Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Darwin's theory

1…8081838586…88

Comments

  • #2462
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Hilarious!

    Definition: A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience. Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."

    That is exactly how you do "science".

    Everyone else in the [scientific] world is wrong because god!
    Expert testimony (under oath at the Dover Trial) revealed that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
    Science has therefore effectively bowed out as an independent source of information and ideas on any 'origins' question ... as it has self-limited itself to only considering hypotheses that don't involve God ... and this self-censorship has now been extended to even hypotheses involving intelligent action.

    So science has bizarrely excluded itself from being able to objectively evaluate the evidence for Direct Creation ... and has 'hitched its wagon' firmly to Abiogenesis, Spontaneous Evolution and any other idea that is acceptable to Practical Atheists ... and only ideas that are acceptable to them.


  • #2463
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    Expert testimony (under oath at the Dover Trial) revealed that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
    Science has therefore effectively bowed out as an independent source of information and ideas on any 'origins' question ... as it has self-limited itself to only considering hypotheses that don't involve God ... and this self-censorship has now been extended to even hypotheses involving intelligent action.
    So science has bizarrely excluded itself from being able to objectively evaluate the evidence for Direct Creation ... and has 'hiched its wagon' firmly to Abiogenesis, Spontaneous Evolution and any other idea that is acceptable to Practical Atheists ... and only ideas that are acceptable to them.

    We. Are. Not. Discussing. Origins. We. Are. Discussing. Evolution.

    They. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.

    The hilarity of a creationist criticising anyone for being hitched to a certain belief system is just amazing though.

    People of all faiths and none can see the evidence for evolution.

    Only those with a very specific belief system can see the 'evidence' for evolution.

    There is only one conclusion a rational person could come to based on that.


  • #2464
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gintonious wrote: »
    You are also very quick to just reference Communism under stalin, so let Hitchens sort that out for you, and you can rest your little head easy.
    Quote:
    Stalin—easier still. For hundreds of years, millions of Russians had been told the head of state should be a man close to God, the czar, who was head of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as absolute despot. If you’re Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you can’t exploit the pool of servility and docility that’s ready-made for you. The task of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity. No society has gone the way of gulags or concentration camps by following the path of Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine.
    The point is that Stalin referred to Christians as 'deluded' and 'insane' ... words that are routinely used by you guys on this forum about me and my fellow Christians ... and this led to the enslavement and death of millions of people under Stalin's evil empire.

    Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine never used such words ... and that is why you guys seem to be heading in a Stalinist direction ... rather than a Jeffersonian one.:(


  • #2465
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    The point is that Stalin referred to Christians as 'deluded' and 'insane' ... words that are routinely used by you guys on this forum about me and my fellow Christians ... and this led to the enslavement and death of millions of people under Stalin's evil empire.

    Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine never used such words ... and that is why you guys seem to be heading in a Stalinist direction ... rather than a Jeffersonian one.:(

    I don't think too many people have referred to Christians as deluded and insane. Just creationists. I know you like to pretend they're the same thing because it suits your argument, but they really aren't.


  • #2466
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
    - Thomas Paine


  • Advertisement
  • #2467
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,184 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    Expert testimony (under oath at the Dover Trial) revealed that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
    Science has therefore effectively bowed out as an independent source of information and ideas on any 'origins' question ... as it has self-limited itself to only considering hypotheses that don't involve God ... and this self-censorship has now been extended to even hypotheses involving intelligent action.

    So science has bizarrely excluded itself from being able to objectively evaluate the evidence for Direct Creation ... and has 'hitched its wagon' firmly to Abiogenesis, Spontaneous Evolution and any other idea that is acceptable to Practical Atheists ... and only ideas that are acceptable to them.

    Yes. Science is the search for evidence. Creationism is trying to explain things by ignoring evidence.

    And why the fcuk have you capitalised practical atheists?

    And what the fcuk is a practical atheist? Is there any other type?

    And who wants practicality anyway?


  • #2468
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    We. Are. Not. Discussing. Origins. We. Are. Discussing. Evolution.

    They. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.
    You may nit-pick all you like ... but Evolution and Abiogenesis are both part of a continuum from non-life to life to Human life that Atheists and their Atheist-dominated science presents as fact.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The hilarity of a creationist criticising anyone for being hitched to a certain belief system is just amazing though.

    People of all faiths and none can see the evidence for evolution.
    If they can why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Only those with a very specific belief system can see the 'evidence' for evolution.

    There is only one conclusion a rational person could come to based on that.
    Why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?


  • #2469
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,184 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    Why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?

    Why would one search for supernatural causes to explain natural phenomena?


  • #2470
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Has J C produced a peer reviewed paper to back up his claims yet?
    Has he produced any original research yet?
    Has he shown ANY flaw in a peer reviewed paper discussing evolution yet?
    Has he revealed anything to back up his claims that he is a scientist?
    Has be continued to quote mine, selectively copy paste and generally be dishonest?

    Do you really think he gives a **** about the truth? He is only here to feed off the reaction he generates. There is some bizarre idea that if people engage in debate it somehow validates his preposterous and utterly false claims. He has continued this tactic for a decade and in all this time has contributed nothing of note.

    So stop feeding him. You'll never get him to admit to his deception and misinformation. He is the kind of individual you see at Speaker's Corner ranting and raving while the world moved on regardless of their rantings.


  • #2471
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    You may nit-pick all you like ... but Evolution and Abiogenesis are both part of a continuum from non-life to life to Human life that Atheists and their Atheist-dominated science presents as fact.
    Bollocks. Can we separate the religion or lack of from the science here? Evolution is a theory that explains things we can observe. Abiogenesis is a theory that may or may not explain things we observe. You're acting as if both are part of some atheist dogma designed to oppose christian dogma. They aren't. They're simply explanations. I know it gets in the way of your bull****ting so you keep ignoring it, but people of many religions accept evolution.
    If they can why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?
    How does that address the point I made?
    Why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?
    Because doing otherwise would be completely irrational. Natural phenomena are likely to have natural causes. The clue is in the shared term there.


  • Advertisement
  • #2472
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    5uspect wrote: »
    Has J C produced a peer reviewed paper to back up his claims yet?
    Has he produced any original research yet?
    Has he shown ANY flaw in a peer reviewed paper discussing evolution yet?
    Has he revealed anything to back up his claims that he is a scientist?
    Has be continued to quote mine, selectively copy paste and generally be dishonest?

    Do you really think he gives a **** about the truth? He is only here to feed off the reaction he generates. There is some bizarre idea that if people engage in debate it somehow validates his preposterous and utterly false claims. He has continued this tactic for a decade and in all this time has contributed nothing of note.

    So stop feeding him. You'll never get him to admit to his deception and misinformation. He is the kind of individual you see at Speaker's Corner ranting and raving while the world moved on regardless of their rantings.

    I don't think anyone thinks they can actually change his mind. I know I don't. It's fascinating in a way to watch him just completely ignore all the evidence put in front of him though.

    Besides, his display on here is more damaging to creationism than any evidence that could be put forward.


  • #2473
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    This is JC in a nutshell:
    http://www.happyjar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014-05-30-Confirmation-Bias.png


  • #2474
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I don't think anyone thinks they can actually change his mind. I know I don't. It's fascinating in a way to watch him just completely ignore all the evidence put in front of him though.

    He has had evolution explained to him many, many times. Yet he continues to misrepresent it. So either he incapable of understanding it or he's being dishonest. Why continue to attempt to debate with someone like this?


  • #2475
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    5uspect wrote: »
    He has had evolution explained to him many, many times. Yet he continues to misrepresent it. So either he incapable of understanding it or he's being dishonest. Why continue to attempt to debate with someone like this?

    a) Boredom
    b) So anyone reading this thread can see how utterly ridiculous his entire argument is.


  • #2476
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    Thanks for your input, the bible may have been written by individuals however among these 48 prophets are the likes of Jesus who was know at this time for his honesty,truth and sincerity, Mohammed the prophet of Islam lived and died in poverty there are narrations by his companions that say that he would wrap a stone around his stomach from hunger in fact at the start of his massage his tribe came and offered him money until he become the richest and the most beautiful women in Quraish at that time yet he refused. I find it hard to believe that such people were after money fame and influence.
    Being a student of comparative religion the Quran speaks about those who did in fact attempt to use their influence for money and fame:

    "Indeed, they who conceal what Allah has sent down of the Book and exchange it for a small price - those consume not into their bellies except the Fire. And Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them. And they will have a painful punishment."{2/174}

    Now for someone to be seeking money and kingship why would he include this verse in his own book? and why would someone write a book and threaten him self in his own book by saying

    "And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,We would have seized him by the right hand;Then We would have cut from him the aorta.And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him." {69/44-47}

    the similar massage can be said about both Jesus and Moses in the bible.

    ****ing hell.

    Do you believe and accept both the Quran and the New Testament.

    Because one says Jesus was the son of God and the other said he was just a mortal prophet.

    So clearly at least one of them is wrong.

    hence proving that yes, you can have a made up book of nonsense under the guise of a religious text.


  • #2477
    Chunners
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭Chunners


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Yes. Science is the search for evidence. Creationism is trying to explain things by ignoring evidence.

    And why the fcuk have you capitalised practical atheists?

    And what the fcuk is a practical atheist? Is there any other type?

    And who wants practicality anyway?

    Not sure if it was intentional or not but read the bolded words there backwards lol


  • #2478
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    floggg wrote: »
    ****ing hell.

    Do you believe and accept both the Quran and the New Testament.

    Because one says Jesus was the son of God and the other said he was just a mortal prophet.

    So clearly at least one of them is wrong.

    hence proving that yes, you can have a made up book of nonsense under the guise of a religious text.
    Actually neither are wrong, as I found no evidence in the Bible that suggest Jesus was God or the Son of god nor a statement by Jesus were he said am god or worship me.
    This appear to be a claim made by the Christians due to their misunderstanding of their own book and religion.


  • #2479
    Chunners
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭Chunners


    J C wrote: »
    You may nit-pick all you like ... but Evolution and Abiogenesis are both part of a continuum from non-life to life to Human life that Atheists and their Atheist-dominated science presents as fact.

    If they can why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?

    Why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?


    Simple, because people who fund all this research don't want their money being wasted trying to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist, if creationists/the church want to waste their own funds researching it then go ahead but they shouldn't expect funds for real scientific research to be wasted looking for evidence of the delusions too.


  • #2480
    kingchess
    Registered Users Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    According to J C we should be looking for supernatural proof???Is that what he said??maybe I have read it the wrong way-Anyway the Leprechaun at the bottom of my garden is calling in for a session on the Ouija board ,


  • #2481
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I don't think too many people have referred to Christians as deluded and insane. Just creationists. I know you like to pretend they're the same thing because it suits your argument, but they really aren't.
    Its still the vocabulary of Stalin and not Einstein or Jefferson.
    ... and we know that this vocabulary led to the 're-education' centres and the gulags.


  • Advertisement
  • #2482
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    housetypeb wrote: »
    The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
    - Thomas Paine
    This is a point of view ... an erroneous point of view IMO ... but there is nothing personal or objectionable about it.


  • #2483
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kingchess wrote: »
    According to J C we should be looking for supernatural proof???Is that what he said??maybe I have read it the wrong way-Anyway the Leprechaun at the bottom of my garden is calling in for a session on the Ouija board ,
    We should be looking for physical proof ... as no physical evidence exists for Abiogenesis and M2M Evolution it should be abandoned by science ... and the alternative ID theory evaluated ...
    ... but science is self-censoring itself by limiting itself to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena ... and having not discovered a plausible natural cause for life (or its diversity), it refuses to evaluate the physical evidence for an intelligent cause for life.

    They have now apparently extended the limits on science to the search for natural causes excluding any consideration of intelligent causes.

    'No Intelligence (or God) Allowed' neatly summarizes the current scientific modus operandi on 'origins' issues.

    ... and that is fair enough ... as long as everybody understands that science is refusing to evaluate the evidence for Intelligent Design - and therefore is not in a position to comment on its validity.

    The impression is sometimes given that they have exhaustively evluated the evidence for ID ... but the evidence given under Oath at the Dover Trial is that they are prohibited from even looking at it, under the rules of science.


  • #2484
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    .. as I found no evidence in the Bible that suggest Jesus was God or the Son of god nor a statement by Jesus were he said am god or worship me.
    This appear to be a claim made by the Christians due to their misunderstanding of their own book and religion.

    You and J C should trash that out between you-I've had my dinner and would enjoy some cabaret.


  • #2485
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    housetypeb wrote: »
    You and J C should trash that out between you-I've had my dinner and would enjoy some cabaret.
    That's all completely off-topic
    ... and we have had enough diversion on this thread already.


  • #2486
    kingchess
    Registered Users Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    J C wrote: »
    We should be looking for physical proof ... as no physical evidence exists for M2M Evolution it should be abandoned by science ... and the alternative ID theory evaluated ... but science is self-censoring itself by limiting itself to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena ... and having not discovered a plausible natural cause for life (or its diversity), it refuses to evaluate the physical evidence for an intelligent cause for life.
    They have apparently now extended the limits on science to the search for natural causes excluding any consideration of intelligent causes.

    'No Intelligence (or God) Allowed' neatly summarizes the current scientific modus operandi on 'origins' issues.

    ... and that is fair enough ... as long as everybody understands that science is refusing to evaluate the evidence for Intelligent Design - and therefore is not in a position to comment on its validity.

    AND that is what real scientists do,and they came up with the theory of evolution:D:D


  • #2487
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,184 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Chunners wrote: »
    Not sure if it was intentional or not but read the bolded words there backwards lol

    Not intentional on my part anyway. Must be proof of a higher authority or some such...

    /sniggers


  • #2488
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,652 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    That's all completely off-topic
    ... and we have had enough diversion on this thread already.
    Right. Because none of your posts have been remotely off topic. Comparing atheists to stalin is completely relevant to the discussion.


  • #2489
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    kingchess wrote: »
    AND that is what real scientists do,and they came up with the theory of evolution:D:D
    I'm just as real a scientist as any Evolutionist one ... the difference is that I don't preclude myself from evaluating the evidence for either Evolution, ID or Creation Science.
    Conventional science has confined itself to only evaluating the evidence for natural causes ... whereas I have no such limitation imposed upon me.

    ... nor would I accept such limitations, as I believe in the academic freedom to go where the evidence leads ... and not where some anti-God principle hammered out in the 1700's would direct me.


  • #2490
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭Saganist


    J C wrote: »
    That's all completely off-topic
    ... and we have had enough diversion on this thread already.

    Lots of diversion tactics on this. From you.

    I'm going to put this question in capitals so you can't ignore it. I want a straight answer from you.

    WHAT WORK HAS ID/CREATIONISM DONE IN THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS THAT HAS PRODUCED A NEW APPLICATION THAT BENEFITS SOCIETY ?


  • Advertisement
  • #2491
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,184 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    I'm just as real a scientist as any Evolutionist one ... the difference is that I don't preclude myself from evaluating the evidence for either Evolution, ID or Creation Science.
    Conventional science has confined itself to only evaluating the evidence for natural causes ... whereas I have no such limitation imposed upon me.

    ... nor would I accept such limitations, as I believe in the academic freedom to go where the evidence leads ... and not where some anti-God principle hammered out in the 1700's would direct me.

    Another joke post.

    The only evidence you consider is goddidit.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement