"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C wrote: »

I am not conceding that the original quote is incorrect ... I don't have access to the book 'Determinism and Finality' ... so I can't confirm or deny whether Bounoure or the even more eminent Rostand actually pronounced Evolution to be a fairy tale ...
... in any event, it is a moot point, as far as the ultimate validity of Evolution is concerned, whether it was Bounoure or Rostand who actually pronounced Evolution to be a fairy tale !!!
Talk about 'sweating the small stuff'!!!

BTW your silence is deafening on all of the other equally devastating quotes on Evolution by Evolutionists ... you could start here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68179370&postcount=1010

equivariant wrote: »

It is not a moot point. The point is quite clear and relevant. You have said that someone said something that they didn't. I have no interest in debating creationist rubbish with you. I am interested in demonstrating your dishonesty (which is clear for all to see Professor Plumb).

You say that you don't have a copy of the source. I notice that you never mentioned that when you misrepresented and misquoted the person initially. I guess it didn't matter to you then

King Mob wrote: »

Mostly cause you are.
You lied about have mathematical proof that evolution can't possibly happen.

You pretty much admitted that when you ignored my posts asking you to supply this.

J C wrote: »

... all in its own good time!!

So JC why do you have to lie to spread the truth?

J C wrote: »

John May isn't scientifically qualified ... but I am ... and even if you discount what I say ... what have you to say about the quotes in the links posted here?:-

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68192794&postcount=1055

J C wrote: »

We see evidence of very significant speciation (recently and rapidly) within Created Kinds all around us. The Cattle Kind has over 100 different species with different degrees of cross-fertility between them ... ditto the Horse Kind, the Cat Kind, the Dog Kind, etc.

Most of the major speciatiation appears to have already occurred and speciation is now very limited in its extent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfQAJnF6ST8

Improbable wrote: »

What does any of this have to do with a man writing a book about a subject he is unqualified to criticise?

equivariant wrote: »

This thread went off that topic a long time ago - that tends to happen when creationists get involved

keppler wrote: »

J C Im shocked at your persistent efforts to avoid giving any relevant answer to ghostbusters question

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]

keppler wrote: »

OH and J C you still have not answered my previous simple question. Are you argueing that redshift is not a viable means for calculating distances to other galaxies and therefore implying that our estimated age of the universe at 13.5 billion years incorrect and therefore implying that god did make the heavens in one day 6000 years ago????
IT'S A YES OR NO ANSWER

J C wrote: »

Some of the distances my be even greater ... but redshift isn't a fool-proof way of measuing these distances.

J C wrote: »

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

To 'prime your pump' ... here are a few thoughts from Philip Skell Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. Why Do We Invoke Darwin? August 29, 2005

Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
Why Do We Invoke Darwin? August 29, 2005


Examining the major advances in biological knowledge, one fails to find any real connection between biological history and the experimental designs that have produced today's cornucopia of knowledge of how the great variety of living organisms perform their functions. It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers and other practitioners of biological science.
The Dangers of Overselling Evolution February 23 2009

The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science.
Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory.
The Dangers of Overselling Evolution February 23 2009

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

J C wrote: »

... nobody is lying ...!!!

... we have a difference of opinion ... and so far the evidence is stacking up in my favour.

Please note that when I disagree with you guys ... I provide reasons as to why I am right and you are wrong ... and I would suggest that you try to do likewise!!!

... making unfounded allegations of lying gets you ... and your argument nowhere!!