"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

robindch wrote: »

Here is your post:
Originally Posted by J C
Prof Dawkins [...] has admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution [...]
That is (a) a statement, not a question and (b) a blatant misrepresentation of Dawkins' views.

On its own what you quoted might support your contention of misrepresentation ... but please look at my full quote ... (my comments on my quote are in blue)
FULL Originally Posted by J C :-
Prof Dawkins is somewhat agnostic about the existence of God
True he has said this himself... and he has admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution (or if he has ... he hasn't written it in his books)
the first part is an opinion based on the self-admmitted fact in the second part
... so his Agnosticism seems to be growing!!!
another opinion based on a logical deduction from the previous sentences

... and I admire him for that.
... and I do greatly admire Prof Dawkins as an amazing Human Being ... and an excellent intellectual. I admire and acknowledge greatness in people with whom I disagree. You guys recognise nothing good about Creationists ... while I can rise above my opinions and my biases to recognise and celebrate excellence in people who are not Creationists ... but you guys seem to be incapable of such objectivity when it comes to Creation Science.

robindch wrote: »

I'm assuming here, btw, that your deliberately-degrading phrase "W2M Evolution" is creationist-shorthand for what trained, qualified biologists refer to as "the evolutionary history of mankind".

Why do you think that the phrase 'Worm to Man Evolution' is degrading ... if its true ... we all better 'build a bridge and get over it' ... and if its not true ... then we better re-write a few books on Evolution.
I know a few top class Creation Scientists who could help.:)

Delirium

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRDsNjhZn34

shizz

J C wrote: »

[/COLOR]... and he has admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence for W2M Evolution (or if he has ... he hasn't written it in his books)

Hold on. You do realise that is contradictory anyway. How can you say that he has admitted that he doesn't have any specific evidence, then only to say that "or if he has ... he hasn't written it in his books".

If he so admitted that he doesn't have any evidence, meaning that he himself said he has no evidence and you apparently were a witness to that, then why would it be OK to say that if he has evidence he hasn't put it in his books when you said that he said he hasn't any evidence.... :pac:

J C

Doc_Savage wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6K43WSZrmI&feature=player_detailpage#t=2116s

sorry to butt in lads but listen to the first few words out of Dembski's mouth here...

oh the irony.....

... in many more ways than one!!!:)

cowzerp

J C wrote: »

Why do you think that the phrase 'Worm to Man Evolution' is degrading ...

it is misleading, no 1 is claiming worms turnd into man-if its correct the changes would have been bit by bit and not 1 day a worm and next a man, so man would have come from a similar type being that may or may not have come initially from something very different.

Galvasean

I finally get it. J C is using a strange version of 'the PUA game' to confuse us all into giving him gobbies.

Well that's my reading of teh last few pages.

Sarky

Called it.

Galvasean

Oh hey, I just won the game.

J C

koth wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRDsNjhZn34

I particulary liked the references to the Ray Comfort edition of The Origins of Species!!!
... can we now look forward to the Prof Dawkins edition of the Bible????:D
... and is it my imagination ... or did Prof Dawkins look a bit uncomfortable ... even slightly Agnostic ... when discussing the unchanged Horseshoe Crab ... and the other creatures that haven't changed one iota over supposed millions of years ... while Cichlid Fish ... have produced many varieties of ... eh ... em .... Cichlid Fish ... over thousands of years in Lake Victoria.:)

robindch

J C wrote: »

On its own what you quoted might support your contention of misrepresentation ... but please look at my full quote[...]

I have looked at your full quote and made sure to quote its sense accurately. The full quote is no different -- simple misrepresentation.

J C wrote: »

Why do you think that the phrase 'Worm to Man Evolution' is degrading [...]

I don't mind the phrase, since it's mostly accurate and I'm not ashamed of my ancestors.

What I object to is the use of the phrase in the same way that somebody like Mr Ham might do so -- to polarize a debate by using deliberately disjunctive terminology. Prose which is specifically designed to deceive and disorient people who are less familiar with the terrain, and specifically, to win them over not by appealing to their better, rational nature, but by implicitly declaring the debate an emotional one and thereby, relying on fairly cheap emotional manipulation to achieve one's ideological ends.

It's a fundamentally dishonest way of debating, but, that said, open dishonesty never seemed to cause creationist movement much obvious ethical discomfort.

dlofnep

J C - Do you think that certain species undergoing little change, rather than large change over time contradicts the theory of evolution? Because that's the impression you routinely give. I've already discussed this with you a number of times in great detail, and cited the Crocodilia family as a perfect example of a group that has only seen marginal change over time and explained very clearly why it was the case.

You continue to demonstrate ignorance with regard to Evolution.

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

and the other creatures that haven't changed one iota for millions of years ... while Cichlid Fish ... have produced many varieties of ... eh ... em .... Cichlid Fish ... over thousands of years in Lake Victoria.:)

Why should it change if it's well suited to the environment? The selection pressure isn't there.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I have looked at your full quote and made sure to quote its sense accurately. The full quote is no different -- simple misrepresentation.

Every contrary opinion expressed about the writings of every person ... is 'misrepresentation' ... if we use your definition!!

robindch wrote: »

I don't mind the phrase, since it's mostly accurate and I'm not ashamed of my ancestors.

... so you're not ashamed of your supposed worm ancestry ... but I bet that you are not proud of it either ... and it's something that you have to believe anyway!!:)

robindch wrote: »

What I object to is the use of the phrase in the same way that somebody like Mr Ham might do so -- to polarize a debate by using deliberately disjunctive terminology. Prose which is specifically designed to deceive and disorient people who are less familiar with the terrain, and specifically, to win them over not by appealing to their better, rational nature, but by implicitly declaring the debate an emotional one and thereby, relying on fairly cheap emotional manipulation to achieve one's ideological ends.

... W2M Evolution distinguishes between 'evolution' within Kinds (which happens) ... and the 'big picture' stuff such as from worms to man (that has no supporting evidence).

robindch wrote: »

It's a fundamentally dishonest way of debating, but, that said, open dishonesty never seemed to cause creationist movement much obvious ethical discomfort.

You're always talking about dishonesty and lies ... are you sure that you're not projecting your own feelings of inadequacy onto other people???
I can say that Creationists are honest able people ... and I must say that Evolutionists are generally the same ... although the ones on this thread seem to lie about me lying ... a lot!!!!

J C

sephir0th wrote: »

Why should it change if it's well suited to the environment? The selection pressure isn't there.

The very same 'selection pressures' that supposedly evolved men from mice ... while simultaneously leaving mice looking roughly the same!!!
Sounds like special pleading to me.:eek:

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

The very same 'selection pressures' that supposedly evolved men from mice ... while simultaneously leaving mice looking roughly the same!!!
Sounds like special pleading to me.:eek:

Yup, as expected - you don't understand the theory of evolution.

J C

Beruthiel wrote: »

I am also a lay person. But, for the fun of it, I had my genome sequenced.
From looking at my genes, they were able to tell me things about myself that were true.
They were able to trace my last known ancestor back to Jordan over 6,500 years ago.

Funny thing ... my last known ancestor was also from the greater Jordanian region ... just about that time ... and his name was Noah!!!!:)

We're cousins!!!!:)

J C

dead one wrote: »

You curse creationism and creationists curse you and i curse both of you. God Damned Gobbies . I don't want waste my life in this sh!tty business.

Creationists bless their opponents.
No need to curse anybody ... and I certainly wouldn't curse a Divinely Protected Christian ... as the curse will return onto the curser.

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

The very same 'selection pressures' that supposedly evolved men from mice ... while simultaneously leaving mice looking roughly the same!!!
Sounds like special pleading to me.:eek:

1. There is more than one environment on this planet.

2. Humans didn't evolve from the modern mouse.

3. You believe all your childish 'Cat Kinds' evolved in ~500 years?

jayteecork

This thread is almost a "sticky" on the latest posts in the boards.ie homepage

J C

koth wrote:

Here's a picture of a small protein-protein interaction network for the human genome. It includes 1,700 proteins. Pretty complicated, isn't it? Note how many grey points denote proteins that are known to do something, but we don't know exactly what yet.

joseph brand wrote: »

That picture made my head sore. It's just TOO much.

Fascinating post, even though it caused my brain to curl into the fetal position and suck it's thumb.

... and of course you still believe that such complex and highly specific inter-actions all occurred by accident ... and without any intelligent input!!!

robindch

J C wrote: »

Every contrary opinion expressed about the writings of every person ... is 'misrepresentation' ... if we use your definition!!

Uh, no. Saying that somebody said one thing, when they actually said something else is misrepresentation. Ninth commandment if I remember correctly -- though shalt not bear false witness.

J C wrote: »

... so you're not ashamed of your supposed worm ancestry ... but I bet that you are not proud of it either

Not proud? Why would I be proud of something I had nothing to do with? I do think it's amazingly cool though -- an unbroken genetic inheritance for hundreds of millions of years -- how cool is that?

J C wrote: »

You're always talking about dishonesty and lies

Not always. Only in connection with creationism and how the leaders of the creationist movement behave.

Sarky

All this bollocks from J C instead of just one little post admitting he was being dishonest. He didn't even have to apologise.

dead one

J C wrote: »

Creationists bless their opponents.
No need to curse anybody ... and I certainly wouldn't curse a Divinely Protected Christian ... as the curse will return onto the curser.

thanks JC, This is the thing which places you above all atheist ... JC tell me more about when you were evolutionist, what makes you to become a creationist. What was the thing which forced you to leave evolution. The evolutionists are now at that stage where you were years before.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I particulary liked the references to the Ray Comfort edition of The Origins of Species!!!
... can we now look forward to the Prof Dawkins edition of the Bible????:D
... and is it my imagination ... or did Prof Dawkins look a bit uncomfortable ... even slightly Agnostic ... when discussing the unchanged Horseshoe Crab ... and the other creatures that haven't changed one iota over supposed millions of years ... while Cichlid Fish ... have produced many varieties of ... eh ... em .... Cichlid Fish ... over thousands of years in Lake Victoria.:)

I'll take this to mean you're no longer claim that Dawkins doesn't view evolution as fact.

J C wrote: »

<snip>

You have a quote incorrectly attributed to me in your post. It was actually posted by Sarky (see linked quote below).

Sarky wrote: »

Here's a picture of a small protein-protein interaction network for the human genome. It includes 1,700 proteins. Pretty complicated, isn't it? Note how many grey points denote proteins that are known to do something, but we don't know exactly what yet.

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

I'll reply to oldrnwisr's substantial posting at the weekend.

You must have forgetten about this. I eagerly await your response backed up by peer-reviewed scientific sources.

Here are the posts:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77467354&postcount=8355
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77473194&postcount=8359

Barr125

sephir0th wrote: »

You must have forgetten about this. I eagerly await your response backed up by peer-reviewed scientific sources.

Here are the posts:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77467354&postcount=8355
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77473194&postcount=8359

You know that's not going to happen right? :pac:

joseph brand

J C wrote: »

Creationists bless their opponents.
No need to curse anybody ... and I certainly wouldn't curse a Divinely Protected Christian ... as the curse will return onto the curser.

Curses are real. Just like witches and leprechauns and god.

Do you also believe in 'old wives tales'? Black cats, umbrellas opened indoors, walking under ladders, stepping on cracks, breaking mirrors etc etc. .

They capture the imagination of children, but then they grow up and realise it's nonsense, like religion. The sad part being that many adults hold onto their 'make believe' and their imaginary bearded friend in the sky. Not to mention the trouble it causes.

MrPudding

joseph brand wrote: »

Curses are real. Just like witches and leprechauns and god.

Do you also believe in 'old wives tales'? Black cats, umbrellas opened indoors, walking under ladders, stepping on cracks, breaking mirrors etc etc. .

They capture the imagination of children, but then they grow up and realise it's nonsense, like religion. The sad part being that many adults hold onto their 'make believe' and their imaginary bearded friend in the sky. Not to mention the trouble it causes.

He believes in all the idiocy his religion requires of him.

MrP

cowzerp

joseph brand wrote: »

Curses are real. Just like witches and leprechauns and god.

Exactly, it's no coincidence that people believe anything their told from childhood-Most Irish are christians, Most Israelis are jews etc etc

The best way to sum it up is using Santa Claus as an example-parents tell you he is real and people believe it till they're told otherwise

Bit like the Religion only for nobody tells them they have been reading a book that was wrote by ancient folk who where not well educated and knew nothing about science

Aswell as that it is no coincidence that in them times their was many people going around trying to create followers in their brand of fear/religion, Jebus was just the best sales man and knew a good baker, and wine! last thing the people needed, could have got them some milk or water but nothing wins fans better than the gargle.

Sarky

His followers loved a good gargle. So I hear.