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/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…242243245247248…328

Comments

  • #7322
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    You're wrong about that too!!!

    Prove it. Until you do I'll trust the opinions of my friends across multiple scientific disciplines that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You were willing to make a fool of yourself with your incredibly shoddy attempt to "review" a scientific paper. Why stop there?


  • #7323
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    First off, apologies that I haven't returned to sort out the video lecture
    idea, was just so ridiculously busy this week which was the culmination
    of an entire christmas of non-stop work.
    Screw John May, I don't want to have to deal with getting him on here,
    lets do the videos anyway :cool:
    We'll start this week:

    Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior:
    1. The Nature of Evolution: Selection, Inheritance, and History
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgHd6HKtvE


    I'll try post some things from the chapter later in the week, but I'm still
    insanely busy so we'll take it easy for now :o


  • #7324
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Second, I've browsed JC's response to the paper that you guys have
    been at JC non-stop to respond to & honestly it's a bit strange that not
    one person bothered to quote his arguments. You'll notice that the vast
    majority of his responses were merely trying to point out that there is a
    distinction between design & intelligent design. I don't know how or why
    that paper matters so much, & I'm not sure if the distinction he's trying
    to point out is a valid one, but the least you guys could do would be to
    respond properly to him - you'll notice that in all my discussions with JC
    from over a year ago I at least used his own words against him rather
    than just blatant insults. I understand how frustrating it is but considering
    this paper has taken up half a year of this thread, and that he's only
    agreed to respond to the paper properly now, I don't think it's too much
    to ask to engage or at the very least point out exactly where he's lacking
    in evidence for his claims...
    J C wrote: »
    However, the Kolmogorov complexity of a 100 chain amino acid critical sequence biomolecule choosing from 20 AAs at each point on the chain is <=10^-131 which is orders of magnitude beyond the estimated number of electrons in the Universe ... and thus it is a statistical impossibility to produce such specific functional bio-molecules using non-intelligently directed processes.

    Ignoring Kolmogorov complexity I addressed this argument over a year
    ago. Your argument makes perfect sense if an amino acid exists in
    space stuck in some kind of never-ending sequence of permutations of
    elements all readily accessible at a moments notice. In other words, you
    totally ignore reality with an argument like this. Furthermore you totally
    ignore basic chemistry such as the hydrophobic/philic nature of amino
    acids & basic thermodynamics (see the video below), totally ignore
    environmental influences, totally ignore a little thing called RNA, totally
    ignore another little thing called DNA, totally ignore what viruses do,
    basically just totally ignore the idea of gradual complexity (i.e. simple to
    complex, muck to man in small steps)    . You can sum it all up in this video
    (which you never gave a proper answer to even though I tried more than
    once)    :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg


    Since you're a fan of Richard Dawkins I'll paraphrase something from
    the Blind Watchmaker - your argument is akin to believing that by
    throwing a bird into the air we should expect the bird's motion to follow
    that of a parabolic arc... If you can be honest & think through that little
    argument, the possibility of both a live & a dead bird & how each
    scenario applies to what I'm saying, I think you'll finally give up on this
    point only because of how flawed it is cool.gif


  • #7325
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C added nothing in the last few dozen posts that hasn't already been exhaustively shown by others to be either severely misinformed or an outright lie.

    Responding to his "review" will just make him think there was a shred of validity to it. There isn't. He will probably parrot on and on about it for the next few weeks as some great triumph over the evil conspiracy that is modern science, instead of what it really is- the same old poorly (or not at all) researched, mathematically flawed mistakes that have been dealt with in this thread a dozen times over already.

    When he actually backs up his opinions with something we haven't already shown to be a gross misunderstanding of whatever discipline he's butchering that day, then maybe we'll be getting somewhere.


  • #7326
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    J C added nothing in the last few dozen posts that hasn't already been exhaustively shown by others to be either severely misinformed or an outright lie.

    Responding to his "review" will just make him think there was a shred of validity to it. There isn't. He will probably parrot on and on about it for the next few weeks as some great triumph over the evil conspiracy that is modern science, instead of what it really is- the same old poorly (or not at all) researched, mathematically flawed mistakes that have been dealt with in this thread a dozen times over already.

    When he actually backs up his opinions with something we haven't already shown to be a gross misunderstanding of whatever discipline he's butchering that day, then maybe we'll be getting somewhere.
    Isn't denial a terrible thing?
    ... and isn't it amazing that the guy 'sticking his fingers in his ears' and keeping his 'eyes wide shut' is an Evolutionist ?... who prides himself on being a 'skeptic' ... who is seemingly skeptical of everything ... except one of the most dubious ideas of all ... 'Microbes to Man' Evolution!!!
    ... please start living in the real physical world ... where ID is indeed a scientifically valid fact!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #7327
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Nobody but you thinks "microbes to man" is a real thing. We've gone over this so many times now, I've lost count. Grow up and stop bandying about stupid buzzwords you heard from creationist websites full of dullards. And if you can find the time to actually critique that paper like a real scientist, that would be nice.


  • #7328
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Nobody but you thinks "microbes to man" is a real thing. Grow up and stop bandying about stupid buzzwords you heard from creationist websites full of dullards. And if you can find the time to actually critique that paper like a real scientist, that would be nice.
    We're making progress if you really do believe that 'Microbes to Man' Evolution never occurred over the billions of years that Evolutionists confuse themselves with.
    ... so how do you now think that Mankind came to exist on Earth?


  • #7329
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Through a few hundred million years of mutation borne out by the selective pressures of changing environments and a bit of random chance. We've been over this several times*, and we've shown again and again that your understanding of such things is beyond abysmal. It's not our fault you choose to remain ignorant of the most basic of evolutionary concepts. It's yours for sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "GOD DID IT" in the face of evidence to the contrary.

    If you want to be taken at all seriously, stop making a fool of yourself and post something with substance. Merely disagreeing is for charlatans and cowards. You need to back your claims with evidence that holds up to scrutiny. You know, like someone with the scientific qualifications you keep claiming to have but are too scared to reveal.


    *Watch him try to start a tangent on one of these things now, despite KNOWING we've explained them to him over and over and over...


  • #7330
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Through a few hundred million years of mutation borne out by the selective pressures of changing environments and a bit of random chance.
    ... so your answer as to how the Human Brain came to exist, is that it was via a combination of muck, magic, mistakes and chance ...
    ... you really are a man of very great faith indeed.:)


  • #7331
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    <sigh>

    Even after having 15 minutes to read the small print. You poor mite.


  • Advertisement
  • #7332
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    <sigh>

    Even after having 15 minutes to read the small print. You poor mite.
    ... and I love and pity you too ... in equal proportions!!:)


  • #7333
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Homoeroticism aside, do you think you could provide some evidence for any of the claims you've made about creationism next time you post? It's just that you've always failed to do that, and then lied about it afterwards. I want you to stop failing, J C, I'm actually on your side. But you're going to have to help me help you. You're going to have to start being honest.


  • #7334
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Homoeroticism aside, do you think you could provide some evidence for any of the claims you've made about creationism next time you post? It's just that you've always failed to do that, and then lied about it afterwards. I want you to stop failing, J C, I'm actually on your side. But you're going to have to help me help you. You're going to have to start being honest.
    I was talking about love ... and not lust!!!
    ... and you really do need to stop going into denial and lying to yourself!!!!

    ... and next time you are tempted to think that you are a glorified Ape descended from a Slimeball ... just pinch yourself ... and wake up ... to the reality that you are a much loved child of God.:)


  • #7335
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    I was talking about love ... and not lust!!!

    So was I. We'll just add gays to the list of things you don't understand. Way, way down at the bottom. At this rate you won't understand what "jesus" means by August.


  • #7336
    Mr. Boo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭Mr. Boo


    Maybe start with the list of things he does understand...


  • #7337
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    So was I. We'll just add gays to the list of things you don't understand. Way, way down at the bottom. At this rate you won't understand what "jesus" means by August.
    Homoeroticism ... just like all other forms of eroticism ... is based on lust ... and not love!!!

    ... so we can add ignorance of plain English ... to ignorance of plain science to your inabilities!!!:)

    ... but I still love and pity you nonetheless!!!:)


  • #7338
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mr. Boo wrote: »
    Maybe start with the list of things he does understand...
    ... listing linguistic 'gnats' ... while swallowing Evolutionist 'camels' ... Eh!!!:)


  • #7339
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    No one except you think 'evolutionists' ( :rolleyes: ) think like that. You're deliberately using words like 'slimeball' in an attempt to make evolution look like a stupid theory.
    M2M Evolution is a logically-challenged theory ... and you need to face this reality ... instead of repeating unfounded mantras of undying love for the idea that you are a 'follicly challenged' Monkey's cousin!!!:pac:


  • #7340
    Mr. Boo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 347 ✭✭Mr. Boo


    J C wrote: »
    ... listing linguistic 'gnats' ... while swallowing Evolutionist 'camels' ... Eh!!!:)

    Ha?


  • #7341
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    No JC, magic is how you think the human brain came to exist. The rest of us think it happened as a result of millions of years of evolution.
    ... via unknown (i.e. magical) processes!!!!:)


  • Advertisement
  • #7342
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Lol.
    You're great craic ... LOL:)


  • #7343
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    M2M Evolution is a logically-challenged theory

    It is logically challenged because it is a buzzword created by a logically challenged person. Just admit you don't understand the process of evolution. It's just depressing to see you claim that you DO understand it and then post something that demonstrates no understanding whatsoever. Stop failing.


  • #7344
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    ... via unknown (i.e. magical) processes!!!!:)

    Arguing from incredulity again I see? Unknown to you perhaps, given your unparalleled ignorance on evolutionary biology. For everyone else who has a clue, the process is called natural selection. You're welcome :)


  • #7345
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    It is logically challenged because it is a buzzword created by a logically challenged person. Just admit you don't understand the process of evolution. It's just depressing to see you claim that you DO understand it and then post something that demonstrates no understanding whatsoever. Stop failing.
    Producing the massive quantity and quality of CFSI difference between a Microbe and a Human is a logical and mathematical impossibility!!!

    ... and claiming that Evolution is only about producing different colours of moth or different colours of Turkey Cocks ... is avoiding the issue ...

    Creation Scientists are 'Evolutionists' ... if the production of variation within Kinds using pre-existing CFSI is all that Evolution is about .


  • #7346
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you have no scientifically valid answers ... and you're now resorting to children's cartoons!!!
    For a second there, I thought you were referring to (diploma-mill-doctor) Ken Ham's desperately unfunny "After Eden" cartoon series for dim-witted creationists:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/

    Site seems to be dead. No loss. To civilization anyway.


  • #7347
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Arguing from incredulity again I see? Unknown to you perhaps, given your unparalleled ignorance on evolutionary biology. For everyone else who has a clue, the process is called natural selection.
    Natural Selection of what?


  • #7348
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Really? You think cfsi will cut it after all the embarrassment you've heaped upon yourself after failing for months to show how it has any validity?

    Try harder, J C, and stop making yourself look foolish.


  • #7349
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    For a second there, I thought you were referring to (diploma-mill-doctor) Ken Ham's desperately unfunny "After Eden" cartoon series for dim-witted creationists:
    Fun is in the eye of the beholder.

    Anyway, things must be pretty desperate when the Mods (referees) have to 'weigh-in' to help the Evolutionist Cause with ad hominems and unfounded sectarian comments!!!

    Just imagine a rugby match between the Evolutionists and the Creationists with 15 Evolutionists out on the pitch playing against one Creationist ... and the Creationist is running solo runs around the pitch, scoring drop goals and tries at will ... and eventually the referee (who is also an Evolutionst) takes the ball and runs for the Creationst line ... to try and score for the Evolutionists when they are clearly unable to do so themselves ... and he slips and falls on his face ... and loses the ball to ...
    ... probably the best Creation Scientist in the World ... who has just cracked open a can of Carlsberg ... to celebrate a 100 : Nil victory!!:D

    ... you have just imagined what has actually happened on this thread.:)
    ... cheers ... here's looking at you, guys!!!:)
    robindch wrote: »
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/

    Site seems to be dead. No loss. To civilization anyway.
    Your computer must have crashed ... eh ... em ... I mean 'evolved', Robin :)

    ... I'm happy to report that AIG's site is working just fine ... and here is a link ... for your education ... and edification...
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/


  • #7350
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You're conflating fantasy and reality again, J C. Try harder. You're still making yourself look stupid.


  • Advertisement
  • #7351
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    I'm happy to report that AIG's site is working just fine
    Yes, unfortunately it is. However I was talking about (diploma-mill-doctor) Ken Ham's desperately unfunny "After Eden" cartoon series for dim-witted creationists which is at

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/

    ...and which is down. As I said, no loss to civilization.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement