Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…288289291293294…334

Comments

  • Options
    #8702
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Didn't see that myself ...

    It's good advice ... and makes a pleasant change from the secular equivalent ... which boils down to 'all phenomena must be explicable by non-supernatural means' ...
    ... or 'we are here ... so we must have got here via purely materialistic means'.

    These are all faith-based paradigms.

    No, science is following the evidence and so far the need for a super-natural agent isn't required. Whereas creationism goes straight to the super-natural and works from there.

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



  • Options
    #8703
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shizz wrote: »
    So to does the God Hypothesis.
    ... not an omnipotent eternal transcendent God Hypothesis.
    ... (please note that this would be a philosophical, rather than a scientific hypothesis).


  • Options
    #8704
    Evade
    Registered Users Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭Evade


    J C wrote: »
    Didn't see that myself ...

    It's good advice ... and makes a pleasant change from the secular equivalent ... which boils down to 'all phenomena must be explicable by non-supernatural means' ...
    ... or 'we are here ... so we must have got here via purely materialistic means'.

    These are all faith-based paradigms.
    Seriously?

    Proof positive that JC's scientific method is "I don't know, so it was magic."

    I think the stupidity is giving me a headache.


  • Options
    #8705
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    No, science is following the evidence and so far the need for a super-natural agent isn't required. Whereas creationism goes straight to the super-natural and works from there.
    The truth is that nobody can definitively say whether a super-natural agent is required to Create Life or not ... but there is a very strong circumstantial evidence that it is required, due to the inordinate levels of CFSI present in even the 'simplest' life-forms.
    Conventional scientists should be able to agree to differ on this point ... without 'all hell breaking loose' over it!!!
    Its an amazing ... and often counter-intuitive scientific world out there ... let's agree to share it in mutual respect ... and love.
    ... learning from each other as we go along!!!


  • Options
    #8706
    Evade
    Registered Users Posts: 6,775 ✭✭✭Evade


    J C wrote: »
    The truth is that nobody can definitively say whether a super-natural agent is required to Create Life or not ... but there is a very strong circumstantial evidence that it is required, due to the inordinate levels of CFSI present in even the 'simplest' life-forms.
    And CFSI is what exactly? A compound? A mico-organism? A Creationist False Science Idea?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8707
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The truth is that nobody can definitively say whether a super-natural agent is required to Create Life or not ... but there is a very strong circumstantial evidence that it is required, due to the inordinate levels of CFSI present in even the 'simplest' life-forms.
    An excellent argument against injecting a deity into the argument, especially as that is an argument against abiogenesis and not evolution. Plus CFSI is still undefined so can't be used to argue for creationism from a scientific angle.
    Conventional scientists should be able to agree to differ on this point ... without 'all hell breaking loose' over it!!!
    Of course they can. But creationism doesn't fall under the umbrella of science. And usually scientists that go against the majority have a working model and/or evidence to back up their claims if they wish to be taken seriously.
    Its an amazing ... and often counter-intuitive scientific world out there ... let's agree to share it in mutual respect ... and love.
    ... learning from each other as we go along!!!
    Of course we can. But from where I sit, creationism shows no respect to the field of science. It comes from a "this is my religion, make science work to suit this" perpective, which isn't scientific at all.

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



  • Options
    #8708
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Evade wrote: »
    Seriously?

    Proof positive that JC's scientific method is "I don't know, so it was magic."

    I think the stupidity is giving me a headache.
    "I don't know, so it was magic" ... could equally apply to the Materialist position ... nobody knows whether it was a materialistic miracle ... or an omnipotent God.

    ... but isn't it great to be alive and with the freedom to try and find out ... This is one very big 'mountain' that scientists haven't yet conquered ... so will it be the Materialists ... or the Creationists who will finally plant the flag??

    Exciting stuff!!!:)


  • Options
    #8709
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    J C wrote: »
    Didn't see that myself ...

    ... but it's good advice ... and makes a pleasant change from the secular equivalent ... which boils down to 'all phenomena must be explicable by non-supernatural means' ...
    ... or 'we are here ... so we must have got here via purely materialistic means'.

    These are all faith-based paradigms - that close out other possibilities.

    As a Creation Scientist ... I would report something ... even if it conflicted with the Bible ... and Ken Ham would then have to make of it as he might.

    If you hadn't lost your credibility thousands of posts ago, you'd have lost it as a result of this. Science requires evidence for its 'beliefs' and if there is evidence that supports other hypotheses, they will be investigated and accepted if it proves to be correct (So it doesn't close out other possibilities). So science is ever changing in its beliefs based on evidence. A key example of this coming into play is a CERN particle accelerator supposedly breaking the speed of light. Scientists were perfectly willing to investigate it even though it would have changed the entire field of physics.

    So nothing like religious faith in which you say 'god did it' followed by pseudoscience that has already been proven to be incorrect. Creation 'science' websites and the bible are not a legitimate source of information to backup creationism as a field of science.


  • Options
    #8710
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I'm sure J C will tell us all WHY ignoring evidence when it contradicts the bible is scientific.

    And then he shall fly a winged mushroom to the land of the Sherbet Queen and marry Jebus and live happily ever after.

    Christ, his latest guff was almost physically painful, it was so hilariously bad.


  • Options
    #8711
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Sarky wrote: »
    I'm sure J C will tell us all WHY ignoring evidence when it contradicts the bible is scientific.

    Cause he is a troll who is just trying to wind you guys up.

    Anyone who still thinks JC is actually a Christian Creationist needs to take a break, get a bit of fresh air, re-evaluate your life. He is a troll playing a Christian for sh8ts and giggles. He has practically admitted as much, every time he says something completely unChristian and this is pointed out to him he jokes it off and gives a knowing wink. No one on the Christian forum will go near him because they know he is not a Christian and is just giving Christianity a bad name (perhaps on purpose, I'm guessing he is an atheist, certainly non-religious).

    Its all a big game to him. If people aren't enjoying playing along with him they should leave the game.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8712
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    I'm sure J C will tell us all WHY ignoring evidence when it contradicts the bible is scientific.
    I didn't say that ... and had you read my full post you would clearly see that I didn't say that I would ignore evidence when it contradicts the Bible
    I agreed with the statement that "When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible."... which is a faith-based paradigm in relation to the Bible.

    I then went on to point out that Materialists have similar faith-based paradigms - that close out other faith possibilities.
    These secular paradigms boil down to something like 'all phenomena must be explicable by non-supernatural means' ...
    ... or 'we are here ... so we must have got here via purely materialistic means'.
    ... and I finished with my stance as a Creation Scientist ... which is that I would scientifically report something ... even if it conflicted with the Bible ... and Ken Ham would then have to make of it as he might.
    ... and indeed I myself, as a Bible believing Christian, would have a significant issue with my faith, if this were to occur.
    ... but I would hope that I wouldn't go into denial ... like the Materialists have done when faced with the challenge of the latest breakthroughs in ID research to their paradigm that 'we are here ... so we must have got here via purely materialistic means'.
    .


  • Options
    #8713
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Cause he is a troll who is just trying to wind you guys up.

    Anyone who still thinks JC is actually a Christian Creationist needs to take a break, get a bit of fresh air, re-evaluate your life. He is a troll playing a Christian for sh8ts and giggles. He has practically admitted as much, every time he says something completely unChristian and this is pointed out to him he jokes it off and gives a knowing wink. No one on the Christian forum will go near him because they know he is not a Christian and is just giving Christianity a bad name (perhaps on purpose, I'm guessing he is an atheist, certainly non-religious).

    Its all a big game to him. If people aren't enjoying playing along with him they should leave the game.

    This, a thousand times over.


  • Options
    #8714
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    J C wrote: »
    ... not an omnipotent eternal transcendent God Hypothesis.
    ... (please note that this would be a philosophical, rather than a scientific hypothesis).

    But isn't that just an easy way to ignore a problem?


  • Options
    #8715
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    shizz wrote: »
    But isn't that just an easy way to ignore a problem?
    It certainly isn't ignoring the origins issue ... and it's philosphically and logically valid.
    Direct Creation by an Omipotent Transcendent God is the best available explanation for the origin of the Universe and all life therein.

    It doesn't mean that another better explanation may not be discovered, nor does it stop anybody trying to find one.

    It isn't a scientific (repeatably observable) explanation ... but neither are any of the other current explantions repeatably observable ... and therefore within the scientific realm, either.


  • Options
    #8716
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You're posting bollocks again. I thought you said you were a scientist?


  • Options
    #8717
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Anyone who still thinks JC is actually a Christian Creationist needs to take a break, get a bit of fresh air, re-evaluate your life. He is a troll playing a Christian for sh8ts and giggles. He has practically admitted as much, every time he says something completely unChristian and this is pointed out to him he jokes it off and gives a knowing wink. No one on the Christian forum will go near him because they know he is not a Christian and is just giving Christianity a bad name (perhaps on purpose, I'm guessing he is an atheist, certainly non-religious).
    I have posted on the Christianity Forum ... and I have found that the Christians there seem to be largely Old Earth Evolutionists.
    I was challenged on points of Christian Doctrine by many of them, but they invariably ended up losing every argument ... so they largely gave up ... and went back to discussing being better social workers ... or whatever!!!
    The main substantive challenges to me over there ... actually came from you guys!!!:eek::)
    Anyway ... if I am an Atheist, like you say, surely you should be welcoming me as a 'brother' with a different outook on life ... or are you saying that Atheism is a 'narrow church' with certain tightly held articles of faith ... and any Atheists who doesn't hold these beliefs are to be 'shunned' or 'excommunicated' from amongst the body of Atheists on the A & A!!!:eek::)

    ... and if I'm giving Christianity a bad name, like you say ... that should be right up your street ... or are you some kind of 'closet Christian'???

    ... the reality is that large sections of Christianity are in a fatal embrace with Evolutionism ... and they need to go back to basics ... and start to study and proclaim Scripture ... if they are to become effective and relevant again within society.


  • Options
    #8718
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    You're posting bollocks again. I thought you said you were a scientist?
    Yet another unfounded ... and unreferenced Ad Hominem.
    I have also studied logic and philosophy.


  • Options
    #8719
    cowzerp
    Registered Users Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    He is saying you are an atheist posing as a Christian for shiits and giggles!

    You remind me of some brainwashed mormons I know, anyone who lives their lives based on a book wrote by uneducated almost cavemen :rolleyes: is missing a few marbles.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • Options
    #8720
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    @JC if you've studied logic, why do you abandon it in favour for the creation story of the Bible?

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



  • Options
    #8721
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    If you've studied any of those, it must be so you can be certain none of your posts contain a sign of them.

    Oh, you remember how I gave you a day or so recently to provide that robust definition of cfsi, and that failure to provide it in your next few posts wad an explicit admission that you didn't have one? Of course you do, because you read every post and you wouldn't ever lie about something important like that. I couldn't help noticing that you're back to mentioning cfsi as some sort of valid point, as if you either hadn't read that post, or as I'd you were hoping people would forget.

    Have you finally found that definition then? Please do share. Failure to do so of course means you don't have one. I'll be generous again and give you another few hours to post it up. Or, as the case may be, to admit you don't have one, that you were lying about it, and that you're sorry for wasting everyone's time.

    Tick tock, J C.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8722
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Lad's, we're arguing with a guy who thinks that the earth is 6,000 years old and that the Noah's Ark tale is a historical fact. We may aswell be debating with a Flat-Earther. This thread is just doing circles around the same old bollocks.


  • Options
    #8723
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    cowzerp wrote: »
    He is saying you are an atheist posing as a Christian for shiits and giggles!

    You remind me of some brainwashed mormons I know, anyone who lives their lives based on a book wrote by uneducated almost cavemen :rolleyes: is missing a few marbles.
    I know what he is saying.

    I'm neither an Atheist nor a Mormon ... I'm a Christian ... and a working conventional scientist.


  • Options
    #8724
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Lad's, we're arguing with a guy who thinks that the earth is 6,000 years old and that the Noah's Ark tale is a historical fact. We may aswell be debating with a Flat-Earther. This thread is just doing circles around the same old bollocks.
    ... and I'm arguing with a bunch of guys who believe that they are naked Apes ... that are descended from a microbe ... via a series of 'clap happy' mistakes!!!
    I guess that neither of us are particulary choosey about the people with whom we argue !!!:eek::D


  • Options
    #8725
    shizz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    J C wrote: »
    ... and I'm arguing with a bunch of guys who believe they are naked Apes that are descended from a microbe via a series of 'clap happy' mistakes!!!
    I guess that neither of us are particulary choosey about whom we argue with!!!:eek::D

    ...and the cycle begins again.


  • Options
    #8726
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    If you've studied any of those, it must be so you can be certain none of your posts contain a sign of them.

    Oh, you remember how I gave you a day or so recently to provide that robust definition of cfsi, and that failure to provide it in your next few posts wad an explicit admission that you didn't have one? Of course you do, because you read every post and you wouldn't ever lie about something important like that. I couldn't help noticing that you're back to mentioning cfsi as some sort of valid point, as if you either hadn't read that post, or as I'd you were hoping people would forget.

    Have you finally found that definition then? Please do share. Failure to do so of course means you don't have one. I'll be generous again and give you another few hours to post it up. Or, as the case may be, to admit you don't have one, that you were lying about it, and that you're sorry for wasting everyone's time.

    Tick tock, J C.
    CFSI is Complex Functional Specified Information ... and it means exactly 'what it says on the tin' !!!
    Bong ... Bong ... Sarky!!!!:)


  • Options
    #8727
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    CFSI is Complex Functional Specified Information ... and it means exactly 'what it says on the tin' !!!
    and yet you can't provide a simple definition of what it is and how it's detected/measured so we can see if it holds up to scrutiny.

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



  • Options
    #8728
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Evade wrote: »
    JC, if the World (or is it Universe or just life?) was magicked in to existence around 6000 years ago how do you explain anything that has been radiocarbon dated to before that time?

    Or the fact that we can see stars and galaxies further out than 6000 light years.


  • Options
    #8729
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RichieC wrote: »
    Or the fact that we can see stars and galaxies further out than 6000 light years.
    Initial inflation via exponential expansion at the moment of Creation.
    ... the 'Big Bangers' have a similar problem ... and a similar solution.:)


  • Options
    #8730
    HUNK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 383 ✭✭HUNK


    lolers


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8731
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    HUNK wrote: »
    lolers
    :pac::):D


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement