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

J C

SW wrote: »

I never suggested the laundries applied to any religious group. It was to counter your rather blinkered view of Ireland being heaven on Earth.

All societies have their 'blind spots' ... and I have no illusions that 1930's Ireland 'could have done better' ... but so too could our current society, that much too easily proffers procured abortion as some kind of panacea for unwanted pregnancy ... with little reference to its effects on everyone involved in this killing.

SW wrote: »

And you definitely were suggesting atheism is evil so don't play coy.

I definitely was not suggesting that atheism is evil.
I was merely citing the obvious fact that Atheism has just as many 'skeletons in its cupboards' as any other belief system.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

All societies have their 'blind spots' ... and I have no illusions that 1930's Ireland 'could have done better' ... but so too could our current society, that much too easily proffers procured abortion as some kind of panacea for unwanted pregnancy ... with little reference to its effects on everyone involved in this killing.

I definitely was not suggesting that atheism is evil.
I was merely citing the obvious fact that Atheism has just as many 'skeletons in its cupboards' as any other belief system.:)

being dishonest again, JC

J C wrote: »

Christianity hasn't done any damage to anybody ... it is a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Some Christians and their churches may have made mistakes ... but when we contrast the Ireland of the 1930's with some of its European neighbours of the time, who were busy implementing social darwinism under the Nazis and Atheistic Communism under the Russians ... Ireland was heaven on earth, in comparison.

Genetic Information is literally Complex, Functional and Specified ... so CFSI exists in life.
How does the billions of dead things found in sedimentary rock layers, laid down under water all over the earth not provide evidence for a global water-based catastrophe?
... and is it not an established scientific fact that we are all descended from one man and one woman?
Calling me 'stupid' is an ad hominem and name calling ... and the infallible sign of a lost cause, on your part.:)

You state that Christianity never hurt no-one and then state that atheism is responsible for social darwiinisim in Russia. So you apply a double-standard when it comes to judging Christianity and atheism.

Christianity isn't to be held responsible for any actions done by Christians but atheism isn't treated the same way?

Pherekydes

Why do you say atheism is a belief system? Why do you bring up the Nazis? You realise that they invoked God, claiming that they were God's chosen people? You realise God sent his only son down to save one single group, not all of humanity? You realise God was the original social Darwinist?

J C

SW wrote: »

being dishonest again, JC

Where was I dishonest?

SW wrote: »

You state that Christianity never hurt no-one and then state that atheism is responsible for social darwiinisim in Russia. So you apply a double-standard when it comes to judging Christianity and atheism.

Where did I say that atheism is responsible for social darwiinisim in Russia?

I said no such thing!!!

SW wrote: »

Christianity isn't to be held responsible for any actions done by Christians but atheism isn't treated the same way?

I was merely citing the obvious fact that Atheism has just as many 'skeletons in its cupboards' as any other belief system.
... and perennial vigilance is the correct approach under all systems.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Where was I dishonest?

Where did I say that atheism is responsible for social darwiinisim in Russia?

I said no such thing!!!

here you go:

but when we contrast the Ireland of the 1930's with some of its European neighbours of the time, who were busy implementing social darwinism under the Nazis and Atheistic Communism under the Russians

I would suggest you review your own posts before clicking submit to avoid such confusion over your own words in future

I was merely citing the obvious fact that Atheism has just as many 'skeletons in its cupboards' as any other belief system.
... and perennial vigilance is the correct approach under all systems.

actually you suggest that Christianity never hurt anyone but that atheism had in Russia. So you clearly proposed that Christianity is the lesser of the two evils.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Why do you say atheism is a belief system?

Of course Atheism is an obvious belief ... and its adherents behave like any other group that has common belief ... supporting each other and critiquing the beliefs of others.
Just look at any thread on the A & A, if you doubt me.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Why do you bring up the Nazis? You realise that they invoked God, claiming that they were God's chosen people? You realise God sent his only son down to save one single group, not all of humanity? You realise God was the original social Darwinist?

Jesus Christ came to Save all of Humanity.
The Nazis invented their own occult religion, based on the 'selection of the fittest' which was a euphemism for the killing of anybody they considered 'inferior' ... including people with special needs, homosexuals, gypsies and Jews - and indeed anybody else who opposed them.
They were the first society to implement full-blown 'Social Darwinism'.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Where was I dishonest?

Where did I say that atheism is responsible for social darwiinisim in Russia?

I said no such thing!!!

SW
here you go:
Quote:
but when we contrast the Ireland of the 1930's with some of its European neighbours of the time, who were busy implementing social darwinism under the Nazis and Atheistic Communism under the Russians

I would suggest you review your own posts before clicking submit to avoid such confusion over your own words in future.

The Nazis who weren't Atheists were the ones implementing the Social Darwinism ... while the Atheistic Communists (who were a sub-set of Atheists) were implementing their particular brand of Communism in Russia.

I was merely contrasting the much-maligned situation in Ireland in the 1930's with the much worse situations caused by the implementation of alternative systems, like social darwinism in Germany and a particular variety of atheistic communism in Russia.
Which system would you prefer to live under? ... Ireland in the 1930's ... or Russia with its confiscation of property and starvation gulags and summary executions?

wrote:

SW
actually you suggest that Christianity never hurt anyone but that atheism had in Russia. So you clearly proposed that Christianity is the lesser of the two evils.

Atheistic Communism certainly did hurt and kill millions of people in Russia as it abolished private property ownership and killed or deported its owners.
... as I have already repeatedly pointed out this evil doesn't apply to all Atheists.
In fact the reverse is true ... and all atheists of my acquaintance are honourable and good people.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

The Nazis who weren't Atheists were the ones implementing the Social Darwinism ... while the Atheistic Communists (who were a sub-set of Atheists) were implementing their particular brand of Communism in Russia.

I was merely contrasting the much-maligned situation in Ireland in the 1930's with the much worse situations caused by the implementation of alternative systems, like social darwinism in Germany and a particular variety of atheistic communism in Russia.
Which system would you prefer to live under? ... Ireland in the 1930's ... or Russia with its confiscation of property and starvation gulags and summary executions?

Atheistic Communism certainly did hurt and kill millions of people in Russia as it abolished private property ownership and killed or deported its owners.
... as I have already repeatedly pointed out this evil doesn't apply to all Atheists.
In fact the reverse is true ... and all atheists of my acquaintance are honourable and good people.

You aren't comparing like with like. The situation in Ireland was a result of the direct influence and control of the catholic church. The idea that Nazis used Darwinism (an extremely warped claim in itself that again shows you don't know what you're talking about) has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism, whether you view it as a belief system or not.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The Nazis who weren't Atheists were the ones implementing the Social Darwinism ... while the Atheistic Communists (who were a sub-set of Atheists) were implementing their particular brand of Communism in Russia.

that merely highlights that bad people do bad things. It's not contingent on being religious/atheist.

I was merely contrasting the much-maligned situation in Ireland in the 1930's with the much worse situations caused by the implementation of alternative systems, like social darwinism in Germany and a particular variety of atheistic communism in Russia.
Which system would you prefer to live under? ... Ireland in the 1930's ... or Russia with its confiscation of property and starvation gulags and summary executions?

I wouldn't care to live in either society. Might as well ask would I prefer one or two kicks to balls

Atheistic Communism certainly did hurt and kill millions of people in Russia as it abolished private property ownership and killed or deported its owners.
... as I have already repeatedly pointed out this evil doesn't apply to all Atheists.
In fact the reverse is true ... and all atheists of my acquaintance are honourable and good people.

Then you can't argue that Christianity never hurt anyone if you're going to continue to say that atheism is to blame for deaths in communist Russia. Any evil action carried out by any religious person can therefore be laid at the feet of their respective religion. Not something I'd necessarily agree with but you are of course entitled to that opinion.

RikuoAmero

J C wrote:

to the discovery of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam ... who are the scientifically established common ancestors of all Human Beings

If you actually were the scientist you have repeatedly claimed to be, you would know that this is NOT what is claimed by the scientists who discovered M. Eve and Y-C Adam.
They are not the common ancestors of all human beings. They are the most recent common ancestors for all humans presently alive, in matriarchal and patriarchal lineages respectively. They had contemporaries, who lived and died at the same time as them, whose descendants all died off. None of the scientists working on M. Eve and Y-C Adam stated them to be the literal first two humans ever. Not only that, but M.Eve and Y-C Adam were not said to have lived at the same time, or closely together.

J C

SW wrote: »

that merely highlights that bad people do bad things. It's not contingent on being religious/atheist.

I wouldn't care to live in either society. Might as well ask would I prefer one or two kicks to balls

Then you can't argue that Christianity never hurt anyone if you're going to continue to say that atheism is to blame for deaths in communist Russia. Any evil action carried out by any religious person can therefore be laid at the feet of their respective religion. Not something I'd necessarily agree with but you are of course entitled to that opinion.

I'm saying that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance ... and no belief system should be regarded as immune from the need for such vigilance.

Christianity never hurt anybody ... but some Christians not acting in accordance with their Faith certainly did ... often to their fellow Christians, it has to be said.
... but some Atheists have also done serious violence to their fellow man ... and in the case of Soviet Communism this violence was primarily directed against Christians.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Christianity never hurt anybody ... but some Christians not acting in accordance with their Faith certainly did ...

Bloody hell, it's a no true Scotsman fallacy. Is there any logical fallacy you're not prepared to stoop to?

Delirium

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bloody hell, it's a no true Scotsman fallacy. Is there any logical fallacy you're not prepared to stoop to?

And a strawman thrown in for good measure.

J C

RikuoAmero wrote: »

If you actually were the scientist you have repeatedly claimed to be, you would know that this is NOT what is claimed by the scientists who discovered M. Eve and Y-C Adam.
They are not the common ancestors of all human beings. They are the most recent common ancestors for all humans presently alive, in matriarchal and patriarchal lineages respectively. They had contemporaries, who lived and died at the same time as them, whose descendants all died off. None of the scientists working on M. Eve and Y-C Adam stated them to be the literal first two humans ever. Not only that, but M.Eve and Y-C Adam were not said to have lived at the same time, or closely together.

That used to be the scientific position (that they lived many thousands of years apart) ... but the latest research proves that they could have lived contemporaneously as the evolutionist time ranges for each of them, overlaps, exactly like Creation Scientists have claimed already.
To convert evolutionist timescales to actual time you should divide by between 15 and 20 in the case of late Hominid timescales.:)
http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/science-mitochondrial-eve-adam-01282.html

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bloody hell, it's a no true Scotsman fallacy. Is there any logical fallacy you're not prepared to stoop to?

It's no fallacy ... Christians Faith demands that we love one another ... and any departure from this isn't in accordance with our faith.

RikuoAmero

J C wrote: »

That used to be the scientific position (that they lived many thousands of years apart) ... but the latest research proves that they could have lived contemporaneously as the evolutionist time ranges for each of them, overlaps, exactly like Creation Scientists claimed already.
To convert evolutionist timescales to actual time you should divide by between 15 and 20 in the case of Hominid timescales.:)
http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/science-mitochondrial-eve-adam-01282.html

between 120,000 to 156,000 years ago for the man, and between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago for the woman.

Still not living together, like what is claimed for the biblical Adam and Eve. I've read the full paper, and nothing in there indicates that they share any characteristics with the biblical A & E.

What I find hilarious is the fact that the article YOU link to, in support of your position has this paragraph

"Despite the Adam and Eve monikers, which evoke a single couple whose children peopled the world, it is unlikely that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were exact contemporaries. These two individuals had the good fortune of successfully passing on specific portions of their DNA, called the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome, through the millennia to most of us, while the corresponding sequences of others have largely died out due to natural selection or a random process called genetic drift.

It directly refutes your stance. Why did you link to it then? Did you not read it? Or did you not bother reading the full scientific article, and simply get excited when M. Eve and Y-C Adam were named as such?
In fact, other than being named Adam and Eve, what do M. Eve and Y-C Adam share in common with the couple from Genesis?

Delirium

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bloody hell, it's a no true Scotsman fallacy. Is there any logical fallacy you're not prepared to stoop to?

J C wrote: »

It's no fallacy ... Christians Faith demands that we love one another ... and any departure from this isn't in accordance with our faith.

Ironically, you've just confirmed what oscarBravo posted:

No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

To convert evolutionist timescales to actual time you should divide by between 15 and 20 in the case of late Hominid timescales.

Can you elaborate on this. Why would you do this? Is a creationist's year different to a solar year?

/In the mood for a good laugh. #nofootballtonight

RikuoAmero

Pherekydes wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this. Why would you do this? Is a creationist's year different to a solar year?

/In the mood for a good laugh. #nofootballtonight

Simple. Because they're wrong and he's right. It's hilarious in my opinion. He links to this article, to the finding of M. Eve and Y-C Adam as somehow being indicative of the bible couple, despite the fact that the very article in question says nothing of the sort and in fact goes out of its way to say they're not the same as the Adam and Eve from the bible.
He's cherry-picking his evidence. He's pointing to this "See! Science has found the common ancestor for all humans!" and then telling us to ignore what else science has to say about the time scales involved (since those time scales contradict the biblical account). In other words, science is right only when it backs up his arguments, and wrong when it doesn't (sounds like AiG alright, despite his assertion to the contrary).
Oh and J C...in case you want to take me to task for what I did just there...this is EXACTLY what you've been doing for quite a few posts when it came to the catholic church, when you say they're creationists, despite their public assertions to the contrary.

J C

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Still not living together, like what is claimed for the biblical Adam and Eve. I've read the full paper, and nothing in there indicates that they share any characteristics with the biblical A & E.

What I find hilarious is the fact that the article YOU link to, in support of your position has this paragraph

It directly refutes your stance. Why did you link to it then? Did you not read it? Or did you not bother reading the full scientific article, and simply get excited when M. Eve and Y-C Adam were named as such?
In fact, other than being named Adam and Eve, what do M. Eve and Y-C Adam share in common with the couple from Genesis?

Lets recap.
It is a scientifically established fact that we are all descended from one man and one woman.
It is a scientifically established fact that the evolutionist time ranges for both of them overlaps thereby indicating their possible contemporaneous existence.

Evolutionist assumptions about gradualism are used to estimate the timelines involved - but apart from that I agree with the results obtained.

J C

SW wrote: »

Ironically, you've just confirmed what oscarBravo posted:

No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.

I have never claimed that Christians don't do unpleasant things ... we are all sinners saved through no merit on our parts.
My point was that while sinning doesn't exclude us from Christianity ... it also isn't in accord with the Christian principles that we espouse ... and thus Christianity is a force for good in the World ... and in the next world as well.
... so a true Christian may well do wrong ... but is much less likely to do so, because the principles they espouse demand that they don't do wrong.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Lets recap.
It is a scientifically established fact that we are all descended from one man and one woman.
It is a scientifically established fact that the evolutionist time ranges for both of them overlaps thereby indicating their possible contemporaneous existence.

Evolutionist assumptions about gradualism are used to estimate the timelines involved - but apart from that I agree with the results obtained.

You're really going to talk to us about scientifically established facts? Really?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I have never claimed that Christians don't do unpleasant things ... we are all sinners saved through no merit on our parts.
My point was that while sinning doesn't exclude us from Christianity ... it also isn't in accord with the Christian principles that we espouse ... and thus Christianity is a force for good in the World ... and in the next world as well.
... so a true Christian may well do wrong ... but is much less likely to do so, because the principles they espouse demand that they don't do wrong.

You did it again :pac:

Doctor Jimbob

SW wrote: »

You did it again :pac:

It's almost beautiful, isn't it?

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this. Why would you do this? Is a creationist's year different to a solar year?

/In the mood for a good laugh. #nofootballtonight

It is when it comes to evaluating historical timescales ... that this divergence occurs ... for example, an evolutionist will look at a living crocodile and then claim that crocodile fossils are 200 million years old ... when they could literally have been fossilised a hundred years ago.
The reason for the 200 million year time tag is because long ages of time are required to give any semblance of plausibility to the idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' ... but the fact that Crocodiles have remained unchanged during the 200 million evolutionist years that they have supposedly existed, while something that looked like a glorified rat has 'evolved' into Humans over the same period ... says that crocodiles aren't 200 million actual years old and the glorified rats ... were actual rats ... and remained so.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

It is when it comes to evaluating historical timescales ... that this divergence occurs ... for example, an evolutionist will look at a living crocodile and then claim that crocodile fossils are 200 million years old ... when they could literally have been fossilised a hundred years ago.
The reason for the 200 million year time tag is because long ages of time are required to give any semblance of plausibility to the idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' ... but the fact that Crocodiles have remained unchanged over the 200 million evolutionist years that they have supposedly existed, while something that looked like a glorified rat has 'evolved' into Humans over the same period ... says that crocodiles aren't 200 million actual years old and the glorified rats ... were actual rats ... and remained so.

All that it says is you don't have a clue about the theory of evolution.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's almost beautiful, isn't it?

OK lets recap ... how does a claim that Christianity, which demands that we love our neighbour as ourselves ... but recognizes that we may fail in this ideal ... fall into the 'no true scotsman' fallacy whereby everybody who fails in an ideal is excluded from membership of the group at issue?

How does Christianity does this?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

All that it says is you don't have a clue about the theory of evolution.

... or some evolutionists may have a bias in favour of long ages ... when these ages may not have actually existed.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

It is when it comes to evaluating historical timescales ... that this divergence occurs ... for example, an evolutionist will look at a living crocodile and then claim that crocodile fossils are 200 million years old ... when they could literally have been fossilised a hundred years ago.
The reason for the 200 million year time tag is because long ages of time are required to give any semblance of plausibility to the idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' ... but the fact that Crocodiles have remained unchanged during the 200 million evolutionist years that they have supposedly existed, while something that looked like a glorified rat has 'evolved' into Humans over the same period ... says that crocodiles aren't 200 million actual years old and the glorified rats ... were actual rats ... and remained so.

Do you teach science to kindergartners, by any chance?

It's the only explanation I can come up with for the infantile drivel you consistently come out with.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Lets recap.
It is a scientifically established fact that we are all descended from one man and one woman.
It is a scientifically established fact that the evolutionist time ranges for both of them overlaps thereby indicating their possible contemporaneous existence.

Evolutionist assumptions about gradualism are used to estimate the timelines involved - but apart from that I agree with the results obtained.

...and now we have confirmation bias. Where logical fallacy bingo is concerned, you're the gift that won't stop giving.

No matter how much we wish you would.