"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

Isn't it fairer to say that Moses attributed a flood to God?

The Bible is the infallible Word of God ... and it was written under His direct inspiration. It isn't therefore a mere collection of the personal opinions of it's various writers.
This of course, is a matter of faith ... but a well-founded faith, based on the current findings of Creation Science!!!:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

There actually was a great deal of rejection and suppression in reaction to Darwinism, mostly from the Mainstream Churches ... and indeed the mainstream science of the time. There was even legislation introduced to ban the teaching of Human Evolution in schools such as the Butler Act under which John Scopes was convicted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Act

Two wrongs don't make a right ... and the current suppression of ID is just as reprehensible as the suppression of Evolution in the 19th Century!!!
It seems that Human Nature pushes those in power to defend their views and suppress the opposite viewpoint.
Why can't we all live and let live ... and share our knowledge with each other ... without rancour?
... that way we can all learn something from each other!!!

But with the internet now available to so many scientists, it would that much easier to an audience if anyone was to put forward evidence for creationism being a reality.

Ergaster seems to be a mixed classification including a wide range of specimens ... here is what Archaeology.com has to say about Ergaster:-
"Homo ergaster is one of the more problematic of somewhat accepted species designations currently tossed around in anthropological literature. Each individual researcher that sees ergaster as a valid taxon sees different specimens as belonging or not belonging to the taxon. Many researchers deny any validity to the species at all."
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoergaster.htm

so scientists say its problematic, they still say its a separate species, just as is erectus and neanderthalus.

... and here is what AIG has to say about Erectus:-
"In evolutionary circles it is becoming increasingly common to argue that although H. erectus forms are still on the 'road' from ape to human, the morphological distinctions between all human-type forms are insufficient to justify a separate species classification for erectus - that is, that all post-habiline forms (erectus, archaic and modern sapiens plus the Neanderthals), could be subsumed into a single species -H. sapiens, with a subspecific distinction at most."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp

no surprise that a religious website disagrees with evolution and the variety of human species.

All Kinds had this genetic diversity when they were Created ... just look at the Dog Kind ... and see the variety that was in this Kind before different breeds/types were produced by inbreeding specific types ... thereby eliminating the genetic diversity in the founder dogs of each breed/type!!!

I'm sorry, JC, but I can't make any sense of this. Dogs had diversity, they interbred with other types (I assume you still mean dogs), and this removed diversity in the species? I don't know what you're getting at with this.

All Humans are fallen and therefore capable of self-delusion or even outright fraud ... and the best antidote to this is the free exchange of ideas ... and their robust challenge with any evidence that denies them!!!
This thread is a good example of this !!!

It should also ideally be done with mutual respect and good manners ...
... and this thread is a bad example of this!!!

How do you know that evolution is the delusion? It could be creationism that is the delusion, it's a story that predates almost all scientific knowledge. It's a simple concept that people in past times could understand, given their very limited understanding of the world.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

that there is no known spontaneous system for the generation of CFSI ... and we cannot even imagine how it might occur.

It's called chemistry.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Neanderthal types and all other Human types do indeed have a Common Ancestor ... and we even know his name ...
He was Adam!!!

If you admit that a neanderthal existed you admit the world is older than
6000 years. Another example of you using evidence that actually contradicts
your (specious) nonsense.

sponsoredwalk

/\/ollog wrote: »

If you're saying evolution is a fact then it's fact that since I'm wearing jeans and a hoodie, and no tigers are attacking me at the moment that wearing jeans and a hoodie stops tigers from attacking people.

Oh jesus...

aridion

JC, the answers you gave in response are not plausible. You are not worth the time nor effort to argue with. I have better things to be doing. Anyone with any knowledge of physical geography or geology would laugh at you. And I am going to join them for I don't see any point at all in trying to reply to a delusional fool. Bye.

J C

aridion wrote: »

JC, the answers you gave in response are not plausible. You are not worth the time nor effort to argue with. I have better things to be doing. Anyone with any knowledge of physical geography or geology would laugh at you. And I am going to join them for I don't see any point at all in trying to reply to a delusional fool. Bye.

... so you have no answer!!

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Prof Lewontin confirms the absolute commitment of the Materialists and their 'fellow travellers' who dominate science, to materialistic explanations for all phenomena ... including the 'origins question'. This finds expression in the suppression of Creation Science, Intelligent Design and the 'wall to wall' promotion of just-so evolution and 'millions of years' stories that dominate Evolutionist thinking.

... these are the 'fellow travellers' of Materialism ... who profess faith in God ... but deny His power to Create !!!

Nobody is denying (or hiding) the fact that science presupposes a
materialist perspective of the world. That is the "modus operandi" of
all scientists worthy of the label (which your "barmin" "created kinds"
crap just isn't). You can whinge about this atheist materialist exclusionist
dogmatic, cold, futile, expelled, fired-from-my-job, *insert-word-that-
deliberately-invokes-negative-feelings-or-implies-some-negative-
connotation-here* mandate of science all you want but your nihilistic
& frankly horrendous method of deceit & lying just isn't welcome.
All the whining & moaning in the world won't change that. I
really want to emphasize the nihilistic aspect of what you are arguing
for because it truly is nihilistic in the sense that you are outright rejecting
this materialistic viewpoint that is the reason why you have a pc to
type your crap on in the first place. Why study quantum physics? God did
it! Don't ask, don't tell (and be sure to burn those who do!).

liamw

24: And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25: And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Oh I hate the creepeth Kinds

magicbastarder

i'm going to propose that post #4000 will be declared the winner of this thread, and after that, the thread be locked.

J C

liamw wrote: »

Oh I hate the creepeth Kinds

... best to avoid all those just-so Evolution stories so!!!:):eek:

J C

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm going to propose that post #4000 will be declared the winner of this thread, and after that, the thread be locked.

... feeling lucky today??!!!

... I suppose, if you can't win by presenting evidence and using the scientific method ... a lottery of sorts is the next best thing!!!!!:)

MagicMarker

/\/ollog wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory.
True it's more likely than creationism, but it's still just a theory right now.

lol, it never gets old.

Evolution is a fact, as much of a fact as the Earth rotating around the Sun, and the Moon rotating around the Earth.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Nobody is denying (or hiding) the fact that science presupposes a
materialist perspective of the world. That is the "modus operandi" of
all scientists worthy of the label (which your "barmin" "created kinds"
crap just isn't). You can whinge about this atheist materialist exclusionist
dogmatic, cold, futile, expelled, fired-from-my-job, *insert-word-that-
deliberately-invokes-negative-feelings-or-implies-some-negative-
connotation-here* mandate of science all you want but your nihilistic
& frankly horrendous method of deceit & lying just isn't welcome.
All the whining & moaning in the world won't change that. I
really want to emphasize the nihilistic aspect of what you are arguing
for because it truly is nihilistic in the sense that you are outright rejecting
this materialistic viewpoint that is the reason why you have a pc to
type your crap on in the first place. Why study quantum physics? God did
it! Don't ask, don't tell (and be sure to burn those who do!).

... you really do have 'issues'!!!:)
... I actually love all Materialists ... its just their unfounded ideas about their origins, that I can't accept ... no matter how hard I try!!!:)

J C

MagicMarker wrote: »

lol, it never gets old.

Evolution is a fact, as much of a fact as the Earth rotating around the Sun, and the Moon rotating around the Earth.

... and if you believe that you will believe anything!!!!:)

... and so, boys and girls ... the Evolutionist stuck his fingers in his ears ... and lived happily ever after!!!

The End!!:eek:

J C

koth wrote: »

But with the internet now available to so many scientists, it would that much easier to an audience if anyone was to put forward evidence for creationism being a reality.

... what do you think this is???
... over a hundred Evolutionists between here and the mega thread ... and none of them making an iota of sense ... and little ole me beating the proverbial pants off them on every issue that they raise!!!:eek:

koth wrote: »

so scientists say its problematic, they still say its a separate species, just as is erectus and neanderthalus.

... they're all 'erectus' as well as sapiens!!!!:)
... that's just the way it is baby!!!:D

koth wrote: »

I'm sorry, JC, but I can't make any sense of this. Dogs had diversity, they interbred with other types (I assume you still mean dogs), and this removed diversity in the species? I don't know what you're getting at with this.

It shows how the original diversity in Created Kinds is reduced by inbreeding.

koth wrote: »

How do you know that evolution is the delusion? It could be creationism that is the delusion, it's a story that predates almost all scientific knowledge. It's a simple concept that people in past times could understand, given their very limited understanding of the world.

I know that the spontaneous production of CFSI that is a prerequisite for Materialistic Evolution is mathematically impossible ... so evolution is also just a 'pipe dream'!!!!:)

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It's called chemistry.

How does chemistry increase CFSI??

J C

liamw wrote: »

CSFI is an invented debunked concept created by dumbass creationists. So nothing would 'increase' it becuase it doesn't exist.

OK ... let's put it in plain english ... how could the complex functional specific genetic information found in copious quantities in living cells arise spontaneously ... when non-intelligently directed processes are incapable of producing the specific sequence for just one simple protein biomolecule?

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

OK ... let's put it in plain english ... how could the complex functional specific genetic information found in copious quantities in living cells arise spontaneously ... when non-intelligently directed processes are incapable of producing the specific sequence for just one simple protein biomolecule?

That's a BIG claim and you would have to be omnipresent and omniscient to make it.

So, imagine that earth was irradiated and life on earth was completely wiped out, what would happen?

This:

A bit of heat, a bit of cold, some mixing and perhaps a smidgin of lightening and boom, life begins. It's happening all the time and if there were no plankton eaters such as whales etc, then you would see new varieties of animal with the diversity we observe now, evolving.

There would be no need to disturb God because nature would take care of it just like it did before, as soon as earth had cooled sufficiently.

Mass extinctions create environmental 'space' into which new organisms can evolve.

Which really makes more sense; the theory of evolution or the theory of abracadabra?

I mean really, we don't need another theory: If it ain't broke ...

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

OK ... let's put it in plain english ... how could the complex functional specific genetic information found in copious quantities in living cells arise spontaneously ... when non-intelligently directed processes are incapable of producing the specific sequence for just one simple protein biomolecule?

Oh, it's CFSGI now, is it? That term is constantly evolving, J C. Anyways, somehow you missed the fact that the answer to your question is literally contained inside your own post:

C[omplex ]S[pecified ]F[unctional Genetic ]I[nformation] is an invented debunked concept created by [I would argue, extremely devious huckster] creationists. So nothing would 'increase' it becuase it doesn't exist.

Turtwig

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Oh, it's CFSGI now, is it? That term is constantly evolving, J C. Anyways, somehow you missed the fact that the answer to your question is literally contained inside your own post:

We start off with the word : Specifc

Now, notice how there are over 10^123 possible single words that can be added to this. However, only the word "genetics" fits our purpose for arguing creationism and is therefore the only reusable word we can add on to the end of "specific" to make it seem a viable creationist term. All other words variants simply cannot be reproduced for practical reasons.

We now have.
"Specific Genetics"

Now, once again there are over 10^123 possibilities of single words that can be added to this. It would appear though that the only binding term that appears to be understood and reproduced by others is "Functional Specific Genetics". This is again the majority variant chosen by the people.

We now have.

"Functional Specific Genetics."

Again 10^123 possibles of single words can be added to this. However, in time we noticed a new trendy word "Information" being used and reproduced everywhere by people. Clearly this term is beneficial to our understanding of creationism. However, we also observed that the "Genetics" component of our phrase has had a negative mutation from a plural word to a singular one.A tragic loss of function. Yet our new phrase is still reproduced by the masses.:D

We now have.

"Functional Specific Genetic Information"

We note once again that there are over 10^123 possible single word combinations that can be added to our phrase. After several generations and different formatting styles later it becomes increasingly clear that the complexity of creationist functional specific genetics information is intimidating the average human. In acknowledgement of its complexity, educators have tacked the word "Complex" onto it. This is the trait that is majority selected for and over the generations hip adolescents popularise the term as "CFGSI" which colloquially means "bullsh1t.

Through the non random selection of random changes we get from a single word to a complex phrase.:)

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

How does chemistry increase CFSI??

Okay, first off CFSI doesn't actually exist. This is just a make-uppey claim
by you liars to sound important. But if we play your game & concede that
it is saying anything about the complexity of life (which, in it's vagueness
it is designed to do) it just makes sense to tell you what I've already told
you at least 5 times now.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I went through this in detail with you & explained to you that Complex
Functional Specified Information is just Information that is Functional
which, as it becomes more Complex, becomes highly Specified and can
be explained by evolution which could have been initiated along the lines
laid out in the abiogenesis video. I don't know why your permutation of
those words is a justification for religion when the evidence supports my
permutation.

(Information → Functional → Complex → Specified ).

Because the bible says so I suppose :rolleyes:

So your best evidence is a pure trash argument, nice to know

Oh, and this earlier post has more on this topic. It also
has me trying to get you to defend the many specious claims of yours,
when I was still keeping track of the nonsense you were claiming.

So no doubt you will ignore what I'm saying but the point is that,
through chemistry (remember? Thermodynamics? 'lipid' formation,
selection pressure caused due to resources? All explained in the
abiogenesis video?) these things could have happened.


What you're doing here is asking us to accept your BS CFSI definition,
a joke-definition, & asking us to give you evidence why a heavily
biased concept that actually doesn't exist, is the way it is now through
evolutionisisisisisisisisisimists dark, dank, cold, expelled theory as
opposed to the warm, non-judgemental, judgemental, happy, vengeful,
all powerful, can't-lift-a-rock-so-big-that-he-can't-lift-it-(or-maybe-he-
can?),omnipotent, can't-keep-the-snakes-out god.

This CFSI doesn't actually exist (like some other things)...

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

That's a BIG claim and you would have to be omnipresent and omniscient to make it.

So, imagine that earth was irradiated and life on earth was completely wiped out, what would happen?

This:

A bit of heat, a bit of cold, some mixing and perhaps a smidgin of lightening and boom, life begins. It's happening all the time and if there were no plankton eaters such as whales etc, then you would see new varieties of animal with the diversity we observe now, evolving.

... so there you have it ... 'evolution' in all it's naked irrationality!!!
... still proposing that spontaneous generation occurs over a century after it has been proven to be an impossibility!!!

... and according to your 'logic' we should blame the whales for single-handedly stopping evolution in its tracks!!!!

himnextdoor wrote: »

There would be no need to disturb God because nature would take care of it just like it did before, as soon as earth had cooled sufficiently.

Mass extinctions create environmental 'space' into which new organisms can evolve.

Which really makes more sense; the theory of evolution or the theory of abracadabra?

The theory of evolution is the theory of abracadabra ... it's never been observed, its a mathematical impossibility ... but its believed to somehow occur!!!

himnextdoor wrote: »

I mean really, we don't need another theory: If it ain't broke ...

The theory of evolution isn't even scientifically valid ... so it is not only broken ... its impossible to fix!!!!!

This is what Prof Richard Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University, had to say about the scientific validity of Darwinism and NS (and he is an evolutionist!!):-

"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything. “Testing the Theory of Natural Selection” Nature March 24, 1972 p.181

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... what do you think this is???
... over a hundred Evolutionists between here and the mega thread ... and none of them making an iota of sense ... and little ole me beating the proverbial pants off them on every issue that they raise!!!:eek:

It must wonderful inside that head of yours:P

... they're all 'erectus' as well as sapiens!!!!:)
... that's just the way it is baby!!!:D

So all of the homo genus were erectus, neanderthalus and sapien? I'm really beginning to wonder if you ever were an evolutionist?

It shows how the original diversity in Created Kinds is reduced by inbreeding.

Explain the different races of homo sapien then, if we all came from the same species and inbreeding reduces diversity? How did the mutation occur to create the different races?

I know that the spontaneous production of CFSI that is a prerequisite for Materialistic Evolution is mathematically impossible ... so evolution is also just a 'pipe dream'!!!!:)

Please try and restrain yourself from using smoke and mirrors. You haven't posted anything to prove your global conspiracy of suppression of evidence or that creationism has evidence to back it up.

robindch

koth wrote: »

It must wonderful inside that head of yours

Somehow, I doubt it

Delirium

robindch wrote: »

Somehow, I doubt it

:pac:

I meant for JC, not so much for the rest of us;)

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... so there you have it ... 'evolution' in all it's naked irrationality!!!
... still proposing that spontaneous generation occurs over a century after it has been proven to be an impossibility!!!

Once upon a time, irrational numbers were a 'mathematical impossibility'. And a century ago lots of things were a 'mathematical impossibility' that today we take for granted. It's amazing what you can achieve once you drop the 'mathematical impossibility' approach.

J C wrote: »

... and according to your 'logic' we should blame the whales for single-handedly stopping evolution in its tracks!!!!

Ah! I see your problem; 'such as whales etc' does not translate to 'whales single-handedly'.

Predation suppresses the development of new organisms. Less predation equals more opportunity.

J C wrote: »

The theory of evolution is the theory of abracadabra ... it's never been observed, its a mathematical impossibility ... but its believed to somehow occur!!!

There you go again saying what is impossible. If you do not 'know' all the possibilities then you cannot 'know' what is impossible.

And 'believe' in this context means 'think' as opposed to 'blind faith'.

J C wrote: »

The theory of evolution isn't even scientifically valid ... so it is not only broken ... its impossible to fix!!!!!

In some ways I agree with you; some (perhaps a lot) of science does resemble faith. I'm thinking of the global warming debate as an example. This is because like religion makes religious administrators rich, research grants makes some proponents of science, particularly where the 'science' is government sponsored, rich.

I would just be cautious about throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

OK ... let's put it in plain english ... how could the complex functional specific genetic information found in copious quantities in living cells arise spontaneously ... when non-intelligently directed processes are incapable of producing the specific sequence for just one simple protein biomolecule?

No one in the history of finding things has ever found any 'CFSI' anywhere or in anything.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... Eve was created by doubling up Adams haploid compliment of chromosomes including a doubling up of his x chromosome.

Wait a minute; Eve was Adam's twin sister?

No wonder that Cain was a bit of a nutter then.

Nollog

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I understood perfectly well what you meant, but wasn't bothered responding to you because of (a), (b) and (c) above.

Your assertion that "evolution is still just a theory" is neither new nor correct. Evolution happens. It's been shown to happen, and it's happening right now. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains how and why it happens, but the fact that it's happening is not even remotely in question. Theory here means framework for understanding, like legal theory or music theory or linguistic theory; it does not mean proposed explanation.

If you're not aware that evolution is a fact, then you need to read up more on science. If you're not aware of the meaning of the word theory, then you need a good dictionary too.

The suggestion that that somehow equates to superstitious belief (I wear a hoodie and jeans and there are no tigers, therefore my hoodie and jeans keep tigers away) is so absurd that it doesn't warrant a serious response, and that is why I didn't give it one.

Never sed it woz new, babe.
I simply said it's still a theory.
Genes mutate all the time, that doesn't mean it's evolving.
Cancer isn't evolution, it's a mutation.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Oh jesus...

MagicMarker wrote: »

lol, it never gets old.

Evolution is a fact, as much of a fact as the Earth rotating around the Sun, and the Moon rotating around the Earth.

You're mis-interpreting posts again.
To cut this short, what I meant is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlAjppttkRc#at=405
Evolution goes beyond mutations, evolution theorises that mutations that are helpful in some way or are attractive, stick around.
To prove that takes time, more than 150 years.
Personally, I think it's fact. It shouldn't be taken for granted just because a lot of people think it is that it shouldn't be proven more so that it's beyond any doubt that it's what happens.