"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

There you go lying about me again ... the point I made was that Evolutionists have used the Crocoduck as a 'strawman' to scoff at real objections to Evolution by Creation Scientists.

It is not a Strawman, because it was an argument put forward by two prominent Creationists against Evolution. It, along with every other Creationist argument demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to what Evolution is, and what processes dictate it. You included.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
You should try posting some real science that supports M2M Evolution ... rather than just talking about doing so.

Sarky
1. There is no such evidence.

2. That's because m2m evolution is a bullsh*t term you invented in a feeble attempt to look clever.

I agree that there is no evidence that unicellular microbes evolved into anything ... except more microbes.
... so I guess that just leaves Creation as the origins reason for mankind.:)

Thanks.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I agree that there is no evidence that unicellular microbes evolved into anything ... except more microbes.
... so I guess that just leaves Creation as the origins reason for mankind.:)

Thanks.

Or maybe it was, you know, that thing that actually happened. What's it called again?

Evolution

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Or maybe it was, you know, that thing that actually happened. What's it called again?

Direct Divine Creation.

Sarky

That's a stupid alternative. Got anything else?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Direct Divine Creation.

No, that's that thing which has absolutely zero evidence in it's favour.

Doctor Jimbob

Sarky wrote: »

That's a stupid alternative. Got anything else?

I personally have this theory we came into existance in the middle of a giant baked potato. My evidence is ALGR, a nonsensical thing I made up which nonsensical science I made up shows can be found in the hair follicles of all living organisms. The first human was called brian, and he reproduced asexually. ALGR also proves this, just because.

Sarky

Eh, it's about as solid as cfsi I guess.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

I agree that there is no evidence that unicellular microbes evolved into anything ... except more microbes.
... so I guess that just leaves Creation as the origins reason for mankind.:)

Thanks.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I personally have this theory we came into existance in the middle of a giant baked potato. My evidence is ALGR, a nonsensical thing I made up which nonsensical science I made up shows can be found in the hair follicles of all living organisms. The first human was called brian, and he reproduced asexually. ALGR also proves this, just because.

... yet another one ... of the many variants on the 'just so' Evolution Story!!!:);)

J C

koth wrote: »

thanks for the interesting article about moths and evolution. Not sure why you poted something that doesn't help your argument though.

It's very interesting allright ... but grey moths that evolve into black moths ... and back to grey moths again ... is the 'kiss of death' for the evolution of anything into Mankind (other than Mankind).:)

Sarky

No it isn't, and claiming otherwise is very stupid. We've been over this. You're lying again.

sephir0th

Evolution can't explain this!!! :P:):rolleyes:;):cool::pac::(:)

J C

Sarky wrote: »

No it isn't, and claiming otherwise is very stupid. We've been over this. You're lying again.

Stop lying about me.

It is a fact that the grey moths evolved into black ones ... and then back to grey ones again, as the environment changed.

So it just went around in one big circle ... and it has ended up where it started.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Stop lying about me.

It is a fact that the grey moths evolved into black ones ... and then back to grey ones as the environment changed.

So it just went around in one big circle ... and it has ended up where it started.

Whether it's a fact or not is entirely irrelevant, it doesn't prove what you're claiming it does.

Sarky

And you're trying to argue that adding and then removing a selective pressure results in evolution being false. That is a disgraceful dishonest and idiotic thing to claim, J C. We've gone over why before, si you can't claim ignorance. It is pure dishonesty on your part.

Yore either ignorant of evolution or lying about it. Either way, you're wrong. Be honest, and admit it, or continue to make a fool of yourself with stupid arguments and lies. I suspect you'll choose the latter. By all means J C, prove me wrong.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Whether it's a fact or not is entirely irrelevant, it doesn't prove what you're claiming it does.

Which part of going around in a circle are you arguing with?

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

No it isn't, and claiming otherwise is very stupid. We've been over this. You're lying again.

J C wrote: »

Stop lying about me.

Kids - yizzr both on the brink of starting the "pants-on-fire" thing.

Can you please both drop the accusations of lying towards each other, and other posters in A+A, and address some arguments, plz?

kthxl8r.

Sarky

It's not going around in a circle. It's more like going up a hill and then down on a long journey.

Claiming otherwise is displaying a profound ignorance of evolution.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Which part of going around in a circle are you arguing with?

I'm not arguing with it. Don't misrepresent what I said.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

It's not going around in a circle. It's more like going up a hill and then down on a long journey.

... and ending up exactly where you have started!!!

Sarky wrote: »

Claiming otherwise is displaying a profound ignorance of evolution.

Its not a claim that the grey-black-grey moth thing is circular ... its a fact.

Claiming otherwise is just wishful thinking ... on your part.;)

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

a profound ignorance of evolution.

Creationism is a profound ignorance of just about everything and a willful disdain towards informing oneself.

Nonetheless everybody - please drop the accusations of lying towards fellow-posters.

thanks.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Creationism is a profound ignorance of just about everything and a willful disdain towards informing oneself.

Robin ... generalistions about entire groups of people are generally false.
In the case of Creationism it is also false ... most Creationists that I know are inquisitive, highly educated and intelligent people ... just like most Evolutionists that I know.
I have informed myself about many things ... and I probably share your views on many issues. We certainly differ on the 'origins' issue ... but this shouldn't mean that we all can't be friends ... or have mutual respect for each other.

That's what good liberal multi-cultural community relations are built on ... and this is particularly important in our increasingly pluralist society.

Delirium

but creationists obviously park their inquisitiveness when it comes how man came to be. they're working to corrupt science in an effort to make their religious beliefs seem more credible.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

I have informed myself about many things ...

Curiously, none of those things include Evolution.

J C wrote: »

but this shouldn't mean that we all can't be friends ... or have mutual respect for each other.

Respect is earned, not given. You have done nothing to earn people's respect in this thread. You routinely take people's post out of context, and have been consistently dishonest. You have not attempted at any point to have an honest debate.

I don't respect you, nor do I like you. I tolerate you, because I find your ignorance and world view entertaining. I suspect that's the case for most people.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Robin ... generalistions about entire groups of people are generally false.
In the case of Creationism it is also false ... most Creationists that I know are inquisitive, highly educated and intelligent people ... just like most Evolutionists that I know.
I have informed myself about many things ... and I probably share your views on many issues. We certainly differ on the 'origins' issue ... but this shouldn't mean that we all can't be friends ... or have mutual respect for each other.

That's what good liberal multi-cultural community relations are built on ... and this is particularly important in our increasingly pluralist society.

You've finally said something I can actually agree with. Most creationists are intelligent people. Unfortunately they turn off that intelligence when it comes to the origin of man.
People on here not having respect for you has nothing to do with you being a creationist either.

J C

koth wrote: »

but creationists obviously park their inquisitiveness when it comes how man came to be. they're working to corrupt science in an effort to make their religious beliefs seem more credible.

We remain inquisitive about all aspects of both our faith and our science - and we're not out to corrupt anything, including science.
When it comes to science ... we follow the evidence where it leads ... and when it comes to faith we like to have objective support for it.
... something like what Evolutionsts also want to do ... but find very difficult to achieve, due to the lack of evidence and logic for 'big picture' evolution.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

We remain inquisitive about all aspects of both our faith and our science - and we're not out to corrupt anything, including science.
When it comes to science ... we follow the evidence where it leads ... and when it comes to faith we like to have objective support for it.
... something like what Evolutionsts also want to do ... but find very difficult to achieve, due to the lack of evidence and logic for 'big picture' evolution.

but creationists dismiss scientific findings because they don't complement the bible stories. the evidence points to evolution, so why do they refuse to follow the evidence?

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Curiously, none of those things include Evolution.

Can I remind you for the nth time that I once was an Evolutionist ... and I continue to study it.
... and if I wasn't up to speed on it ... you guys would be able to show where I am wrong about Evolution ... instead of just talking about it.

dlofnep wrote: »

Respect is earned, not given. You have done nothing to earn people's respect in this thread. You routinely take people's post out of context, and have been consistently dishonest. You have not attempted at any point to have an honest debate.

What you mean is that one Creationist is continually 'beating the pants' off hundreds of Evolutionists ... and because you believe Evolution to be true, come what may ... ye then think I'm being dishonest ... when all I'm doing is telling the truth ... a truth that ye simply cannot accept.

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't respect you, nor do I like you. I tolerate you, because I find your ignorance and world view entertaining. I suspect that's the case for most people.

I respect you ... I tolerate you ... and I love you (in a purely Christian way) as the amazing special child of God that you are ... even if you don't realise it yet.:)

sephir0th

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Michael Behe wrote:

Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well

^ Behe cross examination in the official court transcript, pp.38–39.