[J C]

Originally Posted by dr.bollocko

That must have taken literally 25 seconds of googling.

... 24 seconds actually!!!!

[J C]

Originally Posted by dr.bollocko

That must have taken literally 25 seconds of googling.

... 24 seconds actually!!!!

Originally Posted by dr.bollocko

"Ratings have been disabled for this video."

Indeed.

Sorted



Have a look at 7.10 onwards ... Dr Ward sets a test that would, according to himself, completely falsify Evolutionary Biology, as currently understood.
... and what would this be ?
... the discovery of a fossilised Human head in a Dinosaur jaw!!!
... I have bad news for Dr Ward ... I recently saw a man (he may even have been an evolutionst) ... put his head into the jaws of a live Crocodile ... whose fossils are found alongside the fossils of dinosaurs ... so I guess that falsifies Evolutionary Biology then!!!!



He has a second test ... seeing a monkey sitting amongst Devonian Brachiopods ... it is entrirely possible for a living monkey to dine on living mussels (that are Devonian Brachiopod 'living fossils')!!!
... so I guess that falsified Evolutionary Biology again!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachiopod

[koth]

Originally Posted by J C

Have a look at 7.10 onwards ... Dr Ward sets a test that would, according to himself, completely falsify Evolutionary Biology, as currently understood.
... and what would this be ?
... the discovery of a fossilised Human head in a Dinosaur jaw!!!
... I have bad news for Dr Ward ... I recently saw a man (he may even have been an evolutionst) ... put his head into the jaws of a live Crocodile ... whose fossils are found alongside the fossils of dinosaurs ... so I guess that falsifies Evolutionary Biology then!!!!

that's really bottom of the barrel stuff, JC.

You saw a man put his head into the mouth of a crocodile and you consider that to be the same as if a fossilised human head was found in a dinosaur jaw, thus you state that this disproves evolution.

Your conclusion doesn't prove the premise, and anyone who grasps the basics of scientific reasoning would understand that.

[Sonics2k]

Originally Posted by dlofnep

What's the debate? Because you surely aren't beating anyone on the topic at hand in this thread - as you've avoided a mountain of points which have destroyed your argument.

I honestly stopped responding to JC because his writing style is so annoying, disjointed and childish.

I honestly have a hard time believing this is a reasonable adult responding to us, simply based on his illogical and flawed arguments, and absolute disregard of basic grammar and punctuation. That and the fact he seems to believe the Evolutionists claim humans "spontaneously" hopped out of slime pond instead of evolving over thousands of years.

[J C]

Originally Posted by koth

that's really bottom of the barrel stuff, JC.

You saw a man put his head into the mouth of a crocodile and you consider that to be the same as if a fossilised human head was found in a dinosaur jaw, thus you state that this disproves evolution.

Your conclusion doesn't prove the premise, and anyone who grasps the basics of scientific reasoning would understand that.

The Croc is the equivalent of a dinosaur ... as they both have the same Evolutionst 'age'.
What it proves is that the only difference between Dinosaurs and Crocodiles is that the former are extinct ... and the latter aren't.
The age of their fossils are identical ... and very recent indeed ... as proven by the connective tissue that has been recovered from Dino fossils ... and the fact that living Crocs are identical to their millions of 'evolutionst years' old fossilised equivalents!!!

[J C]

Originally Posted by Sonics2k

I honestly stopped responding to JC because his writing style is so annoying, disjointed and childish.

I honestly have a hard time believing this is a reasonable adult responding to us, simply based on his illogical and flawed arguments, and absolute disregard of basic grammar and punctuation. That and the fact he seems to believe the Evolutionists claim humans "spontaneously" hopped out of slime pond instead of evolving over thousands of years.

Plenty of Ad Hominem accusations ... but no examples of what you are talking about!!!

... and I happen to agree with you that Human 'evolution' has only occurred over thousands (and not the millions) of years, that your evolutionist colleagues claim!!!

You have the potential to become an excellent Creation Scientist ... and you're even starting to think like one!!!

... and no, I don't say that evolutionists claim that Humans 'hopped' out of slime ponds ... what I am saying is that the production of the extra CFSI in a in Human could never be spontaneously produced because the supposed mechanism for its production (mutagenesis) destroys CFSI .

[koth]

so where is the evidence of a fossilised human head in a dinosaurs jaw?

That's what you were trying to show as evidence against evolution, but somehow went off on a tangent about a man putting his head into a crocodiles mouth.

[pH]

Originally Posted by J C

Plenty of Ad Hominem accusations ... but no examples of what you are talking about!!!

Let's read what actually was said shall we?

I honestly have a hard time believing this is a reasonable adult responding to us, simply based on his illogical and flawed arguments, and absolute disregard of basic grammar and punctuation.

Now Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy that goes something like:

Person X is an idiot therefore the claim Y they made is false.
http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/adhomterm.htm

But what you (and many others who like to give the appearance of being smart and educated) fail to understand that the corollary of that statement is nothing to do with "ad hominem"

So to be clear:

A) Person X is an idiot therefore the claim Y they made is false.
This is a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem

B) Person X had made false claims: Y & Z therefore they're an idiot.
This is nothing to do with Ad Hominem, it's a perfectly reasonable logical deduction.

[Mr. Boo]

Originally Posted by J C

You have the potential to become an excellent Creation Scientist!!!

Is that the field you work in? What's with all the post editing? I always forget to ask...

Now I'll probably be sorry I did.

[Sarky]

J C, didn't you say you were leaving? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you were lying. Just about everything else you've posted is untrue.

Perhaps now you're back, you could have a go at debunking that paper you've been running away from for several months? You see, like I've said before, the longer you avoid either debunking the paper or admitting that you are wrong, the more stupid you make yourself look.



I think this video sums up my feelings on the matter. It is very important to watch it to the end.



I also predict that J C will leap upon it and say that this is what evolutionists are like. Maybe not immediately, but soon.

[dlofnep]

Originally Posted by J C

The Croc is the equivalent of a dinosaur ... as they both have the same Evolutionst 'age'.
What it proves is that the only difference between Dinosaurs and Crocodiles is that the former are extinct ... and the latter aren't.
The age of their fossils are identical ... and very recent indeed ... as proven by the connective tissue that has been recovered from Dino fossils ... and the fact that living Crocs are identical to their millions of 'evolutionst years' old fossilised equivalents!!!

Before you try to start-up a new discussion, based on your own ignorance - Perhaps you'd care to address the rebuttals to your previous nonsense?

As for the crocodile - crocodiles have indeed evolved.. But they are successful in their environment, so the evolutionary changes have been small.

Originally, the predecessors to modern crocodiles would have been far more terrestrial than modern crocodiles - so they would have been less splayed in their stance. The snout of the crocodile is well documented through it's evolutionary history, and has changed over time.

Some adaptations we can see today. For example the Gharial's snout is longer and weaker than the Nile crocodile. The Nile crocodile is much more robust, and has far more pressure in it's bite.

Nile Crocodile:



Gharial:



The reason's for this are clear. The Gharial's diet consists of fish, and it's jaw is adapted best for catching fish. The Nile Crocodile catches far larger prey, and is more robust to ensure that it has the power to control it's prey.

These are evolutionary changes that we can see between modern crocodilia. Others include the ability to tolerate sea-water better between Crocodiles and Alligators, and the snout differences between them also.

And we certainly don't see the likes of Sarcosuchus around anymore, as the huge prey that they attacked are no longer around either.

You do yourself no favours, or your argument no favours when you consistently create an argument from personal incredulity.

[J C]

Originally Posted by koth

so where is the evidence of a fossilised human head in a dinosaurs jaw?

That's what you were trying to show as evidence against evolution, but somehow went off on a tangent about a man putting his head into a crocodiles mouth.

Crocodiles and Dinosaurs are found together in the fossil record of Flood Drowning ... but the Evolutionists 'date' them both as about 200 million Evolutionist 'years' old.
A Croc is the same Evolutionist 'age' as a Dinosaur ... so a man's head in a Crocodile's mouth is equivalent to a man's head in a Dinosaur's mouth.

.... and Dr Ward was most emphatic that such a thing completely falsifies Evolutionary Biology ... and I agree with him!!!!

[Sarky]

J C, you have enough to deal with debunking that paper you're still ignoring. You really don't need to post more things you don't actually understand. Your current levels of ignorance are already ridiculously high.

Paper. Debunk. Now.

[J C]

Originally Posted by pH

Let's read what actually was said shall we?

I honestly have a hard time believing this is a reasonable adult responding to us, simply based on his illogical and flawed arguments, and absolute disregard of basic grammar and punctuation.

Now Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy that goes something like:

Person X is an idiot therefore the claim Y they made is false.
http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/adhomterm.htm

But what you (and many others who like to give the appearance of being smart and educated) fail to understand that the corollary of that statement is nothing to do with "ad hominem"

So to be clear:

A) Person X is an idiot therefore the claim Y they made is false.
This is a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem

B) Person X had made false claims: Y & Z therefore they're an idiot.
This is nothing to do with Ad Hominem, it's a perfectly reasonable logical deduction.

You would first have to prove that the claims are false (and known to be false) to person X ... and if you don't do so ... it is you who is lying ... and your comments are Ad Hominem!!!

Basically, you must prove someone is a liar ... and if you do so ... you don't need to say they are.
On the other hand, merely saying someone is a liar doesn't prove that they are ... and is an Ad Hominem logical fallacy ... and an actionable libel if you publicly identify a person that you are baselessly accusing of lying.

... and could I also point out that expressing a difference of opinion on a matter isn't lying either.

... so go prove your case ... and stop the baseless Ad Hominem accusations!!!!

[Sarky]

We've shown time and again that you're incorrect on just about everything you've ever posted. You know this. You're lying.

Now quit whining and debunk that paper. You know. The one that proves that what you've said about cfsi is a load of bollocks.