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…3435373940…334

Comments

  • Options
    #1082
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    keppler wrote: »
    J C Im shocked at your persistent efforts to avoid giving any relevant answer to ghostbusters questionwink.gifwink.gif

    You were clearly asked to explain how creation and the flood explained the existence of introns?
    Now what you have done is just gone a rant about cats, dogs, cows and horses and how there are 100's of types of them yada yada....this is all recent..rapid...... shoot creationist video!

    J C not once did you or your video mention the word INTRON.
    This video, you will notice explains absolutely nothing and uses the same tactic you are using (schpeel out some scientific words and try to bamboozle people).

    J C all these types of dogs cats ... they're all just subspecies. Of course they can interbreed.
    the offspring of horses and donkeys/zebra are sterile and are not very common! Due to the fact that most or all interspecies offspring are sterile it pretty much blows your idea of so called "rapid speciation" out of the water.
    J C in all the time that weve been breeding dogs and cats and the like,we have still not even produced an animal that is neither a dog nor a cat. So how could such a short time line of 6000yrs produce so many differnt types of species:rolleyes:

    once again J C please answer ghostbusters question with an answer thats relevent[IMG]http://b- I was just about to say the same, the Zedonk (Zebra X donkey) is sterile as are most of the examples in the video. My understanding is that different species if they breed, cannot produce fertile offspring. The different types of cats and dogs are more akin to strains, not species, and as such can breed and produce fertile young - hence moggies and mongrels.[/img]

    Here is an example of how so-called Junk DNA facilitates speciation today
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091026220018.htm


  • Options
    #1083
    keppler
    Registered Users Posts: 389 ✭✭keppler


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    Prof. Pugh is talking about the fact that evolution has little or no role in scientific discoveries. He is not saying that evolution is not a valid explaination for how species have arisen. I would have to agree with him, evolution has virtually no role in scientific research (except in evolutionary research).

    watch out fluffybums althought the extracts that jc has posted dont state that he thinks darwinian evolution is not a valid explanation for diversity he actually is well known for the fact that he doesn't! In reality this guy is a wacko;)


  • Options
    #1084
    keppler
    Registered Users Posts: 389 ✭✭keppler


    J C wrote: »
    J C wrote: »

    Here is an example of how so-called Junk DNA facilitates speciation today
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091026220018.htm




    LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...

    WOW... this appears to be a first everybody! J C appears to be evolving from reading creationist science reports to actual science reports.

    Unfortunately J C you obviously didnt bother to read the article...lol

    J C if you bother to read the article you will see that it states that scientists have identified a region of junk- DNA in the male fruit fly's X- chromosone which is 50 times longer than the same region in the female flies x-chromosome. and so they believe that the machinery involved in DNA packaging from the mother fruit fly no longer recognises the vastly different section of DNA in the x-chromosome of the different species of male fruit fly. in other words J C - COMPUTER SAY'S NOOOOO.

    J C all this is only at the early stage of research. and anyway JC it just states that one little region of junk DNA could be responsible for the early abortion of female embryo's which resulted from mating between two different but closely related species.
    Also J C how can you use this example to say that junk DNA facilitates speciation? ( do you even know what speciation actually means?) if anything this just shows that junk DNA just hinders inter species mating from producing offspring! nevermind fertile offspring
    This article says nothing about the creation of junk DNA:rolleyes:

    Again J C its no good just copying and pasting articles whether they are scientifically correct and valid or notcool.gif
    This article just refers to junk DNA it does not relate it to or explain how the flood or creation (according to the book of genesis) could have created itmad.gif
    ONCE AGAIN JC YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED GHOSTBUSTERS QUESTION.


  • Options
    #1085
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Like I have said ... don't worry about Creationism ... just concentrate on Evolution ... and try to really think it through!!!

    This sums up creationism & ID perfectly. I like how you've:

    a) Ignored King Mob's constant requests for you to provide mathematical
    proof of all that redshift talk you "weren't lying about" :rolleyes:

    b) Ignored my requests for you to show your mathematical proof why blind
    unconscious forces are unable to create complex organisms.
    The spontaneous non-intelligently directed generation of Complex Functional Specified Information has never been observed and is mathematically impossible.
    Except for the flagella motor, along with HIV becoming resistant to drugs
    etc...

    c) Constantly ignored my requests for you to show me how ID was
    unquestionably validated at Pajaro.

    d) Failed to follow up on your claim that the coccyx was made to aid
    walking in vertebrates when I showed you how variable the thing is,
    how there are plenty of people born without this & that it's more
    adequately described as the remnant of a coccyx. Also I'd like to hear
    about your gut flora thesis and how it affects the 1 in 100,000 born
    without a appendix. This can be explained as aiding the digestion of
    leaves and bark but for you there is just design...

    e) Claimed to have read every evolutionist book, whats the deal with that?

    f) Some evidence that the flagella is an example of intelligence would be
    good also by the way, I mean saying it's complex is not enough. We all
    know the solar system formation was complex but intelligence - nada...

    g) Told us you have some evidence why tired light should be given any
    credence and why use of standard candles etc... is questionable... yet
    not provided any convincing evidence yet.

    h) Told us that a redshift accounts for the skies colours here then
    backtracked and spoken nothing of it since...

    i) Continually ignored ghostbusters questions...

    I could go on but I'm busy :pac:


  • Options
    #1086
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    keppler wrote: »
    watch out fluffybums althought the extracts that jc has posted dont state that he thinks darwinian evolution is not a valid explanation for diversity he actually is well known for the fact that he doesn't! In reality this guy is a wacko;)
    OK ... so you are saying that Dr. Philip S. Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus at Penn State University is ''whacko' ... and I am a 'liar' ...
    ... you have a very strange way of debating ... just throw unsubstantiated mud at the somebody ... and ignore the evidence that they are presenting!!
    ... Could I point out that Dr Skell is a very eminent scientist and the article that I linked to (which I note you haven't addressed) was published in the prestigious Forbes Magazine. You may notice that in this article Dr Skell doesn't make any personal remarks about the equally eminent Dr Coyne ... but sticks to challenging Evolution.

    I would suggest that the Evolutionist posters on this thread do likewise ... unless they want to lose all credibility with objective readers of this thread!!
    ... but then again, the scientific case for evolution is so hopeless I guess the only thing left are ad hominem remarks (in the hope that nobody notices that the substantive issues in relation to Evolution are being ignored).

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1087
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C the reason we're calling you a liar is because you've said so much waffle
    in this thread and refused to respond to us when we call you on it. That is
    grade A dishonesty, there have been a few posters chasing you for pages
    and pages for answers, I've been chasing you for about 30 pages to answer
    the lies you told about creationism, sorry ID, being utterly validated in Pajaro,
    what about all the points in the list above? Still waiting for you to answer...

    Oh, and pulling up a bunch of chemists who signed a Scientific Dissent from
    Darwinism means nothing, if you ever checked up on it most barely knew
    what they were signing and hadn't any major issues with the theory when
    confronted on it. Eugenie Scott's organization checked it out, google it to
    see.


  • Options
    #1088
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    keppler wrote: »
    J C wrote: »




    LOL...LOL...LOL...LOL...

    WOW... this appears to be a first everybody! J C appears to be evolving from reading creationist science reports to actual science reports.

    Unfortunately J C you obviously didnt bother to read the article...lol

    J C if you bother to read the article you will see that it states that scientists have identified a region of junk- DNA in the male fruit fly's X- chromosone which is 50 times longer than the same region in the female flies x-chromosome. and so they believe that the machinery involved in DNA packaging from the mother fruit fly no longer recognises the vastly different section of DNA in the x-chromosome of the different species of male fruit fly. in other words J C - COMPUTER SAY'S NOOOOO.

    J C all this is only at the early stage of research. and anyway JC it just states that one little region of junk DNA could be responsible for the early abortion of female embryo's which resulted from mating between two different but closely related species.
    Also J C how can you use this example to say that junk DNA facilitates speciation? ( do you even know what speciation actually means?) if anything this just shows that junk DNA just hinders inter species mating from producing offspring! nevermind fertile offspring
    This article says nothing about the creation of junk DNA:rolleyes:

    Again J C its no good just copying and pasting articles whether they are scientifically correct and valid or notcool.gif
    This article just refers to junk DNA it does not relate it to or explain how the flood or creation (according to the book of genesis) could have created itmad.gif
    ONCE AGAIN JC YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED GHOSTBUSTERS QUESTION.
    I did read the article ... and it shows that some of so-called 'junk DNA' is involved in speciation.

    You say "if anything this just shows that junk DNA just hinders inter species mating from producing offspring! nevermind fertile offspring." Could I gently remind you that this is how Speciation occurs ... mating/fecundity 'barriers' is what speciation is all about ... that is how separate species arise ... and indeed it is one of the main ways that they are scientifically recognised!!!


  • Options
    #1089
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    keppler wrote: »
    J C read my question "YES OR NO"
    by stating that "Some of the distances my be even greater..." tells me that your understanding of physics is non-existant as you do not realize the implication distance has on your 'house of cards idea' called creation.

    on the other hand JC your statement has implied that some of the distances may be smaller
    Jc your technique of spinning your answers is not going to work on me!

    You have now stated that you do not believe using redshift to calculate distance is fool-proof (by fool-proof I will assume you mean accurate).......THIS IS ONLY HALF THE ANSWER

    Now J C you must fully answer the question! Do you think it's inaccuracy implies that it is possible god made the heavens in one day 6000years ago?????....answer itmad.gif
    The invalidity of redshift just means that it doesn't measure the distance to astronomocal objects, full stop.
    It says nothing, one way or the other, about Creation.


  • Options
    #1090
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    J C the reason we're calling you a liar is because you've said so much waffle in this thread and refused to respond to us when we call you on it.
    If waffling was lying ... then all you guys would have noses like Pinocchio!!

    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    That is grade A dishonesty, there have been a few posters chasing you for pages and pages for answers, I've been chasing you for about 30 pages to answer the lies you told about creationism, sorry ID, being utterly validated in Pajaro,
    Chasing me???
    The first time somebody chased me, I was an under-graduate ... and she was very beautiful!!!:)

    The hunger out there for the truth that is Creation Science and ID is simply amazing!!!
    Unfortunately there is only one of me and apparently hundreds of ye.

    Here is an account of that exciting first day at Pajaro Dunes:-
    http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Pajaro-Dunes-Conference---Scientists-Challenging-Darwinism!&id=1892099

    Here is the history of the ID movement. I would take issue with his dismissal of Creationists, but in fairness, the emergence of Creation Science, as the potent scientific discipline it has now become, was also only in its infancy in the 1980-90's.

    http://www.equip.org/PDF/DL303.pdf

    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Oh, and pulling up a bunch of chemists who signed a Scientific Dissent from
    Darwinism means nothing, if you ever checked up on it most barely knew
    what they were signing and hadn't any major issues with the theory when
    confronted on it. Eugenie Scott's organization checked it out, google it to
    see.
    These are leading eminent scientists who certainly did know what they were writing. These guys didn't just put their names to something ... they wrote extensively about their serious questions over the scientific validity of aspects of Evolution.


  • Options
    #1091
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And so JC has admitted to lying.

    So since you have admitted it JC are you going to explain why you lied?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1092
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    J C wrote: »
    The invalidity of redshift just means that it doesn't measure the distance to astronomocal objects, full stop.
    It says nothing, one way or the other, about Creation.

    Another classic creationist line of reasoning

    1. Claim that an established scientific phenomenom (in this case redshift) proves something that no respectable scientist has ever claimed it proves

    2. When your argument is completely discredited, bactrack.

    3. Now claim that the original phenomenon is entirely discredited in all contexts.

    and of course (the final step in all YEC arguments)

    4. Stick fingers in ears and shout "lalalala not listening lalalalalal....." at top of voice


  • Options
    #1093
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    And so JC has admitted to lying.

    So since you have admitted it JC are you going to explain why you lied?
    I have admitted to no such thing!!
    Please stick with the evidence against Evolution ... and stop the unfounded ad hominem remarks ... unless you want to lose all credibility and prove yourself to be a liar!!!!!:(
    Two can play this game!!
    ... so how often did you say you beat your wife ???


  • Options
    #1094
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    I have admitted to no such thing!!
    Please stick with the evidence against Evolution ... and stop the unfounded ad hominem remarks ... unless you want to lose all credibility and prove yourself to be a liar!!!!!:(
    Two can play this game!!
    ... so how often did you say you beat your wife again???
    Then JC where is the mathematical proof against evolution you claimed to have?
    Why where you ignoring my repeated requests for it?

    You either have it or you don't. If you do show it.
    If you don't then you are a liar.


  • Options
    #1095
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by keppler
    You have now stated that you do not believe using redshift to calculate distance is fool-proof (by fool-proof I will assume you mean accurate).......THIS IS ONLY HALF THE ANSWER

    Now J C you must fully answer the question! Do you think it's inaccuracy implies that it is possible god made the heavens in one day 6000years ago?????....answer it


    J C
    The invalidity of redshift just means that it doesn't measure the distance to astronomocal objects, full stop.
    It says nothing, one way or the other, about Creation.


    equivariant
    Another classic creationist line of reasoning

    1. Claim that an established scientific phenomenom (in this case redshift) proves something that no respectable scientist has ever claimed it proves

    2. When your argument is completely discredited, bactrack.

    3. Now claim that the original phenomenon is entirely discredited in all contexts.

    and of course (the final step in all YEC arguments)

    4. Stick fingers in ears and shout "lalalala not listening lalalalalal....." at top of voice
    Keppler asked me a straight question ... I gave a straight answer ... and then you went into a rant!!!!

    I know that the truth can hurt ... but this is ridiculous ... pull yourself together!!!


  • Options
    #1096
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    You know what this reminds me of?.
    Theres is a Simpsons episode where Homer takes up boxing and due to a medical condition which results in his brain being surrounded and cushioned in a layer of fluid he cannot be hurt or knocked over.
    Due to the layer if zealous befuddled biblical horsesh1t JC has surrounded himself in he is actually unbeatable and impervious to all logic, reason, argument and basic common sense.


  • Options
    #1097
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Two can play this game!!
    ... so how often you beat your wife ???

    :D Oh MAN! :p I am seriously LOL'ing at this :D

    Person: Have you any evidence for your claims?
    Creationist: Stick to the facts, you're showing yourself to be a fool!
    Person: Look I just want evidence for the nonsensical things you've just
    said!
    Creationist: Ha! Ad hominems all the way! Stick to the facts before your
    own words show you for a fool!
    Person: Look you're full of nonsense because you said X, didn't back it up
    & are ignoring me everytime I ask you for evidence. You lied earlier!
    Creationist: You're beating me like you beat your wife!
    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    This sums up creationism & ID perfectly. I like how you've:

    a) Ignored King Mob's constant requests for you to provide mathematical
    proof of all that redshift talk you "weren't lying about" :rolleyes:

    b) Ignored my requests for you to show your mathematical proof why blind
    unconscious forces are unable to create complex organisms.

    Except for the flagella motor, along with HIV becoming resistant to drugs
    etc...

    c) Constantly ignored my requests for you to show me how ID was
    unquestionably validated at Pajaro.

    d) Failed to follow up on your claim that the coccyx was made to aid
    walking in vertebrates when I showed you how variable the thing is,
    how there are plenty of people born without this & that it's more
    adequately described as the remnant of a coccyx. Also I'd like to hear
    about your gut flora thesis and how it affects the 1 in 100,000 born
    without a appendix. This can be explained as aiding the digestion of
    leaves and bark but for you there is just design...

    e) Claimed to have read every evolutionist book, whats the deal with that?

    f) Some evidence that the flagella is an example of intelligence would be
    good also by the way, I mean saying it's complex is not enough. We all
    know the solar system formation was complex but intelligence - nada...

    g) Told us you have some evidence why tired light should be given any
    credence and why use of standard candles etc... is questionable... yet
    not provided any convincing evidence yet.

    h) Told us that a redshift accounts for the skies colours here then
    backtracked and spoken nothing of it since...

    i) Continually ignored ghostbusters questions...

    I could go on but I'm busy :pac:

    tick, tock...

    tick, tock...

    tick, tock...

    Furthermore, you don't have to give me pdf's of the history of creationism
    & ID, it doesn't do anything to validate their claims. Oh & could you tell us
    some applications of the "potent scientific discipline it has now become" :D


  • Options
    #1098
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Then JC where is the mathematical proof against evolution you claimed to have?
    Why where you ignoring my repeated requests for it?

    You either have it or you don't. If you do show it.
    If you don't then you are a liar.
    ...
    The Mathematical proof (and the answers to Evolutionist FAQs) can be found at the following links:-

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64146692&postcount=20235
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63409709&postcount=19242
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61519498&postcount=16717
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61516066&postcount=16710
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58461952&postcount=14087
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58453017&postcount=14067
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57313883&postcount=12353

    ... enjoy!!!:eek::D

    Please bear in mind that 10^130 is a number so great as to be a practical impossibility.
    Also please remember, that with this number, we are only talking about generating one specific measley 100 chain aa protein ... and not the thousands of closely co-ordinated tightly specified biomolecules that are required in even the simplest cell.
    To put the number 10^130 into perspective, the number of seconds that it would take a snail, travelling at a 'snails pace' of only 10cm or 4 inches per hour to transport every electron in the 'Big Bang' Universe across it's supposed 10,000 million Light Year diameter out to it's Event Horizon and back again to the other side, taking just one electron every time is the much smaller number of 10^113.

    ... and BTW the probability against the spontaneous production of a specific sequence is just the same whether it is achieved by one step or a million steps..
    ... Life is actually a massive serial system ... each organism is at the end of a SERIES of succeeding generations!!!
    ... so the mathematical probabilities of ANY such SERIES producing ANYTHING functional using non-intelligently produced processes rapidly disappears to 'vanishing point' ... EVEN with massive numbers of parallel trials!!
    ... and the reason ... for the mathematicains amongst you ... is that serial probablilities are multiplicative ... and parallel probabilities are additive!!!!

    ... and THAT is WHY we DON'T use non-intelligently controlled processes to produce complex products in factories ...
    ... and what is true about factories ... is ALSO true about life!!!!!


  • Options
    #1099
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    JC is actually unbeatable

    watch out , he'll quote that line and say thanks


  • Options
    #1100
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    ...
    The Mathematical proof can be found at the following links:-

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64146692&postcount=20235
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63409709&postcount=19242
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61519498&postcount=16717
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61516066&postcount=16710
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58461952&postcount=14087
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58453017&postcount=14067
    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57313883&postcount=12353

    ... enjoy!!!:eek::D

    Please bear in mind that 10^130 is a number so great as to be a practical impossibility.
    Also please remember, that with this number, we are only talking about generating one specific measley 100 chain aa protein ... and not the thousands of closely co-ordinated tightly specified biomolecules that are required in even the simplest cell.
    To put the number 10^130 into perspective, the number of seconds that it would take a snail, travelling at a 'snails pace' of only 10cm or 4 inches per hour to transport every electron in the 'Big Bang' Universe across it's supposed 10,000 million Light Year diameter out to it's Event Horizon and back again to the other side, taking just one electron every time is the much smaller number of 10^113.

    ... and BTW the probability against the spontaneous production of a specific sequence is just the same whether it is achieved by one step or a million steps..
    ... Life is actually a massive serial system ... each organism is at the end of a SERIES of succeeding generations!!!
    ... so the mathematical probabilities of ANY such SERIES producing ANYTHING functional using non-intelligently produced processes rapidly disappears to 'vanishing point' ... EVEN with massive numbers of parallel trials!!
    ... and the reason ... for the mathematicains amongst you ... is that serial probablilities are multiplicative ... and parallel probabilities are additive!!!!

    ... and THAT is WHY we DON'T use non-intelligently controlled processes to produce complex products in factories ...
    ... and what is true about factories ... is ALSO true about life!!!!!
    So we can conclude that not only are you a liar you have no idea what a mathematical proof is.
    Also apparently you've no idea what electrons are or do.

    So why did you continuously ignore my requests then JC?


  • Options
    #1101
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Originally Posted by Ghost Buster
    JC is actually unbeatable

    watch out , he'll quote that line and say thanks
    Thanks!!:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1102
    keppler
    Registered Users Posts: 389 ✭✭keppler


    J C wrote: »
    The invalidity of redshift just means that it doesn't measure the distance to astronomocal objects, full stop.
    It says nothing, one way or the other, about Creation.


    lol.....:confused:


    OK JC first of all you said that redshift is not a fool-proof method of calculating distance.

    NOW you are saying cannot measure distance FULL STOP!!!!!:confused:

    J C this now crosses the lines between spinning your answers and lyingmad.gif

    DISTANCE HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM WHEN YOU STATE THAT IT HAPPENED 6000YRS AGO.... YOU MORON!

    Once again JC are you implying that our methods of calculating distance using redshift are inaccurate/completely wrong, therefore implying that god did create the heavens in one day 6000years ago?????
    ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU JACKASS


  • Options
    #1103
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And oh look more lies:
    To put the number 10^130 into perspective, the number of seconds that it would take a snail, travelling at a 'snails pace' of only 10cm or 4 inches per hour to transport every electron in the 'Big Bang' Universe across it's supposed 10,000 million Light Year diameter
    The diameter of the Universe is 93 billion light-years or 93,000 million lightyears.
    You see in the real world JC people who actually use maths use the "term billion".
    out to it's Event Horizon and back again to the other side,
    The universe does not have an Event Horizon, that's not where the term is used.
    So I conclude that you heard this term used once and are using it like Star Trek technobabble.
    taking just one electron every time is the much smaller number of 10^113.
    Now you see JC I don't believe for a second you've done this math yourself, cause it's been shown you couldn't pass the junior cert.

    But lets she how right you are:
    Take your figure for the number of electrons in the universe (a number you pull totally out of your ass btw): 10^82
    And taking the time it takes the snail to transport one electron across it's course of the universe (again a number you've pull out of your ass):
    10 billion light years = 9.4605284 × 10^25 metres
    And it's a round trip so thats : 2(9.4605284 × 10^25 metres)

    it's speed is 10cm/hour = 0.00278 cm/sec or 0.000028 m/s

    So the time it takes for one trip is

    2(9.4605284 × 10^25 metres)/0.000028 metres/sec

    = 6.758x10^30 seconds or 2.143x10^23 years.

    so for the lenght of time to move the entirety of the electrons it's

    (2.143x10^23)(10^82)= 2.143x10^105 years.

    Not the 10^113 you where claiming.

    So JC I have mathematically proven you to be a liar with the numbers you have pulled out of your ass.

    I know you're not going to read this though, as no doubt numbers make your head hurt, I'm just showing off.


  • Options
    #1104
    keppler
    Registered Users Posts: 389 ✭✭keppler


    J C wrote: »
    keppler wrote: »
    I did read the article ... and it shows that some of so-called 'junk DNA' is involved in speciation.

    You say "if anything this just shows that junk DNA just hinders inter species mating from producing offspring! nevermind fertile offspring." Could I gently remind you that this is how Speciation occurs ... mating/fecundity 'barriers' is what speciation is all about ... that is how separate species arise ... and indeed it is one of the main ways that they are scientifically recognised!!!


    AGAIN JC im laughing uncontrollably in my seat here!!!

    JC you have just reconjured what i stated your article actually says.
    this is just an article on how scientists have found a small section of junk DNA which MAY be responsible for the abortion of a female feotus from inter species mating!!!
    What you have just stated is that junk DNA prevents interspecies from creating successful offspring/succesful plus not sterile!!! Which is all well and good J C BUT,
    The article you posted only refers to introns in its text JC. At no point does it attempt to explain the existence of them NOR STATE OR IMPLY EXISTENCE DUE TO CREATION OR THE FLOOD:mad::mad::mad:


    ONCE AGAIN J C answer Ghostbusters question


  • Options
    #1105
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    keppler wrote: »
    lol.....:confused:


    OK JC first of all you said that redshift is not a fool-proof method of calculating distance.

    NOW you are saying cannot measure distance FULL STOP!!!!!:confused:

    J C this now crosses the lines between spinning your answers and lyingmad.gif

    DISTANCE HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH CREATIONISM WHEN YOU STATE THAT IT HAPPENED 6000YRS AGO.... YOU MORON!

    Once again JC are you implying that our methods of calculating distance using redshift are inaccurate/completely wrong, therefore implying that god did create the heavens in one day 6000years ago?????
    ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU JACKASS
    Distance has nothing to do with Creation ... many Creation Scientists believe that the Universe is infinite!!


  • Options
    #1106
    Improbable
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    Being a biochemist, I can tell you with some confidence that the scientific consensus on the way proteins fold is by nucleation condensation and not by whatever imaginary method you've read about. Thanks.


  • Options
    #1107
    keppler
    Registered Users Posts: 389 ✭✭keppler


    J C wrote: »
    OK ... so you are saying that Dr. Philip S. Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus at Penn State University is ''whacko' ... and I am a 'liar' ...

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html

    note how i reply to your statements J C.

    yes he is a wacko and yes you are a liar!!!
    note the deliberation and simplicity in this statement ..... there is no spinning involved J C.
    i suggest you reply with answers to my questions in the same manner.


  • Options
    #1108
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    You know what this reminds me of?

    homerjc.gif

    glowfoto

    Finding somewhere decent to host these is painful.


  • Options
    #1109
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    keppler wrote: »
    note how i reply to your statements J C.

    yes he is a wacko and yes you are a liar!!!
    note the deliberation and simplicity in this statement ..... there is no spinning involved J C.
    i suggest you reply with answers to my questions in the same manner.
    ... so what is Dr Niles Eldrige, Chief Curator at The American Museum Of Natural History, when he says :-
    "No wonder paleontologists shied away form evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting of cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change -- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution. Reinventing Darwin (1995) p.95

    or perhaps you would like to tell us what you think of Prof Pierre Grasse Former Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne University Paris

    Any living thing possesses an enormous amount of 'intelligence'... Today, this 'intelligence' is called 'information,' but it is still the same thing... This 'intelligence' is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it. Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.2

    Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations. … For millions or even billions of years, bacteria have not transgressed the structural frame within which they have always fluctuated and still do. It is a fact that microbiologists can see in their cultures species of bacteria oscillating around an intermediate form, but this does not mean that two phenomena, which are quite distinct, should be confused; the variation of the genetic code because of a DNA copy error, and evolution. To vary and to evolve are two different things; this can never be sufficiently emphasized ... Bacteria, which are both the first and the most simple living beings to have appeared, are excellent subject material for genetic and biochemical study, but they are of little evolutionary value.

    Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.     Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.6


  • Options
    #1110
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    J C wrote: »
    Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.6

    You quote this book a lot. I'd like to just point out a couple things:
    1 - The original was published in 1973. Do you not think that a 37 year old science book might be a little out of date?
    2 - The author believed in evolution, but he prefered Lamarckian evolution. He was not a creationist.

    I am sure, however, that none of this matters to you because magic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1111
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Quotes-640.jpg
    Zillah wrote: »
    I am sure, however, that none of this matters to you because magic.

    biggrin.gif

    J C, did you lie about mathematics? :o


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement