"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

jayzusb.christ

I know many Evolutionists who are very eminent scientists ... and they have done amazing work.
It is very sad that they may not get the credit that they deserve ... if they continue to stick with Evolution ... and 'go down with the ship' ... when it inevitably sinks without t!!!

Also made me laugh - for a different reason, I'm afraid

keppler

J C wrote: »

Not particularly ... like I have said, the Universe is indeed vast ... but that has no correlation with it's age ... or the rate at which certain parts are expanding away from each other.

Redshifts aren't a reliable indicator of distance, irrespective of whether one believes in an 'old' or a 'young' Universe.

JC I already know you dont believe in a old universe!

BUT YET YOU ARE SAYING IT IS VAST:rolleyes:

J C again you are only giving half the answer to my question!!!!!

J C by not answering my question it shows you up for the liar and timewaster that you actually are:mad: (I OFTEN WONDER WHY YOU LIE SO MUCH TO PROTECT THE LIE THAT YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN?)

Now once again J C please answer the second part to my question

CiaranMT

J C wrote: »

... and this is your only comment????

... do all Evolutionists 'nit pick' over complete irrelevancies ... or is it just the ones who post on this thread?

I'd also like to add, J C, that you're a hoot to read, genuinely. Rarely do I keep coming back to threads like these where I don't contribute, and it's all down to you

liamw

Improbable wrote: »

What do CSI and CFSI stand for?

liamw wrote: »

In case anyone is new to this thread and confused by the term CSI (a.k.a. creationist jibberish), here is the debunk of the concept:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

And here is debunk of J.C's interpretation of it:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64185114&postcount=20396

I believe the F stands for 'Functional'.

J C

jayzusb.christ wrote: »

Also made me laugh - for a different reason, I'm afraid

... good ... we all can do with a laugh (for whatever reason) now and again!!!:)

keppler

J C wrote: »

Yes, I agree that it is deeply ironic.
I know many Evolutionists who are very eminent scientists ... and they have done amazing work.
It is very sad that they may not get the credit that they deserve ... if they continue to stick with Evolution ... and 'go down with the ship' ... when it inevitably sinks without trace!!!

J C while were on the subject of eminent scientists here
I have one thing i would like to know? You said before that you were a scientist yourself.
Just out of interest JC what field of science do/did you specialise in?

liamw

J C wrote: »

... good ... we all can do with a laugh (for whatever reason) now and again!!!:)

Agreed, I laugh at YECs all the time

J C

liamw wrote: »

Originally Posted by liamw
In case anyone is new to this thread and confused by the term CSI (a.k.a. creationist jibberish), here is the debunk of the concept:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf

And here is debunk of J.C's interpretation of it:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost....ostcount=20396

I believe the F stands for 'Functional'.

... and here is my answer to this post:-
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64196677&postcount=20423

Improbable

J C wrote: »

... and here is my answer to this post:-
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64196677&postcount=20423

They may be statistical improbabilities if they have no driving force behind it. At least that's what the gist of that seems to be. Why does it have to be intelligent? Evolution is wonderful at creating the illusion of design without having any intelligence behind it.

keppler

J C wrote: »

... just a reflection of His infinity.

...what an answer... keep em'comin J C



By the way you still have not given an answer for Ghostbusters question yet
Creation, The Flood ....explains the existence of introns .....(remember this J C?)
Oh and by the way J C just to remind you of what improbable told you.............. opinions =/= fact:D

J C

Improbable wrote: »

They may be statistical improbabilities if they have no driving force behind it. At least that's what the gist of that seems to be. Why does it have to be intelligent? Evolution is wonderful at creating the illusion of design without having any intelligence behind it.

NS is capable of selecting from pre-existing CFSI ... the weak link is a materialistic explanation for producing the CFSI, in the first place ... and certainly, mutagenesis doesn't fit the bill.

J C

keppler wrote: »

...what an answer... keep em'comin J C

My pleasure:)

Improbable

Still haven't got a clue what you're talking about...

Ok, just looked it up on wikipedia. Did you see the very long list of criticisms against it?

J C

Improbable wrote: »

Still haven't got a clue what you're talking about...

You need to do a 'crash course' in Intelligent Design ... if that isn't a contradiction in terms!!!:)

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

NS is capable of selecting from pre-existing CFSI ... the weak link is a materialistic explanation for producing the CFSI, in the first place ... and certainly, mutagenesis doesn't fit the bill.

Except for with the flagella motor

Improbable

All I can make sense of is that he uses the word 'chance' quite a bit. One of the most common misconceptions made about evolution by those who don't understand it.

sponsoredwalk

Improbable wrote: »

All I can make sense of is that he uses the word 'chance' quite a bit. One of the most common misconceptions made about evolution by those who don't understand it.

He fears Charles Darwin and the word chance more than he fears god.

sponsoredwalk

keppler wrote: »

...what an answer... keep em'comin J C



By the way you still have not given an answer for Ghostbusters question yet
Creation, The Flood ....explains the existence of introns .....(remember this J C?)
Oh and by the way J C just to remind you of what improbable told you.............. opinions =/= fact:D

J C, also waiting By the way, I have a lot of unanswered questions as
well when you're ready. You can continue this crash course in creationism
you've been providing :pac:

J C

liamw wrote: »

Agreed, I laugh at YECs all the time

... and I laugh with YECs all the time!!!:D

housetypeb

I have been lurking on this thread for a while and have come to the conclusion that J C is either a troll or has a weird sense of humour-maybe both.He seems to just be effing people off for his own amusement at this point.
Love the way he sidesteps questions by posting even more obtuse material from 1977 or thereabouts.
I am not sure that He will ever be convinced by any arguements as his mind seems to be already made up.
(god did it)
But fair play to everyone else for trying anyway, whats that old saying about never argue with a fool........

keppler

did enyone ever find out if the adam and eve v darwin interview on radio 1 had john may in it? did anyone listen to it/ find a link for it (it dosn't seem to be on the podcasts on radio 1's website)

deanjdk

Part 2 of "Why people laugh at John J May" for your viewing pleasure:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkDg7QGAaWA

J C

keppler wrote: »

did enyone ever find out if the adam and eve v darwin interview on radio 1 had john may in it? did anyone listen to it/ find a link for it (it dosn't seem to be on the podcasts on radio 1's website)

It involved a science and a religion teacher ... and not a word from John May ... or any other anti-evolutionist!!!
It was on Derek Mooney's afternoon programme on RE1 on Wednesday last.

http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-r1-mooney-2010-09-22.smil

It starts at 35.30 on the player

sponsoredwalk

deanjdk wrote: »

Part 2 of "Why people laugh at John J May" for your viewing pleasure:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkDg7QGAaWA

You should have mentioned that about half the sperm go up the wrong
fallopian tube as well!

You really pwned him, I hope J C is watching these and fastidiously scribbling
his refutations down with cyber ink for us all to gaze upon - I mean he would
seeing as he views John May as a modern day genius and all :rolleyes:

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Except for with the flagella motor

The Flagellar motor, like all other motors is intelligently designed!!!

Zillah

J C, don't you think you'd be happier if you just admitted to yourself that it's magic? You can stop pretending! You can stop lying to yourself and others, no more desperate attempts at scrabbling together shreds of evidence, misquoted scientists and dubiously run experiments. No more struggle with your doubts and that irritating little voice of reason that sometimes manages to cry out as you link to yet another piece of drivel masquerading as reasonable argument. No more desperate attempts to rationalise away the thousands of posts that prove you wrong.

Just concede that you think God is magic and that we're stupid atheists who don't get how special he makes you feel. Wouldn't it be so much easier? Just let it go. I bet it would be rather cathartic.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

The Flagellar motor, like all other motors is intelligently designed!!!

LIAR!

J C, lets take the second quote in your video:

"In evolutionary terms you have to be able to explain how you can build
this system gradually"

Now J C, I already gave you a video illustrating real scientific work done in
2003.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

Here is the paper. Furthermore:

"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a
few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting
cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s
assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the
myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based
upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly
complex."[55]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

I have given you evidence that your claim is wrong, this system can
be brought about by materialistic, pond-to-man-type, methods. Basically
you've lied again by claiming intelligence is needed when clearly we have
blind, downright dirty, evolution bringing about a flagella motor that can
be simplified :eek:

So, will you admit you were wrong? :rolleyes:

Improbable

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So, will you admit you were wrong? :rolleyes:

What do you think...

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

I have been lurking on this thread for a while and have come to the conclusion that J C is either a troll or has a weird sense of humour-maybe both.He seems to just be effing people off for his own amusement at this point.
Love the way he sidesteps questions by posting even more obtuse material from 1977 or thereabouts.

There are two reasons why many of the quotes are from the 70's and 80's.

1. There is such intolerance against any anti-evolution statements nowadays, that it would be professional suicide for a working evolutionist to make any such remarks.

2. Creation Scientists wish to protect the many ordinary Evolutionists that they interact with by not publishing off-the-record remarks that they may make.

Here is an eminent evolutionist Colin Patterson (1933 – 1998) former Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, who saw the Evolution was a load of baloney ... and went on the record with his colleagues ... and didn't mince his words about it:-

One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school." "Evolutionism and Creationism" Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981 p.1

Improbable

J C wrote: »

There are two reasons why many of the quotes are from the 70's and 80's.

1. There is such intolerance against any anti-evolution statements nowadays, that it would be professional suicide for a working evolutionist to make any such remarks.

2. Creation Scientists wish to protect the many ordinary Evolutionists that they interact with by not publishing off-the-record remarks that they may make.

Here is an eminent evolutionist Colin Patterson (1933 – 1998) former Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, who saw the Evolution was a load of baloney ... and went on the record with his colleagues ... and didn't mince his words about it:-

One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school." "Evolutionism and Creationism" Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981 p.1

Mate, you're not proving anything, you're just posting comments from other people who disagree with evolution. There isn't a shred of real evidence in ANY of it.