"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

robindch

koth wrote: »

Thats a whole new level of silliness

No, that's creationism

Sarky

It's like a really slow, really funny car crash, this thread. Like the cars are full of clowns or something.

Penn

Sarky wrote: »

It's like a really slow, really funny car crash, this thread. Like the cars are full of clowns or something.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Uh, are you saying that you now disagree with Mr Stein's implication that accepting evolution (as a plausible explanation for the diversity of earth's life) leads directly to gas chambers?

Evolution-based propoganda ... along with all kinds of other propoganda, was used by the Nazis for their twisted evil ends.

I can also understand where Ben Stein is coming from, as a Jew, who personally knew people who survived the concentration camps.
Evolution and scientific respectability was certainly co-opted by the Nazis to push forward their general racist agenda ...
but in fairness to Evolutionists today, most fully accept that Evolution principles should not be used to run society.

I can also say that when I was an Evolutionist, I was just as appalled by the Holcaust as I am now, as a Creationist.

I would, however, caution that the general hostility towards Creationists on this thread does have parallells with how Jews and other minorities were treated in 1930's Germany ... it all began with snide remarks, name-calling, claims that they were economic parsites and untrustworthy as well as open advocacy of job discrimination ... just like happens on this thread regularly in relation to Creationists.
It is quite legitimate to question Creationist ideas ... but it isn't legitimate to advocate job discrimination against them ... or to call them all liars, morons, etc.
Quite frankly, the hostility shown on this forum towards Theists in general ... and Creationists in particular, surprises me in this PC age ... where people are generally very careful to not make prejudicial remarks about minorities with whom they disagree.

For example, the prejudicial comment in the preceding post, that Catholocism is a 'clandestine global evil' is thanked by several Atheists, including a Mod ...
... somebody making such a prejudicial generalisation about Atheism over on the Christianity forum, would probably be asked to retract it ... and rightly so, in my opinion!!!

I have no brief to speak on behalf of Catholocism ... but I know many decent Roman Catholics ... whom I would trust with my life ... and they should not all be dismissed in such a cavalier and downright untrue manner ... just because a tiny minority, within their faith, have behaved outrageously ... and are now paying the price for it.
This stuff isn't academic ... I once had to come to the rescue of two elderly nuns, in Dublin, who were being verbally abused and physically threatened in their car at traffic lights, by a 'yob' shouting obscenities at them and banging their car.

Let's treat each other with respect and love ... please.

Delirium

When you get a chance, JC, I'd be grateful if you could answer the post that you still haven't addressed

J C wrote: »

Evolution-based propoganda ... along with all kinds of other propoganda, was used by the Nazis for their twisted evil ends.

I can also understand where Ben Stein is coming from, as a Jew, who personally knew people who survived the concentration camps.
Evolution and scientific respectability was certainly co-opted by the Nazis to push forward their general racist agenda ...
but in fairness to Evolutionists today, most fully accept that Evolution principles should not be used to run society.

I can also say that when I was an Evolutionist, I was just as appalled by the Holcaust as I am now, as a Creationist.

I would, however, caution that the general hostility towards Creationists on this thread does have parallells with how Jews and other minorities were treated in 1930's Germany ... it all began with snide remarks, name-calling, claims that they were economic parsites and untrustworthy as well as open advocacy of job discrimination ... just like happens on this thread regularly in relation to Creationists.
It is quite legitimate to question Creationist ideas ... but it isn't legitimate to advocate job discrimination against them ... or to call them all liars, morons, etc.
Quite frankly, the hostility shown on this forum towards Theists in general ... and Creationists in particular, surprises me in this PC age ... where people are generally very careful to not make prejudicial remarks about minorities with whom they disagree.

It's really not right to compare being a creationist to being a jew in 1930s germany. Creationists aren't suffering on a level like the jews did.

Tbh, it's a really pathetic attempt to stir up sympathy for you seeing as you can't actually back up your creationist myth.

I don't see a problem with calling someone on a dishonest or stupid comment if they should make one.

For example, the prejudicial comment in the preceding post, that Catholocism is a 'clandestine global evil' is thanked by several Atheists, including a Mod ...
... somebody making such a prejudicial generalisation about Atheism over on the Christianity forum, would probably be asked to retract it ... and rightly so, in my opinion!!!

That phrase you're referring to is in Barringtons sig. So you weren't aware of this or you attempting to create a problem that didn't exist, as Barrington didn't make the comment you are talking about in the post.

I have no brief to speak on behalf of Catholocism ... but I know many decent Roman Catholics ... whom I would trust with my life ... and they should not all be dismissed in such a cavalier and downright untrue manner ... just because a tiny minority, within their faith, have behaved outrageously ... and are now paying the price for it.
This stuff isn't academic ... I once had to come to the rescue of two elderly nuns, in Dublin, who were being verbally abused and physically threatened in their car at traffic lights, by a 'yob' shouting obscenities at them and banging their car.

Let's treat each other with respect and love ... please.

Who's dismissing Catholics? the thread is a discussion on evolution, and nobody has said all Catholics are creationist. This thread is heavily critical of the creationist myth, which people are perfectly entitled to be.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

Let's treat each other with respect and love ... please.

No, coz you suck.

Genghiz Cohen

koth wrote: »

Creationists aren't suffering on a level like the jews did.

If anything, non-creationists are the ones suffering.

J C

koth wrote: »

When you get a chance, JC, I'd be grateful if you could answer the post that you still haven't addressed

I have done so repeatedly ... if you have any specific follow-on questions I will happily answer them.

koth wrote: »

It's really not right to compare being a creationist to being a jew in 1930s germany. Creationists aren't suffering on a level like the jews did.

... its getting pretty close when Creationists, who are conventionally scientists, are increasingly barred from many science positions because of their beliefs.
One of the mistakes that was made in the 1930's was not strongly challenging the 'low grade' discrimination and snide remarks ... that eventually grew to became the Holocaust, as the Nazis became more and more emboldened, as they got away with smaller outrages directed against the Jews.

koth wrote: »

I don't see a problem with calling someone on a dishonest or stupid comment if they should make one.

... neither do I see any problem with this ... but I do have a problem when these comments are applied to all Creationists ... or indeed all Evolutionists either.

koth wrote: »

That phrase you're referring to is in Barringtons sig. So you weren't aware of this or you attempting to create a problem that didn't exist, as Barrington didn't make the comment you are talking about in the post.

... whether it's a sig or a comment ... it is a prejudicial statement directed against a particular religious faith ... and nobody has challenged him on it ... but ye have thanked him instead.

I would equally challenge somebody who claimed that Atheism is a 'clandestine global evil' ... because it would also be untrue. There may well be individual Roman Catholics and Atheists who behave in an evil manner ... but my experience is that most Atheists and Roman Catholics are thoroughly decent Human Beings ... and I am proud to count many, of both persuasions, amongst my friends.

koth wrote: »

Who's dismissing Catholics? the thread is a discussion on evolution, and nobody has said all Catholics are creationist. This thread is heavily critical of the creationist myth, which people are perfectly entitled to be.

I was referring to Barrington's signature that states that Catholocism is a 'clandestine global evil' ... which is typical of the prejudicial attitude to Theists on this forum.

I am just asking for a little respect ... all round.

Sarky

The thing about respect is that it's pretty hard to earn when you repeatedly do the internet discussion forum equivalent of running around with your underpants on your head squeezing an old horn that goes "parp" whenever anyone tries to talk to you.

You avoid questions. You misquote people. you link to papers claiming that they support your side when they do precisely the opposite. You outright lie.

I'm just saying you shouldn't be terribly surprised when that approach doesn't win friends and influence people, that's all.

robindch

J C wrote: »

I would, however, caution that the general hostility towards Creationists on this thread does have parallells with how Jews and other minorities were treated in 1930's Germany

Over the last six years or so, I've occasionally set myself the unenviable task of reading what you write. And perhaps once a year, you say something like this.

I don't think one can compare between how you're treated in this forum and the Holocaust.

.

dead one

koth wrote: »

Evolution has nothing to do with god, it's just science.
.

yes, it's just science according to your point, as it has to do with your god..... that is materialism.... if i talk evolution as general development of life and see intelligence (God) present behind evolution then it isn't science....
Thanks to confirmation bias.....

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true

evolution is only science when it says it is happening by chance.... Right!!!! Well done, cheers, beat drums, i have seen the true face materialism and its followers..... Now why you are in denial because you blame me of lying..... In denial blames are common..... why should i say you know nothing about evolution when every thing clear....

papu

dead one wrote: »

yes, it's just science according to your point, as it has to do with your god..... that is materialism.... if i talk evolution as general development of life and see intelligence (God) present behind evolution then it isn't science....

And what of the Unintelligence? Extinction, Unintelligent Design, since these are all evident it gives a pretty good case that intelligence cant be behind evolution and rather a random process. How can this imperfection come from a seemingly perfect creator.

Interestingly, Can you name three logical links that have to be established before you can reason from the existence of a Designer to the idea that your theology is true.

The evidence for evolution is allot more compelling than that of creation ,taking hard evidence into consideration , the Faith arguement always comes up short.
While gaps in the science of evolution exist , the creator arguement are such that they can't be proved , havent been proved and allow for more paradoxes then would be allowed for any kind of real scientific theory.

dead one

papu wrote: »

And what of the Unintelligence? Extinction, Unintelligent Design, since these are all evident it gives a pretty good case that intelligence cant be behind evolution and rather a random process. How can this imperfection come from a seemingly perfect creator.

The idea "Un-intelligence present behind intelligence" not got common sense, is disapproved by testable evidence, is of no use for making right predictions, and is not supported by scientific rule,even Darwen told

Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?
http://www.classicreader.com/book/107/47/

papu wrote: »

Interestingly, Can you name three logical links that have to be established before you can reason from the existence of a Designer to the idea that your theology is true.
The evidence for evolution is allot more compelling than that of creation ,taking hard evidence into consideration , the Faith arguement always comes up short.
While gaps in the science of evolution exist , the creator arguement are such that they can't be proved , havent been proved and allow for more paradoxes then would be allowed for any kind of real scientific theory.

Here are some points/links, if you pay heed
a. Smart designers made artificial intelligence. Thus it is testable proof that intelligence or brilliance is made by an intelligent/smart designer. The scientific treatment was invented by and relies on intelligence. Testable, uncontradicted proofs confirm that you need intelligence to make something smarter , to make artificial intelligence, or to increase knoweldge...
b. All scientific laws, rules and processes whether man-made or not, have common meanings: rules attempts physical regularity; Processes are a sequence of functions towards an end.
c. A human designer/manufacturer is basically present behind during the design / process, but is not basically detected when noticing their perfect design / process. So, one can't say an undetected Maker/Manufacture to reject a Maker.
d. It is Scientific that a Smart human being creates forces. Thus, this is scientific proof forces like gravity,magnetism, nuclear etc. are ultimately resulted by an intelligent God.
e. It is scientific that a smart human being creates,processes senses, , and stores information. Thus, this is scientific proof that any information stored,processed ,,found or in nature was ultimately result by an intelligent God

There is no proof that a Maker was not required to make natural processes, evolution or or the laws of nature, etc. Scientific proofs and predictions truly contradict athesim/materlisitc evolution.So unintelligent confidence / evolution in atheism is blind faith with no scientific reason. We should believe in intelligence evolution/confidence as it provable by science.... So believe what you prefer to believe.... I know it is very hard to change creeds of people, even you can crush their body into to pieces but you can't change their ignorance.... Ignorance is stubborn and prejudice is hard...

dead one

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

If anything, non-creationists are the ones suffering.

if you consider as a general yourself, "non-creationists" then you are suffering with "Self-deception"

"If ever a person A deceives a person B into believing that something, p, is true, A knows or truly believes that p is false while causing B to believe that p is true. So when A deceives A (i.e., himself) into believing that p is true, he knows or truly believes that p is false while causing himself to believe that p is true. Thus, A must simultaneously believe that p is false and believe that p is true. But how is this possible "

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I have done so repeatedly ... if you have any specific follow-on questions I will happily answer them.

No you haven't, but since you seem to be struggling getting to grips with my post, I shall attempt to simplify it for you.

We shall start with the following point, which is the argument the video is addressing.

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is god.

First question is how does this not address creationists, and more specifically, yourself?

Second, how do you argue that you are saying the bible is fact? You have no evidence that god created the universe. You also say everything needs a creator but god. So why is it so unreasonable to put forward an idea that the universe might have always existed?

... its getting pretty close when Creationists, who are conventionally scientists, are increasingly barred from many science positions because of their beliefs.
One of the mistakes that was made in the 1930's was not strongly challenging the 'low grade' discrimination and snide remarks ... that eventually grew to became the Holocaust, as the Nazis became more and more emboldened, as they got away with smaller outrages directed against the Jews.

Not even close. If creationists can't do their job, then it's not unreasonable to fire them, same would stand for people of any other grouping.

It truly is disgraceful to even attempt to put someone criticizing your religious belief in the same league as genocide.

... whether it's a sig or a comment ... it is a prejudicial statement directed against a particular religious faith ... and nobody has challenged him on it ... but ye have thanked him instead.

More twisting of facts:rolleyes:

No one thanked him for his sig, it was for the content of his post. Kindly stop this lie that people thanked him for his sig. If you have a problem with his sig, then report it in the sig forum.

I would equally challenge somebody who claimed that Atheism is a 'clandestine global evil' ... because it would also be untrue. There may well be individual Roman Catholics and Atheists who behave in an evil manner ... but my experience is that most Atheists and Roman Catholics are thoroughly decent Human Beings ... and I am proud to count many, of both persuasions, amongst my friends.

You clearly don't understand the quote in Barringtons sig, it refers to the organisation, not every Catholic in the world.

I was referring to Barrington's signature that states that Catholocism is a 'clandestine global evil' ... which is typical of the prejudicial attitude to Theists on this forum.

I am just asking for a little respect ... all round.

Respect has to be earned. Your distorting of science and contents of posts in this thread doesn't do you any favors.

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

yes, it's just science according to your point, as it has to do with your god..... that is materialism.... if i talk evolution as general development of life and see intelligence (God) present behind evolution then it isn't science....
Thanks to confirmation bias.....

excellent, so now I can add confirmation bias to the list of terms that you don't understand.

I haven't read any books on evolution where god is mentioned as being the driving force behind it. Just because I stick to the scientific explanation of evolution doesn't make me biased. I just don't feel the need to attempt to inject theology into the realm of science.

evolution is only science when it says it is happening by chance.... Right!!!! Well done, cheers, beat drums, i have seen the true face materialism and its followers..... Now why you are in denial because you blame me of lying..... In denial blames are common..... why should i say you know nothing about evolution when every thing clear....

You don't understand evolution, and I've already altered my post accusing you of lying. I didn't realise at the time it was through ignorance and not deception that you had posted the contradiction about evolution not being and being science.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Over the last six years or so, I've occasionally set myself the unenviable task of reading what you write. And perhaps once a year, you say something like this.

I don't think one can compare between how you're treated in this forum and the Holocaust.

I accept that a Mods task is a difficult and largely thankless task ... and of course, whatever happens on a forum is not comparable to the murder of 7 million people ... and I haven't said that it is.

The point that I am making is that there seems to be a culture of deep hostility towards Christianity on this entire forum. My question is whether this is unique to the people on this forum or whether it is reflective of a wider culture within Atheistic Humanism, in general in Ireland.

I never said that the way Creationism in particular and Christianity in general are treated by posters on this forum is the same as the Holocaust ... what I am saying is that Creationists are treated in a similar manner to the Jews in the lead up to the Holocaust.
... open advocacy of job discrimination ... and from the tone of the comments, and their widespread support, a very definite intention to discriminate, if within the posters powers to do so ... the labelling of all Creationists as liars, economic parsites and untrustworthy ...
... this all has resonance and parallells with what happened to Jews in the run up to the Holocaust.

Perhaps the most sinister comments of all are the ones questioning why Creationists should benefit from modern medical treatment ... on the threadbare excuse that Creation Science isn't used in Medicine ... even though some doctors are Creationists and this doesn't in any way make them less able to deliver proper medical care ...
... this has very definite undertones to the laws that stripped German Jewish doctors of their medical qualifications ... and removed entitlements to full Medical treatment from ordinary Jews during the 1930's.

Lets agree to differ and respect each other's opinions ... and debate our differences in a rational manner without any prejudicial personal comments against each other ... please.

Think of it as an opportunity to show that Atheists can treat Theists with equality and respect.

Penn

J C wrote: »

I was referring to Barrington's signature that states that Catholocism is a 'clandestine global evil' ... which is typical of the prejudicial attitude to Theists on this forum.

I am just asking for a little respect ... all round.

The quote in my sig is a joke by a comedian, and does not represent my opinion or the opinions of anyone else on this forum. I just think it's funny, and the reason I included the comedian's name was to show that it is meant to be taken as a joke and nothing more.

robindch

J C wrote: »

The point that I am making is that there seems to be a culture of deep hostility towards Christianity on this entire forum.

So what? A lot of posters on this forum are pretty pissed off at what christianity and christian organizations, have been responsible for. I think the reaction is quite reasonable, particularly when most christians refuse to accept much corporate or personal responsibility.

J C wrote: »

the labelling of all Creationists as liars, economic parsites and untrustworthy ...

Not true. Some creationists are intellectual liars, thieves and untrustworthy and are therefore, ethically bankrupt. Many more creationists are not liars etc, having (stupidly) trusted the first lot who put themselves in a position of authority and then abuse this authority. This latter group are trusting but face-slappingly ignorant.

J C wrote: »

Perhaps the most sinister comments of all are the ones questioning why Creationists should benefit from modern medical treatment

Can't speak for anybody else, but when I brought up that topic, I said something quite different -- if creationists hold modern science in such total contempt, then they should have the courage of their convictions and refuse medicine which has been produced using the same science. Of course, they don't refuse it because they know it works. But they still go on insulting scientists. A bit of consistency here would be good, rather than hypocrisy based upon nothing more than naked self-interest.

J C wrote: »

... this has very definite undertones to the laws that stripped German Jewish doctors of their medical qualifications

And you post videos of Ben Stein who, in his appalling excrescence "Expelled" made it quite clear that accepting evolution leads to the gas chambers. And that's fair and honest?

Who's insulting who here?

J C

robindch wrote: »

So what? A lot of posters on this forum are pretty pissed off at what christianity and christian organizations, have been responsible for. I think the reaction is quite reasonable, particularly when most christians refuse to accept much corporate or personal responsibility.Not true. Some creationists are intellectual liars, thieves and untrustworthy and are therefore, ethically bankrupt. Many more creationists are not liars etc, having (stupidly) trusted the first lot who put themselves in a position of authority and then abuse this authority. This latter group are trusting but face-slappingly ignorant.

Lets take your statements and replace the word Christian and Creationist with Atheist and Evolutionist ... and see how your sweeping generalisations sounds to Christians and Creationists:-

A lot of posters on this forum are pretty pissed off at what atheism and atheistic organizations, have been responsible for. I think the reaction is quite reasonable, particularly when most atheists refuse to accept much corporate or personal responsibility.
Some evolutionists are intellectual liars, thieves and untrustworthy and are therefore, ethically bankrupt. Many more evolutionists are not liars etc, having (stupidly) trusted the first lot who put themselves in a position of authority and then abuse this authority. This latter group are trusting but face-slappingly ignorant
... not very pretty ... is it?

robindch wrote: »

Can't speak for anybody else, but when I brought up that topic, I said something quite different -- if creationists hold modern science in such total contempt, then they should have the courage of their convictions and refuse medicine which has been produced using the same science. Of course, they don't refuse it because they know it works. But they still go on insulting scientists. A bit of consistency here would be good, rather than hypocrisy based upon nothing more than naked self-interest.

It's a very short step from telling somebody that they should refuse medical care ... to refusing medical care to them if they don't do as you ask ... especially if you have the kind of prejudicial attitudes that some of the Atheists on this thread have to Creationists.

... medical neglect can be just as deadly as any other method of killing people ... and to suggest that Creationists should go and kill themselves through medical neglect ... is a very small step away from actively 'helping' them to do so, if they don't take your advice.

robindch wrote: »

And you post videos of Ben Stein who, in his appalling excrescence "Expelled" made it quite clear that accepting evolution leads to the gas chambers. And that's fair and honest?

Who's insulting who here?

Because of his Jewish background, Ben Stein is acutely aware of what can happen in a modern western country ... when a target group gets isolated and demonised ... and Creationists and ID Proponents fall into this category at present.

Sarky

Bahahahahahaa. Oh J C, you card.

J C

koth wrote: »

We shall start with the following point, which is the argument the video is addressing.

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause and that cause is god.

First question is how does this not address creationists, and more specifically, yourself?

Point number 1 is indeed a scientifically verifiable fact ... and its called the Law of Causality ... which states that everything that physically exists has a cause of equal or greater generative capacity.
Point number 2 is agreed by both Creationist and Evolutionist alike ... albeit with different starting points of direct creation and a singularity respectively.
Point number 3 is a logical deduction from points number 1 and 2 ... because only an agent of God-like capacities of transcendance and omnipotence can account for the production of something as magnificent as the Universe, from nothing.

koth wrote: »

Second, how do you argue that you are saying the bible is fact? You have no evidence that god created the universe. You also say everything needs a creator but god. So why is it so unreasonable to put forward an idea that the universe might have always existed?

The idea that the Universe always existed is not used by the young lady in the video ... and, in any event, it breaches the Law of Causality.
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the Universe has always existed ... nobody is arguing that life has always existed ... and the Law of Causality also applies to the creation of life ... and it indicates that only an agent of God-like omnipotence can account for the production of something as complex functional and specified as living organisms from scratch.

koth wrote: »

Not even close. If creationists can't do their job, then it's not unreasonable to fire them, same would stand for people of any other grouping.

... but the point is that conventionally qualified scientists who are Creationists CAN do their jobs as working scientists ... just like Jewish Doctors and scientists could do their jobs in Nazi Germany ... if they were allowed to do their jobs.
You want to prevent conventionally qualified Creationists holding senior scientific positions ... which is identical to what was done to conventionally qualified Jewish scientists by the Nazis.
If the cap fits ... and all that!!!

koth wrote: »

It truly is disgraceful to even attempt to put someone criticizing your religious belief in the same league as genocide.

... there is no problem with criticising religious beliefs ... but don't whinge when your own beliefs are equally robustly challenged.
There is a very serious problem when you move from debating aspects of religious belief to discriminating against the people who hold these beliefs ... it is illegal ... and it applies equally to both Atheists and Theists.

... and I didn't say that any of this was equivalent to the Holocaust ... I am merely pointing out that it has parallells with what happened to the Jews in the lead up to the Holocaust. Indeed, that is one of the reasons for equality legislation ... to prevent society ever descending to the 'toxic' conditions that facilitate genocide and/or inter-communal strife.

koth wrote: »

No one thanked him for his sig, it was for the content of his post. Kindly stop this lie that people thanked him for his sig. If you have a problem with his sig, then report it in the sig forum.

He was thanked ... and nobody pointed out the untrue and offensive nature of his signature ... when it was an integral part of his post.

If I had a similarly offensive and untrue signature against Atheism ... I'm quite sure that I would be picked up on it.

koth wrote: »

You clearly don't understand the quote in Barringtons sig, it refers to the organisation, not every Catholic in the world.

... that's the same as claiming that anti-semetic remarks refer to the Jewish religion as a whole ... and not every Jew in the world!!!

koth wrote: »

Respect has to be earned. Your distorting of science and contents of posts in this thread doesn't do you any favors.

Respect doesn't have to be earned ... it is part of the right to be treated with dignity that every Human Being enjoys.
I have made my scientific points in an open and reasoned manner ... and you guys, in turn, have the opportunity to question me on them ... and ye have done so in the most minute detail.

The fact that I have dominated every encounter ... is not due to me per se ... but comes down to the fact that Creation did occur ... and ye guys are trying to prove something that didn't occur ... which is an impossible task.

The logic and evidence simply wont fit an explantion of something that didn't actually happen ... and that is why Creationists win every encounter with Evolutonists

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

Point number 1 is indeed a scientifically verifiable fact ... and its called the Law of Causality ... which states that everything that physically exists has a cause of equal or greater generative capacity.

That does not imply 'intent' to create.

J C wrote: »

Point number 3 is a logical deduction from points number 1 and 2 ...

No, it isn't. It is illogical because there is no evidence to support it.

J C wrote: »

because only an agent of God-like capacities of transcendance and omnipotence can account for the production of something as magnificent as the Universe from nothing.

Are you willing to apply the above logic for you God? Given that you state that everything requires a cause. Who created your God, given that such a being must be extremely complex to create the Universe.

Or do you only apply your logic when it suits your argument?

robindch

J C wrote: »

Because of his Jewish background, Ben Stein is acutely aware of what can happen in a modern western country ... when a target group gets isolated and demonised

Yes, and in the US, creationists form around 90% of the population and they're still "isolated and demonised". Truly, you must believe that us evolutionists are mighty, mighty people indeed!

Bwah, ha, ha, ha!!

J C wrote: »

It's a very short step from telling somebody that they should refuse medical care

And where exactly did I say that?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Yes, and in the US, creationists form around 90% of the population and they're still "isolated and demonised". Truly, you must believe that us evolutionists are mighty, mighty people indeed!

The fact that Creation Science isn't allowed to even be spoken about in schools supposedly run by and for a population of people who are 90% Creationist is a very strange situation indeed.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
It's a very short step from telling somebody that they should refuse medical care

robindch
Bwah, ha, ha, ha!!And where exactly did I say that?

wrote:

Originally Posted by robindch
Can't speak for anybody else, but when I brought up that topic, I said something quite different -- if creationists hold modern science in such total contempt, then they should have the courage of their convictions and refuse medicine which has been produced using the same science

I would also point out that Medical Science doesn't rely on Evolutionism in any manner ... except in the minds of some Evolutionists.
... and it is funded equally by the tax dollars of Creationist and Evolutionist alike!!!

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

The fact that Creation Science isn't allowed to even be spoken about in schools supposedly run by and for a population of people who are 90% Creationist is a very strange situation indeed.

Because it is NOT science.

dead one

koth wrote: »

excellent, so now I can add confirmation bias to the list of terms that you don't understand.
You don't understand evolution, .

Marvelous, Incredible, Wonderful and improbable....

Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many observer effects in the human mind, some of which can lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment

Great, i don't understand evolution because i am bias free, You always understand.....

even, your statement confirms there is bias in your statement....

koth wrote: »

so now I can add confirmation bias to the list of terms that you don't understand.

thanks again to confirmation bias....:)
"Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis."
Very well... See, first you said, i am lying, when you failed to prove me a liar then you say, i don't understand evolution.... Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Point number 1 is indeed a scientifically verifiable fact ... and its called the Law of Causality ... which states that everything that physically exists has a cause of equal or greater generative capacity.

if that is true, then god had a creator or doesn't exist.

Point number 2 is agreed by both Creationist and Evolutionist alike ... albeit with different starting points of direct creation and a singularity respectively.

not true, and if watched the video you'd know that.

Point number 3 is a logical deduction from points number 1 and 2 ... because only an agent of God-like capacities of transcendance and omnipotence can account for the production of something as magnificent as the Universe from nothing.

there is nothing logical about stating that a deity that hasn't been proven to exist created the universe. it's just wishful thiunking.

The idea that the Universe always existed is not used by the young lady in the video ... and, in any event, it breaches the Law of Causality.

yes it is. thanks for verifying you didn't watch the video.

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument that the Universe has always existed ... nobody is arguing that life has always existed ... and the Law of Causality certainly applies to the creation of life ... and it indicates that only an agent of God-like omnipotence can account for the production of something as complex functional and specified as living organisms from scratch.

no it doesn't, you're just arguing that it does so as to satisfy yiur religious beliefs.

... but the point is that conventionally qualified scientists who are Creationists CAN do their jobs as working scientists ... just like Jewish Doctors and scientists could do their jobs in Nazi Germany ... if they were allowed to do their jobs.
You want to prevent conventionally qualified Creationists holding senior scientific positions ... which is identical to what was done to conventionally qualified Jewish scientists by the Nazis.
If the cap fits ... and all that!!!

what a pile of bull poop. i never said creationists should be barred from any jobs. so your comparison with the nazi doesn't apply. but nice work on veiled insult.

... there is no problem with criticising religious beliefs ... but don't whinge when your own beliefs are equally robustly challenged.
There is a very serious problem when you move from debating aspects of religious belief to discriminating against the people who hold these beliefs ... it is illegal ... and it applies equally to both Atheists and Theists.

i've no problem with discussing anything relating to my world view, so i've no idea what you're trying to say in the above quote.

... and I didn't say that any of this was equivalent to the Holocaust ... I am merely pointing out that it has parallells with what happened to the Jews in the lead up to the Holocaust. Indeed, that is one of the reasons for equality legislation ... to prevent society ever descending to the 'toxic' conditions that facilitate genocide and/or inter-communal strife.

they stil aren not comparable, so quit with the persecution complex. challenging someones beliefs doesn't make a person a nazi.

He was thanked ... and nobody pointed out the untrue and offensive nature of his signature ... when it was an integral part of his post.

no it wasn't. it was his sig. how difficult is it for you to understand something so simple?

If I had a similarly offensive and untrue signature against Atheism ... I'm quite sure that I would be picked up on it.

yes probably because someone would report it in the sig forum. which i suggested
you do if it's a problem for you.

... that's the same as claiming that anti-semetic remarks refer to the Jewish religion as a whole ... and not every Jew in the world!!!

not even close. anti-semetic comments are a result of ignorance and hatred. the sig is a joke regarding the global child abuse that the institution of the RCC was involved in. but that doesn't help your persecution complex if you admit that fact.

Respect doesn't have to be earned ... it is part of the right to be treated with dignity that every Human Being enjoys.
I have made my scientific points in an open and reasoned manner ... and you guys, in turn, have the opportunity to question me on them ... and ye have done so in the most minute detail.

repect definitely has to be earned.

The fact that I have dominated every encounter ... is not due to me per se ... but comes down to the fact thet Creation did occur ... and ye guys are trying to prove something that didn't occur ... which is an impossible task.

that's some delusion of grandeur from someone who has difficulty with basic maths and science.

The logic and evidence simply wont fit an explantion of something that didn't actually happen ... and that is why Creationists win every encounter with Evolutonists

i assume the irony of that statement was unintentional

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

Marvelous, Incredible, Wonderful and improbable....

Great, i don't understand evolution because i am bias free, You always understand.....

even, your statement confirms there is bias in your statement....

thanks again to confirmation bias....:)
"Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis."
Very well... See, first you said, i am lying, when you failed to prove me a liar then you say, i don't understand evolution.... Everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum.

i did prove your lie, but you ignored it. now you are just distorting stuff in attempt to save face.

J C

koth wrote: »

if that is true, then god had a creator or doesn't exist.

God is transcendent ... so He could, and did, exist before His Creation.
Materialists have an analagous problem with what existed before their Big Bang ... and they have multiple ideas about it ranging from absolutley nothing, to infinite inflation backwards, to a universe oscillating between a big bang and a big crunch ... or big bangs going off every so often to create multiverses.
... a real 'you pay your money and take your choice' of idea siituation!!!

koth wrote: »

not true, and if watched the video you'd know that.

... she said so much and presented so many ideas, many of them mutually exclusive that you can deny almost anything that I could claim that she said.

It is quite clear what has been happening over the past 50 years ... the so-called liberal churches have slavishly agreed with almost every claim of the Atheists about the origins issue ... and they abandoned the Genesis account of creation in order to 'cosy-up' to the Atheists ... and the Atheists were happy with this state of affairs, as it allowed atheistic origins ideas free access to the children of these 'liberal christians' ... both within and without church schools ...
... and now that their children have substantially abandoned the Chrisitian Faith ... and the liberal churches have firmly crossed the rubicon on the origins issue to the Big Bang paradigm... they look to their Atheist 'friends' within science for agreement on the Big Bang ...
... the Big Bang that the churches have accepted and promoted as the moment of Creation (and the only substantive creative action by God in the Universe) ... and now the Atheists, sensing an 'end game' say that the Big Bang came after the Big Crunch ... and, as the churches have long ago surrendered all authority on the origins issue to Materialistic Science (and joined the Atheists in rubbishing Creationism) it is 'game set and match' to the Atheists ... or so it would be, if it weren't for Creation Science ... and Creation Scientists.