"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Delirium

J C wrote: »

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!!!

you have no proof of that, just parables from your holy book.

Why not say it was Popol Vuh's creation myth, or the Greeks, or the Romans, or any other religious myth.

The only reason you're supporting the creation myth that you support is because it's contained in your holy book.

... 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.

Now you're being silly. I said that you lied about a statement not being addressed in the video. You're the one who denied something existsed in the video, and now you're tripping over yourself as you back-pedal.

Why would I deny something is said in the video when anyone, yourself included, can just point to the relevant portion of the video? It's a pointless excercise.

It is quite clear what has been happening over the past 50 years ... the so-called liberal churches have slavisly 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.

at least now we're getting somewhere. You are finally admitting that creationism is a product of your religion. That means it isn't science

dlofnep

JC, you didn't answer my question. I will repeat.

Given that you state that everything requires a cause. Who created your God?

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Because it is NOT science.

Firstly, your statement bizzarely implies that science is the only subject that should be taught in school.

Secondly, Creation Science is indeed conventional science ... but Creation itself isn't even allowed to be mentioned in these schools that are supposedly run by and for a population of people who are 90% Creationist and this is a very strange situation indeed.
Anyway, the ban ensures that Christian parents ensure that Creation Science is properly taught to their children outside of school hours ... rather than being dismissively discussed by an Evolutionist, as seems to be the case in many other countries.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

JC, you didn't answer my question. I will repeat.

Given that you state that everything requires a cause. Who created your God?

Like I have already said, God is transcendent ... so He could, and did, exist before His Creation ... and therefore isn't subject to the Laws of the Universe, including the Law of Causality.
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.

POINTBREAK

koth wrote: »

you have no proof of that, just parables from your holy book.

-
I would give it up Koth. What sort of faith can it be when you have to lie and cheat and ignore questions to prove you are a believer.
Good effort though.

POINTBREAK

J C wrote: »

Like I have already said, God is transcendent ... so He could, and did, exist before His Creation ... and therefore isn't subject to the Laws of the Universe, including the Law of Causality.
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.

You believe the Bible's description of origins is accurate and logical as it explains the universe and requires fewer miracles than a naturalistic event? Let's have a look at it (we'll ignore the fact that genesis is two accounts interwoven).

- In the beginning God created the universe, and Earth was formless and desolate.

So far so good - the early Earth would have been pretty formless and desolate. But one problem: where’d God spring from? If he created the universe, then he must have existed outside of it. This sounds a bit like Gav's "existence itself" theory.

- A raging ocean covered the Earth with god's spirit moving across or over it.

No; there is not enough water on Earth to cover its entire surface and there never has been.

- God created light just by calling it up then makes night and day

Logical and accurate? Non-miraculous?

- God made a dome to separate the water on Earth from the water above it.

There is very little water above the Earth (i.e. clouds and vapour make only a tiny % of Earth's total water). This sounds like the authors thought of the sky as another sea - suspended above them. Logical and accurate?

- God creates land then plants

That's pretty much the right order - mark one up for God.

- God creates stars so people will know when to worship him

A few problems here. He's already created light - but he only now gets around to creating stars - the source of light. Also, we know for pretty much certain that the Earth had to have formed in the Sun's accretion disc; but the Sun, being a star, was formed after the Earth, according to Genesis. Strike at least two off God's score.

- God creates fish and birds and animals by his command alone

The order is not right - birds came much later than fish. And what about the fossil record? This says that fish and birds were not just created all at once, but appear to be divided by hundreds of millions of years. Why would God go to the trouble of creating a superfluous fossil record. Logical and accurate? Non-miraculous?

- God created animals, domestic at the same time as wild

Again, animals pre-date birds in the fossil record. We know from genetics and archaeology that domestication of animals was a long slow process

- God makes human beings to resemble "us", i.e. whatever God or Gods look like - we look like God, apparently. Funny that.

That's it? THAT is the accurate and logical non-miraulous story that has convinced you that the combined work of scientists over hundreds of years is flat wrong? Breathtaking.

The whole story reads like a bedtime story for the children of desert tribesmen c. 1000 B.C.E. - which it might well have been. It also requires outrageous miracles at every step. It flies in the face of the fossil record, genetics, archaeology, geology, cosmology, social history; astronomy... clever people working sometimes over centuries in all of those fields would have to be utterly wrong to accommodate this account of the Earth’s formation and age.

Yet , you see this as accurate and logical. I'm sorry to say your bar for accuracy and logic is set lamentably low. Your beliefs show contempt for the work of honest scientists and historians.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Firstly, your statement bizzarely implies that science is the only subject that should be taught in school.

wow, you are really getting brash with the misrepresentations of peoples posts.

where in dlofneps post was it suggested that maths, english, history or geography shouldn't be taught in schools? very poor form, JC.

Secondly, Creation Science is indeed conventional science ... but Creation itself isn't even allowed to be mentioned in these schools that are supposedly run by and for a population of people who are 90% Creationist and this is a very strange situation indeed.

another lie. i learnt the creation myth in school, it was done in religion class, where it belongs.

also, tthe 90% number is something you pulled out of your hat. no way is it that high, i'd be surprised if it was even as high as 10%

Anyway, the ban ensures that Christian parents ensure that Creation Science is properly taught to their children outside of school hours ... rather than being dismissively discussed by an Evolutionist, as seems to be the case in many other countries.

nothing wrong with parents taking an active role in their kids religious upbringing.

J C

koth wrote: »

... i learnt the creation myth in school, it was done in religion class, where it belongs.

... obviously you weren't taught by a Creation Scientist ... or you would know that the Creation of life is a fact ... and not a myth, like the unfounded belief that Pondkind 'morphed' into Mankind over billions of years.

koth wrote: »

also, the 90% number is something you pulled out of your hat. no way is it that high, i'd be surprised if it was even as high as 10%

... it was Robin who suggested the 90% figure ...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73792962&postcount=5096

wrote:

robindch
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!

It is a very strange state of affairs that an idea, that is clearly a faith booster for Atheism, is compusorily taught to the children of 90% of a population who are Theists ... yet, after 50 years of the 'force feeding' of Americans, in the public school system, with Materialistic Evolutionism (and the legal banning of all alternative ideas) ... up to 90% of the population still rejects it.
There is obviously something radically wrong with the idea of 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution ... the fact that it never happened is a major issue!!!:D

koth wrote: »

nothing wrong with parents taking an active role in their kids religious upbringing.

... I agree.

Sarky

You haven't posted a single thing in favour of creation science that wasn't either debunked years ago or a bald-faced lie conflicting with a truckload of evidence to the contrary.

You keep dodging questions and ignoring what's right in front of you, and you call it victory. Your dishonesty and determined ignorance is utterly disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself, but it's clear you lack the ability.

J C

My answers in Blue

POINTBREAK wrote: »

You believe the Bible's description of origins is accurate and logical as it explains the universe and requires fewer miracles than a naturalistic event? Let's have a look at it (we'll ignore the fact that genesis is two accounts interwoven).
... two accounts of the one event ... Genesis 1 gives a general description of the full creation ... and Genesis 2 gives a detailed account of the Creation of Mankind.

- In the beginning God created the universe, and Earth was formless and desolate.

So far so good - the early Earth would have been pretty formless and desolate. But one problem: where’d God spring from? If he created the universe, then he must have existed outside of it. This sounds a bit like Gav's "existence itself" theory.
God did exist outside the Universe ... and He still exists outside the Universe ... its called transcendence

- A raging ocean covered the Earth with god's spirit moving across or over it.

No; there is not enough water on Earth to cover its entire surface and there never has been.
Oceans cover 70% of the Earth today ... but there is enough water to cover 100% of the Earth to a depth of several hundred metres, if the surface of the Earth was smooth (instead of the mountains and ocean troughs that exist today).

- God created light just by calling it up then makes night and day
Yes

Logical and accurate? Non-miraculous?
Logical, accurate and miraculous

- God made a dome to separate the water on Earth from the water above it.

There is very little water above the Earth (i.e. clouds and vapour make only a tiny % of Earth's total water). This sounds like the authors thought of the sky as another sea - suspended above them. Logical and accurate?
This is thought to be a vapour canopy that was destroyed in Noah's Flood ... and unlike todays clouds it covered the entire earth and had a temperature balancing effect, preventing temperature extremes between day and night ... and over the range of the latitudes


- God creates land then plants

That's pretty much the right order - mark one up for God.
Yes

- God creates stars so people will know when to worship him
... and to demonstrate his awesome Glory

A few problems here. He's already created light - but he only now gets around to creating stars - the source of light. Also, we know for pretty much certain that the Earth had to have formed in the Sun's accretion disc; but the Sun, being a star, was formed after the Earth, according to Genesis. Strike at least two off God's score.
God created light before the Sun was created ... and He Created the Earth before the Sun ... to indicate His priority ranking between these two celestial bodies.

- God creates fish and birds and animals by his command alone

The order is not right - birds came much later than fish. And what about the fossil record? This says that fish and birds were not just created all at once, but appear to be divided by hundreds of millions of years. Why would God go to the trouble of creating a superfluous fossil record. Logical and accurate? Non-miraculous?
The fossil record is largely a record of burial during Noah's Flood ... and thus has nothing to do with so-called millions of years.
Everything was created over 6 days.

- God created animals, domestic at the same time as wild

Again, animals pre-date birds in the fossil record. We know from genetics and archaeology that domestication of animals was a long slow process
Domestic animals were created with domestically useful traits in Creation Week ... and they were immediately domesticated by Mankind.

- God makes human beings to resemble "us", i.e. whatever God or Gods look like - we look like God, apparently. Funny that.
Yes


That's it? THAT is the accurate and logical non-miraulous story that has convinced you that the combined work of scientists over hundreds of years is flat wrong? Breathtaking.
The reason I believe that Evolution is wrong is because I have searched for the physical evidence for it ... and I have found it to be completely non-existent.


The whole story reads like a bedtime story for the children of desert tribesmen c. 1000 B.C.E. - which it might well have been. It also requires outrageous miracles at every step. It flies in the face of the fossil record, genetics, archaeology, geology, cosmology, social history; astronomy... clever people working sometimes over centuries in all of those fields would have to be utterly wrong to accommodate this account of the Earth’s formation and age.
None of these scientific disciplines provide any evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution.

Yet , you see this as accurate and logical. I'm sorry to say your bar for accuracy and logic is set lamentably low. Your beliefs show contempt for the work of honest scientists and historians.

I love and repect them all ... I just don't accept their conclusions and beliefs.

I was once an Evolutionist myself and I genunely thought it was true ... because every other evolutionist I knew, at the time, thought it was true.:)

J C

Sarky wrote: »

You haven't posted a single thing in favour of creation science that wasn't either debunked years ago or a bald-faced lie conflicting with a truckload of evidence to the contrary.

You keep dodging questions and ignoring what's right in front of you, and you call it victory. Your dishonesty and determined ignorance is utterly disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself, but it's clear you lack the ability.

Is this 'sour grapes' ... that I see before me!!!:D:)

Sarky

That's your delusion talking again I'm afraid. You keep lying and avoiding questions you can't answer, and you think this somehow means you win. It's just rather embarrassing for you.

If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to start being honest. As it is, you're an amusement.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

That's your delusion talking again I'm afraid. You keep lying and avoiding questions you can't answer, and you think this somehow means you win. It's just rather embarrassing for you.

If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to start being honest. As it is, you're an amusement.

I have answered every question put to me honestly and comprehensively ...
... and ye simply have no real answers to my points ... because Creation is true ... and 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution never happened.:)

Sarky

J C wrote: »

I have answered every question put to me honestly and comprehensively ...

This is a complete lie, and you know it.

... and ye simply have no real answers to my points ... because Creation is true ... and 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution never happened.:)

This is also a total lie. All your points were either debunked years ago, or completely lacking in any evidence to back them up. And some of them are just complete rubbish. You have nothing on your side.

J C, right now you are a liar. Please stop lying. It's not too much to ask a christian to be honest, is it?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... obviously you weren't taught by a Creation Scientist ... or you would know that the Creation of life is a fact ... and not a myth, like the unfounded belief that Pondkind 'morphed' into Mankind over billions of years.

I never said I was taught by creationists. I actually don't know the religious beliefs of the 11 teachers, some may have been creationists, I can't say one way or the other without asking them. And neither can you

You are also saying that a creationist would teach the creation myth as fact. You realise that this means the teacher isn't doing their job properly if that was to happen. This is because the creation myth is part of the religion curriculum.

Now on to the "creationism is fact" claim. Please explain to me what evidence you have of this. Just because it's your religious belief, doesn't give you the right to make up your "science". I've put science in quotes because creationism doesn't meet even the most basic requirements of scientific investigation.

... it was Robin who suggested the 90% figure ...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73792962&postcount=5096
It is a very strange state of affairs that an idea, that is clearly a faith booster for Atheism, is compusorily taught to the children of 90% of a population who are Theists ... yet, after 50 years of the 'force feeding' of Americans, in the public school system, with Materialistic Evolutionism (and the legal banning of all alternative ideas) ... up to 90% of the population still rejects it.

Fine, I'll rephrase, robin pulled the number out of his hat. the last survey put the number at 40% of Americans, still a long ways off 90%, and not even half of the population of the US.

There is obviously something radically wrong with the idea of 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution ... the fact that it never happened is a major issue!!!:D

Your ignorance of science isn't something to be proud of.

Anyways, I look forward to your evidence that god created the universe, since you now claim it to be fact. Shouldn't be too difficult to locate the abundance of evidence since it has now been proven.

Genghiz Cohen

koth wrote: »

Now on to the "creationism is fact" claim. Please explain to me what evidence you have of this.

And remember J C, saying that one answer is fudge is not grounds for proclaiming another answer as fact.

You will say Evilution is false because X, Y and Z, therefore Creation is the answer.
This is not sound reasoning, do you see why?

POINTBREAK

Delusion is fact.

robindch

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.

Just another example of the few percent of super-powerful evolutionists oppressing the 90% of non-evolutionists!

It must be terribly disheartening to be so completely out-gunned!

robindch

koth wrote: »

robin pulled the number out of his hat. the last survey put the number at 40% of Americans, still a long ways off 90%, and not even half of the population of the US.

Depends on the question you ask. In broad terms:

"Christian deity designed people as they are now" = ~40%
"People evolved under deistic guidance" = ~40%
"People evolved without deistic guidance" = ~15%
"Huh?" = 5%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Sarky

Careful now, J C might take the phrase "out-gunned" to mean you're going to shoot up a church and chuck the survivors in a gas chamber.

Delirium

robindch wrote: »

Depends on the question you ask. In broad terms:

"Christian deity designed people as they are now" = ~40%
"People evolved under deistic guidance" = ~40%
"People evolved without deistic guidance" = ~15%
"Huh?" = 5%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

yeah, but that still doesn't mean that creationists who believe the bible to be literal and evolution to be false are 90%, which is what JC seemed to be saying.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Careful now, J C might take the phrase "out-gunned" to mean you're going to shoot up a church and chuck the survivors in a gas chamber.

Oh, noes... persecution...!!!! Godwin...!!! Ben Stein... jews...!!! gas chambers!!! pondslime to mankind!!! Big bang!!!! :eek::(:eek::mad::D:cool::(

robindch

koth wrote: »

yeah, but that still doesn't mean that creationists who believe the bible to be literal and evolution to be false are 90%, which is what JC seemed to be saying.

Yes, that's the claim but it's quite wrong -- "Cretinist Gets Stats Wrong" shocker!

People who believe "evolution" to be fully false are around 45%. The 85-90% figure also includes those who partially reject evolution.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Yes, that's the claim but it's quite wrong -- "Cretinist Gets Stats Wrong" shocker!

People who believe "evolution" to be fully false are around 45%. The 85-90% figure also includes those who partially reject evolution.

Like I have already said, it is a very strange state of affairs that an idea, that is clearly a faith booster for Atheism, is compusorily taught to the children of 90% of a population who are Theists ... yet, after 50 years of the 'force feeding' of Americans, in the public school system, with Materialistic Evolutionism (and the legal banning of all alternative ideas) ... up to 90% of the population still rejects it.

Face it guys, there is obviously something radically wrong with the idea of 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution ... and the fact that it never happened is a big part of the reason that only about 10% of Americans fully accept it, after 50 years of exclusively promoting it in school ... and with all other viewpoints legally silenced!!!

Delirium

koth wrote: »

Now on to the "creationism is fact" claim. Please explain to me what evidence you have of this. Just because it's your religious belief, doesn't give you the right to make up your "science". I've put science in quotes because creationism doesn't meet even the most basic requirements of scientific investigation.

Just in case you missed this, JC

liamw

J C

robindch wrote: »

Just another example of the few percent of super-powerful evolutionists oppressing the 90% of non-evolutionists!

... a tiny minority does indeed seem to be defying the majority of Theists in America ... by banning, even the discussion of all alternatives to Materialistic Evolution in schools.

Despite using the law to mandate the teaching of only Materialistic Evolution ... and to ban the discussion of ALL alternatives ... nearly nobody believes it!!!

robindch wrote: »

It must be terribly disheartening to be so completely out-gunned!

I wouldn't know ... but getting only 10% to believe in Materialistic Evolution after 50 years of indoctrination must be very disheartening indeed .:)

Standman

J C wrote: »

... a tiny minority does indeed seem to be defying the majority of Theists in America ... by banning, even the discussion of all alternatives to Materialistic Evolution in schools.

Despite using the law to mandate the teaching of only Evolution ... and to ban the discussion of ALL alternatives ... nearly nobody believes them!!!

I wouldn't know ... but getting only 10% to believe in Materialistic Evolution after 50 years of indoctrination must indeed be very disheartening.:)

Hey JC, how about you change your mind and start believing in evolution?

J C

Standman wrote: »

Hey JC, how about you change your mind and start believing in evolution?

I used to believe in Evolution ... then I opened my eyes ... and discovered that it never happened ... and now I don't believe in it.

robindch

J C wrote: »

by banning, even the discussion of all alternatives to Materialistic Evolution in schools.

Here's a deal -- you keep your deceitful drivel out of schools and I won't go to your church.

What about that for persecution of the 90% by the 10%!

Evolutionists: nine times stronger than creationists!