Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…236237239241242…328

Comments

  • #7142
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    There's a gay joke there, if anyone's got the time to bother.

    Me, I'll just patiently wait for J C to debunk that paper like he promised he would. Any day now he shall justify his continued use of cfsi as some kind of non-horsesh*t argument.

    He's the one who cited it after all. It falls to him to explain why it's not a pile of ****. You see J C, even if we play by your rules, you still need to back yourself up with non-crap evidence.

    Either way, you're going to run up against that paper or another dozen like it. Apart from admitting you don't have an argument, you just don't have any options left that don't make you either misinformed or a liar.


  • #7143
    Mr. Boo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭Mr. Boo


    Sarky wrote: »
    Me, I'll just patiently wait for J C to debunk that paper like he promised he would. Any day now he shall justify his continued use of cfsi as some kind of non-horsesh*t argument.

    Your faith...it's almost religious.


  • #7144
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C - anytime you'd like to answer my question(s) - I'd greatly appreciate it. Of course, you could simply tell us that you don't actually know what it means, and spare us the bullshít?


  • #7145
    devilsad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭devilsad


    I'm not getting involved in this and I haven't read through the thread, but I will say this; I can't believe you've given him this much coverage. 7,000+ comments. It's almost as insane as he is. Why anyone would continue to allow this guy to promote his nonsense book is beyond me. I went to the launch and haven't laughed as much in a long time. It's probably been mentioned but he produced a box of tennis balls and said that the chances of him throwing the tennis balls in the air and getting them to land in a perfect circle was zero. He then threw the balls in the air, they didn't land in a perfect circle and he said: 'See!'. Anyone who continues to give this guy the opportunity to promote this hogwash anymore by continuing to argue with him is as mad as he is.


  • #7146
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Oh yeah, I'd completely forgotten about the book and its loopy author this thread was originally about. I'd wager everyone else did too. Most of these posts are about J C being laughably misinformed. The mods mentioned several times that it's here because J C does more to reveal how crazy religion is than any amount of rational, informed discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • #7147
    devilsad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭devilsad


    Sarky wrote: »
    Oh yeah, I'd completely forgotten about the book and its loopy author this thread was originally about. I'd wager everyone else did too. Most of these posts are about J C being laughably misinformed. The mods mentioned several times that it's here because J C does more to reveal how crazy religion is than any amount of rational, informed discussion.

    Again, I've no interest in going through the thread, but I'm assuming J C is the loopy author, no?


  • #7148
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    devilsad wrote: »
    Again, I've no interest in going through the thread, but I'm assuming J C is the loopy author, no?

    I thought so at first but he says he isnt. Ive never heard john bang on about the love of god and all that shyte when Ive spoken to him.


  • #7149
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    devilsad wrote: »
    Again, I've no interest in going through the thread, but I'm assuming J C is the loopy author, no?

    No, JC isn't the author. And the author actually refused to discuss his book when he made a brief appearance on the site.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #7150
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    koth wrote: »
    No, JC isn't the author. And the author actually refused to discuss his book when he made a brief appearance on the site.

    Oh my God, when did the author appear on this site? :o:o How did I miss it? :o


  • #7151
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Jernal wrote: »
    Oh my God, when did the author appear on this site? :o:o How did I miss it? :o


    He appeared back in November, this is his account. dlofnep made contact with him to discuss the book on this thread and the author refused.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #7152
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    koth wrote: »
    He appeared back in November, this is his account. dlofnep made contact with him to discuss the book on this thread and the author refused.

    He refused. Aww pity. :(


  • #7153
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Yes, I invited him to the thread to defend his position. He basically said - What for? And that his book was a response to pseudo-science, adding that Dawkins' work was 'laughable unscientific speculation'.


  • #7154
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Yes, I invited him to the thread to defend his position. He basically said - What for? And that his book was a response to pseudo-science, adding that Dawkins' work was 'laughable unscientific speculation'.

    Well Mr.May would know all about that, seeing as he spent so much effort filling a book with that sort of stuff :pac:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #7155
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Should we all simultaneously send pm's to May asking him to come on
    here and debate his book?

    :eek:

    In fact, I have a fantastic idea!

    I got another book on evolution out of the library just yesterday.
    I picked this specific book because there is a video course on evolution
    that follows the book perfectly:
    http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior
    The videos are all on youtube, just search the titles as given in the yale
    link or even just "yale evolution youtube".

    I was just going to go through this on my own but here's a better idea:
    Why don't a lot of people send a pm to John J May asking him to
    join us in watching the video lectures over the course of the next few
    weeks & discussing the flaws & lies that are presented in the lectures.
    To make this even better, I'll post notes of the essential points of each
    chapter to expand upon anything that needs to be expanded upon!
    I'm thinking 1 lecture a week (it's only an hour). By the end everybody
    will have concrete knowledge of evolutionary theory :cool: & we have May
    to point out any of the flaws in evolutionary theory. Basically everybody
    watches the lecture, I'll post summaries of anything in the book & then
    we ask May to point out the lies etc... I bet he'll learn a lot & so will we.

    If a few people post their support in the next day or two in this thread
    then I'll post in this thread a post that we'll all edit together & then we'll
    all simultaneously send May a pm of this post.

    You jelly?


  • #7156
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Surely one ridiculously misinformed (or just plain old dishonest) poster obsessed with ignoring a mountain of facts and evidence in favour of a shoddily-written book is enough for this thread?


  • #7157
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    I spent about 3 months giving JC the benefit of the doubt.
    I am willing to give John J May the benefit of the doubt by seeing how
    accurately & honestly he can engage an actual course on evolution as
    it seemed to me from his radio interviews that he didn't know his stuff
    as regards evolution. Now I may be wrong but that's irrelevant really.
    If he knows everything about evolution then these videos should be
    nothing more than a means to teach us philistines how we're being lied to.
    Furthermore he'd be taking down a course at Yale which would be no small
    achievement. If he doesn't know everything then well here he can learn.
    If he's an honest person, unlike JC (as has been proven time and again),
    then he'll own up & correct the specious nonsense in his book.
    The only thing at stake here is knowledge.


  • #7158
    devilsad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭devilsad


    How you expect someone who says 'the chances of me throwing these tennis balls in the air and them landing in a perfect circle are zero', who then goes on to throw the balls in the air and when they don't land in a perfect circle says 'see!', to engage with you on any kind of intellectual level is beyond me.

    By the way, the above excercise was to somehow show that things don't happen randomly as he (incorrectly) says evolutionists claim things happen... or some such other bollox.


  • #7159
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    devilsad wrote: »
    How you expect someone who says 'the chances of me throwing these tennis balls in the air and them landing in a perfect circle are zero', who then goes on to throw the balls in the air and when they don't land in a perfect circle says 'see!', to engage with you on any kind of intellectual level is beyond me.
    (a) the chances are small, but not zero and (b) as a metaphor, a creationist showing up to his book-launch with a load of balls is almost unbeatable.


  • #7160
    devilsad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭devilsad


    robindch wrote: »
    (a) the chances are small, but not zero and (b) as a metaphor, a creationist showing up to his book-launch with a load of balls is almost unbeatable.

    Yeah... That's kinda why I posted it. I didn't think the fact that the chances can't possibly be zero needed to be pointed out.

    In fact his launch descended into farce as a particularly loud member of the audience who was 't buying his particular brand of bollox pointed out this fact to him he gave a bullsh!t answer and his 'heavies' stepped in at which point it pretty much broke down.


  • #7161
    sephir0th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    robindch wrote: »
    (a) the chances are small, but not zero

    No, it isn't possible to make a perfect circle because of plancks distance.

    TrollFace_inline.png


  • Advertisement
  • #7162
    devilsad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 90 ✭✭devilsad


    sephir0th wrote: »
    No, it isn't possible to make a perfect circle because of plancks distance.

    TrollFace_inline.png

    Even though I don't know the man, having listened to him speak and having read through his website, I can say with certainty that he didn't have this in mind when saying the tennis balls wouldn't land in a perfect circle. What he meant was a symmetrical circle.


  • #7163
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    sephir0th wrote: »
    No, it isn't possible to make a perfect circle because of plancks distance.
    Need my five-year old to go "Awwwlllllright!" at this point :)


  • #7164
    sephir0th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    devilsad wrote: »
    Even though I don't know the man, having listened to him speak and having read through his website, I can say with certainty that he didn't have this in mind when saying the tennis balls wouldn't land in a perfect circle. What he meant was a symmetrical circle.

    Nah, I'm convinced John May was thinking about Planck length when he was giving the tennis ball demo!

    Here is it anyway if you want a laugh..
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l15fUvCBobQ


  • #7165
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Surely one ridiculously misinformed (or just plain old dishonest) poster obsessed with ignoring a mountain of facts and evidence in favour of a shoddily-written book is enough for this thread?
    You really do suffer from self esteem issues!!!:D

    I find that Salvation can be a good cure!!!!:)


  • #7166
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Is this real love? You see, I'm rather cynical. And we haven't even met. It's a very sweeping statement.
    What is 'real love' for an Evolutionist, anyway???
    They think that they are ultimately a 'prisoner' of their 'selfish genes' ... and a product of blind pitiless indifference ... so what's 'real love' got to do with it?
    ... as far as an Evolutionist is concerned!!!:eek:

    ... could I also point out that people don't need to know other people intimately to hate them ... so I don't need to know you personally to love you either ... i.e. to wish you the very best in this life ... and the next.:)


  • #7167
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You have a paper to address.

    I suggest you do that, instead of insulting people. Or you could admit you don't understand what you're talking about and apologise.


  • #7168
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    You have a paper to address.

    I suggest you do that, instead of insulting people. Or you could admit you don't understand what you're talking about and apologise.
    I would suggest that you take your own advice ... and stop insulting me ... and address your own paper.

    ... and I wasn't insulting anybody ... just pitying them !!!:eek:

    ... it could all be so different (and happier) for them, if they accepted the truth that there is a loving just God ... who wants to save them ... from themselves!!!


  • #7169
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Conclusions based on observed evidence are not insults. I'll apologise the moment you can provide evidence to the contrary. The best way for you to do that is by addressing that paper. That's how it works. You'd know that if you had the scientific background you keep claiming to have but never go into.

    So cut the bullsh*t and address the paper, or admit you're wrong.


  • #7170
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sephir0th wrote: »
    Here is it anyway if you want a laugh..
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l15fUvCBobQ
    Yes John is a very funny guy ... and when I watched the video, I also laughed ... at Evolution!!!:):D

    Its simply unbelievable that grown men believe that they are descended from pondslime ... but some do ... poor things!!!:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #7171
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Yes, your argument in support of being descended from a golem is much more likely :rolleyes:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement