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"

1…4849515354…334

Comments

  • #1502
    housetypeb
    Registered Users Posts: 1,182 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    wiki
    Created kinds are organisms that are defined by creation biology as sharing a common ancestry. The phrase refers to the Genesis account of the creation week during which God created many kinds of plants and animals. They are also referred to as "original kinds," "Genesis kinds," and more formally by creation scientists as baramin. The term barmin was coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The study of baramin (known as Baraminology) is a rapidly growing field of creation science involved with the identification of the created kinds


    back to the bible for jc, one old book explains everything.


  • #1503
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Improbable wrote: »
    Mutagenesis is neither good nor bad, its impartial and doesn't have feelings...
    So would you undergo Mutagenesis then ... because it's 'impartial'?

    ... you first honey (again)!!!:eek:
    Improbable wrote: »
    The bit that I was referring to was: "If it is a critical sequence, the entire shape of the protein, and therefore its current functionality will be destroyed". That is just wrong.
    Why is the sequence found to be 'critical' then ?


  • #1504
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    :rolleyes:

    Everytime he repeats himself I get reminded of god saying "don't they know
    that every painting had to have a painter, every building had to have a
    builder" in this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrX__ILDd3w

    J C wrote: »
    ... this is a load of baloney ... it is equivalent to saying that adjusting the seats or steering wheel in a car, using the pre-existing 'built-in' mechanisms for doing so is the same as designing and manufacturing the car (or indeed the adjustment mechanisms) in the first place.

    A load of baloney? Why? Because you say so! Again! :D
    It's not my fault you weren't educated properly J C.

    evolution.douglas.futuyma.jpg
    http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Douglas-J-Futuyma/dp/0878931872

    Give it a read and educate yourself, I can't continue arguing with someone
    who knows nothing about what he's talking about. You sir are the perfect
    example of an idiot - someone who argues virulently on a subject in
    which they have no knowledge and doesn't admit they were wrong when
    they are shown to be incorrect. You've lied about evolution relying on
    chance solely, told us macroevolution is incorrect because, well no reason,
    and still can't answer most people's questions. Sick of it J C.


  • #1505
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Wtf is Barmin? The only thing I can find is a Russian surname Barmin and
    dog collars by Barmin, is this creationist "nomenclature" :D
    Such a thirst for knowledge of Creation Science!!
    housetypep has given you the answer here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68318523&postcount=1503


  • #1506
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Such a thirst for knowledge of Creation Science!!
    housetypep has given you the answer here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68318523&postcount=1503

    Yes I can read thanks, you've been spelling it wrong so I couldn't
    find it online, makes perfect sense as a concept... :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #1507
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    The definitive test for a Created Kind is the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within a Kind.

    Many members of Barmin are also allocated to various Kinds provisionally on the basis of phenotype, even though they don't cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within the particular Kind.

    Zillah
    Er, "barmin" aside, you're saying that your methods are completely incapable of understanding or investigating extinct species, who, by definition, cannot breed with anything?
    Extinct species can be allocated provisionally to a particular Barmin on the basis of phenotype. Research is currently ongoing into establishing a genetic basis for the allocation of these provisionally allocated species.


  • #1508
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Extinct species can be allocated provisionally to a particular Barmin on the basis of phenotype. Research is currently ongoing into establishing a genetic basis for the allocation of these provisionally alocated species.

    A lot of big science words in those two sentences J C, let us know when
    they've finally reache their conclusions - will it be the first ever actual
    scientific piece of work these hucksters do? :cool:


  • #1509
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Yes I can read thanks, you've been spelling it wrong so I couldn't
    find it online, makes perfect sense as a concept... :rolleyes:
    Great that we have established that.


  • #1510
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    In case it wasn't clear, this is creation science:

    The Global Flood or Biblical Flood of Noah
    (17 Bul 1656 AM23 October 2348 BC 17 Cheshvan 1413 He 17 Bul 1656 AM)
    is an event     described in the Biblical book of Genesis, wherein the entire
    world was     covered with water as divine punishment, and only a small
    number of     humans and animals survived.

    In The Genesis Record, Henry Morris states:
    “ The word for “flood” (mabbul), used here for the first time, applies only
    to the Noahic Flood; other floods are denoted by various other words in
    the original. This was the “mabbul,” unique in all history...Similarly, when
    the Genesis Flood is referred to in the New Testament, the Greek term
    kataklusmos     is uniquely employed (Matthew 24:39; Luke 17:27; 2 Peter
    2:5; 3:6) instead of the usual Greek word for “flood.” This Flood was not to
    be comparable to other later local floods; it was to be absolutely unique in
    all history.[1]     ” The account in Genesis is the best known and the most
    detailed account,     but the event recorded in ancient histories in various
    forms across cultures     worldwide. It is described in the Islamic Qur'an, the
    Book of Jubilees, and     the Book of Enoch. Direct references occur in the
    Critias and Timaeus of     Plato, and the ancient Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh.
    ...

    Purpose

    Destruction of the Wicked
    Main Article: Noah

    According to the book of Genesis 6:9 ,"Noah was a righteous man,
    blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God".[2]
    However, Noah lived at a time when men became more and more corrupt,
    and God determined to rid the Earth of its wicked population.[3] Because
    of Noah's righteousness, God entered into a covenant with him, with a
    promise of deliverance from the impending Deluge.[4] He was accordingly
    commanded to build an ark[5] to save himself and his family.

    It is seen as significant by most that the Bible mentions a human race
    known as the Nephilim immediately prior to God's proclamation to destroy
    the Earth by flood. Their presence may have been responsible for or
    contributed to the corruption of humankind.
    "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth." - Genesis 6:4-7
    http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood


  • #1511
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Give it a read and educate yourself, I can't continue arguing with someone
    who knows nothing about what he's talking about    . You sir are the perfect
    example of an idiot     - someone who argues virulently on a subject in
    which they have no knowledge and doesn't admit they were wrong when
    they are shown to be incorrect. You've lied about evolution relying on
    chance solely,     told us macroevolution is incorrect because, well no reason, and still can't answer most people's questions. Sick of it J C.
    I was wondering when you would start to erect a smoke-screen around my mathematical proof ... in order to protect the nakedness of Evolution!!!
    ... and there it comes ... ad hominism all the way!!


  • Advertisement
  • #1512
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    In case it wasn't clear, this is creation science:
    ... and on cue ... a complete switch of direction ... in order to avoid my mathematical proof ... and so that you can say several pages later that no mathematical proof was provided!!!


  • #1513
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    I was wondering when you would start to erect a smoke-screen around my mathematical proof ... in order to protect the nakedness of Evolution!!!
    ... and there it comes ... ad hominism all the way!!

    No J C, it's based on factual evidence in this thread. It's the logical
    conclusion when you act the way you have. Tell us why macroevolution
    is baloney? It's defined as microevolution ffs, but you accept microevolution.
    I've caught you out as a filthy double standards holding huckster but you
    just respond "baloney" when you've been caught. Oh, and you never gave a
    proof for anything whatsoever, you're lying about this proof. All you did
    was show some figures that were incorrect and then claim you have a
    proof. That is a good definition of lying.


  • #1514
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    ... and on cue ... a complete switch of direction ... in order to avoid my mathematical proof ... and so that you can say several pages later that no mathematical proof was provided!!!

    Your figures were incorrect, your concept has nothing to do with evolution.
    All you "proved" was that you can't use correct figures, can't admit you
    used bad information and you also proved that you think a snail could
    move an electron across the universe thereby proving evolution is wrong.
    Why did you also lie stating that evolution is just random? I gave 6 different
    mechanisms and you haven't responded - because you've been caught out as
    a liar.


  • #1515
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Why did you also try to mislead everyone by telling us that iron filings and
    ferric oxide when mixed is supposed to create a human, well that evolutionists
    think so? This just shows how ignorant you are of chemistry, biology and physics.


  • #1516
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Always happens to dissappear when direct challenges are brought against
    him for some reason :rolleyes:


  • #1517
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Your figures were incorrect, your concept has nothing to do with evolution.
    All you "proved" was that you can't use correct figures, can't admit you
    used bad information and you also proved that you think a snail could
    move an electron across the universe thereby proving evolution is wrong.
    Why did you also lie stating that evolution is just random? I gave 6 different
    mechanisms and you haven't responded - because you've been caught out as
    a liar.
    ... so you are simply going to ignore my mathematical proof while shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ... just like I said you would!!


  • #1518
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Why did you also try to mislead everyone by telling us that iron filings and
    ferric oxide when mixed is supposed to create a human, well that evolutionists
    think so? This just shows how ignorant you are of chemistry, biology and physics.
    Why can't you read plain English ... and understand what I said?

    Is it because you actually believe that your brain is 'evolved' from Pondslime without any intelligent input ... and you are acting accordingly?


  • #1519
    Dougla2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 227 ✭✭Dougla2


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you are simply going to ignore my mathematical proof while shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ... just like I said you would!!
    you have deluded yourself into believing you have posted proof or evidence i have seen no evidence or proof .


  • #1520
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    No J C, it's based on factual evidence in this thread. It's the logical
    conclusion when you act the way you have. Tell us why macroevolution
    is baloney? It's defined as microevolution ffs, but you accept microevolution.
    I've caught you out as a filthy double standards holding huckster but you
    just respond "baloney" when you've been caught. Oh, and you never gave a
    proof for anything whatsoever, you're lying about this proof. All you did
    was show some figures that were incorrect and then claim you have a
    proof. That is a good definition of lying.
    Why do you keep making up stories about how I don't behave ... whilst gleefully ignoring the substance of my postings?

    Is it because you have no substantive answers to my substantive posting on the mathematical proof of the invalidity of spontaneous evolution?


  • #1521
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you are simply going to ignore my mathematical proof while shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ... just like I said you would!!

    Did I ignore it? I answered it J C, I gave you a proper answer. What's wrong
    with my answer? That I called you on giving incorrect figures and that you
    were actually using 3 incorrect figures in that calculation. How about when
    I said you didn't show any work whatsoever in your proof, you only gave
    the numbers, incorrect as they are, that you would be using and showed
    no evidence of a calculation. In first year maths you're taught to show your
    work so that if you mess up you'll get correct marks for illustrating the
    procedure, you obviously missed that day in school...

    Now, why are you ignoring me? Why have you ignored the question of
    macroevolution as defined by microevolution? Where do you think the
    concept comes from? What about your lies about evolution being solely
    about chance? I gave 6 different aspects & you never responded.


  • Advertisement
  • #1522
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Why can't you read plain English ... and understand what it said?

    Is it because you actually believe that your brain is 'evolved' from Pondslime without any intelligent input ... and you are acting accordingly?

    Don't dare tell me what I believe, you seriously haven't a clue what I believe.
    You have shown yourself to be extremely ignorant by proclaiming that I
    believe the stupid passage you posted about iron filings. You are even
    more ridiculous seeing as you wanted to say "evolutionists" believe that,
    You think that's what evolution is and we're all embarrassed for you, nobody
    else thinks that means anything. I've explained to you why your nonsense is
    wrong but you're repeating it again, I feel so sorry for you & I can't believe
    you are an adult while posting this, it's scary...


  • #1523
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Dougla2 wrote: »
    you have deluded yourself into believing you have posted proof or evidence i have seen no evidence or proof .
    There are none so blind as he who will not see!!

    Here is it again for you to address ... try looking through your fingers ... that way you can instantly shut your mind off when you get to the bottom where you will be faced with the proof!!

    If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
    So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!


  • #1524
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    There are none so blind as he who will not see!!

    Here is it again for you to address ... try looking through your fingers ... that way you can instantly shield your mind when you get to the bottom where you will be faced with the proof!!

    If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
    So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!
    But this machine would have been intelligently designed by beings made of
    proteins and obviously intelligently designed.


  • #1525
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    There are none so blind as he who will not see!!

    Here is it again for you to address ... try looking through your fingers ... that way you can instantly shut your mind off when you get to the bottom where you will be faced with the proof!!

    If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
    So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!

    Again this 1.27E+130 pemrutations number is entirely made up by creationists like you who have no idea what they are talking about and can't grasp simple concepts. We've been asking you for the last few dozen pages for you to back this nonsense up but you've ignored the question every single time. This is pretty much the same as lying about it.
    Please stop lying JC, it's only showing how dishonest you and creationism are.


  • #1526
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    But this machine would have been intelligently designed by beings made of
    proteins and obviously intelligently designed.
    Quite.


  • #1527
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    J C wrote: »
    Quite.

    Therefore your gedankenexperiment is wrong


  • #1528
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    J C wrote: »
    If it is along a critical sequence, it will completely destroy the functionality of the protein. It's the same with any other information-rich system ... and the only way of overcoming the vastness of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there for all information-rich systems is the appliance of intelligence.
    Trying to 'search' it using random processes like Mutation will be defeated by the sheer scale of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there.

    As another graduate biochemist (B.Sc.(Hons) Abdn, M.Sc, and 20 years working as a scientist) may I point out that his is not true as Improbable pointed out a single amino acid change can destroy the protein, have no effect or improve its function. If you take the mutation back to the DNA level a single point mutation might not alter the amino acid sequence at all.


  • #1529
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again this 1.27E+130 pemrutations number is entirely made up by creationists like you who have no idea what they are talking about and can't grasp simple concepts. We've been asking you for the last few dozen pages for you to back this nonsense up but you've ignored the question every single time. This is pretty much the same as lying about it.
    Please stop lying JC, it's only showing how dishonest you and creationism are.
    The 1.27E+130 is the number of premutations choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at every point along a 100 Amino Acid sequence protein chain ... it is 20^100 which is equal to 1.27E+130.
    This is the enormous combinatorial space that faces any non-intelligently directed system that is 'searching' for a specific functional sequence to perfor a specific function.
    If Materialistic Evolution is true this problem must have been overcome billions of times, because living organisms have literally billions of these specific functional sequences throughout their cells.
    I have yet to see any non-intelligently directed mechanism that can do this.


  • #1530
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Fluffybums wrote: »
    As another graduate biochemist (B.Sc.(Hons) Abdn, M.Sc, and 20 years working as a scientist) may I point out that his is not true as Improbable pointed out a single amino acid change can destroy the protein, have no effect or improve its function. If you take the mutation back to the DNA level a single point mutation might not alter the amino acid sequence at all.

    Funny how J C leaves that out when he's talking about it :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #1531
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    The 1.27E+130 is the number of premutations choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at every point along a 100 Amino Acid sequence protein chain ... it is 20^100 which is equal to 1.27E+130.
    This is the enormous combinatorial space that faces any non-intelligently directed system that is 'searching' for a specific functional sequence to perfor a specific function.
    If Materialistic Evolution is true this problem must have been overcome billions of times, because living organisms have literally billions of these specific functional sequences throughout their cells.
    I have yet to see any non-intelligently directed mechanism that can do this.
    Again no sourse for any of that. Therefore it's bull**** like the rest of the nonsense you spout.
    Seriously JC do you not realise how dishonest you are being?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement