"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

Adam didn't behave like God asked him to ... so the blame rests fairly and squarely with Adam.

We're agreed then, Adam didn't work the way he was supposed to. It was a design flaw.

J C wrote: »

Adam was a free intelligent agent himself ... so the analogy with a gun isn't relevant.

By what measure was Adam either free or intelligent? Did he know about the Pythagoras theorum or heliocentricity? Did he know about the theory of evolution?

Furthermore, before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he would have had no moral code in which case he wouldn't have known that he was doing wrong when he disobeyed God.

The Mad Hatter

/\/ollog wrote: »

Specious reasoning.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/4000.htm
lol, some people...

There's a lot of specious reasoning in that link, yes. What does that have to do with your claim that because evolution is a fact, your attire keeps tigers away?

himnextdoor

/\/ollog wrote: »

I didn't say the bible was truth, did I?
Also, some things in the bible have been correlated to actual events like volcanic eruptions etc

Peter Pan spent some time in Kensington Gardens but the fact that Kensington Gardens exists does not prove that Peter Pan is a true story.

Nollog

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

There's a lot of specious reasoning in that link, yes. What does that have to do with your claim that because evolution is a fact, your attire keeps tigers away?

The link was unrelated to the words above it, which were answering your question.
I didn't say because, I said using your logic.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Peter Pan spent some time in Kensington Gardens but the fact that Kensington Gardens exists does not prove that Peter Pan is a true story.

I don't care.
Clearly I have to overstate myself again: I did not say I believe the bible, merely records in sediment, writing, and other historic records show a co-relation to some events in the bible.
In all likeliness, this is because the bible was written after the fact, so saying nothing in the bible is true, is false.

himnextdoor

/\/ollog wrote: »

I don't care.
Clearly I have to overstate myself again: I did not say I believe the bible, merely records in sediment, writing, and other historic records show a co-relation to some events in the bible.
In all likeliness, this is because the bible was written after the fact, so saying nothing in the bible is true, is false.

Oh! In that case, LOL.

robindch

/\/ollog wrote: »

I did not say I believe the bible, merely records in sediment, writing, and other historic records show a co-relation to some events in the bible.

Given the length of the bible and the sheer number of people writing, editing, compiling, choosing, censoring and otherwise changing it over so long a period, it would require divine intervention to make sure that nothing matched.

The Mad Hatter

/\/ollog wrote: »

The link was unrelated to the words above it, which were answering your question.
I didn't say because, I said using your logic.

No, you said "if…then", which implies cause. That said, I was deliberately ignoring the point you were trying to make because (a) you were making it very badly, (b) it's been done to death on this thread and its sister thread over the fence, and (c) it's not true.

J C

/\/ollog wrote: »

Funny how all the posts on the first page are atheists calling the author stupid. As expected of atheists.

Perhaps in this case the abuse came from Atheists ... but I can tell you that many nominal Christians have also engaged in this type of language in relation to Creationism in other fora as well.

/\/ollog wrote: »

Evolution is still just a theory.
True it's more likely than creationism, but it's still just a theory right now.

What do you mean 'its more likely than creationism'???

The hypothesis that all life was originally intelligently created has been mathematically proven ... and is the logical conclusion from the observed leavels of Complex Functional Specified Information present in all living cells.

The spontaneous production of CFSI is mathematically impossible ... and thus the 'Theory of Materialistic Evolution' isn't even a valid scientific theory ... it is just some unfounded wishful thinking on the part of assorted Materialists and their 'fellow travellers'.

J C

aridion wrote: »

Evolution has been proven through scientific method.

How/where has the spontaneous production of CFSI been scientifically proven???

aridion wrote: »

Not one single thing in the bible has been proven by any method.

Practically everything in the Bible has been independently (and scientifically) verified ... from the existence of Adam and Eve to Noah's worldwide Flood to the Direct Creation of life!!!

Delirium

J C wrote: »

How/where has the spontaneous production of CFSI been scientifically proven???

Practically everything in the Bible has been independently (and scientifically) verified ... from the existence of Adam and Eve to Noah's worldwide Flood to the Direct Creation of life!!!

Right so, link to where Noah's Ark and it containing two of all animals on Earth has been verified please.

Can I ask what reason the science world has to conceal from the world that the creationists idea of how humanity started is actually right, and then create evolution as a theory in order to fool everyone?

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

How/where has the spontaneous production of CFSI been scientifically proven???

The existence of "CFSI", or even a clear explanation of what it is, has yet to be shown, so you'll have to deal with that before anyone can go about showing how it comes about. Do you ever get tired of falling at the first hurdle?

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

We're agreed then, Adam didn't work the way he was supposed to. It was a design flaw.

God gave Adam free will ...
... so he could therefore do good ... or evil ...
... the fact that Adam chose to do evil isn't a design fault ... it is a will fault!!!!

himnextdoor wrote: »

By what measure was Adam either free or intelligent? Did he know about the Pythagoras theorum or heliocentricity? Did he know about the theory of evolution?

Adam probaly did know of the validity of Pythagoras theorum and heliocentricity ... and certainly knew the invalidity of Evolution ... as he had first-hand experience of Creation!!!!

himnextdoor wrote: »

Furthermore, before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he would have had no moral code in which case he wouldn't have known that he was doing wrong when he disobeyed God.

He was created a morally knowledgable and responsible being ... and he knowingly chose to disobey God and to join Satan's occult knowledge system of good and evil.

He wanted to 'be as God' ... just like his mentor, Satan also wanted to 'be as God' ... and their quests ended in disaster for both of them!!!

J C

koth wrote: »

Right so, link to where Noah's Ark and it containing two of all animals on Earth has been verified please.

The evidence for the flood catastrophe is to be found in the billions of dead things that are found in sedimentary rocks that were laid down by water all over the Earth!!!

koth wrote: »

Can I ask what reason the science world has to conceal from the world that the creationists idea of how humanity started is actually right, and then create evolution as a theory in order to fool everyone?

Science has no reason to do so ... but the assorted Materialists and their co-religionists that currently dominate science have every reason to invent a story about how life supposedly originated and developed that excludes God from the process.
Indeed, they have gone one better ... and they have excluded any consideration of evidence for supernatural intervention from science itself ... even if it is the only viable explanation ... and it can be methematically proven to have occurred!!!

Delirium

J C wrote: »

the evidence for the flood catastrophy is to be found in the billions of dead things that are found in sedimentary rocks that were laid down by water all over the Earth!!!

ok, so a flood happened, but thats long way from verifying that the Noahs ark story actually happened. I asked for links regarding the Ark and proof that it was built and that it housed to of every animal.

Science has no reason to do so ... but the assorted Materialists and their co-religionists that currently dominate science have every reason to invent a story about how life supposedly originated and developed that excludes God from the process. Indeed, they have gone one better ... and they have excluded any consideration of evidence for supernatural intervention from science itself ... even if it is the only viable explanation ... and it can be methematically proven to have occurred!!!

Nonsense. Scientists aren't to prove something and then say, 'actually I don't like Christians (or some other group), so lets suppress this data and make something up.'

J C

koth wrote: »

ok, so a flood happened, but thats long way from verifying that the Noahs ark story actually happened. I asked for links regarding the Ark and proof that it was built and that it housed to of every animal.

... a scientifically verified worldwide flood and mass extinction event occurred ... and from which there were only a few survivors from whom every Human is descended.

... how any life survived this catastrophe is anybody's guess, from a scientific point of view ...
... but we have accounts in many separate folk stories throughout the world, of a boat being used ... and The Word of God gives the definitive account of the Flood and and it's aftermath!!!

koth wrote: »

Nonsense. Scientists aren't to prove something and then say, 'actually I don't like Christians (or some other group), so lets suppress this data and make something up.'

Materialists dominate western science ... and they un-apologetically bring their faith position to the practice of science, up to and including an a priori requirement to not allow the scientific study of any evidence for supernatural action ... even when such evidence is overwhelming ... as in the 'origins question'!!!

Prof Richard Lewontin, PhD Zoology, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University confirmed this overwhelming commitment to Materialism to be the case within science, when he stated:-
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have an a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
"Billions and Billions of Demons"

In Biology as Ideology (1992) p.3 Prof Lewontin confirms that Evolutionists view the world through 'evolution coloured glasses':-
The problems that science deals with, the ideas that it uses in investigating those problems, even the so-called scientific results that come out of scientific investigation, are all deeply influenced by predispositions that derive from the society in which we live. Scientists do not begin life as scientists after all, but as social beings immersed in a family, a state, a productive structure, and they view nature through a lens that has been molded by their social experience.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

Oh! In that case, LOL.

Another one of you guys???

The Mad Hatter

koth wrote: »

ok, so a flood happened, but thats long way from verifying that the Noahs ark story actually happened. I asked for links regarding the Ark and proof that it was built and that it housed to of every animal.

I feel obliged to point out here that J C is asserting that the existence of fossils is evidence of the flood.

aridion

JC. Are you for real? I am surprised at how un informed and obtuse your argument is.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I feel obliged to point out here that J C is asserting that the existence of fossils is evidence of the flood.

... the existence of fossils (often perfectly preserved ones, including soft tissue that would decompose within hours/days) in sedimetary rocks is indeed evidence of a catastrophic (and sudden) inundation by water-borne sediment ...
... and, as its extent is worldwide ... it is indeed very strong evidence for the worldwide flood disaster AKA Noah's Flood!!!

J C

aridion wrote: »

JC. Are you for real? I am surprised at how un informed and obtuse your argument is.

... such as???

aridion

Have you ever heard of Plate tectonics, Ice age?

J C

aridion wrote: »

Have you ever heard of Plate tectonics, Ice age?

Yes ... there was an 'Ice Age' in the 'dust winter' conditions that immediately followed the Flood in the higher latitudes ... and plate tectonics cause earthquakes, volcanoes ... and other seismic events!!!

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... the existence of fossils (often perfectly preserved ones, including soft tissue that would decompose within hours/days) preserved in sedimetary rocks is indeed evidence of a catastrophic inundation by water-borne sediment ...
... and, as its extent is worldwide ... it is indeed very strong evidence for the worldwide flood disaster AKA Noah's Flood!!!

So why were there no mammoths or sabre-toothed tigers or even t-rexes on the ark?

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

So why were there no mammoths or sabre-toothed tigers or even t-rexes on the ark?

There were one pair of each Kind ... so there were a pair of Big Cats, a pair of Elephant-mammoths ... and possibly two juvenile T-Rexes!!!

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... a scientifically verified worldwide flood and mass extinction event occurred ... and from which there were only a few survivors from whom every Human is descended.

... how any life survived this catastrophe is anybody's guess, from a scientific point of view ...
... but we have accounts in many separate folk stories throughout the world, of a boat being used ... and The Word of God gives the definitive account of the Flood and and it's aftermath!!!

Then why have no remains of this super-boat used by Noah been found.

I would put it to you that a global flood could be, and most likely was, the result of a global ice-age and the resulting thaw.

Materialists dominate western science ... and they un-apologetically bring their faith position to the practice of science, up to and including an a priori requirement to not allow the scientific study of any evidence for supernatural action ... even when such evidence is overwhelming ... as in the 'origins question'!!!

Prof Richard Lewontin, PhD Zoology, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University confirmed this overwhelming commitment to Materialism to be the case within science, when he stated:-
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have an a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
"Billions and Billions of Demons"

In Biology as Ideology (1992) p.3 Prof Lewontin confirms that Evolutionists view the world through 'evolution coloured glasses':-
The problems that science deals with, the ideas that it uses in investigating those problems, even the so-called scientific results that come out of scientific investigation, are all deeply influenced by predispositions that derive from the society in which we live. Scientists do not begin life as scientists after all, but as social beings immersed in a family, a state, a productive structure, and they view nature through a lens that has been molded by their social experience.

Ok, first off, JC, please do yourself a favour and actually read the context of quotes/articles you post.

Your quote from Billions and Billions of Demons is so often take out of context that a web page exists to give the actual quote as well as the intended meaning.

Full quote

"With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

and some comments about the quote:

Answers in Genesis makes it appear as if by "patent absurdity", Lewontin means evolution, when he is really talking about astronomy.

Gitt makes it appear as if Lewontin thinks that materialism cannot be justified and is a personal decision. But in reality Lewontin gives a reason just after creationists stop quoting him.

Also, many scientists will disagree with him in the detail creationists are emphasizing, and say that methodological naturalism is a necessary component of science, giving exactly the reason Lewontin gave.

Taken from here

So the quote actually goes some way to saying that if something is too complex/unusual for the average person to understand, they will quite often dismiss it.

Anyways, the quotes you gave do nothing to back up your global conspiracy of the suppression of scientific data that backs up creationism. Also, what about all the scientists of the variety of religious beliefs, why would they suppress the information?

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

Materialists dominate western science ... and they un-apologetically bring their faith position to the practice of science, up to and including an a priori requirement to not allow the scientific study of any evidence for supernatural action ... even when such evidence is overwhelming ... as in the 'origins question'!!!

Except for the fact you are crow-barring a supernatural being into your argument, doesn't this exactly describe what you are doing?

J C wrote: »

Prof Richard Lewontin, PhD Zoology, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University confirmed this overwhelming commitment to Materialism to be the case within science, when he stated:-
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have an a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
"Billions and Billions of Demons"

In Biology as Ideology (1992) p.3 Prof Lewontin confirms that Evolutionists view the world through 'evolution coloured glasses':-
The problems that science deals with, the ideas that it uses in investigating those problems, even the so-called scientific results that come out of scientific investigation, are all deeply influenced by predispositions that derive from the society in which we live. Scientists do not begin life as scientists after all, but as social beings immersed in a family, a state, a productive structure, and they view nature through a lens that has been molded by their social experience.

Is Intelligent Design science?

Nollog

J C wrote: »

What do you mean 'its more likely than creationism'??

I mean creationism in that God woke up one day and said "I'll make a thing in the image of me".
It's more likely that humans evolved from apes than that.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

No, you said "if…then", which implies cause. That said, I was deliberately ignoring the point you were trying to make because (a) you were making it very badly, (b) it's been done to death on this thread and its sister thread over the fence, and (c) it's not true.

You're not good at reading in between lines.
True I didn't say it in text, but I thought the tone of the post was enough to convey the message.

robindch

himnextdoor wrote: »

So why were there no mammoths or sabre-toothed tigers or even t-rexes on the ark?

Ah, there were, but they all started eating flesh because they were contaminated by sin after the fall or something like that, so they died. Or maybe they died beforehand and got buried by the eight vertical miles of water that appeared over 40 days. Who knows? Who cares?

Actually, if you take the time to read (diploma-mill doctor) Ken Ham -- a bit like repeatedly sticking rusty forks into your eyeballs -- you'll learn that the bible did mention dinosaurs plenty of times, but only if you first to a search and replace for "dragon" with "dinosaur":

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible

Creationism can be truly creative sometimes.

Delirium

By the way, JC, Lewontin is an evolutionary biologist who thinks that some of the theory needs refiining. He doesn't reject the theory.

The Mad Hatter

/\/ollog wrote: »

You're not good at reading in between lines.
True I didn't say it in text, but I thought the tone of the post was enough to convey the message.

I understood perfectly well what you meant, but wasn't bothered responding to you because of (a), (b) and (c) above.

Your assertion that "evolution is still just a theory" is neither new nor correct. Evolution happens. It's been shown to happen, and it's happening right now. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains how and why it happens, but the fact that it's happening is not even remotely in question. Theory here means framework for understanding, like legal theory or music theory or linguistic theory; it does not mean proposed explanation.

If you're not aware that evolution is a fact, then you need to read up more on science. If you're not aware of the meaning of the word theory, then you need a good dictionary too.

The suggestion that that somehow equates to superstitious belief (I wear a hoodie and jeans and there are no tigers, therefore my hoodie and jeans keep tigers away) is so absurd that it doesn't warrant a serious response, and that is why I didn't give it one.