"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

smokingman

I'm beginning to wonder if JC is actually this May guy and the last few years of trolling has been research for his book....

Can I have my 10,000 euro now?

housetypeb

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!

Surprised he has a problem with that as he has no problem believing that jesus rose from the dead on the third day. :rolleyes:

equivariant

J C wrote: »

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

True

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.

False

.... conventionally qualified Creation Scientists ...

oxymoron

robindch

housetypeb wrote: »

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!

Time for the inevitable

clived2

clived2 wrote: »

I dont think people are being fair on this JC guy,

You need to argue the points on his level,





Evolution exists because God said so,

Originally Posted by clived2

clived2 wrote: »

I dont think people are being fair on this JC guy,

You need to argue the points on his level,





Evolution doesn't exists because God said so,

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Fixed!

No that is what I meant,JC would only believe in evolution if God said it exists,:D

Fremen

JC, could you explain what you mean by the terms functional information and CFSI?

For what it's worth, I know at least five people working on the mathematics of evolution- bacterial evolution can be modelled via a so-called Markov process.

It's quite possible that sometime over the last 1,300 posts, someone brought up the Lenski experiment, but I'd be interested to hear the intelligent design take on it.

Basically, Lenski spent twenty years growing a colony of bacteria. He took samples and froze them perodically, so that he had a record of the bacterial development. One of his cultures underwent a series of mutations which enabled them to metabolise a new type of nutrient in their environment. Because of the frozen samples, Lenski has been able to unfreeze and "replay" the more recent samples, watching them evolve the trait again and again.

Here's a link to an article which appeared in New Scientist some time ago.

keppler

Fremen wrote: »

JC, could you explain what you mean by the terms functional information and CFSI?

For what it's worth, I know at least five people working on the mathematics of evolution- bacterial evolution can be modelled via a so-called Markov process.

It's quite possible that sometime over the last 1,300 posts, someone brought up the Lenski experiment, but I'd be interested to hear the intelligent design take on it.

Basically, Lenski spent twenty years growing a colony of bacteria. He took samples and froze them perodically, so that he had a record of the bacterial development. One of his cultures underwent a series of mutations which enabled them to metabolise a new type of nutrient in their environment. Because of the frozen samples, Lenski has been able to unfreeze and "replay" the more recent samples, watching them evolve the trait again and again.

Here's a link to an article which appeared in New Scientist some time ago.

oh this should be interesting...;)
Fremen if the bacteria didnt turn into a chicken... he's not interested!
This guy will never be able to see the significance of Lenski's experiments.
or understand multiplication for that matter.:(

Ghost Buster

vibe666 wrote: »

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.

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?

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:

D'ja ever here that line about argueing with creationist is like playing chess with a pidgeon. They knock over a few pieces, sh1t on the board and then flutter back to their flock saying "Did ya see that!!! I won" :):D:):D:cool:. JC is one heck of a clumsy full of sh1t pidgeon!!!!

liamw

keppler wrote: »

oh this should be interesting...;)
Fremen if the bacteria didnt turn into a chicken... he's not interested!

What I've realised is that in order to understand the Creationist's POV, you have to really focus on lowering your brain power to match that of a 5 year old (sorry to any kids reading this).

With the example of bacteria, a creationist will simply refute that with something like:

"Well that's still bacteria!! god created the bacteria with existing CSI and now its expressing itself!!! That is not one Kind turning itself into another Kind."

Now don't try too hard to get the definition of a 'Kind' off a creationist. He/She will respond like a 5-year old would - a chicken is a kind, a whale is another kind, a fish is anotehr kind, a human is another kind (but special).

And that's why you won't get the €10k. You can show speciation, or even observable bacterial evolution but the response will be that it's only a variation in an existing 'Kind'.

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:

Just want to periodically quote my post so that he can't avoid answering
it, he's avoided answering the "pondslime to rotary motor" evidence for
the gradual formation of the flagella motor for quite some time now and
I need a proper answer. If he watches both of these videos he has no
hope of pulling out the old line

J C wrote: »

Your video shows the steps that an intelligent agent might use to develop a flagellar motor ... but the chances of a non-intelligently directed process doing so are about the same as putting a feather in the ground ... and expecting it to grow a hen!!!

which is not an answer, but if you read it closely it's characteristic of J C
in that he understands the process of evolution & recognises that it
would indeed be capable of forming something like this

The core of all of J C's latest arguments have been to think about
probability theory as a 12 year old would do and apply it to natural
selection. The second video above will put to rest J C's claims about
chance being too unlikely to form anything like "man from
pondslime"... HOPEFULLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

smokingman

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The interview will be available ASAP, I'll leave a note here when it is. Thanks for listening

Any news on when this is available?
I'd recommend it to anyone who wants a good hearty laugh.

Note, if you don't want to hear a creationist yap on about "half penises and quarter vaginas" then don't open it. :pac:

keppler

smokingman wrote: »

Any news on when this is available?
I'd recommend it to anyone who wants a good hearty laugh.

Note, if you don't want to hear a creationist yap on about "half penises and quarter vaginas" then don't open it. :pac:

"half penises and quarter vaginas"......... with that level of sex ed I pity anyone who pays him for marriage counselling:D

I havn't heard this yet im really looking forward to it though!

skregs

Man, if evolution isn't real, how come dogs come from wolves?

sensibleken

smokingman wrote: »

Any news on when this is available?
I'd recommend it to anyone who wants a good hearty laugh.

Note, if you don't want to hear a creationist yap on about "half penises and quarter vaginas" then don't open it. :pac:

Im sure opening a quater vagina would be quite difficult. though probably easier with a half penis

J C

skregs wrote: »

Man, if evolution isn't real, how come dogs come from wolves?

Wolves and Dogs can inter-breed ... and so they are both definitivelyand scientifically part of the Dog Kind.

sponsoredwalk

What genus is "dog kind" classified under in creation science J C? :pac:

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Wolves and Dogs can inter-breed ... and so they are both definitivelyand scientifically part of the Dog Kind.

No they're not.
Seeing as "kind" is total bull**** made up by ignorant creationist idiots.

So JC what "kind" are coyotes in?

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

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

Abiogenesis is another oxymoron with which Evolutionists confuse themselves!!!
'Abio' means non-life or death and 'genesis' means the generation of life ... so it means the generation of life from death ... another folly, if ever there was one.
Christians believe that Jesus Christ resurrected from a state of death, because He was God ... Evolutionists believe that all life 'resurrected from a state of death' ... "on the backs of crystals"!!

... now please tell me who has the greater faith????

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Abiogenesis is another oxymoron with which Evolutionists confuse themselves!!!
'Abio' means non-life or death and 'genesis' means the generation of life ... so it means the generation of life from death ... another folly, if ever there was one.
Christians believe that Jesus Christ resurrected from a state of death, because He was God ... Evolutionists believe that all life 'resurrected from a state of death' ... "on the backs of crystals"!!

... now please tell me who has the greater faith????

This is an official declaration that you understand evolution and
abiogenesis are two totally different things J C, if you confuse them again I
think you should be banned for trolling & I'm not getting on this
merry-go-round again.

I understand that you are lashing out because your worldview is under
attack but you have to believe me when I say I'm not making this up,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Remember, this has been proven to happen in a lab.

So, lets get this straight. Evolution has nothing to do with most of the
things you've said in this thread and most of the things John May has said
in every interview he's given.

Abiogenesis has been shown to be true in the lab, you can watch that video
and then click on the link, you'll find a link inside there to his
original work & you can argue against that if you wish.

Now, you have no way of getting around it, you understand that chance
has very little to do with evolution and nothing to do with natural
selection. Mutations in the genome occur every so often and the
good mutations are naturally selected while the bad mutations are
weeded out. This is totally different to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the
creation of the original replicating cell from organic chemicals like
the ones mentioned in the video. You're talking about the creation of
polymers from monomers which are the building blocks of amino acids J C.

This is the stuff that pondslime is made out of

J C

King Mob wrote: »

No they're not.
Seeing as "kind" is total bull**** made up by ignorant creationist idiots.

So JC what "kind" are coyotes in?

It is scientifically validated ... wolves interbreed with domestic dogs ... and Coyotes are also members of the Dog Barmin.

... the made-up baloney ... and lusting after pondthings ... is entirely on the Evolutionist side!!

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is an official declaration that you understand evolution and
abiogenesis are two totally different things J C, if you confuse them again I
think you should be banned for trolling & I'm not getting on this
merry-go-round again.

I understand that you are lashing out because your worldview is under
attack but you have to believe me when I say I'm not making this up,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Remember, this has been proven to happen in a lab.

So, lets get this straight. Evolution has nothing to do with most of the
things you've said in this thread and most of the things John May has said
in every interview he's given.

Abiogenesis has been shown to be true in the lab, you can watch that video
and then click on the link, you'll find a link inside there to his
original work & you can argue against that if you wish.

Now, you have no way of getting around it, you understand that chance
has very little to do with evolution and nothing to do with natural
selection. Mutations in the genome occur every so often and the
good mutations are naturally selected while the bad mutations are
weeded out. This is totally different to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the
creation of the original replicating cell from organic chemicals like
the ones mentioned in the video. You're talking about the creation of
polymers from monomers which are the building blocks of amino acids J C.

This is the stuff that pondslime is made out of

... Abiogenesis doesn't explain how life originated ... just like Evolution doesn't explain how Pondthings developed into Evolutionists!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

It is scientifically validated ...

And again I have to point out the difference the difference between the world in your head and the real world.

Since it's "scientifically validated" surely you can show this.
Or is it a lie like the one you told about having that mathematical proof?

J C wrote: »

wolves interbreed with domestic dogs ... and Coyotes are also members of the Dog Barmin.

So how about foxes and dingos? Still in this kind?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... Abiogenesis doesn't explain how life originated ... just like Evolution doesn't explain how Pondthings developed into Evolutionists!!!

Haha, why? Because you say so! :):D:):pac::rolleyes:;):p:D

sponsoredwalk

The physical characteristics of an animal created by breeding a wolf to a
dog are not predictable, similar to that of mixed-breed dogs. Genetic
research shows that wolf and dog populations initially diverged
approximately 14,000 years ago and have interbred only occasionally since;
thus imbuing the dissimilarity between dogs and wolves in behavior and
appearance.[21] In many cases the resulting adult wolfdog may be larger
than either of its parents due to the genetic phenomenon of heterosis
(commonly known as hybrid vigor).[1] Breeding experiments in Germany
with poodles and wolves, and later on with the resulting wolfdogs showed
unrestricted fertility, mating via free choice and no significant problems of
communication (even after a few generations). The offspring of poodles
with either coyotes and jackals however all showed a decrease in
fertility, significant communication problems as well as an increase
of genetic diseases after three generations of interbreeding between
the hybrids. The researchers therefore concluded that domestic dogs
and wolves are the same species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf-dog_hybrid



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coydog

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What genus is "dog kind" classified under in creation science J C? :pac:

The Dog Barmin approximates to the Canis Genus ... but most members of the Canidae Family are thought to belong to the Dog Kind.

The ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive scientific test for membership of a Created Kind.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

The Dog Barmin approximates to the Canis Genus ... but most members of the Canidae Family are thought to belong to the Dog Kind.

The ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive test for membership of a Created Kind.

:D:D

So you accept the evolutionary explanation for the evolution of dogs, neat!

Creationists also do, judging by your response to the question I actually
asked. It's nice to see us playing fast and loose with our science :P

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

:D:D

So you accept the evolutionary explanation for the evolution of dogs, neat!

Creationists also do, judging by your response to the question I actually
asked. It's nice to see us playing fast and loose with our science :P

... please read my lips ... "The Dog Barmin approximates to the Canis Genus ... but most members of the Canidae Family are thought to belong to the Dog Kind.

The ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive scientific test for membership of a Created Kind.":)

Please note that this is based on cold repeatable Creation Science ... while evolution is entirely within the minds of Evolutionists

sponsoredwalk

Just read this:

"A mind changed against its will
Is of the same opinion still."

I'm finished arguing J C, you have been given more than enough evidence
& I think if I force it down your throat you'll never listen to me.

Don't just ignore everything I've given you, please someday go back
through the pages and look at the links and realise there are answers to
all of these "challenges" to evolution. What was the video from "Expelled:
No Intelligence Allowed" supposed to prove? Take it easy, if you post any
trash I'm going to correct you but I've given you all enough evidence.

"A mind changed against its will
Is of the same opinion still."

Btw: You have given no evidence for creation science.

There is not one example of creation science working J C, not one.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

The ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive scientific test for membership of a Created Kind.":)

So then, what kind are foxes and Dingos? Are they both in the dog kind?

And what about fruit flies who undergo speciation and can no longer interbreed?
Isn't this "changing kinds"?

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Just read this:

"A mind changed against its will
Is of the same opinion still."

I'm finished arguing J C, you have been given more than enough evidence
& I think if I force it down your throat you'll never listen to me.

Don't just ignore everything I've given you, please someday go back
through the pages and look at the links and realise there are answers to
all of these "challenges" to evolution. What was the video from "Expelled:
No Intelligence Allowed" supposed to prove? Take it easy, if you post any
trash I'm going to correct you but I've given you all enough evidence.

"A mind changed against its will
Is of the same opinion still."

Btw: You have given no evidence for creation science.

There is not one example of creation science working J C, not one.

The irony of it all just make me laugh!!!

You forget that I have already changed my mind (from being an Evolutionist) ... you are the guy without a shred of evidence of logic for the spontaneous generation of CFSI.

... to quote John May, Evolution is "the unsupported, unscientific, untruthful, unedifying unbelievable teaching that chance chose camels that once were maggots. That chance chose beautiful bears which were once whales (or visa versa - who cares both are mind bogglingly stupid) that chance chose elephants who once were fish! ...
... That chance chose man that once were monkeys! Silly yes! Illogical yes! Unscientific yes! Ludicrous yes! And yet, yet as I write this in the quietness of my home and as you now read the words I have just written, million at this moment believe such gibberish ..."