The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

TheChizler

J C wrote: »

... but such emotional attachement is also not exclusively confined to Theists .... Atheists can be equally emotionally attached to their belief in the non-existence of God ... and therefore may also not be receptive to rational arguments in relation to particular aspects of Atheism.

Presuming they are part of the subset of atheism that this belief is part of...

J C

TheChizler wrote: »

Presuming they are part of the subset of atheism that this belief is part of...

... it could also be something that Atheists and other people have a deep emotional attachment to as well.
It could even be something that some Atheists and some Creationists are emotionally attached to .. and are both equally irrational about, as a result.

Bellatori

An emotional attachment to something you don't believe in... I suspect there is a flaw in that idea somewhere. I don't have an emotional attachment to not believing in fairies. I actually have an emotional attachment to fairies I don't believe in.

J C

Bellatori wrote: »

An emotional attachment to something you don't believe in... I suspect there is a flaw in that idea somewhere. I don't have an emotional attachment to not believing in fairies. I actually have an emotional attachment to fairies I don't believe in.

We can be emotionally attached to both beliefs in favour of and against ideas.
For example, sports fanatics are often just as emotionally attached in favour of their own team as they are against the opposing team. They find it equally difficult to rationally accept any good points about the opposition as they do to rationally discuss any negatives about their own team.
Neither Theists nor Atheists are immune from such potential irrationality.

The whole issue of Abiogenesis is an example of such an issue ... many people scoff at Christians for believing in Direct Creation ... which fits the observed facts better than Abiogenesis.

I would content that Abiogenesis doesn't even have the potential to Create any Complex Functional Specified Genentic Information (CFSGI) to say nothing about the immense quantities of CFSGI observed in living organisms.

However, if you're an Atheist then your follow-on belief is that life must have created itself by purely natural non-intelligently directed processes ... and if you're a Christian, your follow-on belief is that life was Created by God. Indeed the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds both proclaim such a belief.

These follow-on beliefs can be held with considerable emotional investment by both parties ... because the negation of either follow-on belief has potentially serious implications for the validity and ability to continue to hold the primary Atheist or Christian belief going forward.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The whole issue of Abiogenesis is an example of such an issue ... many people scoff at Christians for believing in Direct Creation ... which fits the observed facts better than Abiogenesis.

Do feel free to offer any evidence for such a claim.

I would content that Abiogenesis doesn't even have the potential to Create any Complex Functional Specified Genentic Information (CFSGI) to say nothing about the immense quantities of CFSGI observed in living organisms.

You're referring to both abiogenesis and evolution with what you have said. Abiogenesis doesn't have to create all variations, evolution does that.

J C

SW wrote: »

Do feel free to offer any evidence for such a claim.

There is plenty of scoffing at Direct Creation on this thread (and others) ... when the Atheistic alternative is that life (and indeed the Universe) created itself ... without much evidence to show for it.

SW wrote: »

You're referring to both abiogenesis and evolution with what you have said. Abiogenesis doesn't have to create all variations, evolution does that.

... and they're both equally evidentially and logically challenged.
BTW, when I refer to 'Evolution', I'm talking about the supposed 'evolution' that can 'evolve' pondkind into Mankind by creating all of the CFSGI that separates Mankind from Pondkind by selecting mistakes along the way ... which isn't logically or scientifically supported!!!

I'm not talking about the Natural Selection that can select Grey Moths from Dark Moths ... and visa versa ... and which is an observed fact.

Bellatori

J C wrote: »

We can be emotionally attached to both beliefs in favour of and against ideas.
For example, sports fanatics are often just as emotionally attached in favour of their own team as they are against the opposing team. They find it equally difficult to rationally accept any good points about the opposition as they do to rationally discuss any negatives about their own team.

Hmmm... but both teams exist whereas fairies don't unless, of course you are being rude about the opposition.

J C wrote: »

The whole issue of Abiogenesis is an example of such an issue ... many people scoff at Christians for believing in Direct Creation ... which fits the observed facts better than Abiogenesis.

Well, of course, MAGIC is always a useful explanation when you don't understand the science.

J C wrote: »

However, if you're an Atheist then your follow-on belief is that life must have created itself by purely natural non-intelligently directed processes ... and if you're a Christian, your follow-on belief is that life was Created by God. Indeed the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds both proclaim such a belief.

However I tend to look at the evidence rather than simply applying wishful thinking. Recent experiments have shown that RNA can form under early earth conditions and work recently at the University of East Anglia has demonstrated that such chemicals are auto catalysing and produce both protein and DNA but hey stick to MAGIC as the answer.

J C wrote: »

These follow-on beliefs can be held with considerable emotional investment by both parties ... because the negation of either follow-on belief has serious implications for the validity and ability to continue to hold the primary Atheist or Christian belief going forward.

...and this is where you really go wrong because generally Atheists follow the evidence and new evidence can be a game changer. Theism has a history of finding new science very difficult to deal with. The difference is the emotional investment that Theism requires of its followers which Atheism does not.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

There is plenty of scoffing at Direct Creation on this thread ... when the Atheistic alternative is that life (and indeed the Universe) created itself ... without much evidence to show for it.

No evidence for creationism then.

... and they're bot equally evidentially and logically challenged ... and when I refer to Evolution, I'm talking about the supposed 'evolution' that can 'evolve' pondkind into Mankind by creating all of the CFSGI that separates Mankind from Pondkind by selcting mistakes along the way!!!
I'm not talking about the Natural Selection that selects Grey Moths from Dark Moths ... and visa versa.

I know you're unwilling to accept the scientific understanding of the evolution of life. There was no confusion about your erroneous position.

Bellatori

J C wrote: »

... without much evidence to show for it.

I have to agree but please bear in mind that without much evidence is a whole galaxy away from the alternative for which there is NO evidence and that is formed by MAGIC.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
There is plenty of scoffing at Direct Creation on this thread (and others) ... when the Atheistic alternative is that life (and indeed the Universe) created itself ... without much evidence to show for it.

Bellatori
I have to agree but please bear in mind that without much evidence is a whole galaxy away from the alternative for which there is NO evidence and that is formed by MAGIC.

I agree with you as well ... but please bear in mind that the alternaive hypothesis isn't that it was formed by 'MAGIC' ... but that it was Created by an intelligence (or intelligences) of God-like proportions.
... unlike magic, we can test for the actions of intelligence ... and the tests are indicating statistical certainty that life was intelligently created.

Bellatori

J C wrote: »

I agree with you as well ... but please bear in mind that the alternaive hypothesis isn't that it was formed by 'MAGIC' ... but that it was Created by an intelligence (or intelligences) of God-like proportions.
... unlike magic, we can test for the actions of intelligence ... and the tests are indicating statistical certainty that life was intelligently created.

As a statistician with a first class honours degree and decades of work in industry doing research I look forward to your reference showing a "statistical certainty" that life was intelligently created.

I can hardly wait and will certainly be at the Nobel Prize ceremony where the author of this paper gets his handshake, medallion and citation.

On a more realistic plane, claiming ID on the back of no evidence whatsoever (lets face it ID is simply souped up creationism for the gullible) and carried out by an invisible friend (do you talk to him and hear voices?) is simply an appeal to MAGIC.

Wow...

robindch

Bellatori wrote: »

As a statistician with a first class honours degree and decades of work in industry doing research I look forward to your reference showing a "statistical certainty" that life was intelligently created.

Don't go there.

J C

Bellatori wrote: »

As a statistician with a first class honours degree and decades of work in industry doing research I look forward to your reference showing a "statistical certainty" that life was intelligently created.

I can hardly wait and will certainly be at the Nobel Prize ceremony where the author of this paper gets his handshake, medallion and citation.

Anything with odds against its occurrence greater than 10^100 is regarded as a statistical certainty that it didn't occur.
The odds against a specific 100 amino acid chain occurring spontaneously is 10^130.
The estimated number of electrons in the Known Universe is only 10^80.

Bellatori wrote: »

On a more realistic plane, claiming ID on the back of no evidence whatsoever (lets face it ID is simply souped up creationism for the gullible) and carried out by an invisible friend (do you talk to him and hear voices?) is simply an appeal to MAGIC.

ID is based on scientifically established tests for intelligent activity.

I don't hear voices ... but I know that God exists and Created life, just like I know that intelligent Human Beings made my car ... and not some kind of spontaneous non-intelligently directed process.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Don't go there.

Yes Robin ... everyone is skeptical about something.;)

... and some people, like myself, are more skeptical than others.:)

Gordon

J C wrote: »

I don't hear voices ...

But you've seen things, right? Like extra terrestrials?

Bellatori

robindch wrote: »

Don't go there.

Loved the image... Looked at the post you referenced. It is just a variant on the Hoyle Jumbo Jet from a Junkyard fallacy.

The post references statistics that simply do not relate to the actual problem and the recent research shows that RNA capable of making both DNA and proteins can be formed which again suggests that the statistics do not reflect the actuality. As Feynman said 'If the results (in this case stats calculated) do not match the experiment (U of EA RNA formation) then the theory is wrong. That's it'

The stats do not match the experiment so the model he is using is wrong as the Hoyle fallacy shows.

I have no wish to revisit some cod statistics. It is also an example of the Lottery Winner fallacy - it is too improbable so it cannot have happened.

You never see a lottery winner handing back the cheque though do you on the basis that he cannot possibly have won

As for

ID is based on scientifically established tests for intelligent activity.

Why do I never see any peer reviewed papers for ID in any reputable journal I wonder?

robindch

Bellatori wrote: »

Why do I never see any peer reviewed papers for ID in any reputable journal I wonder?

Because reputable journals generally avoid publishing rubbish?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Because reputable journals generally avoid publishing rubbish?

... it could also be because of an a priori commitment to only publish evidence that doesn't allow explantions that involve God.

This materialistic attitude is typified by Dr Richard Lewontin's frank admissions in this regard:-
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdidy of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
... sounds like ID wouldn't get much of a 'look in' under such a worldview - indeed any evidence for ID would be ruled inadmissable a priori ... and without ever being evaluated.

... and this a priori commitment to materialism isn't a new phenomenon ... here is what James Hutton (1726–1797), ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed in 1785, before examining the evidence:-

‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added).

... all of which is fair enough, if you are a committed Materialist ...

... but this also means that Creation Scientists and ID proponents have a definite role to play in examining the physical and circumstantial evidence for the actions of God in the Universe.

Somebody has to do it ... and we certainly cannot expect Materialists to do so - and I have no issue with them for not wishing to do so -and I fully accept that "it's not their cup of tea".

... just please stop claiming that materialistic science has any interest in objectively evaluating the evidence for the existence of God ... because it doesn't ... and indeed it rules out on principle and a priori any such evaluation.
This is fair enough ... it is materialistic science, after all.

J C

Gordon wrote: »

But you've seen things, right? Like extra terrestrials?

Me ... and millions of others - from the US Air Force down!!!

I have seen their technology also and it's quite impressive.

You guys keep looking for Alien life in the far reaches of the Universe ... shouting 'Eureka!!' at traces of amino acids on meteorites and other equally ambiguous and ephemeral evidence ...
... but when somebody tells you that alien life and its technology has turned up on his doorstep ... ye start to scoff.:eek::)

... it's almost like ye think it's is too good to be true or something.:D

... an "I can't believe it is butter" moment ... if you will!!

... or refusing what you have earnestly wished for ... when it suddenly turns up.

... its like a Christian running away ... when Jesus returns to rapture him/her.:eek:

... or a man running away when the woman of his dreams kisses him!!!:D

... even the Pope is getting ready to baptise Aliens ... but from what I know about them, this may be a 'non-runner'!!!:eek:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/pope-francis-would-baptise-aliens-3537835

... 'get with the programme' .... guys and gals!!:D

J C

Bellatori wrote: »

"If it disagrees with experiment it's wrong" ... fair enough ... and a very good point by Prof Feynman.

... so please cite even one experiment that shows a spontaneous increase in Complex Specified Functional Information (which is the type of information found in living organisms) ... without an input of intelligence.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

"If it disagrees with experiment it's wrong" ... fair enough ... and a very good point by Prof Feynman.

... so please cite even one experiment that shows a spontaneous increase in Complex Specified Functional Information (which is the type of information found in living organisms) ... without an input of intelligence.

So JC, since you are well versed in biology, science and statistics, can you explain to us precisely what this would be?

What sort of change in genes specifically would constitute a spontaneous increase in Complex Specified Functional Information.

Please detail what we should be able to see in a lab in such an experiment should evolution be true.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

If someone says their religion and religious practice provides them with a positive outcome such as reduced anxiety or increased happiness in their lives, then I find this completely rational and who the hell am I to question them.

If they simply assert that then I do not "find this completely rational" like you do. I would question them. With the intention of checking for things like correlation-causation errors, and actual links between their religious belief and the effects they claim to observe.

nagirrac wrote: »

if however they tell me that all religious people are irrational because they base their religious beliefs on conditioning due to life experience and cultural factors, I tend to find this irrational as they are forgetting or ignoring that their own life experience and cultural factors lead to their personal beliefs or lack of beliefs.

More bull from you here. You acquire beliefs. You do not acquire lack of beliefs. You are born without them. so suggesting "life experience and cultural factors lead to lack of beliefs" is just a nonsense from you. All that has happened is they have not had the factors which cause them to acquire the belief.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... it could also be because of an a priori commitment to only publish evidence that doesn't allow explantions that involve God.

This materialistic attitude is typified by Dr Richard Lewontin's frank admissions in this regard:-
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdidy of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravangant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstatiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
... sounds like ID wouldn't get much of a 'look in' under such a worldview - indeed any evidence for ID would be ruled inadmissable a priori ... and without ever being evaluated.

... and this a priori commitment to materialism isn't a new phenomenon ... here is what James Hutton (1726–1797), ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed in 1785, before examining the evidence:-

‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added).

... all of which is fair enough, if you are a committed Materialist ...

... but this also means that Creation Scientists and ID proponents have a definite role to play in examining the physical and circumstantial evidence for the actions of God in the Universe.

Somebody has to do it ... and we certainly cannot expect Materialists to do so - and I have no issue with them for not wishing to do so -and I fully accept that "it's not their cup of tea".

... just please stop claiming that materialistic science has any interest in objectively evaluating the evidence for the existence of God ... because it doesn't ... and indeed it rules out on principle and a priori any such evaluation.
This is fair enough ... it is materialistic science, after all.

So what are you trying to argue for here? That science journals are being biased against creationist because they only publish peer reviewed science?

Why would they publish something that isn't actually science? Should we make legal journal publish childrens stories?

Here's an idea, if you want to get published in a peer reveiwed science journal why don't you try doing some actual science?

MrP

Mr. CooL ICE

JC, you really are an [PROSE DELETED]

robindch

^^^ None of that kind of comment, please.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So JC, since you are well versed in biology, science and statistics, can you explain to us precisely what this would be?

What sort of change in genes specifically would constitute a spontaneous increase in Complex Specified Functional Information.

Please detail what we should be able to see in a lab in such an experiment should evolution be true.

We should be able to see random changes to the Complex Functional Specified Genetic Information in living creatures predominantly producing 'improvements' in this information ... to support the hypothesis that pondkind evolved spontaneously into Mankind.
Instead, we find that such random changes degrade this information.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You acquire beliefs. You do not acquire lack of beliefs. You are born without them. so suggesting "life experience and cultural factors lead to lack of beliefs" is just a nonsense from you. All that has happened is they have not had the factors which cause them to acquire the belief.

A belief in the non-existence of God is a belief ... just like a belief in His existence, is also a belief.
Somebody can acquire either a belief in God or a belief in His non-existence - and many people go through phases of doubt where they neither believe totally in God's existence ... or His non-existence - and some people swing backwards and forwards between both beliefs.

Both beliefs can also be held stongly by their respective 'believers' ... and, where they are held strongly, both beliefs tend to lead to different worldviews and outlooks on life that follow on from each belief.

... all part of the rich cultural diversity of Mankind, that enriches all of our lives.

My uncle was an atheist ... and he was one of my best friends ... and since he died, I miss his profiund insights and our discussions on the meaning of life and his challenging opinions, from an Atheistic perspective.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

So what are you trying to argue for here? That science journals are being biased against creationist because they only publish peer reviewed science?

Why would they publish something that isn't actually science? Should we make legal journal publish childrens stories?

Here's an idea, if you want to get published in a peer reveiwed science journal why don't you try doing some actual science?

MrP

As an operative conventional scientist, I have no issue with conventional science journals only publishing peer-reviewed papers in accordance with the principles of exclusively materialistic explanations - and I would not wish them to do anything else.

However, as a Creation Scientist, I clearly see the need to apply science to the physical evidence for the actions of God in the Universe. This should be conducted outside of the realm of Materialistic Science - and doesn't need to involve any scientists who don't wish to be involved in such research.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

However, as a Creation Scientist...

Can I sue you for the cost of my blood pressure meds?

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Can I sue you for the cost of my blood pressure meds?

You certainly cannot ... the fact that I'm a conventional scientist and a Creation Scientist should have no effect whatsoever on your B P.

I find that prayer and thinking loving thoughts are very good for reducing stress-related blood pressure.

Of course, if somebody has consistently elevated blood pressure, modern medication is also very effective and necessary to manage it.