Darwin's theory

J C · 24-10-2014 11:52PM

housetypeb wrote: »

J c is getting excited now-he must be close to coming, a few more posts should do it.

Do you get sexual gratification from being abused and called names?
I certainly don't !!!:(

SaveOurLyric · 24-10-2014 11:54PM

J C wrote: »

Sectarianism is a group directed form of name-calling.

No it isnt.

It is prejudice, discrimination, hatred, or exploitation of a group.

I am simply asking a question about that group.

J C · 24-10-2014 11:55PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It would be reprehensible. But I am not saying so. I am asking if they are objectively sane.

Its not ad hominem...... is a question about the group. Substituting 'ad hominem for 'personal' doesnt change the point.

If I asked whether all Atheists are insane it would be a clear (and unfounded) slur on Atheists that adds nothing to the debate on their ideas. I wouldn't dream of doing so as it would clearly be untrue.
The same also holds, when somebody asks whether any other group, including Creationists, are insane.

J C · 24-10-2014 11:56PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

No it isnt.

It is prejudice, discrimination, hatred, or exploitation of a group.

I am simply asking a question about that group.

Labelling a group of people as insane ... could indeed result in prejudice and discrimination against such a group.
It would be prima face evidence of prejudice and an intention to discriminate against persons belonging to that group

kingchess · 24-10-2014 11:57PM

J C wrote: »

Those whom people would destroy ... they first declare to be mad ... a very sinister activity.

It's quite reprehensible to call somebody who is objectively sane ... mad.

Such an unfounded ad hominem is a form of bullying.

I suppose you could always turn the other cheek?:D

Mad4simmental · 24-10-2014 11:58PM

...

SaveOurLyric · 24-10-2014 11:59PM

J C wrote: »

If I ask whether all Atheists are insane it is a clear (and unfounded) slur on Atheists that adds nothing to the debate.

It is not a slur. And does add to the debate. It examines the foundation of their ability to debate in the first place.

Frank Bullitt · 25-10-2014 12:00AM

A very simple play by JC now, he doesn't like the idea of his beliefs or his position in this argument being exposed, so he will inadvertently resort to saying that what you are saying is offensive, or mean, or that you are labeling people a certain way.

It shows that his argument is losing steam and is being shown as the farce that it is.

Labelling a group insane isn't prejudice or discriminatory, in this case is a very accurate description. Although I would have gone more with delusional.

SaveOurLyric · 25-10-2014 12:01AM

J C wrote: »

Labelling a group of people as insane ... could indeed result in prejudice and discrimination against such a group.

A question is not labelling.

SaveOurLyric · 25-10-2014 12:03AM

Gintonious wrote: »

Although I would have gone more with delusional.

The word delusional was indeed in my original post. It suits jc's case more though to focus on the stronger 'insane'. People cant protest to take as much offence at being 'delusional'.

SaveOurLyric · 25-10-2014 12:06AM

J C wrote: »

I don't know.

Its the real test though isnt it : how many people approaching the question without bias reach the creationist conclusion ?

J C · 25-10-2014 12:07AM

kingchess wrote: »

I suppose you could always turn the other cheek?:D

I am.:D

But this doesn't stop me protesting such unfounded demeaning comments being directed against me.

housetypeb · 25-10-2014 12:09AM

J C wrote: »

I am.:D

But this doesn't stop me protesting such unfounded demeaning comments being directed against me.

So you turn the other cheek-but still protest? Logic has no meaning to you.

J C · 25-10-2014 12:13AM

Gintonious wrote: »

A very simple play by JC now, he doesn't like the idea of his beliefs or his position in this argument being exposed, so he will inadvertently resort to saying that what you are saying is offensive, or mean, or that you are labeling people a certain way.

I have answered all questions posed to me, in so far as time has permitted.
You're the guys who haven't effectivley addressed my posting about the basis for ID ... despite a number of half-starts and failed attempts.

... and ye are also the guys now trying to derail the thread by attacking the person of Creationists with unfounded accusations of insanity rather than addressing their ideas as they relate to Darwinism.

Gintonious wrote: »

It shows that his argument is losing steam and is being shown as the farce that it is.

Labelling a group insane isn't prejudice or discriminatory, in this case is a very accurate description. Although I would have gone more with delusional.

Ye are the guys with all the invalid arguments ... and now ye have lowered yourselves and your arguments to the level unfounded name-calling.

J C · 25-10-2014 12:14AM

housetypeb wrote: »

So you turn the other cheek-but still protest? Logic has no meaning to you.

My mouth and my cheek are separate and independent organs!!!:)

Frank Bullitt · 25-10-2014 12:20AM

J C wrote: »

I have answered all questions posed to me, in so far as time has permitted.
You're the guys who haven't effectivley addressed my posting about the basis for ID ... despite a number of half-starts and failed attempts.

... and ye are the guys now trying to derail the thread by attacking the person of Creationists with unfounded accusations of insanity rather than addressing their ideas.

Ye are the guys with all the invalid arguments ... and now ye have lowered yourselves and your arguments to unfounded name-calling.

And here we have it, the most delusional post so far I think.

More claims that you have answered the questions, when you haven't answered one.

More use of this "attacking", calling a creationist insane will happen when they present the "evidence" that they do, its laughable and fact-less. There is a reason as to why being a creation scientist is akin to being a vet for a unicorn. There is no evidence, never has been, and as it stands never will be. With each passing day the argument gets more and more laughable because it comes from the infancy of society and science.

You are the sole poster in this thread derailing anything, Evolution is fact, like it or not, you have no qualifications to say otherwise, and saying you do have some sort of science degree but they refuse to tell us does not count.

You are a fraud, and spreading this type of poison, weather it be on the internet or out in public, is toxic to society and the advancement of our understanding of the world we live in.

Call the above statement offensive if you want, I don't care. But you are putting a bullseye on your chest with the garbage that you put on here, so you will have to live with that.

Roger Hassenforder · 25-10-2014 12:20AM

J C wrote: »

Christians were persecuted and their faith was proscribed by the state right up to the time of Constantine. It is little wonder that all contemporaneous accounts of Jesus Christ should have been suppressed and destroyed, in so far as possible.
The accounts in the New Testament books are accurate and Jesus Christ lives ... and will Save you, if you ask.

that's very poor JC and you know it.
I'm all right for saving, thanks, save yourself, I wont need it!

J C · 25-10-2014 12:22AM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

that's very poor JC and you know it.
I'm all right for saving, thanks, save yourself, I wont need it!

Its the truth and the truth will set your free.

floggg · 25-10-2014 12:24AM

J C wrote: »

It doesn't happen because it's an impossibility.

This also doesn't happen because it's an impossibility.

You're confusing the selection of pre-existing genetic CFSI diversity with the origin of the CFSI diversity itself.

The problem is that this doesn't match what real biomolecules are like. They have specific chains of amino acids ... and even one change in a critical sequence causes functionality to be destroyed.
Many evolutionists accept the odds against such systems being spontaneously generated, as being beyond the UPB ... but they hang onto their beliefs that it happened spontaneously, by inventing an infinity of multiverses acting for an infinity of time to try and mathematically overcome the massive odds against living systems spontaneously arising.

I note that you accept "evolution within a kind" type evolution.

How can that form of evolution exist, when it seems that any change that occurs is destructive and detrimental?

Squeedily Spooch · 25-10-2014 12:24AM

J C wrote: »

I have answered all questions posed to me, in so far as time has permitted.
You're the guys who haven't effectivley addressed my posting about the basis for ID ... despite a number of half-starts and failed attempts.

... and ye are also the guys now trying to derail the thread by attacking the person of Creationists with unfounded accusations of insanity rather than addressing their ideas as they relate to Darwinism.

Ye are the guys with all the invalid arguments ... and now ye have lowered yourselves and your arguments to the level unfounded name-calling.

Unfounded? you give all the ammo needed for people to "name call", which is piss poor debating, you don't like how things are going so cry foul when you "namecall" plenty yourself. The mask has well and truly slipped by now so people are just seeing you for the utter liar you are. Still not willing to produce those scientific credentials eh? did you get them from a cereal box? or did they come with the Big Creationist Book of Vegetarian T-Rexes: Kids Edition?

floggg · 25-10-2014 12:26AM

J C wrote: »

Quote:-
"Many people contributed to the writing of the Bible. Actually, the Bible is a collection of writings from about forty contributors, thirty in the Old Testament and ten in the New Testament.
For example, the Psalms are a collection of the works of several authors, of whom David, the "sweet singer of Israel", is the best known. But psalms were also written by Moses, by Asaph, by a man named Ethan, and by the sons of Korah.

The accounts which have been preserved in the Old Testament date from the earliest times and were both written down and communicated orally. As time passed, they were collected together and received by the Hebrews as coming to them by God's mandate. The prophets transmit God's message to humans, while many of the Psalms articulate cries of people to God. Both types of writing are preserved in the Bible as part of God's message to mankind.

The New Testament stories and teachings were widely circulated among the early Christian churches. The letters of Paul to the Christians in several cities were likely the earliest writings now found in the New Testament. But many other letters and epistles were circulated as well. Gradually it became clear to the early churches which writings were truly inspired and which were spurious or simply edifying messages from pious authors.

It is truly amazing that all forty of these authors, spread out over 1600 years, have such a unified message in spite of their great diversity in language, culture, and time. There is a reason for that! The reason is that these forty or so writers are all secondary authors. There is actually only one primary author, the one who inspired all the human authors, the eternal God.":)

so then God did say stone rape victims then?

Squeedily Spooch · 25-10-2014 12:28AM

JC already confirmed that the rules don't apply for other religions, so as a non Christian I have zero to worry about with regards to being saved, yay!

25-10-2014 12:32AM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How many atheists, considering the topic, end up thinking creationism is a correct explanation ?

It weighs on our mind often enough.

After all we EXIST. And that takes some big ass explaining

But feeble flapping from JC isnt going to answer that for us.

J C · 25-10-2014 12:33AM

Gintonious wrote: »

And here we have it, the most delusional post so far I think.

More claims that you have answered the questions, when you haven't answered one.

More use of this "attacking", calling a creationist insane will happen when they present the "evidence" that they do, its laughable and fact-less. There is a reason as to why being a creation scientist is akin to being a vet for a unicorn. There is no evidence, never has been, and as it stands never will be. With each passing day the argument gets more and more laughable because it comes from the infancy of society and science.

There are eminent scientists on both sides of this debate ... and as far as I can see Dawinism is a 'dead duck' ... and Creation Science is making rapid strides.

Gintonious wrote: »

You are the sole poster in this thread derailing anything, Evolution is fact, like it or not, you have no qualifications to say otherwise, and saying you do have some sort of science degree but they refuse to tell us does not count.

M2M Spontaneous Evolution is impossible ... and I do have the qualifications to say that.

Gintonious wrote: »

You are a fraud, and spreading this type of poison, weather it be on the internet or out in public, is toxic to society and the advancement of our understanding of the world we live in.

Call the above statement offensive if you want, I don't care. But you are putting a bullseye on your chest with the garbage that you put on here, so you will have to live with that.

I have a well founded difference of scientific opinion with you ... nothing more or less.
I have repeatedly asked ye to tell us what spontaneous mechanism provided the CFSI for NS to act upon ... and I haven't got a satisfatory answer.
I have presented the basis for ID .. and again I haven't got any invalidating answers from ye to this either.
... just old guff about me being insane, a fraud, toxic, poisonous and any other word of derision that ye can get from a dictionary to name-call me and my ideas.

EoghanIRL · 25-10-2014 12:35AM

Jc, tell us the area of your qualification .

J C · 25-10-2014 12:36AM

floggg wrote: »

so then God did say stone rape victims then?

The author was recording the Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... just like He recorded the murder of Abel by Cain ... the Fall of Adam and Eve ... none of which He agreed with.

Squeedily Spooch · 25-10-2014 12:38AM

J C wrote: »

The author was recording the Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... just like He recorded the murder of Abel by Cain ... the Fall of Adam and Eve ... none of which He agreed with.

And Jesus cursing a fig tree? surely the creator of all the universe would know what seasons HE made the tree's bear fruit in?

Squeedily Spooch · 25-10-2014 12:39AM

J C wrote: »

There are eminent scientists on both sides of this debate ... and as far as I can see Dawinism is a 'dead duck' ... and Creation Science is making rapid strides.

M2M Spontaneous Evolution is impossible ... and I do have the qualifications to say that.

I have a well founded difference of scientific opinion with you ... nothing more or less.
I have repeatedly asked ye to tell us what spontaneous mechanism provided the CFSI for NS to act upon ... and I haven't got a satisfatory answer.
I have presented the basis for ID .. and again I haven't got any invalidating answers from ye to this either.
... just old guff about me being insane, a fraud, toxic, poisonous and any other word of derision that ye can get from a dictionary to name-call me and my ideas.

Not this nonsense again, you've been given an answer by at least a half dozen posters, and just won't accept any of them.

Creationism is making strides? lollll, where? Between Creation scientists?

J C · 25-10-2014 12:40AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It weighs on our mind often enough.

After all we EXIST. And that takes some big ass explaining

Good point.

Deleted User wrote: »

But feeble flapping from JC isnt going to answer that for us.

I'm sorry if I don't match your high expectations ... but all I can do is present the 'cutting edge' science on the matter at hand.

If that's not enough, I can only apologise.

housetypeb · 25-10-2014 12:40AM

J C wrote: »

The author was recording the Laws that the Israelites gave themselves ... just like He recorded the murder of Abel by Cain ... the Fall of Adam and Eve ... none of which He agreed with.

Authors,not author. Do you get anything right?

Darwin's theory

Comments