"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C wrote: »

Your distinctions are specious nonesense!!!

The spectrometers used to measure stellar redshift use the principle of diffraction to produce the spectrograms upon which all this is based.
... and you are correct that passage through the atmosphere is the reason why sunlight is dramatically redshifted in the evenings and mornings because it arrives tangentially to the atmosphere relative to the observer - while it is blueshifted dramatically during the middle of the day when it is coming in directly through the atmosphere.

'Your distinctions are specious nonsense' now thats the kind of answers i love getting from J C.
what a joke.

Yes J C telescopes are fitted with spectrometers which measure wavelength of light and also obtain emission spectra and ultimately can be used to calculate redshift. congrats J C your power's of deduction are amazing!!

JC you cannot simply say that dispersion is redshift they are two completely different things! Rayleigh scattering is scattering none the less NOT REDSHIFT
JC THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF HYPOTHESES AS TO WHAT MAKES THE SKY BLUE AND RED BUT NONE OF THEM INVOLVE SHIFT.

OH and J C you still have not answered my previous simple question. Are you argueing that redshift is not a viable means for calculating distances to other galaxies and therefore implying that our estimated age of the universe at 13.5 billion years incorrect and therefore implying that god did make the heavens in one day 6000 years ago????
IT'S A YES OR NO ANSWER

keppler wrote: »

Yes sponsored walk. The basics are absolutely vital in physics. Without which you will never understand theoretical physics or the arguments for or against theories.
I can understand why you find it strange as I find genetics strange mainly because you dont really think from a practical and spacial point of view as you should in physics.
Look i dont want you to feel insulted or anything but even a higher level leaving cert physics book is enough to give a fairly good understanding of the basics(this course is surprisingly comprehensive in mechanics, light etc but yet dosn't get bogged down in Newtonian laws) But i assume that you did Science at Uni. in which case you probably would have done physics modules before specializing in genetics?
i dont really know why you are following an engineering text, I did engineering degree at uni but to be honest i would try and revolve around basic thoery and experimental proof.
as for me and genetics im ashamed to admit that i havn't even got a basic understanding of the basics yet so when you mention txt books sponsoredwalk im looking for something along the lines of 'genetics for dummies'. :rolleyes:

A basic leaving cert physics book is a travesty, yes I worked through the
damn thing on my own & felt even stupider just accepting "Work is the
product of a force times a distance" yada yada yada... I got a university
physics book and realised I needed calculus so I went and learned calculus
and now understand all of it fine. A bit of calculus makes about 15
chapters of leaving cert physics rote memorization completely obsolete
and rederivable in a matter of seconds. What I meant about the basics
was that I know I should just plow through the book and then re-do
everything on a higher scale but the way I'm doing it is alright too, just
gets on my nerves If you find a show called the mechanical universe
online I've gone through all that on my own already and am aware of
what's coming just I'd like to do it in a lot of detail now.
My point about the engineering book was that I wanted to understand how
to understand more real-life examples of the stuff in my physics book so
I'm doing just that at the moment and happier for it :cool:

As for biology, I'd recommend Raven Biology for the theory and Schaum's
Biology to test yourself with questions. If you do something like this
you'll have the perfect background to go on to take on a proper genetics
book also using schaum's genetics to practice questions
Perhaps someone else will have better suggestions than these but I think
you'd do great with this much under your belt. Chemistry is important to
get a proper understanding, I mean I do alright with minimal chem
knowledge. Try www.khanacademy.org along with Schaum's Beginning
Chemistry and I think you'd crack it pretty quickly

keppler wrote: »

'Your distinctions are specious nonsense' now thats the kind of answers i love getting from J C.
what a joke.

Yes J C telescopes are fitted with spectrometers which measure wavelength of light and also obtain emission spectra and ultimately can be used to calculate redshift. congrats J C your power's of deduction are amazing!!

JC you cannot simply say that dispersion is redshift they are two completely different things! Rayleigh scattering is scattering none the less NOT REDSHIFT
JC THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF HYPOTHESES AS TO WHAT MAKES THE SKY BLUE AND RED BUT NONE OF THEM INVOLVE SHIFT.

... the Rayleigh scattering results in an observed shifting of the emission spectra ... and you are correct that nobody attributes this to a Doppler Effect ... because we know this is not true ... so why do we attribute much smaller stellar spectral shifts to doppler effects?

keppler wrote: »

OH and J C you still have not answered my previous simple question. Are you argueing that redshift is not a viable means for calculating distances to other galaxies and therefore implying that our estimated age of the universe at 13.5 billion years incorrect and therefore implying that god did make the heavens in one day 6000 years ago????
IT'S A YES OR NO ANSWER

Some of the distances may be even greater ... but redshift isn't a fool-proof way of measuing these distances.

J C wrote: »

I don't have access to the original documentation of the quote ... and the internet just provides repeated versions of either the quote or talkorigins critique of the quote.
So lets examine what your talkorigins link has said about this quote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

"The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist."

So here we have an equally eminent biologist (and Evolutionist) who says that Transformism is a fairy tale ... and promptly cconfirms that, despite this, it is accepted as a fact and that is there is no discussion amongst scientists on it being a fact (even though he has apparently just admitted that it is a fairy tale)!!!

This reminds me of the following quote (and this time I can quote 'chapter and verse'):
"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" (Prof Geoge Wald, 1967 joint Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine and formenr Professor of Biology in Harvard in "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).
this was followed in the August 1954 edition of Scientific American by the following admission:-

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

Here we have an eminent Scientist saying that Evolutionists (including himself) choose to believe what they know to be impossible!!!

... going back to your link in realtion to Prof Bounoure it says as follows:-

The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude is taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following: "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements." So effectively, the original quote that you call a lie ... is substantially proven to be an accurate reflection of Prof Bounoure's position that evolutionism is a theory without value and that none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on this defunct theory!!!

LOL! such a load of crap. You misquoted somone and took their quote out of context and now you write a mini essay trying to justify your dishonesty. Utter rubbish. Have some decency, admit to your lie and move on. You would deserve some respect then, at least.

Also trying to obscure your original misquote by quoting someone else is pointless. The simple fact is that you attributed a quote to someone that THEY NEVER SAID i.e. you lied. However, it fits in very well with your track record on these forums Professor Plumb, doesn't it?

King Mob wrote: »

So by how much are they off? Can you provide some maths to back this up?
(Math is the one with the numbers btw.)

J C wrote: »

... Prof Dawkins has indeed said that living organisms give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose ... and he then promptly denies this by claiming that blind evolutionary processes did it ...
... but materialistic processes are incapable of producing CSI ... and we have the maths to prove it!!!

J C appears to be very skilled in mathematics, he has proof that
materialistic processes are incapable of producing CSI (crime scene
investigations?) so he should have no problems calculating the discrepancies
in redshift calculations yada yada [insert big word taken from creationist website here]
yada...

J C four posters have accused you of lying in 1 page, that has to be some
record on boards, especially seeing as all 4 claims of lying come from totally
different conversations!

Being an evolutionist is like being hooked into the matrix to J C, and Neo, I
mean J C, is going to save the world by destroying us damned evolutionists
under the guidance of Morpheus John May.

bluewolf wrote: »

It's obviously a big evolutionist conspiracy. We're all so blind to the truth we're accusing him of lying.

The truth will out ... you are indeed blinded to the truth ... and your denial is causing you to make unfounded charges against me!!!

Your own words condemn you !!!

equivariant wrote: »

LOL! such a load of crap. You misquoted somone and took their quote out of context and now you write a mini essay trying to justify your dishonesty. Utter rubbish. Have some decency, admit to your lie and move on. You would deserve some respect then, at least.

Also trying to obscure your original misquote by quoting someone else is pointless. The simple fact is that you attributed a quote to someone that THEY NEVER SAID i.e. you lied. However, it fits in very well with your track record on these forums Professor Plumb, doesn't it?

I am not conceding that the original quote is incorrect ... I don't have access to the book 'Determinism and Finality' ... so I can't confirm or deny whether Bounoure or the even more eminent Rostand actually pronounced Evolution to be a fairy tale ...
... in any event, it is a moot point, as far as the ultimate validity of Evolution is concerned, whether it was Bounoure or Rostand who actually pronounced Evolution to be a fairy tale !!!
Talk about 'sweating the small stuff'!!!

BTW your silence is deafening on all of the other equally devastating quotes on Evolution by Evolutionists ... you could start here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68179370&postcount=1010

wrote:

Originally Posted by bluewolf
It's obviously a big evolutionist conspiracy. We're all so blind to the truth we're accusing him of lying.

liamw
haha oh man that's EXACTLY what I was just about the type. We know them all too well

Another Freudian Slip' no doubt!!!

Your own words condemn you ... and all your Evolutionist 'buddies' ... who are engaged in the advocacy (and, if given the chance, presumably, the actuality) of crass discrimination against Creationists and ID proponents!!!


Your own words indicate that you are blinded to the truth that Evolution is invalid ... or do you know the truth ... and you just continue to defend the impossible for religious anti-God reasons!!!

J C wrote: »

Something also tells me that there will also be no substantive response to my posting!!!

There is nothing substantial in anything you've said J C, nothing...

It's become tiresome to see you tie yourself up in this ball of yarn, I'm still
waiting to hear your evidence for ID, your evidence that the flagella motor
is not an example of unconscious natural processes, how a variable
coccyx, i.e. people being born without one, actually backs up your claim
that, in fact, people are born with a coccyx to aid walking etc... Oh, and
that little topic of mathematical proof for why natural processes cannot
form complex structures and your mathematical proof on this topic of
redshifts that tire out light but somehow lead to our skies the way they
are. There is more nonsense I'm awaiting answers to, such as how
intelligent design was validated at Pajaro in 1993, your evidence for the
flood due to your tired light hypothesis, your explanation of the evolution
of drug resistant bacteria, all this fun stuff