"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Teg Veece

J C wrote: »

There once were over 100 so-called vestigial organs that were supposed to be 'left-overs' from Evolution with no function - but practically all are now know to have useful functions.
The Appendix is now thought to have a role in protecting and producing 'good' gut bacteria ... and this role is especially important in vulnerable babies and young children
http://www.physorg.com/news110864235.html

... and here is further news of 'evolution' going around in circles ... and ending up back where it started ... which isn't what is required to support the idea the Microbes evolved into Man.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-evolutionary.html

But these vestigial structures are everywhere in nature:
Why do whales have feet bones?
Why do blind mole rats have eyes?
Why do people get goose bumps?
These structures don't make any sense from a creationist's viewpoint.

Also, that second link that you posted supports evolution. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're trying to argue that it shows evolution is circular but I think it's important to point out that it's not the evolution that is circular but rather its the environment that is (grey trees -> black tree -> grey trees). Evolution is enabling the moths adapt to the change.

Doctor Jimbob

Teg Veece wrote: »

But these vestigial structures are everywhere in nature:
Why do whales have feet bones?
Why do blind mole rats have eyes?
Why do people get goose bumps?
These structures don't make any sense from a creationist's viewpoint.

Also, that second link that you posted supports evolution. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're trying to argue that it shows evolution is circular but I think it's important to point out that it's not the evolution that is circular but rather its the environment that is (grey trees -> black tree -> grey trees). Evolution is enabling the moths adapt to the change.

I'm pretty sure he claimed the goose bumps thing supports creationism.

stoneill

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!

dead one

dlofnep wrote: »

Do I have to repeat myself? We've spent 500 pages explaining a vast array of topics. You've obviously ignored it, because your Quran does not permit you to studying reality.

What is reality, Is your wishful thinking reality. Can disorder produce order.
my actions or posts don't represent Quran/Bible/Vedas or any religious book. I sometime defend these books(Quran/Bible) when you take leap of dishonesty... Right!!!

dlofnep wrote: »

We've spent 500 pages explaining a vast array of topics

Pages full of ignorance, arrogance and pride. Wasted 500 pages, trapped in consequences of time.. Wasted time, wasted pages, wasted threads, wasted IDs, wasted forams. May be You'll meet me soon. The dead one lying in old graveyard, the graveyard which history has erased.

robindch

dead one wrote: »

Pages full of ignorance [...]

Well, ask a question -- I'm sure that somebody in the forum can help you out!

dead one wrote: »

[...] arrogance and pride.

That's something you'd best deal with on your own.

Sarky

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he claimed the goose bumps thing supports creationism.

In the past year he's claimed an awful lot of things support creationism.

As far as I remember, all of them did the exact opposite.

Sarky

Whoops, I noticed a typo in my posts about antibiotics. I said antigens when I meant to say antibodies. Antigens are the nasty things that cause your immune system to produce antibodies. Sorry for the mix-up. Busy days will do that.

There was one thing from J C's sneaky edited post that was particularly irksome (aside from his annoying habit of placing his responses in the quote so they can't be easily quoted themselves, almost as if he doesn't WANT to be challenged):

Sarky wrote:

All your body's own work. It is able to recognise things that shouldn't be there and come up with a highly effective defence. It evolves to adapt to new infections. Which creates a selective pressure for bacteria and viruses different enough to slip past the new defences. Which in turn creates selective pressure on the body. A never-ending arms race of sorts. There's no malice, just cause and effect.

J C wrote:

An automatic system that's intelligently designed ... to fight moving and ever changing targets ... that would leave the 'Star Wars' defense systems 'at the starting blocks '... and all of it operating at microscopic levels of resolution.

This, again, is wrong. Very much so.

There's nothing intelligent about the human immune system. In fact, the antibody system alone is very sloppy. Antibody producing cells actually release a load of randomly varied antibodies, most of which are ineffective against the antigen being defended against. Through a natural selection process, the most effective antibodies become the most populous, and they end up getting produced more quickly. They're not even remotely intelligently designed. You won't find an antibody serum exclusively composed of one type, there are always other variants in there that are not quite as effective. Just like the rest of evolution, a bunch of random stuff comes together and the bits that work together most effectively are kept.

This is still undergrad microbiology stuff, how do you not know this?

dlofnep

Ah, the human immune system.. One of the few species that can't self synthesize vitamin C. (Hence scurvy).

Sarky

I guess God thinks we'd look better without teeth. Or maybe He wants us to have nerve damage, mood swings and shorter life spans.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Let me help:

Your appendix burst because Satan, Lord of the Dark Arts, Bearer of The Staff of Evil, Source of Everything Icky and Horrible, corrupted the DNA that flowed from Adam and Eve. This corruption caused a the problems with your appendix.

GodSatan did it.

Silly Robin. Everyone knows his free will made it burst.

MrP

Genghiz Cohen

Mysterious ways...

Sarky

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Mysterious ways...

Surprisingly indistinguishable from a combination of random and deterministic natural processes, really.

Galvasean

dead one wrote: »

Wasted time, wasted pages, wasted threads, wasted IDs, wasted forams.

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

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

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.

One very obvious way is you seem to think negative changes are proof against evolution. Care to explain that one?

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.

Are you coming on to me?

Galvasean

Hundreds of evolutionists?

After all this time J C still can't count

dead one

robindch wrote: »

Well, ask a question -- I'm sure that somebody in the forum can help you out!That's something you'd best deal with on your own.

Hi robindch, I know all your answers, See there is no suspense.... You know, you can't watch a movie again and again. That's the reason and logic which you believe

Sonics2k

dead one wrote: »

Hi robindch, I know all your answers, See there is no suspense.... You know, you can't watch a movie again and again. That's the reason and logic which you believe

Nonsense, I've been watching Star Wars for a good 20 years now, and it's always good.

RichieC

J C wrote: »

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.


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.

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.:)

Sonics2k

Oh Richie you evil man!
:pac:

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

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

OK ... lets get to the root of this issue
Quote PP 34 (15-25) & PP 35 (1-4)
Q And the definition by the National Academy, as I think you testified is, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses, correct?
A Yes.
Q Using that definition, you agree intelligent design is not a scientific theory, correct?
A Well, as I think I made clear in my deposition, I m a little bit of two minds of that. I, in fact, do think that intelligent design is well substantiated for some of the reasons that I made clear during my testimony. But again, when you say well substantiated, sometimes a person would think that there must be a large number of people then who would agree with that. And so, frankly, I, like I said, I am of two minds of that.
....

PP 36 (7-17)
... Q And I asked you, "What about this definition; what is it in this definition that ID can t satisfy to be called a scientific theory under these terms?" And you answer, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there s not -- I can t point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."
A Yes.
... so the nub of the issue is that ID isn't accepted as substantiated by an external scientific community (beyond the ID scientific community).

... could I gently point out that Materialistic Abiogenesis-Evolution also isn't accepted as substantiated by an external scientific community (beyond the Evolutionist scientific community).

wrote:

Originally Posted by Michael Behe
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

.

Dr Behe subsequently made it clear that he was talking about the Archaic scientific meaning of Astrolgy ... which equates to Astronomy

Quote: PP 40 (13-24)
Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that s what it says there?
A Yes.

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."That s the scientific theory of astrology?

A That s what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.


... and there are also other theories, like Aboigenesis-Evolution ... which points to some physical phenomena like fossils ... but then draws illogical conclusions from them.
... so on this basis, Abiogenesis-Evolution has less scientific validity to Astrology ... in the archaic sense of this term (which was Medieval Astronomy).:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

OK ... lets get to the root of this issue
Quote PP 34 (15-25) & PP 35 (1-4)
Q And the definition by the National Academy, as I think you testified is, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses, correct?
A Yes.
Q Using that definition, you agree intelligent design is not a scientific theory, correct?
A Well, as I think I made clear in my deposition, I m a little bit of two minds of that. I, in fact, do think that intelligent design is well substantiated for some of the reasons that I made clear during my testimony. But again, when you say well substantiated, sometimes a person would think that there must be a large number of people then who would agree with that. And so, frankly, I, like I said, I am of two minds of that.
....

PP 36 (7-17)
... Q And I asked you, "What about this definition; what is it in this definition that ID can t satisfy to be called a scientific theory under these terms?" And you answer, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there s not -- I can t point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."
A Yes.
... so the nub of the issue is that ID isn't accepted as substantiated by an external scientific community (beyond the ID scientific community).

... could I gently point out that Materialistic Abiogenesis-Evolution also isn't accepted as substantiated by an external scientific community (beyond the Evolutionist scientific community).

.

Dr Behe subsequently made it clear that he was talking about the Archaic scientific meaning of Astrolgy ... which was Astronomy

Quote: PP 40 (13-24)
Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that s what it says there?
A Yes.

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."That s the scientific theory of astrology?

A That s what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.


... and there are also other theories, including Aboigenesis-Evolution ... which points to some physical phenomena like fossils ... but then draws illogical conclusions from them.
... so on this basis, Abiogenesis-Evolution has less scientific validity to Astrology ... in the archaic sense of this term.:)

Who said his posts got more batshit crazy? Because I take back what I said. You were right.
Your comparision between the ID and 'Evolutionist' scientific communities is nonsense, btw.

And yes, clearly evolution is the illogical conclusion to come to when looking at fossils. And a huge flood causing them all is the obvious alternative. I mean the former only has thousands of pieces of observable science to back it up, whle the latter has a 5 thousand year old book written by an ancient desert civilisation. It's only common sense to believe it!

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Your comparision between the ID and 'Evolutionist' scientific communities is nonsense, btw.

They're both made up of eminent conventionally qualified scientists ... so they are comparable ... in a qualitative sense.
..

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And yes, clearly evolution is the illogical conclusion to come to when looking at fossils. And a huge flood causing them all is the obvious alternative. I mean the former only has thousands of pieces of observable science to back it up, whle the latter has a 5 thousand year old book written by an ancient desert civilisation. It's only common sense to believe it!

The Creationist sees billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth ... and concludes that they were the result of a World-wide mass-extinction Event cause by an enormous tectonic water-based disaster ... and the Evolutionist starts talking excitedly about microbes spontaneously morphing into Man through a series of random mistakes!!!!

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

They're both made up of eminent conventionally qualified scientists ... so they are comparable ... in a qualitative sense.
..

No they aren't.

The Creationist sees billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth ... and concludes that they were the result of a World-wide mass-extinction Event cause by an enormous tectonic water-based disaster ... and the Evolutionist starts talking excitedly about microbes spontaneously morphing into Man through a series of random mistakes!!!!

:rolleyes:

J C

Sarky wrote: »

There's nothing intelligent about the human immune system. In fact, the antibody system alone is very sloppy. Antibody producing cells actually release a load of randomly varied antibodies, most of which are ineffective against the antigen being defended against. Through a natural selection process, the most effective antibodies become the most populous, and they end up getting produced more quickly. They're not even remotely intelligently designed. You won't find an antibody serum exclusively composed of one type, there are always other variants in there that are not quite as effective.

Every component contains CFSI ... and thus is intelligently designed.
... and the system works with excellent efficiency to protect your body against a vast array of potential threats that would rapidly kill you otherwise.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No they aren't.

Yes they are.

J C

RichieC wrote: »

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe” - Carl Sagan

.... and this also applies to the belief in Abiogenesis-Evolution.:)

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

... so the nub of the issue is that ID isn't accepted as substantiated by an external scientific community (beyond the ID scientific community).

... could I gently point out that Materialistic Abiogenesis-Evolution also isn't accepted as substantiated by an external scientific community (beyond the Evolutionist scientific community).

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

I have to say that your cartoon is quite tasteless ... especially in view of the high rates of suicide currently in this country.

I would ask you to reconsider using it.

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

I have to say that your cartoon is quite tasteless ... especially in view of the high rates of suicide currently in this country.

I would ask you to edit it off.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

I have to say that your cartoon is quite tasteless ... especially in view of the high rates of suicide currently in this country.

I would ask you to edit it off.

I would ask you to go to the shop and buy a sense of humour, and accept it in the light-hearted context it was intended.