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"

1280281283285286334

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    J C wrote: »
    Creation Science ... putting the fun (as well as the facts) back in Science !!!:)

    He could have done this ... but He didn't!!

    David Copperfield is an excellent magician ... but he isn't God ... and has never claimed to be God.

    Jesus Christ claimed to be God ... and proved that He was ... by raising people from the dead ... as well as raising Himself from the dead.

    I think Jesus still has the 'edge' on David !!!:)

    Putting the facts back into science? There isn't a big enough Jean-Luc Picard face palm for this.

    I mean, never mind all of the other mindless babble you have written. This one post alone clarifies that, you sir, are a troll.


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


    shizz wrote: »
    Putting the facts back into science? There isn't a big enough Jean-Luc Picard face palm for this.
    Putting the facts ... and the fun ... back into science!!!:)
    shizz wrote: »
    I mean, never mind all of the other mindless babble you have written. This one post alone clarifies that, you sir, are a troll.
    I'm no troll. I post respectfully and politely.
    The evidence and the facts that support Creation have all been tested in the Evolutionist 'fire' on this thread ... and it has been found to be valid.:)


  • Moderators Posts: 51,683 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The evidence and the facts that support Creation have all been tested in the Evolutionist 'fire' on this thread ... and it has been found to be valid.

    by whom?

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    J C wrote: »
    The evidence and the facts that support Creation have all been tested in the Evolutionist 'fire' on this thread ... and it has been found to be valid.:)

    Really? I've been a long time viewer of this thread without getting involved often and I can safely say I have never seen anyone say that it has found to be valid.

    Please show me an example.


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


    J C wrote: »
    Prof Dawkins is somewhat agnostic about the existence of God ... and he has admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution (or if he has ... he hasn't written it in his books) ... so his Agnosticism seems to be growing!!!:):D

    ... and I admire him for that.

    Stop being disingenuous! You're annoying at this point and should be banned if it continues.

    He's agnostic about the existence of God, but doesn't believe that there is a God. In the same way, he's agnostic about the existence of fairies. He has explained this in great detail.

    Also, he has published a vast array of evidence for evolution. His first books described the process of evolution, while the newer title - The Greatest Show on Earth discussed the evidence to demonstrate that Evolution is true. This was in response to Jerry Coyne's book 'Why Evolution is True' - Where Dawkins was asked why another book on evolution.

    He presents the evidence quite clearly in the latter book. Now if you weren't being such a disingenuous, lying, ignorant child - you'd know that.

    Try reading his books instead of selectively quoting some of his stuff out of context. Then you won't look like an ignorant, immature brat.


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


    koth wrote: »
    by whom?
    By any objective observer.


  • Moderators Posts: 51,683 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    By any objective observer.
    but that doesn't back up your assertion that creationism has been found to be valid on this thread. to claim it has been is dishonest.

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



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


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Stop being disingenuous! You're annoying at this point and should be banned if it continues.
    I just point out the facts ... if they annoy you ... just tickle yourself ... and realise that there are many much more serious issues than the degree (one way or the other) of Prof Dawkins' agnosticism!!!:)
    dlofnep wrote: »
    He's agnostic about the existence of God, but doesn't believe that there is a God. In the same way, he's agnostic about the existence of fairies. He has explained this in great detail.
    He has.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Also, he has published a vast array of evidence for evolution. His first books described the process of evolution, while the newer title - The Greatest Show on Earth discussed the evidence to demonstrate that Evolution is true. This was in response to Jerry Coyne's book 'Why Evolution is True' - Where Dawkins was asked why another book on evolution.

    He presents the evidence quite clearly in the latter book. Now if you weren't being such a disingenuous, lying, ignorant child - you'd know that.

    Try reading his books instead of selectively quoting some of his stuff out of context. Then you won't look like an ignorant, immature brat.
    I think that he needs to write another book entitled something like 'Unambiguous Evidence for the Evolution of Microbes into Men'.

    ... and my wife tells me that I'm not immature or a brat ... and my lack of ignorance speaks for itself:):D


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


    J C wrote: »
    I think that he needs to write another book entitled something like 'Unambiguous Evidence for the Evolution of Microbes into Men'.

    No, because any rational person will be already convinced with the compelling evidence he has already provided. No matter what he writes - lunatic, cult creationists will reject his claims because their mind will never be open for science that contradicts the bible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, because any rational person will be already convinced with the compelling evidence he has already provided. No matter what he writes - lunatic, cult creationists will reject his claims because their mind will never be open for science that contradicts the bible.

    I really do find it astonishing how people can cling on to the telling of an ancient text, written by barbarians who had much less moral standards than our own.

    Not only this, but they put it miles ahead of modern scientific findings which have been peer reviewed and scrutinized beyond belief. A text which was written by people who heard stories that were past down by word of mouth. These stories often contradict each other. Its baffling.

    No doubt J.C. Won't agree with this but it's true.

    It may be a bit over the top but I really feel like our species and civilisation is doomed unless we can get rid of this superstitious nonsense.

    /end rant.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    J C wrote: »
    I just point out the facts

    It would take a team, to trawl through this thread looking for your 'facts'. You just pop in asking for evidence. It's piled on top of you and you still say "where is it?" And yet, you provide nothing, nada, zilch.

    Your beliefs are only as strong as your ignorance. I'm sure you'd love to visit Ken sHam's creationist museum/ fun park where you get to see dinosaurs and humans living side-by-side. Just like The Flintstones. They even have a small Triceratops with a saddle on it's back. ffs

    triceratops-saddle-creationism.jpg

    TRY not to laugh. :D


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


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, because any rational person will be already convinced with the compelling evidence he has already provided. No matter what he writes - lunatic, cult creationists will reject his claims because their mind will never be open for science that contradicts the bible.
    Leaving aside the gratutious ad hominem comments ... your core claim of compelling evidence for W2M Evolution is simply unfounded ... as there is none, that I am aware of.


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


    It would take a team, to trawl through this thread looking for your 'facts'. You just pop in asking for evidence. It's piled on top of you and you still say "where is it?" And yet, you provide nothing, nada, zilch.

    Your beliefs are only as strong as your ignorance. I'm sure you'd love to visit Ken sHam's creationist museum/ fun park where you get to see dinosaurs and humans living side-by-side. Just like The Flintstones. They even have a small Triceratops with a saddle on it's back. ffs

    triceratops-saddle-creationism.jpg

    TRY not to laugh. :D
    Feel free to laugh ... nervously ... it is clear that the Earth is quite 'young' ... and many extinct animals, like the Triceratops were alive contemporaneously with Man.
    Even 'old agers' ... like Evolutionists, freely admit that many species alive today lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs. They call them 'living fossils' because they haven't changed since then.
    ... and given the fact that it was less than 10,000 years ago, this isn't all that surprising!!!:)
    ... so why all the surprise that Humans also lived alongside Dinosaurs as well?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    J C wrote: »
    Feel free to laugh ... nervously ... it is clear that the Earth is quite 'young' ... and many extinct animals, like the Triceratops were alive contemporaneously with Man.
    Even 'old agers' ... like Evolutionists freely admit that many species alive today lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs. They call them 'living fossils' because they haven't changed since then.
    ... and given the fact that it was less than 10,000 years this isn't all that surprising!!!:)

    It's clear that the earth is young? It's certainly young in Cosmological terms given that the age of the Universe is estimated to be 13.75 billion years, but in the thousands? Please reference the study that suggests the earth to be 10,000 years old.

    Actually, I already know the response. I'm putting the fish heads away. No more feeding the troll.


  • Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    J C wrote: »
    Feel free to laugh ... nervously ... it is clear that the Earth is quite 'young' ... and many extinct animals, like the Triceratops were alive contemporaneously with Man.
    Even 'old agers' ... like Evolutionists freely admit that many species alive today lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs. They call them'living fossils' because they haven't changed since then.
    ... and given the fact that it was less than 10,000 years this isn't all that surprising!!!:)
    :eek::rolleyes::D;):eek::rolleyes::D:eek::rolleyes::D:rolleyes::eek::rolleyes::D:
    LOL, ROL, LOL, ROL, LOL, ROL,LOL, ROL


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


    J C wrote: »
    Feel free to laugh ... nervously ... it is clear that the Earth is quite 'young'

    4.5 billion years old.. Not sure where you're getting your definition for young out of.
    J C wrote: »
    ... and many extinct animals, like the Triceratops were alive contemporaneously with Man.

    Which is why homo sapiens have never once been found at the same geological layer as dinosaurs?
    J C wrote: »
    Even 'old agers' ... like Evolutionists freely admit that many species alive today lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs. They call them'living fossils' because they haven't changed since then.

    The crocodilia family might be as old as the dinosaurs, but no crocodile that lived alongside the dinosaurs lives today. It's descendants do. That's why you don't see guys like this anymore:

    Sarcosuchus555.jpg

    Now - we're tried to explain this to you a million times, but you just don't seem to understand it.

    J C wrote: »
    ... and given the fact that it was less than 10,000 years this isn't all that surprising!!!:)

    That is not a fact. When you're willing to demonstrate to us a testable, and repeatable, peer-reviewed dating methodology that backs up these claims - let us know and we'll see. Until then - we'll continue to laugh at you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Question: Did the church, or at least some of them, pull a u-turn on the topic of dinosaurs?

    I thought the church's stance was that god put the bones in the ground in different hiding places for us to find. But now they say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? Or is that just some crazy baptist/ evangelical churches?

    Are these ideas mutually exclusive?

    They realised kids like dinoaurs so segwayed them into their museums to maximize profit.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    Prof Dawkins [...] admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution (or if he has ... he hasn't written it in his books)
    You will recall from your own words that Dawkins said nothing of the kind. He did not say "that he doesn't have any specific evidence" for the evolutionary origins of mankind. He did say that in none of his previous books was such specific evidence "explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close."

    I don't expect you to read this book, or for you to understand it if you did.

    But on this forum, you are expected not to lie.


  • Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    J C wrote: »
    Feel free to laugh ... nervously ... it is clear that the Earth is quite 'young' ... and many extinct animals, like the Triceratops were alive contemporaneously with Man.
    Even 'old agers' ... like Evolutionists, freely admit that many species alive today lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs. They call them 'living fossils' because they haven't changed since then.
    ... and given the fact that it was less than 10,000 years ago, this isn't all that surprising!!!:)
    ... so why all the surprise that Humans also lived alongside Dinosaurs as well?


    So...you're really going to stick with the Flintstones Hypothesis???


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    ................ YABADABBADOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :pac::eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Which is why homo sapiens have never once been found at the same geological layer as dinosaurs?

    This.
    If you can't give a sensible answer to this J C you have no business commenting on this thread again.


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


    This.
    If you can't give a sensible answer to this J C you have no business commenting on this thread again.
    hi doc
    How did Homo sapiens become extinct? I mean, Is there any Homo sapiens around.


  • Moderators Posts: 51,683 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dead one wrote: »
    hi doc
    How did Homo sapiens become extinct? I mean, Is there any Homo sapiens around.
    just when you think this thread has hit bottom, the floor collapses! :eek:


    homo sapiens aren't extinct, homo sapiens is another name for humans.

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



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


    koth wrote: »

    homo sapiens aren't extinct, homo sapiens is another name for humans.
    hi koth
    isn't homo sapiens another name for Chimps?


  • Moderators Posts: 51,683 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dead one wrote: »
    hi koth
    isn't homo sapiens another name for Chimps?

    no.

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



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


    koth wrote: »
    no.
    then, where is common ancestor? Who are common ancestors


  • Moderators Posts: 51,683 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dead one wrote: »
    then, where is common ancestor? Who are common ancestors

    Check out these posts by dlofnep and oldrnwisr if you honestly want to know the answer to that question.

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



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


    koth wrote: »
    Check out these posts by dlofnep and oldrnwisr if you honestly want to know the answer to that question.
    Right, i will check it, thanks, Now more questions
    Will human become extinct or evolve into another forms / creatures? For more detail check this link

    http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Races
    ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    dead one wrote: »
    hi koth
    isn't homo sapiens another name for Chimps?
    Really..
    dead one wrote: »
    then, where is common ancestor? Who are common ancestors
    really..
    dead one wrote: »
    Right, i will check it, thanks, Now more questions
    Will human become extinct or evolve into another forms / creatures? For more detail check this link

    http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Races
    ;)

    REALLY awful trolling.


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


    shizz wrote: »
    Really..
    really..

    REALLY awful trolling.
    Hi shizz
    It seems you don't have any answer, So It is trolling... Amazing


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement