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

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

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 effective omniponent power AKA God.

Assuming your premise is valid... again, it just pushes the question back. Who created god?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Assuming your premise is valid... again, it just pushes the question back. Who created god?

As a transcendent entity God would logically have to exist outside of time and space ... and therefore is logically eternal and immortal ... and as the Ultimate Cause of everything, God has therefore always existed ... and didn't need to be Created.

smacl

J C wrote: »

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 effective omniponent power ... AKA God.

Why God singular? Any particular reason to presuppose a Christian notion of God? Logically, why does this imagined creation theory seem any more viable than any other imagined piece of fantasy? From a logical point of view, the Christian creation myth is one among an infinite number of similarly unsupportable imaginings. No verifiable facts, endless dubious stories and claims that the mainstream Christian churches are distancing themselves from by referring to what was once literal truth as allegory. It is a total nonsense and the term Christian Science is about as good an example of an oxymoron as you're likely to get.

J C

smacl wrote: »

Why God singular? Any particular reason to presuppose a Christian notion of God? Logically, why does this imagined creation theory seem any more viable than any other imagined piece of fantasy? From a logical point of view, the Christian creation myth is one among an infinite number of similarly unsupportable imaginings. No verifiable facts, endless dubious stories and claims that the mainstream Christian churches are distancing themselves from by referring to what was once literal truth as allegory. It is a total nonsense and the term Christian Science is about as good an example of an oxymoron as you're likely to get.

I didn't say it was the God of the Bible ... philosophically and scientifically, we can definitively conclude that the entity that caused the universe and all life therin to come into existence had many of the attributes of the God of the Bible ... but whether it was actually the God of the Bible remains a matter of faith ... a well founded faith ... but faith nonetheless.

Pherekydes

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?

You want me to list every scientific invention and discovery since 1919?

smacl

J C wrote: »

I didn't say it was the God of the Bible ... philosophically and scientifically, we can definitively conclude that the entity that caused the universe and all life therin to come into existence had many of the attributes of the God of the Bible ... but whether it was actually the God of the Bible remains a matter of faith ... a well founded faith ... but faith nonetheless.

Philosophically you can plump for whatever floats your boat. Scientifically, you need rather more, such as evidence that survives broad objective scrutiny. God, Thor and the tooth fairy fall short on that count, being based on speculation (or faith if your looking prefer) rather than evidence.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

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

So you have no problem with the idea of inorganic matter becoming organic, just what was the catalyst.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

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.

So who created this "god"?

looksee

If aliens are found that are, maybe, blobs of matter that can exist in a form outside our imaginings, are we to take it that the creator of the universe created them in his own image, or us?

looksee

Incidentally JC you seem to have shifted your base fairly considerably? Since this thread is specious nonsense it doesn't really matter, but I wonder are you changing your ideas or are you just looking for a different line of argument?

robindch

J C wrote: »

As a transcendent entity God would logically have to exist outside of time and space ... and therefore is logically eternal and immortal ...

That's about as useful as stating the category error:

"A pink god would logically have to be pink"

robindch

looksee wrote: »

I wonder are you changing your ideas or are you just looking for a different line of argument?

Going to have to stick up for JC here and say that his/her posting style and content has remained essentially unchanged since 2005:

J C wrote: »

I recently discovered that the odds of producing the amino acid sequence for a particular 100 chain protein by accident choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is 10 to the power of minus 130. If we consider that the number of atoms in the known Universe (including Dark Matter) is 10 to the power of 80 I don't fancy the chances of even a useful protein arising spontaneously - never mind life!!!

At this point, more than twelve years on, JC must be the most persistently predictable poster on boards.ie, quite possibly in Ireland and one suspects, stands a good chance of making the top one hundred world-wide.

Entire creationist institutes, social movements, theme parks, academic pretensions, and hell - even things like the Kent Hovind saga (indicted, tried, convicted, appealed, rejected and served out his entire sentence and was released, his debt to society for fraud and much else being paid) - and JC has outlasted them all. Still tapping out the same stuff, day after day, night after night, year after year. The task never done because everybody just won't listen.

JC may not have contributed one iota per se, but the debate and discussion which has resulted and which JC has entirely ignored - has been nothing less than the most wonderful education.

looksee

Oh, ok then, sorry if I misspoke. I was picking up a bit of arguing both sides of the line, whereas I thought it used be more clearcut. However, as you say, there is some interesting stuff gets discussed around it.

endacl

Genuine post: This thread is still going? JC, are you a committee?

pauldla

endacl wrote: »

Genuine post: This thread is still going? JC, are you a committee?

Clarification, does 'committee' here mean 'more than one person' or 'person who has been committed'?

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

You want me to list every scientific invention and discovery since 1919?

... only the ones that definitively support the spontaneuos emergence of life and its evolution from muck to man.
... and there are none, that I'm aware of.

... so, it'll be a very short list

J C

Delirium wrote: »

So you have no problem with the idea of inorganic matter becoming organic, just what was the catalyst.

True, inorganic matter is turned into organic matter every day by living organisms themselves ... its how these organisms came to be that is the question ... was it via spontaneous natural processes without God ... or via supernatural processes with God?

J C

pauldla wrote: »

Clarification, does 'committee' here mean 'more than one person' or 'person who has been committed'?

Pauldla that unfounded ad hominem is beneath the standard expected in polite debate ... and weakens anything else you might say in support of your argument.:(

J C

robindch wrote: »

Going to have to stick up for JC here and say that his/her posting style and content has remained essentially unchanged since 2005:

At this point, more than twelve years on, JC must be the most persistently predictable poster on boards.ie, quite possibly in Ireland and one suspects, stands a good chance of making the top one hundred world-wide.

Entire creationist institutes, social movements, theme parks, academic pretensions, and hell - even things like the Kent Hovind saga (indicted, tried, convicted, appealed, rejected and served out his entire sentence and was released, his debt to society for fraud and much else being paid) - and JC has outlasted them all. Still tapping out the same stuff, day after day, night after night, year after year. The task never done because everybody just won't listen

JC may not have contributed one iota per se, but the debate and discussion which has resulted and which JC has entirely ignored - has been nothing less than the most wonderful education.

Glad to be of service, Robin.:)

I recall the early heady days back in the noughties when you guys didn't know whether to debate me or to ban me ... and ye ended up doing both (repeatedly).:)

It has also been a wonderful education for me ... I went into the A & A with some degree of trepidation ... but I wasn't eaten alive (as some people warned me I would) ... and indeed the (ideas of the) hunters often became the hunted on many occasions ... as the tables were turned ... and some cock-sure evolutionist concept was logically taken asunder by me, without any substantive retort, other than the occasional ad hominem or logical fallacy being submitted in defense of evolutionism.

looksee

J C wrote: »

Glad to be of service, Robin.:)

I recall the early heady days back in the noughties when you guys didn't know whether to debate me or to ban me ... and ye ended up doing both (repeatedly).:)

It has also been a wonderful education for me ... I went into the A & A with some degree of trepidation ... but I wasn't eaten alive (as some people warned me I would) ... and indeed the (ideas of the) hunters often became the hunted on many occasions ... as the tables were turned ... and some cock-sure evolutionist concept was logically taken asunder by me, without any substantive retort, other than the occasional ad hominem or logical fallacy being submitted in defense of evolutionism.

I wouldn't go that far JC. In fairness you are blessed with a very creative imagination but if I went through the entire two threads I am pretty sure I would not find an example of logical taking asunder of evolutionist arguments.

smacl

J C wrote: »

True, inorganic matter is turned into organic matter every day by living organisms themselves ... its how these organisms came to be that is the question ... was it via spontaneous natural processes without God ... or via supernatural processes with God?

You've a false dichotomy there. If life wasn't created by a spontaneous natural process that doesn't imply it was made by God. You could replace God with any other random creation myth or fantasy that tickled your fancy and it would be equally valid. By plumping for God in this case you're displaying extremes of confirmation bias that are the antithesis of proper scientific method. You have a preferred outcome and you're doing everything in your power to make your observations fit that outcome. That is not science, it is adherence to dogmatic belief.

jigglypuffstuff

J C wrote: »

True, inorganic matter is turned into organic matter every day by living organisms themselves ... its how these organisms came to be that is the question ... was it via spontaneous natural processes without God ... or via supernatural processes with God?

It is beyond dispute that the origins of the universe can only remain viewed as supernatural JC...when someone can manifest an accurate unbiased account of what occurred before the big bang..then we'll talk about natural..but until such a time...it is supernatural by definition

definitions of supernatural fall into the following category according to Oxford " attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

The reductive materialistic view of reality is slipping into decline, so I assume when people begin to let go of such an unwarranted , severely limited perception of the universe, some understanding may be gained, however cognitive dissonance remains as strong as ever...alas it is an unfortunate approach people cling too , and hinders understanding....consider the below

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” – Nikola Tesla

oldrnwisr

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)

I'm not sure what this list is supposed to prove JC, but let's have a look anyway. Your argument is that the above named scientists were pioneers of the respective fields and the fact that they were, according to you, creationists means something. Well, let's see.

There are 41 entries on the list, however there are only 31 unique individuals represented.
12 of these 31 names (Newton, Keppler, Boyle, Cuvier, Herschel, DaVinci, Pascal, Ray, Woodward, Steno, Linnaeus & Davy) were dead before the Origin of Species was even published (in some cases by 150 years). So any talk of these men as creationists in the modern sense of the word is meaningless.
Of the remaining 19, 7 of these died within 15 years of the publication of Origin, before the theory gained general attention.
Of the remaining 12 names, 7 of these were experts in fields which are of no relevance to analysing the evidence for evolution (Rayleigh, Fleming, Maxwell, Stokes, Kelvin, Ramsay & Joule). I mean, take George Stokes, for example. He, along with Claude-Louis Navier, developed the equations which describe the motion of viscous fluids. However, as monumental as his work has been for aeronautics, oceanography etc., it offers no evidence that Stokes had a clue what evolution was or had the requisite knowledge to analyse it. His opposition to evolution means about as much as Michio Kaku's Big Think videos when he makes an eejit of himself talking about a field he has no expertise in. As Scott Adams once said, you don't go to your plumber when you've got a bad back.
So, this leaves us with just 5 names (Listeur, Pasteur, Mendel, Fabre & Virchow). These are the only names on the list who lived long enough to see evolution gain public attention and were experts in a field which had some relevance to evolutionary biology. But this just brings us back to Pherekydes' point, all of these scientists, all 31 of them, died without the benefit of all the discoveries we have made since Origin was first published.
Moreover, the fact that any of these men were creationists does not make them creation scientists.

Creationist + Scientist ≠ Creation Scientist

A "creation scientist" would be someone who as unscientific as it is, tries to prove the fable of creation. People like Michael Behe, William Dembski etc. although their contribution to science is more like comic relief.

You know, JC, for someone who complained just 11 posts previously about logical fallacies, you're not shy about using them yourself. How exactly is this argument from authority (or bad authority in this case) supposed to be helpful?

We can compile lists like yours all day. Take Project Steve, for example. As a response to ICR and other institutions compiling lists like the one above or "here are some conventional scientists who doubt evolution", the NCSE decided to compile a list of scientists all with the name Steve who support evolution. The list currently stands at 1416 names, which dwarfs any creationist list I've seen.

It would be better if you could offer actual evidence for your arguments JC, but since you haven't managed that in 12 years, I don't think there's anyone left who holds out much hope that you're going to ever debate in a competent manner.

endacl

pauldla wrote: »

Clarification, does 'committee' here mean 'more than one person' or 'person who has been committed'?

Either would explain an awful lot...

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... only the ones that definitively support the spontaneuos emergence of life and its evolution from muck to man.
... and there are none, that I'm aware of.

... so, it'll be a very short list

It could well be!

Georges Lemaître published his famous paper which proposed an expanding universe in 1927.

i.e. a universe which is not steady state, not created "as is"!!!!!!!

nozzferrahhtoo

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It would be better if you could offer actual evidence for your arguments JC, but since you haven't managed that in 12 years, I don't think there's anyone left who holds out much hope that you're going to ever debate in a competent manner.

Yeah I see the thread as more an interesting observance of how willing people are to allow themselves to be trolled. More of an interesting social observation than much use in scientific discourse Though as robindch said above some of the posts in response have had occasionally been individually useful, even if the thread or it's sole protagonist have not once been.

I certainly do not expect to find much in the way of a cogent argument given after 12 years we still have discussions going on about "life from non life" which evolution is not even about.

Evolution is ONLY about what happens in the substrate of life when it exists. It says nothing about how it originally came to be. And if after 12 years he is still making THAT category error, there is not much hope in him learning anything of more substance. It feels a bit like busting into a seminar on advanced ballistics, to demand people start talking about the chemistry behind why gunpowder explodes.

Though as I said, as an observation of trolling the "Donald Trump" approach is interesting to watch going on even 12 years before Trump became this well know for it. Not offering anything useful or great but constantly SAYING how powerful and great your arguments have been......... I genuinely would not be surprised if Trump stood up tomorrow and admitted he learnt it all right here on this thread

But what I have seen on many threads LIKE (and sure, including) this one is that the detractor of evolution only ever detracts from it by their OWN standards of evidence and proof. I am yet to see an evolution detractor succeed in showing how Evolution has failed to be validated by the actual methodologies and requirements of science, such as falsification or prediction.

Evaluating the scientific validity of a claim by using methods and standards that are not themselves scientific, is not going to do much in any conversation other than offer food for trolls or triggers for people who like to be annoyed.

Mark Hamill

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.

It from here, it seems. (Unless JC is actually Dr. Henry Morris)

PopePalpatine

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It from here, it seems. (Unless JC is actually Dr. Henry Morris)

A creationist committing plagiarism?! Colour me surprised!

J C

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm not sure what this list is supposed to prove JC, but let's have a look anyway. Your argument is that the above named scientists were pioneers of the respective fields and the fact that they were, according to you, creationists means something. Well, let's see.

My basic point was that modern Creation Scientists can trace their scientific pedigree right back to the 'fathers' of modern science ... and that point remains.

As for your point that the 'fathers' of science weren't evolutionists, because Darwin was only a young fellow when they were around ... there have been 'evolution-type' concepts that pre-dated Darwin ... and the only improvement that Darwin made was to clearly identify the mechanism of Natural Selection ... which everybody agrees was an important breakthrough ... but it only really explains how information rich organisms can be naturally selected based on the utility of their information-rich expressed traits.
Its weakness is that it doesn't explain how the rich information was created in the first place ... something that is a very great weakness, when somebody wishes to claim that evolution created the information by the totally implausible mechanism of selecting genetic information mistakes.:)

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Evolution is ONLY about what happens in the substrate of life when it exists. It says nothing about how it originally came to be. And if after 12 years he is still making THAT category error, there is not much hope in him learning anything of more substance.

I agree that evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of life ... and there are no plausible natural/spontaneous mechanisms for this.
Evolution is actually an exceedingly limited phenomenon ... and amounts to little more than relatively minor phenotypic fluctuations within populations, driven by natural/sexual/artificial selection of vast pre-existing high quality genetic information within the genomes of organisms.

... but that is not how evolution is presented to the public ... nor indeed how the public perceive it.

Through a combination of spin and very good PR ... Joe Public thinks that evolution totally explains how he came to be, with no God needed or required.