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

Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.

1…1617192122…48

Comments

  • #542
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smcgiff wrote: »
    You keep mentioning this as if it has some significance.

    If Darwin was a mass murder it wouldn't diminish his discoveries one iota.

    Besides, Darwin didn't understand genetics fully, that was mendel's field.
    I keep mentioning it because you guys keep drawing attention to the obvious fact that Noah's grandchildren, of necessity, married their first cousins ... and ye label them as 'incestuous' as a result.

    I'm merely pointing out that Darwin was equally 'incestuous' ... and with a lot less justification and genetic safety, than in Noah's day for Noah's grandchildren.


  • #543
    Terrlock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Terrlock


    Sarky wrote: »
    ... and here we go, like particularly unoriginal, dishonest clockwork.

    For the newer folks, he's talking about the crackpot claims of William Dembski, a particularly stupid man when it comes to evolution. J C seems to be ignoring, as well as all the massive gaping flaws with "CFSI" (up to and including the lack of definition as to what the f*ck that even is), the fact that Dembski himself has abandoned it for the idiocy it is.

    The old "Origin of Specious Nonsense" thread has more than a few pages showing J C trying to weasel his way out of the flaws with his loony claims. It was an amazing display, on J C's part, of his willingness to misrepresent facts, run away from questions, outright lie to our faces, and then try and play the oppression card by likening us all to Nazis and so forth.


    What are you talking about?

    Evolution cannot account for the origin of information, it does also not account for the uniformity of nature.


  • #544
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Besides, Darwin didn't understand genetics fully, that was mendel's field.
    Darwin didn't understand many things ... and as a result, his theory that pondkind might have 'evolved' into Mankind ... is in scientific and logical tatters.


  • #545
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Terrlock wrote: »
    Evolution cannot account for the origin of information,
    Stop thinking in terms of creationist rubbish like "information". Evolution creates organisms that are better and better adapted to surviving to recreate.
    Terrlock wrote: »
    it does also not account for the uniformity of nature.
    What on earth are you talking about? What "uniformity"?

    From your repetition of useless and stupid creationist talking-points, you sound like you've spent (read "wasted") time and money on creationist literature and propaganda on biology, and haven't bothered studying actual biologists on actual biology. Can you confirm?


  • #546
    Terrlock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Terrlock


    iDave wrote: »
    When, where? how did this encounter take place? This is an important piece of information that could swing the argument in your favour but your account of the meeting is vague and lacking detail
    Why didn't you look at his face?

    If you wish to know more about that encounter you are free to PM me.


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    OMG! Spoiler!
    Terrlock wrote: »
    What are you talking about?
    This thread: The Origin of specious Nonsense. In it J C goes on and on and on, and posters like myself, oldrnwisr, sponsoredwalk, robindch and many more show him why he's utterly and hopelessly wrong. You should read it some time, there's a huge wealth of information in there. None of it, predictably, comes from J C.

    And more specifically, posts like this one,, where someone like oldrnwisr shows J C up to be clueless, or deliberately avoiding the truth, or worse. There are many posts like that in the thread. Each one causes J C to shut up for a little while, go into hiding, and then come back with the same old bullsh*t we'd torn apart weeks or months ago like if he just keeps posting it, it might end up becoming true.

    Other interesting things from that thread:

    - dead one, the Muslim creationist. That boy was insane.
    - An amusing set of J C memes, including captions such as "Ignore evidence. Claim victory."
    - Letting J C spout his insane claptrap and then showing him why he's wrong is, according to J C, pretty much Nazism.
    Evolution cannot account for the origin of information,
    Yes it can. It accounts for just about everything one sees in organic life, up to and including intelligence. You should read up on it, it's fascinating stuff.
    it does also not account for the uniformity of nature.

    Well that'd be because nature is far from uniform. Again, you should read up on it. It really is very interesting stuff.


  • #548
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,076 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Liamario wrote: »
    I mean, if they've made a movie out of it, it must be true...right?

    Surely there's no flaw in that logic.

    I remember well being taught in school RE class that many of the stories from the old testament were in fact 'parables', and that Noah and his Ark was just a nice story to remind us of the power of God, but that it was not to be taken literally - same goes for Moses & the parting of the Red sea.


  • #549
    Todd Toddington III
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 605 ✭✭✭Todd Toddington III


    (Wouldn't that also have seen the flood coming?)
    Terrlock wrote: »
    However I can also point out if our solar system is billions of years old then why are there still comets flying around it?

    Wtf does this even mean?


  • #550
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Stop thinking in terms of creationist rubbish like "information". Evolution creates organisms that are better and better adapted to surviving to recreate.
    ... and yet Evolutionists believe that Crocodiles and Coelacanths and Wollemia Pines ... and more 'living fossils' than you could 'shake a stick at' haven't changed at all over hundreds of millions of Unformitarian 'Years'.

    ... so we are supposed to believe that while Humans were Spontaneously 'Evolving' from something that looked like a mutant Rat ... all of the 'living fossils' didn't change at all ... at all.

    I'd call that very very Special Pleading ... Robin.
    ... so special that it logically invalidates the pleading.
    robindch wrote: »
    Stop thinking in terms of creationist rubbish like "information".
    We're living in the Information Age, Robin ... please get with the programme!!!;):)


  • #551
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    J C wrote: »
    I keep mentioning it because you guys keep drawing attention to the obvious fact that Noah's grandchildren, of necessity, married their first cousins ... and ye label them as 'incestuous' as a result.

    I'm merely pointing out that Darwin was equally 'incestuous' ... and with a lot less justification and genetic safety, than in Noah's day for Noah's grandchildren.

    Because we hold an omnipotent omniscient God to a higher standard than Darwin - a mere man of the 19th century. Can you not get this, really?!?

    There is no biblical evidence/mention that people were genetically more pure (whatever that BS even means) in the early years of the bible- you/others like you are just thinking on your feet to keep your delusions from crumbling.


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    Todd Toddington III
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 605 ✭✭✭Todd Toddington III


    (Wouldn't that also have seen the flood coming?)
    Terrlock wrote: »
    Yes I have seen God with my own eyes, however I didn't look upon his face.

    Lies. I saw a dinosaur once, I was as high as a monkey but I still saw it. Doesnt make it real though. Your lying or high of just plain crazy. I hope youre not teaching you children this crap. At least theyll have the internet to disprove your insane theories. Kids are great at calling you on your bs thankfully ( nearly said thank god there, oops :) )


  • #553
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    J C wrote: »
    Darwin didn't understand many things ... and as a result, his theory that pondkind might have 'evolved' into Mankind ... is in scientific and logical tatters.


    No, Darwin wasn't omniscient - you're the one claiming such an oddity exists. What Darwin was was the first (or one of the first) person to come to terms with evolution and it's significance. His work has been taken on by others.

    Your loathing for this man of science is laughable.


  • #554
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,247 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    I still want my question answered, by anyone:
    Pherekydes wrote: »
    So how old is our planet?

    I'm especially interested in Terrlock's and JC's answers.



    Eh, and oldrnwiser's. :pac:


  • #555
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Because we hold an omnipotent omniscient God to a higher standard than Darwin - a mere man of the 19th century. Can you not get this, really?!?
    ... and so do I ... yet another reason why Direct Divine Creation happened ... and Spontaneous Darwinian Evolution was just in his dreams.
    smcgiff wrote: »
    There is no biblical evidence/mention that people were genetically more pure (whatever that BS even means) in the early years of the bible- you/others like you are just thinking on your feet to keep your delusions from crumbling.
    The declining longevities mentioned in the Bible would indicate that serious genetic depletion and damage has occurred since early Biblical times.


  • #556
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,144 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Todd Toddington III wrote: »
    Wtf does this even mean?

    It means, "Look! It's something other than the "Why are there still monkeys" fallacy!"


  • #557
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    I still want my question answered, by anyone:



    I'm especially interested in Terrlock's and JC's answers.



    Eh, and oldrnwiser's. :pac:
    I'll be gentlemanly ... and leave this one to oldrnwiser.;)


  • #558
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    J C wrote: »
    ... and so do I ... yet another reason why Direct Divine Creation happened ... and Spontaneous Darwinian Evolution was just in his dreams.

    The declining longevities mentioned in the Bible would indicate that serious genetic depletion and damage has occurred since early Biblical times.

    I knew you'd say that, and that you'd ignore the mistranslation of years :pac::pac:


  • #559
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,571 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    OMG! Spoiler!
    J C wrote: »
    It isn't actually God's will that people die ... He created us physically perfect

    So is it god or the devil that creates cancer then?

    God created us and cancer is a flaw in cell reproduction so god did a bad job in creating us.

    You sight the devil, but even the most devout religious nutbag can get cancer.


  • #560
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    J C wrote: »
    ... and so do I ...

    So, God should have known incest was perverse (people having sex with people raised as their children or close relatives ) AND these were the people worth saving. :D:pac::rolleyes: Nah, would have been better of restarting with the lizard people.


  • #561
    Todd Toddington III
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 605 ✭✭✭Todd Toddington III


    (Wouldn't that also have seen the flood coming?)
    J C wrote: »
    ... so it just has to be true ... just because a number of 'groupthinkers' believe it and write papers about it!!!:D

    As opposed to a book written 1500 to 2500 years ago by a group of ignorant (by todays standards) tribes people who still believed in magic and that the world was flat? And these groupthinkers, as you call them are some of our brightest and smartest people. Its only a theory though and could change with further evidence. By the way there is a lot of evidence. So far the theory of your god is based upon one book.


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Terrlock wrote: »
    If you wish to know more about that encounter you are free to PM me.

    Ah so you have seen god, you know what he/she looks like but refuse to share this? Did you get any pictures with him? Autograph poster?


  • #563
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Todd Toddington III wrote: »
    Lies. I saw a dinosaur once, I was as high as a monkey but I still saw it. Doesnt make it real though. Your lying or high of just plain crazy. I hope youre not teaching you children this crap. At least theyll have the internet to disprove your insane theories. Kids are great at calling you on your bs thankfully ( nearly said thank god there, oops :) )
    They say this to me all the time, Terrlock ... doesn't make it true ... though!!!;)
    Todd Toddington III wrote: »
    Kids are great at calling you on your bs thankfully ( nearly said thank god there, oops :)
    ... you did write 'thank god' in spite of yourself ... at least it's a start.:)
    .


  • #564
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Todd Toddington III wrote: »
    As opposed to a book written 1500 to 2500 years ago by a group of ignorant (by todays standards) tribes people who still believed in magic and that the world was flat? And these groupthinkers, as you call them are some of our brightest and smartest people. Its only a theory though and could change with further evidence. By the way there is a lot of evidence. So far the theory of your god is based upon one book.
    groupthink is groupthink ... irrespective of how intelligent the groupthinkers think they are.

    ... and the Word of God is ... ehem ... the Word of God.:)


  • #565
    smcgiff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    J C wrote: »

    The declining longevities mentioned in the Bible would indicate that serious genetic depletion and damage has occurred since early Biblical times.

    Actually, can you give an estimate as to how old you think the world is. How long ago do you think these genetically superior people were living?


  • #566
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Todd Toddington III wrote: »
    As opposed to a book written 1500 to 2500 years ago by a group of ignorant (by todays standards) tribes people who still believed in magic and that the world was flat?
    Closer to "between at least 3500 and 1700 years old", as the earlier parts of the bible were copied and changed from earlier Sumerian texts. It's a pity they left out a lot of The Epic of Gilgamesh: the flood story in Gilgamesh (very similar to Noah's story, but with different names), is one of the less interesting bits:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

    And WRT to the rest of the text of the bible, I think it's pretty clear that contemporary, ancient, well-informed smart people had little or nothing to do with writing the vast majority of it.


  • #567
    An Riabhach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,714 ✭✭✭An Riabhach


    J C wrote: »
    All the above are examples of Human Beings abusing their God-given free will ... to do evil.
    This is how free-will works ... it wouldn't be free-will at all, if God stepped in every time somebody decided not to be good.
    The justice system deals with these issues in this life ... and God will deal with them in the next life.
    That is why Christians render unto the state the issues in this life that are within the competence of the state ... and unto God the things that are God's.
    Well apparently he answered Myra Hindley's prayers while she was in prison-according to her priest,who had her convinced she was still going to heaven even after what she did.

    So does that mean that people with that kind of faith like yerselves,believe that she is in heaven-along with Hitler,Brendan Smyth,Susan Atkins,and every other evil human being just because they had "found god"???

    Siúl leat, siúl leat, le dóchas i do chroí, is ní shiúlfaidh tú i d'aonar go deo.



  • #568
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,571 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    OMG! Spoiler!
    Seasan wrote: »
    Well apparently he answered Myra Hindley's prayers while she was in prison-according to her priest,who had her convinced she was still going to heaven even after what she did.

    Worked for sex abusing priests why shouldnt it work for her? Hell, they even got to keep the priest titles.

    All she had to do was say she's sorry, heaven awaits then!


  • #569
    An Riabhach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,714 ✭✭✭An Riabhach


    J C wrote: »
    It isn't actually God's will that people die ... He created us physically perfect and potentially immortal ... and it was Human Beings messing about with Satan's death-inducing system of good poisoned with evil that caused death to enter the physical universe

    Do you still believe that god created AIDS?

    Siúl leat, siúl leat, le dóchas i do chroí, is ní shiúlfaidh tú i d'aonar go deo.



  • #570
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?
    Why does "God" allow a 4 year old child to get cancer and die a long slow painful death but allows priests to rape young children for decades and then live into their 70's and 80's?


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    OMG! Spoiler!
    J C wrote: »
    They say this to me all the time, Terrlock ... doesn't make it true ... though!!!;)

    But the mountains of links, logic and evidence we supply alongside our claims certainly do.

    Like here.

    Or here.

    Or here.

    Or here.

    Or this nice post by oldrnwisr which examines your 'qualified creation scientists'. Spoiler: He finds them wanting.

    Would you like me to continue? There are a whole lot more in there...


Advertisement