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

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

One of the reasons that a friend became an Evolutionist when he was a 7-year old, was because his mother told him that he grew (spontaneously) under a Cabbage Plant.
... he is still an Evolutionist ... and still believes in the spontaneity of his 'origins' ... mother's can have a great impact allright!!!;)

He is a great guy ... who can take a joke ... and he can be equally impactful in his retorts.

That is just bullshit. You're just trolling now.

housetypeb

Notice how his posts became more desperate as the night went on,all he wants is some one to respond to his idiotic posts.

Frank Bullitt

I think we can all just realize something going forward.

No matter what JC states or claims, he has no evidence, has no science degree and have no bearing on anything of importance.

That should help us calm a little bit.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

I think we can all just realize something going forward.

No matter what JC states or claims, he has no evidence, has no science degree and have no bearing on anything of importance.

That should help us calm a little bit.

It might if it were true ... but it's not.:)

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

It might if it were true ... but it's not.:)

I'm terribly sorry to inform you, but it is. No amount of smiley faces can change that.

J C

Gordon wrote: »

Which of the many different versions of the christian bible do you take your version of history from? The KJV states that the tree was made by him:

"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

And it only mentions a serpent, not the devil that told Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. Maybe that's because the christian god had only just created everything, and therefore the christian devil hadn't had enough time to have his big battle and become ousted and fallen and with a chip on his shoulder.

Maybe you can provide links to show your version of the christian history?

Bible verses in blue below.
Quote:-
And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;" That is all normal plants and trees were Created by God.

"the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." It doesn't say who made these 'trees' ... and they certainly aren't normal trees ... they seem to be metaphors for something else. The tree of life seems to be a system allowing the possibility of eternal life ... and God has ruled this out in this physical realm due to Man's Fall. We know that the tree of life is God's tree because Gen 3:24 says that :-
So he (God) drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
... and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is also clearly a metaphor for a system of knowledge that mixes good and evil ... which is occultism to the core ... and it seems that Satan was its progenitor ... and that was why he was so anxious that Adam and Eve would partake of this knowledge ... and that was why God asked them not to do so and told them clearly that they would be introducing death into the world if the partook of the knowledge system of Satan.

Rev 12:9 confirms that the serpent is the Devil and Satan ... they are three names for the one demon.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

I'm terribly sorry to inform you, but it is. No amount of smiley faces can change that.

You are free to believe anything you like ... I know the truth and the truth has set me free.:)

Gordon

J C, regarding the tree, you seem to be reading stuff that isn't there. You are trying to claim that a tree is a metaphor, and that actually when the christian bible says all trees, it actually means all 'good' trees. Strange that you would not take the words that are written, but instead create your own narrative around it, maybe that's why there are so many different types of religion and christian and catholic/protestant etc, because people read stuff that isn't there.

Regarding the snake that talked to Eve, revelation doesn't state that about the garden of eden snake in the quote you posted, I'm shocked you think this. It says that the devil is a snake and he caused trouble with 'the whole world' at some point in the past, but nothing about deceiving one person, Eve, and makes no reference to him being the same snake in the garden. Just that the devil is a snake, presumably one of millions on the planet at the time...

No, I think you need to rethink this and read your christian bible the way it was written, without trying to put words into your god's mouth. If the catholic pope can change his mind and believe in evolution, I'm sure you can put your mind to reading your bible the way it was pieced together throughout the centuries, by many different people.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

You are free to believe anything you like ... I know the truth and the truth has set me free.:)

More ignorance. If it works for you then fine, just keep it to yourself and keep calling it faith.

It's called faith because it's not knowledge.

Absolam

Gintonious wrote: »

More ignorance. If it works for you then fine, just keep it to yourself and keep calling it faith. It's called faith because it's not knowledge.

I don't think it's ignorant to say 'you are free to believe anything you like'. From a religious point of view (or maybe from a non religious perspective on religion), it could be considered quite enlightened. 'Just keep it to yourself'.... now that sounds like a willingness to be ignorant.

Frank Bullitt

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think it's ignorant to say 'you are free to believe anything you like'. From a religious point of view (or maybe from a non religious perspective on religion), it could be considered quite enlightened. 'Just keep it to yourself'.... now that sounds like a willingness to be ignorant.

"I know the truth and the truth has set me free", this would be the ignorant part for me, these continuous claims of truth and knowledge from the faithful are what irks me more than anything. They are making unfounded claims and spreading it as fact, which goes against the evidence for what we know at this current moment.

And for the record, I was raised catholic, went to a christian brothers school and was taught religious studies during my time at school. I have since read more my self, and have come to the realization to the fact that religion and its beliefs are very clearly now, man-made, and not supernatural or "enlightening".

I don't preach or force what I think, or "believe" on others, but when the faithful feel the need to spread theirs, that's when I take up arms.

Your insinuation of me being ignorant because I said "just keep it to yourself" is very wide of the mark, I have seen what religion has to offer, and it is an offer not worth taking, I do not wish to surrender my critical faculties to a faith of any kind.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

God didn't make the occult tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil ... that would be Satan's doing.
God gave Adam and Eve free-will ... but warned them not to join Satan and his occult system ... and they abused their free will ... and the rest is History.

So again why did God allow Satan to plant a tree in his perfect garden? Although since he didn't even know when his own trees were in season I guess he can be forgiven for any horitcultural transgressions on his part.

Squeedily Spooch

SW wrote: »

No wonder you struggle with science. That definitely isn't evolution.

A guy being found under a cabbage plant? sure that's as mad as a man appearing fully formed from a pile of dust...oh....

I'm convinced at this point you don't actually even know what evolution is, you keep stating this moronic thing that we just appeared from pond slime, that's not what evolution is, nor does it claim that. The only one claiming that is you, with your non existant science credentials. Maybe the aliens you met used the probe a bit too much.

Absolam

Gintonious wrote: »

"I know the truth and the truth has set me free", this would be the ignorant part for me, these continuous claims of truth and knowledge from the faithful are what irks me more than anything. They are making unfounded claims and spreading it as fact, which goes against the evidence for what we know at this current moment.

So, how do you know that J C doesn't know the truth, and it hasn't set him free?
Surely claiming his statement is ignorant, without a basis for refuting it, is in fact, a claim based on ignorance?

Gintonious wrote: »

And for the record, I was raised catholic, went to a christian brothers school and was taught religious studies during my time at school. I have since read more my self, and have come to the realization to the fact that religion and its beliefs are very clearly now, man-made, and not supernatural or "enlightening".

I'm sure you think that's all to your credit. But it does rather sound like you're simply claiming an alternative form of 'enlightenment' due to your realisation as a result of what you've read. Very much like saying "I know the truth and the truth has set me free". Which is what a lot of Christians do.

Gintonious wrote: »

I don't preach or force what I think, or "believe" on others, but when the faithful feel the need to spread theirs, that's when I take up arms.

And how do you justify opposing ideas with arms? I think most people would prefer you preached what you "believe" on others, rather than that.

Gintonious wrote: »

Your insinuation of me being ignorant because I said "just keep it to yourself" is very wide of the mark, I have seen what religion has to offer, and it is an offer not worth taking, I do not wish to surrender my critical faculties to a faith of any kind.

Actually, I wasn't insinuating that by trying to discourage free speech you are ignorant, I was insinuating that you're encouraging ignorance by telling people to keep their ideas to themselves.

Doctor Jimbob

Absolam wrote: »

So, how do you know that J C doesn't know the truth, and it hasn't set him free?
Surely claiming his statement is ignorant, without a basis for refuting it, is in fact, a claim based on ignorance?
I'm sure you think that's all to your credit. But it does rather sound like you're simply claiming an alternative form of 'enlightenment' due to your realisation as a result of what you've read. Very much like saying "I know the truth and the truth has set me free". Which is what a lot of Christians do.
And how do you justify opposing ideas with arms? I think most people would prefer you preached what you "believe" on others, rather than that.

Actually, I wasn't insinuating that by trying to discourage free speech you are ignorant, I was insinuating that you're encouraging ignorance by telling people to keep their ideas to themselves.

While I don't necessarily with what you're saying, It is good to see someone raise issues like this in a sensible manner that actually encourages discussion. The thing is though, scientific claims have evidence while religious ones rely on word passed on from thousands of years ago. The two forms of enlightenment aren't really comparable. All well and good, and I wouldn't be one of the 'keep it to yourself' crowd either, but there are limits.

Folks like J C want to see religious dogma taught as an alternative to science, and that just isn't ok. People are free to share their faith with whoever they please, as long as they treat it as what it is. Teaching religion in a science classroom is wrong for the same reason as teaching science in a church is: it's not the right place. Simple as that. So I would say it's quite understandable for people to be up in arms over it - the 'other side' certainly would be if the roles were reversed.

Frank Bullitt

So, how do you know that J C doesn't know the truth, and it hasn't set him free? Surely claiming his statement is ignorant, without a basis for refuting it, is in fact, a claim based on ignorance?

His use of the word 'truth' is where I have issue, its merely a claim based on blind faith, and faith is the key word here. It has no evidence for itself, and he uses it as a pseudoscience as if it measures up to science on an equal ground, when clearly, it does not.

My claim is based on the evidence for what we now know about the cosmos and how life today came to be, observable to our own very eyes. No need for faith or conjecture, so if JC has some evidence to back his wild claims against more or less the entire scientific community, I'm all ears. But him ignoring the facts and claiming that he knows the truth whilst ignoring these facts, to me, is very ignorant.

I'm sure you think that's all to your credit. But it does rather sound like you're simply claiming an alternative form of 'enlightenment' due to your realisation as a result of what you've read. Very much like saying "I know the truth and the truth has set me free". Which is what a lot of Christians do.

Comparing my position to that of christians is comparing apples to oranges. I don't feel the need to spread my "faith" or go against the grain of modern science like some posters do on here. And I am not sure I would call it enlightenment, more educated as there is evidence to base my position off, so weather other Christians like the idea of evolution or not, its true regardless. You can call that ignorant or enlightened if you please, but I don't really care because its true. That isn't an ignorant claim, its merely a fact.

And how do you justify opposing ideas with arms? I think most people would prefer you preached what you "believe" on others, rather than that.

I don't believe anything necessarily, merely I understand and accept the theory of evolution, and being an atheist isn't having a belief, its merely lacking a belief. It's very similar to saying being bald is a hair colour. I also justify it by the crusade that the faithful seem to undertake day in, day out.

Trying to teach younger generations or people in general, that this is a young earth, that we are born in sin, and will go to heaven or hell after we die, its a much more wicked thing to imply, over my "I don't know where we go when we die" and "being a good person doesn't need religion", so this implication that I somewhat preach my beliefs is unfounded, as I have no beliefs to preach.

Actually, I wasn't insinuating that by trying to discourage free speech you are ignorant, I was insinuating that you're encouraging ignorance by telling people to keep their ideas to themselves.

I am telling a creationist to keep his beliefs to himself, as they have no place in modern society. The particular poster in question has been at this now for quite a long time, and although not all Christians would take up the same standpoint as him, his particular views on things do no good to anyone as far as I am concerned, and are open for heavy criticism (as they should be). So he is quite entitled to believe what he wants, as I have said before, but then to impose these primitive beliefs to me is not just wrong, but in ways evil. The idea of compulsory love, claiming to know all based on an ancient book and disregarding modern science, these are immoral beliefs, and held back societies for long enough, and it is time they be seen for what they are.

For quite a while I had no issue with peoples beliefs, indeed my parents, the 2 people who I love the most in the world, are very devout christians themselves, so when I informed I was atheist it had no bearing whatsoever on us. But I told a group who called to my door here in Vancouver that I wasn't interested in their church because I was an atheist, they felt the need to call back each week, hoping I would want to change my mind. Imposing beliefs is not a nice or pleasant thing, especially on younger people, if if makes you happy then so be it, I am happy for you, of course good people believe these things, but to preach them as the undeniable truth to me, no matter how good/nice the person is, deserves to be called on.

P.S - I am glad to be having a more civilized basis for this with yourself, conversation like this is a very healthy thing for people to undertake.

Absolam

Gintonious wrote: »

His use of the word 'truth' is where I have issue, its merely a claim based on blind faith, and faith is the key word here. It has no evidence for itself, and he uses it as a pseudoscience as if it measures up to science on an equal ground, when clearly, it does not.

So... his use of the word truth is ignorant? Or his belief that he knows the truth is ignorant? Or do you think that agreeing with the concept of truth without proof is evidence of ignorance?

Gintonious wrote: »

My claim is based on the evidence for what we now know about the cosmos and how life today came to be, observable to our own very eyes.

Your claim is that '"You are free to believe anything you like ... I know the truth and the truth has set me free" is more ignorance'. How is that claim based on the evidence for what we now know about the cosmos and how life today came to be, observable to our own very eyes?

Gintonious wrote: »

But him ignoring the facts and claiming that he knows the truth whilst ignoring these facts, to me, is very ignorant.

As far as I can tell from the post he replied to, the 'truth' he claims to know is that he has evidence, a science degree, and a bearing on something of importance (JC feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here). I'm not sure how you can dispute any of those claims from either what you know about the cosmos and how life today came to be, or what is observable to your own very eyes, until the evidence he claims to have is specified, the degree he claims to have is determined, and the bearing he has on an item of importance is revealed. Arguing against these things without that information would appear to be an argument from ignorance?

Gintonious wrote: »

Comparing my position to that of christians is comparing apples to oranges. I don't feel the need to spread my "faith" or go against the grain of modern science like some posters do on here.

Are proselytism and dogmatic faith the sole characteristics of Christians? My suggestion was that coming to a realisation having read something is a characteristic that you share with some Christians. Like, apples and oranges are different, but they're both fruit.

Gintonious wrote: »

And I am not sure I would call it enlightenment, more educated as there is evidence to base my position off, so weather other Christians like the idea of evolution or not, its true regardless. You can call that ignorant or enlightened if you please, but I don't really care because its true. That isn't an ignorant claim, its merely a fact.

So, you don't care what people say, because you know what you know is true. I'd venture that's another characteristic you share with some Christians then.

Gintonious wrote: »

I also justify it by the crusade that the faithful seem to undertake day in, day out.

That doesn't seem sufficient justification to oppose ideas with arms. Opposing ideas with ideas would seem a far more considered response.

Gintonious wrote: »

this implication that I somewhat preach my beliefs is unfounded, as I have no beliefs to preach.

I didn't imply that you somewhat preach your beliefs, I suggested that you preaching would be preferable to you opposing with arms.

Gintonious wrote: »

I am telling a creationist to keep his beliefs to himself, as they have no place in modern society.

Surely telling people to keep their beliefs to themselves has no place in modern society?

Gintonious wrote: »

The particular poster in question has been at this now for quite a long time, and although not all Christians would take up the same standpoint as him, his particular views on things do no good to anyone as far as I am concerned, and are open for heavy criticism (as they should be).

As should everyones views be, I think. But criticism is a long way from censorship.

Gintonious wrote: »

So he is quite entitled to believe what he wants, as I have said before, but then to impose these primitive beliefs to me is not just wrong, but in ways evil.

Surely espousing a belief isn't imposing it? Whereas forbidding the espousal of competing beliefs would be a way of imposing your beliefs....

Gintonious wrote: »

The idea of compulsory love, claiming to know all based on an ancient book and disregarding modern science, these are immoral beliefs, and held back societies for long enough, and it is time they be seen for what they are.

Well, morality is a very subjective thing, so I'm not sure I approve of your morality banning JCs morality. That seems immoral to me.

Frank Bullitt

So... his use of the word truth is ignorant? Or his belief that he knows the truth is ignorant? Or do you think that agreeing with the concept of truth without proof is evidence of ignorance?

Claiming that his version of the truth is ignorant, ignorant to the facts that prove that view he takes is very clearly wrong, in every way imaginable. And the continuous implication that he is indeed right, has proven evolution is wrong, is again ignorant to the clear facts at hand.

Your claim is that '"You are free to believe anything you like ... I know the truth and the truth has set me free" is more ignorance'. How is that claim based on the evidence for what we now know about the cosmos and how life today came to be, observable to our own very eyes?

I'm not sure I follow on this, but I'll attempt to answer. Him saying that he knows the truth and it has set him free displays a blissful ignorance of the scientific theories that go against his beliefs (or his truth), for instance, the insistence of a biblical flood, again no evidence for that. His claims that he has disproven evolution in the face of all the evidence. That the earth is 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve, the list goes on. So his insistence on these being true and he knows it, yes that is a very real form of ignorance.

As far as I can tell from the post he replied to, the 'truth' he claims to know is that he has evidence, a science degree, and a bearing on something of importance (JC feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here). I'm not sure how you can dispute any of those claims from either what you know about the cosmos and how life today came to be, or what is observable to your own very eyes, until the evidence he claims to have is specified, the degree he claims to have is determined, and the bearing he has on an item of importance is revealed. Arguing against these things without that information would appear to be an argument from ignorance?

If you have time on your hands, you could read back throughout this thread or the posts he has made. You will find his claims of proof, or lack of actually, for Evolution, how he used to "believe" in Evolution until he was swayed by some form of evidence, many have asked what his degree is in and he has evaded in specifying it, why exactly is not fully clear, he has also claimed to be a member of Mensa in the Darwins theory thread on AH, and never proved that either.

I can dispute these claims, simply because the claims he makes require some form of evidence, and he has shown none, at all, ever. If a lawyer claimed to have all the evidence in the world for his case, but failed to show it, the case would be closed very quickly, the same applies here. His argument is based on faith, and its very clear to all that it is, and with all faith based arguments, they don't require evidence. My point for his ignorance are his repeated ignoring of the scientific evidence at hand, and his failure to produce any evidence against it.

Are proselytism and dogmatic faith the sole characteristics of Christians? My suggestion was that coming to a realisation having read something is a characteristic that you share with some Christians. Like, apples and oranges are different, but they're both fruit.

There is a huge difference reading a book by a prominent scientist, who presents evidence in a clear form, from reading a book from the primitive middle east, all of which claims from it that have been made, have been disproved. So my position on this compared to that of someone who makes claims from reading a holy book is vastly different, and a poor comparison at that. And it's also not just books, a few of Sir David Attenboroughs masterpieces will explain the wonder of life on earth today, the variety and the pure majesty of nature in itself, and not a single faith based claim to be seen.

So, you don't care what people say, because you know what you know is true. I'd venture that's another characteristic you share with some Christians then.

I go by the evidence, that can be seen in museums, read in scientific journals and seen in documentaries. Science has no dogma attached to it, and is always willing to change its stance if something is proven to be otherwise, it goes through peer reviews and is heavily scrutinized. So if someone makes the claim that the earth is 10,000 years old, there was a man aboard an ark with 2 of every animal, and that a man rose from the dead, and I say that its not true, I am making that claim based on the lack of evidence for those particular claims, and the evidence that also goes agains them. This is not a characteristic someone in my position would share with that of a faith based person, vastly different.

That doesn't seem sufficient justification to oppose ideas with arms. Opposing ideas with ideas would seem a far more considered response.

Opposing the idea the earth is 10,000 years old with that of the earth being billions of years old is giving faith based assertions equal grounds, when it does not deserve or have the justification for that. Giving equal rights to faith against science, one side of which makes its claims on faith, and the other on the evidence that can and has been found can not be put on the same playing field. If religion is to be taught in schools then it is done so in a religion class or a philosophical setting, most definitely not in a science room. So my taking up arms is the defend this higher position that society and science has now over the faithful, and them trying to instil on primitive doctrines in modern society.

I didn't imply that you somewhat preach your beliefs, I suggested that you preaching would be preferable to you opposing with arms.

I disagree on this point. My "opposing with arms" mainly stems from the interference that religion and faith based positions still has in parts of the world. There is no doubt that the beliefs of religion in certain societies and certain areas of it have hindered and retarded progress. The anti-same sex marriage brigade around the world would be one that comes to mind, simply denying people the opportunity to celebrate their love because it says that it can not be allowed in the bible or other religious texts makes me sick to my stomach, and the fact that religion gets some sort of say in these matters, which can be seen in TV panel debates for example, is also another reason for me to not just try and preach as you put it, but to actively push for change.

Surely telling people to keep their beliefs to themselves has no place in modern society?

If for instance, a militant muslims beliefs were that exactly of the Koran and was to kill infidels, would me telling them to not just keep their beliefs to themselves but also to try and stop them, would that have a place in modern society. Or if someone were to hand me a leaflet in the street arguing against same sex marriage or homosexuality because of their beliefs, would me telling them to keep it to themselves be bad form also? Or this idea that can be found in this thread, that the world is 10,000 years old, that we are not evolved but created, and also created in sin, and that if you do not accept this lovely offer of certainty after death, you burn in the pits of hell. I hold the right to call these claims evil by those who make them, and also to say that they have no place in a modern world.

As should everyones views be, I think. But criticism is a long way from censorship.

Taking up arms and censorship are different things, me telling someone to keep their beliefs to themselves is not a form of censorship, it is a request that they respect my position on faith, or lack of faith. I am not actively suppressing them or their views, a tactic often taken up by various religions over time, as the late great Christopher Hitchens referred to it, faith can be peoples favourite toy and they are welcome to it, they are welcome to play with the toys and have other people to come around to their house and play with them also, but they are not to make me play with the toys, I will not play with the toys, and don't impose these toys on other people.

Surely espousing a belief isn't imposing it? Whereas forbidding the espousal of competing beliefs would be a way of imposing your beliefs....

Like I said before and referenced above, I am perfectly fine with these views and beliefs that people have, they can believe what they like if it makes them feel as happy as they are. But imposing these beliefs, which I have asked to be kept private, on others in the public for instance by street preachers, should be kept away, this is where I begin to take up my arms. Do as you wish within a church, or your house, but bringing it out on the street, door to door and on the TV, why is my opposition and call for privacy on this a bad thing?

Well, morality is a very subjective thing, so I'm not sure I approve of your morality banning JCs morality. That seems immoral to me.

Morality may well deserve a full conversation on its own, but morality should be a universal practise. Is it moral then to tell people certain beliefs in spite of the evidence? Or that if they do not take up the offer of an afterlife that its off to Hell for them? Or that our sins, which we are born into, can be forgiven by a human sacrifice? The doctrine for morality that Christianity preaches, abolishes personal responsibility, which all ethics and morality is based off.

So if I say that JC's beliefs are immoral, and the preaching of them also immoral based on the holy book he reads from, and also preaches from in this thread, I don't see how what I am implying is somehow immoral in the same way. If society were to still take its morals or ethics from the bible for example, we would still have slavery, mass murder, genocide, torture, racism, tribalism, is that the kind of morality you would like to see? And is me requesting to keep your beliefs private and to yourself, on the same plane as this type of immorality?

Doctor Jimbob

I'd love to see how those wanting creationism taught as science would react if people suggested having a science teacher as a requirement at every mass to butt in whenever the priest says something that scientists contradict. There would be uproar.

Vivisectus

No, I say we go for true equality in that case, and also include Intelligent Geography: the flat earth society can come in and explain how all footage from space is faked, and that the sun is a small satellite of the earth.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

So, how do you know that J C doesn't know the truth, and it hasn't set him free?
Surely claiming his statement is ignorant, without a basis for refuting it, is in fact, a claim based on ignorance?

We know that JC doesn't know the truth because he has been shown to be dead wrong about damn near everything he's posted in this thread and the others like it.
Like this, for example:

J C wrote: »

It's an accepted biological fact that late motherhood is higher risk for both the mother and the child ... while late fatherhood carries none of these risks.
... although, speaking personally, I'd have no great desire to be still changing dirty nappies at 50 TBH!!!

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Once again, you're wrong. You must have an addiction to humiliation JC.

Anyway, for the record, late fatherhood does indeed carry some significant risks. It has been associated with conditions such as:

Down's syndrome

The influence of paternal age on Down's syndrome


Autism

Perinatal factors and the development of autism: a population study


Schizophrenia

Advancing paternal age and the risk of schizophrenia


Bipolar disorder

Advancing paternal age and bipolar disorder

or this:

J C wrote: »

Speciation can occur very rapidly ... and many cat species can interbreed with varying degrees of success ... for example Tigers can interbreed with Lions to produce 'Ligers' and 'Tigons'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

EdgarFriendly wrote: »

That's hybridization between two members of the same genus. It's not true speciation as Ligers are sterile, while the Ligresses are able to produce offspring with male lions, which consequently are sterile and generally of poor health.

It's exactly what you would expect between two close members of the same genus.

Now, if you'd like I can give you even more examples or you could read pretty much any of the posts which show JC talking out through his arse, say mine or Sarky, dlofnep, doctoremma, sycopat, SW, robindch etc. etc.

JC is not just ignorant but wilfully so. He parrots the same bullsh1t ideas all the time without ever meaningfully responding to anything anyone else has to say.

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

A guy being found under a cabbage plant? sure that's as mad as a man appearing fully formed from a pile of dust...oh....

... that's Evolution ... it says Mankind spontaneously evolved (from a pile of pond-muck actually) ... over millions of years.

... and The Bible says that an omnipotent God Created man from the dust of the Earth.

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

I'm convinced at this point you don't actually even know what evolution is, you keep stating this moronic thing that we just appeared from pond slime, that's not what evolution is, nor does it claim that. The only one claiming that is you, with your non existant science credentials. Maybe the aliens you met used the probe a bit too much.

Nobody seems to know precisely what 'evolution' is ... it's 'something' that is all things to all men!!!:)

... funny thing ... the aliens went away when I threatened to probe them.:)

irish coldplayer

J C wrote: »

... funny thing ... the aliens went away when I threatened to probe them.:)

aliens???????
then again considering the rest of your posts I really shouldn't be surprised.
Go on anyway purely from an entertainment perspective, I'd love to hear more about your close encounter...
What did you threaten to probe them with?

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

We know that JC doesn't know the truth because he has been shown to be dead wrong about damn near everything he's posted in this thread and the others like it.

I gave an example of late motherhood being problematical ... and you gave examples of late fatherhood being problematical ... where was I wrong in what I said.
It's not as if one disproves the other.

Come on oldrnwisr ... you can surely do better than that ... if you're going to accuse me of being wrong.

... although, come to think of it, I've never been proven wrong on any substantial issue ... yet!!!:)

I said that Ligers prove that tigers and lions are members of a common Baramin .. and you say I'm wrong ... they are a common Genus ... which is 'evolution-speak' for a common Baramin.:)

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now, if you'd like I can give you even more examples or you could read pretty much any of the posts which show JC talking out through his arse, say mine or Sarky, dlofnep, doctoremma, sycopat, SW, robindch etc. etc.

The bad language is an indicator that what you have said can't really be supported with evidence ... or you would have done so instead of 'talking dirty'!!!:eek:

oldrnwisr wrote: »

JC is not just ignorant but wilfully so. He parrots the same bullsh1t ideas all the time without ever meaningfully responding to anything anyone else has to say.

I rise to the level of debate against me ... and beyond it.
You were one of the people whom I looked forward to reading their posts ... because you generally stayed with the evidence and didn't engage in personal invective ... but not any longer ... by the looks of it.
What has happened to you oldrnwisr, that you are now using bad language with the best of them ... and not your usual 'older and wiser' gentlemanly self?

J C

irish coldplayer wrote: »

aliens???????
then again considering the rest of your posts I really shouldn't be surprised.
Go on anyway purely from an entertainment perspective, I'd love to hear more about your close encounter...
What did you threaten to probe them with?

That would be classified information.:)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'd love to see how those wanting creationism taught as science would react if people suggested having a science teacher as a requirement at every mass to butt in whenever the priest says something that scientists contradict. There would be uproar.

... I don't know what might happen at mass ... but I do know that in church meetings these type of discussions happen all of the time ... without any uproar.

... equally, when you think about it, the science teacher often does contradict church teaching in science class on Monday morning and with no possibility of reply from the pastor ...

... after church dogma on Sunday ... we have atheistic dogmas on Monday ... Tuesday ... Wednesday ... Thursday and Friday.:):eek:

... and we wonder why our children sometimes 'don't know what day of the week it is' ... when it comes to their Faith.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... I don't know what might happen at mass ... but I do know that in a church meeting these type of discussions happen all of the time ... without any uproar.

... equally, when you think about it, the science teacher often does contradict church teaching in science class the following morning and with no possibility of reply from the pastor ...
... after church dogma on Sunday ... we can have atheistic dogmas on Monday ... Tuesday ... Wednesday ... Thursday and Friday.:):eek:

Considering the fact your previous anecdotal evidence on the past few pages alone included such gems as alien encounters and whatever the hell that cabbage patch thing was, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take that one with several buckets of salt. Especially considering the fact that the creationist's typical response to science is 'lalalalalallala I can't hear you'.

Of course they do. Because it's science. In a classroom. Not a church. That is exactly the point. Why on earth would a pastor get to have any say in the matter? As I said in previous posts, I have no issue with creation being taught in church or a religion classroom but it has no place whatsoever being taught as science. No amount of rambling about baramins, CFSI, probability nonsense or any other creationist buzzwords is ever going to change that.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I rise to the level of debate against me ... and beyond it.
You were one of the people whom I looked forward to reading their posts ... because you generally stayed with the evidence and didn't engage in personal invective ... but not any longer ... by the looks of it.
What has happened to you oldrnwisr, that you are now using bad language with the best of them ... and not your usual 'older and wiser' gentlemanly self?

What do you expect? He went to the effort of refuting your claims numerous times, even including all those fancy science things like citations that you seem to be so scared of, and rather than actually debate any of it you just stuck your head in the sand, repeated your posts, or disappeared for a few months until the evidence went away.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Considering the fact your previous anecdotal evidence on the past few pages alone included such gems as alien encounters and whatever the hell that cabbage patch thing was, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take that one with several buckets of salt. Especially considering the fact that the creationist's typical response to science is 'lalalalalallala I can't hear you'.

It's not my response to science (nor the response of any Creationist I know) ... but I haven't had much of substance to listen to about evolution recently.:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Of course they do. Because it's science. In a classroom. Not a church. That is exactly the point. Why on earth would a pastor get to have any say in the matter? As I said in previous posts, I have no issue with creation being taught in church or a religion classroom but it has no place whatsoever being taught as science. No amount of rambling about baramins, CFSI, probability nonsense or any other creationist buzzwords is ever going to change that.

If the pastor were a qualified scientist, s/he should have every say in the matter.
Equally, your fear of probing my posting on the basis for ID, reminds me of the fear that Aliens have of probing me.:)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What do you expect? He went to the effort of refuting your claims numerous times, even including all those fancy science things like citations that you seem to be so scared of, and rather than actually debate any of it you just stuck your head in the sand, repeated your posts, or disappeared for a few months until the evidence went away.

I had important business to attend to.

... now I'm here to talk to oldrnwisr ... and the best he has come up with is a post by me that complemented a post of his ... and one where I used Creation Science terms and somebody else used the Evolutionist equivalents.:eek: