"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

sponsoredwalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCSxf1JgeQk

stevejazzx

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCSxf1JgeQk

Wow
Who is this Demski chap? From the small bit of bio I've glimpsed on the interweb he appears to have behind him some serious academic laboring?
It's truly incredible therefore that literally none of it shows. Reading prepared statements at a debate? Answering questions that weren't asked? Sounding like a bad recording of an audiobook by an author who is self published. He goes on with defenses that would embarrass the majority of first time Christian posters on these boards.
Why didn't Darwin know about chemical evolution? Possibly the same reason why he didn't know about space travel!
God is the only moral standard therefore God cannot be immoral, humans don't understand morality or morality doesn't exist in the way we believe it to? What of the ten commandments then? The guy is a bumbling absurdist apologist of the highest order and I never read the comments on YouTube but did so this time in order to find one comment that defended him nut there was none; I mean how bad do you have to be that not even one crackpot guy defends your crackpot reasoning, not one. Conversely Hitchens enjoys exclusive merits from all posters and deservedly so. Even in this subdued state he is eloquent and real beating a logical rhythm throughout puntctuated with his own brand of intellectual truth that a lot of the audience obviously bought into; no mean feat in a Christian college. Btw the prayer at the end was like a desperate last attempt to restore Christian hope. I believe the opening went (I didn't hang around for the middle or end) I kid you not;
(Prayer) "Thank you God for all the confusion...."
Amazing compartmentisation of the religious mind which if it weren't so serious would be on an equivalent comical scale with the very best of Monthy Python.

keppler

stevejazzx wrote: »

Wow
Who is this Demski chap?

He's an idiot who fancied himself as an intellectual and tried on a pair of glasses.
Hitchens really had him beat down........but but what about hitler and Mother Teresa......id really like to read my closing speech cause I think its going to be a scorcher!! lol

Evolutionists 1.27E10^130
J C ........0.000E10^0

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Hitchens Vs. Dembski! ⇔ Evolutionismists Vs. JC!

... As I used to be an Evolutionist ... and I am now a Creationist ... I can provide the arguments for both sides ... but I would be too embarrassed to use the basic Evolutionist non sequitur ... that because we are here we must therefore have evolved from Pondkind!!!!

... and if you doubt me ... here is what this eminent Evolutionist had to say in defence of his 'pet' theory

•Professor D.M.S Watson, famous evolutionist
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative-special creation is cleary incredible."

... to which I would like to add that the alternative of muck spontaneously generating the CSI in living cells is vastly more incredible!!!!

sponsoredwalk

Is it as incredible as the amount of stars in the universe 10 years ago,
like the number you used in your irrefutable proof, or is it as incredible
as the number of stars that there are as of 2010?

It took you quite a while to come back here repeating the same fluff,
do you really want to keep playing this game?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... As I used to be an Evolutionist ... and I am now a Creationist ... I can provide the arguments for both sides ... but I would be too embarrassed to use the basic Evolutionist non sequitur ... that because we are here we must therefore have evolved from Pondkind!!!!

... and if you doubt me ... here is what this eminent Evolutionist had to say in defence of his 'pet' theory

•Professor D.M.S Watson, famous evolutionist
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative-special creation is cleary incredible."

... to which I would like to add that the alternative of muck spontaneously generating the CSI in living cells is vastly more incredible!!!!

You're right JC that dishonestly presented out of context quote has negated all the lies and untruths you've spouted and made your position (that it was magic) so much more likely.

Frankly I'm surprised you can even know that a non sequitur is a dishonest thing to use, even though you use the term incorrectly.

But as I say JC, keep going. You're showing exactly what creationism entails.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Is it as incredible as the amount of stars in the universe 10 years ago,
like the number you used in your irrefutable proof, or is it as incredible
as the number of stars that there are as of 2010?

It took you quite a while to come back here repeating the same fluff,
do you really want to keep playing this game?

... just popped in to check on the levels of denial ... and I see that they are still in the stratosphere!!

J C

King Mob wrote: »

You're right JC that dishonestly presented out of context quote has negated all the lies and untruths you've spouted and made your position (that it was magic) so much more likely.

Frankly I'm surprised you can even know that a non sequitur is a dishonest thing to use, even though you use the term incorrectly.

But as I say JC, keep going. You're showing exactly what creationism entails.

... plenty of bluster and denial ...

... but no substantive answer to my mathematical proof or Professor D.M.S Watson's devastating quote!!!

J C

King Mob wrote: »

You're right JC that dishonestly presented out of context quote has negated all the lies and untruths you've spouted and made your position (that it was magic) so much more likely.

... which part of the quote is untrue?
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative-special creation is cleary incredible."

... or what was the context that would make the quote any better from an Evolutionist perspective?

... or could it be you that is the one who is 'spouting the lies and untruths' ... about me?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... plenty of bluster and denial ...

... but no substantive answer to my mathematical proof or Professor D.M.S Watson's devastating quote!!!

I have given you an answer to your "proof".
It's not a proof.
Simple enough for even you to grasp.

I've asked you dozens of times to actually back up any of that nonsense and you've ignored every single point that destroys it.

J C wrote: »

... which part of the quote is untrue?
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative-special creation is cleary incredible."

Simple, that's not the reason it is accepted.
It has been observed to occur and has been shown with logically coherent evidence.
But again that's only in the real world, not the magically fantasy land you live in.

J C wrote: »

... or what was the context that would make the quote any better from an Evolutionist perspective?

Well since you actually provided the quote shouldn't you have provided the context? Or are you admitting you have taken it out of context?

J C wrote: »

... or could it be you that is the one who is 'spouting the lies and untruths' ... about me?

Well seeing as how you've admitted to lying about have mathematical proof (by continuously ignoring those points), and you've taken loads of quotes out of context, including your sig, it's clear to everyone that you're the one lying and spreading falsehoods.
But then you have do so to be a creationist.

keppler

King Mob wrote: »

Well since you actually provided the quote shouldn't you have provided the context? Or are you admitting you have taken it out of context?

Thats the thing though, I dont think he has taken the quote out of context.
If anything the quote just reiterates how stupid creationism is. Clearly he has just misunderstood the meaning of the quote, do you not think? (no doubt due to his frantic scouring of AIG's basket of lies)

GO_Bear

Funny how you say Evolution is spontaneous generation..... when you claim they where created by a pair of magic hands.


Well if this is the fine tuned universe that some creationists claim. ... . . then I think he must have been using the other hand to .... you know :rolleyes::rolleyes:

keppler

J C wrote: »

... plenty of bluster and denial ...

... but no substantive answer to my mathematical proof or Professor D.M.S Watson's devastating quote!!!

J C could you please point out how this quote is so devastating to all denier's here?

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

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

Is this really your proof ?

If x is impossible then y must be true ?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... plenty of bluster and denial ...

... but no substantive answer to my mathematical proof or Professor D.M.S Watson's devastating quote!!!

Are you saying that when I gave you an answer about your proof,
that it doesn't even bother to mention natural selection, you think
this is not a substantive point? My dear fellow, this point is enough
to completely destroy your entire proof in-and-of itself, forgetting
anything else we've all said about your figures being wrong, about
your misunderstanding of probability etc...

Where does your proof mention sexual selection? Why doesn't your proof
give an inkling as to the importance of group selection? Where are all the
figures addressing the fact that fossils explicitly showing the transition
of of life forms from the sea onto land & in some cases back from the
land into the sea? I never seen a disproof of genetic evolution in that
there is evidence of additions & deletions of specific areas of genetic
code between species illustrating a sequence of upward complexity.

The Mad Hatter

This thread so far:

JC: Evolution is impossible!
Everyone Else: How so?
JC: I have proof!
EE: Well, show us.
JC: Evolution is impossible! That's my proof!
EE: How so?
JC: I have proof!
EE: Well, show us.
JC: Evolution is impossible! That's my proof!
EE: How so?
JC: I have proof!
EE: Well, show us.

sponsoredwalk

I think the state we're in now is:


JC: Evolution is impossible!
Everyone Else: How so?
JC: I have proof!
EE: Well, show us.
JC: Evolution is impossible! That's my proof!
EE: How so?
JC: I have proof!
EE: Well, show us.
JC: Evolution is impossible! That's my proof!
EE: How so?










JC: I have proof! <

---

Here

Notice there was a big gap between this response & last time because
he knows how cornered he is :pac: He has absolutely no good answer to
the fact that his proof ignores that thing "everybody accepts"

sponsoredwalk

edit: read this before reading the absolute mania below, pure hype & speculation!

The cat is out of the bag: NASA has discovered a completely new life
form that doesn't share the biological building blocks of anything currently
living in planet Earth. This changes everything.
At their conference today, NASA scientist Felisa Wolfe Simon will announce
that they have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we
know today. Instead of using phosphorus, the bacteria uses arsenic. All life
on Earth is made of six components: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
phosphorus and sulfur. Every being, from the smallest microorganism to the
largest animal, share the same life stream. Their DNA blocks are the same.
Not this one. Discovered in the poisonous Mono Lake, California, this
bacteria is made of arsenic, which was thought to be completely
impossible. The implications of this discovery are enormous to our
understanding of life itself and the possibility of finding beings in other
planets.
We will know more today at 2pm EST but, while this life hasn't been found
in another planet, this discovery does indeed change everything. [NOS—In
Dutch]

http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life-completely-different-from-all-life-we-know

Read this thread just before 7pm to find out how to watch the live stream
official announcement of this discovery but I think this is pretty big stuff.

Basically with regard to our discussion & extremely relevant to the
abiogenesis idea the fact that non-phosphoretic DNA could self
assemble is an immensely important piece of evidence in support of
ideas about abiogenesis.

Fluffybums

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Read this thread just before 7pm to find out how to watch the live stream
official announcement of this discovery but I think this is pretty big stuff.

Basically with regard to our discussion & extremely relevant to the
abiogenesis idea the fact that non-phosphoretic DNA could self
assemble is an immensely important piece of evidence in support of
ideas about abiogenesis.

That sounds amazing! Nature is always surprising us.

J C

wrote:

•Professor D.M.S Watson, famous evolutionist
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative-special creation is cleary incredible."


keppler
J C could you please point out how this quote is so devastating to all denier's here?

... it indicates that you guys have a scientific position on the Origins Issue with more logical holes in it than a sieve ... but you doggedly hold onto it because it's evidentially and logically supported alternative could make you lose your belief in the (non)existence of God!!!

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

Is this really your proof ?

If x is impossible then y must be true ?

... my position is that if X is impossible, then the people who believe in x ... need to completely re-think their scientific 'worldview'!!!

... and they should also stop denying that x is impossible ...and laughing like maniacs ... at scientists who have mathematically proven y to be true!!!

... love you all ... in a purely Christian way, of course!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... sounds like you have a scientific position on the Origins Issue with more logical holes in it than a sieve ... but you doggedly hold onto it because it's evidentially and logically supported alternative could make you lose your belief in the absence of God!!!

You didn't answer his question, which seems some what of a theme with you.

Any chance you could get around my the questions I asked you a while back?

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Read this thread just before 7pm to find out how to watch the live stream
official announcement of this discovery but I think this is pretty big stuff.

Basically with regard to our discussion & extremely relevant to the
abiogenesis idea the fact that non-phosphoretic DNA could self
assemble is an immensely important piece of evidence in support of
ideas about abiogenesis.

... I wouldn't go getting my hopes up on this ... if I were you!!!:)

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

You didn't answer his question, which seems some what of a theme with you.

Any chance you could get around my the questions I asked you a while back?

... and what questions would these be??

sponsoredwalk

J C your frankenproof doesn't even mention natural selection so it cannot
explain a single thing about humans evolving from the common ancestry
that also gave fruition to apes/chimpanzees etc...

Therefore you lie when you continually talk about this joke-proof of yours...

But honestly, to try to express this thought to a person who uses a
Richard Dawkins quote in his signature that is explicitly used to destroy
everything the person believes, I mean the level of self-deception :pac:

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

J C your frankenproof doesn't even mention natural selection so it cannot
explain a single thing about humans evolving from the common ancestry
that also gave fruition to apes/chimpanzees etc...

... and exactly how does NS make the impossible ... er ... possible???

... NS may sometimes explain the survival of the fittest ... but it is completely unable to explain the arrival of the fittest!!!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

But honestly, to try to express this thought to a person who uses a Richard Dawkins quote in his signature that is explicitly used to destroy everything the person believes, I mean the level of self-deception :pac:

If your opponent makes a statment that helps to prove your case ... why not be open-minded enough to use it ... I say!!!!:)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... and what questions would these be??

You appeared to know what I meant on the Christianity forum? Are you playing dumb now to avoid discussing it here?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... and exactly how does NS make the impossible ... er ... possible???

It isn't impossible, proteins are made all the time. You have claimed it is impossible that they randomly formed. But since evolution by natural selection doesn't say they randomly formed you have not addressed evolution, as such you cannot say you have disproved evolution. As sponderwalk said you can't disprove something you don't even mention.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... NS may sometimes explain the survival of the fittest ... but it is completely unable to explain the arrival of the fittest!!!

He's learning to be more careful with his statements!!!

NS should be accounted for in your proof because JC if we mix it
with a factor like geographic isolation then members of the species
must survive (NS) living in a new environment that selects a new
phenotype (NS) & this environmental pressure puts a strain on
the offspring of that species to adapt. Those offspring who, after
generation upon generation (NS) produce traits that the environment
prefers (NS) will survive & reproduce leading to more of that
trait. Remember nature has no compassion & there will be many, many
offspring born in the hope that only a few (NS) survive (guess which ones?).

After many genetic changes over many generations (NS) those organisms
who've been selected (NS) all those times will eventually become so
distinct as to be considered different species. Do you remember all of the
case studies I posted on fruit flies a good few pages back (amnesia?)
when I made this point already about speciation to which you had no
f'ing answer? Notice this is just one example of many possibilities
which you don't even so much as hint at.

So that's why NS is so important in your frankenproof & you didn't
even bother to even mention in your incorrect-figure using hilarity...

J C wrote: »

If your opponent makes a statment that helps to prove your case ... why not be open-minded enough to use it ... I say!!!!:)

This is such a classic example of your ignorance, I mean the fact you
continue to wear it as a badge of honour is so funny. You are literally
an embodiment of the person he is talking about in his books, someone
who misuses quotes to further their lies, actually does lie about science
in order to get his masked religion masquerading as science, doesn't
bother to read the opposing viewpoints - I mean if you keep reading
past the first line you'll see that Dawkins explicitly explains why nature
gives the appearance of design but you misleadingly quote it as if it
furthers your viewpoints.

keppler

J C wrote: »

... it indicates that you guys have a scientific position on the Origins Issue with more logical holes in it than a sieve ... but you doggedly hold onto it because it's evidentially and logically supported alternative could make you lose your belief in the (non)existence of God!!!

J C im afraid your up to your old tricks again. Ya see, you've just replied to my post....you havnt actually answered my question (again:rolleyes:) there is a difference JC.
JC I know what "you think" the qoute indicates but im simply asking you to explain how you concluded that the quote is detrimental to all us 'deniers'