"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

sponsoredwalk

King Mob wrote: »

Well JC has already admitted that species change genetically over time until they can no longer interbreed. And this is evolution.

But I don't think he's realised because he has no idea what evolution actually is beyond what his creationist masters tell him.

If you think about the psychology of this, it's never been about evolution.
Here we have the bloody guy using evolutionary terms, explaining how
his theory about dogs is right due to evolution but somehow he has a
problem with evolution, it just boggles the mind

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If you think about the psychology of this, it's never been about evolution.
Here we have the bloody guy using evolutionary terms, explaining how
his theory about dogs is right due to evolution but somehow he has a
problem with evolution, it just boggles the mind

I used to be a macro-evolutionist ... and I believed that Baboons evolved into Bankers ... and Eels evolved into Evolutionists ... but now I realise that Eels remain Eeels and Baboons remain Baboons ... but Evolutionists can (and do) become Bankers ... and vice versa!!!:eek::)

Improbable

J C wrote: »

I used to be a macro-evolutionist ... and I believed that Baboons evolved into Bankers ... and Eels evolved into Evolutionists ... but now I realise that Eels remain Eeels and Baboons remain Baboons ... but Evolutionists can (and do) become Bankers ... and vice versa!!!:eek::)

You've been asked this a lot of times but I'll just try yet again. What is your qualification?

J C

Improbable wrote: »

You've been asked this a lot of times but I'll just try yet again. What is your qualification?

Earned conventional university qualifications in multiple science disciplines (and Mathematics).

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I used to be a macro-evolutionist ... and I believed that Baboons evolved into Bankers ... and Eels evolved into Evolutionists ... but now I realise that Eels remain Eeels and Baboons remain Baboons ... but Evolutionists can (and do) become Bankers ... and vice versa!!!:eek::)

J C, only creationists think baboons evolved into humans, christ how do you
still get this wrong...

Improbable

I know it may be a concept you're unfamiliar with, but where is the evidence for that? Because your uninformed arguments absolutely contradict that...

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

J C, only creationists think baboons evolved into humans, christ how do you
still get this wrong...

... I should, have said that Evolutionists believe that Apes became Actuaries ... and Bacteria became Evolutionists ... but it didn't alliterate!!!:D

J C

Improbable wrote: »

I know it may be a concept you're unfamiliar with, but where is the evidence for that? Because your uninformed arguments absolutely contradict that...

I once knew an Evolutionist who looked like a Rabbit and acted like an Ape ... but I still don't believe that his granny was a Baboon ... even though he told me that he was a 'monkey's cousin'!!!:D

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... I should, have said that Evolutionists believe that Apes became Actuaries ... and Bacteria became Evolutionists ... but it didn't alliterate!!!:D

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

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Do you not understand the difference between the selection of existing CFSI (like speciation amongst Finches, Flies and Mosquitos, etc.) and the vast quantities of new CFSI required to spontanously produce Evolutionists from Pondslime and the even greater quantity and quality of CFSI required to produce Creationists!!!!:)

You're right I don't understand the difference between shades of bull****, it's all made up nonsense from the delusions of people who can't understand basic science.

So lets see how little you actually know JC.
Define evolution.

And if you ignore this question like I think you will, the only reason you do is because you don't actually know the answer and you're simply too dishonest to even acknowledge the question.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Earned conventional university qualifications in multiple science disciplines (and Mathematics).

Again JC isn't there something in your magic book about lying and how it's wrong?

J C

I didn't realise that there were digital cameras around 360 millon years ago to record the 'landfall' of your putative 'granny'!!!

... anyway these creatures exist today ... and they are called amphibians ... and no, I don't believe that frogs will ever become princes ... no matter how often they are kissed by Evolutionists!!!:)

robindch

Improbable wrote: »

What is your qualification?

Been done to death in the Other Thread, but AFAIR the general belief -- in the total absence of any evidence -- was that JC has a minor qualification in agriculture, possibly a national certificate.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

Well JC has already admitted that species change genetically over time until they can no longer interbreed. And this is evolution.

Again, in the Other Thread, she's admitted that she accepts all the evidence that leads to evolution, and has generally accepted evolution too.

JC's only problem, at least as far as evolution is concerned, is with abiogenesis which she cannot distinguish from the evolution of species.

sponsoredwalk

robindch wrote: »

Again, in the Other Thread, she's admitted that she accepts all the evidence that leads to evolution, and has generally accepted evolution too.

JC's only problem, at least as far as evolution is concerned, is with abiogenesis which she cannot distinguish from the evolution of species.

He!

J C

King Mob wrote: »

You're right I don't understand the difference between shades of bull****, it's all made up nonsense from the delusions of people who can't understand basic science.

So lets see how little you actually know JC.
Define evolution.

And if you ignore this question like I think you will, the only reason you do is because you don't actually know the answer and you're simply too dishonest to even acknowledge the question.

Evolution is a weasel word ... that can be all things to all men.

The current most popular definition is a change in allele frequency over time in a population ... which is actually only micro-evolution within Created Kinds.

Dougla2

J C wrote: »

Evolution is a weasel word ... that can be all things to all men.

The current most popular definition is a change in allele frequency over time in a population ... which is actually only micro-evolution within Created Kinds.

...........
....

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

He!

Robin has a problem with 'gender issues' ... he fantasizes that I am a woman ... just like he fantasizes that he, himself, is descended from a bacterium.:)

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Evolution is a weasel word ... that can be all things to all men.

No it's a strictly defined word.
Kinds on the other hand, now that's a weasel word.

J C wrote: »

The current most popular definition is a change in allele frequency over time in a population

So you actually think that allele frequency does change over time?
Therefore evolution happens?

/thread.

J C wrote: »

... which is actually only micro-evolution within Created Kinds.

Oh look more weasel words!
Tell you what, since you're on a role with the whole answering questions honestly for once, why not define these words?

Same rules apply, ignoring the question means you can't answer the question and are too dishonest to admit it.

Zillah

J C wrote: »

The current most popular definition is a change in allele frequency over time in a population ... which is actually only micro-evolution within Created Kinds.

Really depends on what you plug in for "time" there, doesn't it? 10k years and its micro, 100 million and it's macro. I think you finally get it J C! Hurray for science!

I'm so happy *tear*

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

The current most popular definition is a change in allele frequency over time in a population ... which is actually only micro-evolution within Created Kinds.

Another classic creationist mistake. Macroevolution is defined as microevolution
on a broad scale, i.e. the microevolution of many things not just a few.
Classic, again you admit you understand evolution - you use the terms to suit
your own biases and then deny it when we explain to you the true significance
of what you've said. Spooky how the mind can delude!

smcgiff

Aww - aren't humans fantastic all the same. What with creationists using words like 'Kind' as if a scientific term. Bit like Star Trek fans creating Klingon to give meaning to their fan fiction.

BTW, anybody here know how this book got on? Your man had radio ads for a while when this first broke. I imagine (hope!) reality soon hit.

smokingman

Lads, don't feed the pagan troll. Just because he believes some guy called Noah died and came back 28 days later in the year 211 ad, doesn't mean he can actually harm real science.

I have irrefutable proof that he is in fact John whatshisname and is trying to push up the post count on this thread to make it look like there's some interest in his toilet paper, sorry, "book".

I also have proof that Noah was a plumber, not a carpenter and his 13 apostles were actually his traveling circus act. I have discovered proof for all of this.

Fluffybums

 Originally Posted by J C 
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!!!

Now hang on a moment, I may be missing something here but I thought the creationist argument using the example of the flagellar motor is that it has to be created as a totality rather than in a series of steps.

JC you cannot have it both ways!

As for the hen argument, are you really that stupid??????? My 6 year old nephew would not make such an asinine comment.

Can you please ket me know where and what scientific qualification you hold, I need to know to ensure that no family of mine goes to the same establishment.

J C

Fluffybums wrote: »

 Originally Posted by J C 
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!!!

Now hang on a moment, I may be missing something here but I thought the creationist argument using the example of the flagellar motor is that it has to be created as a totality rather than in a series of steps.

It doesn't matter whether the motor is postulated as being created in a series of steps or all at once ... it requires an inordinate input of intelligent design. The CFSI is simply too great for non-intelligntly directed processes to produce it.

Fluffybums wrote: »


JC you cannot have it both ways!

As for the hen argument, are you really that stupid??????? My 6 year old nephew would not make such an asinine comment.

Can you please ket me know where and what scientific qualification you hold, I need to know to ensure that no family of mine goes to the same establishment.

You sound like an old-style religious zealot who refuses to let his children go to a school other than one that is run by his particular religion.

I must tell you that Creation Scientists have no such sectarian views. We happily work alongside people of all religions and none ... and we also encourage our children to do likewise.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I must tell you that Creation Scientists have no such sectarian views. We happily work alongside people of all religions

Creation scientists are happy to work alongside anyone seeing as they don't
do any real work. Still waiting for one single piece of evidence of scientific
work on behalf of a creation scientist (that furthered creation science and not normal science).

sponsoredwalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvrm9E4fUGQ

sponsoredwalk

J C, I've been researching creationism, and I think I've been swayed by
this man's impeccable logic:

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

I don't know what to think anymore

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Creation scientists are happy to work alongside anyone seeing as they don't
do any real work. Still waiting for one single piece of evidence of scientific
work on behalf of a creation scientist (that furthered creation science and not normal science).

Please reconsider these untrue and unloving words.

... or is the only cultural diversity that you do not tolerate, the diversity of Creation Science?

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

J C, I've been researching creationism, and I think I've been swayed by
this man's impeccable logic:

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

I don't know what to think anymore

I suppose a (twisted) imitation of the Creationist position is the best form of flattery that the Evolutionists can come up with!!!

The truth of Creation Science is seeping into their hearts and minds ... and that is why they expend such energy on debate and video to help salve their denial.