Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Comments
-
-
-
Why??
Have you read the horrendous response of yours???
Could I respectfully suggest that when you try to spread your beliefs that we are glorified pondslime going to eternal oblivion ... that you should back up these beliefs with evidence ... and specifically, you will need to invalidate the mathematical proof that life had an intelligently directed and designed origin by an intelligence of divine proportions ... before you (or your buddies) go indoctinating Christian Children with your Materialism!!!
Lets take it apart and see why it makes a sane person ill...Could I respectfully suggest that when you try to spread your beliefs that we are glorified pondslime going to eternal oblivion ... that you should back up these beliefs with evidence
J C, what about the abiogenesis stuff we've been discussing for the past
month. You know, the stuff we went into excruciating detail over?
Furthermore what about Miller & Urey's experiments? These things are
that elusive thing known as evidence in support of communist-marxist
evolutionary theory. You've done nothing to disprove this at all.and specifically, you will need to invalidate the mathematical proof that life had an intelligently directed and designed origin by an intelligence of divine proportions ...
What proof? You don't have a proof, you have a joke-proof alright,
but that's not a proof. I mean, if you look at the youtube video
above on MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF ID, that's so stupid. I mean, actually
a lack of intelligence. This is not mathematical proof, here is a
mathematical proof. Your joke-theory is the same, talking about
permutations has nothing to do with anything we're discussing,
as we've said to you over and over and over and over again. Your
"proof" is a proof that molecules in outer space with NOTHING acting
on them will never form John May. That may or may not be true,
your proof is so bad at accounting for the environment we'll
never know. However, as the f'ing abiogenesis video answers,
there are biological and thermodynamic processes acting on all of the
material making up the cell and shaping it's development. Natural
selection, that thing "everybody accepts", (according to you), is
acting on the cell and elements of it too. Where in your JOKE-PROOF
do you mention natural selection? Nowhere, therefore you've neglected
an element of the theory you're describing and this means you ****ed
up, you're swindling everyone when you call this a proof because it
is missing serious details. There is a concrete reason why you're
joke-proof means less than the letter r in the word "yes".
It's getting so unbelievable watching you deny the fact your proof is
absolutely worthless in this thread, are you stupid? Have you forgotten
that we've been telling you that your proof is stupid beyond belief all this
time? No sane human being accepts your proof, drop it. It does nothing.0 -
-
while creatures, like the sponge, haven't changed one iota then ...
Wow, seriously? :eek: You might as well have said, "If evolution is true why
are there still monkeys around AS WELL AS humans? Checkmate atheists!".
First we'll point out the lies in your response. Did you even bother to
find out if sponge's have changed "one iota"???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge#Evolutionary_history :rolleyes:
Tell us were you lying, or is wikipedia lying about the evolutionary
history in this article?
Second, if you'd even say something like this it just shows how messed
up your understanding of evolution is. I mean, I understand why you
don't understand this, just as your proof neglects the environment,
so too does your understanding of evolution in general neglect the
environment. If the environment and the living conditions of a
sponge favours a certain sponge then it has no reason to evolve ffs,
any genetic changes bad for the sponge will eventually kill them off,
but there's plenty of room for variation within this. Wow...
This is not a genuine objection to anyhting, it's a genuine example of how
badly educated you are on the subject you claim to have a mathematical
proof refuting
0 -
Advertisement
-
... that is a very good question, as well!!!:eek:sponsoredwalk wrote: »Wow, seriously? :eek: You might as well have said, "If evolution is true why are there still monkeys around AS WELL AS humans? Checkmate atheists!".
... however, the Evolutionists 'hide their blushes' of embarassment on this question, by citing the excuse that modern Monkeys are as different from their supposed common ancestor Ape, as Humans are ...
... but this excuse doesn't work with Sponges ... they haven't changed supposedly for 600 million years ... when Humans were supposedly evolving from something that looked like a 'slimeball' ... within the same pond, at least initially ... and over the same supposed period of time !!!!
... so why all this 'stasis' with the Sponge ... and rampant prolific new CFSI production by other organisms to produce a Human within the same initial environment???
... the whole thing is a 'specious nonesense' ... just like John May says it is ... and 'special pleading' of the highest degree!!!
... why do you assume that other people lie ... is it because you are a liar yourself??sponsoredwalk wrote: »First we'll point out the lies in your response.
Where does it say anything about the supposedly 600 million year old Sponges evolving into anything except other Sponges?sponsoredwalk wrote: »Did you even bother to
find out if sponge's have changed "one iota"???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge#Evolutionary_history :rolleyes:
... neither myself nor Wikipedia are lying ... because we are both saying that Sponges haven't changed since they were first formed ... please answer your question about lying ... yourself!!!sponsoredwalk wrote: »Tell us were you lying, or is wikipedia lying about the evolutionary history in this article?
... there is no reason ... and no mechanism by which a Sponge (or indeed any other Created Kind) can evolve into anything other than another member of that particular Kind.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Second, if you'd even say something like this it just shows how messed
up your understanding of evolution is. I mean, I understand why you
don't understand this, just as your proof neglects the environment,
so too does your understanding of evolution in general neglect the
environment. If the environment and the living conditions of a
sponge favours a certain sponge then it has no reason to evolve ffs,
any genetic changes bad for the sponge will eventually kill them off,
but there's plenty of room for variation within this. Wow...
This is not a genuine objection to anyhting, it's a genuine example of how
badly educated you are on the subject you claim to have a mathematical
proof refuting
The environment can only select the phenotype of a particular CFSI presented to it ... and what my maths is devastatingly proving is that a non-intelligently directed process, like mutagenesis, is incapable of producing the new CFSI for just one small biomolecule, let alone the thousands of closely co-ordinated and highly specific biomolecules that are required in even one so-called 'simple living cell' ... so there is nothing new (other than the pre-existing genetic diversity infused at Creation) to present to the environment for it to select.
Anybody who looked at the David Attenborough documentary on the Origins of Life on Friday night last on BBC 2 at 9 pm, should note that he didn't explain the detail of how life could possibly have been materialistically produced (Abiogenesis) ... nor how the additional CFSI required to produce complex multicellular organisms came about (Materialistic Evolution) ... instead, he simply moved straight to the fossil record ... and he used the phrase (a number of times) that different life forms just 'appeared' ... in the blink of an evolutionary eye ... and he also said that the exact process by which this occurred was a 'mystery'!!!
... it isn't actually any 'mystery' ... as the 'best fit' explantion for such a phenomenon is direct instantaneous Creation.
David also showed the fossilised remains of soft-bodied creatures and even the tracks they made before they died on the sea-floor ... and the 'best fit' explantion for such phenomena is instant inundation and cementation of the ocean floor by the Tectonic Processes of Noah's Flood.
Certainly, the supposed gradual laying down of rock sediment over millions of years that 'Old Earthers' claim as proof for millions of years is not supported by the fact that these creatures would decompose in hours and completely disappear in days ... and their perfect preservation is therefore indicative of an instantaneous process ... and not one occurring over millions of years!!!!0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
You make me feel ill, and sad.
What was 'horrendous' about it ... I merely pointed out that, just like I have already provided mathematical proof for my position ... that you guys should take your own advice, and do the same, before you (or your 'fellow travellers') go forcibly indoctrinating children with your unfounded Materialism/Evolutionism!!!sponsoredwalk wrote: »Have you read the horrendous response of yours???
... and BTW, when I was an Evolutionist, I too felt 'sick and sad' many times ... when I thought that I was only a temporary product of physical matter, assembled by physical forces through a process of 'blind pitiless indifference' ... on the way to eternal anhiallation ... and without an eternal spirit and an equally eternal destiny ... or a God who loved me so much that He literally died to Save me!!!0 -
-
-
-
Hi everyone, OOO, Me = Newbie please be gentle, the first time can be so ... messy however, heres my forum intro
Heres my fav joke to warm you up :
This is specious
Proton and an Electron go into a bar. The Proton says : "You sure I won't be charged for this?" The Electron replies "Im Positive" (rotflmao smiley) Personally Im into Fullerenes OMG is this advertising? Will the other carbon molecules get up tight? Its not specious either so its off topic ! Newbie Newbie Sorry, Heres a your Fullerene lesson then (Other carbon Molecules are available)
is this too long? i got told off for using smilies in a forum so im a bit scared 0 -
-
... so, in summary, are you saying that Evolution is just some kind of big joke???Hi everyone, OOO, Me = Newbie please be gentle, the first time can be so ... messy however, heres my forum intro
Heres my fav joke to warm you up :
This is specious
Proton and an Electron go into a bar. The Proton says : "You sure I won't be charged for this?" The Electron replies "Im Positive" (rotflmao smiley) Personally Im into Fullerenes OMG is this advertising? Will the other carbon molecules get up tight? Its not specious either so its off topic ! Newbie Newbie Sorry, Heres a your Fullerene lesson then (Other carbon Molecules are available) is this too long? i got told off for using smilies in a forum so im a bit scared
BTW ... I like your joke about the electron and the proton in the bar ... although, on mature reflection ... it sounds too elementary to me!!!:D0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
No one follows links reads an argument. They just dismiss Carl Vogel of Trinity, ten years of research by Stanford University, the awesome work of incorporating Buddhist Dialectic into philosophy "Oh look man write difficult sentence, ooo me have to think, o me have to click on link" ooo
MY Brain Hurts! 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Me wrote:"If evolution is true why are there still monkeys around AS WELL AS humans? Checkmate atheists!".... that is a very good question, as well!!!:eek:
... however, the Evolutionists 'hide their blushes' of embarassment on this question, by citing the excuse that modern Monkeys are as different from their supposed common ancestor Ape, as Humans are ...
It's funny how you call serious evidence "blushes of embarrassment".
Do you know how much evidence there is supporting this conclusion?
You know that thing you like, genetics? It explains the evolutionary
lineage of a common ancestor.
Are you an objective person? :pac:... but this excuse doesn't work with Sponges ... they haven't changed supposedly for 600 million years ... when Humans were supposedly evolving from something that looked like a 'slimeball' ... within the same pond, at least initially ... and over the same supposed period of time !!!!
... so why all this 'stasis' with the Sponge ... and rampant prolific new CFSI production by other organisms to produce a Human within the same initial environment???
This is a good question, I don't know the answer to this. I did a bit of
research and found some interesting reasons why sponges would not
evolve as rapidly.
:eek:Sponges may technically be immortal because in undisturbed natural
surroundings they never die. The only natural death threat sponges face
is total dehydration and drying or being froze solid.
Macerate a sponge into tiny pieces and most of those pieces will
regenerate a whole new sponge. In fact, if you force a sponge through
a fine silk mesh and break it up into individual single cells, each of those
individual cells has the potential to regenerate an entire sponge.
(Imagine the mess you would have if you tried that with a chunk of
human flesh, let alone an entire human body.) Sponges just keep on
keeping on.
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-characteristics-of-phylum-porifera-a151750... so why all this 'stasis' with the Sponge
I think you've got your answer right there.... the whole thing is a 'specious nonesense' ... just like John May says it is ... and 'special pleading' of the highest degree!!!
I see what you did there... why do you assume that other people lie ... is it because you are a liar yourself??
I lied, where? Could you quote it, I mean we wouldn't want to pull
out that word slander would we?
Where does it say anything about the supposedly 600 million year old Sponges evolving into anything except other Sponges?
J C, use elementary logic. Seriously, if a sponge evolved into a monkey
we wouldn't have sponges we'd have monkeys. We still have sponges
because they didn't die off. In fact, if you read the passage you're
dismissing we find out that sponges evolved gradually. Do we know
the origin of sponges?Sponges Apparently Arose From Choanocyte Ancestors
DNA analysis indicates that the sponge’s immediate evolutionary
predecessors are the protistan choanoflagellates, a group biologists long
suspected could have been the nearest thing to animals (metazoa)
without actually being animals.
These single-celled creatures with whip-like flagella bear an amazing
resemblance to the choanocyte cells of present day sponges. In one
species, a particular molecule previously found in only multicellular animals
was discovered leading scientists to conclude that the choanoflagellates
appear to contain the “genetic tool kit” (i.e. genes for inter-cell adhesion,
signaling, and differentiation) from which the first animals were made.
Establishing the Family Tree of Sponges
Traditionally sponges were considered to be a monophyletic group. That is,
all sponges descended from a common ancestor that was itself a sponge.
Furthermore, it was believed that ancestral sponges gave rise to the
eumetazoa.
However, when molecular and DNA analysis revealed that choanoflagellates
are the nearest evolutionary relatives to all animals, the traditional view of
the origin of sponges was shown to be incorrect.
Currently most zoologists believe that choanoflagellates gave rise to
sponges and that some sponges gave rise to the eumetazoa
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-origin-of-sponges-a147147
edit: Meant to ask you this, how does your brilliance explain the origin of
sponges? How does it disprove the stuff written above?... neither myself nor Wikipedia are lying ... because we are both saying that Sponges haven't changed since they were first formed ... please answer your question about lying ... yourself!!!
Hmm,if some creature (and there are many of them) is supposed to have lived in the same environment along with other creatures for 600 million years and the other creatures have supposedly evolved into dramatically and fundamentally different creatures ... up to and including Man ... while creatures, like the Sponge, haven't changed one iota, then ...
... it sounds like neither the 600 million years nor the evolution of new CFSI is true!!!
I see how you're trying to save face. I like the trickery, it's almost
working. Unfortunately that wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge#Evolutionary_history
you spoke about actually doesn't say sponges haven't changed one iota.
Are you seriously going to argue there is not one iota of differenceSilica spicules like those of demosponges have been reported from Nevada
in rocks dated around 750 million years ago.[33] Well-preserved fossil
sponges from about 580 million years ago in the Ediacaran period have
been found in the Doushantuo Formation. These fossils, which include
spicules, pinacocytes, porocytes, archeocytes, sclerocytes and the
internal cavity, have been classified as demosponges. Fossils of glass
sponges have been found from around 540 million years ago in rocks in
Australia, China and Mongolia.[34] Calcium carbonate spicules of
calcareous sponges have been found in Early Cambrian rocks from
about 530 to 523 million years ago in Australia. Other probable
demosponges have been found in the Early Cambrian Chengjiang fauna,
from 525 to 520 million years ago.[35] Freshwater sponges appear to be
much younger, as the earliest known fossils date from the Mid-Eocene
period about 48 to 40 million years ago.[34] Although about 90% of
modern sponges are demosponges, fossilized remains of this type are
less common than those of other types because their skeletons are
composed of relatively soft spongin that does not fossilize well.[36]
Archaeocyathids, which some classify as a type of coralline sponge, are
common in the Cambrian period from about 530 million years ago, but
apparently died out by the end of the Cambrian
490 million years ago
between calcareous sponges & demosponges???
No, not one iota of difference between these two organisms :rolleyes:
Were you lying? Even a little? :pac:0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement