"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

King Mob

J C wrote: »

OK...

1. The figure of 10^130 amino Acid possible combinations is based on the fact that there is no chemical limitation on the sequence of particular Amino Acids ... and there are 20 common Amino Acids and therefore the possible permutational space for a 100 chain protein is 20 x 20 .... 100 times which exactly equals 1.27E+130.

No you're still not getting this. Please provide a reference for this number. Where are you getting this information?

J C wrote: »

2. It isn't strictly a 'Mathematical Proof' ... but is a proof through the use of mathematics ... based on the known laws of chemistry and probability.

Again not addressing the point. First define a mathematical proof so you can show you actually can understand what it is. Next then show how going "One made up number is bigger than another made up number" amounts to any kind of proof.

J C wrote: »

3. The exact same reasoning doesn't disprove the existence of God.

Yes you have stated that but you've yet to actually explain why.
The number of possible ideas of God are upward of 10^130. So the chances of your God existing are 1 in 10^130 which is more impossible as you say life arising by itself is.
Therefore God does not exist.
Please Identify the flaw in this argument then explain how the same flaw doesn't apply to your argument.

J C wrote: »

4. I don't lie ... and I try to answer all questions put to me ... if you don't like the answers ... that isn't my fault ... and the truth will set you free!!!

Oh yes you do. You've been calling your "proof" a mathematical proof this entire time. Now it's just a "proof with maths".
That is lying JC. And now you've lied about not lying.
And this is before you count the number of times you've ignored people asking you to back stuff up, which is also lying.

And then you've even ignored the question on the fact you've ignored points.
Why can't you answer that question JC?

All this dishonesty on Christmas JC... tsk tsk...

J C

King Mob wrote: »

No you're still not getting this. Please provide a reference for this number. Where are you getting this information?

Any good Biology textbook will provide these figures.
... here is what Wikipedia has to say about the number of Amino Acids:-
"Twenty-two amino acids are naturally incorporated into polypeptides and are called proteinogenic or standard amino acids.[9] Of these twenty-two, twenty are encoded by the universal genetic code. The remaining two, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine, are incorporated into proteins by unique synthetic mechanisms".

... so there are 20 common Amino Acids ... and their sequence is determined by the Genetic Code ... and they can therefore be potentially found in any combination, if random processes like mutation were the generator of genetic information!!

... and you can read all about it here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

King Mob wrote: »

Again not addressing the point. First define a mathematical proof so you can show you actually can understand what it is. Next then show how going "One made up number is bigger than another made up number" amounts to any kind of proof.

... it is a mathematical proof ... but isn't a Mathematical Proof ... i.e. it uses mathmatics to prove the veracity of the fact that non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce functional genetic information for NS to select.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes you have stated that but you've yet to actually explain why.
The number of possible ideas of God are upward of 10^130. So the chances of your God existing are 1 in 10^130 which is more impossible as you say life arising by itself is.
Therefore God does not exist.
Please Identify the flaw in this argument then explain how the same flaw doesn't apply to your argument.

The proof cannot scientifically prove that the God of the Bible was responsible for the Creation of Life ... it just proves that an inordinate intelligence/intelligences was/were responsible for the production of living creatures.
Like I have previously said ... you are free to beileve that 'Aliens did it' ... or an effective infinity of possible 'Gods' did it ... and I am free to believe that 'The God of the Bible did it'

King Mob wrote: »

Oh yes you do. You've been calling your "proof" a mathematical proof this entire time. Now it's just a "proof with maths".
That is lying JC. And now you've lied about not lying.
And this is before you count the number of times you've ignored people asking you to back stuff up, which is also lying.

... It is a 'mathematical proof' ... rather than a 'Mathematical Proof'!!!

King Mob wrote: »

And then you've even ignored the question on the fact you've ignored points.
Why can't you answer that question JC?

All this dishonesty on Christmas JC... tsk tsk...

Like I have already said, I don't lie ... and I try to answer all questions put to me ... if you don't like the answers ... that isn't my fault ... and the truth will set you free!!!

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Ooh dinosaurs....

*gauges out eyes*

The warm-blooded mammalian dinosaurs ... 'blow' the whole evolutionist timeline of long ages and gradual evolution of increasingly complex creatures 'out of the water'!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Any good Biology textbook will provide these figures.
... here is what Wikipedia has to say about the number of Amino Acids:-
"Twenty-two amino acids are naturally incorporated into polypeptides and are called proteinogenic or standard amino acids.[9] Of these twenty-two, twenty are encoded by the universal genetic code. The remaining two, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine, are incorporated into proteins by unique synthetic mechanisms".

... so there are 20 common Amino Acids ... and their sequence is determined by the Genetic Code ... and they can therefore be potentially found in any combination, if random processes like mutation were the generator of genetic information!!

And where are you getting the idea that there needs to be a "hundred string"?

J C wrote: »

... it is a mathematical proof ... but isn't a Mathematical Proof ... i.e. it uses mathmatics to prove the veracity of the fact that non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce functional genetic information for NS to select.

Again ignoring the points like a pro.
1) define what a mathematical proof is.
2) explain how "one made up number is bigger than another made up number" counts as any kind of proof.

J C wrote: »

The proof cannot scientifically prove that the God of the Bible was responsible for the Creation of Life ... it just proves that an inordinate intelligence/intelligences was/were responsible for the production of living creatures.
Like I have previously said ... you are free to beileve that 'Aliens did it' ... or an effective infinity of possible 'Gods' did it ... and I am free to believe that 'The God of the Bible did it'

Again failing to actually address the point.
Why exactly can't this proof work on your god?

J C wrote: »

... It is a 'mathematical proof' ... rather than a 'Mathematical Proof'!!!

Ah you can see the difference there... Capital letters.... :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

Like I have already said, I don't lie ... and I try to answer all questions put to me ... if you don't like the answers ... that isn't my fault ... and the truth will set you free!!!

But you've lied about having a mathematical proof. And you are ignoing my points right in that post, then lying about it....

You do read your own posts right?

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

The warm-blooded mammalian dinosaurs ... 'blow' the whole evolutionist timeline of long ages and gradual evolution of increasingly complex creatures 'out of the water'!!!

You'd think you'd be embarassed to say such nonsense.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... and a Happy Christmas to you all ... and a healthy and prosperous New Year.:)

Thanks :cool:

J C wrote: »

It isn't strictly a 'Mathematical Proof'

I may be absolutely pissed out of my skull but I can still recognise someone
completely & utterly admitting defeat to themself & the rest through a
recognition of honesty when I see it :cool:

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... it is a mathematical proof ... but isn't a Mathematical Proof ...

:D:D Oh man, it just gets better & better as I read on :D:D

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

:D:D Oh man, it just gets better & better as I read on :D:D

Good!!!:D:D:D

sponsoredwalk

The "Proof":

J C wrote: »

I was referring to the Cosmic Event Horizon ... but I am just as happy to use the 93 billion light year diameter of the Universe figure that you have cited to prove my mathematical prowess.

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

J C wrote: »

I have presented this mathematical proof ... and all I got were Evolutionists running around in circles and squealing like scalded cats ... but no evidence or substantive argument was presented against my figures or my conclusions.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68206676&postcount=1121

Here is another one :-

If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!

The Gloating:

J C wrote: »

I was wondering when you would start to erect a smoke-screen around my mathematical proof ... in order to protect the nakedness of Evolution!!!
... and there it comes ... ad hominism all the way!!

J C wrote: »

... and on cue ... a complete switch of direction ... in order to avoid my mathematical proof ... and so that you can say several pages later that no mathematical proof was provided!!!

J C wrote: »

... so you are simply going to ignore my mathematical proof while shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ... just like I said you would!!

J C wrote: »

I have already provided mathematical proof for my position

J C wrote: »

Why do you keep making up stories about how I don't behave ... whilst gleefully ignoring the substance of my postings?

Is it because you have no substantive answers to my substantive posting on the mathematical proof of the invalidity of spontaneous evolution?

The Unanswered Questions:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

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.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

THAT'S YOUR PROOF!!! :pac:

What does that "proof" in the post you linked to even prove, that you are
using incorrect figures to make a point & are totally happy with that?
That you've already been told your figures were wrong but you're
using it again as proof of whatever point you're trying to make?

1) You got the number of galaxies in the universe wrong.

2) The weight of the universe in tons and grams
(I assume you mean mass because we all know that when we do science we don't use colloquial
terms, weight is defined as mass times acceleration due to gravity, but you're a scientist - you
knew that)
is incorrect because you got that figure from a 10 year old book that
based it's calculation off of an incorrect number of galaxies and stars.

Now, even if you had the correct figures all you did was do some
calculation with no point other to show that a snail could carry an electron
across the universe (even though electrons have no definite shape or position).

---

Why do you continue to talk about permutations as if it's a case
against evolution? What has this got to do with anything and
how the hell is it supposed to be an iron clad proof against evolution?
How does your theory of permutations explain evolution is false when
we see evolution in labratories with fruit flies?

Oh, and how do permutations even come into "the equation" when
there has been repeatable proof in the labratory that with only the
bare minimum of materialistic ingredients amino acid precursors
and self replicating entities were reproduced??????????

A Really Long Post of Still-Unanswered Questions!!!

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...

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

The Backtracking/Admittance-of-Defeat:

J C wrote: »

2. It isn't strictly a 'Mathematical Proof' ... but is a proof through the use of mathematics ... based on the known laws of chemistry and probability.

J C wrote: »

... it is a mathematical proof ... but isn't a Mathematical Proof ... i.e. it uses mathmatics to prove the veracity of the fact that non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce functional genetic information for NS to select.

J C wrote: »

... It is a 'mathematical proof' ... rather than a 'Mathematical Proof'!!!

A Consequent Contradiction as a Result of this Backtracking:

J C wrote: »

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 !!!

... and that is why, despite admitting, during unguarded moments, that ID is true ... they vigorously suppress the fact that it exists!!!!

J C wrote: »

The proof cannot scientifically prove that the God of the Bible was responsible for the Creation of Life ... it just proves that an inordinate intelligence/intelligences was/were responsible for the production of living creatures.
Like I have previously said ... you are free to beileve that 'Aliens did it' ... or an effective infinity of possible 'Gods' did it ... and I am free to believe that 'The God of the Bible did it'

An Overflowing Lie Bucket:

J C wrote: »

Like I have already said, I don't lie ... and I try to answer all questions put to me

Doc_Savage

JC, seriously!

you can put an end to all the quoted messages if you like! just answer all the questions you have repeatedly been asked! they are all the same questions repeated again and again!

you have faith in the god of the bible and that is all that you appear to have. you do not seem to be able to coherently back up your "proof".
So please..... answer all the questions, and take time over them! don't rush your answers or we'll be back to the same quoted replies!

if you cannot do this, abandon your proof and admit that you just don't know and you can't prove your claims!

people of faith are called as such for a reason, you can leave it at that and live a happy and fulfilling life! with or without god!

good luck to you sir.

(think this is my first post in this thread as i'm a reader here and not really a poster these days!)

J C

King Mob wrote: »

And where are you getting the idea that there needs to be a "hundred string"?

... it doesn't need to be a 100 string ... I was illustrating the impossibility of producing the CFSI in even a (small) 100 chain protein.

King Mob wrote: »

Again ignoring the points like a pro.
1) define what a mathematical proof is.
2) explain how "one made up number is bigger than another made up number" counts as any kind of proof.

... like I have repeatedly said there are formal 'Mathematical Proofs' of mathematical theorms ... and there are informal mathematical proofs of various phenomena ... and my proof belongs to the latter as it uses mathmatics to prove the veracity of the fact that non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce complex functional specific genetic information for NS to select.

King Mob wrote: »

Again failing to actually address the point.
Why exactly can't this proof work on your god?

... The proof cannot scientifically prove that the God of the Bible was responsible for the Creation of Life ... it just proves that an inordinate intelligence/intelligences was/were responsible for the production of living creatures.
Like I have previously said ... you are free to beileve that 'Aliens did it' ... or an effective infinity of possible 'Gods' did it ... and I am free to believe that 'The God of the Bible did it'

King Mob wrote: »

Ah you can see the difference there... Capital letters.... :rolleyes:

... got it in one!!
... that is the correct convention for what I am saying.

King Mob wrote: »

But you've lied about having a mathematical proof. And you are ignoing my points right in that post, then lying about it....

Your continued unfounded allegations of lying against me are ad hominism ... and lying about me!!

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

You'd think you'd be embarassed to say such nonsense.

... you're the guys that are still in denial that some Dinos were warm-blooded mammals instead of cold-blooded lizards!!!!

... so the nonsense is entirely on your part!!:)

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The "Proof":


The Gloating:


The Unanswered Questions:


A Really Long Post of Still-Unanswered Questions!!!!


The Backtracking/Admittance-of-Defeat:


A Consequent Contradiction as a Result of this Backtracking:


An Overflowing Lie Bucket:

... sin a bhfuil !!!:)

J C

Doc_Savage wrote: »

JC, seriously!

you can put an end to all the quoted messages if you like! just answer all the questions you have repeatedly been asked! they are all the same questions repeated again and again!

you have faith in the god of the bible and that is all that you appear to have. you do not seem to be able to coherently back up your "proof".
So please..... answer all the questions, and take time over them! don't rush your answers or we'll be back to the same quoted replies!

if you cannot do this, abandon your proof and admit that you just don't know and you can't prove your claims!

people of faith are called as such for a reason, you can leave it at that and live a happy and fulfilling life! with or without god!

... as I can prove that life was intelligently created ... you're the 'Man of Faith' (in the non-existence of God) on this thread!!!

Doc_Savage wrote: »

good luck to you sir.

... and may Almighty God bless you too.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

... as I can prove that life was intelligently created ...

Maybe if you were to drop the posturing and actually do so, rather than keeping saying over and over you can do so, the conversation might be a lot more constructive around here?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... it doesn't need to be a 100 string ... I was illustrating the impossibility of producing the CFSI in even a (small) 100 chain protein.

So you just picked that number out of your ass?
So you're now admitting that the number you're claiming is entirely made up?

J C wrote: »

... like I have repeatedly said there are formal 'Mathematical Proofs' of mathematical theorms ...

Which I've been constantly asking you to define to show that you understand what they actually are. You have constantly ignored the question.

J C wrote: »

and there are informal mathematical proofs of various phenomena

No there's not. They aren't called proofs because that isn't what they are.

J C wrote: »

... and my proof belongs to the latter as it uses mathmatics to prove the veracity of the fact that non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce complex functional specific genetic information for NS to select.

But you see, "one made up number is bigger than another made up number" doesn't use mathematics, nor does it qualify as a proof for anything. Please explain how.

J C wrote: »

... The proof cannot scientifically prove that the God of the Bible was responsible for the Creation of Life ... it just proves that an inordinate intelligence/intelligences was/were responsible for the production of living creatures.
Like I have previously said ... you are free to beileve that 'Aliens did it' ... or an effective infinity of possible 'Gods' did it ... and I am free to believe that 'The God of the Bible did it'

Again you've failed to explain how the proof doesn't apply, and you clearly are too dense to see the flaw in your own argument.

So one more time before I have to explain the blindingly obvious to you.
"The number of possible Gods excedes 10^130. One the chances of your god existing are greater than the chances of a non-supernatural origin of life, which you think is impossible. Therefore God is impossible".
Please identify the flaw in this argument then explain why it does not apply to yours.

J C wrote: »

... got it in one!!
... that is the correct convention for what I am saying.

No, it's something you've made up to pretend you have a clue about mathematics and cover the fact that you've lied.

J C wrote: »

Your continued unfounded allegations of lying against me are ad hominism ... and lying about me!!

First it's ad hominem not ad hominism.
Second accusing you of lying isn't an ad hominem because you are using lies to support you deluded position.
Third, we've posted ample examples of you lying and saying untruths.

And then you've still to explain or acknowledge why you ignore points constantly, which is lying by omission. And you are doing it right now.

So JC, please prove that life was intelligently created.
Or is that another lie?

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Maybe if you were to drop the posturing and actually do so, rather than keeping saying over and over you can do so, the conversation might be a lot more constructive around here?

I have done so ... it's just your overwhelming commitment to Atheism (despite the evidence against it) that keeps you in denial of the fact that life was intelligently designed.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I have done so

Where?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So you just picked that number out of your ass?
So you're now admitting that the number you're claiming is entirely made up?

The number was chosen to prove that the combinatorial space of even a relatively small chain length biomolecule makes the production of a specific functional biomolecule an impossibility.

King Mob wrote: »

Which I've been constantly asking you to define to show that you understand what they actually are. You have constantly ignored the question.

No there's not. They aren't called proofs because that isn't what they are.

But you see, "one made up number is bigger than another made up number" doesn't use mathematics, nor does it qualify as a proof for anything. Please explain how.

Maths is used routinely to prove things that are outside the realm of pure maths theorms. For example, if a train has an average speed of 150 KPH and a person is claiming that they travelled 1,500 km between two cities and the journey only took 5 hours we can use maths to prove that their claim is false because it would have take a minimum of 10 hours to make the journey by train. This is a mathematical proof ... rather than a Mathematical Proof.

The numbers aren't made up ... and they are independently verifiable.

King Mob wrote: »

So one more time before I have to explain the blindingly obvious to you.
"The number of possible Gods excedes 10^130. One the chances of your god existing are greater than the chances of a non-supernatural origin of life, which you think is impossible. Therefore God is impossible".
Please identify the flaw in this argument then explain why it does not apply to yours.

The number of 'Gods' that the Human Imagination may think up are potentially infinite.
However, the number of possible 'Gods' that Match the description in the Bible ... and have infinite power, infinite intelligence and infinite knowledge is just One.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Where?

... it's just your overwhelming commitment to Atheism that keeps you in denial of the fact that life was intelligently designed.

You are quite entitled to your obviously 'heart felt' beliefs ... and I fully respect your right to deny God (and Intelligent Design), if you so desire.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

The number was chosen to prove that the combinatorial space of even a relatively small chain length biomolecule makes the production of a specific functional biomolecule an impossibility.

So you chose a large number arbitrarily to make it seem impossible?

J C wrote: »

Maths is used routinely to prove things that are outside the realm of pure maths theorms. For example, is a train has an average speed of 150 KPH and a person is claiming that they travelled 1,500 km between two cities and the journey only took 5 hours we can use maths to prove that their claim is false because it would have take a minimum of 10 hours to make the journey by train. This is a mathematical proof ... rather than a Mathematical Proof.

No it's not. Again I'm asking you to define a mathematical proof and explain how your "one made up number is bigger than another made up number" is any form of proof.

J C wrote: »

The numbers aren't made up ... and they are independently verifiable.

Yes they are. You've admitted that you chose totally arbitrary numbers for your proof.

J C wrote: »

The number of 'Gods' that the Human Imagination may think up are potentially infinite.
However, the number of Gods that Match the describtion in the Bible and have infinite power, infinite intelligence and infinite knowledge is just One.

So what you're saying now is that the exact probability of your God existing is 1 in infinity?

Are you seriously having this much trouble identifying the flaw in your argument?

... it's just your overwhelming commitment to Atheism (despite the evidence against it) that keeps you in denial of the fact that life was intelligently designed.

So where did you prove life was intelligently designed?
Cause even if your silly proof even made sense and actually proved anything, it still doesn't prove that life was intelligently designed.
That's called a False Dichotomy, you should look that up.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So you chose a large number arbitrarily to make it seem impossible?

A 100 chain protein is a relatively small biomolecule. Many proteins have chain lengths of several hundred amion acids.

King Mob wrote: »

No it's not. Again I'm asking you to define a mathematical proof and explain how your "one made up number is bigger than another made up number" is any form of proof.


Yes they are. You've admitted that you chose totally arbitrary numbers for your proof.

The numbers are independently verifiable.

King Mob wrote: »

So what you're saying now is that the exact probability of your God existing is 1 in infinity?

I am saying that there is only One possible God answering the description of the Judeo-Christian God. Whether He actually exists is a matter of Faith.

You are also quite entitled to your obviously 'heart felt' Faith in Atheism ... and I fully respect your right to deny God (and Intelligent Design), if you so desire.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

A 100 chain protein is a relatively small biomolecule. Many proteins have chain lengths of several hundred amion acids.

Yes and what's you're point exactly?

J C wrote: »

The numbers are independently verifiable.

But the final figures you are comparing are the result of arbitrary choices of variables, and are totally meaningless.

J C wrote: »

I am saying that there is only One possible God answering the description of the Judeo-Christian God

One possible version of a near infinite amount of possibilities, therefore there chances of your one existing are well over 1 in 10^130, and therefore is impossible.

J C wrote: »

... whether He actually exists is a matter of Faith.

Huh.. here's me thinking you said you'd proved his existence... Another lie from you I guess.

J C wrote: »

You are also quite entitled to your obviously 'heart felt' Faith in Atheism ... and I fully respect your right to deny God (and Intelligent Design), if you so desire.

You can repeat this as much as you like but it's not going to address any of the points you're trying to ignore or make all your lies go away.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Huh.. here's me thinking you said you'd proved his existence... Another lie from you I guess.

What I have always claimed is that I have mathematically proven the Intelligent Design of life ... who the Intelligent Designer(s) was/were is an open scientific question.

King Mob wrote: »

You can repeat this as much as you like but it's not going to address any of the points you're trying to ignore or make all your lies go away.

You're talking about yourself here!!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

What I have always claimed is that I have mathematically proven the Intelligent Design of life ... who the Intelligent Designer(s) was/were is an open scientific question.

Oh look another lie.
You have just said it was a matter of faith.
Oh and you haven't proved anything and have yet to address a single point made against your "proof" in the 30 odd pages of questions.

J C wrote: »

You're talking about yourself here!!!!

No I'm talking about you. We've listed the lies you've told and you're ignoring most of my points from my last post.
So please point out any lies I've told. Or are you lying about that?

marienbad

I am late to this thread, so a bit of latitude if I am repeating anything .

I have some questions for J C (the poster not the prophet) ,

(a) If you have a mathemathical proof for Intelligent Design where have you been hiding all this time ?
(b) When can we expect publication in Nature magazine and details of peers reviews.
(c) When are you collecting your Nobel Prize ?

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

I have done so ...

Saying you did does not magically mean you did. Please show where?

pH

J C wrote: »

The warm-blooded mammalian dinosaurs ... 'blow' the whole evolutionist timeline of long ages and gradual evolution of increasingly complex creatures 'out of the water'!!!

You still haven't explained why creation science has classified them as mammals. Can you explain what features of these warm-blooded dinosaurs lead you to conclude that they were mammals?

J C

marienbad wrote: »

I am late to this thread, so a bit of latitude if I am repeating anything .

I have some questions for J C (the poster not the prophet) ,

(a) If you have a mathemathical proof for Intelligent Design where have you been hiding all this time ?
(b) When can we expect publication in Nature magazine and details of peers reviews.
(c) When are you collecting your Nobel Prize ?

(a). I haven't been hiding ... I have provided the proof pro bono on this thread and others.
(b). You can expect publication of ID scientific proofs whenever Evolutionist Journals openly welcome and call for ID papers.
(c). As I haven't been nominated for a Nobel Prize, rumours of me collecting a Nobel Prize have been greatly exaggerated!!!:)

sponsoredwalk

I've noticed you've gone from bold statements about evolution being a
fairytale:

J C wrote: »

I now wish to repeat ... by popular demand ”An Evolutionary Bed Time Story” ...

Although written in an ironic style, it does genuinely make me somewhat sad as well.
I too spent the best part of my childhood and young adulthood believing in the Evolution Fairytale ... and all of the “characters” in the Evolutionary Zoo evoke ‘special’ memories for me also.

to a discussion about your "proof" about combinatorics in empty space
with snails jogging by, I just have to ask you how your magic "proof"
that never once mentions natural selection, sexual selection,
thermodynamics, environmental pressures etc... disproves anything,
could you spell it out in detail? Please remember you have to refer to
the original "proofs" quote by quote & explain how your proof disproves
everything on this list:

natural selection,
sexual selection,
thermodynamics,
environmental pressures

Just that would be a start :cool: Now, you quote a passage of yours from
your original proof & explain the things on my list away. Here is a model:

Model of Disproof by Proof wrote:

Adequate_Representation_of_Proof wrote:

snail jogs by bouncing it's electron basketball with each bounce
off the idle rna codons in empty space hammering another combinatorial
nail into the evolutionist fairytale coffin...

This part of my proof disproves thermodynamics because there is no
heat in empty space ergo evolution is a myth!!! CHECKMATE!