"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

sponsoredwalk · 02-10-2010 12:31am

J C wrote: »

How does rapid (and in some cases instantaneous) speciation prove gradual Evolution over billions of years???

Rapid Speciation proves that the original Created Kinds were deliberately and intelligently designed to speciate rapidly!!

I like youtube videos, they are short, sweet and to the point. If you want
to go any deeper you'll have to read books on it & I don't think anybody is
up for that during an internet chat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE

I've watched all of your videos J C, please do me the courtesy

liamw · 02-10-2010 11:39am

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

...that convinces me you're not actually genuine, but are in fact the internet's most determined troll.

wow this would be such a legendary troll

J C · 02-10-2010 11:56am

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I like youtube videos, they are short, sweet and to the point. If you want
to go any deeper you'll have to read books on it & I don't think anybody is
up for that during an internet chat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE

I've watched all of your videos J C, please do me the courtesy

This video provides excellent examples of rapid speciation within Created Kinds ... using the pre-existing genetic diversity infused in their CFSI at Creation.
It even confirms that speciation progresses most rapidly in small isolated populations ... just like the conditions in the immediate aftermath of Noah's Flood.

It is an excellent Creation Science teaching resource, if I may say so!!

This video is indeed short and sweet ... like a Mule's kick in the 'crown jewels' ... from an Evolutionist point of view!!!:D

sensibleken · 02-10-2010 12:16pm

Guys, stop asking JC for evidence. Asking a creationist for evidence is like asking a monkey for a hand job. You're probably not going to get it and if you do its not going to be satisfactory

J C · 02-10-2010 12:21pm

sensibleken wrote: »

Guys, stop asking JC for evidence. Asking a creationist for evidence is like asking a monkey for a hand job. You're probably not going to get it and if you do its not going to be satisfactory

An evolutionist asking a monkey for a 'hand job' ... whilst believing it to be his cousin, sounds like incest to me !!!:)

sensibleken · 02-10-2010 12:25pm

J C wrote: »

An evolutionist asking his cousins for a 'hand job' sounds like incest to me !!!

See, that creationist arguement of the hand being perfectly formed for holding a banana is just a lack of imagination

J C · 02-10-2010 12:27pm

sensibleken wrote: »

See, that creationist arguement of the hand being perfectly formed for holding a banana is just a lack of imagination

... or a 'Freudian Slip' !!!:D

sensibleken · 02-10-2010 12:31pm

J C wrote: »

... or a 'Freudian Slip' !!!:D

No that's not what a freudian slip is. read more books or stop putting vaseline on your bananas

King Mob · 02-10-2010 12:54pm

Well JC has already admitted that species change genetically over time until they can no longer interbreed. And this is evolution.

But I don't think he's realised because he has no idea what evolution actually is beyond what his creationist masters tell him.

J C · 02-10-2010 1:20pm

King Mob wrote: »

Well JC has already admitted that species change genetically over time until they can no longer interbreed. And this is evolution.

But I don't think he's realised because he has no idea what evolution actually is beyond what his creationist masters tell him.

Do you not understand the difference between the selection of existing CFSI (like speciation amongst Finches, Flies and Mosquitos, etc.) and the vast quantities of new CFSI required to spontanously produce Evolutionists from Pondslime and the even greater quantity and quality of CFSI required to produce Creationists!!!!:)

sponsoredwalk · 02-10-2010 1:25pm

King Mob wrote: »

Well JC has already admitted that species change genetically over time until they can no longer interbreed. And this is evolution.

But I don't think he's realised because he has no idea what evolution actually is beyond what his creationist masters tell him.

If you think about the psychology of this, it's never been about evolution.
Here we have the bloody guy using evolutionary terms, explaining how
his theory about dogs is right due to evolution but somehow he has a
problem with evolution, it just boggles the mind

J C · 02-10-2010 1:32pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If you think about the psychology of this, it's never been about evolution.
Here we have the bloody guy using evolutionary terms, explaining how
his theory about dogs is right due to evolution but somehow he has a
problem with evolution, it just boggles the mind

I used to be a macro-evolutionist ... and I believed that Baboons evolved into Bankers ... and Eels evolved into Evolutionists ... but now I realise that Eels remain Eeels and Baboons remain Baboons ... but Evolutionists can (and do) become Bankers ... and vice versa!!!:eek::)

Improbable · 02-10-2010 1:33pm

J C wrote: »

I used to be a macro-evolutionist ... and I believed that Baboons evolved into Bankers ... and Eels evolved into Evolutionists ... but now I realise that Eels remain Eeels and Baboons remain Baboons ... but Evolutionists can (and do) become Bankers ... and vice versa!!!:eek::)

You've been asked this a lot of times but I'll just try yet again. What is your qualification?

J C · 02-10-2010 1:37pm

Improbable wrote: »

You've been asked this a lot of times but I'll just try yet again. What is your qualification?

Earned conventional university qualifications in multiple science disciplines (and Mathematics).

sponsoredwalk · 02-10-2010 1:39pm

J C wrote: »

I used to be a macro-evolutionist ... and I believed that Baboons evolved into Bankers ... and Eels evolved into Evolutionists ... but now I realise that Eels remain Eeels and Baboons remain Baboons ... but Evolutionists can (and do) become Bankers ... and vice versa!!!:eek::)

J C, only creationists think baboons evolved into humans, christ how do you
still get this wrong...

Improbable · 02-10-2010 1:39pm

I know it may be a concept you're unfamiliar with, but where is the evidence for that? Because your uninformed arguments absolutely contradict that...

J C · 02-10-2010 1:45pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

J C, only creationists think baboons evolved into humans, christ how do you
still get this wrong...

... I should, have said that Evolutionists believe that Apes became Actuaries ... and Bacteria became Evolutionists ... but it didn't alliterate!!!:D

J C · 02-10-2010 1:50pm

Improbable wrote: »

I know it may be a concept you're unfamiliar with, but where is the evidence for that? Because your uninformed arguments absolutely contradict that...

I once knew an Evolutionist who looked like a Rabbit and acted like an Ape ... but I still don't believe that his granny was a Baboon ... even though he told me that he was a 'monkey's cousin'!!!:D

sponsoredwalk · 02-10-2010 1:50pm

J C wrote: »

... I should, have said that Evolutionists believe that Apes became Actuaries ... and Bacteria became Evolutionists ... but it didn't alliterate!!!:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

King Mob · 02-10-2010 1:55pm

J C wrote: »

Do you not understand the difference between the selection of existing CFSI (like speciation amongst Finches, Flies and Mosquitos, etc.) and the vast quantities of new CFSI required to spontanously produce Evolutionists from Pondslime and the even greater quantity and quality of CFSI required to produce Creationists!!!!:)

You're right I don't understand the difference between shades of bull****, it's all made up nonsense from the delusions of people who can't understand basic science.

So lets see how little you actually know JC.
Define evolution.

And if you ignore this question like I think you will, the only reason you do is because you don't actually know the answer and you're simply too dishonest to even acknowledge the question.

King Mob · 02-10-2010 1:57pm

J C wrote: »

Earned conventional university qualifications in multiple science disciplines (and Mathematics).

Again JC isn't there something in your magic book about lying and how it's wrong?

J C · 02-10-2010 1:57pm

I didn't realise that there were digital cameras around 360 millon years ago to record the 'landfall' of your putative 'granny'!!!

... anyway these creatures exist today ... and they are called amphibians ... and no, I don't believe that frogs will ever become princes ... no matter how often they are kissed by Evolutionists!!!:)

robindch · 02-10-2010 2:05pm

Improbable wrote: »

What is your qualification?

Been done to death in the Other Thread, but AFAIR the general belief -- in the total absence of any evidence -- was that JC has a minor qualification in agriculture, possibly a national certificate.

robindch · 02-10-2010 2:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

Well JC has already admitted that species change genetically over time until they can no longer interbreed. And this is evolution.

Again, in the Other Thread, she's admitted that she accepts all the evidence that leads to evolution, and has generally accepted evolution too.

JC's only problem, at least as far as evolution is concerned, is with abiogenesis which she cannot distinguish from the evolution of species.

sponsoredwalk · 02-10-2010 2:11pm

robindch wrote: »

Again, in the Other Thread, she's admitted that she accepts all the evidence that leads to evolution, and has generally accepted evolution too.

JC's only problem, at least as far as evolution is concerned, is with abiogenesis which she cannot distinguish from the evolution of species.

He!

J C · 02-10-2010 2:15pm

King Mob wrote: »

You're right I don't understand the difference between shades of bull****, it's all made up nonsense from the delusions of people who can't understand basic science.

So lets see how little you actually know JC.
Define evolution.

And if you ignore this question like I think you will, the only reason you do is because you don't actually know the answer and you're simply too dishonest to even acknowledge the question.

Evolution is a weasel word ... that can be all things to all men.

The current most popular definition is a change in allele frequency over time in a population ... which is actually only micro-evolution within Created Kinds.

Dougla2 · 02-10-2010 2:18pm

J C wrote: »

Evolution is a weasel word ... that can be all things to all men.

The current most popular definition is a change in allele frequency over time in a population ... which is actually only micro-evolution within Created Kinds.

...........
....

J C · 02-10-2010 2:21pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

He!

Robin has a problem with 'gender issues' ... he fantasizes that I am a woman ... just like he fantasizes that he, himself, is descended from a bacterium.:)

King Mob · 02-10-2010 2:26pm

J C wrote: »

Evolution is a weasel word ... that can be all things to all men.

No it's a strictly defined word.
Kinds on the other hand, now that's a weasel word.

J C wrote: »

The current most popular definition is a change in allele frequency over time in a population

So you actually think that allele frequency does change over time?
Therefore evolution happens?

/thread.

J C wrote: »

... which is actually only micro-evolution within Created Kinds.

Oh look more weasel words!
Tell you what, since you're on a role with the whole answering questions honestly for once, why not define these words?

Same rules apply, ignoring the question means you can't answer the question and are too dishonest to admit it.

Zillah · 02-10-2010 3:20pm

J C wrote: »

The current most popular definition is a change in allele frequency over time in a population ... which is actually only micro-evolution within Created Kinds.

Really depends on what you plug in for "time" there, doesn't it? 10k years and its micro, 100 million and it's macro. I think you finally get it J C! Hurray for science!

I'm so happy *tear*

sponsoredwalk · 02-10-2010 3:22pm

J C wrote: »

The current most popular definition is a change in allele frequency over time in a population ... which is actually only micro-evolution within Created Kinds.

Another classic creationist mistake. Macroevolution is defined as microevolution
on a broad scale, i.e. the microevolution of many things not just a few.
Classic, again you admit you understand evolution - you use the terms to suit
your own biases and then deny it when we explain to you the true significance
of what you've said. Spooky how the mind can delude!

smcgiff · 02-10-2010 3:24pm

Aww - aren't humans fantastic all the same. What with creationists using words like 'Kind' as if a scientific term. Bit like Star Trek fans creating Klingon to give meaning to their fan fiction.

BTW, anybody here know how this book got on? Your man had radio ads for a while when this first broke. I imagine (hope!) reality soon hit.

smokingman · 02-10-2010 6:03pm

Lads, don't feed the pagan troll. Just because he believes some guy called Noah died and came back 28 days later in the year 211 ad, doesn't mean he can actually harm real science.

I have irrefutable proof that he is in fact John whatshisname and is trying to push up the post count on this thread to make it look like there's some interest in his toilet paper, sorry, "book".

I also have proof that Noah was a plumber, not a carpenter and his 13 apostles were actually his traveling circus act. I have discovered proof for all of this.

Fluffybums · 02-10-2010 9:43pm

Originally Posted by J C
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!!!

Now hang on a moment, I may be missing something here but I thought the creationist argument using the example of the flagellar motor is that it has to be created as a totality rather than in a series of steps.

JC you cannot have it both ways!

As for the hen argument, are you really that stupid??????? My 6 year old nephew would not make such an asinine comment.

Can you please ket me know where and what scientific qualification you hold, I need to know to ensure that no family of mine goes to the same establishment.

J C · 02-10-2010 10:37pm

Fluffybums wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
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!!!

Now hang on a moment, I may be missing something here but I thought the creationist argument using the example of the flagellar motor is that it has to be created as a totality rather than in a series of steps.

It doesn't matter whether the motor is postulated as being created in a series of steps or all at once ... it requires an inordinate input of intelligent design. The CFSI is simply too great for non-intelligntly directed processes to produce it.

Fluffybums wrote: »

JC you cannot have it both ways!

As for the hen argument, are you really that stupid??????? My 6 year old nephew would not make such an asinine comment.

Can you please ket me know where and what scientific qualification you hold, I need to know to ensure that no family of mine goes to the same establishment.

You sound like an old-style religious zealot who refuses to let his children go to a school other than one that is run by his particular religion.

I must tell you that Creation Scientists have no such sectarian views. We happily work alongside people of all religions and none ... and we also encourage our children to do likewise.

sponsoredwalk · 02-10-2010 10:59pm

J C wrote: »

I must tell you that Creation Scientists have no such sectarian views. We happily work alongside people of all religions

Creation scientists are happy to work alongside anyone seeing as they don't
do any real work. Still waiting for one single piece of evidence of scientific
work on behalf of a creation scientist (that furthered creation science and not normal science).

sponsoredwalk · 02-10-2010 11:01pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvrm9E4fUGQ

sponsoredwalk · 02-10-2010 11:08pm

J C, I've been researching creationism, and I think I've been swayed by
this man's impeccable logic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swlsqkAyxqY

I don't know what to think anymore

J C · 02-10-2010 11:12pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Creation scientists are happy to work alongside anyone seeing as they don't
do any real work. Still waiting for one single piece of evidence of scientific
work on behalf of a creation scientist (that furthered creation science and not normal science).

Please reconsider these untrue and unloving words.

... or is the only cultural diversity that you do not tolerate, the diversity of Creation Science?

J C · 02-10-2010 11:19pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

J C, I've been researching creationism, and I think I've been swayed by
this man's impeccable logic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swlsqkAyxqY

I don't know what to think anymore

I suppose a (twisted) imitation of the Creationist position is the best form of flattery that the Evolutionists can come up with!!!

The truth of Creation Science is seeping into their hearts and minds ... and that is why they expend such energy on debate and video to help salve their denial.

sponsoredwalk · 02-10-2010 11:23pm

J C wrote: »

Please reconsider these untrue and unloving words.

... or is the only cultural diversity that you do not tolerate, the diversity of Creation Science?

Yes I am a bigot, a mean nasty bigot whose evolutionary ways force him
to reject the kind plea's of the noble creation scientist trying to just get
tenure and make a living doing science in gods name. I pick on the noble
creation scientist by not allowing him to publish his ground breaking work
in journals and magazine's across the world for fear it will upset the status
quo of our left-wing marxist college comfort zone. Diversity is an irrelevant
concept to an absolutist like me whose one god (Darwin) doesn't allow it,
sorry, if only there was room but we're too into our power and our comfort
to allow any room for god. You may envision a day when we'll fall just like
the christianity oppressors did back around 2000-ish years ago but no,
we have a new god (Darwin) whose book we read religiously and in which
no flaws exist, anywhere!

sponsoredwalk · 02-10-2010 11:26pm

J C wrote: »

The truth of Creation Science is seeping into their hearts and minds ... and that is why they expend such energy on debate and video to help salve their denial.

I wont allow it, I have all the power on my side and our institutional structure
is specifically set up to prevent all knowledge of noble creationism.
Your side will never prevail.

Fluffybums · 02-10-2010 11:47pm

J C wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether the motor is postulated as being created in a series of steps or all at once ... it requires an inordinate input of intelligent design. The CFSI is simply too great for non-intelligntly directed processes to produce it.

You sound like an old-style religious zealot who refuses to let his children go to a school other than one that is run by his particular religion.

I must tell you that Creation Scientists have no such sectarian views. We happily work alongside people of all religions and none ... and we also encourage our children to do likewise.

Ah so you can have it both ways!

As for my request for you qualifications and alumni, it has nothing to religious bigotry only educational standards! A supposed scientist - well you do claim to be - who thinks that the evidence against evolution involves sticking a feather in the ground and it not turning into a hen, suggest to me a very poor standard of scientific education, whatever your religious or otherwise beliefs.

King Mob · 03-10-2010 12:36am

King Mob wrote: »

Oh look more weasel words!
Tell you what, since you're on a role with the whole answering questions honestly for once, why not define these words?

Same rules apply, ignoring the question means you can't answer the question and are too dishonest to admit it.

Aww... JC you where so close to engaging in an actual adult discussion....

But since you chose to ignore the question you are therefore admitting the above.

So how does this gel with your delusions?

J C · 03-10-2010 9:17am

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Yes I am a bigot, a mean nasty bigot whose evolutionary ways force him
to reject the kind plea's of the noble creation scientist trying to just get
tenure and make a living doing science in gods name. I pick on the noble
creation scientist by not allowing him to publish his ground breaking work
in journals and magazine's across the world for fear it will upset the status
quo of our left-wing marxist college comfort zone. Diversity is an irrelevant
concept to an absolutist like me whose one god (Darwin) doesn't allow it,
sorry, if only there was room but we're too into our power and our comfort
to allow any room for god. You may envision a day when we'll fall just like
the christianity oppressors did back around 2000-ish years ago but no,
we have a new god (Darwin) whose book we read religiously and in which
no flaws exist, anywhere!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I wont allow it, I have all the power on my side and our institutional structure
is specifically set up to prevent all knowledge of noble creationism.

... you speak the truth on your position on all of the above.

... however, the Evolutionist basis for all of your bigotry, sectarianism and absolutism is itself untrue.

J C · 03-10-2010 9:26am

Fluffybums wrote: »

Ah so you can have it both ways!

As for my request for you qualifications and alumni, it has nothing to religious bigotry only educational standards!

It has everything to do with religious bigotry and sectarianism clothed in pseudo-scientific ramblings.
The bottom line is that you wish to crassly discriminate against all Creationists ... and like every other bigot before you, you attempt to justify your sectarianism on the basis of 'protecting' the core beliefs of your 'Atheistic Tribe' and their fellow travellers from having their ideas challenged and falsified.

Sectarianism and bigotry are the symptoms of a group whose ideas are dubious and likely to be defeated if challenged ... this is not the behaviour of somebody or some group that is/are confident in the validity of their beliefs/worldview.

.. and Creationists shouldn't have to suffer, just because Atheists and their fellow travellers have grave doubts over the validity of their hypothesis that Abiogenesis/Evolution spontaneously generated Man from muck ... through a combination of chance, selected mistakes and time!!!

Fluffybums wrote: »

A supposed scientist - well you do claim to be - who thinks that the evidence against evolution involves sticking a feather in the ground and it not turning into a hen, suggest to me a very poor standard of scientific education, whatever your religious or otherwise beliefs.

The point that I was making is that there are certain things that will never happen ... no matter how many billions of years that you wait for them to happen. Death will never give rise to life barring intelligent intervention.
A disgarded feather will never give rise to a hen ... but it is theoretically possible for intelligent intervention to clone a hen from the recovery of the DNA in a feather.

Similarly, abiogenesis is an oxymoron ... with no plausible mechanism for its existence. Things that are dead remain dead ... and life can only give rise to other life ... it's called the Biological Law of Biogenesis.

smokingman · 03-10-2010 9:56am

J C wrote: »

Things that are dead remain dead ...

It's not bad enough that he lies about his version of science, he even lies about being a christian! There ya have it, Noah didn't come back to life after 28 days!
Mind you, seeing as the vatican (the authority for his god on earth) sees creationists as pagans, his true druid beliefs now come to the fore.

robindch · 03-10-2010 10:38am

J C wrote: »

The bottom line is that you wish to crassly discriminate against all Creationists ... and like every other bigot before you, you attempt to justify your sectarianism on the basis of 'protecting' your 'Atheistic Tribe' and their fellow travellers from having their ideas challenged and falsified.

It does not constitute "bigotry" to suggest that creationists are, in the main, either liars or fools, since this happens to be the case.

Neither does is constitute "discrimination" to keep their hootin', tootin', crayon-level idiocy out of the schools, the science literature and anywhere else where reason, evidence and clarity should apply, since none of these places are suitable outlets for third-rate lies and tendentious, moronic bullshit. If creationists wish to be treated like real scientists, then they should start behaving like them and try making some contribution to the sum total of human knowledge, and not, as happens at the moment, hang around like drunks milling about the door of the scientific tent, unable to do anything save urinate uncontrollably all over the place.

Finally, as we have to make clear every day or two on this forum to the vast majority of the religious who sincerely believe the opposite, atheists do not have a doctrine or a tribe to protect and only have questions for those who do.

Which is why it would be helpful for you to try to answer some of the questions you've been asked rather than ineptly dodge them, since doing so would help you look like the scientist you claim to be.

housetypeb · 03-10-2010 10:44am

Death will never give rise to life barring intelligent intervention

Which leads to the question, Who created the creator?
It might also be nice if jc laid out what he does believe about the creation of life the universe and everything.I know he thinks god did it all but I would like to know does he think it happened 6000 years ago or 14 billion years ago?
Does he think the the bible is a true account of creation or is there some wriggle room in his view.
I know he will probably reply with some obcure quote from some discredited guy from the 70's but I would like to know his own position if that's possible.

J C · 03-10-2010 11:01am

smokingman wrote: »

It's not bad enough that he lies about his version of science, he even lies about being a christian! There ya have it, Noah didn't come back to life after 28 days!
Mind you, seeing as the vatican (the authority for his god on earth) sees creationists as pagans, his true druid beliefs now come to the fore.

Calling a Saved Christian a Pagan is a denial of the Saving power of Jesus Christ and, by implication the fact that He is God.

1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
... as for the Vatican being an authority here is what Paul had to say about such 'middlemen':-
1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

... all authority is given to Saved Christians at the moment of their Salvation and the only Christian Authority that the Vatican possesses is possessed by whatever Saved Chrisitians are within its walls:-

Matthew 28:18-19
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments