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

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Exhibit B, your honour. This alleged "scientist", when faced with something he couldn't explain, decided that the only possible explanation was magic.

I first tried and tried ... and eventually gave up trying to find a plausible materialistic explanation ... and I was quite happy to leave it at that and await somebody else coming up with a plausible materialistic explanation ... as I also believed that resorting to 'magic' (as you put it) wasn't an explanation at all.

I fully agree with you that just mindlessly saying 'God did it' ... without any proof, is no explanation at all. Its a kind of a 'God of the gaps' type of approach ... that would deserve scorn, certainly among scientists.
I think that Theistic Evolution falls into this category BTW ... if materialistic evolution did occur ... there is no reason to try and 'force' God into a process that He is not needed to explain.

However, I discovered that there were ways and means of not resorting to 'magic' ... and there were scientific means of evaluating the Creation hypothesis ... which scientifically is an intelligent design hypothesis.

... and then I discovered that there were major scientific issues with rock formation, fossils, the age of the Earth ... 'the whole nine yards' ... and that was when I became a Creationist.

krudler

J C wrote: »

I did say I accepted it on the basis of faith ... and not science ...
... just like I accept that Jesus Christ died and rose again on the basis of faith ... and not science.

This doesn't mean that I expect any other dead person to come back to life ... or any other living person to survive for three days in a whale's stomach.

Just that one guy, thousands of years ago, with no eye witnesses or proof. God has a habit of breaking his own laws of physics but only at a time when we couldn't record or verify the evidence. In an age of camera phones you'd think he'd be wheeling out the old divine miracles for all to see but nope.

EoghanIRL

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't worry too much about the figures, one way or the other ... the theory of evolution (and its explanatory deficiencies) is the big issue.
The figure would change rapidly in favour of a genuine plausible materialistic explanation for the origins of the genetic diversity found in life ... if this were discovered.

It is quite legitimate to seek exclusively materialistic mechanisms to explain life ... and I will be the first to applaud anybody who succeeds in doing what I failed to do ... to produce and test a plausible materialistic hypothesis that accounts for the genetic diversity in life.

If this were to happen would I cease being a Creationist? ... probably ... as a materialistic explanation would (using occam's razor) be the simpler/more straightforward explanation.
Would I cease being a Christian? ... probably not ... but I certainly would hold my faith with a great deal less conviction.

Variation as a result of meiosis ?
Basic genetics .

Vivisectus

It's not the first time the Roman Catholic Church 'deferred to science' only to have very 'red faces' when the conventional scientific opinion turned out to be wrong. It was the conventionally accepted geocentric model of the Universe that they condemned Galileo for questioning.

It is typical of your particular brand of logic that you can have the church, simultaneously, defer to science while still trying to force a scientist to only come to dogmatically bible-literal conclusions. Like a true Theologist, you begin with what you want to believe, and then simply work backwards, cherry-picking facts you like and ignoring anything inconvenient.

This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece including the systems of Aristotle and Ptolemy. The Roman Catholic Church sided with the pagan Greeks against Galileo ... and they look like making the same mistake again by siding with the Atheistic model of 'origins' ... although, in fairness, I note they are quite circumspect in their support of evolution as "they stress that they merely follow the scientific consensus in this as it is not a question that can be answered by theology."

That is a rather shallow way to represent the varied Greek cosmologies. You are once again picking only what you like. The church practically worshipped Aristotle during the middle ages and well into the Renaissance because it was felt he matched the theology of the time.

However, most of the Church's counter-arguments at the time were actually not Aristotelian, but Biblical:

Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5: "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place."[55]

Which, granted, is a bit awkward if you want to take the Bible literally.

The Roman Catholic Church is a Church bound by tradition ... and all of the Fathers of the Church proclaimed that Adam and Eve were literal persons who were the directly Created first man and woman from whom all mankind is descended.

Yup. But unlike literalists, who are forever stuck with an extremely narrow interpretation that requires you to make up special circumstances in order to explain what we can actually observe, they are much more flexible and can actually change their interpretation of this doctrine in view of new evidence. It is actually one of their better points: they are able to discard blatantly silly or just cruel beliefs, such as the status of the souls of unbaptized children. They do so so incredibly slowly, however, that it makes continental drift look like grand prix racing.

The congregation for the doctrine of the faith can 'defer to science' all they like ... but unless and until they decide to abandon the Nicene and Apostles Creeds ... the Roman Catholic Church remains firmly a Creationist Church that still requires all of it's members (including the Pope) to proclaim God as Creator / Maker of Heaven and Earth and all things visible and invisible.
... and not a mention of evolution (theistic or otherwise) anywhere in it.:)

Old earth creationists who are unsure if God created life, or that he just created the circumstances under which life began by creating the universe, something they are still staunchly in favor of. They even call evolution a fact, actually!

As such, they are almost diametrically opposed to what you believe, but not quite: you occupy the literalist extreme of that scale, and they are almost all the way on the other side - or at least they have made sure that their stance can accommodate a wide spectrum of allegorical interpretations.

But thanks to your wonderful ability to gloss over inconvenient facts, you happily count them as people who agree with you.

If you can work out exactly what he is saying there, you're a better man than me!!!

What exactly is giving you difficulty?

Vivisectus

Quote:
Originally Posted by oscarBravo View Post
Exhibit B, your honour. This alleged "scientist", when faced with something he couldn't explain, decided that the only possible explanation was magic.
I first tried and tried ... and eventually gave up trying to find a plausible materialistic explanation ... and I was quite happy to leave it at that and await somebody else coming up with a plausible materialistic explanation ... as I also believed that resorting to 'magic' (as you put it) wasn't an explanation at all.

I fully agree with you that just mindlessly saying 'God did it' ... without any proof, is no explanation at all. Its a kind of a 'God of the gaps' type of approach ... that would deserve scorn, certainly among scientists.
I think that Theistic Evolution falls into this category BTW ... if materialistic evolution did occur ... there is no reason to try and 'force' God into a process that He is not needed to explain.

However, I discovered that there were ways and means of not resorting to 'magic' ... and there were scientific means of evaluating the Creation hypothesis ... which scientifically is an intelligent design hypothesis.

... and then I discovered that there were major scientific issues with rock formation, fossils, the age of the Earth ... 'the whole nine yards' ... and that was when I became a Creationist.

I would take the time to address and debunk your "major scientific issues", but then I realize that you believe sharks were vegetarian and that there was a special climate-equalizing cloud and special animals, and a magical fish... items of faith that you did not accept because of any scientific evidence at all, but because you chose to believe it.

It is not logical to see what you believe to be a problem with one particular piece of evidence for an old earth, and then to jump to the conclusion that it must be young and exactly as the bible describes it.

Do you not think it is a little hypocritical to declare evolution to be untested, while you happily make up special circumstances to accommodate what you want to believe without even the slightest bit of evidence?

J C

J C wrote: »

However, I discovered that there were ways and means of not resorting to 'magic' ... and there were scientific means of evaluating the Creation hypothesis ... which scientifically is an intelligent design hypothesis.

... and then I discovered that there were major scientific issues with rock formation, fossils, the age of the Earth ... 'the whole nine yards' ... and that was when I became a Creationist.

Could you share these ways and means please?

Michael OBrien

J C wrote: »

The poll found that 25% of Britons believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is "definitely true", with another quarter saying it is "probably true". Half of the 2,060 people questioned were either strongly opposed to the theory or confused about it."

The concept of the Theory of Evolution being Charles Darwin's theory is a strawman right there.
Charles Darwin's contributions to the modern theory was groundbreaking. Many of his concerns 150 years ago have been addressed and a massive amount of cross compatible discoveries support the idea of common descent.
Also preference is not a pathway to truth. If you are a scientist you should agree with that. What the public 'prefer' is a sad reflection on their understanding of what science IS, not a reflection on the theory of evolution. You could do a poll on astrology and get a load of people saying they like it more so than astronomy because of emotional reasons.

"James Williams, a lecturer at Sussex University, said: "Creationists ask if ­people believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory and a fact. You accept it because of the evidence. What the creationists have done is put a cloak of pseudo-science to wrap up their religious belief."
This is absolutely true.

Williams, who will give a paper presenting a British perspective on evolution and creationism in school science, said: "Evolution is very badly taught in schools so the results of the survey don't surprise me. On the other hand, creationism has traditionally been an issue in North America and there is a big problem in Australia and Turkey. It matters if people don't understand how science works."
This is also true.

Creationist leaders are anti-science and promote ignorance of what science actually is and what it means. Heck despite many decades of corrections, many creationists still trot out the same questions that are blatant demonstrations of total ignorance of whatever field of science their question leans towards.
A good example of the mind numbing ignorance was that list of 'questions' that ken ham followers posted after the nye vs ham debate.

robindch

Reality sprang a leak yesterday in AH:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057305160

Michael OBrien

robindch wrote: »

Reality sprang a leak yesterday in AH:

Thanks for the link. Its more of the same from theists. The sheer mind bending ignorance of some of those questions. The level of narrowminded bigotry that they display and how entrenched theists are in their collective delusion. I keep wanting to wave my hands in the air and scream "read a bloody book on the subject".
That ridiculous question on the gay gene staggers me in relation to evolution. Again, just because its not a settled answer does not mean they get to project nonsense about it.

PopePalpatine

And now the uber-Catholic troll who stalks me has joined that thread.

Doctor Jimbob

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And now the uber-Catholic troll who stalks me has joined that thread.

It's like a drug, I want to stop opening the thread but I keep going back

J C

robindch wrote: »

Reality sprang a leak yesterday in AH:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057305160

Thanks for the link Robin.

452 posts in less than 26 hours!!!
... wow ... on the way to a megathread!!! :eek:

Who says nobody is interested in Creation Science???:)

I liked the following post (probably for all the wrong reasons):-

wrote:

Originally Posted by Calibos
There are two types of posters in this thread. Those who wear their ignorance on their sleeves and those who have the patience of saints.

Groundhog Day !!!

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's like a drug, I want to stop opening the thread but I keep going back

The truth has a way of doing that to you.:)

endacl

Junior thread here. Light relief. Enjoy.

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057305160/1

J C

endacl wrote: »

Junior thread here. Light relief. Enjoy.

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057305160/1

They need a Creation Scientist over there ... but Robin doesn't want to part with me here.:):cool::D

They're doing over 30 PPH (posts per hour) over on the AH ... at present!!!:eek:

endacl

'Creation'? 'Scientist'? I understand your words, but your strange and contradictory combination of the two confuses me. Surely you can't be serious? Only in a universe that would accept cauliflower icecream could such a phrase hold any meaning?

J C

endacl wrote: »

'Creation'? 'Scientist'? I understand your words, but your strange and contradictory combination of the two confuses me. Surely you can't be serious? Only in a universe that would accept cauliflower icecream could such a phrase hold any meaning?

At one time, back in the day, the terms Creationist and Scientist were practically synonymous.

The combination of Creation and Scientist are no 'stranger' than the combination of Evolution and Scientist.
These two scientific disciplines look at the two principal contenders for explaining life.
Both look at the observable physical evidence and research is carried out in both disciplines, by world-class conventional scientists.

We are very lucky to live at a time when research can be pursued by both groups of scientists ... and I wait with 'bated breath' to see the results.:)

Pass the popcorn ... and biscuits please, Robin!!!:)
... or am I still on the old bread and water??:D

obplayer

J C wrote: »

At one time, back in the day, the terms Creationist and Scientist were practically synonymous.

The combination of Creation and Scientist are no 'stranger' than the combination of Evolution and Scientist.
These two scientific disciplines look at the two principal contenders for explaining life.
Both look at the observable physical evidence and research is carried out in both disciplines, by world-class conventional scientists.

We are very lucky to live at a time when research can be pursued by both groups of scientists ... and I wait with 'bated breath' to see the results.:)

Pass the popcorn ... and biscuits please, Robin!!!:)
... or am I still on the old bread and water??:D

At one time the terms chemist and alchemist were synonymous, no longer. It's called progress.

J C

obplayer wrote: »

At one time the terms chemist and alchemist were synonymous, no longer. It's called progress.

It is indeed progress ... we have abandoned the idea that muck can be turned into Gold ...
... I am looking forward to the abandonment of the the idea that muck (spontaneously) turned itself into Man.:)

Ziphius

J C wrote: »

It is indeed progress ... we have abandoned the idea that muck can be turned into Gold ...
... I am looking forward to the abandonment of the the idea that muck (spontaneously) turned itself into Man.:)

Isn't that the creationist theory? :pac:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

They need a Creation Scientist over there ... but Robin doesn't want to part with me here.

You know what, I really think be might be ok with you leaving.

MrP

PopePalpatine

I think Boards.ie would be better off with him leaving, he's wasted enough server space.

J C

Ziphius wrote: »

Isn't that the creationist theory? :pac:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

Its both a Creationist and an Evolutionist theory ... the Creationist version involves an omnipotent God ... while the Evolutionist theory involves nothing but muck ... and time.:)

Doctor Jimbob

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think Boards.ie would be better off with him leaving, he's wasted enough server space.

I dunno, I think it would be empty without at this stage.

And unlike most of them he at least responds without resorting to a string of expletives when someone calls him on his nonsense.

It's still completely and utterly wrong, of course, but at least he's friendly about it for the most part :pac:

obplayer

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I dunno, I think it would be empty without at this stage.

And unlike most of them he at least responds without resorting to a string of expletives when someone calls him on his nonsense.

It's still completely and utterly wrong, of course, but at least he's friendly about it for the most part :pac:

Except for those fecking smilies:pac::pac::D:D:)

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

You know what, I really think be might be ok with you leaving.

MrP

... but you'd miss me if I was gone.:)

I think I have 'grown on you'.:)

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think Boards.ie would be better off with him leaving, he's wasted enough server space.

Are you following me around the Boards tonight ... or is it just luck?
Everywhere I go ... you seem to be there.:)

joseph brand

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think Boards.ie would be better off with him leaving, he's wasted enough server space.

People used to say that radio talk shows like Adrian Kennedy and Chris Barry (remember him?) had 'plants', for want of a better term, whose sole purpose was to ring in and say something so idiotic and ludicrous that listeners were compelled to ring in to refute their ill-conceived argument/ assertion. Phone lines would be hopping, which was great for the station.

I'm not pointing any fingers, but there's someone similar here who springs to mind.

In all honesty, would anyone be surprised to find out that this person was either:

• Selling something (religion)
• Trolling
• Mentally unstable?

Selling first class trips to 'Heaven' with an insurance clause that 'Hell' will not be visited (thus avoiding those hot spiky pokers and lava rocks) is an easy sell, if you're lacking scruples. That's why it attracts snake oil salesmen out to make money off 'sheep'.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” ― Mark Twain


Pastor: "Oh, why the pastor gotta have himself a big house and a fleet of cars?"
Choir: "Don't ask no questions."
Pastor: "Just gimme the money!" /baskets of cash passed to the altar.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... but you'd miss me if I was gone.:)

I think I have 'grown on you'.:)

The charter prevents me from responding to this post in the manner in which I would like to.

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

The charter prevents me from responding to this post in the manner in which I would like to.

MrP

I love you Mr P ... in a purely and genuinely Christian way, may I add.:)

I can't make you love me in return ... now I know how God feels about this.