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…283284286288289…328

Comments

  • #8552
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    You're posting bollocks again. I thought you said you were a scientist?
    Yet another unfounded ... and unreferenced Ad Hominem.
    I have also studied logic and philosophy.


  • #8553
    cowzerp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    He is saying you are an atheist posing as a Christian for shiits and giggles!

    You remind me of some brainwashed mormons I know, anyone who lives their lives based on a book wrote by uneducated almost cavemen :rolleyes: is missing a few marbles.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • #8554
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    @JC if you've studied logic, why do you abandon it in favour for the creation story of the Bible?

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



  • #8555
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    If you've studied any of those, it must be so you can be certain none of your posts contain a sign of them.

    Oh, you remember how I gave you a day or so recently to provide that robust definition of cfsi, and that failure to provide it in your next few posts wad an explicit admission that you didn't have one? Of course you do, because you read every post and you wouldn't ever lie about something important like that. I couldn't help noticing that you're back to mentioning cfsi as some sort of valid point, as if you either hadn't read that post, or as I'd you were hoping people would forget.

    Have you finally found that definition then? Please do share. Failure to do so of course means you don't have one. I'll be generous again and give you another few hours to post it up. Or, as the case may be, to admit you don't have one, that you were lying about it, and that you're sorry for wasting everyone's time.

    Tick tock, J C.


  • #8556
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Lad's, we're arguing with a guy who thinks that the earth is 6,000 years old and that the Noah's Ark tale is a historical fact. We may aswell be debating with a Flat-Earther. This thread is just doing circles around the same old bollocks.


  • Advertisement
  • #8557
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    cowzerp wrote: »
    He is saying you are an atheist posing as a Christian for shiits and giggles!

    You remind me of some brainwashed mormons I know, anyone who lives their lives based on a book wrote by uneducated almost cavemen :rolleyes: is missing a few marbles.
    I know what he is saying.

    I'm neither an Atheist nor a Mormon ... I'm a Christian ... and a working conventional scientist.


  • #8558
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Lad's, we're arguing with a guy who thinks that the earth is 6,000 years old and that the Noah's Ark tale is a historical fact. We may aswell be debating with a Flat-Earther. This thread is just doing circles around the same old bollocks.
    ... and I'm arguing with a bunch of guys who believe that they are naked Apes ... that are descended from a microbe ... via a series of 'clap happy' mistakes!!!
    I guess that neither of us are particulary choosey about the people with whom we argue !!!:eek::D


  • #8559
    shizz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    J C wrote: »
    ... and I'm arguing with a bunch of guys who believe they are naked Apes that are descended from a microbe via a series of 'clap happy' mistakes!!!
    I guess that neither of us are particulary choosey about whom we argue with!!!:eek::D

    ...and the cycle begins again.


  • #8560
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    If you've studied any of those, it must be so you can be certain none of your posts contain a sign of them.

    Oh, you remember how I gave you a day or so recently to provide that robust definition of cfsi, and that failure to provide it in your next few posts wad an explicit admission that you didn't have one? Of course you do, because you read every post and you wouldn't ever lie about something important like that. I couldn't help noticing that you're back to mentioning cfsi as some sort of valid point, as if you either hadn't read that post, or as I'd you were hoping people would forget.

    Have you finally found that definition then? Please do share. Failure to do so of course means you don't have one. I'll be generous again and give you another few hours to post it up. Or, as the case may be, to admit you don't have one, that you were lying about it, and that you're sorry for wasting everyone's time.

    Tick tock, J C.
    CFSI is Complex Functional Specified Information ... and it means exactly 'what it says on the tin' !!!
    Bong ... Bong ... Sarky!!!!:)


  • #8561
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    CFSI is Complex Functional Specified Information ... and it means exactly 'what it says on the tin' !!!
    and yet you can't provide a simple definition of what it is and how it's detected/measured so we can see if it holds up to scrutiny.

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



  • Advertisement
  • #8562
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Evade wrote: »
    JC, if the World (or is it Universe or just life?) was magicked in to existence around 6000 years ago how do you explain anything that has been radiocarbon dated to before that time?

    Or the fact that we can see stars and galaxies further out than 6000 light years.


  • #8563
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    Or the fact that we can see stars and galaxies further out than 6000 light years.
    Initial inflation via exponential expansion at the moment of Creation.
    ... the 'Big Bangers' have a similar problem ... and a similar solution.:)


  • #8564
    HUNK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 383 ✭✭HUNK


    lolers


  • #8565
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    HUNK wrote: »
    lolers
    :pac::):D


  • #8566
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Lad's, we're arguing with a guy who thinks that the earth is 6,000 years old and that the Noah's Ark tale is a historical fact. We may aswell be debating with a Flat-Earther. This thread is just doing circles around the same old bollocks.

    Yes, but the whole thing will hit 10k posts soon, and the whole sorry mess of J C's ignorance will be taken out the back and shot.

    Who knows, maybe he'll finally manage to make a valid point before the end. Or he'll just fail to convince anyone he's not full of crap. Either way, almost over.


  • #8567
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Yes, but the whole thing will hit 10k posts soon, and the whole sorry mess of J C's ignorance will be taken out the back and shot.

    Who knows, maybe he'll finally manage to make a valid point before the end. Or he'll just fail to convince anyone he's full of crap. Either way, almost over.
    ... ah but Sarky ... every time you find some evidence that doesn't fit the Evolutionary Paradigm ... and that will be many times per day ... you will recall this thread with fond affection.:):D
    ... and you will wish that I was still there to answer all your questions.:D


  • #8568
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    That doesn't happen even basically competent scientists. They tend to do their jobs correctly. You should be less sloppy.


  • #8569
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    That doesn't happen even basically competent scientists. They tend to do their jobs correctly.
    I'm betting that you will be doing your job correctly ... that's why the evidence won't fit the Evolutionary Paradigm ... many times per day.


  • #8570
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Yes, but the whole thing will hit 10k posts soon, and the whole sorry mess of J C's ignorance will be taken out the back and shot.
    It's about the only way that ye will win this debate ... by shooting the messenger!!!:eek:
    ... in boxing parlance it's called 'being saved by the bell' !!!!:)
    Ding ... Dong!!!


  • #8571
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    ... and I'm arguing with a bunch of guys who believe that they are naked Apes ...

    I'm wearing clothes, aside from that - I have no problem with being called a member of the Great Ape family. It is a biological fact. You're the one who is arrogant and believes that you're too good to be classified alongside your own ape brothers. You'd have no problem calling a Chimp an ape, or an Orangutan an ape - But biologically, Chimps are far closer to Humans than they are to Orangutans. Something that you just won't be able to ignore I'm afraid.

    J C wrote: »
    that are descended from a microbe ... via a series of 'clap happy' mistakes!!!

    That's not the description I would use to explain the theory of Evolution by natural selection. If that's your description for it however, then that explains why you don't believe it's scientifically valid.
    J C wrote: »
    I guess that neither of us are particulary choosey about the people with whom we argue !!!:eek::D

    We present scientific evidence, you present biblical quotes, misquotes and downright false information. Our side has posters who have degrees in evolutionary biology... You have read the bible a few times.


  • Advertisement
  • #8572
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    CFSI is Complex Functional Specified Information ... and it means exactly 'what it says on the tin' !!!
    and yet you can't provide a simple definition of what it is and how it's detected/measured so we can see if it holds up to scrutiny.

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



  • #8573
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I'm wearing clothes,
    Always a good idea ... especially on a frosty night:)
    dlofnep wrote: »
    ... aside from that - I have no problem with being called a member of the Great Ape family.
    ... I can't speak for you ... but there are no Apes in my family!!!:)

    dlofnep wrote: »
    ... It is a biological fact. You're the one who is arrogant and believes that you're too good to be classified alongside your own ape brothers.
    ... not too good (no sinful Human is really good this side of eternity) ... I'm just too different to be classified as an Ape.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    ... You'd have no problem calling a Chimp an ape, or an Orangutan an ape - But biologically, Chimps are far closer to Humans than they are to Orangutans. Something that you just won't be able to ignore I'm afraid.
    It all depends on what sequence you choose to examine ... but in any event I don't expect to see a Chimp ... or a Gorilla driving to work ... or debating the merits of evolution anytime soon!!!:)

    dlofnep wrote: »
    That's not the description I would use to explain the theory of Evolution by natural selection. If that's your description for it however, then that explains why you don't believe it's scientifically valid.
    Nontheless it is a valid descriptor.


    dlofnep wrote: »
    We present scientific evidence, you present biblical quotes, misquotes and downright false information. Our side has posters who have degrees in evolutionary biology... You have read the bible a few times.
    I present scientific, philosophical, logical ... and Biblical evidence.
    ... and I have yet to see a single piece of scientific evidence that unabiguously supports W2M Evolution.


  • #8574
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You still haven't managed that robust mathematical definition of cfsi yet. Time's up.

    Are we to conclude that Dembski was in fact lying through his teeth when he said he had one? And that you will apologise within your next post for both wasting our time and being so wrong?

    Seems like the only honourable thing for you to do, seeing as you've failed to define your biggest argument every time you've been asked to.


  • #8575
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    J C wrote: »
    I was challenged to provide the evidence for Evolution (from our supposed single-celled common ancestor to us) ... and try as I might ... I couldn't find any evidence. Everyone I talked to cited many examples of variations within species (like the Grey-Brown-White Moths) ... but nothing that would support the enormous transitions involved in any putative evolution from Microbes to Men.
    I was so wedded to the validity of Evolution that I went into denial ... and told myself that the evidence must exist ... and some day I would find it.
    JC you're straight forwarded person. I like it.... If i were you, i would act like like evolutionists in this foram. I would go in state of denial. I would try to deny reality. You're fighting with ignorance and arrogance. People like dlofnep etc are doing great job against evolution... They are creating harted in mind of common folk against evolution.... Their way of presenting evolution as fact is so rough and arrogant that i don't think that common would take it as fact.... Even if it were fact... ..... See i am neutral person, I find evolutionist arrogant and they are going against reality... So i would like take your side as there is no arrogance in your quotes. Your quotes reflect reality in netural and free of bias mind ;)
    J C wrote: »
    All my Evolutionist friends assured me that the evidence must exist because 'we are here ... and we had to evolve from something small and simple'.
    Then somebody pointed out to me that it could equally be that we are here as a result of the appliance of intelligence ... by a creative act by God. I initally rejected this as I was a Theistic Evolutionist at the time ... but the more I examined the evidence the more I found that rapid Creation was in line with the evidence ... and evolution (of any type) wasn't.
    One of the reasons that I am very patient with the agression of the Evolutionists on this thread is that I was like them once ... cock sure that Evolution was a fact ... and everything else was just 'hot air' ... it took me a long time to realise that the reverse is actually the situation.
    I must say, however, that I was never personally insulting to Creationists when I was an Evolutionist ... I listened to them with a mixture of respect and pity ... because I thought that I knew it all ... and Creation had long since been disproven.
    ... but how wrong I was!!!:)
    What do you think evolutionist in the foram. Why are they going against reality. I mean what is difference, when you were evolutionist and their career as evolutionist. Do you think ignorance is stubborn.


  • #8576
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    so you're choosing creationism over evolution because you don't like the tone of some posts in favour of evolution? well at least you're honest enough to state it isn't due to evidence.

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



  • #8577
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    so you're choosing creationism over evolution because you don't like the tone of some posts in favour of evolution? well at least you're honest enough to state it isn't due to evidence.
    I am forced to choose it because of some people in this foram... See, I wouldn't want to be arrogant. Even if evolution is fact, but your way presenting evolution as fact is too rough... By this no one would agree with you. You're damaging evolution in this forum... Some people's arrogance is real threat to existence of evolution in this foram.... You in your mind think that you're doing a great job.... but honesty, that isn't what people like me think... See, I am honest with you.... Majority of people, here, who supports evolution,are already evolutionists... That's not a great thing... For example A christian supports Christianity... The supports of christian to Christianity doesn't have value in the eyes of justice....... If a christian supports Islam or Judaism or converts to islam.... that's real things.... I would like to support evolution but i couldn't.... The reason is simple..... See behavior/attitude dlofnep etc... Why would i support the cause of such arrogant person... Even If the cause is true.... There is no "Character" in his words.... They are empty like the hollow men.... Wasted knowledge--- Wasted life.... There is no motive behind...


  • #8578
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,084 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    you're not forced to choose. you're making an emotional choice on what should be chosen on merit of evidence.

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



  • #8579
    cowzerp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    dead one wrote: »
    JC you're straight forwarded person. I like it.... If i were you, i would act like like evolutionists in this foram. I would go in state of denial. I would try to deny reality. You're fighting with ignorance and arrogance. People like dlofnep etc are doing great job against evolution... They are creating harted in mind of common folk against evolution.... Their way of presenting evolution as fact is so rough and arrogant that i don't think that common would take it as fact.... Even if it were fact... ..... See i am neutral person, I find evolutionist arrogant and they are going against reality..

    What????????????????

    Your beliefs are based on a book wrote by ancient people who all thought the world was flat!

    Science is only based on facts, if it cant be proven it's not good science-It is a fact that the world is more than 10,000 years and Noah's ark is a poorly written kids tale.

    Blind faith is just that-Blind.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • #8580
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    you're not forced to choose. you're making an emotional choice on what should be chosen on merit of evidence.
    You see koth
    cowzerp wrote: »
    Your beliefs are based on a book wrote by ancient people who all thought the world was flat!
    Science is only based on facts, if it cant be proven it's not good science-It is a fact that the world is more than 10,000 years and Noah's ark is a poorly written kids tale.
    Koth,The person doesn't know me... He even doesn't know, the world isn't 10000 years in my beliefs or book.... See their is prejudice in his mind... Their is bias in his mind. Why would i support a cause (evolution) which creates people like cowzerp... A cause, which brain wash people, which makes people to utter thing which they even don't know.
    cowzerp wrote: »
    Blind faith is just that-Blind.
    Dear cowzerp
    Faith should be based on knowledge..... See how blind are you about me..;).


  • Advertisement
  • #8581
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    So did you find a quran quote to justify software piracy yet? Or is there a certain amount of hypocrisy Mo-mo and Allah are willing to let slide?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement