"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

when he admitted that random processes would make evolution an impossibility ...

Gibberish. Please clarify.

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Not only does this show that you have not got a bull's notion what you are talking about, but it does indeed confirm that you are misquoting a source to suit your own means. I'm no lover of Dawkins, but I know he wouldn't come out with this type of nonsensical dribble.

And I mean dribble.

Your ad hominem remarks are tiresome ... and illustrate that you have a bad case, that you are trying to cover up with these remarks.

Please stick to the debate and leave the personal remarks alone.

Anyway, this is exactly what Prof Dawkins said (18:35 on the download) :-
Interviwer :- "Many people would believe that the alternative to Intelligent Design is just random chance."
Prof Dawkins "That's a complete misunderstanding, of course. If it were, then nobody should believe in evolution ... because if it were random luck, random chance, then that would be an extremely silly idea. You have only got to look at a living creature or at any organ, any part of a living creature to see that whatever else it is, it is not chance. It's clearly very non-random. An eye really, really works at seeing, a wing really works at flying.
Those sorts of things don't just come about at random, they come about by Natural selection, which is a supremely non-random force."

With the exception of the claim that NS was the generator of eyes and wings, I couldn't have said it better myself ...
... I would submit that random processes (like mutation) that supposedly provides the variety for NS to select is the weak link in Evolution Theory ... and these processes have all of the problems that Prof Dawkins has admitted arise for any theory that tries to explain a seeing eye or a flying wing, by resorting to random processes (like mutagenesis).

Later in the programme the other evolutionists (from 25:00 onwards) expressed surprise and even went as far as saying that Prof Dawkins had 'changed his tune' on the non-random nature of evolution and was implying "a purpose to the whole evolutionary process".
They even suggested that Prof Dawlins might eventually write a book on the 'Atheist Delusion' ...
... I could write it for him ... and all I would need to do is to quote the contributions from some of the evolutionists on this thread!!!!:)

dlofnep

J C wrote:

The presence of detectable C14 in diamonds, that Evolutionists believe to be up to 2 billion years old, proves that they are a maximum of 50,000 years old (based on current C 14 decay rates and production levels) ...

No, it doesn't. Before I outline as to why it isn't the case - I'd just like to touch on the elephant in the room. You pick and choose which scientific dating methodologies in an attempt to validate your argument (erronously). Carbon-14 dating is not used for anything beyond about 60,000 years.

There is an array of Radiometric dating methods used to date different time periods. Uranium-lead radiometric dating for example has an error rate of only 2 million years (give or take) in rocks in the time period of 2500 million years old. Now either all of these dating methods are wrong, and your understanding of Carbon-14 dating on it's own is correct - or you're regurgitating material from Answers in Genesis, without actually understanding the implications of your post - and how erroneous it actually is.

Now, with that out of the way - let's address the content of your post.

The presence of detectable C14 in diamonds ... proves that they are a maximum of 50,000 years old

This is incorrect and here is why. Firstly, Carbon-14 is not produced through one single process. The general process for which we use to date relatively new material (about 58,000 years) is derived from atmospheric bombardment of solar radiation.

However, as I have stated - this is not the only way Carbon-14 is produced. Another way is from radioactive decay of uranium-thorium underground. Studies indeed did find coal with Carbon-14, where the coal resided nearby the decay of uranium-thorium. And as expected, the further away from the decay - the less Carbon-14 was found.

So does that mean the fuels and other materials found underground are less than 58,000 years? No. It does not. What it suggests is that a nearby decay of a uranium-thorium isotope series produced the carbon-14 found on the coal deposits or diamonds. This is why nobody who actually understands radiometric dating would use Carbon-14 to date coal or diamonds.

Now onwards to the moon argument. Kent Hovind can't even stick to the same figures. In 1992 in a debate with Hilpman, he stated:

The Moon is receding a few inches each year. Less than a million years ago the Moon would have been so close that the tides would have drowned everyone twice a day. Less than 2 or 3 million years ago the Moon would have been inside the Roche limit† and, thus, destroyed.

Now, I'm no mathematician - but let's assume 4cm drift over 3 million years. That's only 120 kilometres, bringing it absolutely nowhere near the Roche Limit. And this is the man that you get your inspiration from?

As for your claim that the moon would have been 'touching Earth' less than 1.5 billion years ago - Perhaps you'd care to cite a peer reviewed paper to backup this claim? Because I'd be more than happy to cite one that places the Moon well outside the Roche Limit over 4 billion years ago. Kirk Hansen of the Department of Geophysical Sciences in the University of Chicago states:

The calculated position of the lunar orbit at 4.5 billion years ago is found to range from 38 to 53 earth radii in the four models and corresponds to a sidereal month of 330 to 550 hours. The sidereal day would have been 12 to 18 hours, with a relative inclination of 3° to 22° between the terrestrial and lunar poles. These results are in sharp contrast to those from previous studies of the earth-moon system, most of which indicated a Roche limit approach of the two bodies roughly 1 to 2 billion years ago and presented therefore a time scale difficulty in theories of lunar origin. This contrast arises mainly from the fact that previous modelers avoided solution of Laplace's tidal equations by prescribing a constant frictional phase lag angle between the angular position of the moon and the major axis of the second-degree harmonic of the tidally deformed surface of the earth.

Hansen, Kirk S. 1982. "Secular effects of oceanic tidal dissipation on the moon's orbit and the earth's rotation" Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 20:457-480, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1982/RG020i003p00457.shtml

I'm willing to accept the findings of a person who works day in, day out to understand all of the variables involved in the lunar drift, rather than some copy and paster, who is incapable of delving outside of the world of 'Answers in Genesis'.

As for your human population claim - How about you provide a realistic method, which takes all variables into account. Don't just make assinine claims like "it must have been X", without substantiating it with a realistic and peer-reviewed formula.

As for the rest of that nonsense on that page, I only have so much time in the day to write-up rebuttals. If I had to offer a rebuttal to every bull**** claim you made, I'd be here all day. Most people will take it with good faith that I randomly selected three points to refute in a time-saving exercise.

But I'll be happy to move onto the other points, providing you acknowledge all of the above and discuss them first - instead of your usual hit and run nonsense, where you post an asinine claim, and when it's refuted - you just copy and paste some other nonsensical claim to try and divert attention away from the previous nonsense.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

Your ad hominem remarks are tiresome ... and illustrate that you have a bad case, that you are trying to cover up with these remarks.

Please stick to the debate and leave the personal remarks alone.

Anyway, this is exactly what Prof Dawkins said (18:35 on the download) :-
Interviwer :- "Many people would believe that the alternative to Intelligent Design is just random chance."
Prof Dawkins "That's a complete misunderstanding, of course. If it were, then nobody should believe in evolution ... because if it were random luck, random chance, then that would be an extremely silly idea. You have only got to look at a living creature or at any organ, any part of a living creature to see that whatever else it is, it is not chance. It's clearly very non-random. An eye really, really works at seeing, a wing really works at flying.
Those sorts of things don't just come about at random, they come about by Natural selection, which is a supremely non-random force."

I have a bad case? What are you talking about? A case of the consumption? A court case? A suitcase? You have absolutely no idea what I believe, only that I disagree with what you believe. A belief system that you vcannot justify outside of biblical referencing and nonsensical remarks.

And do you really think this is the new pro-creationist manifesto of Dawkins? If so, even your basic comprehension is pretty substandard.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Please stick to the debate and leave the personal remarks alone.

You'd find that people would be much more pleasant if you didn't misrepresent Dawkins, and just about every other evolutionary biologist to whom you refer, so egregiously.

However, so long as you persist in misrepresenting about him and them, I'm afraid it's going to continue, much and all as Dades and I would prefer it wouldn't.

Unless you wish, of course, to come out and actually admit that you in fact do fully agree with Dawkins, in which case we can close this thread at last.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

You wish!!!!:)

This is not a rebuttal. Try harder. Try actually reading the paper and pointing out where it is flawed.

Or admit you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Either's fine. But avoiding the choice just makes you look stupid.

J C

robindch wrote: »

You'd find that people would be much more pleasant if you didn't misrepresent Dawkins, and just about every other evolutionary biologist to whom you refer, so egregiously.

However, so long as you persist in misrepresenting about him and them, I'm afraid it's going to continue, much and all as Dades and I would prefer it wouldn't.

Unless you wish, of course, to come out and actually admit that you in fact do fully agree with Dawkins, in which case we can close this thread at last.

Prof Dawkins seems to be increasingly agreeing with me (on the non-random nature of living creatures, for example )... rather than the other way around!!!!:)

... and could I say to all of the Evolutionists on this thread, who continue to make unfounded personal remarks about me, that basic manners and civil behaviour costs nothing ... and helps make life more pleasant.

... and trying to win an argument by making personal remarks rather than addressing the subject at hand is indicative of not really having an argument at all.

Delirium

I wouldn't be so quick to criticise someone for not addressing a subject if I were you JC. Take that paper that you refuse to address for example.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins seems to be increasingly agreeing with me (on the non-random nature of living creatures, for example )...

JC, if you think that Dawkins and you agree on anything substantial in the field of modern evolutionary biology, then you are either the evolutionist you claimed to be years ago in the other thread in the Other Forum, or else you are truly delusional.

dlofnep

J C, if you are going to ignore my rebuttal - at least do me the liberty of accepting that you were wrong, or if you do not have the time to respond to it at the moment - at least do me the liberty of telling me that you will get back to me on it. Don't ignore a post which completely smashes your argument and expect to skip on as if nothing happened.

The Mad Hatter

*shrug* He's been doing just that for years. No reason he'd stop just because you're new. Sorry, dlofnep.

dlofnep

I guess he's waiting for AnwersInGenesis.org to come up with a rebuttal for him. Could be here a while.

fatmammycat

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Before I outline as to why it isn't the case - I'd just like to touch on the elephant in the room. You pick and choose which scientific dating methodologies in an attempt to validate your argument (erronously). Carbon-14 dating is not used for anything beyond about 60,000 years.

There is an array of Radiometric dating methods used to date different time periods. Uranium-lead radiometric dating for example has an error rate of only 2 million years (give or take) in rocks in the time period of 2500 million years old. Now either all of these dating methods are wrong, and your understanding of Carbon-14 dating on it's own is correct - or you're regurgitating material from Answers in Genesis, without actually understanding the implications of your post - and how erroneous it actually is.

Now, with that out of the way - let's address the content of your post.



This is incorrect and here is why. Firstly, Carbon-14 is not produced through one single process. The general process for which we use to date relatively new material (about 58,000 years) is derived from atmospheric bombardment of solar radiation.

However, as I have stated - this is not the only way Carbon-14 is produced. Another way is from radioactive decay of uranium-thorium underground. Studies indeed did find coal with Carbon-14, where the coal resided nearby the decay of uranium-thorium. And as expected, the further away from the decay - the less Carbon-14 was found.

So does that mean the fuels and other materials found underground are less than 58,000 years? No. It does not. What it suggests is that a nearby decay of a uranium-thorium isotope series produced the carbon-14 found on the coal deposits or diamonds. This is why nobody who actually understands radiometric dating would use Carbon-14 to date coal or diamonds.

Now onwards to the moon argument. Kent Hovind can't even stick to the same figures. In 1992 in a debate with Hilpman, he stated:



Now, I'm no mathematician - but let's assume 4cm drift over 3 million years. That's only 120 kilometres, bringing it absolutely nowhere near the Roche Limit. And this is the man that you get your inspiration from?

As for your claim that the moon would have been 'touching Earth' less than 1.5 billion years ago - Perhaps you'd care to cite a peer reviewed paper to backup this claim? Because I'd be more than happy to cite one that places the Moon well outside the Roche Limit over 4 billion years ago. Kirk Hansen of the Department of Geophysical Sciences in the University of Chicago states:



Hansen, Kirk S. 1982. "Secular effects of oceanic tidal dissipation on the moon's orbit and the earth's rotation" Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 20:457-480, http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1982/RG020i003p00457.shtml

I'm willing to accept the findings of a person who works day in, day out to understand all of the variables involved in the lunar drift, rather than some copy and paster, who is incapable of delving outside of the world of 'Answers in Genesis'.

As for your human population claim - How about you provide a realistic method, which takes all variables into account. Don't just make assinine claims like "it must have been X", without substantiating it with a realistic and peer-reviewed formula.

As for the rest of that nonsense on that page, I only have so much time in the day to write-up rebuttals. If I had to offer a rebuttal to every bull**** claim you made, I'd be here all day. Most people will take it with good faith that I randomly selected three points to refute in a time-saving exercise.

But I'll be happy to move onto the other points, providing you acknowledge all of the above and discuss them first - instead of your usual hit and run nonsense, where you post an asinine claim, and when it's refuted - you just copy and paste some other nonsensical claim to try and divert attention away from the previous nonsense.

Let's keep this post up top.

J C

robindch wrote: »

JC, if you think that Dawkins and you agree on anything substantial in the field of modern evolutionary biology, then you are either the evolutionist you claimed to be years ago in the other thread in the Other Forum, or else you are truly delusional.

I think that Prof Dawkins has a Theist inside ... trying to break out!!!:)

How else do you explain an avowed Atheist writing several books about God and religion?

... and its not just me ... the Evolutionists on the Newstalk programme (from 25:00 onwards) expressed surprise about Prof Dawkins comments and they even went as far as saying that Prof Dawkins had 'changed his tune' on the non-random nature of evolution and was implying "a purpose to the whole evolutionary process".

I'm not actually surprised about Prof Dawkins' comments ... they are in continuity with his previous writings ... but I do think that he is placing too much faith in the power of NS to sort out the mess that random processes, such as mutagenesis cause.

dlofnep

Still avoiding my rebuttal I see..

Sonics2k

*offtopic post*

Dawkins has been a sellout for the last few years now honestly.

He will say/write anything to sell a few more books.

But no, Dawkins is not a Theist and certainly does not believe in God.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Unless you wish, of course, to come out and actually admit that you in fact do fully agree with Dawkins, in which case we can close this thread at last.

Can I post on your other threads, if you shut this one down, Robin?

... or do you want to protect the 'innocent minds' of your fellow atheists from any substantive challenges to their pet ideas?
... by using the expedient of censorship ... and banning me.

... just goes to show that all power elites (of both the Theist and Atheist varieties) will abuse their powers in remarkably similar ways ... if given half a chance!!!!:)

... me ... I believe in the free exchange of ideas ... and letting everybody make up their minds on where the truth lies, on every issue.

... the alternative is fascism ... in all its various manifestions!!!:)
... and, whether the fascist is an Atheist or a Theist is academic ... because the result is identical ... the suppression of alternative opinion ... and the stunting of intellectual progress.

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

*offtopic post*

Dawkins has been a sellout for the last few years now honestly.

He will say/write anything to sell a few more books.

But no, Dawkins is not a Theist and certainly does not believe in God.

Your post isn't off-topic ... Dawkins is the mirror image of John May, whose book is the topic of this thread.

Anyway, why do you say the Dawkins is a 'sellout' to the Evolutionist cause?

I don't think he will say/write anything ... he must be quite wealthy, and not reliant on producing populist books.
I may disagree with his views ... but I have to say that I find him to be a man of absolute integrity ... and the reason his books are successful is because he has got a very engaging writing style.

Sarky

Could you just give us the rebuttal instead of whining about censorship and being gay for Dawkins? You're making yourself look more foolish every time you post something that isn't dealing with that paper.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Still avoiding my rebuttal I see..

What 'rebuttal'?
I have made my case ... and you have made yours ... and I'll let the observers judge the merits of each case.

Sarky

Get to the paper. You said you would. You've had a stupid amount of time to tear it apart by now. But you're still avoiding discussion with glib one-liners of abominable quality.

sephir0th

J C wrote: »

What 'rebuttal'?
I have made my case ... and you have made yours ... and I'll let the observers judge the merits of each case.

Pathetic.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Could you just give us the rebuttal instead of whining about censorship and being gay for Dawkins?

I'm not gay about any man ... including Dawkins!!!

... and the issue of censorship and personal abuse (by either Atheists on this thread or Theists in other times and places) is much more important than rebutting any paper.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Get to the paper. You said you would. You've had a stupid amount of time to tear it apart by now. But you're still avoiding discussion with glib one-liners of abominable quality.

Are you all prepared to accept my pre-conditions ... of one paragraph at a time, one poster opposing me and no ad hominem remarks or tangental posts?

Sarky

In other words you want a few ways to weasel out of it.

No deal. Do it properly, like the scientist you claim to be. Or concede.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

In other words you want a few ways to weasel out of it.

No deal. Do it properly, like the scientist you claim to be. Or concede.

My pre-conditions are reasonable ... and you are the one copping out.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Can I post on your other threads, if you shut this one down, Robin? ... or do you want to protect the 'innocent minds' of your fellow atheists from any substantive challenges to their pet ideas? ... by using the expedient of censorship ... and banning me.

I have pointed out to you innumerable times that you are not banned. On the contrary, you're explicitly allowed to continue posting here, in violation of the forum's "no soapboxing" rule, because your continual soapboxing is actually doing the cause of atheism a minor favour. Any other poster committing such violations on such an ongoing basis would have been banned long ago.

If you learn how to post while adhering to the forum's straightforward rules (one or two of you posts elsewhere in this forum over the last week or so were fine, and for which I applaud you) then you can post wherever you like within A+A, upon whatever topic you like. Nevertheless, so long as you continue to soapbox, you will be required to stay here. If you do not, the forum moderators reserve the right to move to this thread, any posts you make elsewhere.

However, at this stage, I have to say as forum moderator, that I'm tired of having to point this out to you every time that you deceitfully claim that you are being censored. So, here's a minor update to forum policy:

The next time on this forum that you make the deceitful claim that you are being censored -- when in fact, you are the one poster for whose benefit normal forum rules have been suspended -- you will be banned for a week. If, at any point following a future return, you repeat the same deceitful claim, you will be banned permanently from A+A.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

My pre-conditions are reasonable ... and you are the one copping out.

why should you be treated any differently to any other poster on this thread? No other poster on this thread is asking to exclude posters from the discussion as you are currently doing.

J C

Robin, I accept that the job of a moderator is a difficult one ... and I thank yourself and Dades for your courtesy to me on this forum.

You are quite entitled to make any rules that you feel are necessary to run your forum ... and I, in turn, need to consider whether I wish to continue posting under the conditions set for me.

It seems to me that anybody (including Atheists and Christians) will respond in a standard / predictable way in defense of a standard challenge to their worldview.
Almost every poster on this thread 'soapboxes' to some extent ... if that is the definition.

I have posted courteously at all times. I have responded directly to all posts. Sometimes my resposes are predictable ... or repetitive ... but then many of the posts that I am responding to are also predictable and repetitive.

On reflection, I think that it might be dis-courteous for me to continue posting on a forum where my contributions are 'unwelcome', to put it mildly.

This has been a fascinating exercise in sociology ... and, in the process, I have won a bet, that Atheists will behave in exactly the same way as all religious persons do, when their core beliefs are challenged ...
... which, when you think about it, isn't surprising ... because Atheists are also Homo Sapiens ... with all of the virtues and vices that this implies.
... a little bit of a disappointment for those who would like to believe that Atheists have risen above their fallen natures ... but no surprise to any student of history ... or any Christian.

I have enjoyed 'blowing the breeze' with you guys ... and I fully undestand, if this feeling isn't mutual.

I have presented the truth that God exists, created you ... and will one day sit in Judgement on you, if you continue to choose His justice over His loving forgiveness and Salvation.

I wish you all the very best in this life ... and in the next ...

... and now I must be about my Father's business ... elsewhere.

May the peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you all.:)
.

Sarky

So you're going to run even further from that paper?