"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Marcus.Aurelius

J C wrote: »

Evolutionism 'puts the cart before the horse' ... random mutation in tandem with NS is the equivalent to randomly hitting a lump of metal with a hammer and then hoping that a selection mechanism will produce a Ferrari ... you couldn't even produce a functional nut and bolt using such a system ...

It is not, repeat NOT, the equivalent of making a complex machine from an lump of metal. What is it with creationists? Repeating the same ridiculous mantra over and over again.

The eye has evolved several times independently, each minute difference observed through a comparison of species reveals that the eye is not irreducibly complex, it is the product of improvement on top of improvement.

I really am starting to wonder if you are capable of comprehending the matter at all. We are not stating that gloriously complex biological machinery is the product of chance through a sudden all or nothing lottery win.

You fail still to discern what natural selection entails.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Well, he's less likely to corrupt minds here than in the BCP thread over yonder. Keep him distracted, I say.

I don't know about that ... I have seen many Atheists come to Jesus Christ and ask to be Saved ... and I have seen many nominal Christians refuse to do so ... because they thought that they could Save themselves through 'good works'.

J C

House wrote: »

It is not, repeat NOT, the equivalent of making a complex machine from an lump of metal. What is it with creationists? Repeating the same ridiculous mantra over and over again.

The eye has evolved several times independently, each minute difference observed through a comparison of species reveals that the eye is not irreducibly complex, it is the product of improvement on top of improvement.

I really am starting to wonder if you are capable of comprehending the matter at all. We are not stating that gloriously complex biological machinery is the product of chance through a sudden all or nothing lottery win.

You fail still to discern what natural selection entails.

The only objective fact about eyes is that there are a number of different basic designs of eyes. This isn't proof that these different eyes 'evolved' independently or at all ... it is actually proof that they were all Intelligently Designed.

Even the most basic light sensitive spot ... has thousands of specific biomolecules arranged in a tightly specified combination ... as well as a living creature to sustain the 'spot' and make use of it, in the first place.

Evolution cannot provide the Complex Functional Information to produce a 'light sensitive spot' ... so forget about it ever producing the Human Eye.
The fact that the premutations of a 100 chain protein are 10^130 and the number of electron masse equivalents in the Universe are only 10^82 rules out the specific production of just one functional protein, never mind its synthesis into the closely co-ordinated combination with other biomolecules that are necessary to produce even a light sensitive spot.

So evolution is conceptually permanently stuck at 'first base' ... although it potentially has a selection mechanism (NS) ... it will never spontaneously produce anything useful to select!!!

keppler

J C nice to see you are back!!
btw still waiting on your answers to those questions...:rolleyes:

J C

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I was sitting with my morning cuppa and chuckling along to this right up to the point when i realised that JC is possibly doing the very same whilst totally agreeing and empathising with the interviewer.:(

I'm laughing allright ... at the fact that Evolutionists are now so desperate that they are engaging in make-believe role-playing of both Creationists and Evolutionists ... and making a total 'dogs dinner' ... of the true Creationist and Evolutionist positions !!!:D

I guess that some Evolutionists have spent so many years inventing 'make-believe' reasons why Pondslime could somehow spontaneously 'evolve' into themselves ... that they are no longer capable of distinguishing fact from fiction!!!
... and now they are reduced to producing ... and laughing at ... cartoons of themselves!!!:eek:

robindch

J C wrote: »

I don't know about that ... I have seen many Atheists come to Jesus Christ and ask to be Saved ... and I have seen many nominal Christians refuse to do so ... because they thought that they could Save themselves through 'good works'.

I think you should put "Save" in capitals.

sponsoredwalk

keppler wrote: »

J C nice to see you are back!!
btw still waiting on your answers to those questions...:rolleyes:

It's a waste of time:

J C wrote: »

Evolutionism 'puts the cart before the horse' ... random mutation in tandem with NS is the equivalent to randomly hitting a lump of metal with a hammer and then hoping that a selection mechanism will produce a Ferrari ... you couldn't even produce a functional nut and bolt using such a system ...

/bangs_head_on_wall...

J C you've lied again, random mutation along with NS does produce an
eye, and a nose, and resistance to bacteria, and get land mammals back
into the ocean, and bring fish from the sea to land. You've got no evidence
that these processes don't produce all of these things, none at all, so
believe whatever you want but you're incorrect if we're talking about
the real world.

It's strange because earlier in the thread you've admitted these processes
do produce all of these things so we're going in spam circles...

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... and you are failing to appreciate the fact that the useless combinatorial space prevents a non-intelligently directed system from producing the 'beneficial changes' that NS could then select.

Evidence?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I guess that some Evolutionists have spent so many years inventing 'make-believe' reasons why Pondslime could somehow spontaneously 'evolve' into themselves

Dude what is your problem with pondslime? I know where my respect would
go if the question were asked...

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

No you see if you say ANYTHING that goes against the will of the moderators
your post is instantly deleted. Happened to me only yesterday.
Funny thing is in this forum controversial posts are fine, and I think that's
the way humanity is supposed to act. Says a lot when you have to
delete a post that goes against your preconceived bias. Justification?
Ah they are just spamming or trying to create friction - I was being serious
in my post, and it's not the first time in that forum either so why bother going
there?

Firstly I would say that the Mods (on all Forums) have a difficult job. that they generally do quite professionaly.

I don't know why your post was deleted ...

... but I find that I usually learn more by listening to people with whom I disagree that by listening to people with whom I agree.

Marcus.Aurelius

J C wrote: »

The only objective fact about eyes is that there are a number of different basic designs with known eyes. This isn't proof that these different eyes 'evolved' independently or at all ... it is actually proof that they were all Intelligently Designed.

:rolleyes:

So evolution is conceptually permanently stuck at 'first base' ... potentially with a selection mechanism (NS) ... but with nothing useful to select!!!

I'm starting to notice a recurring theme here. You still don't understand the difference between chance and natural selection.

liamw

J C wrote: »

I guess that some Evolutionists have spent so many years inventing 'make-believe' reasons why Pondslime could somehow spontaneously 'evolve' into themselves ...

and around and around we go... la la la lalalala

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I don't know why your post was deleted ... but if it was simply as you describe, then you genuinely have my sympathy.
I personally have no problem with the expression of any opinion ... and I believe that if somebody can't stand the heat ... they shouldn't be in the kitchen.
It is a very poor debating tactic to simply delete posts with which one disagrees ... or which robustly challenges ones faith.

I find that I usually learn more by listening to people with whom I disagree that by listening to people with whom I agree.

Thanks J C, but seriously when you have a discussion like this it involves
listening to the interlocutor's arguments and considering them.

I've explained to you around 3 times that the flagellum motor is a perfect
example of a part of an organism that evolved by the process of natural
selection. There is a video describing this perfectly & you continually
mention that it's a question of chance with the probability sky high that
it will happen. That is simply not the case.

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

Here is a video about the evolution of the eye by the same person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDFJviGQth4

Remember these are based off evidence, you have no evidence for what
you've claimed. This video also shows "transitional fossils" :eek:

Reason 7 also debunks your probability argument, give it a watch!

The lotto analogy is great, don't forget it...

Here is a soundbite from the video, "mutations are random, but NS is not
random". Guess which does most of the work? :rolleyes:

keppler

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It's a waste of time:



/bangs_head_on_wall...

J C you've lied again, random mutation along with NS does produce an
eye, and a nose, and resistance to bacteria, and get land mammals back
into the ocean, and bring fish from the sea to land. You've got no evidence
that these processes don't produce all of these things, none at all, so
believe whatever you want but you're incorrect if we're talking about
the real world.

It's strange because earlier in the thread you've admitted these processes
do produce all of these things so we're going in spam circles...

I know its a waste of time, the guy isn't even trying to respond anymore...:)
I mean honestly, where did he think he was going to get the evidence from to prove his answer in the first place?

J C take note...... creationist websites dont delve into much detail on the subject of evolution.....if they did they couldn't hide the truth..:D

and yes J C you do appeared to have lied again (you have no evidence)

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Dude what is your problem with pondslime? I know where my respect would
go if the question were asked...

I have no 'problem' with pondslime ... I just don't think that your brain is the product of pondslime, selected mistakes and time.

Having said that, if you have more respect for Pondslime than Humans(as you appear to be indicating) then it is you that has a very big problem with ethics and logic!!!

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I have no 'problem' with pondslime ... I just don't think that your brain is the product of pondslime, selected mistakes and time.

Having said that, if you have more respect for Pondslime than Humans(as you appear to be indicating) then it is you that has a very big problem with ethics and logic!!!

Sorry I meant that as a joke, should have included a smiley or 10! :D:D

J C

robindch wrote: »

Having thought otherwise previously, I now think it's a bad idea for qualified people to debate creationists. It's much better to put people like Hitchens, Dara O'Briain, Eddy Izzard etc up against them. The Department of Geography wouldn't send serious people out to debate flat-earthers.

Creationism is a similar joke and it should be treated as such.

BTW, scientists in the UK and the USA generally don't debate creationists for this very reason.

Evolutionists generally don't debate with Creation Scientists for the simple reason that they always lose.

BTW, the reason that they lose isn't because they are less eminent than the Creation Scientist or are less intelligent ... the reason they lose is because Evolution never happened ... and it is actually impossible to objectively prove something that never happened.

Evolutionists can think up superficially plausible stories ... but once they are challenged by conventionally qualified Creation Scientists ... the inconsitencies start to emerge ... and very quickly the whole Evolutionist story falls apart.
Then the ad hominem attacks begin ... and the Evolutionists exit stage left shouting that questions they never asked weren't answered!!!

... while gleefully ignoring the fact that it is themselves who haven't addressed the issues put to them!!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Evolutionists generally don't debate with Creation Scientists for the simple reason that they always lose.

JC in the real world, where the rest of us live, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting bible verses doesn't count as "winning".

And tbh i wouldn't exactly call what you and your idiot creationist buddies do, "debate" either.

sponsoredwalk

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

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Yeah I've got it going and the presenter said he'd be on later, terrible music
so far

... oh ... the excitement of it all ...

The ordinary Dub and the eminent University Professor ... anyway ... what actually happened ???

... or shall we get back on topic and look at what John May has to say on page 153 of his book:-
"Biological Evolution is actually an oxymoron. Bio is from the Greek word 'Bios' meaning 'life' and evolution in the atheistic sense means 'death', since non living matter is actually dead or lifeless and they believe that somehow! Someway! Sometime! Something! In someplace! happily happened through chance that brought life into being from death! This suspiciously sounds to me like some form of resurrection!
I know some people seriously postulate that a species of modern birds are descendants from lizards! (Imagine!). Others say 'flying squirrels used to fly, (or is it maybe one day they will be able to fly?) No matter in genetic genius they see only what they wish to see."

Discuss.

sponsoredwalk

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Thanks J C, but seriously when you have a discussion like this it involves
listening to the interlocutor's arguments and considering them.

I've explained to you around 3 times that the flagellum motor is a perfect
example of a part of an organism that evolved by the process of natural
selection. There is a video describing this perfectly & you continually
mention that it's a question of chance with the probability sky high that
it will happen. That is simply not the case.

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

Here is a video about the evolution of the eye by the same person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDFJviGQth4

Remember these are based off evidence, you have no evidence for what
you've claimed. This video also shows "transitional fossils" :eek:

Reason 7 also debunks your probability argument, give it a watch!

The lotto analogy is great, don't forget it...

Here is a soundbite from the video, "mutations are random, but NS is not
random". Guess which does most of the work? :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

Discuss.

J C wrote: »

... oh ... the excitement of it all ...
The ordinary Dub and the eminent University Professor ... anyway ... what actually happened ???

... or shall we get back on topic and look at what John May has to say on page 153:-
"Biological Evolution is actually an oxymoron. Bio is from the Greek word 'Bios' meaning 'life' and evolution in the atheistic sense means 'death', since non living matter is actually dead or lifeless and they believe that somehow! Someway! Sometime! Something! In someplace! happily happened through chance that brought life into being from death! This suspiciously sounds to me like some form of resurrection!
I know some people seriously postulate that a species of modern birds are descendants from lizards! (imagine!). Others say 'flying squirrels used to fly, (or is it maybe one day they will be able to fly?) No matter in genetic genius they see only what they wish to see."

Discuss.

J C, evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. How long, how many times
do we have to repeat the the origin of life, the springing into existence of
life is a different topic. This is a quote about abiogenesis and not
evolution

Classic example of how stupid John May is, confusing topics to suit his
agenda. The man has waged war on evolution because of the claims of
abiogenesis

J C

King Mob wrote: »

JC in the real world, where the rest of us live, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting bible verses doesn't count as "winning".

And tbh i wouldn't exactly call what you and your idiot creationist buddies do, "debate" either.

They don't shout Bible verses!!!

The 'killer punches' are pure objective science delivered 'ice cold' by eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists!!!

It's called beating Evolutionists at their own game!!!!:)

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

The 'killer punches' are pure objective science delivered ice cold by eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists!!!

It's called beating Evolutionists at their own game!!!!:)

This is surely the epitomy of trolling, is it not? There has not been a single
scientific claim on the part of creation science.

keppler

J C wrote: »

They don't shout Bible verses!!!

The 'killer punches' are pure objective science delivered 'ice cold' by eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists!!!

It's called beating Evolutionists at their own game!!!!:)

J C how can you just state that introns are the result of creation and the flood?????
Is that what you call an 'ice cold' delivery of pure objective science......:pac::pac::pac:

That's certainly not what I would call 'beating Evolutionists at their own game'....

its actually called kidding yourself or just plain old lies

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It's a waste of time:



/bangs_head_on_wall...

J C you've lied again, random mutation along with NS does produce an
eye, and a nose, and resistance to bacteria, and get land mammals back
into the ocean, and bring fish from the sea to land. You've got no evidence
that these processes don't produce all of these things, none at all, so
believe whatever you want but you're incorrect if we're talking about
the real world.

It's strange because earlier in the thread you've admitted these processes
do produce all of these things so we're going in spam circles...

Random Mutations produce no functional information ... and they degrade existing CFSI ... this is the Chance element that invalidates Evolution as a candidate for evolving Pondkind to Mankind ... even if the Vatican and every Atheist on Earth believes that it could ... the Maths says otherwise.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Random Mutations produce no functional information ... and they degrade existing CFSI ... this is the Chance element that invalidates Evolution as a candidate for evolving Pondkind to Mankind ... even if the Vatican and every Atheist on Earth believes that it could ... the Maths says otherwise.

Proof?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

They don't shout Bible verses!!!

The 'killer punches' are pure objective science delivered 'ice cold' by eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists!!!

It's called beating Evolutionists at their own game!!!!:)

Like, everything you said in that post is factually wrong in every possible sense.

Keep it up JC you are just showing more and more what creationism is really all about.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Random Mutations produce no functional information ... and they degrade existing CFSI ...

You realise that they have actually should exactly this in actual science experiments?
You know what people who know what they are talking about do?

J C wrote: »

the Maths says otherwise.

You mean the maths you claim to have but haven't actually shown?
Despite 3 pages of me asking you for it?

vibe666

J C wrote: »

So evolution is conceptually permanently stuck at 'first base' ... although it potentially has a selection mechanism (NS) ... it will never spontaneously produce anything useful to select!!!

the only thing stuck at first base is your argument since all you do is talk and talk the same flawed arguments over and over again without actually backing anything up with any kind of evidence.

J C wrote: »

Evolutionists generally don't debate with Creation Scientists for the simple reason that they always lose.

maybe we've all been watching the wrong debates, but the ones we see here with dawkins, hitchens & fry all seem to end with creationists getting laughed out of the place, so maybe you'd like to provide some proof of these things you're claiming?

J C wrote: »

The 'killer punches' are pure objective science delivered 'ice cold' by eminent conventionally qualified Creation Scientists!!!

It's called beating Evolutionists at their own game!!!!:)

beating them at their own game? you mean all that 'science' stuff? do you mean the over 200,000 peer reviewed articles in the last 100 years that are almost unanimously accepted by the scientific community as a whole?

how so exactly? proof please?

can you see the recent theme of this thread yet? :rolleyes:

sensibleken

J C wrote: »

... oh ... the excitement of it all ...

The ordinary Dub and the eminent University Professor ... anyway ... what actually happened ???

... or shall we get back on topic and look at what John May has to say on page 153 of his book:-
"Biological Evolution is actually an oxymoron. Bio is from the Greek word 'Bios' meaning 'life' and evolution in the atheistic sense means 'death', since non living matter is actually dead or lifeless and they believe that somehow! Someway! Sometime! Something! In someplace! happily happened through chance that brought life into being from death! This suspiciously sounds to me like some form of resurrection!
I know some people seriously postulate that a species of modern birds are descendants from lizards! (Imagine!). Others say 'flying squirrels used to fly, (or is it maybe one day they will be able to fly?) No matter in genetic genius they see only what they wish to see."

Discuss.

hahahaaha! Evolution in the athiestic sense means death? Way to define the thing your arguing against May.

so basically he's not argueing against evolution, hes arguing for imortality, judging by his literary skill this bloke has been reading far too many twilight books