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

Darwin's theory

1…4849515354…78

Comments

  • #1502
    FutureGuy
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 15,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭FutureGuy


    SW wrote: »
    here's an excellent dissection of many things JC has been posting for years

    Ah excellent. Thanks!


  • #1503
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Before I clicked the link, I had a sneaking suspicion it would be oldrnwisr. :D

    Well he did consistently pick apart JCs posts to an almost microscopic level :pac:

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



  • #1504
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,528 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    So after over 1600 posts we're down to laughable lies by, Dembski, a highly discredited creationist shill and, as yet, not a single mathematical definition of CFSI or whatever made up unscientific rubbish J C likes to trot out. It's like comparing the theory of reproduction to storks.

    All by someone who claims that he's a scientist but doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even say what area he is qualified in. All this because he craves attention for his utter nonsensical beliefs so that they somehow become respectable by being given the time of day.

    Unless J C is willing to put forward actual data from peer reviewed sources, then there is no point engaging with him - or treating him as anything other than a petulant child. He has carried on this charade for almost a decade now and in all his time his tactics have never once changed. Starve him of the oxygen he so desires.


  • #1505
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    here's an excellent dissection of many things JC has been posting for years
    ... and I answered oldrnwisr here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74921610&postcount=6098

    ... anyway, can we get back to examining the basis for Intelligent Design
    in my posting here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1506
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... and I answered oldrnwisr here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74921610&postcount=6098

    ... anyway, can we get back to examining the basis for Intelligent Design
    in my posting here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    sure. You can start by responding to my post containing a link and text explaining why Dembski is wrong.

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



  • Advertisement
  • #1507
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    5uspect wrote: »
    So after over 1600 posts we're down to laughable lies by, Dembski, a highly discredited creationist shill and, as yet, not a single mathematical definition of CFSI or whatever made up unscientific rubbish J C likes to trot out. It's like comparing the theory of reproduction to storks.

    All by someone who claims that he's a scientist but doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even say what area he is qualified in. All this because he craves attention for his utter nonsensical beliefs so that they somehow become respectable by being given the time of day.

    Unless J C is willing to put forward actual data from peer reviewed sources, then there is no point engaging with him - or treating him as anything other than a petunia child. He has carried on this charade for almost a decade now and in all his time his tactics have never once changed. Starve him of the oxygen he so desires.
    If I'm all the things that your unfounded name calling of me says ... then you should be able to point out any logical, mathematical or factual inaccuracies in my post here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1508
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    "the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance,it is the illusion of knowledge"-/ you fit the illusion part of that quote JC. you quote dembski as if his crackpot theories and dodgy maths actually amount to something. a quick google search will throw up plenty of articles by real experts from around the world pointing out his many many mistakes. but your main problem is you are trying to make the facts fit to an old book written by men over 2000 years ago


  • #1509
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,528 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    J C wrote: »
    If I'm all the things that your unfounded name calling of me says ... then you should be able to point out any logical, mathematical or factual inaccuracies in my post here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    At least this time you're honest about just copy/pasting stuff from the Internet.
    Remember that? All those times you got caught being dishonest for Jesus?


  • #1510
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    sure. You can start by responding to my post containing a link and text explaining why Dembski is wrong.
    Your post was a rehash of somebody else's views on Dembski.
    I'll respond if you respond to my posting.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1511
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kingchess wrote: »
    "the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance,it is the illusion of knowledge"-/ you fit the illusion part of that quote JC. you quote dembski as if his crackpot theories and dodgy maths actually amount to something. a quick google search will throw up plenty of articles by real experts from around the world pointing out his many many mistakes. but your main problem is you are trying to make the facts fit to an old book written by men over 2000 years ago
    Stop squrming and trying to wriggle away from addressing the kernal of ID ...
    ... this is your big opportunity to find the flaw(s) in ID...
    Please respond to my posting and show us all where ID is a the 'crackpot theories (with) dodgy maths' that you claim it to be
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • Advertisement
  • #1512
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,528 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Have you ever done an original work of science? Have you ever published a peer reviewed paper in any field? How do you feel about lying for Jesus?


  • #1513
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Your post was a rehash of somebody else's views on Dembski.
    I'll respond if you respond to my posting.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    Yes, I'm aware I quoted someone else. Now kindly respond to it.

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



  • #1514
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    But....your post was just stating what Dembski had said :confused:
    They are also my views as well ... and my post condenses the basis of ID ... so, rather than hand waving and name calling ... please address my post ... and stop engaging in diversionary tactics.
    Here is the basis for ID ... now please point out the flaws, if you can find any.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1515
    FutureGuy
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 15,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭FutureGuy


    Lol sorry lads, didn't know JC's history here. Thought he was a random poster who happen to wade into the argument in hand.

    I can see that his arguments have been destroyed pretty conclusively many times over. Saves me a lot of typing :-)


  • #1516
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I've been trying to engage in civil debate in this thread, but this is getting ridiculous. You post dembski's claims almost word for word, then refuse to argue with a rebuttal of said claims because they're just getting it from somewhere else which is exactly what you did when you posted the claims in the first place.
    We're all currently arguing over whether Dembski is correct ... so please stick with the point at issue ... and a point that has the potential to settle the issue of M2M Evolution once and for all ... on way or another.
    Please respond to my posting
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1517
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    rozeboosje wrote: »
    Interestingly, though:

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-young-earth-theory-is-almost-blasphemous-argues-bible-should-not-be-used-as-science-book-128136/

    That's been the way for generations. Christian scientists are often the earliest and most vehement when they see their religious leaders trying to butt in on scientific matters without going to the bother of learning about what they are talking about. For example here is what Msgr. Georges Lemaitre said when he heard that the then current pope was trying to claim his Big Bang theory as proof for god:
    As far as I see, such a theory [of the primeval atom] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in non-singular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt to familiarity with God, as were Laplace's chiquenaude or Jeans' finger. It is consonant with the wording of Isaiah speaking of the 'Hidden God' hidden even in the beginning of the universe ... Science has not to surrender in face of the Universe and when Pascal tries to infer the existence of God from the supposed infinitude of Nature, we may think that he is looking in the wrong direction.

    That as anyone would admit is a hefty if polite beat down.


  • #1518
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    FutureGuy wrote: »
    Lol sorry lads, didn't know JC's history here. Thought he was a random poster who happen to wade into the argument in hand.

    I can see that his arguments have been destroyed pretty conclusively many times over. Saves me a lot of typing :-)
    I have a relatively short and clear posting that provides the basis for ID ... so please stop hand-waving' and destroy this posting (and ID to boot) conclusively if you can.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1519
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    I'm sorry guys ... I have spent 10 years debating with ye ... and following you up every cul de sac of Evolution.

    ... no please focus on this one posting ... and show everybody where ID is wrong.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1520
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    5uspect wrote: »
    Have you ever done an original work of science? Have you ever published a peer reviewed paper in any field? How do you feel about lying for Jesus?

    "Lying for Jesus' sounds like a Christian rock band


  • #1521
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Flash Gordon. Next question!

    Who created BRIAN BLESSED? Surely he is the unmoved mover?


  • Advertisement
  • #1522
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    "Lying for Jesus' sounds like a Christian rock band
    I'm not going to follow you anywhere until you address my posting on the basis for ID ... ye guys claim it is invalid ... now please show us where it is invalid by responding to this posting ... and stop running away from it. This is your big opportunity to show where ID is wrong ... I'd have thought that ye would be chomping at the bit to disprove it ... why the reticence and all the hand waving and deflections?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1523
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,528 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    J C wrote: »
    I have a relatively short and clear posting that provides the basis for ID ... so please stop hand-waving' and destroy this posting (and ID to boot) conclusively if you can.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    What percentage of the text in that post is yours and what is copied verbatim from the discredited rantings of Dembski?


  • #1524
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    J C wrote: »
    I'm not going to follow you anywhere until you address my posting on the basis for ID ... ye guys claim it is invalid ... now please show us where it is invalid by responding to this posting ... and stop running away from it. This is your big opportunity to show where ID is wrong ... I'd have thought that ye would be chomping at the bit to disprove it ... why the reticence?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660

    you do not know how to google??:confused: plenty on google proving what a con-man dembski is:p


  • #1525
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    I'm sorry guys ... I have spent 10 years debating with ye ... and following you up every cul de sac of Evolution.

    Funny how when it suits you you'll ignore arguments and facts but when you want to divert attention away you'll cry foul on other posters. You're actually farcical at this stage, no wonder you won't tell anyone your scientific credentials, they're probably as valid as mine. As in non existent.


  • #1526
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    5uspect wrote: »
    What percentage of the text in that post is yours and what is copied verbatim from the discredited rantings of Dembski?
    The second half are mine and the first half are Dembski's ... and if they are 'discredited' as you claim ... then you should be able to easily point out the flaws that 'discredit' them.
    Why hasn't anybody done so ... rather than engaging in unfounded name calling?


  • #1527
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kingchess wrote: »
    you do not know how to google??:confused: plenty on google proving what a con-man dembski is:p
    ... or so you say.
    Now please show us where he is a 'con-man' by addressing his words and mine in this posting:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1528
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    But they have :pac:
    Where has anybody addressed my posting?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1529
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    The second half are mine and the first half are Dembski's ... and if they are 'discredited' as you claim ... then you should be able to easily point out the flaws that 'discredit' them.
    Why hasn't anybody done so ... rather than engaging in unfounded name calling?

    Nobody has called you any names, stop being so bloody dishonest. You're the boards equivalent of that one person we all knew growing up who was a blatant liar and would just let their lies spiral out of control to the point where they'd try make everyone else out to be wrong. This just keeps getting funnier and funnier.


  • #1530
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    by the way ,since when is ID considered to be on equal terms with the theory of Evolution?? evolution has science backing it .


  • Advertisement
  • #1531
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    Where has anybody addressed my posting?

    Google it, type Dembski into Google and the first things that come up are other scientists demolishing his arguments. It's not hard. God didn't magic those opposable digits out of thin air for you to make other people look stuff up on the internet for you.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement