"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C wrote: »

You just know you are not going to unsubscribe!!!:)

Actually I just did, I'm out.

J C wrote: »

... looks through his fingers to avoid having his faith in Evolution shattered ... and then to be sure to be sure ... he unsubscribes from the thread!!!

... and runs away with his (metaphorical) tail between his legs!!:pac:

Jesus taught a lot of things, but taunting somebody was not one of them...

J C wrote: »

Part of so-called 'junk DNA' ... which is believed to be the currently non-functional residue from the speciation 'explosions' after Creation and The Flood.

hello to everyone in the thread even you J M or sorry JC.
Im new to this forum but i have been watching from afar (thats from above to you J C).
Ever since this popped up when i google'd J.May's book ive been reading the posts every night while also resisting the urge to post a comment (personally i dont see the point in arguing with creationists). Alas here i am!

J C im very curious about your answer to introns above in particular the "Creation and The Flood" part. Would i be correct in assuming that you do believe that God created the heavens and the earth approx 6000 years ago, in six days and rested on the seventh and also in Noah's Ark????????

Ghost Buster wrote: »

FOR THE LOVE OF GODS/GODDESSES AND ONE MILLION FAIRYS DONT GO THERE AGAIN!!!:eek:
He believes all that plus Noah had dinosaurs on the ark which were hunted to extinction just after he docked or some such. He has science to back it up. He calls it science despite the fact that it was made up to accomodate his magic book just like Bobby Henderson created science to accomodate the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Get out now while you can Keppler!!
Its too late for us:(

Ahh dinosaurs on the ark!....priceless insanity.
Good on you JC almost a 1000 replies, most in awe of your claims.
tell me something, honestly now without going off the topic or reverting back to it - imagine everything else in this 'debate' but no God - where would you stand? Imagine your 'evidence' but without God? It's kind of ridiculous isn't it? I mean you need God in order for your opinion to work, your opinion doesn't work without a creator backbone? Therefore all the 'science' you espouse as debunking evolution is done with the backing of a creator, so by default no science just opinion which comes from faith?

Sure that's what creationism is, opinion from faith and intelligent design is opinion from faith plus a smudging of science. The smudging again comes from a starting point (that the Christian God is the creator of the universe) and therefore the end result of the smudging has to reflect the starting point. Can't you see the flaw, you start with an assumption that is also your conclusion despite whatever processes the information may go through in the interim? Thats where science and creationism/ID differ. The process or path that the information follows, or how the information evolves decides the outcome and the outcome is continually refined just as one would expect from such a process. The outcome is not predecided, only your outcome is predecided i.e it has to match to initial assumption that a Christian God is the creator.

Even worse is when the data actively contradicts your viewpoint you insist the data is incorrect because your initial assumption has to be perfect or can't be challenged. So you're not challenging the data but what you percieve the data is doing to your initial assumption.
You must see the massive illogical circle that you've made for yourself? No? I mean you argue the finer points of how complex evolutionary models are incorrect not out of understanding of complex evolutionary models but out of the delusion that your starting point cannot be incorrect? So you're not arguing, you're simply reiterating the mantra that 'no data' will ever suffice.

It's easy to obscure scientific data or marvel at the cosmos but to base ones academic and or intellectual ideas separate to ones moral and social beliefs is the important thing. You will always be wrong because you cannot separate the two. The origin and evolution of mankind is not at all necessarily linked to a creator and until you accept this your arguments on the topic, all of them, are entirely invalid.

keppler wrote: »

lol!
thanks for the concern ghostbuster. but i believe that a major problem is that other posters are not following up on J C's rediculous explanations for disagreeing with solid scientific evidence for the existence of evolution! evidence such as that given by sponsored walk! i watched he/she give such solid, shell proof evidence again and again only to be insulted by a reply such as "all the more evidence for an intelligent designer". sponsored walk seems to be constantly throwing evidence J C's way only to be be described (as a certain man i know of would say) as "Bull****" followed by "Ye-Haaaa". every time someone puts more evidence infront of J C he uses it to squirm his way out of giving a credible answer for the previous evidence:mad: (which we all know is that yes evolution is scientific fact)
ok i should say here that ghost buster you have been trying to do this for several pages now but with no success (mostly because nobody has been shoring you up).
now look at one of the previous questions put to him about red-shift. never mind his unsubstantiated claim about intron's, but look at his straw house list of arguments against red-shift! J C has just wandered into a very dangerous discipline called PHYSICS which uses theorems not theories to substantiate its claims. But again his arguments to this evidence are now 3/4 pages back in the thread and J C will never be confronted by them again. I may know very little about genetics but i have a decent background in physics and i know when someone is bluffing. "scientist myself" my arse! J C THE BIBLE IS NOT A GOOD SCOURCE FOR SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL

sorry about the rant Ghost buster but i really feel that this guy should be nailed to something, any ideas?:P

I imagine J C licking his chops and muttering "fresh meat" to himself. Let's settle in for another 5000 posts of gibberish.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's really not because nobody has been shoring him up. As has been mentioned, J C has been at this for five years and has filled a thread with 23,513 posts of nonsense. His delusion is impenetrable.

Au contraire:

J C wrote: »

Evolution may explain the 'survival of the fittest' (via NS/SS of existing genetic information) ... but it doesn't explain the 'arrival of the fittest' i.e. the origin of the specified functional complex information present in living systems.

This functional complexity stuff is the most meaningless statement, but
the part in blue is a pretty good explanation of the theory of natural
selection & could only be made by someone who understands the
theory.

I doubt I'm the first person to get an unconscious admittance though,
I'll bet he's admitted it plenty of times only to press the rewind button
and do it all again many times.

Anyone else picturing the absolute debauchery going on in the back of that
limousine? Debauchery is not always associated with good things y'know...

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's really not because nobody has been shoring him up. As has been mentioned, J C has been at this for five years and has filled a thread with 23,513 posts of nonsense. His delusion is impenetrable. If he was going to admit that anyone else had a point he would have done it a long time ago. Instead he rants about complex specified information (a theory that is nonsense but he doesn't understand it so his version is even worse nonsense) and when someone backs him into a corner he tells us all how we're worshipping at the alter of a dead theory/religion etc etc. It's a never ending cycle of bullsh!t

look, i can understand that he is a master of weaseling his way out of heavy situations but, in this thread he has never gone away and come back and yet has been backed into a corner by sponseredwalk and ghost buster several time's.
I honestly have no problem with the guy making rubbish comments like god love's all of you yada yada. All that does is make him appear more futile in his attempt to prove evolution is a lie! but when he replies to evidence which is scientifically proven and accepted (such as his so called alternative explanations of red-shift) it evolves from preaching into an attack on science.