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…138139141143144…334

Comments

  • Options
    #4202
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    J C wrote: »
    ... a good recipe for social unrest in a multi-cultural society ... and totally illegal ... and rightly so!!!
    Thing is it's unavoidable anyway. Recruitment staff will make the most of the limited information. Just as actuaries identify men as a greater risk for car insurance, recruiters will identify certain demographics as preferable to others, and members of said demographic as likely to be preferable
    J C wrote: »
    ... which is a good but regrettable reason for Creation Scientists to keep their heads down ... and their mouths shut ... when in the company of Evolutionists!!!

    Unfortunately the general public thinks you're a nut, J C, and the general public is less likely to hire you than the average person


  • Options
    #4203
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    J C wrote: »
    It is indeed in the interest of the shareholders to recruit the best staff ... but some people are so bigoted that they would be more than willing to not recruit the best people, if they belong to a group, like Creationists ... and indeed many other stigmatised groups!!!

    I doubt you'd find many successful businesses deliberately throwing money away. More likely they think certain groups are less valuable as employees. This could indeed be due to bigotry and ignorance, but if shareholders are bigoted and ignorant then I doubt they'd be all too good at running a company


  • Options
    #4204
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    If it was verifiable that an intelligence created life, it wouldn't be unknown.
    ... the two aren't mutually exclusive ... and it's done all the time.
    For example, an archaelogical artefact can be verifiably established as being created by intelligent persons unknown!!!!
    koth wrote: »
    it's hardly faith seeing as scientists provide evidence for their work, can't say the same for supporters of the creation myth.
    ... but here is the rub ... Evolutionists, despite great talk and bluster, don't actually have any evidence that the CFSI in living cells could ever be spontaneously generated ... and all of their many speculations ... are just that ... stories without any objective evidence!!!

    koth wrote: »
    it's called science. The government shouldn't be mixing in your creation myth, or any other religions, into the science syllabus.
    ... when it crosses into the 'origins issue' it ceases to be science ... and turns into faith ... on the one side, that over billions of years pondkind lifted itself up by its own bootstraps to become man ... and on the other side that an inordinate intelligence created or evolved life.

    koth wrote: »
    but science doesn't exclude people of any religion, or are you saying that there are no Christian scientists?
    Of course, there are many Christians who are scientists ... including myself!!!
    However, there are those who have tried to limit scientific investigation on the origins issue to purely materiaistic explanations ... for self-serving reasons, because they are Materialists ... when the most obvious explanation is that life was Intelligently Designed!!!

    The naked advocacy of discrimination on this thread against Creationists ... is sympomatic of the contempt that the contributors have for all Christians ... because all orthodox Christians believe that God created life either by direct creation or by a process of divinely directed evolution.
    ... and the Divine Design of life is a common belief of all Christians and indeed all Orthodox Jews and Moslems as well.


  • Options
    #4205
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... the two aren't mutually exclusive ... and it's done all the time.
    For example, an archaelogical artefact can be verifiably established as being created by intelligent persons unknown!!!!
    poor example, as by using deductive reasoning the archaeologist know that people lived in the area of the site and that they built similar artefacts.

    Show me proof of another reality being created by intelligent design, and then I might concede the similarities. Until then you're on your own.
    ... but here is the rub ... Evolutionists, despite great talk and bluster, don't actually have any evidence that the CFSI in living cells could ever spontaneously be generated ... and all of their many speculations ... are just that ... stories without any objective evidence!!!
    not true. you've repeatedly ignored proof from a variety of posters showing how evolution occurred over time.
    ... when it crosses into the 'origins issue' it ceases to be science ... and turns into faith ... on the one side, that over billions of years pondkind lifted itself up by its own bootstraps to become man ... and on the other side that an inordinate intelligence created or evolved life.
    Afraid not. creationism has not documented any evidence to back up the myth. Creationism is only being put forward by people in attempt to support their religious belief.
    Of course, there are many Christians who are scientists ... including myself!!!
    However, there are those who have tried to limit scientific investigation on the origins issue to purely materiaistic explanations ... for self-serving reasons, because they are Materialists ... when the most obvious explanation is that life was Intelligently Designed!!!
    How are they limiting investigation on the creation story? For someone who claims to be a scientist, you seem to have very little understanding of how scientific discovery works.
    The naked advocacy of discrimination on this thread against Creationists ... is sympomatic of the contempt that the contributors have for all Christians ... because all orthodox Christians believe that God created life either by direct creation or by a process of divinely directed evolution.
    ... and the Divine Design of life is a common belief of all Christians and indeed all Orthodox Jews and Moslems as well.
    What discrimination? You've been given a free platform to discuss your topic. Don't start making stuff up in attempt to make yourself look better. You're actually the one who has insinuated that some of the posters on this thread are bigots.

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



  • Options
    #4206
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    Thing is it's unavoidable anyway. Recruitment staff will make the most of the limited information. Just as actuaries identify men as a greater risk for car insurance, recruiters will identify certain demographics as preferable to others, and members of said demographic as likely to be preferable
    ... where they get caught out ... and in trouble, is when they employ nobody from a particular demographic ... even though there are many eminently qualified persons within the particular group!!!!!
    In some cases they admit that they won't employ people from certain groups ... and thus they self-incriminate themselves!!!
    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    Unfortunately the general public thinks you're a nut, J C, and the general public is less likely to hire you than the average person
    In your dreams!!
    No member of the public has ever said that to me ... they treat me with the utmost respect ... and I them!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4207
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    J C wrote: »
    ... where they get caught out ... and prosecuted is when they employ nobody from a particular demographic ... even though there are many eminently quaified persons within the particular group!!!!!
    In some cases the simply admit that they won't employ people from certain groups ... and thus they simply self-incriminate themselves!!!
    As I said, it's in their interest to select the best employees. I'm not defending idiocy here. If recruitment staff don't do their job properly (ie choosing the best employees), they can fully expect not to have that job for very long
    J C wrote: »
    In your dreams!!
    No member of the public has ever said that to me ... they treat me with the utmost respect ... and me them!!!

    I can rectify this:

    I, as a member of the general public, think that you, J C, are a nut


  • Options
    #4208
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    As I said, it's in their interest to select the best employees. I'm not defending idiocy here. If recruitment staff don't do their job properly (ie choosing the best employees), they can fully expect not to have that job for very long
    ... but bigots who condemn entire groups, like Creationists, aren't behaving rationally ... their emotions and prejudices are blinding them ... and if they happen to be on an interview panel .. and they trigger a valid job discrimination case, they certainly will not last very long as recruitment staff!!!

    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    I can rectify this:

    I, as a member of the general public, think that you, J C, are a nut
    No member of the public that I have encountered personally has ever said that to me!!!
    Of course such gratuituous insults, seem to be 'par for the course' on this thread ... and do the cause of Atheism a great dis-sevice ... by showing the naked hatred that ye have for just one Creationist who has gone onto your forum.
    Many Christians are viewing this thread with increasing horror at what they see before them!!!

    I used to think of Atheists as rational 'live and let live' types ... but my experience on the Boards is showing that apparently every one of the A & A posters hates everything I stand for ... and they seem to be more than willing to translate this into naked job discrimination against all Creationists, if given half a chance!!

    I hope I am wrong ... but I have yet to hear even one poster condemn this behaviour!!!


  • Options
    #4209
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    J C wrote: »
    like Creationists, aren't behaving rationally
    :pac:


  • Options
    #4210
    AhSureTisGrand
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭AhSureTisGrand


    J C wrote: »
    ... but bigots who condemn entire groups, like Creationists, aren't behaving rationally ... their emotions and prejudices are blinding them ... and if they happen to be on an interview panel .. and they trigger a valid job discrimination case, they certainly will not last very long as recruitment staff!!!

    Seems we're in agreement on this. Eejits who don't do their job lose their job
    J C wrote: »
    No member of the public that I have encountered personally has ever said that to me!!!
    Of course such gratuituous insults, seem to be 'par for the course' on this thread ... and do the cause of Atheism a great dis-sevice ... by showing the naked hatred that ye have for just one Creationist who has gone onto your forum.

    What is the "Atheist cause"? I haven't been informed of it


  • Options
    #4211
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    poor example, as by using deductive reasoning the archaeologist know that people lived in the area of the site and that they built similar artefacts.

    Show me proof of another reality being created by intelligent design, and then I might concede the similarities. Until then you're on your own.
    The artefact could be just a rock ... but the reason it is regarded as being Intelligently Designed is because it is exhibiting Specified Functional Complex Information ... like, for example, an unknown script ... or evidence of intelligent design for a specific function like, for example, an arrowhead.

    The Intelligent Designer is almost invariably unknown ... but this fact doesn't preclude a definitive conclusion of Intelligent Design being drawn.
    Life similarly exhibits (vastly more) Complex Functional Specific Information ... and thus a definitive conclusion of Intelligent Design can be drawn.
    The alternative, that it all arose spontaneously, through a whole series of 'happy mistakes' is unbelievable ... because it is mathematically impossible due to the overwhelming ration of non-functional / damaging mistakes to useful functional ones!!!
    koth wrote: »
    not true. you've repeatedly ignored proof from a variety of posters showing how evolution occurred over time.
    What proof???
    Please stop making these unsupported statements ... and show us the proof ... rather than merely talking about doing so!!!!
    koth wrote: »
    What discrimination? You've been given a free platform to discuss your topic. Don't start making stuff up in attempt to make yourself look better. You're actually the one who has insinuated that some of the posters on this thread are bigots.
    Yes, I have been allowed on this thread to help bolster the cause of Atheism ... by you guys questioning the Creationist cause ... and when ye are roundly defeated on every issue that ye bring up ... ye then call me a troll or some other 'throw-away' remark!!!
    koth wrote: »
    What discrimination?
    So are you prepared to condemn any job discrimination directed at Creation Scientists ... and to say that, when they are conventionally qualified for any science job, they should be employed in the same ratio to their numbers as Evolutionists?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4212
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The artefact could be just a rock ... but the reason it is regarded as being Intelligently Designed is because it is exhibiting Specified Functional Complex Information ... like, for example, an unknown script ... or evidence of intelligent design for a specific function like, for example, an arrowhead.
    humans made arrowheads, it's not a huge leap of logic to say stone age hunters made arrowheads. I still fail to see how that is any way comparable to a creature creating a reality/universe.

    The Intelligent Designer is almost invariably unknown ... but this fact doesn't preclude a definitive conclusion of Intelligent Design being drawn.
    Life similarly exhibits (vastly more) Complex Functional Specific Information ... and thus a definitive conclusion of Intelligent Design can be drawn.
    The alternative, that it all arose spontaneously, through a whole series of 'happy mistakes' is unbelievable ... because it is mathematically impossible due to the overwhelming ration of non-functional / damaging mistakes to useful functional ones!!!
    just because evolution is difficult to understand due to the scale/time involved, doesn't mean we should turn to myths and ignore the science.
    What proof???
    Please stop making these unsupported statements ... and show us the proof ... rather than merely talking about doing so!!!!
    I've posted documents about evolution and you've either ignored or misunderstood the documents. Why should I go round the merry-go-round once again?
    Yes, I have been allowed on this thread to help bolster the cause of Atheism ... by you guys questioning the Creationist cause ... and when ye are roundly defeated on every issue that ye bring up ... ye then call me a troll or some other 'throw-away' remark!!!
    you haven't defeated anyone, you just ignore them or divert onto something else. and as I said before, inferring that some posters were bigots is the same behaviour as you are now decrying about of others.
    So are you prepared to condemn any job discrimination directed at Creation Scientists ... and to say that, when they are conventionally qualified for any science job, they should be employed in the same ratio to their numbers as Evolutionists?
    absolutely, a creationist should not be prevented from doing any job that they are capable of doing to a professional standard. That means meeting the requirements of the job that they apply for.

    If they apply for a job teaching science, then they cannot use it as a platform to spread the creation myth. If they can't stop from doing that, then they can't perform their job adequately and shouldn't be considered for that job.

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



  • Options
    #4213
    POINTBREAK
    Registered Users Posts: 2,135 ✭✭✭POINTBREAK


    Pretty pathetic religion when you have to continually lie and produce false evidence in a discussion to try and justify your beliefs. At least the mental gymnastics keeps you busy, which is just as well.


  • Options
    #4214
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    AhSureTisGrand wrote: »
    I, as a member of the general public, think that you, J C, are a nut

    ScruffySecond.jpg


  • Options
    #4215
    POINTBREAK
    Registered Users Posts: 2,135 ✭✭✭POINTBREAK


    J C wrote: »
    This issue isn't scientifically settled at all yet ... and neither Creation Scientists nor Evolutionists have reached all-encompassing answers yet.
    The point that I am making is that the Evolutionist's own figures indicate that light has had a vastly higher speed at some time in the past ... Creation Scientists put the speed higher and for a longer period of time than Evolutionists ... and that is why a universe that is less that 10,000 years old is billions of light years in diameter!!!!:pac:
    -
    If the Universe is less than 10,000 years old how come the Supernova SN1987A
    was measured as approx 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) using Trigonometry.
    Was Trigonometry "different at the time the Universe was created as well?


  • Options
    #4216
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    POINTBREAK wrote: »
    -
    If the Universe is less than 10,000 years old how come the Supernova SN1987A
    was measured as approx 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) using Trigonometry.
    Was Trigonometry "different at the time the Universe was created as well?
    Fcuk that. I want to know why evolutionists are trying to work out the speed of light. Evolutionists should stick to evolution and leave the physics to physicists.

    We all know what happens when you have eminently qualified scientists spouting off about a subject they are not qualified in.
    AhSureTisGrand wrote:
    I, as a member of the general public, think that you, J C, are a nut
    I am a member of the public(1) and I support this message.

    MrP















    (1) Please note. I am supporting this message as an average member of the public. I hold not a position in any worldwide atheist organisation, which may or may not exist, which may or may not be involved in an organised campaign to prevent eminently (1) qualified "creation scientists"(3) from getting proper science jobs. In my position as an average member of the public I am in no way speaking for any atheist organisation that may or may not exist, nor am I speaking for any other atheists or atheism in general. I fully accept, though seriously doubt, that other atheists may not agree with my thoughts on JC being a nut, and whether they do or they don't does not say anything about atheism which is, after all, merely a rejection of the evidence for gods, and not a way of life or a club to be joined.
    (2) Generally eminently qualified in something unrelated to that which they are talking about, or, using some strange, hitherto unheard of meaning of the word eminent.
    (3) I know these two words are very hard to read together, and I apologise for making you read them like this. If it is any conciliation, I had great difficulty typing them.


  • Options
    #4217
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    POINTBREAK wrote: »
    Was Trigonometry "different at the time the Universe was created as well?

    I'm just going to be an ass and say that would depend on whether you believe trigonometry is objective or not.


  • Options
    #4218
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Fcuk that. I want to know why evolutionists are trying to work out the speed of light.... Evolutionists should stick to evolution and leave the physics to physicists.
    Is your physics bias free.....If it isn't then prove evolution in the light of second law of thermodynamic and entropy............. You will find evolution contradicts these physical laws:)....


  • Options
    #4219
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    dead one wrote: »
    Is your physics bias free.....If it isn't then prove evolution in the light of second law of thermodynamic and entropy............. You will find evolution contradicts these physical laws....
    Why do you and JC both insist on splitting your sentences up with ....?

    If you are remotely interested, and actually willing to look at evidence, which I doubt, you will find that the argument that evolution is somehow foiled by the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been thoroughly dealt with on this board, on the BCP thread on the other side and elsewhere. The information is all there for anyone interested.

    That said, I don’t expect you to look, I don’t expect you to read it nor do I expect you to appreciate what is being said. You are too caught up in your religion and have too much invested in it to be able to see evidence for what it is.

    MrP


  • Options
    #4220
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. If you're sincerely using that argument, please just go away.


  • Options
    #4221
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Why do you and JC both insist on splitting your sentences up with ....?
    two people...... one mission;)
    MrPudding wrote: »
    If you are remotely interested, and actually willing to look at evidence, which I doubt, you will find that the argument that evolution is somehow foiled by the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been thoroughly dealt with on this board, on the BCP thread on the other side and elsewhere. The information is all there for anyone interested.
    Why you don't explain it?..... Are you remotely saying you don't have any answer...
    MrPudding wrote: »
    That said, I don’t expect you to look, I don’t expect you to read it nor do I expect you to appreciate what is being said. You are too caught up in your religion and have too much invested in it to be able to see evidence for what it is.
    MrP

    Isn't evolution a religion... Are you the eye witness of billion year of evolution..... See Pudding.... You are too caught up in your religion:)
    Deleted User wrote:
    Doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. If you're sincerely using that argument, please just go away
    Define Sincerely.... What do you mean by sincerely.... If i say evolution is true then i am sincere.... Right;).... If i say evolution is wrong according to physics then i ain't sincere...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4222
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dead one wrote: »
    Why you don't explain it?..... Are you remotely saying you don't have any answer...

    I've already explained this.

    The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy will inevitably increase in a closed system. The planet Earth is not a closed system because it has, for billions of years, received a constant flow of energy from the Sun. Therefore, the argument is flawed.
    dead one wrote:
    Define Sincerely.... What do you mean by sincerely.... If i say evolution is true then i am sincere.... Right.... If i say evolution is wrong according to physics then i ain't sincere...

    You know what 'sincerely' means. I meant that if you aren't just joking, and that you seriously think the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution, then you should go away and read some books not written by creationists.


  • Options
    #4223
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I've already explained this.
    The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy will inevitably increase in a closed system. The planet Earth is not a closed system because it has, for billions of years, received a constant flow of energy from the Sun. Therefore, the argument is flawed.
    Dude!!! No one is taking planet earth as closed system... Take the whole universe as a giant closed system.... and then apply second law of thermodynamic on it.... You will find contradiction...:)
    Deleted User wrote: »
    You know what 'sincerely' means. I meant that if you aren't just joking, and that you seriously think the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution, then you should go away and read some books not written by creationists.
    So you are sincere to prove a lie as truth..... who is controlling you buddy!!!!.... Break those chain which are controlling your minds...entropy is disorder.....since evolution represents a greater state of order... so it violates physics....


  • Options
    #4224
    POINTBREAK
    Registered Users Posts: 2,135 ✭✭✭POINTBREAK


    dead one wrote: »
    Dude!!! No one is taking planet earth as closed system... Take the whole universe as a giant closed system.... and then apply second law of thermodynamic on it.... You will find contradiction...:)

    So you are sincere to prove a lie as truth..... who is controlling you buddy!!!!.... Break those chain which are controlling your minds...entropy is disorder.....since evolution represents a greater state of order... so it violates physics....
    -
    "A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane. They base this argument on their belief that changes in living things have a very low probability and could not occur without "intelligent design" which overcomes the laws of thermodynamics. This represents a fundamental contradiction in which (they say) evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics because thermodynamics doesn't permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder, but creationism (in the guise of intelligent design) doesn't have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics."
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html


  • Options
    #4225
    legspin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    dead one wrote: »
    Define Sincerely.... What do you mean by sincerely.... If i say evolution is true then i am sincere.... Right;).... If i say evolution is wrong according to physics then i ain't sincere...

    Sincerity is no excuse for wilful stupidity


  • Options
    #4226
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    POINTBREAK wrote: »
    -
    "A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane. They base this argument on their belief that changes in living things have a very low probability and could not occur without "intelligent design" which overcomes the laws of thermodynamics. This represents a fundamental contradiction in which (they say) evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics because thermodynamics doesn't permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder, but creationism (in the guise of intelligent design) doesn't have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics."
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
    “The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
    legspin wrote: »
    Sincerity is no excuse for wilful stupidity
    don't misuse stupidity...
    “Stupidity is better kept a secret than displayed”


  • Options
    #4227
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dead one wrote: »
    “The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”

    don't misuse stupidity...
    “Stupidity is better kept a secret than displayed”

    "That's a fine barn, but it ain't no pool"

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



  • Options
    #4228
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    "That's a fine barn, but it ain't no pool"
    D1f22_029.jpg


  • Options
    #4229
    POINTBREAK
    Registered Users Posts: 2,135 ✭✭✭POINTBREAK


    dead one wrote: »
    “The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”

    Like those "reports" in the bible?


  • Options
    #4230
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    POINTBREAK wrote: »
    Like those "reports" in the bible?
    Ask to JC.... I don't believe in Bible:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4231
    legspin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    dead one wrote: »
    ...don't misuse stupidity...
    “Stupidity is better kept a secret than displayed”

    You certainly haven't managed to keep it a secret.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement