The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

oscarBravo · 04-01-2014 12:19AM

I'm curious, J C - you quote Dawkins (out of context) in your sig, but have you read his books?

I recently finished The Greatest Show on Earth, and I find it hard to imagine that anyone who still believes in Creationism has read that book with an open mind.

J C · 04-01-2014 12:23AM

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

J C your anecdotal points are tedious and add nothing to the discussion.

They prove that even Evolutionary Biologists ... aren't able to coherently explain how Evolution could possibly do anything more profound than produce different kinds of Dogs ... or fish with no eyes ... when what is required as a plausible mechanism to evolve pondkind into mankind is a blind species of fish producing offspring with eyes ... and a cross beteween pedigree Poodles producing anything except more Poodles!!:)

J C · 04-01-2014 12:25AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious, J C - you quote Dawkins (out of context) in your sig, but have you read his books?

I recently finished The Greatest Show on Earth, and I find it hard to imagine that anyone who still believes in Creationism has read that book with an open mind.

I read it with great interest ... but I still found nothing in it to prove Evolution (from pondkind to mankind) to be true.

... and my Dawkins quote is not out of context ... his use of the words 'give the appearance of' is indicative of his belief that they weren't actually designed for a purpose.

Of course, I believe that they were designed and are purposeful ... and there is the point at which we both meet ... but disagree.

As a matter of interest, which parts of the book did you find the most compelling in favour of Spontaneous Evolution ... and why?

Pherekydes · 04-01-2014 12:39AM

J C wrote: »

...even Evolutionary Biologists ... aren't able to coherently explain how Evolution could possibly do anything more profound than produce different kinds of Dogs

Evolution didn't produce different breeds of dogs. Man did. This has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you've never read anything of Dawkins with an open mind.

Sarky · 04-01-2014 12:48AM

.

robindch · 04-01-2014 01:32AM

sephir0th wrote: »

I was being facetious

Sarky wrote: »

You're assuming creationists know what that means.

Interestingly "facetious", together with its colleague "abstemious", are the only two common English words which contain each vowel once and each one in alphabetically correct order. Their adverbial forms, "facetiously" and "abstemiously" are doubly neat, as they include the arguable vowel 'y', also in its alphabetically correct position.

I have no idea why I posted this.

robindch · 04-01-2014 01:43AM

J C wrote: »

I know Ken Ham personally - and I can vouch for his credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty.

I've spoken to doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham too and from the moment he started talking until the moment I walked away, he uttered a series of lies that a well-informed child could see through.

There is nothing credible, knowledgeable, decent or honorable about that bearded jackass that I'm aware of.

J C wrote: »

Robin, why do you always accuse every Creationist of being dishonourable and intellectually challenged

I don't always claim. And I when I do make a claim about creationists as a group, I don't make that claim either.

I do claim that creationists are either (a) uninformed, which is fair enough, as not everybody has the time to learn enough to have a reliable opinion on some topic; or (b) stupid, since they are unable to understand that the evidence points unambiguously in one way only; (c) gullible, since, for example, they choose accept the word of religious people on scientific matters above the word of scientific people on scientific matters or (d) deceitful, since they know that evolution is the best current explanation for the existence of, and diversity of, life, but are too scared, stupid or dishonest to make this belief public. I'm not especially interested in the first three groups who make up the vast bulk of creationists, but do hold the last group in contempt as a pack of disreputable fools who -- like doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham -- make a pitiful, deceitful living off the disinformation and drivel they propagate.

Reworking an old line about the Communists, one could say that people who have an opinion on evolution are either smart, honest or creationists, but only two at any one time.

oscarBravo · 04-01-2014 03:55AM

J C wrote: »

I read it with great interest ... but I still found nothing in it to prove Evolution (from pondkind to mankind) to be true.

J C wrote: »

They prove that even Evolutionary Biologists ... aren't able to coherently explain how Evolution could possibly do anything more profound than produce different kinds of Dogs ... or fish with no eyes ... when what is required as a plausible mechanism to evolve pondkind into mankind is a blind species of fish producing offspring with eyes ... and a cross beteween pedigree Poodles producing anything except more Poodles!!:)

So you read Dawkins with your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR WHAT'S WRITTEN HERE"?

Did you miss the bit where he explains very, very clearly how the offspring of any two members of a species is going to be another member of the same species, and that evolution is something that (generally) happens in geologic time?

Or am I banging my head against the wall of someone who believes that creation happened a few thousand years ago, and is therefore pathologically incapable of thinking in anything approaching a rational manner?

oscarBravo · 04-01-2014 03:57AM

robindch wrote: »

Reworking an old line about the Communists, one could say that people who have an opinion on evolution are either smart, honest or creationists, but only two at any one time.

Ooh, I might steal that.

sephir0th · 04-01-2014 08:42AM

robindch wrote: »

Reworking an old line about the Communists, one could say that people who have an opinion on evolution are either smart, honest or creationists, but only two at any one time.

That is gaenious

legspin · 04-01-2014 11:44AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or am I banging my head against the wall of someone who believes that creation happened a few thousand years ago, and is therefore pathologically incapable of thinking in anything approaching a rational manner?

That's about the height of it. A more classic case of wilful ignorance you will not find.

J C · 04-01-2014 12:27PM

robindch wrote: »

I've spoken to doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham too and from the moment he started talking until the moment I walked away, he uttered a series of lies that a well-informed child could see through.

...and this 'asessment' wasn't biased by your very strong anti-God, anti-Bible and anti-Creationist beliefs???
... or the fact that you have never uttered a good word about Creationism or Creationists ... and I mean any Creationist?

robindch wrote: »

There is nothing credible, knowledgeable, decent or honorable about that bearded jackass that I'm aware of. I don't always claim. And I when I do make a claim about creationists as a group, I don't make that claim either.

Now you're resorting to namecalling ... the mark of a lost argument.

robindch wrote: »

I do claim that creationists are either (a) uninformed, which is fair enough, as not everybody has the time to learn enough to have a reliable opinion on some topic; or (b) stupid, since they are unable to understand that the evidence points unambiguously in one way only; (c) gullible, since, for example, they choose accept the word of religious people on scientific matters above the word of scientific people on scientific matters or (d) deceitful, since they know that evolution is the best current explanation for the existence of, and diversity of, life, but are too scared, stupid or dishonest to make this belief public. I'm not especially interested in the first three groups who make up the vast bulk of creationists, but do hold the last group in contempt as a pack of disreputable fools who -- like doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham -- make a pitiful, deceitful living off the disinformation and drivel they propagate.

Not only do Creationists not believe that Evolution provides any plausible explanation for the existence of, or the diversity of, life ... many evolutionists themselves don't believe that Darwinian Theory provides any explanation either (other than small variations within Kinds):-

robindch wrote: »

Reworking an old line about the Communists, one could say that people who have an opinion on evolution are either smart, honest or creationists, but only two at any one time.

One could say the same about Evolutionists ... and with more validity ... given the fact that Communists are Evolutionists ... and not Creationists.

J C · 04-01-2014 12:38PM

sephir0th wrote: »

That is gaenious

... more like 'throwing stones in a glasshouse' ... given the strong links between Communism ... and Evolutionism.

Delirium · 04-01-2014 12:44PM

J C wrote: »

... more like 'throwing stones in a glasshouse' ... given the strong links between Communism ... and Evolutionism.

You'd do better avoiding such silly stuff if you seriously want people to respect what you post.

J C · 04-01-2014 12:45PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you read Dawkins with your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR WHAT'S WRITTEN HERE"?

Did you miss the bit where he explains very, very clearly how the offspring of any two members of a species is going to be another member of the same species,

That's the Creationist position ... are you saying that Evolutionists are now accepting that living organisms reproduce after their Kinds?
That's good.:)

oscarBravo wrote: »

and that evolution is something that (generally) happens in geologic time?

... and therefore has never been observed ... its beginning to look like it is Evolution that is the (unobserved) fairy at the bottom of Prof Dawkins' garden ... and not God!!:):pac:

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or am I banging my head against the wall of someone who believes that creation happened a few thousand years ago, and is therefore pathologically incapable of thinking in anything approaching a rational manner?

I am totally rational ... and it is you guys who are behaving irrationally by believing that pondkind can transform itself into mankind therough a process of selecting mistakes.

bumper234 · 04-01-2014 12:46PM

koth wrote: »

You'd do better avoiding such silly stuff if you seriously want people to respect what you post.

I fear that ship sailed a long time ago.

J C · 04-01-2014 12:50PM

koth wrote: »

You'd do better avoiding such silly stuff if you seriously want people to respect what you post.

What is silly about pointing out the fact that (God-less) Communism has always held Evolution to be the (God-less) explantion for the development of life on Earth ... and Robin reworking old jokes about Communists ... is therefore 'throwing stones in a glasshouse' ... for both Communists ... and Evolutionsts, like himself.:)

bumper234 · 04-01-2014 12:52PM

J C wrote: »

What is silly about pointing out the fact that (God-less) Communism has always held Evolution to be the (God-less) explantion for the development of life on Earth ... and Robin reworking old jokes about Communists ... is therefore 'throwing stones in a glasshouse' ... for both Communists ... and Evolutionsts, like himself.:)

This has been the stance of ALL atheists not just "communists"

Delirium · 04-01-2014 12:56PM

J C wrote: »

What is silly about pointing out the fact that (God-less) Communism has always held Evolution to be the (God-less) explantion for the development of life on Earth ... and Robin reworking old jokes about Communists ... is therefore 'throwing stones in a glasshouse' ... for both Communists ... and Evolutionsts, like himself.:)

it's silly mudslinging, i.e. evolutionists are commies :rolleyes:

It doesn't do anything to state why evolution is wrong, you're just planting the suggestion that evolutionists are evil. You're dropping the level of the discussion to the standard of "you're just stinky".

Respect is earned by the level and content of your posts. You're doing nothing to earn any respect with what you posted.

MrPudding · 04-01-2014 01:03PM

J C wrote: »

I know Ken Ham personally - and I can vouch for his credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty.

LOL. Exactly what value do you think your vouching for him has here? To be perfectly honest, you vouching for someone, in this manner, would, at least in my case, be a very strong indicator that the person lacked credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty.

Are you somehow under the mistaken belief, ney delusion, that you have a grain of credibility here and that you can vouch for other people? Is there no end to your delusion...?

MrP

Hotblack Desiato · 04-01-2014 01:15PM

J C wrote: »

... and therfore has never been observed ...

Better close all the churches down until they have proof of observing god, then.

robindch · 05-01-2014 02:42AM

J C wrote: »

...and this 'asessment' wasn't biased by your very strong anti-God, anti-Bible and anti-Creationist beliefs?

Nope. It was based entirely upon my noticing that doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham has a very troubled relationship with accuracy and honesty.

J C wrote: »

... or the fact that you have never uttered a good word about Creationism or Creationists ... and I mean any Creationist?

As above -- you may not have had time to read what I wrote - I don't have any great interest one way or the other in the vast majority of creationists who are uninformed, stupid or gullible (in fact, I feel rather sorry for them). The only group whom I hold in contempt are the unscrupulous men and women, like doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham, who willingly feed the uninformed, the stupid and the gullible what they want to hear, for no other reason than it pays well, or it makes them feel good.

As soon as this last group does something worth praising, I hope I'll be the first to praise them.

oscarBravo · 05-01-2014 03:22AM

J C wrote: »

That's the Creationist position ... are you saying that Evolutionists are now accepting that living organisms reproduce after their Kinds?
That's good.:)

You either haven't read Dawkins, or you are incapable of understanding him. One or other of those is the only rational explanation.

If you believe that evolution dictates that the offspring of two members of a species will be something other than another member of the same species - albeit with possibly very tiny changes that, over the billions of years that you refuse to acknowledge life has existed, cumulatively result in different species - then you don't understand evolution. Given that evolution is carefully, painstakingly, patiently and clearly explained in Dawkins' books, then - again - you either haven't read them, or you read them with a mind more firmly shut than a vault at Fort Knox.

... and therefore has never been observed ...

You seem to have a definition of "therefore" that means something other than "can logically be derived from what went before".

I am totally rational ... and it is you guys who are behaving irrationally by believing that pondkind can transform itself into mankind therough a process of selecting mistakes.

Nobody believes that. It's one of the saddest thing about religion: it forces people who are probably otherwise capable of rational thought to spew logical fallacy after logical fallacy to avoid the cognitive dissonance that inevitably results from convincing yourself that bronze-age myths form rational explanations for anything whatsoever.

J C · 05-01-2014 11:58PM

koth wrote: »

it's silly mudslinging, i.e. evolutionists are commies :rolleyes:

I said that all Communists were Evolutionists/Atheists ... obviously there are Capitalists as well as Communists ... and people at all points on the scale of state involvement in the economy ... who are Evolutionists and indeed Atheists.

koth wrote: »

It doesn't do anything to state why evolution is wrong, you're just planting the suggestion that evolutionists are evil. You're dropping the level of the discussion to the standard of "you're just stinky".

Respect is earned by the level and content of your posts. You're doing nothing to earn any respect with what you posted.

.. and my point was that reworking old Communist jokes is something not to be engaged in by an Evolutionist due to the strong historical and current linkages between Communism and Evolutionism.

J C · 06-01-2014 12:05AM

ninja900 wrote: »

Better close all the churches down until they have proof of observing god, then.

I'm not one for closing down institutions or censoring ideas ... so I believe that the institutions of both Christianity and Evolutionism should be allowed to exist and their ideas should be freely questioned and objectively assessed.

J C · 06-01-2014 12:14AM

robindch wrote: »

Nope. It was based entirely upon my noticing that doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham has a very troubled relationship with accuracy and honesty.As above -- you may not have had time to read what I wrote - I don't have any great interest one way or the other in the vast majority of creationists who are uninformed, stupid or gullible (in fact, I feel rather sorry for them). The only group whom I hold in contempt are the unscrupulous men and women, like doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham, who willingly feed the uninformed, the stupid and the gullible what they want to hear, for no other reason than it pays well, or it makes them feel good.

As soon as this last group does something worth praising, I hope I'll be the first to praise them.

Nobody expects you to believe in Creation, if you don't want to ... and you are quite entitled to question Creationist ideas and critcise them to your hearts desire ...
... but in a pluralist multi-cultural society you are expected to be tolerant and respectful towards those with whom you disagree ... and to not make unfounded, deeply prejudicial, inflammatory, personal remarks about entire faith groups with whom you have a difference of theological or scientific opinion.

At the very least, you should stand up your statement about Ken Ham having 'a very troubled relationship with accuracy and honesty'.

Delirium · 06-01-2014 12:25AM

J C wrote: »

I said that all Communists were Evolutionists/Atheists ... obviously there are Capitalists as well as Communists ... and people at all points on the scale of state involvement in the economy ... who are Evolutionists and indeed Atheists.

.. and my point was that reworking old Communist jokes is something not to be engaged in by an Evolutionist due to the strong linkages between Communism and Evolutionism.

yes, I got the point the first time around, "commies are/were evolutionsists". It still does nothing to lend any credibility to the "bible stories as science" that is creationism. Would you like to move beyond mudslinging?

J C · 06-01-2014 12:26AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You either haven't read Dawkins, or you are incapable of understanding him. One or other of those is the only rational explanation.

Long on unfounded generalistions ... but short on specifics.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you believe that evolution dictates that the offspring of two members of a species will be something other than another member of the same species - albeit with possibly very tiny changes that, over the billions of years that you refuse to acknowledge life has existed, cumulatively result in different species - then you don't understand evolution. Given that evolution is carefully, painstakingly, patiently and clearly explained in Dawkins' books, then - again - you either haven't read them, or you read them with a mind more firmly shut than a vault at Fort Knox.

I have read the book ... I saw plenty of evidence for changes within Kinds (using pre-existing genetic information) ... but no evidence for the spontaneous production of new functional systems and structures required to 'transition' from Pondkind to Mankind.

If you have seen such evidence in this book ... please present it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nobody believes that. It's one of the saddest thing about religion: it forces people who are probably otherwise capable of rational thought to spew logical fallacy after logical fallacy to avoid the cognitive dissonance that inevitably results from convincing yourself that bronze-age myths form rational explanations for anything whatsoever.

... I could say exactly the same thing about Evolutionsts spewing Darwinian myths and wishful thinking all over the place ... and where will that get us?

J C · 06-01-2014 12:32AM

koth wrote: »

yes, I got the point the first time around, "commies are/were evolutionsists". It still does nothing to lend any credibility to the "bible stories as science" that is creationism. Would you like to move beyond mudslinging?

It was Robin who engaged in the mudslinging by reworking an old Communist joke and substituting Creationists for Communists ... and I have merely pointed out that the correct substitution for Communists (when it comes to the 'origins' question) is Evolutionists, given the fact that Communist Mythology assigns Evolution supreme worship as the only acceptable origins explanation ... and historically, 're-education' in the Gulags beckoned for anybody who disagreed.:eek:

Delirium · 06-01-2014 12:40AM

J C wrote: »

It was Robin who engaged in the mudslinging by reworking the old Communist joke and substituting Creationists for Communists ... and I have merely pointed out that the correct substitution for Communists (when it comes to the 'origins' question) is Evolutionists, given the fact that Communist Mythology assigns Evolution supreme worship as the only acceptable origins explanation ... and historically, 're-education' in the Gulags beckoned for anybody who disagreed.:eek:

so that's a no then to less mudslinging and more discussion.

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Comments