"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

The environment can only select the phenotype of a particular CFSI presented to it ... and what my maths is devastatingly proving is that a non-intelligently directed process, like mutagenesis, is incapable of producing the new CFSI for just one small biomolecule, let alone the thousands of closely co-ordinated and highly specific biomolecules that are required in even one so-called 'simple living cell' ... so there is nothing new (other than the pre-existing genetic diversity infused at Creation) to present to the environment for it to select.

Your "proof" didn't account for natural selection, or thermodynamics,
therefore your "proof" is ignoring vital ingredients in the ponslime
mixture ergo you're "proof" is just wrong, devastatingly wrong.
Tell me, if I say I give the classic proof that 1 = 0 and repeat it
over and over again does that make it correct? You're doing the
same thing, ignoring an extremely important element of the thing your
proof is supposed to account for, therefore you're just plain wrong.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

What was 'horrendous' about it ... I merely pointed out that, just like I have already provided mathematical proof for my position

No you haven't.
That's a lie.

You don't know what a proof is.
The only thing you have proved is that creationism is inherently dishonest and ignorant.
So thanks.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... the mathematical proof is that materialistic processes alone are incapable of producing life ... and a massive input of intelligence was required.

... It possibly could be a material intelligent being.


Wicknight
Careful, you got yourself in knots when discussing what is or isn't possible

So the intelligence that produced life on Earth (the only life we have ever observed) could not be material in nature, it had to be supernatural?

That directly contradicts what you just said here



So when you said that were you lying or merely mistaken?

Or was it when you said you had PROVE it could not have been material were you lying or mistaken then?



Yet you can say it was not material?

When you said it could be material were you lying or merely mistaken?

Your logical deductions are all over the place!!!
My two statements that a massive input of intelligence was required to create life on Earth ... and ... the intelligence could possibly be a material intelligent being, are not mutually exclusive ... or contradictory, like you are trying to make out ...
... they possibly could both be true.
... so not only am I not lying ... I am making reasoned logical answers to you questions ... something that you should try sometime!!!:(

... and the upshot of it all, is that you may believe that the Intelligence was an Alien ... but I prefer the hypothesis that it was God!!!

... unlike any 'Alien', God has both the capacity ... and the transcendence to be the Ultimate Cause of all life in the Universe.

... but if it makes you happy, you can call God an 'Alien' ... for that is what He is to the unsaved ... but I know Him to be the Almighty Creator God of the Universe ... who loves you and me personally ... and who wants to Save everyone.

keppler

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

No, not one iota of difference between these two organisms :rolleyes:

Were you lying? Even a little? :pac:

The bucket....THE BUCKET..:mad:

J C wrote: »

Your logical deductions are all over the place!!!
My two statements that a massive input of intelligence was required to create life on Earth ... and ... the intelligence could possibly be a material intelligent being, are not mutually exclusive ... or contradictory, like you are trying to make out ...
... they possibly could both be true.
... so not only am I not lying ... I am making reasoned logical answers to you questions ... something that you should try sometime!!!:(

... and the upshot of it al,l is that you may believe that the Intelligence was an Alien ... but I prefer the hypothesis that it was God!!!

... unlike any 'Alien', God has both the capacity ... and the transcendence to be the Ultimate Cause of all life in the Universe.

... but if it makes you happy, you can call God an 'Alien' ... for that is what He is to the unsaved ... but I know Him to be the Almighty Creator God of the Universe ... who loves you and me personally ... and who wants to Save everyone.

His logic is all over the place??
Have you actually looked at the beermat you wrote that junk on? (if you even wrote it at all?)
Are you aware that you are applying probability theory to biochemistry in the same manner one does apply it to the lottery..:rolleyes:
Btw nobody here is actually claiming that aliens created life on earth but yet you are claiming that it is a fact that God created it without any evidence whatsoever

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by sponsoredwalk
No, not one iota of difference between these two organisms

Were you lying? Even a little?

keppler
The bucket....THE BUCKET..:mad:

Many living organisms are identical to their fossils ... they haven't changed one iota over supposed hundreds of millions of Evolutionist years ... here is one!!!

... and there are different sponge varieties/species alive today that are identical to their individual supposedly 600 million year old fossils.

wrote:

keppler
The bucket....THE BUCKET..:mad:

... If evolutionism is such a sickener for you all ... why don't you try Creationism ... instead???

Myksyk

J C wrote: »

... and who wants to Save everyone.

Hmm ... If he did exist, I'd say you've tested his patience.

keppler

J C wrote: »

Many living organisms are identical to their fossils ... haven't changed one iota over supposed hundreds of millions of Evolutionist years ... here is one!!!

... and there are different sponge varieties/species alive today that are identical to their individual supposedly 600 million year old fossils.

... If evolutionism is such a sickener for you all ... why don't you try Creationism ... instead???

J C please read this extract from wiki

Although now represented by only two known living species, as a group the coelacanths were once very successful with many genera and species that left an abundant fossil record from the Devonian to the end of the Cretaceous period, at which point they apparently suffered a nearly complete extinction. Before the living specimens were discovered, it was believed by some that the coelacanth was a "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods. It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years; but, in fact, the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. The most likely reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters. Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossil record.

sure why dont you throw in a youtube vid of a shark or a crocodile while your at it J C

J C

keppler wrote: »

J C please read this extract from wiki

... sure why dont you throw in a youtube vid of a shark or a crocodile while your at it J C

Have a look here and you will see that the fossil Coelacanth is identical to the living specimen http://www.greekpaleo.net/paleoFiles/livingFossilsPages/coelakanthos.htm

... just admit that the Evolutionists got it wrong on the Coelacanth ... and the Crocodile ... and the Shark ... and the move on!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

My two statements that a massive input of intelligence was required to create life on Earth ... and ... the intelligence could possibly be a material intelligent being, are not mutually exclusive

Agreed. The problem with that is that this wasn't your statement (isn't the quote feature handy)

Of course Materialism is a belief system ... that there is no God ... and material processes is all there is.

... but the mathematically proven intelligent design of life shows that Materialism is an unfounded belief !!!

So the "mathematically proven intelligent design of life" shows that materialism is wrong, there is a God because a material thing could not have made life on Earth.

And then you say here

It possibly could be a material intelligent being

So when you said that the "mathematically proven intelligent design of life shows that Materialism is an unfounded belief" where you lying or merely mistaken?

J C wrote: »

... so not only am I not lying ...

When you said the mathematically proven intelligent design of life proves God exists were you lying?

J C wrote: »

... and the upshot of it all, is that you may believe that the Intelligence was an Alien ... but I prefer the hypothesis that it was God!!!

Oh so now you just prefer this hypothesis? But didn't you say that you had proven that materialism was unfounded?

Yes, yes I think you did

So when you said that were you lying or just mistaken?

J C wrote: »

... unlike any 'Alien', God has both the capacity ... and the transcendence to be the Ultimate Cause of all life in the Universe.

So you have gone from PROVING it was God to simply personally thinking it is more likely to be God based on your own personal religious beliefs?

So when you said you had proved it was God were you lying? Or just getting a bit ahead of yourself?

J C wrote: »

but I know Him to be the Almighty Creator God of the Universe ... who loves you and me personally ... and who wants to Save everyone.

So again you were lying/mistaken when you said you had proven it was God?

And you agree that your belief that it was God is not scientific but in fact based solely upon your own personal religious beliefs?

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Agreed. The problem with that is that this wasn't your statement (isn't the quote feature handy)



So the "mathematically proven intelligent design of life" shows that materialism is wrong, there is a God because a material thing could not have made life on Earth.

And then you say here



So when you said that the "mathematically proven intelligent design of life shows that Materialism is an unfounded belief" where you lying or merely mistaken?



When you said the mathematically proven intelligent design of life proves God exists were you lying?



Oh so now you just prefer this hypothesis? But didn't you say that you had proven that materialism was unfounded?

Yes, yes I think you did

So when you said that were you lying or just mistaken?



So you have gone from PROVING it was God to simply personally thinking it is more likely to be God based on your own personal religious beliefs?

So when you said you had proved it was God were you lying? Or just getting a bit ahead of yourself?



So again you were lying/mistaken when you said you had proven it was God?

And you agree that your belief that it was God is not scientific but in fact based solely upon your own personal religious beliefs?

... isn't denial a terrible thing!!!

Myksyk

J C wrote: »

... isn't denial a terrible thing!!!

Ah, the unmistakable, empty sound of a vacant mind running into the wall at the end of an intellectual cul de sac.

Ps ... to avoid another feeble attempt at "you mean you lot not me" humour, I'm referring to your last post J.

Morbert

"... isn't denial a terrible thing!!!" --J C

J C

Morbert wrote: »

"... isn't denial a terrible thing!!!" --J C

... it sure is ... so are you admitting that the Evolutionists got it wrong on the Coelacanth ... and the Crocodile ... and the Shark ... and the snail ... and the turtle ... or are you still in denial that Evolution is specious nonesense???

Galvasean

The coelacanth hasn't changed in millions of years? That old chesnut!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

robindch

J C wrote: »

when I was an Evolutionist, I too felt 'sick and sad' many times ... when I thought that I was only a temporary product of physical matter, assembled by physical forces through a process of 'blind pitiless indifference' ... on the way to eternal anhiallation ... and without an eternal spirit and an equally eternal destiny ... or a God who loved me so much that He literally died to Save me!!!

An uncharacteristically interesting post, from which we can infer that observed facts are unimportant. Creationism is basically an emotional argument, catering to the requirement that many people have for "meaning" and "destiny".

Truth or honesty form no part of this.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... isn't denial a terrible thing!!!

Let me ask again

When you said the mathematically proven intelligent design of life proves God exists were you lying or merely mistaken?

J C wrote: »

... and the upshot of it all, is that you may believe that the Intelligence was an Alien ... but I prefer the hypothesis that it was God!!!

Oh so now you just prefer this hypothesis? But didn't you say that you had proven that materialism was unfounded?

Yes, yes I think you did

So when you said that were you lying or just mistaken?

J C wrote: »

... unlike any 'Alien', God has both the capacity ... and the transcendence to be the Ultimate Cause of all life in the Universe.

So you have gone from PROVING it was God to simply personally thinking it is more likely to be God based on your own personal religious beliefs?

So when you said you had proved it was God were you lying? Or just getting a bit ahead of yourself?

J C wrote: »

but I know Him to be the Almighty Creator God of the Universe ... who loves you and me personally ... and who wants to Save everyone.

So again you were lying/mistaken when you said you had proven it was God?

And you agree that your belief that it was God is not scientific but in fact based solely upon your own personal religious beliefs?

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

... should be very interesting ...

Please tell me you did not really post clips from Expelled, by the known moron Ben Stein ? Tell me its a glitch please. His scientific research, involved going around the world and talking to like minded moron's and then accusing all modern scientists as being responsible for the Holocaust.

J C wrote: »

Could I respectfully suggest that when you try to spread your beliefs that we are glorified pondslime going to eternal oblivion ... that you should take your own advice ... and back up these beliefs with evidence ... and specifically, you will need to invalidate the mathematical proof that life had an intelligently directed and designed origin by an intelligence of divine proportions ... before you (or your buddies) go indoctinating Christian Children with your unfounded Materialism!!!

No you may respecfully not , because I am not making comments such as :

J C wrote: »

... the mathematical proof is that materialistic processes alone are incapable of producing life ... and a massive input of intelligence was required.

and trying to disprove any current working theory. MAYBE IF YOU GIVE US THE ****ING MATHEMATICAL PROOF WE CAN DISPROVE IT FOR YOU IN SECONDS

J C wrote: »

To take an everyday example ... a car runs by materialistically explicable means ...
... when I flick the light switch, the lights come on as mechanically produced and chemically stored electricity runs through the circuit that is established via the wires and the switch to energise the light filaments.
Equally, when I turn the steering wheel, the front wheels respond and the car 'goes' where the I steer it, using chemically released energy that is mechanically captured and harnessed via the engine, the gearbox and the driveshaft.

However, the original manufacture of the car required both materialistic processes and a very significant input of intelligent design and direction in order to produce it ... and it would never be produced by non-intelligently directed, purely materialistic processes alone.

... and ditto with life ... although it is now capable of self-directed existence and reproduction using materialistic processes ... its massive levels of CFSI mathematically proves that it was originally intelligently designed by a massive input of design and direction.
.

This is just another rehash on the Tornado through the junkyard straw-man.
There is a big difference between something which is complicated (man made) and something which is complex (life) the difference being, we look at a car, which is complicated and we can take it apart down to its individual components, and put it back together and it will work fine. But you can't take a human being apart to its individual components and put it back together. The two are not comparable. Think of life as self organizing complex systems. Self healing, they work to counteract any external stimulus and return the system to its state of equilibrium.

Imagine you said goodbye to a loved one JC , as you are taking an extended trip. You leave for 10 to 15 years, while you are gone, your body kills off its dead cells and replaces them with new cells. So in the timespan your body has changed almost every single one of its cells. But when you arrive home, the loved one recognizes you straight away. But how can this happen ? you are 100% different ? What is it that people recognize ? your soul ?

Did the "designer" design you in such a way that you have a pattern ?
Or is it the individual component cells working according to a set of rules and maintaining this idea of self by working to ignore external stimulus.

Really think about this JC , I know the idea might scare you, But just like no individual makes a team, the Manager did not design the "team", the team is individual efforts of each player and how they interact with one another according to the rules of the game.


And yes I am still waiting for this mathematical proof. It is no doubt a creationists lame attempt at probability.

GO_Bear

And my religious belief in aliens

smokingman

robindch wrote: »

An uncharacteristically interesting post, from which we can infer that observed facts are unimportant. Creationism is basically an emotional argument, catering to the requirement that many people have for "meaning" and "destiny".

Truth or honesty form no part of this.

That's exactly the crux of the whole debate here - some people just cannot live with the thought that we aren't that special, that we are from pond scum (politians don't seem to have moved on there though).

What is wrong with this idea? Why would someone be so disgusted by that thought in the first place? Would it be a heightened sense of self importance? I think so.

I, for one, don't need to assign some sort of deity to my sense of self to feel special but others obviously do. Are they weak minded to come to this conclusion? I don't honestly know but there has to be some reason why people seek a deity to add purpose to their life.

GO_Bear

smokingman wrote: »

I, for one, don't need to assign some sort of deity to my sense of self to feel special but others obviously do. Are they weak minded to come to this conclusion? I don't honestly know but there has to be some reason why people seek a deity to add purpose to their life.

This is true. But isn't the fact that we have evolved such a long way (of our own accord and without any type of supernatural assistance) , in itself not a beautiful and amazing thing.

smokingman

GO_Bear wrote: »

This is true. But isn't the fact that we have evolved such a long way (of our own accord and without any type of supernatural assistance) , in itself not a beautiful and amazing thing.

Sure is, just the same feeling for me as to when I look up to the stars and constellations on a clear night and sit back in awe at how utterly amazing the cosmos is and how we are so insignificant compared to it.

Simply.Beautiful.

sponsoredwalk

Anybody else see how J C ducked the point he made? First he claims
that there isn't one iota of difference in sponges for 600 milion years,
then when I show him pictures disproving his nonsense, pictures showing
spongs from different time periods (due to evolution) and a reasonable
explanation as to why sponges have barely changed in the time period
(because they are invincible, good a reason as any! :P) he doesn't
acknowledge it but instead just changes the species he's discussing and
acts like nothing ever happened.
Stunning stuff, yet entertaining all the same watching his worldview
of lies grow smaller and smaller. And how long until he answers the fact his
proof ignored vital ingredients in the swamp-to-man theory he's
utterly destroyed due to his infallible logic? I think that once he faces
this single point, which he can't actually answer unless he totally
lies or faces up to it, it will get him to stop referring to his proof, help
me get JC to face a bit of reality :pac:

GO_Bear

smokingman wrote: »

Sure is, just the same feeling for me as to when I look up to the stars and constellations on a clear night and sit back in awe at how utterly amazing the cosmos is and how we are so insignificant compared to it.

Simply.Beautiful.

I am a biologist and I was brought up in my undergrad under the impression that all physicist where a bit odd! But I have to admit I am currently engrossed in Cosmology ! A particular video I think is quite eye opening is:
its an interesting watch if you have not seen it already

liamw

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

help
me get JC to face a bit of reality :pac:

Pointless. Read through some of the Creationism thread in Christianity forum and you will see the same old tired arguments refuted over and over. The only reason to keep arguing his nonsense arguments is to show possible passers-by that they are junk.

sponsoredwalk

liamw wrote: »

Pointless. Read through some of the Creationism thread in Christianity forum and you will see the same old tired arguments refuted over and over. The only reason to keep arguing his nonsense arguments is to show possible passers-by that they are junk.

That thread, , no thanks No, I have faith in my leninist-evolutionary
propaganda to believe JC will finally become, one of us, one of us! :eek:
We await his answer about the proof, my questions are in the past 4 or 5
posts I've made.

GO_Bear

I think his strategy is to wait 3 or 4 pages, completely ignore all previous posts and than tell people how evolution is impossible because a tornado does not just blow through a junkyard and result in a fully built Boeing 747

:D:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

or a God who loved me so much that He literally died to Save me!!!

When you know for a fact that immediately after "dying" you are going to go back to the paradise you created to rule over the universe for eternity, I don't really see the sacrifice tbh, especially when the person you "died" to save people from was yourself. Seems like a massive waste of time to me.

Sam Vimes

GO_Bear wrote: »

I think his strategy is to wait 3 or 4 pages, completely ignore all previous posts and than tell people how evolution is impossible because a tornado does not just blow through a junkyard and result in a fully built Boeing 747

Yup, that's pretty much it. Fast forward five years and it becomes even more obvious.

keppler

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Anybody else see how J C ducked the point he made? First he claims
that there isn't one iota of difference in sponges for 600 milion years,
then when I show him pictures disproving his nonsense, pictures showing
spongs from different time periods (due to evolution) and a reasonable
explanation as to why sponges have barely changed in the time period
(because they are invincible, good a reason as any! :P) he doesn't
acknowledge it but instead just changes the species he's discussing and
acts like nothing ever happened.
Stunning stuff, yet entertaining all the same watching his worldview
of lies grow smaller and smaller. And how long until he answers the fact his
proof ignored vital ingredients in the swamp-to-man theory he's
utterly destroyed due to his infallible logic? I think that once he faces
this single point, which he can't actually answer unless he totally
lies or faces up to it, it will get him to stop referring to his proof, help
me get JC to face a bit of reality :pac:

Sure did!......he switched to coelacanths then when i answered his post he gave me a lousy picture form an amateur astronomers website (not even a single peer reviewed article!). I wouldnt mind but by even mentioning croc's and sharks I inadvertently gave him another stepping stone via which to change the subject again!!!!!!
I think if everyone justs keeps talking about him in the third person we might p*ss him off so much to the point where he cracks and just admits that his bunch of random figures is not a proof..:D

keppler

GO_Bear wrote: »

I think his strategy is to wait 3 or 4 pages, completely ignore all previous posts and than tell people how evolution is impossible because a tornado does not just blow through a junkyard and result in a fully built Boeing 747

:D:D

in theory wouldnt this wind have to blow through a junkyard full of old 747 parts? lol