Darwin's theory

mickydoomsux

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

The arrogance here from some of the 'scientific' community is breathtaking. Science has explained some interesting elements of life and the universe, but it has never got to the root of the questions it set out to answer using its 'scientific method': what is the universe, why are we here, is there a god. Quite a failure. Yet the faith put in such science is not dented by its abject failure ( the faith put in the peer review system is equally bizarre - of course those who agree with you will endorse your work, but excluding creation scientists who don't, because they dont, is rigging the endorsement). So who are those who really have the blind faith ?

I didn't realise that the scientific community had given up trying to find answers to these questions and had published a book of unchangeable facts.

J C

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I don't support a faith that is literally based on nothing.
.

I agree with you on that ... evolutionism states that first there was nothing ... and then it blew up (in the Big Bang) ... and then there was nothing ... and it spontaneously blew up into life (in the Cambrian explosion) ... and then nothing but time and mistakes produced Man.

However, as I am much more charitable than you obviously are ... I certainly wouldn't call the adherents to this unfounded faith in Materialist processes, mentally ill, as you have described them.:(

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Doing so seems like something a mentally ill person would do.

namloc1980

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

The arrogance here from some of the 'scientific' community is breathtaking. Science has explained some interesting elements of life and the universe, but it has never got to the root of the questions it set out to answer using its 'scientific method': what is the universe, why are we here, is there a god. Quite a failure. Yet the faith put in such science is not dented by its abject failure ( the faith put in the peer review system is equally bizarre - of course those who agree with you will endorse your work, but excluding creation scientists who don't, because they dont, is rigging the endorsement). So who are those who really have the blind faith ?

You don't know much about science do you? Of course fairy stories written a few thousand years ago about a big bloke with a beard living in the sky require very little brain power so it's easy to see why those of "faith" choose it....much easier than thinking and questioning

Wibbs

Oh sure SOL, science screws up on quite a regular basis and dodgy theories gain ground and are near unassailable givens for a time, however and it's a big however sooner or later such theories get updated or overturned. It's quite a regular thing. Science has the ability to evolve over time as evidence mounts up that backs up a theory or discredits it.

Take the formation of the universe. Beyond religious explanations the idea took hold that the universe was always here, a steady state. Then a cosmic atom exploding, the "big bang" came along(ironically given the thread, thought up by a Catholic priest) and the mounting evidence for this backed up this notion and the steady state universe faded as a working theory.

smcgiff

J C wrote: »

As I'm a member of Mensa, that would be as impossible ... as spontaneous evolution.:cool:

Present tense. So you lied either way.

Lies make baby Jesus cry - shame on you.

J C

Canis Lupus wrote: »

It took me a 2 second Google to find a Mensa acceptance letter. link

He also asked you how many news letters Mensa members get each year, not an acceptance letter.

I have now googled 'Mensa acceptance letter' ... and it didn't provide the link you have posted ... so where/how did you get that link?

Could I also point out that the reg number on the document on your link is unreadable ... while I have provided this on the transcript of my letter.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92576379&postcount=694

housetypeb

The Adversary wrote: »

Dogmatic belief in Marxism, not because they were atheists.

Hitler was a Christian.

JC already knows all that-he's been told enough times over the years -but he has his script and he sticks to it religiously.

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

I agree with you on that ... evolutionism states that first there was nothing ... and then it blew up (in the Big Bang) ...

That's cosmology, not evolutionary theory. And as I noted dreamt up by a priest. Genetic inheritance was another one dreamt up by a priest. Newton was very religious and produced more writings on theology than physics(and gave a nod to the work of Catholic scientists). Copernicus was another man of the cloth and contrary to popular was supported by his church. His first book was produced by the vatican and dedicated to the pope of the time. That's before we get to Muslim scientists, and Buddhist and Hindu and... A shed load of damn good science was produced by very religious people. Who'd have thunk it.

and then there was nothing ... and it spontaneously blew up into life (in the Cambrian explosion) ... and then nothing but time and mistakes produced Man.

Eh... no. The Cambrian explosion came long after life kicked off on the planet. A billion plus years long after. How can you begin to refute any theory if you don't know the basics of same?

J C

smcgiff wrote: »

Present tense. So you lied either way.

Lies make baby Jesus cry - shame on you.

I am a member of Mensa (which is the substantive issue) ... unless you are saying that not paying my annual sub is something to be ashamed of, in these times austerity !!!:(

smcgiff

J C wrote: »

I am a member of Mensa (which is the substantive issue) ... unless you are saying that not paying my annual sub is something to be ashamed of, in these times austerity !!!:(

So, you retain membership when you don't pay annual fees? That's not like any association I know.

SaveOurLyric

Unlike scientists,who stick to whatever script is fashioable at a given time. Next month, the 'scientifically proven facts' will be new ones contradicting the old ones. Creation Science has had it right from the beginning for those who choose to see.

Tail Docker

This thread has reverse evolved. Time to chuck in a few bananas.

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

JC already knows all that-he's been told enough times over the years -but he has his script and he sticks to it religiously.

Hitler was a first-rate anti-christ ... and exterminated many Saved Christians in his death camps ... along with Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and any other category of people that his sick evil mind targeted for 'termination'.

His so-called Reich Church was a sycretic mix of tutonic paganism with substantial dollops of satanism and nazi dogma thrown into the mix.

Quote:-
"In 1936, the Reich Church was created. This did not have the Christian cross as its symbol but the swastika. The Bible was replaced by "Mein Kampf" which was placed on the altar. By it was a sword. Only invited Nazis were allowed to give sermons in a Reich Church. "

5uspect

Most 'conventionally' trained Scientists, as J C claimes he is, would not cite a thing so trivial as a Mensa membership. They would in fact list their academic qualifications, something J C has refused point blank to do; even when every other qualified poster on the d'other mega thread supplied their qualifications.

Not to mention the times he got caught copy-pasting and repeatedly lying...

J C

Tail Docker wrote: »

This thread has reverse evolved. Time to chuck in a few bananas.

... yes it's devolved allright ... down to personal abuse directed at me ... rather then civil reasoned posts.:(

smcgiff

5uspect wrote: »

Most 'conventionally' trained Scientists, as J C claimes he is, would not cite a thing so trivial as a Mensa membership. They would in fact list their academic qualifications, something J C has refused point blank to do; even when every other qualified poster on the d'other mega thread supplied their qualifications.

Not to mention the times he got caught copy-pasting and repeatedly lying...

Just realised what J C stands for. Just Codding.

J C

5uspect wrote: »

Most 'conventionally' trained Scientists, as J C claimes he is, would not cite a thing so trivial as a Mensa membership. They would in fact list their academic qualifications, something J C has refused point blank to do; even when every other qualified poster on the d'other mega thread supplied their qualifications.

Not to mention the times he got caught copy-pasting and repeatedly lying...

I fully agree that my membership of Mensa is indeed relatively trivial in comparison with my academic qualifications. The former was achieved by doing an exam one wet Saturday afternoon ... while the latter has been achieved in a life-long learning and research process.

I cited my Mensa membership in reply to a relatively trivial post that stated that I would need treble my IQ.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92575912&postcount=676

... and then all hell broke loose with people doubting that I could be a member of Mensa ... calling me a liar and calling for proof that I am a genius.

... and now suddenly, the whole thing is 'trivial'!!:eek:

5uspect

So what are your academic qualifications? I don't care about your identify or specifics that would lead to that.

What was your undergrad degree?
What was your postgrad degree?

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

That's cosmology, not evolutionary theory. And as I noted dreamt up by a priest. Genetic inheritance was another one dreamt up by a priest. Newton was very religious and produced more writings on theology than physics(and gave a nod to the work of Catholic scientists). Copernicus was another man of the cloth and contrary to popular was supported by his church. His first book was produced by the vatican and dedicated to the pope of the time. That's before we get to Muslim scientists, and Buddhist and Hindu and... A shed load of damn good science was produced by very religious people. Who'd have thunk it.

Who would have thought it indeed.
... not the Atheists on this thread most of the time.
... people of Faith continue at the cutting edge of science today ... including Creation Scientists and ID proponents.

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh... no. The Cambrian explosion came long after life kicked off on the planet. A billion plus years long after. How can you begin to refute any theory if you don't know the basics of same?

... thanks for reminding me ... Evolutionists also believe in the spontaneous generation of life from nothing using nothing except blind chance ... even though this was disproven by Pasteur and breaks the Biological Law of biogenesis.

Wibbs

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Unlike scientists,who stick to whatever script is fashioable at a given time. Next month, the 'scientifically proven facts' will be new ones contradicting the old ones.

Eh nope. New evidence adds to, or reduces confidence in existing theories or kicks off new ones.

Creation Science has had it right from the beginning for those who choose to see.

It's feck all to do with choosing to see. It's down to the evidence fitting a theory and creationism is seriously lacking in that regard. It works backwards from a given trying to squeeze square pegs of actual evidence into round holes.

Take JC's polystrata or whatever they're called. Basically where you find trees still upright surrounded by depths of sediment. He's right they are evidence of flooding(and/or subsidence), however it's evidence of local flooding conditions in estuarial environments. Upper Carboniferous deposits throw them up from time to time. The problem with his Noah flood explanation is that in a fair few examples where such trees were inundated by sediments they continued to grow from the trunk above the depth of this flood sediment, so this shows they weren't drowned by some global flood and some grew a few times after successive flood events.

The other rapid laying down of sediments are well known and have been since the time of the Greeks. Vulcanism can lay down huge amounts of sediment in a very short time. Pompeii a good example where the town was buried under hundreds of feet of deposits in days. We have many examples of these events in prehistoric times too. The burgess shales being one from the top of my head. These sediments and the rocks that are formed from them have a very particular profile and are easily recognisable as such. Sandstones and limestones have very different profiles and take far longer to build up(though some sandstones can be rapid enough).

Take our own pleasant land. Go to the cliffs of Moher and observe the thickness of the carboniferous limestone. Hundreds of feet thick. Each band containing uncountable numbers of fossilised marine life, that lived and died and were preserved, laid down over very long periods of time. If creation science had legs you would be asking just how many global floods were there?

Never mind all that, let's take it backwards and say there was a global flood that made dinosaurs and anything that didn't get in the ark extinct. OK then, what happened to all the dinosaurs that were fully aquatic? Fully aquatic to the degree that they gave birth to live young in the open ocean. A flood to them would be a godsend(no pun). All that drowned food washing around. What happened to all the ancient orders of fish and sharks and molluscs in this flood? It just doesn't make any sense even on a cursory glance.

Pherekydes

5uspect wrote: »

So what are your academic qualifications? I don't care about your identify or specifics that would lead to that.

What was your undergrad degree?
What was your postgrad degree?

Biblical science and Biblical meteorology?

@JC: You've not yet explained how modern science's dating systems are suspect.

Can you attend to this trivial matter, oh great genius?



Two words I think of when I think of evangelists: dishonesty and conceit.

J C

5uspect wrote: »

So what are your academic qualifications? I don't care about your identify or specifics that would lead to that.

What was your undergrad degree?
What was your postgrad degree?

I do not share this information for obvious reasons when there are open calls for the rescinding of the conventional science degrees of Creationists and other advocacy of gross discrimination against us.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Biblical science and Biblical meteorology?

@JC: You've not yet explained how modern science's dating systems are suspect.

Can you attend to this trivial matter, oh great genius?

Why should I treat such impertinence with anything other than the contempt that it deserves?

Pherekydes wrote: »

Two words I think of when I think of evangelists: dishonesty and conceit.

That says everything about you ... and nothing about evangelists.;)

endacl

J C wrote: »

I do not share this information for obvious reasons when there are open calls for the rescinding of the conventional science degrees of Creationists and other advocacy of gross discrimination against us.

You're an oppressed mass now?

Vinnie L

lanomist wrote: »

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

We didn't, we had a shared ancestor.
We all evolved from carbon, and H20, so it's a bit like asking why does carbon and H20 still exist ? The bigger question is why did all this abundant and sometimes intelligent life evolve from effectively nothing.

Vinnie L

J C wrote: »

Who would have thought it indeed.
... not the Atheists on this thread most of the time.
... people of Faith continue at the cutting edge of science today ... including Creation Scientists and ID proponents.

... thanks for reminding me ... Evolutionists also believe in the spontaneous generation of life from nothing using nothing except blind chance ... even though this was disproven by Pasteur and breaks the Biological Law of biogenesis.

Why do you not believe in theistic evolution ?

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

W
... people of Faith continue at the cutting edge of science today ... including Creation Scientists and ID proponents.

Indeed they do, but not in ID. The vatican still produces great science today, but not in creationism. They got with the times.

even though this was disproven by Pasteur and breaks the Biological Law of biogenesis.

Oh god you really need a history of science lesson. Short story: Greek thought had held that complex life could spontaneously occur, fish could come from stones and such and this idea had held sway in the classical world and when it fell European science kept it going. Pasteur simply pointed out that this didn't happen, that observable life came from life. Neither theory took into account microscopic life or the evolution of life itself. It was outside of Pasteurs remit and the knowledge of the time.

5uspect

J C wrote: »

I do not share this information for obvious reasons when there are open calls for the rescinding of the degrees of Creationists and other advocacy of gross discrimination against us.

Saying you have a BSc in Science and a PhD in Biochemistry isn't going to do anything of the sort. I have a degree in Aeronautics and a PhD in Fluid Mechanics, I have completed two postdocs and I have worked in the BioTech sector. None of these identify me.

What are the degrees that qualify you as a Scientist?
How many peer reviewed papers did you publish last year?

Canis Lupus

J C wrote: »

I have now googled 'Mensa acceptance letter' ... and it didn't provide the link you have posted ... so where/how did you get that link?

Could I also point out that the reg number on the document on your link is unreadable ... while I have provided this on the transcript of my letter.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92576379&postcount=694

I googled the text and it was in image search results. I'm not even a member of Mensa and I could do that. It's not rocket science.

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh sure SOL, science screws up on quite a regular basis and dodgy theories gain ground and are near unassailable givens for a time, however and it's a big however sooner or later such theories get updated or overturned. It's quite a regular thing. Science has the ability to evolve over time as evidence mounts up that backs up a theory or discredits it.

The one thing that Evolutionists seem incapable of 'evolving' is the basics in the theory of evolution itself ... ye 'hang on in there' with grim determination in the face of mounting and overwhelming evidence that the CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) found in living organisms was Intelligently Designed ... whilst bad-mouthing and name-calling anybody who points this out to ye.

Wibbs wrote: »

Take the formation of the universe. Beyond religious explanations the idea took hold that the universe was always here, a steady state. Then a cosmic atom exploding, the "big bang" came along(ironically given the thread, thought up by a Catholic priest) and the mounting evidence for this backed up this notion and the steady state universe faded as a working theory.

It was actually the 'Big Whisper' when God called forth the Universe in an act of His Divine omnipotence.