both origins ideas ... and this shows you guys to be the real 'uni-dimensional' ones, wedded to your worldiew, come what may ... while I was once an Evolutionist ... and now I'm a Creationist ... because that is where the evidence has lead me.


  • #8010
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    So Creationists do change ... after all!!!!:)

    Could nearly say they evolve.


  • Advertisement
  • #8011
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, you weren't. Stop being deceitful. For someone who claims to be Christian, you're not a very honest or moral person.
    A moralising Atheist ... just like your Theist brethern ... but with different sins!!!:)


    ... and it is a valid ... and honest question to ask anybody shouting about 'pseudo-science' ... if they are talking about the greatest pseudo-science of them all ... M2M Evolution!!!:)


  • #8012
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    So Creationists do change ... after all!!!!


    Doctor Jimbob
    Could nearly say they evolve.
    Their scientific ideas certainly have evolved ... as new scientific evidence has been discovered by Creation Scientists.


  • #8013
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    So is the Bible completely accurate, and are all of it's teachings still true? In particular - Leviticus 25:44-46 (Slavery) and Exodus 21:7-11 (Child slavery).
    These laws certainly applied between the Israelites and their neighbours in Old Testament times ... but we now live in the time of God's mercy ... for anybody who asks for it.
    Jesus talked of many laws being a great burden on all of Humanity ...

    He came to replace the requirements of these laws with mercy ... by fulfilling the legal compenstion required for sin.

    Matthew 23:1-10
    King James Version (KJV)


    1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

    2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

    3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

    4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

    5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

    6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

    7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

    8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

    9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

    10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.


  • #8014
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    new scientific evidence has been discovered by Creation Scientists.
    Found the crocoduck at last?


  • #8015
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Found the crocoduck at last?
    I'm very pleased for you ... do tell us more.:)

    Never did see one myself ... but then the 'Crocoduck' is an Evolutionist invention ... so perhaps that's why we have never actually seen one.:)

    ... so you are right, to question yourself on this one!!:eek:


  • #8016
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Never did see one myself ... but then the 'Crocoduck' is an Evolutionist invention ... so perhaps that's why we have never actually seen one.:)

    There you go being dishonest again. A great ambassador for Christianity!

    The Crocoduck was a Creationist 'creation', which came about through a complete lack of understanding of evolution.

    Stop lying.


  • Advertisement
  • #8017
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I couldn't be sure without trawling through most of this thread, but does anyone else get the feeling that the more real science we post, the more batsh*t crazy J C's posts get in response?


  • #8018
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    dlofnep wrote:
    Why did God give the Kiwi useless wings?
    J C wrote:
    Probably because He thought that they looked better with wings.:D

    Summarizes the thread pretty well.


  • #8019
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Sarky wrote: »
    I couldn't be sure without trawling through most of this thread, but does anyone else get the feeling that the more real science we post, the more batsh*t crazy J C's posts get in response?

    I don't really think you can get more bat**** crazy than the point he started from to be honest. It's more different varieties of the same level of bat**** craziness. Something might look more crazy the first time you read it, because it's new, but then you look over all of his posts and realise he was always this bad.


  • #8020
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Summarizes the thread pretty well.
    kiwi sh!t


  • #8021
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    There you go being dishonest again. A great ambassador for Christianity!

    The Crocoduck was a Creationist 'creation', which came about through a complete lack of understanding of evolution.
    If Evolutionists didn't invent it ... they have certainly used it.
    While it may have been used initially by some Creation Evangelists, the Crocoduck has never been taken seriously by Creation Scientists ... and indeed it continues to be used by Evolutionists to scoff at real Creation Science claims.

    Crocoduck1.jpg


    Here we see Dr P Z Myers sporting a Crocoduck tie during a visit to the Creation Museum.

    PZ_Myers_%281%29.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #8022
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by Galvasean
    Summarizes the thread pretty well.

    dead one
    kiwi sh!t
    Evolutionists don't do irony, dead one - unless its at Creationists expense ... and they take their faith in material miracles very seriously indeed.:D


  • #8023
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dead one wrote: »
    kiwi sh!t
    ... produced after millions of years of selected mistakes ... don't you know!!!!:):D:eek:


  • #8024
    Teg Veece
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 550 ✭✭✭Teg Veece


    J C, this question was probably asked of you at some stage during the thread, but I haven't quite read through all of it yet.

    Can you tell me why I have an appendix?


  • #8025
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    God thinks you look better with one. Obviously.


  • #8026
    Doc_Savage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Doc_Savage


    well my appendix nearly killed me about 8 years ago! can't wait to hear how jc'll attribute that to the glory of god!


  • #8027
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    If Evolutionists didn't invent it ... they have certainly used it.

    There you go lying again. The dishonesty train continues.

    Evolutionists have never used is as an argument in support of Evolution. I challenge you to provide me evidence of an evolutionary biologist putting forward a Crocoduck as an example of evolution in action.


  • #8028
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Doc_Savage wrote: »
    well my appendix nearly killed me about 8 years ago! can't wait to hear how jc'll attribute that to the glory of god!
    Let me help:

    Your appendix burst because Satan, Lord of the Dark Arts, Bearer of The Staff of Evil, Source of Everything Icky and Horrible, corrupted the DNA that flowed from Adam and Eve. This corruption caused a the problems with your appendix.

    GodSatan did it.


  • #8029
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    J C wrote: »
    ... produced after millions of years of selected mistakes ... don't you know!!!!:):D:eek:
    Jc, Evolutionists can't explain sh!t. ;)


  • #8030
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    dead one wrote: »
    Jc, Evolutionists can't explain sh!t. ;)

    Except the 500+ pages in this thread where we've explained a wide variety of things, backed up by scientific evidence. I'll take my scientific books, over a book that promotes child rape (Quran) any day of the week.


  • #8031
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I suspect it's a defence mechanism that shoots out of the mouth when an incorrect person's claims are proven time and again to be rubbish.

    Personally, I think it's a bit of an evolutionary dead end.


  • Advertisement
  • #8032
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Except the 500+ pages in this thread where we've explained a wide variety of things, backed up by scientific evidence. I'll take my scientific books, over a book that promotes child rape (Quran) any day of the week.
    i like it, the evolution of anger in your genes, that's why you can't explain sh!t ;)

    9601.gif


  • #8033
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Oh J C, I noticed you edited a post again about half an hour after it was made, after a dozen or so posts had moved the whole thread on. It's a pretty big edit, and didn't include the massive wall of text before.

    You wouldn't be attempting to retcon in an attempt to claim nobody addresses your claims now, would you? Holy spirit inspiring you to lie, perhaps? Have you checked recently to make sure it's not Satan whispering in your ear? With the kind of arrogance and ignorance you display on a daily basis, I'd say it would be pretty easy for him to replace what you thought was the voice of truth.

    Not that we haven't answered all your claims so far. It's really easy when all you post is horsesh*t.


  • #8034
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    dead one wrote: »
    i like it, the evolution of anger in your genes, that's why you can't explain sh!t ;)

    9601.gif

    Do I have to repeat myself? We've spent 500 pages explaining a vast array of topics. You've obviously ignored it, because your Quran does not permit you to studying reality.


  • #8035
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    robindch wrote: »
    JC's posts, on the other hand, haven't changed in the slightest. What I believe is his/her first one was seven years and four days ago, here, and other than the evolution of the trivially discreditable IFSC nonsense, I don't see any evidence of JC having learned a thing.

    Blimey, ok I was wrong, J C's posts have always been batsh*t crazy.

    It's actually kind of impressive though, in a twisted way, how consistent he's has been for 7 years. Consistently wrong and totally incapable of learning from his glaring mistakes, but consistent nonetheless.


  • #8036
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    I couldn't be sure without trawling through most of this thread, but does anyone else get the feeling that the more real science we post, the more batsh*t crazy J C's posts get in response?
    You should try posting some real science that supports M2M Evolution ... rather than just talking about doing so.


  • #8037
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    1. There is no such evidence.

    2. That's because m2m evolution is a bullsh*t term you invented in a feeble attempt to look clever.


  • #8038
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    You should try posting some real science that supports M2M Evolution ... rather than just talking about doing so.

    M2M Evolution is a term you came up with. So why don't you come up with evidence for it, since you created the term?


  • #8039
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Teg Veece wrote: »
    J C, this question was probably asked of you at some stage during the thread, but I haven't quite read through all of it yet.

    Can you tell me why I have an appendix?
    There once were over 100 so-called vestigial organs that were supposed to be 'left-overs' from Evolution with no function - but practically all are now know to have useful functions.
    The Appendix is now thought to have a role in protecting and producing 'good' gut bacteria ... and this role is especially important in vulnerable babies and young children
    http://www.physorg.com/news110864235.html

    ... and here is further news of 'evolution' going around in circles ... and ending up back where it started ... which isn't what is required to support the idea the Microbes evolved into Man.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-evolutionary.html


  • #8040
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    There you go lying again. The dishonesty train continues.

    Evolutionists have never used is as an argument in support of Evolution. I challenge you to provide me evidence of an evolutionary biologist putting forward a Crocoduck as an example of evolution in action.
    There you go lying about me again ... the point I made was that Evolutionists have used the Crocoduck to scoff at real objections to Evolution by Creation Scientists.


  • Advertisement
  • #8041
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    There once were over 100 so-called vestigial organs that were supposed to be 'left-overs' from Evolution with no function - but practically all are now know to have useful functions.
    The Appendix is now thought to have a role in protecting and producing 'good' gut bacteria ... and this role is especially important in vulnerable babies and young children
    http://www.physorg.com/news110864235.html

    ... and here is further news of 'evolution' going around in circles ... and ending up back where it started ... which isn't what is required to support the idea the Microbes evolved into Man.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-evolutionary.html

    thanks for the interesting article about moths and evolution. Not sure why you poted something that doesn't help your argument though.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #8042
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    There you go lying about me again ... the point I made was that Evolutionists have used the Crocoduck as a 'strawman' to scoff at real objections to Evolution by Creation Scientists.

    It is not a Strawman, because it was an argument put forward by two prominent Creationists against Evolution. It, along with every other Creationist argument demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to what Evolution is, and what processes dictate it. You included.


  • #8043
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    You should try posting some real science that supports M2M Evolution ... rather than just talking about doing so.

    Sarky
    1. There is no such evidence.

    2. That's because m2m evolution is a bullsh*t term you invented in a feeble attempt to look clever.
    I agree that there is no evidence that unicellular microbes evolved into anything ... except more microbes.
    ... so I guess that just leaves Creation as the origins reason for mankind.:)

    Thanks.


  • #8044
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    I agree that there is no evidence that unicellular microbes evolved into anything ... except more microbes.
    ... so I guess that just leaves Creation as the origins reason for mankind.:)

    Thanks.

    Or maybe it was, you know, that thing that actually happened. What's it called again?
    Evolution


  • #8045
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Or maybe it was, you know, that thing that actually happened. What's it called again?
    Direct Divine Creation.


  • #8046
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    That's a stupid alternative. Got anything else?


  • Advertisement
  • #8047
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    Direct Divine Creation.

    No, that's that thing which has absolutely zero evidence in it's favour.


  • #8048
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,657 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Sarky wrote: »
    That's a stupid alternative. Got anything else?

    I personally have this theory we came into existance in the middle of a giant baked potato. My evidence is ALGR, a nonsensical thing I made up which nonsensical science I made up shows can be found in the hair follicles of all living organisms. The first human was called brian, and he reproduced asexually. ALGR also proves this, just because.


  • #8049
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Eh, it's about as solid as cfsi I guess.


  • #8050
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    I agree that there is no evidence that unicellular microbes evolved into anything ... except more microbes.
    ... so I guess that just leaves Creation as the origins reason for mankind.:)

    Thanks.

    HNJ7y.jpg


  • #8051
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I personally have this theory we came into existance in the middle of a giant baked potato. My evidence is ALGR, a nonsensical thing I made up which nonsensical science I made up shows can be found in the hair follicles of all living organisms. The first human was called brian, and he reproduced asexually. ALGR also proves this, just because.
    ... yet another one ... of the many variants on the 'just so' Evolution Story!!!:);)


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement