"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C wrote: »

There are two reasons why many of the quotes are from the 70's and 80's.

1. There is such intolerance against any anti-evolution statements nowadays, that it would be professional suicide for a working evolutionist to make any such remarks.

2. Creation Scientists wish to protect the many ordinary Evolutionists that they interact with by not publishing off-the-record remarks that they may make.

Translation: Conspiracy!!!

Trust me, if I found evidence for the spontaneous emergence of a species or any complex biological system (be it irreducible complexity etc.), I would publish it and win worldwide acclaim. If my work was to the standard demanded, I would probably win the Nobel prize too.

Do you know why creation science is rejected? No evidence. And that isn't going to change, that much I can reasonably guarantee.

Zillah wrote: »

J C, don't you think you'd be happier if you just admitted to yourself that it's magic? You can stop pretending! You can stop lying to yourself and others, no more desperate attempts at scrabbling together shreds of evidence, misquoted scientists and dubiously run experiments. No more struggle with your doubts and that irritating little voice of reason that sometimes manages to cry out as you link to yet another piece of drivel masquerading as reasonable argument. No more desperate attempts to rationalise away the thousands of posts that prove you wrong.

Just concede that you think God is magic and that we're stupid atheists who don't get how special he makes you feel. Wouldn't it be so much easier? Just let it go. I bet it would be rather cathartic.

Strong words from somebody who believes that his brain is developed from pondslime and selected mistakes!!!!

Like I have said before ... I have no over-riding commitment to Creationism ... I once was an Evolutionist ... and I would return to Evolution again, if any of it made sense!!!

... but here is a man (Prof Richard Lewontin Alexander, Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University) whose commitment to Evolution and Materialism is absolute :
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "Billions and Billions of Demons"

... and this is what he really thinks of Darwinism:-

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything. “Testing the Theory of Natural Selection” Nature March 24, 1972 p.181

HOLY SH&T!!!! Did JC just quote Colin Patterson?:eek:

Colin Patterson wrote:

The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

J C wrote: »

Strong words from somebody who believes that his brain is developed from pondslime and selected mistakes!!!!

Like I have said before ... I have no over-riding commitment to Creationism ... I once was an Evolutionist ... and I would return to Evolution again, if any of it made sense!!!

... but here is a man (Prof Richard Lewontin Alexander, Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University) whose commitment to Evolution and Materialism is absolute :
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "Billions and Billions of Demons"

Strong words from someone who believes a wizard kicked humans out of
paradise because a damn woman tempted a man to eat an apple.

Oh wait, they aren't your words, you do nothing but pull up questionable
and out of context quotations from other people :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

Its not a conspiracy ... just open hostility.

... and the reason the hostility is so acute is because Creationism is the truth.

Yeah yeah J C... In the world of science 'no evidence' = hostility:rolleyes:


BTW JC you still have not given me an answer to my question or ghostbusters question.
Im not surprised JC to be honest. There is no way you are ever going to find credible evidence that putting animals on a boat is going to explain the existence of introns anyway.(Do you have any idea how rediculous it sounds?...:rolleyes:)
So you may aswell just admit that you lied in your answer to Ghostbusters question!!!!:cool:

J C wrote: »

Its not a conspiracy ... just open hostility.

... and the reason the hostility is so acute is because Creationism is the truth.

I'm certainly not hostile to creationism as a mechanism for the explanation for life. I just have to grow up and admit that there is simply no scientific basis for creationism. The facts are the facts. Evolution by natural selection is the golden standard, it explains the variety of life that has been studied, creationism does not.

I remember an old adage that true wisdom could be found in being able to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it. Perhaps you should consider the evidence again for yourself.

Science is quite cruel to ideas that do not fit observation. Such is the fate of nonsense like creationism.

More Harun Yahya stuff :pac: Do give him my regards in jail wont you
Honestly I remember asking myself who would actually fall for the waffle in
his videos and on his channel. I'm so shocked to find someone in Ireland who
actually falls for this piffle, seriously J C you've been so misled, I feel sorry
for you if you'd seriously use Harun Yahya videos as any form of evidence
whatsoever, especially twice or three times in 1 thread :eek:
Have you read about this man's history? Have you read about him faking
evolutionary evidence? Read up on it J C and ask yourself how safe it is
to constantly rely on somebodies credentials, i.e. "oh he's a biologist, he's
a curator of a museum yada yada..." when here we have grade A+
evidence that this method will get someone tricked by hucksters.

Honestly, I do feel sorry for you at this stage & just hope you'll eventually
see this for yourself. I know you'll reply telling me I'm blinded by my
evolution and my god Dawkins or whatever but just know that I'm
sorry you've been misled by such hucksters with such hucksterish
practices. Another thing you should check up on is the low down dirty
tricks creationists use, I mean it's not happy, it's not a sign of internal
happiness and isn't that what your religion is supposed to give you?

Flagellum stuff awaiting response btw...

Oh, and how is my video on the evolution of the flagellum not evidence for
evolution J C? A 5 year old couldn't understand this video because it's
kind of technical so yeah I'm sure the 5 year old would claim it's wrong -
what does that illustrate?

J C wrote: »

I believe that Creationism is true ... but I am prepared to change my mind if it is proven to be untrue!!!

Well that's progress, now I sense a bit more honesty coming from you.
We know very little about the particular strand of creationism you hold to be
true, why don't you let us know because, as I'm sure you know, there are
many different varieties & I wouldn't like to assume anything offhand.
We can talk about it though.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

More Harun Yahya stuff :pac: Do give him my regards in jail wont you

... the neurosurgeon was Dr. Oktar Babuna.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Honestly I remember asking myself who would actually fall for the waffle in
his videos and on his channel. I'm so shocked to find someone in Ireland who
actually falls for this piffle, seriously J C you've been so misled, I feel sorry
for you if you'd seriously use Harun Yahya videos as any form of evidence
whatsoever, especially twice or three times in 1 thread :eek:
Have you read about this man's history? Have you read about him faking
evolutionary evidence? Read up on it J C and ask yourself how safe it is
to constantly rely on somebodies credentials, i.e. "oh he's a biologist, he's
a curator of a museum yada yada..." when here we have grade A+
evidence that this method will get someone tricked by hucksters.

... all I will say to that is touché!!!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Honestly, I do feel sorry for you at this stage & just hope you'll eventually
see this for yourself. I know you'll reply telling me I'm blinded by my
evolution and my god Dawkins or whatever but just know that I'm
sorry you've been misled by such hucksters with such hucksterish
practices. Another thing you should check up on is the low down dirty
tricks creationists use, I mean it's not happy, it's not a sign of internal
happiness and isn't that what your religion is supposed to give you?

What are you talking about?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Flagellum stuff awaiting response btw...

Oh, and how is my video on the evolution of the flagellum not evidence for
evolution J C? A 5 year old couldn't understand this video because it's
kind of technical so yeah I'm sure the 5 year old would claim it's wrong -
what does that illustrate?

Your video shows the steps that an intelligent agent might use to develop a flagellar motor ... but the chances of a non-intelligently directed process doing so are about the same as putting a feather in the ground ... and expecting it to grow a hen!!!
... at least with the feather, you already have the hen DNA ... but the chance is still zero!!!

House wrote: »

And there we have the root of your problem. You do not understand evolution at all.

Go watch "The Genius of Charles Darwin" and come back to us.

... and what do you think the chance of a feather growing a hen is?

J C wrote: »

... and what do you think the chance of a feather growing a hen is?

Unbelievably close to zero

That's why Darwin's theory of evolution employs natural selection to magnify beneficially significant mutations.

It's not an all or nothing argument like creationism. Have you ever heard of Mount Improbable?

I am sorely tempted to call Poe on this one.

J C wrote: »

... all I will say to that is touché!!!

I'm glad you have absolutely no answer other than this, says a lot.

J C wrote: »

... the neurosurgeon was Dr. Oktar Babuna.

I know, the video was from Harun Yahya, furthermore the mans claims
were bogus.



Can I have the Harun Yahya prize now?

J C wrote: »

Your video shows the steps that an intelligent agent might use to develop a flagellar motor ... but the chances of a non-intelligently directed process doing so are about the same as putting a
feather in the ground ... and expecting it to grow a hen!!!
... at least with the feather, you already have the hen DNA ... but the chance is still zero!!!

Where is King Mob, I'd love to see him calculate the probability in your
gedankenexperiment to see how accurate your ridiculous correlations are.

I'm not trying to be insulting but this is the stupidest thing you've said in
this thread. You're probably well over the age of 20 and I can't believe a
grown man would say something like this, especially if he claims he was
"once an evolutionist". Did you watch the video properly? Did you see the
part where it says that there are 40 different homologues?

A homologous[Etymology 1] trait is any characteristic of organisms that is derived from a common ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biology%29

:rolleyes:

How is there chance involved when 40 structures are pulling up similar
structures J C? How???????????:pac::mad::):D;):rolleyes::P:(:eek::o:p

J C wrote: »

I once tried to 'climb' Mount Improbable ... and I found it to be Mount Impossible!!!

You remind me of a friend I had when I visited a Pentecostal Church over a few months. Your quips betray your ignorance.

The idea of creationism or evolution by blind chance are both so highly improbable so as to be ridiculous.

Evolution by natural selection on the other hand removes the "all or nothing" limitation imposed by the first two.

Malty_T wrote: »

That's because Mount Improbable is not actually a real mountain. It is merely metaphor created for the purposes of explaining the the difference between the creationist concept of evolution that the modern theory of evolution. Typical JC, thinks metaphors are literal and that dream worlds exist.

Persistent persuasive delusion is as real to him as a hardback bible to the back of the head.

To be perfectly honest, I don't even know why we're still trying. Clearly there is no point at all.