"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Thought that myself. He kept screaming for proof and when he was asked for his theory he just said the early parts of the bible leave him intellectually satisfied even thought the rest of the book is horrible. WHERE'S YOUR PROOF!?!?!?!?

I can see it now. At his party people will present proof to him and they shall hear, "THAT NOT PROOF!!!!"

J C

Gosh ... you have all got into a terrible 'flap'!!!!

I knew that some Atheists could be more emotional than logical ... but this is ridiculous ... pull yourselves together guys and gals!!!

It was bound to happen!!!!

An ordinary Dub cuts through the obvious baloney that 'Molecules to Man Evolution' truly is ... and writes a book about it ... and you all start to produce steam out of your ears!!!!

He isn't a religious believer or a Creation Scientist ... so he is one of you guys ... only he happens to be skeptical about Evolution!!!

I especially like his 'Wildesque' description of Evolutionists as believers in "the highly improbable foisting the impossible on the impressionable."

May the peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you all.

Love you all !!!!:)

oceanclub

I especially like his 'Wildesque' description of Evolutionists as believers in "the highly improbable foisting the impossible on the impressionable."

The most offensive bit of your post was comparing this guy to Wilde. As far as I remember, Wilde could spell.

P.

J C

J C wrote:

I especially like his 'Wildesque' description of Evolutionists as believers in "the highly improbable foisting the impossible on the impressionable."


oceanclub
The most offensive bit of your post was comparing this guy to Wilde. As far as I remember, Wilde could spell.

Oscar Wilde was another amazing Dublin Genius ... and I just love his witticisms!!!

The withering quip from John May reminded me of Oscar Wilde's equally withering quip about the English country gentleman galloping after a fox ... whom he described as "the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.":D

May the peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you too.

ColmDawson

Alright, which one of you chanted "J C" at the screen three times at midnight?

oceanclub

J C wrote: »

The withering quip from John May remined me of Oscar Wilde's equally withering quip about the English country gentleman galloping after a fox ... whom he described as "the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible.":D

Thanks for letting us know which of Wilde's quips he decided to bastardize.

P.

FionnMatthew

J C wrote: »

He isn't a religious believer or a Creation Scientist ... so he is one of you guys ... only he happens to be skeptical about Evolution!!!

He repudiates organized religion, but believes that men were placed here by god. He believes that the bibilical account in Genesis is satisfactory. Hence, you are wrong on count 1. He is a religious believer.

He is a creationist, and he claims to be "scientific," which is about as scientific as creationists ever get anyway. Hence, you are wrong on count 2. He is a "creation scientist."

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Oscar Wilde was another amazing Dublin Genius ...

Quoted for posterity

J C

FionnMatthew wrote: »

He repudiates organized religion, but believes that men were placed here by god. He believes that the bibilical account in Genesis is satisfactory. Hence, you are wrong on count 1. He is a religious believer.

He is a creationist, and he claims to be "scientific," which is about as scientific as creationists ever get anyway. Hence, you are wrong on count 2. He is a "creation scientist."

... he isn't a member of any formal religion ... just like you Atheists claim to also be!!

... and while he may be a Creationist ... he isn't scientifically qualified ... so he isn't a Creation Scientist.

J C

oceanclub wrote: »

Thanks for letting us know which of Wilde's quips he decided to bastardize.

P.

I said that his quip reminded me of Wilde ... as far as I can see, he came up with the quip himself and didn't bastardise anything.

Indeed his quip, if anything, outshines Wilde for it's wit ... the man is both a lierary and a scientific genius ... and the fact that he isn't qualified in either discipline ... is even more amazing!!!!

... he is 'a natural' genius!!!

sponsoredwalk

J C I don't know how you can call this man a genius so passionately when he
gets the most basic things wrong. Can you tell us why he compared a person
in a bath full of water to a child in amniotic fluid? Can you tell us why he
thinks a newborn baby does not wrinkle & uses this trivial fact so
passionately when discounting evolution? Can you tell us why he is so
passionate to ignore mountains and mountains of anthropological, biological,
historical & physical evidence about history and how that makes him a
genius? The man claimed, on air, that the big bang may not have happened
but provided no evidence. This is not a claim about evolution yet he went
on the air and said this without any evidence. Tell me what is genius about
this? Tell us what is genius in ignoring the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

An ordinary Dubcuts through the obvious baloney that 'Molecules to Man Evolution' truly is ...

Another one of those people who makes humongous proclamations
without any evidence to back it up :rolleyes:

I suppose you'll have no trouble going piece by piece through this or this simple list
telling us why these samples are baloney when explained by evolutionary
theory and what your detailed explanation of them is.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

J C I don't know how you can call this man a genius so passionately when he
gets the most basic things wrong. Can you tell us why he compared a person
in a bath full of water to a child in amniotic fluid? Can you tell us why he
thinks a newborn baby does not wrinkle & uses this trivial fact so
passionately when discounting evolution? Can you tell us why he is so
passionate to ignore mountains and mountains of anthropological, biological,
historical & physical evidence about history and how that makes him a
genius? The man claimed, on air, that the big bang may not have happened
but provided no evidence. This is not a claim about evolution yet he went
on the air and said this without any evidence. Tell me what is genius about
this? Tell us what is genius in ignoring the Cosmic Microwave Background?

The man is a literary genius ... just look at the amazing alliteration in the following description of Evolution ... which he describes as “a fantasy of farraginous farcical fatuous feculent facile facetiousness"!!!

... I haven't seen as many F's since the last episode of Fr Ted !!:)

... and the very smoothness of the CMB actually presents a major problem for materialistic accounts of the production of stars and galaxies.
http://creation.com/recent-cosmic-microwave-background-data-supports-creationist-cosmologies

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Another one of those people who makes humongous proclamations
without any evidence to back it up :rolleyes:

I suppose you'll have no trouble going piece by piece through this or this simple list
telling us why these samples are baloney when explained by evolutionary
theory and what your detailed explanation of them is.

The idea that there are intermediate species between Kinds is simply wishful thinking ... have a look at this video, if you doubt me:-

...I especially liked the 500 'million year old' starfish ... that hasn't evolved one iota in all of that Evolutionist time !!!!

sonicthebadger*

J C wrote: »

The man is a literary genius ... just look at the amazing alliteration in the following description of Evolution ... which he describes as “a fantasy of farraginous farcical fatuous feculent facile facetiousness"!!!

... I haven't seen as many F's since the last episode of Fr Ted !!:)

... and the very smoothness of the CMB actually presents a major problem for materialistic accounts of the production of stars and galaxies.
http://creation.com/recent-cosmic-microwave-background-data-supports-creationist-cosmologies

Physics abusers make me cry.

sponsoredwalk

:D:D

"This film was inspired by the works of Harun Yahya"

:P

Oh man, ask that guy how he's doing in prison wont you

I thought you had something credible here, even Richard Dawkins, the
man you quote in your signature, has discredited Harun Yahya.

I was a fool to expect you to give me anything credible when you argue
so vociferously for John May's intellect.

By the way, those starfish can be researched on wikipedia for starters.

The fact that you think starfish would need to evolve when they are in
an environment suited to them just shows how ignorant you are of the
theory you fight against.

You've got a closed mind.

Mrmoe

J C wrote: »

... and while he may be a Creationist ... he isn't scientifically qualified

This is exactly why no one should ever read or listen to what this guy has to say.

The Mad Hatter

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ivor Callely said on newstalk this morning that it's ''stupid'' that Conor had to pull out of the launch! :mad::rolleyes:

One thing that might have taken the heat off of Callely for a few days and he goes and comments on it.

FionnMatthew

J C wrote:

I especially liked the 500 'million year old' starfish ... that hasn't evolved one iota in all of that Evolutionist time !!!!

JC, species whose environmental niches don't change don't tend to evolve. evolution works through the application of mutation and variation to an environment.

there are plenty of species which remain very much in the state they were in tens of millions of years ago. crocodilians haven't changed very much in 200m years. there haven't been enough environmental pressures to select mutations. they're just extremely well adapted to their environment.

FionnMatthew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a149XsphL6Y

sponsoredwalk

The Origin of Specious Nonsense - A Review
It’s been well covered that Irish Minister of State for Eduction and Science
Conor Lenihan is attending the launch of a book by John J May that claims
the theory of evolution is a hoax (here, here and here). This is what he is
endorsing (Conor, if you attend a launch, you cannot say you are not
endorsing the book, you know this, don’t argue.)
John J May is, according to his website, a poet and a street philosopher.
He says that he was born in Ireland “accidentally” and views himself as a
citizen of the world. I think he means randomly, not accidentally; I don’t
think his mother was on her way to Iceland and boarded the wrong plane.
May claims that he isn’t religious but is deeply spiritual and, by is own
admission has developed a “passionate hatred” for the “toxic fiction of
evolution as it poisons reason.”

By definition, May has automatically disqualified himself from writing a
logical thesis by admitting a bias on his own part. It would be an ad
hominem attack to assume that just because he’s not a qualified scientist
that his argument holds no water; however by admitting a “passionate
hatred”, he throws into doubt every piece of evidence he presents since
the reader will not trust him to accurately present the opposing view.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that by attending this launch and
giving it the respectability of having the government science minister
present, Lenihan reckons that the book is either well argued, or a
compelling exploration of the problems with the theory of evolution.
The book sample on the website starts as follows:

Almost every creature begins from a single cell. Within this one
human cell, fertilised egg, are genes from both parents and the
entire genetic code of each future individual. This intricate
astonishing mathematically coded blueprint of over 3 billion
chemical letters, 12 or so hours after conception, starts to
divide and build.

I may be wrong but doesn’t every creature begin from a single cell? He
moves from every creature to human quite stealthily but I guess that being
a free-thinking poet rather than a stuffy scientist, we can allow him the
odd inaccurate piece of writing, even if he is writing about a scientific
topic. He continues to lay out the incredibly complex and remarkable
journey a single cell takes during gestation and then asks the following
questions:

1) How and why do cells split?
2) How do toes know where to grow?
3) How do cells know how to build a heart?
4) How do cells know how to make blood?
5) How does blood have all the right chemicals?
6) How did the reproductive system develop?
7) Was I truly one single cell?

May drools over the fact that cells then begin to differentiate themselves
into skin cells, blood cells, bone cells and so on, until you get a
“self-replicating baby”….a what?!??
A self-replicating baby would, I guess, be able to reproduce asexually and
the result would be a clone. (thank God, think of the scandal if babies
started reproducing sexually) Mr May: humans can only reproduce in pairs,
not by themselves (although May’s “solo-effort” on disproving evolutionary
theory may be a subconscious attempt at asexual reproduction in and of
itself…)

He then asks the same questions again; although since there’s been no
new insights, the questions don’t acquire any new resonance. A remarkable
statement follows:

EMBRYONIC GROWTH
This process alone condemns evolutionists to the mental
morass of obfuscatory obscurantism.

I looked up obfuscatory obscuratism because I didn’t want to
misunderstand Mr. May:the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or
the full details of some matter becoming known. Right, so essentially
scientists guarantee their jobs by making the simple complex to keep
science for themselves and not the common man.

Given the massive complexity of the process he’s describing, it would be
amazing if it could be fully understood by the common man and not an
expert. However this common man hasn’t yet explained why Embryonic
growth supports this conspiracy; apparently it’s meant to be self-evident.
He continues…(I’m paraphrasing slightly)

…blah blah blah…<amazing number of cells become toes
without any mistakes!>…blah blah blah…<unbelieveable, at
exactly the right moment a left arm appears!>…blah blah
blah…<repeat the same 7 questions>…blah blah blah…etc…

The conspiracy is never proven, since we’re merely meant to be persuaded
by special pleading.
The chapter continues in the same vein, continually repeating the
questions and continually showing how the fact that such a complex
process takes place completely disproves that this method of reproduction
evolved. At the end of the chapter, May finally gives the answers that he
believes a scientist would give to those questions:

Q) How and why do cells split?
A) Accidents (chemical)
Q) How do toes know where to grow?
A) Chance (molecular)
Q) How do cells know how to build a heart?
A) Mutations (dangerously damaging)
Q) How do cells know how to make blood?
A) Blind selection (un-natural [sic])
Q) How does blood have all the right chemicals?
A) Spontaneous Generation (never happens)
Q) How did the reproductive system develop?
A) Impossible odds (mathematically)
Q) Was I truly one single cell?
A) Random Accidents (produce disorder inevitably)

It’s probably clear that the answers don’t entirely relate to the questions
(particularly the last one) but perhaps I have them out of order.
If anyone thought I was being unfair by writing …blah…blah…blah… to
describe this chapter, then you’re absolutely correct. However this appears
to be exactly how Mr. May has treated any writing on the topic of
evolution. His limited knowledge on the complexity of gestation and birth
seems to infer upon him some right to completely misunderstand the basis
and implications of evolution and reject it out of hand in a diatribe; as far
as he’s concerned.

Conor Lenihan, back to you: it’s shameful that such an insult to any
philosophical or scientific thought gets the backing of a government
minister when far more urgent issues demand your attention. On the topic
of evolution, I would recommend that you read Life: An Unauthorized
Biography instead.

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/John+J+May

checkyabadself

Today's Times printed 8 letters on this. Jason O'Donnell wrote that,

"It seems science has become the new orthodoxy and woe betide any humble person who takes a different view. The imposition of science over god is truly the exaltation of man, the created being, over and above his Creator. Perhaps some scientists and humanists just cannot imagine an higher form of life than themselves. What arrogance! - Yours etc, "

I'm sorry Jason for my arrogance in not being as humble as yourself to imagine things.

J C

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Physics abusers make me cry.

... Dry your tears then ... because Evolution abuses Biology ... and not Physics!!!:D

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

Saying you have evidence and sharing it with the world are two diffrent things.
I have the world's biggest penis. I have unequivocal evidence. Damned if I'm showing you though. :cool:

Arrogant atheist! :pac:

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

:D:D

"This film was inspired by the works of Harun Yahya"

:P

Oh man, ask that guy how he's doing in prison wont you

I thought you had something credible here, even Richard Dawkins, the
man you quote in your signature, has discredited Harun Yahya.

I don't agree with many things that Harun Yahya stands for ... He is a Muslim and I am a Christian ... he is an Old Earth Creationist and I am a Young Earth Creationist.

However, his video and book does show up almost complete stasis among Created Kinds.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

:I was a fool to expect you to give me anything credible when you argue
so vociferously for John May's intellect.

By the way, those starfish can be researched on wikipedia for starters.

The fact that you think starfish would need to evolve when they are in
an environment suited to them just shows how ignorant you are of the
theory you fight against.

You've got a closed mind.

I used to have a closed mind ... when I was an evolutionist ... and it took me 10 years to prize it open!!!

Everything is 'in an environment that is suited to them' in many respects ... so WHY did the starfish not change one iota over 500 Million Evolutionist years ... while Humans were supposedly evolving from something that supposedly looked like a fish?!!!

MagicMarker

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You've got a closed mind.

''The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it's open''. Frank Zappa

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Galvasean

I have the world's biggest penis. I have unequivocal evidence. Damned if I'm showing you though.

PDN
Arrogant atheist! :pac:

Atheist trying to compensate for something???:D

J C

MagicMarker wrote: »

''The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it's open''. Frank Zappa

... please try to open yours sometime ... so far, on Evolution, you are in free-fall ... towards the ground!!!

J C

FionnMatthew wrote: »

JC, species whose environmental niches don't change don't tend to evolve. evolution works through the application of mutation and variation to an environment.

there are plenty of species which remain very much in the state they were in tens of millions of years ago. crocodilians haven't changed very much in 200m years. there haven't been enough environmental pressures to select mutations. they're just extremely well adapted to their environment.

... all that sounds like special pleading to me ... if a combination of mistakes and selection can move pondslime to become Man ... then every population should be continuously changing and shifting over Evolutionist time.

... and as yourself and Harun Yahya have dramatically confirmed this simply isn't the case!!!

MagicMarker

J C wrote: »

... please try to open yours sometime ... so far, on Evolution, you are in free-fall ... towards the ground!!!

I'm not even going to begin to argue with you about it, I value my own sanity way too much.