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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…279280282284285…334

Comments

  • #8432
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,396 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    dlofnep wrote: »
    J C, less of the red herrings - and address your lack of knowledge on basic biology.
    If JC could do that, she wouldn't be a creationist, would she?


  • #8433
    beerbuddy
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭beerbuddy


    J C wrote: »
    It isn't drivel ... and Evolutionists on this thread never back up what they say!!!
    They make unfounded accusations against me ... and unfounded claims about both evolution ... and creation.

    JC i am not a creationist but you are correct there are quite a few unfounded claims about evolution.It is silently being replaced as a theory anyway.
    However the new theories that are comming forward will of course be darwinian in origin.


  • #8434
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Such as?


  • #8435
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    JC i am not a creationist but you are correct there are quite a few unfounded claims about evolution.It is silently being replaced as a theory anyway.
    The guys 'in the know' ... realise that W2M Evolution is on it's last legs ... and they are trying desperately to replace it with something with at least some evidence supporting it. In the meantime they conflate Natural Selection, evolution / genetic drift within Kinds ... and W2M Evolution !!!

    beerbuddy wrote: »
    However the new theories that are comming forward will of course be darwinian in origin.
    NS and genetic drift within Kinds have Darwinian dimensions ... but W2M Evolution isn't evidentially supported ... and it is unlikely to have a Darwinian replacement :)

    ... what replacement theory have you heard of ... my sources tell me that it won't be Darwinian.


  • #8436
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    JC i am not a creationist but you are correct there are quite a few unfounded claims about evolution.

    Which claims (by evolutionary biologists) are unfounded? The only unfounded claims are ones perpetuated by uninformed creationists.
    beerbuddy wrote: »
    It is silently being replaced as a theory anyway.

    Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact.

    So name some of these unfounded claims. You don't just get to make such a statement in here without being called on it.


  • Advertisement
  • #8437
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... anybody go to the Skeptics 'Ask for Evidence' meeting last night ??

    ... did Síle provide evidence?


  • #8438
    beerbuddy
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭beerbuddy


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Which claims (by evolutionary biologists) are unfounded? The only unfounded claims are ones perpetuated by uninformed creationists.



    Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains that fact.

    So name some of these unfounded claims. You don't just get to make such a statement in here without being called on it.

    Ever heard of evolutionary developmental biology for example ???????
    Darwin didnt have a big understanding of Genetics at the time he is being overturned on some of its prinicple facts.Yes evolution is a fact but Darwins theory of it is not one hundred percent valid.If you wish i will go on.


  • #8439
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    Ever heard of evolutionary developmental biology for example ???????

    I have.
    beerbuddy wrote: »
    Darwin didnt have a big understanding of Genetics at the time he is being overturned on many of the prinicple facts he speculated on.

    It's not relevant what Darwin thought. You wouldn't cite the work of astronomers from the 1800's, and critique some of their lack of knowledge in some areas, would you? So why does it matter with Darwin? Critique evolutionary biologists of today, not someone who was just getting to grips with it. I know more about Evolutionary Biology than Darwin did.


  • #8440
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I have.



    It's not relevant what Darwin thought. You wouldn't cite the work of astronomers from the 1800's, and critique some of their lack of knowledge in some areas, would you? So why does it matter with Darwin? Critique evolutionary biologists of today, not someone who was just getting to grips with it. I know more about Evolutionary Biology than Darwin did.
    That would be easy!!:)

    Could I ask for evidence for W2M Evolution.


  • #8441
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    That would be easy!!:)

    Indeed, for someone who has actually studied Evolutionary biology. Something you clearly haven't done.
    J C wrote: »
    Could I ask you for the evidence for W2M Evolution.

    I don't accept your term as a valid scientific term. If you ask me a valid question, I will answer it.


  • Advertisement
  • #8442
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I don't accept your term as a valid scientific term. If you ask me a valid question, I will answer it.
    Could I ask for evidence for how we all evolved from a worm.


  • #8443
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Could I ask for evidence for we how we all evolved from a worm.

    We didn't evolve directly from a worm, in the sense of our nearest ancestor. There is a worm-like creature which has been found, which is the earliest ancestor of chordates. All members of the Chordate phylum are descended from a very early, and primitive chordate species, which gave rise to all that we see today of that family.

    It may or may not be that we came for the specific worm in question - If we find an earlier member of the chordate family, then that will be a better candidate. We will always revise as new evidence is presented to itself.

    Now if you want an overall collection of evidence for evolution as a whole, I have presented it in lengthy detail over a number of pages in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056552907

    You are warned however, if you go in that thread with your Noah's Ark bullshít - you will be banned from it. Your idiocy is just about tolerated and confined to this thread for our amusement alone.


  • #8444
    darjeeling
    Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    koth wrote: »
    afraid not. We may be descended from an ape but we are not apes. Apes don't have thumbs, walk upright or speak English, Spanish, German etc.

    Humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor, but humans are not apes and apes are not humans.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Actually, we are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Great Ape family.
    RichieC wrote: »
    We are great apes.

    There are differing opinions over whether humans are apes or not, but it's really down to the definition of the word 'ape'.

    'Ape' isn't really a formal scientific term, but something more like a 'folk taxon', traditionally meaning tailless, non-human primates. Today's taxonomic term for the evolutionary branch containing humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons is 'hominoidea'. The offshoot that includes only human, chimp, gorilla and orangs is the 'hominidae':

    Hominidae.PNG

    [Pan=chimps; Pongo=orangutan; Hylobates=gibbons]

    'Apes', then, traditionally are all of the hominoidea except for humans. 'Great ape' has traditionally meant all of the hominidae except humans. Modern taxonomists, guided by the principles of 'cladistics', don't like this kind of grouping, which they call 'paraphyletic'. They prefer 'monophyletic' groups, where all the descendents of an ancestor retain a common taxonomic label.

    'Reptiles' are an analogous case, conventionally meaning all descendents of the original ancestral reptile except for mammals and birds. Some taxonomists have now dropped the corresponding class 'reptilia', and use 'sauropsidae' to mean the evolutionary branch of the amniotes (tetrapods producing terrestrially adapted eggs) arising after the mammals split away:

    526px-Reptilia-Sauropsida.jpg
    (Other taxonomists prefer to redefine 'reptilia' to mean the same thing as sauropsidae)

    Regardless of taxonomy, the words 'reptile' and 'ape' will continue to be used in a less rigorous sense if they are useful. For example, it can be useful to lump the cold-blooded sauropsids together as 'reptiles' when discussing some biology not shared by the warm-blooded birds. Similarly, if we want to talk about something that the chimps, gorillas and orangutans have in common, but that humans don't share, then it may be useful to lump the former together as 'great apes' to the exclusion of humans.

    To sum up, taxonomists say that you can't grow out of your ancestry, and our ancestors - as those of gorillas and chimps - will always be hominids. Whether or not they will also be 'apes' is a matter of somewhat arbitrary definition.

    .


  • #8445
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    We didn't evolve directly from a worm, in the sense of our nearest ancestor. There is a worm-like creature which has been found, which is the earliest ancestor of chordates. All members of the Chordate phylum are descended from a very early, and primitive chordate species, which gave rise to all that we see today of that family.
    Could I ask for evidence that this worm-like creature is the ancestor of anything ... except other worms.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    It may or may not be that we came for the specific worm in question - If we find an earlier member of the chordate family, then that will be a better candidate. We will always revise as new evidence is presented to itself.
    ... but no evidence has been presented that this particular worm ... or any other worm was a common ancestor of anything ... except other worms!!!
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Now if you want an overall collection of evidence for evolution as a whole, I have presented it in lengthy detail over a number of pages in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056552907

    You are warned however, if you go in that thread with your Noah's Ark bullshít - you will be banned from it. Your idiocy is just about tolerated and confined to this thread for our amusement alone.
    I am happy to respect your boundaries ... after all I am only a guest on your forum ... although I have to say your threat to ban me for presenting scientific evidence on your forum is a little odd ... given the Skeptics stance that evidence should determine the truth of all things!!!:eek:
    ... and the fact that you admit that I am just about tolerated, is also somewhat at odds with modern liberal multi-cultural societies where tolerance of others (and their point of view) is normally demanded as a public good!!!

    I appreciate that ye need an Evolutionist 'happy place' ... where ye can be yourselves ...
    ... without any alternative viewpoint being expressed to 'prick your bubbles'.

    I can also see that ye think that it is nice to be able to have a 'mutual admiration society' on the Evolutionists Evolution thread in order to recover from the shocks to the validity of your worldview that continue to emerge in Creation Science and ID research worldwide ... so I will stay off the Evolutionists Evolution thread ... and I will confine myself to this one, to allow ye to engage in unchallenged story telling to your hearts delight over on the other thread!!!:):D


  • #8446
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    I see the thread has done another full circle and is back to persecution of creationists.
    J C wrote: »
    although I have to say your threat to ban me for presenting scientific evidence on your forum is a little odd ...
    Have you ever sourced a scientific peer-reviewed paper to back up your outrageous claims?


  • #8447
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sephir0th wrote: »
    I see the thread has done another full circle and is back to persecution of creationists.
    No ... in fairness to you guys, I'm not claiming to be persecuted ... I don't particularly want to post in the other thread anyway.
    I am merely pointing out the expressions of intolerance and censorship that dlofnep is directing at me ... and wondering out loud why he feels the need to do so if he is as 'cock sure' of his facts and his evidence for W2M Evolution ... as he seems to think he is!!:)

    sephir0th wrote: »
    Have you ever sourced a scientific peer-reviewed paper to back up your outrageous claims?
    There are plenty of Creation Science peer reviewed papers out there ... but your question is as loaded as a Medieval Inquisitor asking a prisoner if they had a Papal Bull to back up their claims of the Pope's Fallibility!!!:)


  • #8448
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    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?


  • #8449
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    joseph brand wrote: »
    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?
    I think that all of the Mainstream and State Churches historically believed that fossils were evidence of Noah's Flood ... but significant groups of Theistic Evolutionists have emerged within these churches during the 20th Century ... and they tend to follow the Materialistic Evolutionist explanation 'hook, line and sinker'.
    Creationists and Creation Scientists are also to be found within all Christian denominations as well as within Judaism and amongst Muslims.

    I don't think that any church has ever said that fossils were put in the ground by God to test us ... this seems to be an Evolutionist Urban Legend.


  • #8450
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    I assume the ban on me only applies to the Evolution 'Happy Place' Thread.

    Just looked at some of the other threads on the forum ...
    like this one
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056572301
    ... which is saying that Prof Dawkins is 'slightly agnostic' about God ...

    ... Prof Dawkins seems to be even more agnostic ... about Evolution!!!


    ... here is Prof Dawkins own assessment of his previous books on Evolution ... Preface to The Greatest Show on Earth (and emphasis mine):-

    It is not the first book I have written about evolution, and I need to explain what's different about it. It could be described as my missing link.
    The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype offered an unfamiliar vision of the familiar theory of natural selection, but they didn't discuss the evidence for evolution itself.
    The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden and (my favourite of the three) Climbing Mount Improbable, answered questions like, 'What is the use of half an eye?' 'What is the use of half a wing?' 'How can natural selection work, given that most mutations have negative effects?' Once again, however, these three books, although they cleared away stumbling blocks, did not present the actual evidence that evolution is a fact.
    My largest book, The Ancestor's Tale, laid out the full course of the history of life, as a sort of ancestor-seeking Chaucerian pilgrimage going backwards in time, but it again assumed that evolution is true.

    Looking back on those books, I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close.

    ... and having read The Greatest Show on Earth ... I still haven't seen any evidence presented for Worm to Man Evolution.

    Mind you, I'm not criticising Prof Dawkins, for this ... I think that the evidence simply doesn't exist ... and he is right to not only be agnostic about W2M Evolution ... he could quite legitimately lose all faith in W2M Evolution ... and become a complete non-believer in it!!!!!!:)
    I look forward to the day when Prof Dawkins becomes a Creation Scientist.:)
    ... or at least follow people like Prof Fred Hoyle who saw that ID was real ... and that there is no logical alternative.


  • #8451
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,396 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    Prof Dawkins seems to be even more agnostic ... about Evolution!!!
    Are you drunk?


  • Advertisement
  • #8452
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Why do you find it necessary to leave out key parts of that preface to justify your agenda, JC ? It's a dishonest way of arguing and seems to be used by all creationists, if you google the quote which you used, it crops up on plenty of creationist sites while leaving out the clear point which Dawkins was making.
    'This book is my personal summary of the evidence that the 'theory' of evolution is actually a fact - as incontrovertible a fact as any in science.'
    He also goes on to comment on individuals such as yourself.
    I shortened it to The Greatest Show on Earth. 'Only a Theory' with a precautionary question mark to guard against creationist quote-mining, would do nicely as the title to Chapter 1.

    So he's clearly not 'agnostic' to evolution. If there was any real evidence to support creationism, why is it that there seems to be a need to misquote mainstream scientists on evolution? Surely, if creationism is so certain, there would be plenty of mainstream scientists concurring with it rather than nutjobs.


  • #8453
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    No ... in fairness I'm not claiming to be persecuted ... I don't particularly want to post in the other thread anyway.
    I am merely pointing out the expressions of intolerance and censorship that dlofnep is directing at me ... and wondering out loud why he feels the need to do so if he is as 'cock sure' of his facts and his evidence for W2M Evolution ... as he seems to think he is!!:)
    J C, it's because you completely ignore all facts and continue to spout your nonsense without any evidence to support it. No one rational believes what you believe. The 'evidence' you present isn't evidence, it's horseshit. You're just too wrapped up in your religious bubble to see it.

    There are plenty of Creation Science peer reviewed papers out there ... but your question is as loaded as a Medieval Inquisitor asking a prisoner if they had a Papal Bull to back up their claims of the Pope's Fallibility!!!:)
    Are any of them peer reviewed by real scientists thought?


  • #8454
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    robindch wrote: »
    Are you drunk?

    I swear the guy reads the posts, and then re-arranges the words in his mind to suit himself.

    Typical behaviour for his type really.


  • #8455
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    I swear the guy reads the posts, and then re-arranges the words in his mind to suit himself.

    Typical behaviour for his type really.

    I have my doubts.


  • #8456
    cowzerp
    Registered Users Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    J C wrote: »
    ... here is how it probably looked on the day before the Flood ... you will notice that the Big Cats are eminently behaving themselves ... and all of the other creatures are calm and collected!!!


    1 of the funniest things i have ever read on the internet!!

    i don't get why god went to all this trouble when he could have just turned the animals he thought where cool into fish for the flood then changed them back after all the animals that he did not think where cool had died off!

    If david copperfield was bending spoons back in Jesus's days we would be reading myhtical books about him, jesus would have looked a right amateur.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • #8457
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    cowzerp wrote: »
    i don't get why god went to all this trouble when he could have just turned the animals he thought where cool into fish for the flood then changed them back after all the animals that he did not think where cool had died off!

    Even stranger is why god didn't just kill all the evil humans in their beds, leaving Noah, his family and all the animals as they were. He was capable of mass murder when it suited him. But then, that's expecting a bible story to have some kind of sense to it.


  • #8458
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    swampgas wrote: »
    Even stranger is why god didn't just kill all the evil humans in their beds, leaving Noah, his family and all the animals as they were. He was capable of mass murder when it suited him. But then, that's expecting a bible story to have some kind of sense to it.
    Scientifically speaking, a worldwide tectonic and water based catastrophy happened alongside a massive extinction event.
    Whether God was responsible ... and why He did it is a spiritually descerned matter.
    The spiritual explanation is that Evil has effects on all of Creation ... and not just on Humans.


  • #8459
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    cowzerp wrote: »
    1 of the funniest things i have ever read on the internet!!
    Creation Science ... putting the fun (as well as the facts) back in Science !!!:)
    cowzerp wrote: »
    i don't get why god went to all this trouble when he could have just turned the animals he thought where cool into fish for the flood then changed them back after all the animals that he did not think where cool had died off!
    He could have done this ... but He didn't!!
    cowzerp wrote: »
    If david copperfield was bending spoons back in Jesus's days we would be reading myhtical books about him, jesus would have looked a right amateur.
    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 !!!:)


  • #8460
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Are you drunk?
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #8461
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    J C, it's because you completely ignore all facts and continue to spout your nonsense without any evidence to support it. No one rational believes what you believe. The 'evidence' you present isn't evidence, it's horseshit. You're just too wrapped up in your religious bubble to see it.
    I can only bring the Evolutionist 'horse' to the 'water' of the unambiguous evidence for Creation ... but I can't make him/her 'drink'.

    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    There are plenty of Creation Science peer reviewed papers out there ... but your question is as loaded as a Medieval Inquisitor asking a prisoner if they had a Papal Bull to back up their claims of the Pope's Fallibility!!!

    Doctor Jimbob
    Are any of them peer reviewed by real scientists thought?
    Taking the Inquisition analogy further ... what you are asking is equvalent to an Inqusitor asking if the prisoner's ideas on Papal Fallibility have ever been reviewed by a Priest.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement