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

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…122123125127128…334

Comments

  • Options
    #3722
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Then why have no remains of this super-boat used by Noah been found.
    This question is answered here:-
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/where-is-noahs-ark
    koth wrote: »
    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.
    Creation Scientists believe that the opposite is what happened ... the dust raised by the tectonic events that caused the Flood created the 'dust winter' conditions that led to the 'Ice Age'.

    koth wrote: »
    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.



    and some comments about the quote:



    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.
    Prof Lewontin confirms the absolute commitment of the Materialists and their 'fellow travellers' who dominate science, to materialistic explanations for all phenomena ... including the 'origins question'. This finds expression in the suppression of Creation Science, Intelligent Design and the 'wall to wall' promotion of just-so evolution and 'millions of years' stories that dominate Evolutionist thinking.
    koth wrote: »
    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?
    ... these are the 'fellow travellers' of Materialism ... who profess faith in God ... but deny His power to Create !!!


  • Options
    #3723
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    Prof Lewontin confirms the absolute commitment of the Materialists and their 'fellow travellers' who dominate science, to materialistic explanations for all phenomena ... including the 'origins question'. This finds expression in the suppression of Creation Science, Intelligent Design and the 'wall to wall' promotion of just-so evolution and 'millions of years' stories that dominate Evolutionist thinking.
    That's so full of (diploma-mill-doctor) Ken's cliches, that I think you should go offer your services to him as a copywriter.

    You could call yourself a "creation scientist" too and I'm sure nobody would mind, even if they noticed!


  • Options
    #3724
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    By the way, JC, Lewontin is an evolutionary biologist who thinks that some of the theory needs refiining. He doesn't reject the theory.
    I know he is ... but that makes his statement that modern science's Materialism is so absolute that it cannot 'allow a Divine Foot in the door' an important admission of what I claim.


  • Options
    #3725
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    ... 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!!!

    Or strong evidence of a great tsunami caused by a meteor impact on water?

    Which would explain why whale skeletons were found in Michigan.


  • Options
    #3726
    aridion
    Registered Users Posts: 142 ✭✭aridion


    So every living thing (apart from Noah and the pairs of animals) at this time was drowned by the hand of God?. Noah was saved as he was seen as pure. A bit like Nazi Germany. Genocide? God, what a guy!
    The people believing and worshipping this stuff must be not only dilusional, but also demented.

    At least Science tries to find the answers.
    Creationism does not have any proof whatsoever and hinders peoples ability to see the the wonderful plethora that is life through observing, experimenting and realising.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3727
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,778 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    This question is answered here:-
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/where-is-noahs-ark
    No it's not. It's an article that speculates as to the location of the Ark.
    Creation Scientists believe that the opposite is what happened ... the dust raised by the tectonic events that caused the Flood created the 'dust winter' conditions that led to the 'Ice Age'.
    so, the bible is wrong then? as it states that it was rain for forty days and nights that caused the flooding.
    Prof Lewontin confirms the absolute commitment of the Materialists and their 'fellow travellers' who dominate science, to materialistic explanations for all phenomena ... including the 'origins question'. This finds expression in the suppression of Creation Science, Intelligent Design and the 'wall to wall' promotion of just-so evolution and 'millions of years' stories that dominate Evolutionist thinking.
    Creation "Science" is just a re-brand of the creation story from the bible, so I wouldn't hold it a scientist that they actually explore the natural world and attempt to work out the history of life on Earth.
    ... these are the 'fellow travellers' of Materialism ... who profess faith in God ... but deny His power to Create !!!
    so no proof then, just your self made conspiracy which fits nicely with your anti-evolution stance.

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



  • Options
    #3728
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    robindch wrote: »
    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.

    Thanks for that. :)

    If you do a search and replace for 'God' with 'Satan' the bible makes much more sense; Satan's kill-rate is higher than God's; the murder, jealousy, wrath and breaking of covenants is what you'd expect from Satan and also, the way the universe operates, its violence, destruction, chaos seems more in keeping with the characteristics of Satan.

    I can't help thinking that religionists who revere the Bible, that's over half the population of the world, are batting for the wrong side.


  • Options
    #3729
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    /\/ollog wrote: »
    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.
    Like I have already said, the spontaneous production of CFSI is mathematically impossible ... and thus the 'Theory of Materialistic Evolution' (including Apes to Men) isn't even a valid scientific theory ... it is just some unfounded wishful thinking on the part of assorted Materialists and their 'fellow travellers'.


  • Options
    #3730
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,778 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Like I have already said, the spontaneous production of CFSI is mathematically impossible ... and thus the 'Theory of Materialistic Evolution' (including Apes to Men) isn't even a valid scientific theory ... it is just some unfounded wishful thinking on the part of assorted Materialists and their 'fellow travellers'.

    and yet you've been posting articles that show how neanderthals and modern man share a common ancestor, just as evolution says they do.

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



  • Options
    #3731
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    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'!!!

    himnextdoor
    Except for the fact you are crow-barring a supernatural being into your argument, doesn't this exactly describe what you are doing?
    I believe that we should follow the evidence ... wherever it leads ... Materialists exclude even the consideration of evidence for supernatural activity ... even when it is the most logical explanation!!

    Creation Scientists scientifcially evaluate both Materialistic and Supernatural explanations.


    wrote:
    himnextdoor
    Is Intelligent Design science?
    Yes ... it's at the cutting edge of Molecular Biology ... and origins research!!!
    The Evolutionists are literally stuck in the mud ... when it come to any coherent 'origins' explanation!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3732
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    and yet you've been posting articles that show how neanderthals and modern man share a common ancestor, just as evolution says they do.
    Neanderthal types and all other Human types do indeed have a Common Ancestor ... and we even know his name ...
    He was Adam!!!


  • Options
    #3733
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,778 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Neanderthal types and all other Human types do indeed have a Common Ancestor ... and we even know his name ...
    He was Adam!!!

    Was he a Homo Ergaster, or we going further back to apes?

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



  • Options
    #3734
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Or strong evidence of a great tsunami caused by a meteor impact on water?

    Which would explain why whale skeletons were found in Michigan.
    You're getting there ... slowly ... whatever the trigger was ... the Flood was worldwide and devastating!!!

    ... and the hundreds of metres of sedimentary rock layers don't represent 'millions of years' of gradual deposition ... but they are the obvious result of the rapid deposition of water-sorted materials.


  • Options
    #3735
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Was he a Homo Ergaster, or we going further back to apes?
    He was Homo sapiens sapiens edenensi ... just like I am Homo sapiens sapiens dublinensi !!!!:):p


  • Options
    #3736
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,778 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    He was Homo sapiens sapiens edenensi ... just like I am Homo sapiens sapiens dublinensi !!!!:):p

    ah right, didn't realise we were dispensing with science altogether:P

    So, the timeline according to JC is as follows:

    Homo Sapiens always existed, and the mutation that created neanderthals, well we'll just ignore that. along with the ancestors of homo sapiens and pretty much all science.

    Lucky for us someone remembered to bring their trusty bible for this tricky situation, otherwise those scientists would have punk'd us good.

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



  • Options
    #3737
    aridion
    Registered Users Posts: 142 ✭✭aridion


    JC
    Where did the water come from to flood the entire earth? Where did the water go? How did fish survive with fresh and salt water mixing? How did animals from distant parts of the earth walk to the Middle East? How did they return to South America and Australia and every island in every ocean afterwards? How did the few thousand animals possibly on the ark multiply and evolve into the millions of species we see today in just a few thousand years? How did Noah carry all that food? Dispose of hundreds of tons of **** every day? How could a boat made entirely of wood be so much larger than any wooden ship could ever be without collapsing under its own weight?


  • Options
    #3738
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    ah right, didn't realise we were dispensing with science altogether:P

    So, the timeline according to JC is as follows:

    Homo Sapiens always existed, and the mutation that created neanderthals, well we'll just ignore that. along with the ancestors of homo sapiens and pretty much all science.

    Lucky for us someone remembered to bring their trusty bible for this tricky situation, otherwise those scientists would have punk'd us good.
    Humans have always been Humans ... and Apes have been Apes ... and pigs have always been pigs ... except in the imaginations of some Evolutionists:-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man
    :D

    ... and sometimes they are just hoaxes:-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor


  • Options
    #3739
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,778 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Humans have always been Humans ... and Apes have been Apes ... and pigs have always been pigs ... except in the imaginations of some Evolutionists:-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man
    :D

    that doesn't explain neanderthals though. which you have accepted as existing.

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



  • Options
    #3740
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    aridion wrote: »
    JC
    Where did the water come from to flood the entire earth?
    It came from the collapse of the earths surface and the release of vast quantities of sub-terranean waters. Please remember that if the surface of the Earth was smooth with no mountains or ocean troughs, there is enough seawater today to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles).
    aridion wrote: »
    Where did the water go? How did fish survive with fresh and salt water mixing?
    The waters flowed back into the worlds oceans as the lands were pushed up and other lands collapsed down in the enormous tectonic events that were a feature of the Flood.
    Many fish, like Salmon, cope quite happily with both salt and fresh water now ... and that is what happened then ... with a little bit of Natural Selection as well!!!

    aridion wrote: »
    How did animals from distant parts of the earth walk to the Middle East? How did they return to South America and Australia and every island in every ocean afterwards?
    There were land bridges to all of the continents because there was so much water locked up in the Ice Age glaciers.
    It is thought that many animals arrived on islands on floating mats of vegetation as well as by Human introductions.

    aridion wrote: »
    How did the few thousand animals possibly on the ark multiply and evolve into the millions of species we see today in just a few thousand years?
    Speciation and reproduction.

    aridion wrote: »
    How did Noah carry all that food? Dispose of hundreds of tons of **** every day? How could a boat made entirely of wood be so much larger than any wooden ship could ever be without collapsing under its own weight?
    The Ark was equivalent to the volume of 522 standard railway stock wagons, each of which can hold 250 sheep i.e. over 130,000 ‘sheep spaces’ so to speak. The Ark was a truly massive vessel, unmatched in size by modern shipping until the building of The Great Eastern Liner by Isambard Kingdom Brunel in 1858.
    Here is a feasibility study:-
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark

    ... and here is a 50% scale moderrn replica of the Ark:-
    http://www.squidoo.com/noahsarkreplica

    arkAP_468x300.jpg


  • Options
    #3741
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    that doesn't explain neanderthals though. which you have accepted as existing.
    Neanderthals were a sub-type of Human ... just like fair-haired people are a sub-type!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3742
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,778 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Neanderthals were a sub-type of Human ... just like fair-haired people are a sub-type!!!

    homo sapiens and neanderthals are two different species, so how do you explain that?

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



  • Options
    #3743
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    homo sapiens and neanderthals are two different species, so how do you explain that?
    They are not two different species ... the Neanderthals were simply a fully Human sub-type!!!


  • Options
    #3744
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    You're getting there ... slowly ... whatever the trigger was ... the Flood was worldwide and devastating!!!

    ... and the hundreds of metres of sedimentary rock layers don't represent 'millions of years' of gradual deposition ... but they are the obvious result of the rapid deposition of water-sorted materials.

    The 'trigger' is relevant though and a meteor impact doesn't require a supernatural explanation.


  • Options
    #3745
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    The 'trigger' is relevant though and a meteor impact doesn't require a supernatural explanation.
    You are correct ... but God has taken responsibility for the Flood in Gen 6-8.
    This is, of course, a matter of faith ... but a well-founded faith!!!


  • Options
    #3746
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,778 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    They are not two different species ... the Neanderthals were simply a fully Human sub-type!!!

    Just because you think it, doesn't make it true.

    If they're the same species, why do we have two labels, homo sapiens (modern human) and homo neanderthalensis? The sub-set that interbred was called homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

    But sadly this information comes from the scientific community, who are (according to you) in the habit of just making stuff up.

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



  • Options
    #3747
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Just because you think it, doesn't make it true.
    True ... but that also applies to the imaginings of Evolutionists
    koth wrote: »
    If they're the same species, why do we have two labels, homo sapiens (modern human) and homo neanderthalensis? The sub-set that interbred was called homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

    But sadly this information comes from the scientific community, who are (according to you) in the habit of just making stuff up.
    They interbred with each other ... to produce fully fertile offspring ... they were therefore the one species (Homo sapiens sapiens) ... but different sub-types!!!
    koth wrote: »
    But sadly this information comes from the scientific community, who are (according to you) in the habit of just making stuff up.
    If the cap fits ... and all that!!!!:)


  • Options
    #3748
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    /\/ollog wrote: »
    Funny how all the posts on the first page are atheists calling the author stupid. As expected of atheists.

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

    I'd actually forgotten there was a first page to thread.:o
    I fully agree evolution is just a theory, but I really think you ought to read some of this author's arguments against evolution. As far as creationists go, his arguments are on the ultra idiot scale. Seriously, watch his youtube videos.


  • Options
    #3749
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    You are correct ... but God has taken responsibility for the Flood in Gen 6-8.
    This is, of course, a matter of faith ... but a well-founded faith!!!

    Isn't it fairer to say that Moses attributed a flood to God?


  • Options
    #3750
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,778 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    True ... but that also applies to the imaginings of Evolutionists
    when evolution was first proposed to the scientific world, why didn't the community reject it/ suppress the theory, like you say the science community is currently doing with data that proves creationism?

    They interbred with each other ... to produce fully fertile offspring ... they were therefore the one species (Homo sapiens sapiens) ... but different sub-types!!!
    And what about homo ergaster, erectus, neanderthalus? you want to continue to ignore them?

    you realise that your sub-type argument doesn't hold up as it still means that some time they were separate species. Otherwise why would the single species mutate into sub-types? Something has to be introduced to cause the variation.

    If the cap fits ... and all that!!!!:)

    it doesn't, it's just a nice story you tell yourself to reassure yourself that what you believe is right.

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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3751
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    when evolution was first proposed to the scientific world, why didn't the community reject it/ suppress the theory, like you say the science community is currently doing with data that proves creationism?
    There actually was a great deal of rejection and suppression in reaction to Darwinism, mostly from the Mainstream Churches ... and indeed the mainstream science of the time. There was even legislation introduced to ban the teaching of Human Evolution in schools such as the Butler Act under which John Scopes was convicted
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Act

    Two wrongs don't make a right ... and the current suppression of ID is just as reprehensible as the suppression of Evolution in the 19th Century!!!
    It seems that Human Nature pushes those in power to defend their views and suppress the opposite viewpoint.
    Why can't we all live and let live ... and share our knowledge with each other ... without rancour?
    ... that way we can all learn something from each other!!!
    koth wrote: »
    And what about homo ergaster, erectus, neanderthalus? you want to continue to ignore them?

    Ergaster seems to be a mixed classification including a wide range of specimens ... here is what Archaeology.com has to say about Ergaster:-
    "Homo ergaster is one of the more problematic of somewhat accepted species designations currently tossed around in anthropological literature. Each individual researcher that sees ergaster as a valid taxon sees different specimens as belonging or not belonging to the taxon. Many researchers deny any validity to the species at all."
    http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoergaster.htm


    ... and here is what AIG has to say about Erectus:-
    "In evolutionary circles it is becoming increasingly common to argue that although H. erectus forms are still on the 'road' from ape to human, the morphological distinctions between all human-type forms are insufficient to justify a separate species classification for erectus - that is, that all post-habiline forms (erectus, archaic and modern sapiens plus the Neanderthals), could be subsumed into a single species -H. sapiens, with a subspecific distinction at most."
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp

    koth wrote: »
    You realise that your sub-type argument doesn't hold up as it still means that some time they were separate species. Otherwise why would the single species mutate into sub-types? Something has to be introduced to cause the variation.
    All Kinds had this genetic diversity when they were Created ... just look at the Dog Kind ... and see the variety that was in this Kind before different breeds/types were produced by inbreeding specific types ... thereby eliminating the genetic diversity in the founder dogs of each breed/type!!!

    koth wrote: »
    it doesn't, it's just a nice story you tell yourself to reassure yourself that what you believe is right.
    All Humans are fallen and therefore capable of self-delusion or even outright fraud ... and the best antidote to this is the free exchange of ideas ... and their robust challenge with any evidence that denies them!!!
    This thread is a good example of this in action!!!

    It should also ideally be done with mutual respect and good manners ...
    ... and this thread is a bad example of this in action!!!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement