"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

We have a difference of opinion and interpretation of the facts ... which is actually quite common across all areas of science ... and causes no difficulties when it doesn't touch on the 'origins question'.
That is how science actually makes progress ... otherwise we would all still be geo-centreists and using leeches as the panacea for all illnesses!!!

There should be no need for scientists (on either side) to feel threatened by the others conclusion ... Creation Scientists openly acknowledge the contribution made by Evolutionists to all areas of science ... and all we ask, in turn, is for a similar courtesy to be extended to us.

The 'Information Age' in life sciences is about to dawn ... and once it does the perceptions of society will change dramatically and irrevocably!!!
I would encourage Evolutionists to seize the moment and accept that life is powered by Intelligently Designed Complex Functional Specified Information. Whether that information arose spontaneously ... or was produced by an intelligence or intelligences unknown is another issue that may be debated ... in a respectful manner by both sides.

According to you, science has over-estimated the age of the universe by a factor of two-million or so. That means that the average speed of light would have a value of 2 x 10^6 c or 6 x 10^14 m/s. This number represents the speed of light just over three-thousand years ago if we assume a constant rate of deceleration (otherwise the numbers just get silly). This means that the speed of light is decreasing at a phenomenal rate; light was thirty times faster one-hundred years ago than it is today.

Isn't this a problem for creationists; by the year 2014, the speed of light would be approaching zero m/s? How will we see in four-year's time?

To me this is crucial; are you suggesting that science is keeping this knowledge out of the public domain?

It seems to me that going to Specsavers might be rather pointless. And Optilase...

Delirium

I find it very amusing that JC is taking offense about things said about creationists when he has repeatedly said that the global scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress evidence proving the creation myth.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

You are using the same technique as totalitarian regimes down the years ... declaring anybody who disagrees with you to be insane ... so if the cap fits ... as it does in your case, you may wear it!!!!

JC, you have to see my point of view. Here are a few points.

• We have a person that repeatedly makes assertions, despite being shown that these assertions are, at best, incorrect.
• We have a person that continually, after being corrected for yearsargues against positions that his opponents don’t hold.
• We have a person that repeatedly fails to answer specific points and questions that are addressed to him.
• We have a person that ignores the opinion of tens of thousands of scientists, thousands of experiments and petabytes of data and papers, simply because they don’t agree with a book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of superstitious and, by today’s standards, ignorant goat herders.
• We have a person that displays extreme paranoia and sees worldwide conspiracies everywhere.

So we have these points, and I am sure there is more. Then added to this we have the person seemingly believing that he has “won” the debate. This delusion of the highest order. And as you say yourself, if the cap fits…

J C wrote: »

... and it wasn't just the Communists who engaged in this disreputable activity ... the Nazis were also very quick to diagnose mental illness / deficiency in their opponents as well !!!

JC, just because the nazis did something does not mean that thing should not be done. And to clarify, I do not mean we should falsely diagnose people because they merely disagree with us, but that we should still diagnose actual mental illness where it exists. The nazis also breathed air, should we stop doing that as well? Because it is a process that was abused in the past doe not mean it can’t be valid. If a person is showing extreme delusions then it is perfectly valid to point that out. It has nothing to do with what the delusions are about and it has even less to do with whether the opinion or substance of the delusion agrees with me or not.

To be honest, the biggest delusion you seem to have is that you have somehow won.

J C wrote: »

It's the lowest form of debating and the ultimate form of ad hominim attack ... and you are bringing great discredit on Atheists and Atheism by openly expressing such unfounded hatred against me and my Christian Faith.

I am a single atheist and the only thing I am guaranteed to hold in common with other is my lack of belief in gods. I expect we have other things in common, but my opinions on you and your mental faculties reflect on atheism as much as they reflect on people that wear glasses (I also wear glasses by the way.)

I always think hate is a bad word. I seriously dislike your particular faith, but I don’t hate it. I think it is ridiculous and worthy only of scorn, contempt and ridicule. That said, it serves a purpose. Extremes of a position, particularly when they are patently ridiculous, like yours, serve as a mechanism to make people look closer at a subject. So in that respect I think that you and your ilk actually damage chrisianity, and I like that.

I don’t hate you, I pity you. Your world is a horrible paranoid and scary place. Your world view is twisted and horrible and is based on a belief that you are effectively worthless. Awful.

J C wrote: »

Live and let live, I say!!!

I generally am a fairly easy going guy. And whilst I think you belief has a use, as I pointed out above, it is also damaging to society in other ways. If you and your other YEC drones were able to live and let live then I might be more inclined to do so, but you can’t. You insist on trying to poison society with your idiotic beliefs. You try to insist that “creation science” be taught with actual science. You don’t live and let live, why should we?

MrP

POINTBREAK

himnextdoor wrote: »

According to you, science has over-estimated the age of the universe by a factor of two-million or so. That means that the average speed of light would have a value of 2 x 10^6 c or 6 x 10^14 m/s. This number represents the speed of light just over three-thousand years ago if we assume a constant rate of deceleration (otherwise the numbers just get silly). This means that the speed of light is decreasing at a phenomenal rate; light was thirty times faster one-hundred years ago than it is today.

Isn't this a problem for creationists; by the year 2014, the speed of light would be approaching zero m/s? How will we see in four-year's time?

To me this is crucial; are you suggesting that science is keeping this knowledge out of the public domain?

It seems to me that going to Specsavers might be rather pointless. And Optilase...

"Barry Setterfield was the first to introduce the idea of c decay with any kind of testable evidence. Setterfield took 41 measurements taken of the speed of light since 1675 and plotted them on a curve, not on a straight line. He surmised that the point at which the curve reached infinity must have been the creation point of the universe. Not surprisingly, it turned out to be around 4040B.C. Similarly unsurprising is the fact that Setterfield has no relevent science degree (like an physics, astronomy or astrophysics degree), or he'd be able to grasp the immense implications of a c that started out as infinite and exponentially decayed.

However, Setterfied's credibility is shattered when he made the claim that c had reached its minimum value around the year 1960 and would decay no further, just around the time we began to develop much more accurate and precise instruments for measurement. Coincidence? He automatically assumes that data taken from 300 years ago on the speed of light wll be just as valid as data taken in 1960! He doesn't even think of attributing the discrepancies in value to human error or imprecise and inaccurate measuring instruments. Furthermore, he gives no mechanism for this decay, nor does he give a reason that it stopped just around the time technology became advanced enough to measure the speed of light to consistent, precise results. Nor did he submit his article to any scientific journal (probably because he knew that real scientists would dismiss it as the garbage it was). He just wrote a book, which creationists today still herald forth as some of the best evidence of their opinions."

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

You don’t live and let live, why should we?

+1

To which I can only add that the general creationist mantra that all atheists are moral degenerates is considerably more offensive than my very limited contention that the leaders of the creationist movement are ethical and intellectual thugs.

POINTBREAK

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
... and it wasn't just the Communists who engaged in this disreputable activity ... the Nazis were also very quick to diagnose mental illness / deficiency in their opponents as well !!!
-

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

J C

robindch wrote: »

Well, I was at a "lecture" given by (diploma-mill-doctor) Ham who explained that belief in evolution was directly responsible for people wanting to abort babies. He also claimed that atheists are incapable of knowing right from wrong. Heaven only knows what he says when I don't happen to be in the room and that's just a guy who's at the moderate end of the creationist spectrum. There are plenty more and they all produce the same scripted junk.

... the rise in the belief in Evolution over the past hundred and fifty years has certainly coincided with an explosion in the legalisation of procured abortion worldwide. So are they directly linked ?
Could I ask the Evolutionists on this thread if any of them doesn't support the availablity of procured abortion ?

robindch wrote: »

(a) it is not "unfounded" since it is based on first-hand experience over many years, in many places and with many people; That's what bigots always say ... and given the fact that Creationists don't generally identify themselves as Creationists to Evolutionists your experience of meeting Creationists has to be very limited indeed

(b) they are not "generalizations", they are reality; They are generalisations about an entire group of people as defined by their beliefs ... which is a classic definition of religious intolerance!!!

(c) if the leaders of the creationist movement were honorable, or wanted to be thought of as such, they would not spread offensive falsehoods
They don't spread falsehoods ... and, in general they speak with love ... and they try to not gratuitously offend anybody..

(d) I'm not talking about religion, but about creationism and (e) it is only bigotry if it is false and directed at a large group of individuals;
Bigotry is bigotry irrespective of the size of the group that is vilified ... indeed it is all the more serious when the group is small and therefore less able to defend themselves.

I am specifically talking about the ethical and intellectual standards of the tiny handful of individuals who manage the creationist movement and specifically not the uninformed or naive who follow them
The Creation Science movement is made up of people who are neither uninformed or naive ... and it is made up of people of the highest ethical and intellectual standard

(f) in the case of what leading creationists put about for financial or social gain, I'm afraid that straight talk most certainly does have a place in society
Straight talk is fine, critical evaluation of ideas is acceptable ... but unfounded attacks and generalisations in relation to the personal integrity of any religious group is just old-fashioned bigotry!!!

.

J C

J C wrote: »

... the rise in the belief in Evolution over the past hundred and fifty years has certainly coincided with an explosion in the legalisation of procured abortion worldwide. So are they directly linked ?

I'd doubt they're directly linked...

J C

POINTBREAK wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
... and it wasn't just the Communists who engaged in this disreputable activity ... the Nazis were also very quick to diagnose mental illness / deficiency in their opponents as well !!!
-

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Everyone who claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian ... Hitler spent his time persecuting God's people of both the Christian and Jewish varieties.

Sarky

The rise in skin cancer cases every year correlates pretty well with increased sales of sun block. Ergo, sun block causes cancer. TAKE THAT SCIENCE.

J C

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'd doubt they're directly linked...

So do any of the Evolutionists on this thread not support the availablity of procured abortion ?

J C

robindch wrote: »

+1

To which I can only add that the general creationist mantra that all atheists are moral degenerates is considerably more offensive than my very limited contention that the leaders of the creationist movement are ethical and intellectual thugs.

I don't think that Atheists are moral degenerates ... all of the Atheists that I know are honourable people.
I disagree with many of their views ... but I don't make unfounded attacks on their personal integrity.

J C

koth wrote: »

I find it very amusing that JC is taking offense about things said about creationists when he has repeatedly said that the global scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress evidence proving the creation myth.

I have never said that there is a conspiracy out there ... and the 'global scientific community' includes thousands of conventionally qualified Creation Scientists within it's ranks.
I have said that there is open hostility towards Creationists and Creation Science out there ... and this thread amply demonstrates that this is a fact!!!

liamw

J C wrote: »

... the rise in the belief in Evolution over the past hundred and fifty years has certainly coincided with an explosion in the legalisation of procured abortion worldwide.

Logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

JC, you have to see my point of view. Here are a few points.

• We have a person that repeatedly makes assertions, despite being shown that these assertions are, at best, incorrect.
  Where has this been done?
• We have a person that continually, after being corrected for yearsargues against positions that his opponents don’t hold.
  I would not accept that I have been 'corrected' ... and arguing against positions that my opponents hold is normal legitimate debate
• We have a person that repeatedly fails to answer specific points and questions that are addressed to him.
  I have done my best to answer all questions put to me ... but there is only one of me ... and hundreds of ye!!!
• We have a person that ignores the opinion of tens of thousands of scientists, thousands of experiments and petabytes of data and papers, simply because they don’t agree with a book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of superstitious and, by today’s standards, ignorant goat herders.
  There are many fundamental issues in relation to the scientific validity of Materialistic Evolution ... for example, the spontaneous production of CFSI has never been observed ... and it is a mathematical impossibility ... due to the very limited number of specific functional biomolecules ... and the effectively infinite number of non-functional ones.
  As for the 'goat herders' allegation ... the people of those times built the pyramids of Egypt, for example, with a precision that would seriously challenge, and would probably defeat modern construction engineers!!
  
• We have a person that displays extreme paranoia and sees worldwide conspiracies everywhere.
  I display no paranoia ... I don't see conspiracies 'everywhere' ... but I do see objectively verifiable, open hostility towards Creationism on this thread and elsewhere!!!

So we have these points, and I am sure there is more. Then added to this we have the person seemingly believing that he has “won” the debate. This delusion of the highest order. And as you say yourself, if the cap fits…
I have objectively won the debate ... but the reason isn't my brilliance ... it simply is because I have reality on my side ... and the first reality check is that genetic information is complex, functional and specified ... and this type of information is always observed to have an intelligent source ... and no alternative mechanism has ever been proposed, to say nothing of being proven to exist!!!

JC, just because the nazis did something does not mean that thing should not be done. And to clarify, I do not mean we should falsely diagnose people because they merely disagree with us, but that we should still diagnose actual mental illness where it exists.
I am objectively sane and rational ... and you have falsely accused me of being insane ... so you are behaving precisely like totalitarian regimes have towards their (totally sane) opponents!!!


I am a single atheist and the only thing I am guaranteed to hold in common with other is my lack of belief in gods. I expect we have other things in common, but my opinions on you and your mental faculties reflect on atheism as much as they reflect on people that wear glasses (I also wear glasses by the way.)
The fact is that none of the atheists on this thread have dissociated themselves from your unfounded prejudicial remarks about my sanity ... so yes, it does seem to be a generalised problem amongst Atheists ... and certainly amongst every one of them on this thread.

I always think hate is a bad word. I seriously dislike your particular faith, but I don’t hate it. I think it is ridiculous and worthy only of scorn, contempt and ridicule. That said, it serves a purpose. Extremes of a position, particularly when they are patently ridiculous, like yours, serve as a mechanism to make people look closer at a subject. So in that respect I think that you and your ilk actually damage chrisianity, and I like that.
There is a very fine line between hating and 'seriously disliking' ... I neither hate not seriously dislike you or your faith ... I love you and I want to Save you ... and I disagree with many aspects of your Atheistic Faith

I don’t hate you, I pity you. Your world is a horrible paranoid and scary place. Your world view is twisted and horrible and is based on a belief that you are effectively worthless. Awful.
My world is one of love and peace that only the Triune God can bring.
I love my fellow-man ... and I respect his/her God-given freedom to accept or reject what I have to say.


I generally am a fairly easy going guy. And whilst I think you belief has a use, as I pointed out above, it is also damaging to society in other ways. If you and your other YEC drones were able to live and let live then I might be more inclined to do so, but you can’t. You insist on trying to poison society with your idiotic beliefs. You try to insist that “creation science” be taught with actual science. You don’t live and let live, why should we?
Creation Science is actual science ... and I have no particular view on where or when it should be taught ... other than to consenting adults and their children!!!


MrP

.

J C

liamw wrote: »

Logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

So do you or any other Evolutionist that you know not support the availablity of procured abortion ?

J C

J C wrote: »

So do you or any other Evolutionist that you know not support the availablity of procured abortion ?

I know of a good few, yes. Infact, I'd say at least a third of my friends who would consider themselves to be atheists, who would also be "evolutionists", wouldn't and don't support abortion.

AhSureTisGrand

J C wrote: »

So do you or any other Evolutionist that you know not support the availablity of procured abortion ?

Yes.

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

Everyone who claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian ... Hitler spent his time persecuting God's people of both the Christian and Jewish varieties.

-
Oh aye.........No true Scotsman.

POINTBREAK

Sarky wrote: »

The rise in skin cancer cases every year correlates pretty well with increased sales of sun block. Ergo, sun block causes cancer. TAKE THAT SCIENCE.

-
The rise in the availability of better mental health drugs and treatment is leading to a decline in the number of creationists.

J C

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I know of a good few, yes. Infact, I'd say at least a third of my friends who would consider themselves to be atheists, who would also be "evolutionists", wouldn't and don't support abortion.

That's good to hear ... but, even on your own figures, a very significant majority of Atheists/Evolutionists do support procured abortion ... and therefore the increase in Evolutionism over the past 150 years is indeed directly linked to the increase in procured abortion ... presuming that Evolutionists behave and vote in accordance with their beliefs.

J C

J C wrote: »

That's good to hear ... but, even on your own figures a very significant majority of Atheists/Evolutionists do support procured abortion ... and therefore the increase in Evolutionism over the past 150 years is indeed directly linked to the increased legalisiation of procured abortion.

Yes, indeed it is. Just like the increase in average global temperatures has resulted in less pirates (or vice versa?). And, as Sarky has pointed out, the increase in suncream sales correlates with higher rates of skin cancer. It's related in exactly that same way, JC.

So many logical fallacies.

brb, having a stroke.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

So do you or any other Evolutionist that you know not support the availablity of procured abortion ?

So, about the speed of light and the science that supports Creationism......

Seriously J C, you're starting to disgust me.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I have never said that there is a conspiracy out there ... and the 'global scientific community' includes thousands of conventionally qualified Creation Scientists within it's ranks.
I have said that there is open hostility towards Creationists and Creation Science out there ... and this thread amply demonstrates that this is a fact!!!

of course you haven't.....

J C wrote: »

the Materialists (and their 'fellow travellers') have established legally-enforced Materialistic Indoctrination in American Public schools ... and legally enforced suppression of all other faiths in the same schools???

but let's focus on the very ominous sounding "open hostility" that you mentioned.

what exactly does that entail? how does that stop creationists from talking about their creation myth as they please?

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

... the rise in the belief in Evolution over the past hundred and fifty years has certainly coincided with an explosion in the legalisation of procured abortion worldwide. So are they directly linked ?
Could I ask the Evolutionists on this thread if any of them doesn't support the availablity of procured abortion ?

[/COLOR].

Creationism 101, Sidetrack.
When asked for proof to back up claims, make a sideways jump to new topic and get people riled up about that.
When asked for proof....................:pac:

J C

Deleted User wrote: »

So many logical fallacies.

brb, having a stroke.

Yes indeed logical deduction isn't a strong point for the Evolutionists on this thread ...
... the increased sale of sun cream is obviously a result of people being concerned about the increase in skin cancer ... which is itself strongly linked to increased sun exposure due to people taking more 'sun holidays' ... and doing more sunbathing with much more skin exposed than would have historically been the case.

Equally, when the vast majority of Evolutionists are found to support procured abortion ... and the percentage of Evolutionists within the population increases ... and procured abortion also increases it is ideed valid to conclude that there is a direct link between the two phenomena.

BTW, as far as I know, no cause and effect relationship has been established between piracy and Global Warming ... so there is no link between the two phenomena ... and any statistical correlation is therefore entirely co-incidental. I would also suggest that the Evolutionists on this thread should stop undermining any credibility they may have left by citing and supporting this invlaid linkage and claiming it to be true

J C

koth wrote: »

of course you haven't.....
I think that this thread objectively does demonstrate open hostility to Creation Scientists ... and without a single Evoutionist demurring, that I am aware of.
I have been called insane, a thug, a liar and mentally defective ... my conventional scientific qualifications have been questioned and Job discrimination against Creationists has been openly supported and advocated.

If that isn't open hostility ... I don't know what would be!!!



but let's focus on the very ominous sounding "open hostility" that you mentioned.

what exactly does that entail? how does that stop creationists from talking about their creation myth as they please?
The threat of being marginalised in your chosen career and the legal censorship of the mere mention of Creation in American Public Schools, would seem to constitute significant barriers to Creationists talking about Creation Science!!!

.

Delirium

Would you kindly use the quote function correctly? It's just bad manners not to.

J C wrote: »

I think that this thread objectively does demonstrate open hostility to Creation Scientists ... and without a single Evoutionist demurring, that I am aware of.
I have been called insane, a thug, a liar and mentally defective ... my conventional scientific qualifications have been questioned and Job discrimination against Creationists has been openly supported and advocated.

If that isn't open hostility ... I don't know what would be!!!

I wasn't asking how you are treated on this thread. I can see why people wouldn't be in favour of people spreading a creation myth as part of a science class, it's a religious fable. It has no place in a science class.

The threat of being marginalised in your chosen career and the legal censorship of the mere mention of Creation in American Public Schools, would seem to constitute significant barriers to Creationists talking about Creation Science!!!

American schools aren't supposed to teach religious doctrine, thats why the creation myth isn't be taught.

As for being marginalised in a chosen job due to saying the creation myth is true, well thats a consequence of taking literal meaning from fables/myths.

J C

POINTBREAK wrote: »

-
Oh aye.........No true Scotsman.

Whatever about the definition of a true Scotsman ... we can certainly conclude that the mass murder of millions of innocent Human Beings isn't the actions of a True Christian ... and therefore Hitler wasn't a Christian ... irrespective of whatever lies he told about his faith status.