"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." [/COLOR]:)

Quoting from Genesis in no way shape or form backs up your point , it actually makes you look a bit cuckoo.

We must take a hard road, a road unforeseen. There lies our hope, if hope it be. To walk into peril — to Mordor. We must send the Ring to the Fire.
Elrond Peredhel
Lord of Imladris
Ring-bearer of Vilya, vice-regent and herald to Gil-galad

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by sponsoredwalk
Clearly they were peaceful herbivore's before that horrid temptress known as
woman forced noble Adam, against his noble will, to eat the forbidden fruit

I'm sure it's in the good book somewhere, right?


GO_Bear
Quoting from Genesis in no way shape or form backs up your point , it actually makes you look a bit cuckoo.

I was responding to sponsoredwalk's request for scriptural support for an originally vegetarian creation.

Please 'get with the programme'!!!:)

wrote:

GO_Bear
We must take a hard road, a road unforeseen. There lies our hope, if hope it be. To walk into peril — to Mordor. We must send the Ring to the Fire.
Elrond Peredhel
Lord of Imladris
Ring-bearer of Vilya, vice-regent and herald to Gil-galad

... and what do you think that the above signature does for your credibility ?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

:(That is the point, because Evolution is a 'blind' process relying on the selection of chance changes to genetic information, it has no capacity to account for the CFSI in living creatures.

LOL ROFL

JC - Evolution is looking for specific combinations of genes that it needs to do something like complete a skin cell, the odds that it will find this specific combination it is looking for are so unlikely it means evolution can't work.
Me - No it isn't you fool, evolution is a blind process it isn't trying to reach a goal, it is not trying to find the combination for a specific skin cell. It works with what is has, not what it is trying to reach.
JC - Er, ummm ... yes, yes, that is what I mean, yes er evolution is ummm blind so it can't er do this other thing that is nothing to do with my first claim, so ummm that is what I meant the first time

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

As for CFSI given that that isn't a real thing the inability of evolution to account for it is irrelevant. Evolution can't account for Godzilla either, biologists don't lose sleep over this because Godzilla isn't real.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

... and what do you think that the above signature does for your credibility ?

About as much as quoting Genesis does for yours mate.

Zombrex

GO_Bear wrote: »

it actually makes you look a bit cuckoo.

Stick around, you will soon realize that that statement is rather insulting to cuckoos

GO_Bear

Firstly evolution is a fact, it happens , how ever much you want to close your eyes and ears and shout that is doesn't, I see it every day in the lab, bacteria acquiring antibiotic resistance and the likes, not only does it occur in biology it occurs in all walks of life, from evolution of languages to evolution of dance.

The process by which it occurs is the only thing we can really argue about. Evolution by natural SELECTION, is inherently not random. Yes it does require mutations to take place ( more often then not small and neutral ) but when a mutation offers the individual an advantage, nature selects for the trait as he is the most fit and so it gets passed on. AS I AM SURE ALL OF YOU KNOW ALREADY as it is pretty elementary stuff.

The problem I can gather from your argument is that it is completely random?

Its a complex process that cannot be explained when you reduce it. You seem to think that the random mutations ( which are not as random as you would think ) are the main cause, if you would, of evolution. Its not true, the process of selection is just as, if not more important as it is the process that ultimately results in the increasingly diverse and complex lifeforms we see today. Also the environment of the organisms is just as important of the organism itself. The end result of the process being not random as stated by its name.

Feel free to not agree with this, I will try answer any questions you have to the best of my ability, but this is not my main area of study it is more a past time.

If this is not on the topic you argue with I apoligise but I don't have time to read the 121 pages of comments.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

:(That is the point, because Evolution is a 'blind' process relying on the selection of chance changes to genetic information, it has no capacity to account for the CFSI in living creatures.

If you put as much energy into providing evidence for evolution, as you do into making unfounded adhominem insults against me, you might be able to progress your case!!!
... but then again, as there is no evidence for Spontaneous Evolution, I guess the best that you can do is to make a few insults and hope that nobody notices that Evolution is evidentially and scientifically bankrupt!!

There is evidence for Darwinian evolution though, which is the natural, guided, non-random selection of spontaneous mutations.

fligedlyflick

now then.
i'm neither creationist, atheist, agnostic, argumentative or other but if one of you anti-creationist people who posted here can prove that creationism is in fact bunkum and deluded ramblings based on supernatural happenings then i may be willing to subscribe to your intellectual awesomeness.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I was responding to sponsoredwalk's request for scriptural support for an originally vegetarian creation.

Typical creationist cluelessness... :rolleyes:

You're ignoring our explanations of evolution to religiously repeat this mantra

J C wrote: »

Evolution is a 'blind' process relying on the selection of chance changes to genetic information, it has no capacity to account for the CFSI in living creatures.

The last sentence you stated has no evidence whatsoever to back it up,
in fact every explanation we've given you invalidates this claim.

If the environment selects

creation rocks

but an organism is spelled as

sfsfsfffwf

it's going to take generations upon generations to get this.

Oh, what if

rocks

is selected even better than creation rocks :eek: Who knows, there is no
claim that one and only one thing works, in fact the very existence of
so many species shows us one single spelling isn't all that's needed.
You know this by now, it's why you haven't responded for so long, just
let it be, if you want to ignore reality that much then don't waste our
time with it anymore, you've been shown to be dishonestly trying to
argue against this time and time again, it's over now...

Oh, and that passage about the 6th day, I mean what about what the book
has written for the first 5 days? There are already some errors in there J C,
such as the very first line perhaps? :pac: But no, dinosaurs were all happy
vegetarians until a walking rib gave an apple to a man, despicable! I hope
you look on women as the filth they really are according to your propaganda!

King Mob

fligedlyflick wrote: »

now then.
i'm neither creationist, atheist, agnostic, argumentative or other but if one of you anti-creationist people who posted here can prove that creationism is in fact bunkum and deluded ramblings based on supernatural happenings then i may be willing to subscribe to your intellectual awesomeness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

15 parts. Destroys creationism totally and shows exactly how ignorant and dishonest it is.

sponsoredwalk

fligedlyflick wrote: »

now then.
i'm neither creationist, atheist, agnostic, argumentative or other but if one of you anti-creationist people who posted here can prove that creationism is in fact bunkum and deluded ramblings based on supernatural happenings then i may be willing to subscribe to your intellectual awesomeness.

Creationism according to who? There are tons of creationist myths, we'd
have to look at each one in particular and see what it's claims are.

It's a nuanced field If you're wondering about J C's claims then my best
advice for you is to watch some lectures on youtube by a woman named
Eugenie Scott, she goes through all of their claims in detail and shows how
they contradict scientific findings and how these claims of creationism
being scientific is ludicrous.

robindch

fligedlyflick wrote: »

if one of you anti-creationist people who posted here can prove that creationism is in fact bunkum

Are there any creationist claims that you believe are not bunk? If so, please do list one or two and we'll take things from there

optogirl

J C wrote: »

:(That is the point, because Evolution is a 'blind' process relying on the selection of chance changes to genetic information, it has no capacity to account for the CFSI in living creatures.

If you put as much energy into providing evidence for evolution, as you do into making unfounded adhominem insults against me, you might be able to progress your case!!!
... but then again, as there is no evidence for Spontaneous Evolution, I guess the best that you can do is to make a few insults and hope that nobody notices that Evolution is evidentially and scientifically bankrupt!!

oh dear

GO_Bear

The burden off proof should be on the person who claims that it was all created by there particular choice of deity.

Just because I don't know how it happened doesn't mean I am going to conjure up this grand story to try and explain it. You are basically saying that because it cannot be explained, you can explain it. It means that I am content with the unknown, and am working towards a better understanding which is not clouded and bias by a another belief.

Now tell me which hinders progress more:

Already jumping to a conclusion with absolutely positively no evidence what so ever.

Or releasing there is a gap in the knowledge pool that hopefully we can fill some day.


Yes they are not mutually exclusive, nor is it a dichotomy, they are just the two main views

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

That one's actually quite clever.

fligedlyflick

robindch wrote: »

Are there any creationist claims that you believe are not bunk? If so, please do list one or two and we'll take things from there

nope, personally i don't see any foundation to any creationist claims but that's just me and my perspective but bear in mind i am not qualified to write it off as hocus pocus or nonsense, similarly i am unable by intellectual capacity to assert that the whole theory of evolution is indeed fact, nobody has.
maybe as the youtube linked kindly supplied to me earlier states that 95% of scientists believe in evolution, (before it goes off on a tandem about evangelists), but the optimum word there is "believe"... now if they said "have irrefutable proof" which dismisses creationism as a scare story for impressionable americans then it;'s a whole new ball game but neither side has proof just theories and no amount of video links, pamphlets, scientific specimens, nature programmes on BBC2 or lunatic preachers will succeed in moving me off this fence, i'm happy enough watching both sides from my lofty abode stick their thumbs in their ears and blow raspberries at each other.

sponsoredwalk

fligedlyflick wrote: »

(before it goes off on a tandem about evangelists), but the optimum word there is "believe"... now if they said "have irrefutable proof" which dismisses creationism as a scare story for impressionable americans then it;'s a whole new ball game but neither side has proof just theories and no amount of video links, pamphlets, scientific specimens, nature programmes on BBC2 or lunatic preachers will succeed in moving me off this fence,

As was asked of you already, you have to mention a specific creation myth
in order to see if it can be refuted. As for this claim that "belief" is what
motivates people, we've been through this many times in this thread and
it's not a question of belief, it's a question of looking at the mountains
upon mountains of evidence and asking whether you're willing to accept
this as "proof" or whether you can disprove it. So far the main theory has
not been challenged even though "evolutionismists" themselves constantly
offer up ways to refute the theory. Creationists main claims seem to
be this irrefutable complexity argument. This is essentially the statement
that because something is so complex it must have been made by an
intelligence, (what intelligence? :rolleyes:). Now, a lot of these claims have
been shown to be total nonsense, I mean it's simply a statement that
something can't be explained by materialistic factors. This is called
creation science! SCIENCE!!! Now, when their main source of joy in
the 90's, the Flagella motor, was actually shown to, in fact, be
extremely capable of originating by materialistic processes and in
accord with evolutionary theory. What should we conclude?
This is not science, this is creationist theory that was in fact shown
to be bogus. Of course, this endlessly deferring "theory" can never be
refuted, all it does it take the most complicated and least-understood
aspects of biology and claim GOD DID IT!! but when scientific work
eventually shows these things work according to evolutionary theory et.
al we get back to reality and see whose initial assumptions were correct.
If this is the creationist stuff you're talking about then no, it can never
ever be proven wrong because it's not set up to allow refutation.
In common parlance we say this theory has been proven wrong because
it's just bull**** to begin with and any test of it's claims are shown to be
wrong but in principle it's irrefutable to begin with and a particularly
dishonest idea when bandied about as "science" by outright liars but
that's what you get when dealing with religion...

Also, nothing can be "irrefutably proven" - simple example: The earth at
the center of the solar system. Looking in the sky all the planets seem
to follow the ecliptic path within a narrow band which would certainly
give "evidence" that the planets and sun revolve around the earth.
There is plenty more, the point is that this is the evidence for a
geocentric universe. If I base my knowledge of the universe on what I
see then all the stuff I've read in physics books just isn't true! It isn't!
No matter what you can't refute my hypothesis that the earth is the
center of the universe, I haven't seen the solar system apart from
pictures! They could have been doctored! Ever see that picture of the
astronaut on the moon beside the flag while, in the distance, the moon
is seen overhead! :eek: See!

You can either trust the mountains upon mountains of evidence or not,
but "irrefutable proof" lies in the domain of dishonest irrefutable theories
like creation science, if this is the kind of argument it takes to convince
you of something, well idk, they don't exist so I suppose you believe
nothing right?

Wait, sorry - these irrefutably evidence-laden theories exist: it's all in
the bible!!! Silly me, I forgot :rolleyes:

fligedlyflick

maybe god made it?

fligedlyflick

seriously though, i only was drawn here to laugh at conor lenihan

The Mad Hatter

fligedlyflick wrote: »

seriously though, i only was drawn here to laugh at conor lenihan

As good a reason as any.

Incidentally, only one side has a theory. The other side has guesswork and makey-uppy mysticism.

sponsoredwalk

fligedlyflick wrote: »

seriously though, i only was drawn here to laugh at conor lenihan

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

As good a reason as any.

True, in fact I think it's the only reason any of us are even here in the first
place, but not why some are still here nearly 2 months later :pac:

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Incidentally, only one side has a theory. The other side has guesswork and makey-uppy mysticism.

... and we all know, at this stage, which side has a makey-uppy belief in the mystical powers of 'muck and magic and millions of years' ... and which side has the mathematical proof and scientific evidence for their position that life was intelligently designed!!!

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

The burden off proof should be on the person who claims that it was all created by there particular choice of deity.

Just because I don't know how it happened doesn't mean I am going to conjure up this grand story to try and explain it. You are basically saying that because it cannot be explained, you can explain it. It means that I am content with the unknown, and am working towards a better understanding which is not clouded and bias by a another belief.

Now tell me which hinders progress more:

Already jumping to a conclusion with absolutely positively no evidence what so ever.

Or releasing there is a gap in the knowledge pool that hopefully we can fill some day.


Yes they are not mutually exclusive, nor is it a dichotomy, they are just the two main views

You should try following your own advice sometime ... and see how you get on!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

mathematical proof

Another lie for the lord JC?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... and we all know, at this stage, which side has a makey-uppy belief in the mystical powers [LIES]dishonest straw-man mischaracterization removed[/LIES] and which side has the mathematical proof and scientific evidence for their position [Dishonest misleading assertion] that life was intelligently designed!!![/Dishonest misleading assertion]

Aye, that we do.

J C

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

An interesting creationism proposition

This is an unintended, but very interesting, metaphorical illustration of the love and care that Jesus Christ has for sinners ... ... and the possibility that, even those who are particularly nasty, can be reconciled and Saved by Jesus Christ's tender mercy!!!

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

This is an unintended, but very interesting, metaphorical illustration of the love and care that Jesus Christ has for sinners ... ... and the possibility that, even those who are particularly nasty, can be reconciled and Saved by Jesus Christ's tender mercy!!!

Why is religiraptor a sinner?

Stercus Accidit

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Why is religiraptor a sinner?

Its rib fed it an apple

sponsoredwalk

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Its rib fed it an apple

The ultimate horror! :eek:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL ROFL

JC - Evolution is looking for specific combinations of genes that it needs to do something like complete a skin cell, the odds that it will find this specific combination it is looking for are so unlikely it means evolution can't work.
Me - No it isn't you fool, evolution is a blind process it isn't trying to reach a goal, it is not trying to find the combination for a specific skin cell. It works with what is has, not what it is trying to reach.
JC - Er, ummm ... yes, yes, that is what I mean, yes er evolution is ummm blind so it can't er do this other thing that is nothing to do with my first claim, so ummm that is what I meant the first time

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Talking to oneself is bad enough ... but when you begin to answer back ... that takes the biscuit!!!:eek:

Wicknight wrote: »

As for CFSI given that that isn't a real thing the inability of evolution to account for it is irrelevant. Evolution can't account for Godzilla either, biologists don't lose sleep over this because Godzilla isn't real.

... so are you saying that Genetic Information that is Complex, Functional and Specific doesn't exist?

... so not only are you talking to yourself ... and answering back ... you are now denying that Genetic Information exists ...
... what will you do next?
... start telling everyone that they are a monkey's cousin or the progeny of a 'slimeball'?