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

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…268269271273274…328

Comments

  • #8102
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    Thanks for the 'love'!!!
    Now give us all a laugh ... by trying to explain how you think life actually originated ... and supposedly evolved from microbes to Man.:)

    Love? Dude, I told you, I'm not interested in letting you put your willy in me. Christ, some pretend-christians just don't know that no means no...

    There are hundreds of posts and videos in this thread that explain evolution. Remember how you said you'd read or watched them?

    I guess you were lying about that, then. Thanks for answering the question, even if it did take you over a year. If you can be honest just once in the next 6 months I think we'll be making some real progress with you.


  • #8103
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    joseph brand wrote: »
    You HAVE to be 'extracting the urine'!
    Large and otherwise dangerous animals that find themselves trapped and in danger, often become very calm and try to assist people who are trying to free them.
    Animals are quite intelligent creatures ... and some have sensory abilities that we don't have.


  • #8104
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Love? Dude, I told you, I'm not interested in letting you put your willy in me.
    That makes two of us without such an interest ... I put the 'love' in inverted commas because you guys seem to hate me instead ... and BTW Christian love doesn't imply a sexual interest ... just concern for other peoples welfare.

    Sarky wrote: »
    There are hundreds of posts and videos in this thread that explain evolution. Remember how you said you'd read or watched them?
    ... and none of them explain how the genetic information arose in the first place ... just how it has been selected and recombined.


  • #8105
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    They do. I remember writing a couple myself. Why would you say something like that when it's not true?

    I understand you're confused and aroused, but you'll just have to focus. Get past the ironic butthurt of rejection from a straight man and start being truthful with your posts.

    And knock it off with the "I'm not gay" stuff. The number of smilies you insert in each post tells the real story.


  • #8106
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    They do. I remember writing a couple myself. Why would you say something like that when it's not true?
    Links please.
    Sarky wrote: »
    I understand you're confused and aroused, but you'll just have to focus. Get past the ironic butthurt of rejection from a straight man and start being truthful with your posts.

    And knock it off with the "I'm not gay" stuff. The number of smilies you insert in each post tells the real story
    Which part of me being straight do you not understand?

    Please stop the sexual harassment ... and lying about me ... and stick to trying to prove how Pondkind could ever evolve into Mankind.
    :(
    ... and what do smileys have to do with sexual orientation?
    ... nothing, if you ask me!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #8107
    clever_name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    J C wrote: »
    I was using 'shorthand' ... there were a relatively small number of Human food producing (or clean) Kinds ... and you are correct that 7 pairs of these animals were taken on board (and seven pairs of bird Kinds) ... while 2 pairs of the unclean Kinds were also taken.

    'Shorthand' ok it was quicker to say only land animals and "only a pair" instead of "seven pairs", yeah great shorthand you shaved one character off. You call it shorthand - me and the rest of the people in the real world will call it getting your facts wrong. To be fair you do have plenty of experience in that area.


  • #8108
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    clever_name wrote: »
    'Shorthand' ok it was quicker to say only land animals and "only a pair" instead of "seven pairs", yeah great shorthand you shaved one character off. You call it shorthand - me and the rest of the people in the real world will call it getting your facts wrong. To be fair you do have plenty of experience in that area.
    I assumed that you guys knew the Biblical details ... and I was proven correct, at least in your case.

    Beyond proving your Biblical knowledge ... what point are you trying to make in relation to the credibility of Evolution ... or the history of the Flood?


  • #8109
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    Links please.
    You mean you don't remember any of the hundreds of videos? But you swore to me you'd watched them and understood them! Then again, you did just admit a couple of posts up that you hadn't been truthful about that, so I guess that's me told.
    Which part of me being straight do you not understand?
    The part where nobody believes anything you say because everything you've ever claimed is untrue.
    Please stop the sexual harassment ... and lying about me ... and stick to trying to prove how Pondkind could ever evolve into Mankind.
    :(
    As soon as you provide a robust mathematical definition of cfsi.
    ... and what do smileys have to do with sexual orientation?
    Oh, only everything. Don't you pay attention to the internets?
    ... nothing, if you as me!!!

    I'd rather not ass you, thanks. Sounds nasty.


  • #8110
    clever_name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    J C wrote: »
    I assumed that you guys knew the Biblical details ... and I was proven correct, at least in your case.

    Beyond proving your Biblical knowledge ... what point are you trying to make in relation to the credibility of Evolution ... or the history of the Flood?

    The point is J C that you dont know the details of the book that your using as evidence to prove your point.

    As for credibility... well you have made it quite clear that yours is weak, you dont bother posting actual quotes or check your posts because you presume others will know the correct details.

    So what percentage of your posts contain inaccuracies that you presume others will correct for you?


  • #8111
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    You mean you don't remember any of the hundreds of videos? But you swore to me you'd watched them and understood them! Then again, you did just admit a couple of posts up that you hadn't been truthful about that, so I guess that's me told.
    Please stop erroneously accusing of being untruthful ... which is lying about me.

    I said that I don't remember any videos that explain how the genetic information arose in the first place ... as distinct from how it has been selected and recombined (which some videos do show and I accept as occurring).

    ... so do you have any videos (or any other information) on how genetic information can spontaneoulsy arise?

    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Please stop the sexual harassment ... and lying about me ... and stick to trying to prove how Pondkind could ever evolve into Mankind.

    Sarky
    As soon as you provide a robust mathematical definition of cfsi.
    I have already defined CFSI exhaustively ... but whether I did or I didn't ... doesn't justify you lying about me or engaging in sexual harassment towards me!!!:(


  • Advertisement
  • #8112
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Please stop erroneously accusing of being untruthful ... which is lying about me.

    Please stop being dishonest and nobody will need to make such a statement.


  • #8113
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    I have already defined CFSI exhaustively ... but whether I do or I don't ... doesn't justify engaging in sexual harassment towards me!!!:(

    You have in your arse. Robust mathematical definition, please. The explanations (f*cking lol) you've given so far don't actually work. You're the one who needs to show that Dembski was telling the truth.

    Still waiting.


  • #8114
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    clever_name wrote: »
    The point is J C that you dont know the details of the book that your using as evidence to prove your point.

    As for credibility... well you have made it quite clear that yours is weak, you dont bother posting actual quotes or check your posts because you presume others will know the correct details.
    The point is that whether or not some Kinds had seven pairs or two pairs makes little difference to the feasibility of the Ark.
    clever_name wrote: »
    So what percentage of your posts contain inaccuracies that you presume others will correct for you?
    Very few ... even though to err is Hiuman ... but any inaccuracy will be undoubtedly identified by you guys ... even when they have no effect on the points ye are trying to make!!!


  • #8115
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Please stop being dishonest and nobody will need to make such a statement.
    Stop lying about me being dishonest.:(


  • #8116
    KamiKazeKitten
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭KamiKazeKitten


    J C wrote: »
    Stop lying about me being dishonest.:(

    Stop accusing everyone else of lying and get on with properly defining CFSI then.

    I won't hold my breath for that though....


  • #8117
    clever_name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    J C wrote: »
    The point is that whether or not some Kinds had seven pairs or two pairs makes little difference to the feasibility of the Ark.

    the point is that you cant get even basic things right, you mistakenly put in the number two instead of seven then decided it was shorthand. Why would anyone trust anything you mention that has even a hint of complexity?
    J C wrote: »
    Very few ... even though to err is Hiuman ... but any inaccuracy will be undoubtedly identified by you guys ... even when they have no effect on the points ye are trying to make!!!

    Inaccuracy has an effect on credibility and you have been so very very inaccurate.


  • #8118
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Stop lying about me being dishonest.:(

    Were Lions stored on the ark?


  • #8119
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,074 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I have already defined CFSI exhaustively ...

    If you honestly believe that, then it means that the standard of scientific education you received was truly dismal.

    the repetition of defining each individual word has done nothing to clarify what exactly CFSI is.

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



  • #8120
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    clever_name wrote: »
    the point is that you cant get even basic things right, you mistakenly put in the number two instead of seven then decided it was shorthand. Why would anyone trust anything you mention that has even a hint of complexity?



    Inaccuracy has an effect on credibility and you have been so very very inaccurate.
    OK ... I'll go into exhaustive Biblical detail next time ... including extensive quotes from God's Word ... if that is OK with the Mods???


  • #8121
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Were Lions stored on the ark?
    Their Common Ancestors ... The Big Cat Kind ... certainly were on board the Ark.


  • Advertisement
  • #8122
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Just the list of kinds would be nice. No need for any of that scripture crap.

    Oh, and that rigorous mathematical definition Dembski said he had. Otherwise he's still a lying scumbag.


  • #8123
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Their Common Ancestors ... The Big Cat Kind ... certainly were on board the Ark.
    Any chance of the full list of kinds I asked you for the other day?

    MrP


  • #8124
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Someone asked him about a year ago for that too, I seem to recall. He's already admitted he didn't watch those videos people keep putting up, I don't know if he could handle another truth so soon.


  • #8125
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Just the list of kinds would be nice. No need for any of that scripture crap.
    Some evidence for the spontaneous production of genetic information would also be nice.

    Sarky wrote: »
    Oh, and that rigorous mathematical definition Dembski said he had. Otherwise he's still a lying scumbag.
    You will have to raise your reservations with Dr Dembski himself ... but I must say that I find him to be an honest man ... and a very capable scientist.


  • #8126
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    There's excellent material here. You probably shouldn't post in that thread though. It's quite nice, it has independently validated scientific information and intellectually honest questions. You wouldn't like it. Not your style.

    And if you're on such good terms with Dembski he'll be only too happy to supply that rigorous mathematical definition of cfsi then. Even if he was lying when he first said he had one years ago, he's surely had time to formulate one by now. Unless, of course, he can't because cfsi is a load of crap. But let him give you the definition first, and we can reserve judgement until then.


  • #8127
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Any chance of the full list of kinds I asked you for the other day?

    MrP
    The Bible lists occurrences of the Hebrew word "kind", as follows. :-

    Genesis 1:11
    And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    Genesis 1:12
    And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    Genesis 1:21
    And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    Genesis 1:24
    And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    Genesis 1:25
    And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    Genesis 6:20
    Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

    Genesis 7:14
    They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

    Leviticus 11:14
    And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

    Leviticus 11:15
    Every raven after his kind;

    Leviticus 11:16
    And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

    Leviticus 11:19
    And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

    Leviticus 11:22
    Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

    Leviticus 11:29
    These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,

    Leviticus 19:19
    Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

    Deuteronomy 14:13
    And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

    Deuteronomy 14:14
    And every raven after his kind,

    Deuteronomy 14:15
    And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

    Deuteronomy 14:18
    And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.


  • #8128
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    There's excellent material here. You probably shouldn't post in that thread though. It's quite nice, it has independently validated scientific information and intellectually honest questions. You wouldn't like it. Not your style.
    I've had a look at it ... but please don't tempt me to start posting in it ... to straighten out a few 'home truths' in it.
    I have agreed with the Mods to confine my posting to this thread on the Evolution/Creation issue ... and I am happy to continue with this arrangement.
    ... unless you're now inviting me to critically evaluate all this 'independently validated scientific information and intellectually honest questions' that are supposedly on that thread???

    ... or maybe the two threads should be merged!!!:D


  • #8129
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    The Bible lists occurrences of the Hebrew word "kind", as follows. :-

    Genesis 1:11
    And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    Genesis 1:12
    And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    Genesis 1:21
    And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    Genesis 1:24
    And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    Genesis 1:25
    And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    Genesis 6:20
    Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

    Genesis 7:14
    They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

    Leviticus 11:14
    And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

    Leviticus 11:15
    Every raven after his kind;

    Leviticus 11:16
    And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

    Leviticus 11:19
    And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

    Leviticus 11:22
    Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

    Leviticus 11:29
    These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,

    Leviticus 19:19
    Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

    Deuteronomy 14:13
    And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,

    Deuteronomy 14:14
    And every raven after his kind,

    Deuteronomy 14:15
    And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

    Deuteronomy 14:18
    And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
    Awesome. Surely the conventionally qualified creation scientist have done some work on this? Surely there must be some kind of scientifically defined list of kinds?

    The list you have given seems a bit... woolly? We keep hearing christians telling us the bible is not a scientific text. Please tell me the entire creationist movement is not using the text from the bible you have just quoted to define kinds? Please...

    Surely there must be a peer reviewed breakdown of kinds?

    MrP


  • #8130
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    I've had a look at it ... but please don't tempt me to start posting in it ... to straighten out a few 'home truths' in it.
    I have agreed with the Mods to confine my posting to this thread on the Evolution/Creation issue ... and I am happy to continue with this arrangement.
    ... unless you're now inviting me to critically evaluate all this 'independently validated scientific information and intellectually honest questions' that are supposedly on that thread???
    Not meaning to back seat mod, but I think you can safely assume no such invitation exists.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #8131
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Not meaning to back seat mod, but I think you can safely assume no such invitation exists.

    MrP
    So disappointed ... got my hopes up there for a while!!!:D;)

    ... but discretion is the better part of valour ... and I have no wish to completely dash all of your misconceptions about Evolution.:D


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement