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

J C

Samaris wrote: »

That is absolute nonsense.

I don't even have a starting point for how much this is nonsense. It would be like having to make a serious argument against "the moon is made of cheese".

The unfounded belief that matter spontaneously organised itself into life ... and then went on to become mankind through a process of accumulating selected mistakes does indeed seem to be in the realm of a belief in a cheesey Moon.:)

As for longevity being linked to 'mutational load' ... this is a logical inference from our current experience, whereby deleterious mutations (and they are almost all deleterious) shorten the lives of their hosts.

... merely calling something 'nonsense' without explaining why you believe it to be nonsense is just making an unfounded statement of derision.

You're quite the master of the unfounded statement allright.:)

Doctor Jimbob

Somebody get this lad a medal for sheer dedication to the art of trolling.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Somebody get this lad a medal for sheer dedication to the art of trolling.

... yet another unfounded invalid assertion ... you guys are providing a virtual cornucopia of logical fallacies.:)

... and here is the current situation in regard to Creation Science within the UK (according to Wikipedia):-
Quote:-
"United Kingdom
The Genesis Expo is a young Earth creationism museum in Portsmouth, England.
Since the development of evolutionary theory by Charles Darwin in England, where his portrait appears on the back of the revised Series E £10 note issued in 2000, significant shifts in British public opinion have occurred. A 2006 survey for the BBC showed that "more than a fifth of those polled were convinced by the creationist argument,"[56] a massive decrease from the almost total acceptance of creationism before Darwin published his theory. A 2010 Angus Reid poll found that "In Britain, two-thirds of respondents (68%) side with evolution while less than one-in-five (16%) choose creationism. At least seven-in-ten respondents in the South of England (70%) and Scotland (75%) believe human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years."[57] A subsequent 2010 YouGov poll on the origin of humans found that 9% opted for creationism, 12% intelligent design, 65% evolutionary theory and 13% did not know.[58]

Speaking at the British Science Association's British Science Festival at the University of Liverpool in 2008, Professor Michael Reiss estimated that about only 10% of children were from a family that supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.[59] Richard Dawkins has been quoted saying "I have spoken to a lot of science teachers in schools here in Britain who are finding an increasing number of students coming to them and saying they are Young Earth creationists."[60]

The director of education at the Royal Society has said that creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than be excluded, to explain why creationism had no scientific basis.[61] Wales has the largest proportion of theistic evolutionists—the belief that evolution is part of God's plan (38%). Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of people who believe in 'intelligent design' (16%), which holds that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[62] Some private religious schools in the UK teach creationism rather than evolution.[56] The British Humanist Association and leading scientists campaigned to make creationism illegal in state funded schools from 2011 onwards. In 2014 they achieved their goal when the Department for Education updated the funding contracts of Academies and Free Schools to this effect, and at the same time, clarified that creationism being taught as science contravened existing 'British values' requirements."

... all in all a very dynamic (and exciting) situation !!!:)

J C

... and happy (belated) Darwin Day to everybody.

Here is a thought-provoking article on the 'Great' Man's Day ...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/

Quote:-

"courts in recent decades have consistently rejected public school curricula that veer away from evolutionary theory. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring public school students to learn both evolution and “creation science” violated the Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion."

If you can't beat it ... ban it ... seems to be the policy !!!:eek:

looksee

How exactly do your last two posts support your Creationist theories JC?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... and happy (belated) Darwin Day to everybody.

Here is a thought-provoking article on the 'Great' Man's Day ...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/

Quote:-

"courts in recent decades have consistently rejected public school curricula that veer away from evolutionary theory. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring public school students to learn both evolution and “creation science” violated the Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion."

If you can't beat it ... ban it ... seems to be the policy !!!:eek:

What you've highlighted is much the same as a science teacher insisting they have a right to go into a church of a Sunday and give a sermon on evolution as an alternative to whatever babble the priest is offering that week. It's pointless, needlessly provocative, and bordering on the deranged.

J C

looksee wrote: »

How exactly do your last two posts support your Creationist theories JC?

I never claimed that they support it ... I'm just providing them for information on the 'current state of play' between the two alternative 'origins' sciences.

I would also point out the irony of the American Court System being used to initially ban the teaching of Evolution (for example, with the Butler Act of 1925, which was supported and enforced by the courts up until it was rescinded in 1967) ... and now the courts being used to ban the teaching of Creation Science and Intelligent Design.

It would be nice, for a change, if the courts began to take a liberal position and stopped banning the academic freedom to inform people of the strengths and weaknesses of both 'origins' theories.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What you've highlighted is much the same as a science teacher insisting they have a right to go into a church of a Sunday and give a sermon on evolution as an alternative to whatever babble the priest is offering that week. It's pointless, needlessly provocative, and bordering on the deranged.

So you think that schools are some kind of 'church' within which evolutionists practice and reinforce their faith in Atheism, (and its pet 'origins' theory of Spontaneous Biogenesis and Evolution) then?
... and the law should protect them (and their 'congregation' of pupils) from hearing any alternative ideas? ... even the most died-in-the-wool church wouldn't be as intolerant of alternative viewpoints as that!!!

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

So you think that schools are some kind of 'church' within which evolutionists practice and reinforce their faith in Atheism, (and its pet 'origins' theory) then?

Have you considered a career as a spin doctor?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Have you considered a career as a spin doctor?

You're the one drawing the analogy between a science teacher going into a church to give a sermon on Evolution, with Creation Science being taught in schools.

I happen to agree with you on this one ... that Evolution (which Prof Dawkins claims to make him an intellectually fulfilled atheist) being taught in school as the sole 'origins' theory is indeed analagous to a pastor sermonising in church ... with no opposing points of view allowed.

robindch

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Have you considered a career as a spin doctor?

I'd imagine the DUP might be needing a spin-doctor soon. A flat-earth creationist one, of course :rolleyes:

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

I'd imagine the DUP might be needing a spin-doctor soon. A flat-earth creationist one, of course :rolleyes:

Does JC pretend to be flat-earther as well?
I know he's claimed not to believe in the moon landings also.

smacl

J C wrote: »

The director of education at the Royal Society has said that creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than be excluded, to explain why creationism had no scientific basis.

FYP, you appear to have bolded the wrong bit :pac:

Delirium

J C wrote: »

You're the one drawing the analogy between a science teacher going into a church to give a sermon on Evolution, with Creation Science being taught in schools.

I happen to agree with you on this one ... that Evolution (which Prof Dawkins claims to make him an intellectually fulfilled atheist) being taught in school as the sole 'origins' theory is indeed analagous to a pastor sermonising in church ... with no opposing points of view allowed.

aside from your "Golem Theory" (i.e. a being created from clay), are other world mythology origin tales to be included in the science class?

Also, where's the demarkation between myth and science in your opinion?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

aside from your "Golem Theory" (i.e. a being created from clay), are other world mythology origin tales to be included in the science class?

Also, where's the demarkation between myth and science in your opinion?

There is no demarkation between myth and science when it comes to the idea that matter spontaneously organised itself into life ... and then went on to become mankind through a process of accumulating selected mistakes.:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
The director of education at the Royal Society has said that creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than be excluded, to explain why creationism had no scientific basis.

smacl
FYP, you appear to have bolded the wrong bit :pac:

I'd like them to try ... because, whatever about creationism ... Creation Science has a scientific pedigree going right back to practically all of the 'fathers' of modern science,

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATION SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE ... SCIENTIST
Antiseptic Surgery ... Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
Bacteriology ... Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Calculus ... Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Celestial Mechanics ... Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Chemistry ... Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Comparative Anatomy ... Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)
Computer Science ... Charles Babbage (1792-1871)
Dimensional Analysis ... Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Dynamics ... Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Electronics ... John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)
Electrodynamics ... James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Electro-Magnetics ... Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Energetics ... Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Entomology Of Living Insects ... Henri Fabre (1823-1915)
Field Theory ... Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Fluid Mechanics ... George Stokes (1819-1903)
Galactic Astronomy ... William Herschel (1738-1822)
Gas Dynamics ... Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Genetics ... Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Glacial Geology ... Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Gynecology ... James Simpson (1811-1870)
Hydraulics ... Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)
Hydrography ... Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Hydrostatics ... Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Ichthyology ... Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Isotopic Chemistry ... William Ramsay (1852-1916)
Model Analysis ... Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Natural History ... John Ray (1627-1705)
Non-Euclidean Geometry ... Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866)
Oceanography ... Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Optical Mineralogy ... David Brewster (1781-1868)
Paleontology ... John Woodward (1665-1728)
Pathology ... Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902)
Physical Astronomy ... Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Reversible Thermodynamics ... James Joule (1818-1889)
Statistical Thermodynamics ... James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Stratigraphy ... Nicholas Steno (1631-1686)
Systematic Biology ... Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
Thermodynamics ... Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Thermokinetics ... Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)
Vertebrate Paleontology ... Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

There is no demarkation between myth and science when it comes to the idea that matter spontaneously organised itself into life ... and then went on to become mankind through a process of accumulating selected mistakes.:D

Because us being descendants of a golem is much more likely????

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Because us being descendants of a golem is much more likely????

If you say so ... I couldn't possibly comment !!!:pac::p

Delirium

J C wrote: »

If you say so ... I couldn't possibly comment !!!:pac::p

It's what you believe, so its strange you're now so coy about it.

looksee

I appreciate that was a lot of work JC (the list, unless you just c/p-ed it) but please don't shout at us.

J C

looksee wrote: »

I appreciate that was a lot of work JC (the list, unless you just c/p-ed it) but please don't shout at us.

Apologies ... I've fixed it ... it's now whispering to you.:)

J C

Delirium wrote: »

It's what you believe, so its strange you're now so coy about it.

Not really ... the 'muck to man' proponents are Evolutionists ... actually !!!;)

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

I'd like them to try ... because, whatever about creationism ... Creation Science has a scientific pedigree going right back to practically all of the 'fathers' of modern science,

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
BY CREATION SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE ... SCIENTIST
Antiseptic Surgery ... Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
Bacteriology ... Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Calculus ... Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Celestial Mechanics ... Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Chemistry ... Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Comparative Anatomy ... Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)
Computer Science ... Charles Babbage (1792-1871)
Dimensional Analysis ... Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Dynamics ... Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Electronics ... John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)
Electrodynamics ... James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Electro-Magnetics ... Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Energetics ... Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Entomology Of Living Insects ... Henri Fabre (1823-1915)
Field Theory ... Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Fluid Mechanics ... George Stokes (1819-1903)
Galactic Astronomy ... William Herschel (1738-1822)
Gas Dynamics ... Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Genetics ... Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Glacial Geology ... Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Gynecology ... James Simpson (1811-1870)
Hydraulics ... Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)
Hydrography ... Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Hydrostatics ... Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Ichthyology ... Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Isotopic Chemistry ... William Ramsay (1852-1916)
Model Analysis ... Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Natural History ... John Ray (1627-1705)
Non-Euclidean Geometry ... Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866)
Oceanography ... Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Optical Mineralogy ... David Brewster (1781-1868)
Paleontology ... John Woodward (1665-1728)
Pathology ... Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902)
Physical Astronomy ... Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Reversible Thermodynamics ... James Joule (1818-1889)
Statistical Thermodynamics ... James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Stratigraphy ... Nicholas Steno (1631-1686)
Systematic Biology ... Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
Thermodynamics ... Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Thermokinetics ... Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)
Vertebrate Paleontology ... Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)

If they knew what we know now...

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Not really ... the 'muck to man' proponents are Evolutionists ... actually !!!;)

So you don't believe God shaped Adam from clay and breathed life into him?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

So you don't believe God shaped Adam from clay and breathed life into him?

... it's a tad more believable than the belief that clay breathed life into itself !!!:)

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

If they knew what we know now...

What do we now know that would make these eminent Creation Scientists change their minds about the scientific validity of Direct Creation?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... it's a tad more believable than the belief that clay breathed life into itself !!!:)

Who breathed life into God then?

All you're really doing is pushing the question back another level.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

What do we now know that would make these eminent Creation Scientists change their minds about the scientific validity of Direct Creation?

We know it's a load of bollocks, that's a pretty good start

inb4 "I know you are but what am I" style retort

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Who breathed life into God then?

All you're really doing is pushing the question back another level.

Not really ... every action logically must have a greater cause ... and the formation of the Universe and the emergence of life therein logically requires a transcendent creative agent of effectively omniponent power ... AKA God.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

We know it's a load of bollocks, ...

Could you please clarify ... your use of Evolutionary terminology doesn't compute !!!:)