"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

robindch

koth wrote: »

do you have anything to discuss in relation to the actual topic of the thread?

ISAW's post was moved here since it was off-topic where it was first posted.

Galvasean

Can we change the name of this thread to 'The Dustbin'?

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

Yes and catholic regions didn't vote for Hitler

Your original claim was that "Naziism didn't promote Catholicism nor follow it" and I refuted that. Should have mentioned the Reichskonkordat too, btw. I have no idea why you are producing irrelevant, and highly suspicious, maps of voting preferences.

ISAW wrote: »

I pointed out to you in detail how the roamn catholic church doint support Hitler.

The party, composed largely, if not exclusively, of members of the "roamn" catholic church enthusiastically supported Hitler, as did its leader, a catholic priest.

ISAW wrote: »

As for Kaas

Wikipedia wrote:

From 1930 onwards, Kaas loyally supported the administration under the Centre's Heinrich Brüning.

Er, Kaas was the leader of the party. And even if Brüning was pulling the strings, well, wikipedia has him down as a "devout catholic" anyway. Which I suppose you'd expect from a catholic party.

You're arguing against yourself again.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Can we change the name of this thread to 'The Dustbin'?

Was thinking of "Whatever" myself.

dlofnep

I'd prefer "Dungeon of the Flat Earth Society".

Genghiz Cohen

"Posts what are as useful as this name is"

J C

I'm back ... apologies ... I was abroad and this thread was far down my list of priorities.

OK ... Let's take this debate up a notch ... I give you the great Dr David Berlinski ... He is an Agnostic, a mathematician, an author and a philosopher ... who has serious scientific issues with Evolution and is a senior fellow in the Discovery Institute.
Quote:-
"Dr Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxUwaq00Rc

Sonics2k

Ah crap.

Delirium

From wikipedia regarding Berlinski

Responding to Berlinski's arguments concerning evolution, marine biologist Wesley R. Elsberry comments: "I personally like my 'at onces' to refer to events significantly shorter than ten million years."[18] Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education described Berlinski's arguments in The Deniable Darwin as:[19]

. . . The content of David Berlinski's article does not differ from more traditional creation-science material, though his tone is more genteel and his writing a lot more literate. . . . But true to the creation-science genre, his approach consists of constructing strawmen, then knocking them down with misinterpreted, faulty, or nonexistent data as well as carefully selected quotations from evolutionary scientists. . . .

He also claims that fossil records don't support evolution.

I also find it difficult to believe he is an agnostic if he is a member of an institute that has the following mission statement:

"reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consistent with Christian and theistic convictions"

Sarky

When you say "Let's take this debate up a notch", it's common practice for the rest of the post to be of higher quality than before. As it is, you're still posting bollocks.

Plus ca change, I suppose.

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ah crap.

Sarky wrote: »

When you say "Let's take this debate up a notch", it's common practice for the rest of the post to be of higher quality than before. As it is, you're still posting bollocks.

An expletive ... and a hand-wave ... I see that ye guys haven't 'upped your game' ... even when faced with a serious intellectual, like Dr Berlinski.

... why am I not surprised???:eek::)

Sonics2k

My 'Ah crap' was merely based around the horrible realization this terrible thread would be continuing, and once again we'd all be subject to pseudo-scientific, distorted, biased and basically, complete horsecrap 'evidence' that Creationism is true.

J C

koth wrote: »

He (Dr Berlinski) also claims that fossil records don't support evolution.

He is right about that ... this is a matter of fact ... and not opinion.

koth wrote: »

I also find it difficult to believe he is an agnostic if he is a member of an institute that has the following mission statement:
Quote:
"reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consistent with Christian and theistic convictions"

He is a self confessed Agnostic ... and a Jew by birth.
... did you miss the fact that the Discovery Institute isn't an exclusively Christian institution ... and encompasses both Christian and other theistic worldviews.:)

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

My 'Ah crap' was merely based around the horrible realization this terrible thread would be continuing, and once again we'd all be subject to pseudo-scientific, distorted, biased and basically, complete horsecrap 'evidence' that Creationism is true.

I guess that's always a risk when you are on this thread !!!:):D:eek:
... you're in such denial that pseudo-scientific, distorted, biased and basically, complete horsecrap 'evidence' ... that Evolution is true ... is all that you can muster!!!!:)

... anyway, what did you think of what Dr Berlinski had to say?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I guess that's always a risk when you are on this thread !!!:):D:eek:
... you're in such denial that pseudo-scientific, distorted, biased and basically, complete horsecrap 'evidence' ... that Evolution is true ... is all that you can muster!!!!:)

... anyway, what did you think of what Dr Berlinski had to say?

J C, please, please, please stop talking pish.

And 'The Devil's Delusion.' Really?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

He is right about that ... this is a matter of fact ... and not opinion.

Actually that's just your uninformed opinion. I say uninformed because the only other explanation for the above statement is that you're lying.

anyways, here's one of a multitude of posts showing proof for evolution. If you can debunk that post, then we might consider creationism as something more than a religion parable.

He is a self confessed Agnostic ... and a Jew by birth.
... did you miss the fact that the Discovery Institute isn't an exclusively Christian institution ... and encompasses both Christian and other theistic worldviews.:)

I'm liking the irony of you lending your support to a group who brazenly state they are only considering explanations that fight with a Christian bible narrative.

I thought science was supposed to do where the evidence leads? I guess we're seeing now that you don't actually believe that and you only want to see the bible pushed into the science class.

Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

DEFINITION OF MICRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary change below the species level; change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation." (SOURCE: Biology, 7th ed. Neil A. Campbell & Jane B. Reece)


DEFINITION OF MACRO-EVOLUTION:
"Evolutionary changes that happen over very long periods of time. This usually refers to the development of large new branches of life, such as vertebrates or mammals." (SOURCE: Evolution: The History of Life on Earth, Russ Hodge)


DEFINITION OF SPECIES:
Loosely speaking, a species is a related group of organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are:

"groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Species


ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)

DARWIN'S THEORY IN 1859:
"Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (Origin of Species, p. 484)


EVOLUTION THEORY IN 2012:
"The commonly accepted scientific theory about how life has changed since it originated has three major aspects.

"1. The common descent of all organisms from (more or less) a single ancestor.

"2. The origin of novel traits in a lineage

"3. The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish"

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution/



DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

3. When people in the pro-evolution scientific community speak about animals evolving into "new species," are they referring to one family of animal evolving into an entirely different family of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which are examples of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variations of the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?

Alter2Ego

IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

Definition of Scientific Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm



Definition of Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm



Definition Of Scientific Fact:
An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is ACCEPTED AS TRUE.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact

Turtwig

That would be an ecumenical matter.

Calibos

My first thought on seeing the red and blue font was...

Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

Anyway. TLDR. Is this a JC MkII with a gotcha hidden in there somewhere?

MagicMarker

Jernal wrote: »

That would be an ecumenical matter.

Now now, don't be so BOLD

Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"


The reverse of precision is an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"


Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, for precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Take, for example, the first discovered 60 elements on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of these 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms--from which the Earth's elements are made--are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. Because of the distinct numerical order of the elements, the word LAW is applied to the Periodic Table of the Elements. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography


SIDE NOTE: Laws found in nature, as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary, are:

"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions."


QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

3. Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that it has been assigned the word "LAW"?

MagicMarker

Oh dear god...

Turtwig

Calibos wrote: »

My first thought on seeing the red and blue font was...



Anyway. TLDR. Is this a JC MkII with a gotcha hidden in there somewhere?

Who cares? Either way it's plainly stupid and ignorant.

fatmammycat

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world.

Does it? That explains everything so... oh no wait, that's not what science 'says' at all.

Turtwig

MagicMarker wrote: »

Now now, don't be so BOLD

roro1neil0

1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

I think it's fairly well accepted that all life originated from the same primordial life form. It was not an animal under any technical definition of animal. e.g. plants didn't evolve from an animal ancestor but did evolve from a common primordial ancestor shared with animals.

What proof do you have that you originated from your mother? Other than eye witness accounts by your mother (unreliable as she was under a lot of stress and you look entirely different now to then) or the midwife/obstetrician (they certainly won't remember or recognise you). You have genetic proof of course due to the similarity of your DNA with her DNA. Extrapolating this idea, that things that are closely related have similar DNA we can assume that Humans and Chimpanzees are closely related because they have similar DNA. Unfortunately in the absence of fossilised genetic information for ancestors we extrapolate from morphology that human's evolved from an ape ancestor who would have relatives with gave rise to chimpanzees.

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

According to your own definition macro-evolution is evolution which results in speciation taking place over long time spans. So how would you expect to catch a fossil in mid-speciation process. It's not a transformer.

3.When people in the pro-evolution scientific community speak about animals evolving into "new species," are they referring to one family of animal evolving into an entirely different family of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which are examples of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variations of the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?[/COLOR]

If you followed your own definitions you wouldn't be making these daft questions. When pro-evolutionists discuss evolution, natural selection and speciciation they are talking about very closely related animals (for example) evolving into distinct reproductive entities.

Dog breeds isn't really an example of micro-evolution it's an example of artificial selection.

28064212

Why stop at 60 elements? Does the 61st screw everything up and prove God doesn't exist?

Turtwig

King Mob

Alter2Ego wrote: »

3. Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that it has been assigned the word "LAW"?[/COLOR]

Chemical elements did not evolve. Your question makes no sense.


I for one like this guy's posting style, makes it super easy to find, point out and destroy the bad thinking.