Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Options
1…910121415…106

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Looks like you haven't read a single thing oldrnwisr posted lately. Shame, that, you really could have learned something.


  • Options
    #333
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    EdgarFriendly wrote: »
    It's futile trying to imagine every single mutation that occurred to drawn a line from simple life to homo sapiens.
    ... just as well (for evolution) then, because not only do we never observe such transitions ... in many cases it is impossible to even imagine how they would occur, while not conferring a distinct disadvantage due to the non-functionality of the intermediate versions of the characteristic under transition.
    EdgarFriendly wrote: »
    You can highlight major transitions above the species level in the fossil record, but it doesn't matter because we have comparative DNA analysis to confirm shared ancestry.
    ... or, much more likely, a shared creator.
    EdgarFriendly wrote: »
    Phylogenetics is the most clear-cut, evidential field confirming that evolution is a fact and that every single living thing on earth shares a common ancestor. Please, get over your silly creationist myths.
    It's one of the most compelling evidences for a common Creator of all life AKA God. Please get over your anti-God beliefs ... and give credit where credit is due!!
    You will meet Him some day ... and He speaks highly and lovingly of you.:cool:


  • Options
    #334
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    [...] please note that somebody walking down to the shops or to the next town would be equally impossible were it not for the appliance of intelligence by the person doing the walking [...]
    Ok, well, let me rephrase it:

    "It's equivalent to accepting that something could fall one foot, but could never fall ten feet."
    J C wrote: »
    None of this is 'simple minded' ... and it adds nothing to the debate for either me or you to use such unfounded personal remarks about either side on this issue.
    When creationists stop making simple-minded mistakes then I'll be happy to stop referring to them as such.

    And as it's Friday and I'm in a cheerful mood, I'll charitably assume that creationists are not making these simple-minded mistakes intentionally, an act which would add rank dishonesty to their list of their more obvious, how should I say, disabilities?


  • Options
    #335
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    ... just as well (for evolution) then, because not only do we never observe such transitions ... in many cases it is impossible to even imagine how they would occur, while not conferring a distinct disadvantage due to the non-functionality of the intermediate versions of the characteristic under transition.

    ... or, much more likely, a shared creator.

    It's one of the most compelling evidences for a common Creator of all life AKA God. Please get over your anti-God beliefs ... and give credit where credit is due!!
    You will meet Him some day ... and He speaks highly and lovingly of you.:cool:
    No, it isn't. Even if it IS evidence for a creator (which it isn't), it wouldn't be evidence that said creator is the christian god.


  • Options
    #336
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    J C wrote: »
    yet no change occurred in the order in which the anal opening of the blastopore opens when compared with the mouth!!!

    No change?

    Are you kidding me?

    I mean we all know that you're pretty clueless when it comes to biology but I expected that you would at least be able to read. I did just point out those changes in my last post.

    Firstly, a small but important distinction which underscores just how little you seem to understand, deuterostomia is a superphylum not an order. A superphylum encompasses orders.

    Secondly, since the emergence of deuterostomia as an offshoot of bilateria occurred approximately 560 mya we have seen many changes. 500,000 years ago there were no modern humans. 3 million years ago there were no humans of any kind, no Hominids 25 million years ago and no primates 100 million years ago. There were no mammals 200 years ago and not even any land animals 400 million years ago. The idea that there has been no change in deuterostomes in 560 million years is laughable just like creationism.

    J C wrote: »
    A much more plausible explanation is that no fundamental change has occurred to organisms since their Creation ... and that is why each Kind has reproduced according to it's Kind ... and even simple phenomena like the order of the blastopore's development in different Kinds remains fixed.

    Except that we can show such fundamental changes. Changes like this:

    hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

    This image shows how our chromosome 2 formed from the fusion of two chromosomes in our MRCA with chimps.

    Similarly this image:

    chromosomephylogenetics.png

    shows how an the development of a neocentromere on chromosome 6 resulted in our inability to produce Vitamin C.

    Even if we look at things morphologically we see a history of these changes:

    hominids2.jpg


    We can even quantify all the various overlapping pieces of evidence and show how they all lead to the same conclusion - evolution by natural selection:

    6947082253_f17f116aec_b.jpg


    J C wrote: »
    Common characteristics are indicative of a common Creator.
    ... and the biggest problem for Materiaistic Evolution isn't NS (which is a demonstrable fact) ... it is the identity of the non-intelligently directed mechanism that supposedly produced the genetic information from which NS selects.

    Ah yes, common design, the cavity plot insulation of creationism. Let's just use some of the "God just did it like that" to plug all the holes in our leaky story. So somehow common characteristics implies common design and yet dissimilar chacteristics also imply it. Yeah, makes sense if you've just taken a large polo mallet to the logic centre of your brain. You've been hammering out the same tired "arguments" for years now, CFSI, kinds, common design. I know you can't actually argue honestly at this stage but couldn't we at least have some new and inventive bullsh1t arguments from you instead.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Perhaps the debate we should have with JC is about logic and evidence. If JC were really a scientist, or at least understood the basics of science, then this would not be necessary. However there doesn't seem to be much point explaining science to JC when JC is so heavily invested in religion.

    JCs real talent - and it's amazing how many people share it - is to rationalise away all the facts that challenge his desired view of the world.

    We're all capable of rationalising away things we don't want to beleive, but rarely to the great extent that JC does. Most of us have sufficient self-awareness to recognise when we are fooling ourselves, but not all do. I know quite a few people who seem to be incapable of recognising their own rationalisation for what it is, and some of them unfortunately are somewhat delusional, sometimes because of mental illness.

    I'm not saying that JC is mentally ill, but that his ability to willfully ignore evidence he doesn't like is a symptom I've seen before, and it in my opinion it is a form of self-imposed delusion. Maybe that's how faith works?


  • Options
    #338
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Looks like you haven't read a single thing oldrnwisr posted lately. Shame, that, you really could have learned something.
    I have addressed oldrnwiser's excellent posts here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87725049&postcount=318
    and here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87745095&postcount=323


  • Options
    #339
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    I have addressed oldrnwiser's excellent posts here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87725049&postcount=318
    and here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87745095&postcount=323

    Addressing someone's post is one thing, making up your own version of things to suit your particular agenda is something else. 95% (more?) Of the posters in this thread (and others from what I have seen) say you are wrong in the sense that you either misunderstand the evidence put before you or you just willingly choose to ignore it.


  • Options
    #340
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Ok, well, let me rephrase it:

    "It's equivalent to accepting that something could fall one foot, but could never fall ten feet."
    There is no equivalence as something falling one foot or 10 foot is separated by less than a second ... and whatever is falling doesn't change (unless it breaks as a result of the fall).
    Living organisms supposedly underwent enormous positive change over billions of years ... which has nothing in common with a concrete block falling from various heights.
    robindch wrote: »
    When creationists stop making simple-minded mistakes then I'll be happy to stop referring to them as such.

    And as it's Friday and I'm in a cheerful mood, I'll charitably assume that creationists are not making these simple-minded mistakes intentionally, an act which would add rank dishonesty to their list of their more obvious, how should I say, disabilities?
    Robin, there is a long history of Theistic beliefs and indeed Atheistic beliefs.
    Both of these beliefs have considerable evidence that can be cited in support of them.

    You don't have to agree with me ... but its nice to be nice.


  • Options
    #341
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,745 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    There is no equivalence as something falling one foot or 10 foot is separated by less than a second ... and whatever is falling doesn't change (unless it breaks as a result of the fall).
    Living organisms supposedly underwent enormous positive change over billions of years ... which has nothing in common with a concrete block falling from various heights.

    It does though if I understand Robin correctly. You're essentially saying that change can and does occur, but only up to a point (i.e. the brick falling from 1 foot but not from 10).

    The first question to be asked is why does mutation just cease?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    EdgarFriendly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭EdgarFriendly


    J C wrote: »
    ... just as well (for evolution) then, because not only do we never observe such transitions ...

    I'm going to assume by "we", you mean creationists and not qualified biologists and paleontologists. The fossil record is rampant with transitional forms. Equidae and Cetacea are two examples that have an impeccable record demonstration transitions. In the latter, clear-cut evidence of the transition from a land mammal to marine mammal. In the former, from a small multi-toed mammal, to a large hoofed mammal.
    J C wrote: »
    in many cases it is impossible to even imagine how they would occur

    I find it humorous being lectured about what's possible to imagine, by someone who believes in noah's ark, and an array of other bronze age myths. You're arguing from personal incredulity. Your lack of education in biology isn't an argument against it.
    J C wrote: »
    , while not conferring a distinct disadvantage due to the non-functionality of the intermediate versions of the characteristic under transition.

    Non-functionality, okay. Let's examine that.

    Flightless birds - We're supposed to believe your creator created birds with a body mass too large, and wings too small to fly. Alternatively, we could postulate that certain birds evolved where the environmental niche allowed it to spend more time on the ground foraging for food, and thus negating the beneficial role flight would offer them. Over time, traits like longer legs and more powerful limbs improving ground mobility would be favoured and preserved/enhanced by natural selection.


  • Options
    #343
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... so we're expected to believe that the mega changes necessary to produce a Human Being from a worm happened ... yet no change occurred in the order in which the anal opening of the blastopore opens when compared with the mouth!!!
    Funny thing that Evolution is so impotent to make very basic simple small changes ... yet it can supposedly make massive complex changes, 'at the drop of a hat'.


    oldrnwisr
    No change?

    Are you kidding me?

    I mean we all know that you're pretty clueless when it comes to biology but I expected that you would at least be able to read. I did just point out those changes in my last post.
    My full post did refer to supposed mega changes ... and my point was questioning why on the one hand Evolution is so impotent to make very basic simple small changes, like whether a blastopore starts with its 'ass or its mouth' ... yet Evolution can supposedly make massive complex changes, 'at the drop of a hat'??


    wrote:
    oldrnwisr
    Firstly, a small but important distinction which underscores just how little you seem to understand, deuterostomia is a superphylum not an order. A superphylum encompasses orders.
    ... and???
    wrote:
    oldrnwisrSecondly, since the emergence of deuterostomia as an offshoot of bilateria occurred approximately 560 mya we have seen many changes. 500,000 years ago there were no modern humans. 3 million years ago there were no humans of any kind, no Hominids 25 million years ago and no primates 100 million years ago. There were no mammals 200 years ago and not even any land animals 400 million years ago. The idea that there has been no change in deuterostomes in 560 million years is laughable just like creationism.
    ... you roll off these supposed millions of years like they were some kind of definite history ... when they are just something that has been invented and arbitrarily decided upon by Materialists in order to give 'evolution' some time to work some magic on muck!!!:)

    wrote:
    oldrnwisr
    Except that we can show such fundamental changes. Changes like this:

    hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

    This image shows how our chromosome 2 formed from the fusion of two chromosomes in our MRCA with chimps.
    ... indicative of a Common Designer.
    wrote:
    oldrnwisrSimilarly this image:

    chromosomephylogenetics.png

    shows how an the development of a neocentromere on chromosome 6 resulted in our inability to produce Vitamin C.
    Indicative of a loss of functionality ... which is going in the opposite direction than any mechanism that could be responsible for the transition of Pondkind to Mankind.
    wrote:
    oldrnwisrEven if we look at things morphologically we see a history of these changes:

    hominids2.jpg


    We can even quantify all the various overlapping pieces of evidence and show how they all lead to the same conclusion - evolution by natural selection:

    6947082253_f17f116aec_b.jpg
    All very interesting speculation ... but without any plausible mechanism by which it could occur.
    wrote:
    oldrnwisr
    Ah yes, common design, the cavity plot insulation of creationism. Let's just use some of the "God just did it like that" to plug all the holes in our leaky story. So somehow common characteristics implies common design and yet dissimilar chacteristics also imply it. Yeah, makes sense if you've just taken a large polo mallet to the logic centre of your brain. You've been hammering out the same tired "arguments" for years now, CFSI, kinds, common design. I know you can't actually argue honestly at this stage but couldn't we at least have some new and inventive bullsh1t arguments from you instead.
    ... "God just did it like that" is much more in line with the evidence ... than an unknown physical mechanism that has never been observed and a known mechanism (mutagenesis) that has the potential to turn Mankind into Mud allright ... but not the other way around!!!!:)


  • Options
    #344
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    See? Even when you work up the balls to reply to oldrnwisr, all you can do is say "I DISAGREE! HERE'S MY RIDICULOUS CLAIM AGAIN IN THE HOPES IT WILL BE TRUE THIS TIME!" You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALA" to drown out all the evidence you're completely wrong, and you pretend that because YOU didn't hear it, nobody else did either and if you didn't hear it, it didn't happen, so you chalk it up as a win in the most perverse display of pretending to engage I've ever witnessed.

    You're useless at discussion. Almost as bad as you are at science of any sort. You are almost always not even wrong, and the few times you're not, you're fractally wrong instead.


  • Options
    #345
    EdgarFriendly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭EdgarFriendly


    J C wrote: »
    ... indicative of a Common Designer.

    No, it isn't.


  • Options
    #346
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I've spent a long time getting deeper into RationalWiki, and came across this lovely page of Branches of science you have to completely ignore if you want to be a young earth creationist.

    It does explain why J C can't get even the most basic science right.


  • Options
    #347
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,745 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Sarky wrote: »
    I've spent a long time getting deeper into RationalWiki, and came across this lovely page of Branches of science you have to completely ignore if you want to be a young earth creationist.

    It does explain why J C can't get even the most basic science right.

    love the final two in the list :pac:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #348
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    J C wrote: »
    ... so we're expected to believe that the mega changes necessary to produce a Human Being from a worm happened ... yet no change occurred in the order in which the anal opening of the blastopore opens when compared with the mouth!!!

    Lots of little changes added up to the 'mega-changes'. Like if you were to save 1c a year, you'd be a multimillionaire after a billion years.
    J C wrote: »
    Funny thing that Evolution is so impotent to make very basic simple small changes ... yet it can supposedly make massive complex changes, 'at the drop of a hat'.

    wtf? Evolution doesn't make massive complex changes 'at the drop of the hat'. Who is claiming that? It takes millions or billions of years!

    J C wrote: »
    A much more plausible explanation is that no fundamental change has occurred to organisms since their Creation ... and that is why each Kind has reproduced according to it's Kind ... and even simple phenomena like the order of the blastopore's development in different Kinds remains fixed.

    Why? Explain your reasoning.
    J C wrote: »
    The fact that fish never suckle their young and Humans don't lay eggs is proof that they are both directly created organisms not descended from a common ancestor.

    How is this proof? Especially given how oldrnwiser has literally just explained to you, in detail how that happened through evolution.
    J C wrote: »
    Like I have said, such stasis of basic characteristics is indicative of Direct Creation ... and it provides proof of the invalidity of Evolution i.e. fundamental change of organisms required to 'evolve' pondkind to Mankind is impossible.
    The stasis observed within Kinds is strongly indicative of their Intelligent Creation ... rather than being produced via arbitrary changing Evolution.

    What stasis observed in kinds\basic characteristics are you referring to? WHat do you mean by "Kinds"?

    J C wrote: »
    All of these systems operate in tight co-ordination and complex functional interactions that are indicative of the creative overview that only intelligent design is capable of.

    Not true, but let's leave that aside for the moment in the interests of keeping replies under essay length! ;)
    J C wrote: »
    Common characteristics are indicative of a common Creator.

    How so? Could it not be several creators nicking one another's ideas, or a committee?
    It would also make sense that if the most efficient way of flying was with two wings that those mutations with two wings would be the most likely things to survive elimination again and again, would it not?
    J C wrote: »
    ... and the biggest problem for Materiaistic Evolution isn't NS (which is a demonstrable fact) ... it is the identity of the non-intelligently directed mechanism that supposedly produced the genetic information from which NS selects.

    Why? What exactly do you mean by this? Why exactly is it a problem?


  • Options
    #349
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Time for the Sam Vimes spiral.

    attachment.php?attachmentid=102163&stc=1&d=1263226603


  • Options
    #350
    sephir0th
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    Every year or so JC comes out of the woodwork with the same tired old arguments which get destroyed by a new poster every time. Wicknight, Sam Vimes, doctoremma, equivariant and now oldrnwisr, to name a few that I remember. I still enjoy the discussion though, because I get to learn more about evolution every time from excellent posters.

    This comes to mind when 'CSFI', 'pondkind to mankind' 'muck to man' inevitably arise again:

    tumblr_mdkk01J3TB1r35ojdo1_500.gif


  • Options
    #351
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    sephir0th wrote: »
    Every year or so JC comes out of the woodwork with the same tired old arguments which get destroyed by a new poster every time.

    It is oddly regular, isn't it? Almost like he's getting paid by some source to be clueless at the world.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Sarky wrote: »
    It is oddly regular, isn't it? Almost like he's getting paid by some source to be clueless at the world.
    <Too far Mr P. Too far>

    MrP


  • Options
    #353
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Sarky wrote: »
    It is oddly regular, isn't it? Almost like he's getting paid by some source to be clueless at the world.

    Buying his way into "heaven"?


  • Options
    #354
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Buying his way into "heaven"?
    Salvation is entirely Free !!!
    ... all you need to do is to ask Jesus ... and you will be Saved.:cool:


  • Options
    #355
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sephir0th wrote: »
    tumblr_mdkk01J3TB1r35ojdo1_500.gif
    ... good video clip ... I too feel like doing this to the clock radio ... the morning after the night before!!!:);)


  • Options
    #356
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    Salvation is entirely Free !!!
    ... all you need to do is to ask Jesus ... and you will be Saved.:cool:

    I am pretty sure MILLIONS have begged Jeebus and "GOD" To save them over the years and never got any help. Millions of innocent people made to suffer and die horrible painful deaths because your "God" ignored their pleas. But apparently they will arrange for you to meet someone to fall in love with, make the weather nice for weddings and help sports people hit that home run or score that point when needed. Funny that.


  • Options
    #357
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    JC's life cycle on this forum is the largest circle jerk in the history of the Interwebs.


  • Options
    #358
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    [-0-] wrote: »
    JC's life cycle on this forum is the largest circle jerk in the history of the Interwebs.

    Maybe JC is the real "JC"........Wait now don't laugh and just think about this ok!

    He comes in and preaches for a bit.



    Oldrandwiser or one of our other highly experienced highly intelligent posters kill him off with a wall of irrefutable facts.




    days later JC is resurrected as if all those facts were never posted and carries on as before.:eek:


  • Options
    #359
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Ah ffs. JC is over here too?

    Just ended an argument there over the sheer amount of lies and BS he was posting about genetics.

    Creationists really, really aren't bright at all.


  • Options
    #360
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Ah ffs. JC is over here too?
    ... and you're over here (and there) too!!!:)

    I blame easy travel between worldviews for this ... what's your excuse?:D
    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Just ended an argument there over the sheer amount of lies and BS he was posting about genetics.

    Creationists really, really aren't bright at all.
    ... whatever!!! ... they're able to refute your arguments ... without any substantive rebuttal from you ... just unsubstantiated personal remarks about 'lying and BS'.:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    I am pretty sure MILLIONS have begged Jeebus and "GOD" To save them over the years and never got any help. Millions of innocent people made to suffer and die horrible painful deaths because your "God" ignored their pleas. But apparently they will arrange for you to meet someone to fall in love with, make the weather nice for weddings and help sports people hit that home run or score that point when needed. Funny that.
    God does help make our lives more bearable here on Earth ... if we ask. However, every person is subject to the physical laws of the universe while in this life ... and must die in order to enter the next life.


Advertisement