"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky · 03-09-2011 11:41PM

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

I'm not really sure who's the biggest zealot here anymore but there are a helluva lot of people exercising their right to be dumb. Haven't you all got something better to do than waste your time arguing with trolls? And JC, if it weren't for this place I reckon your hands would be very very idle.

I'm watching movies and drinking beer with a bunch of people right now. J C is just a funny little sideshow. Always has been.

liamw · 04-09-2011 02:55AM

CSI evolved into CSFI

Mr. Boo · 04-09-2011 03:40AM

J C wrote: »

... so you're not citing it in your argument against ID then?

Fair enough !!!

Mbeep ... Mbeep!!!!:D

Pathetic.

J C · 04-09-2011 07:20AM

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Pathetic.

Boo!!!:eek::)

J C · 04-09-2011 07:26AM

koth wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I guess you just can't address any of the points in the paper after all.

There are no points to address unless you can find some.

Delirium · 04-09-2011 08:56AM

J C wrote: »

There are no points to address unless you can find some.

and yet you consistently fail to explain how the paper doesn't debunk a number of claims you've posted on this thread.

I guess you're happy to make excuses to avoid having to address any points made in the paper.

so you'r4 essentially rejecting it without investigating the content.

swampgas · 04-09-2011 10:15AM

JC's brain is like a computer stuck in an infinite loop - he's trapped in his own mind by a very nasty religious meme. It's scary how the bit of our brains that is rational can be so easily suppressed.

robindch · 04-09-2011 10:30AM

Doc_Savage wrote: »

anyone else notice that jc has evolved? from a joke..... to a meme!

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky.

J C · 04-09-2011 11:09AM

koth wrote: »

and yet you consistently fail to explain how the paper doesn't debunk a number of claims you've posted on this thread.

I guess you're happy to make excuses to avoid having to address any points made in the paper.

so you'r4 essentially rejecting it without investigating the content.

Its up to you guys to cite how the paper invalidates anything ... and I will be happy to respond, if or when you do so.

Can't be any fairer than that!!:)

With love.

J C · 04-09-2011 11:10AM

swampgas wrote: »

It's scary how the bit of our brains that is rational can be so easily suppressed.

... yes, it's called Spontaneous Evolution ... and the antidote is Creation Science!!!:)

Delirium · 04-09-2011 11:14AM

J C wrote: »

Its up to you guys to cite how the paper invalidates anything ... and I will be happy to respond, if or when you do so.

Can't be any fairer than that!!:)

With love.

the whole paper invalidates it. I'm asking that you choose any point and explain how you came to reject it.

J C · 04-09-2011 11:15AM

robindch wrote: »

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky.

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." Arthur Keith, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons

"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner, Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School

J C · 04-09-2011 11:19AM

koth wrote: »

the whole paper invalidates it. I'm asking that you choose any point and explain how you came to reject it.

It is your opinion that the 'whole paper' invalidates ID ... I don't think that it does ... so it is up to you to tell us why it invalidates ID.

Sarky · 04-09-2011 11:35AM

I've never seen someone so afraid of one little scientific paper. You can't even bring yourself to skim through it. You're so laughable, really. You keep posting cfsi this and cfsi that, but whenever someone shows you a source that demonstrates why cfsi is a failed creationist concept, you run for it.

You keep dancing around a perfectly reasonable request or challenge and ignoring every piece of evidence we leave right in front of you, and somewhere in the twisted depths of your MASSIVE delusion, you somehow see this as victory?

This is not something that healthy people do, J C. I think you should speak to a professional about it.

J C · 04-09-2011 03:04PM

Sarky wrote: »

I've never seen someone so afraid of one little scientific paper. You can't even bring yourself to skim through it. You're so laughable, really. You keep posting cfsi this and cfsi that, but whenever someone shows you a source that demonstrates why cfsi is a failed creationist concept, you run for it.

You keep dancing around a perfectly reasonable request or challenge and ignoring every piece of evidence we leave right in front of you, and somewhere in the twisted depths of your MASSIVE delusion, you somehow see this as victory?

You're the guys not 'coughing up' the evidence for spontaneous evolution ... nor the supposed inadequacies of ID ...
... while ye continue to blandly claim that such evidence exists.:eek::)

Mr. Boo · 04-09-2011 04:50PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Keith#Spurious_Quotation

dlofnep · 04-09-2011 05:02PM

J C wrote: »

You're the guys not 'coughing up' the evidence for spontaneous evolution ... nor the supposed inadequacies of ID ...
... while ye continue to blandly claim that such evidence exists.:eek::)

Uh, evidence in vast quantities has already been provided. You just choose to ignore it. That's your problem, not ours.

Sarky · 04-09-2011 05:35PM

It's hilarious how quickly he believed I was a priest of Dagon though. I wasn't even providing evidence for that.

liamw · 04-09-2011 05:45PM

J C wrote: »

the evidence for spontaneous evolution

So you still don't understand what evolution is - tip: the clue is in the word evolve.

Turtwig · 04-09-2011 06:01PM

liamw wrote: »

So you still don't understand what evolution is - tip: the clue is in the word evolve.

After several hundred hours playing pokemon I can say that tip no longer applies.:(

J C · 04-09-2011 07:11PM

Mr. Boo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Keith#Spurious_Quotation

.. here is a bang up to date fully referenced quote to keep you happy.:)

Prof Jerry Coyne Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago .
"Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all. "
Nature August 31 2006 p.984

Undergod · 04-09-2011 07:13PM

J C wrote: »

.. here is a bang up to date fully referenced quote to keep you happy.:)

Prof Jerry Coyne Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago .
"Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all. "
Nature August 31 2006 p.984

So... therefore evolution doesn't happen? That's clearly not the case, according to the rest of the post. This is a bizarre one...

Mr. Boo · 04-09-2011 07:23PM

J C wrote: »

.. here is a bang up to date fully referenced quote to keep you happy.:)

Prof Jerry Coyne Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago .
"Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all. "
Nature August 31 2006 p.984

This doesn't debunk evolution, at all. It merely says that nobody has figured out how to make money off the theory. It says that early agriculturalists used selective breeding intuitively without knowing about evolution. So what?

J C · 04-09-2011 09:52PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Uh, evidence in vast quantities has already been provided. You just choose to ignore it. That's your problem, not ours.

Classic cognitive dissonance.:)

... I was like that too ... just before I became a Creationist.:)

Sarky · 04-09-2011 10:03PM

We'll just add cognitive dissonance to the list of things you fail to understand then.

The Mad Hatter · 04-09-2011 10:12PM

Just a note to those not yet too fatigued to bother arguing with J C: focus is important. Stay on the paper, forget the distractions he'll throw at you.

J C · 04-09-2011 10:14PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Just a note to those not yet too fatigued to bother arguing with J C: focus is important. Stay on the paper.

... please do so ... and tell me where it invalidates ID.:)

robindch · 04-09-2011 10:25PM

J C wrote: »

Classic cognitive dissonance

I'm still interested to hear JC condemn the Canaanite genocide.

Sarky · 04-09-2011 11:09PM

I think we can be fairly confident he'll avoid both that and picking a single point in the paper I mentioned* to debunk. He's obviously terrified of looking too closely at anything that disagrees with his narrow-minded world view. Such fragile faith. It's almost as if deep down he knows he's lying to himself, but he's not man enough to admit it.

*I only mentioned it most recently. I got the link off another poster way back in the earlier pages of this thread. J C ran away from it like a coward then, he'll run away from it like a coward now.

dead one · 05-09-2011 06:13AM

robindch wrote: »

^^^ I knew this thread would finally come good

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments