"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Improbable

I love debating with religious people. I especially love it when they're not totally closed off into their own little world and aren't afraid of asking questions but even the stubborn "fingers in ears" brand are fun to debate. But people who actually think they have an understanding of the science behind evolution without actually having an understanding or even a basic grounding in simple biology and maths really drive me up the wall.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

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

Very good: The "arrival" of the fittest is explained by mutation, and beneficial mutations are then naturally selected. Congratulations, you've just destroyed your own case (again).

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

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

See you are slowly getting there. We will make an evolutionary biologist out of you yet.

Natural selection explains the survival of the fittest. It doesn't attempt to explain the arrival of the fittest because that is what mutation explains.

Mutation + Natural selection = Darwinian evolution.

You see it is not that hard once you a prepared to be open minded about it. You accept that natural selection happens and explains the survival of the fittest. You accept that mutation happens and explains the arrival of the fittest. You just need to take the last step and combine the two.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

... 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!!!

Just lol, you have still not proved anything.

and I am afraid that I don't love you ! in anyway at all, you are bigot who promotes misinformation and are a threat to the education of our nation.
Had I the choice, I would exile you from the system!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

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

So if you love us in a Christian way, why do you keep lying to us?
Why don't you demonstrate this love and finally admit and seek forgiveness for the lies?

Monty Burnz

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.

Sorry, I'm late to the debate - what is JC's entirely plausible and provable explanation for the beginning of life on earth?

GO_Bear

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Sorry, I'm late to the debate - what is JC's entirely plausible and provable explanation for the beginning of life on earth?

God created the Heaven and the Earth , and the earth was without form and void ..... BLAH blah blah , you know the rest

sponsoredwalk

King Mob wrote: »

J C wrote: »

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

So if you love us in a Christian way, why do you keep lying to us?

That is the christian way

Monty Burnz

GO_Bear wrote: »

God created the Heaven and the Earth , and the earth was without form and void ..... BLAH blah blah , you know the rest

Oh dear. From the way he was critical of evolution, I assumed he had a plausible and provable explanation. JC's position is a bit like saying that, in view of the problems coming up with a unified field theory, the world is most probably flat.

Regarding the evolution debate: I'm struck by the progress of science in explaining the world. Ancient folks understood almost nothing, so God was responsible for thunder, lightening and famines. But because we have reasonably good scientific theories of electromagnetism etc. today, you don't hear religious folks claiming that anymore. How odd. And as the number of things that science can explain successfully increases, religionists are reduced to nit-picking little details of complex theories that they - in truth - do not understand.

It's quite funny in a tragi-comic way. I think people like JC are quite important reminders of the days when superstition and myth were the only tools we had for understanding complex systems in nature.

Keep up the good work JC! You are an anthropologist's dream
Oh, and I love you xxx

GO_Bear

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Oh dear. From the way he was critical of evolution, I assumed he had a plausible and provable explanation. JC's position is a bit like saying that, in view of the problems coming up with a unified field theory, the world is most probably flat.

Regarding the evolution debate: I'm struck by the progress of science in explaining the world. Ancient folks understood almost nothing, so God was responsible for thunder, lightening and famines. But because we have reasonably good scientific theories of electromagnetism etc. today, you don't hear religious folks claiming that anymore. How odd. And as the number of things that science can explain successfully increases, religionists are reduced to nit-picking little details of complex theories that they - in truth - do not understand.

It's quite funny in a tragi-comic way. I think people like JC are quite important reminders of the days when superstition and myth were the only tools we had for understanding complex systems in nature.

Keep up the good work JC! You are an anthropologist's dream
Oh, and I love you xxx

He keeps harping on about mathemathical proof. But all his arguements have so far been

LIFE IS FAR TO COMPLICATED TO JUST HAVE POOFED IN TO EXISTENCE, SO I PROPOSE THAT IT JUST POOFED INTO EXISTENCE (i.e It was designed)

I realize I have turned to ad hominum attacks , but I am fed up with this bs now

robindch

GO_Bear wrote: »

LIFE IS FAR TO COMPLICATED TO JUST HAVE POOFED IN TO EXISTENCE, SO I PROPOSE THAT IT JUST POOFED INTO EXISTENCE

An elegant summary of Dawkin's destruction of ID

legspin

GO_Bear wrote: »

LIFE IS FAR TO COMPLICATED TO JUST HAVE POOFED IN TO EXISTENCE, SO I PROPOSE THAT IT JUST POOFED INTO EXISTENCE

All this poofing is banned by the bible isn't it... ?

J C

legspin wrote: »

All this poofing is banned by the bible isn't it... ?

... its the Evolutionist Spoofing ... that really gets to me!!!!:)

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

... its the Evolutionist Spoofing ... that really gets to me!!!!:)

I don't think anything gets to you-not even the meds:)

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

I don't think anything gets to you-not even the meds:)

Who are the 'meds'???

J C

Improbable wrote: »

I love debating with religious people. I especially love it when they're not totally closed off into their own little world and aren't afraid of asking questions but even the stubborn "fingers in ears" brand are fun to debate. But people who actually think they have an understanding of the science behind evolution without actually having an understanding or even a basic grounding in simple biology and maths really drive me up the wall.

... then please stop listening to Materialists ... because the ones on this thread clearly don't seem to have an understanding or even a basic grounding in simple biology and maths... and as a result they don't have a clue when it comes to what Evolution is capable of ... and, even more importantly, what it isn't capable of!!!!!

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

Who are the 'meds'???

Figure it out,Sherlock.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... then please stop listening to Materialists ... because the ones on this thread clearly don't seem to have an understanding or even a basic grounding in simple biology and maths... and as a result they don't have a clue when it comes to what Evolution is capable of ... and, even more importantly, what it isn't capable of!!!!!

Except you're the one who can't say what exactly a mathematical proof is, use the term to refer to nonsense that clearly isn't a proof and have shown yourself to be otherwise totally incompetent in maths and science.

So JC, another challenge for you to ignore like the proper dishonest loon you are: Define what a mathematical proof is and show us how your nonsense "proof" actually is one.
If you don't respond to this challenge it's clear that it's because you aren't honest enough to do so.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

... then please stop listening to Materialists ... because the ones on this thread clearly don't seem to have an understanding or even a basic grounding in simple biology and maths... and as a result they don't have a clue when it comes to what Evolution is capable of ... and, even more importantly, what it isn't capable of!!!!!

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

Figure it out,Sherlock.

OK ... Watson!!!:)

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Except you're the one who can't say what exactly a mathematical proof is, use the term to refer to nonsense that clearly isn't a proof and have shown yourself to be otherwise totally incompetent in maths and science.

I would draw a distinction between providing mathematical proof for something and a pure maths proof of say a theorm.
For example, I can show mathematically, that something with odds against it's formation in excess of 10^100 is a statistical impossibility ... unless you believe in multiverses !!!!

I can then show that the odds against non-intellignetly producing a specific protein to perform a specific function are in excess of 10^100 ... and therefore all life had to be Intelligently Designed.
Scientifically speaking, I cannot prove who the intelligence was ... and, like Soul Winner has already said, you are free to believe that it was an Alien ... while I believe that it was God.

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

Fractals are merely complex repeating patterns ... they are not complex specified functional information.

housetypeb

quote.For example, I can show mathematically, that something with odds against it's formation in excess of 10^100 is a statistical impossibility ... unless you believe in multiverses !!!!

I can then show that the odds against non-intellignetly producing a specific protein to perform a specific function are in excess of 10^100 ... and therefore all life had to be Intelligently Designed. quote


Well,what are you waiting for? put up or shut up.

sponsoredwalk

housetypeb wrote:

Well,what are you waiting for? put up or shut up.

He already has shown us (:p) how this is "impossible" using his ridiculous
example of a snail here & even though the abiogenesis video addresses his
concerns about the origin of protein chains & indeed the origin of natural
selection as based on thermodynamic & environmental factors but his proof
doesn't even bother to mention these factors, let alone why they do not
work even though it's been shown in a lab doing just that - working...
Also his proof has absolutely no mention of natural selection which is
among the ways that organisms survive & eventually form new species
but no, not a mention. However, a snail that is magically able to "push"
electrons (even though electrons have no definite shape & exist in a
wave-particle duality which is never fixed into position) does get an
enormous mention in this miracle proof. This is the level on which a
creationist argues & it's been over 2 months of us telling him this
joke-proof is irrelevant but he continues to propagate it as fact...

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I would draw a distinction between providing mathematical proof for something and a pure maths proof of say a theorm.
For example, I can show mathematically, that something with odds against it's formation in excess of 10^100 is a statistical impossibility ... unless you believe in multiverses !!!!

So when you said you had mathematical proof you were lying
Funny how you've only mentioned this distinction now.
And you're still using the terms incorrectly...

but since you're either too incompetent or too dishonest to actually address the flaws in your argument I may as well use it against you.
The chances of God existing are well in excess of 1 to 10^100...

So we see that the chances of God existing are much greater than the time it takes for a snail to move all the electrons across the universe. ...blah blah blah...
Therefore I have mathematically disproven God.

Oh and same stipulations btw, fail to address this post means you can't actually do so honestly.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

Fractals are merely complex repeating patterns ... they are not complex specified functional information.

It was meant to show that you are wrong on an unimaginably large scale

GO_Bear

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

Between 8:00 and 9:00. Wow , I have yet to look into all the arguments from design, but wow , I don't think I can unhear the bull**** that has just been heard !


You willingly associate yourself with that kind of crap JC ? Surely even you can't think that is a valid argument

liamw

GO_Bear wrote: »

Between 8:00 and 9:00. Wow , I have yet to look into all the arguments from design, but wow , I don't think I can unhear the bull**** that has just been heard !

That's William Lane Craig, a well respected christian apologist. He almost tongue-tied himself on that nonsense.

GO_Bear

liamw wrote: »

. He almost tongue-tied himself on that nonsense.

I think it should be tied in a fishermans knot and left that way

Galvasean

liamw wrote: »

That's William Lane Craig, a well respected christian apologist. He almost tongue-tied himself on that nonsense.

I had to re-check, but do I hear right in that his argument is that if God could exist then God must exist? You could apply that logic to anything.
Unicorns could exist, therefore they must exist.
Philosophy, what a load of ****.