"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Knasher · 03-06-2011 1:07pm

dead one wrote: »

You haven't clear..... Does your evidence support materialist philosophy of evolution.....
What i have learned from it..... It doesn't support!!!......... Today many evolutionist supports materialist philosophy of evolution... Right..... Perhaps you should learn about it....

100% of the evidence supports evolution. It even goes further than that, not only does evolution fit with all the evidence. Evolution also has predictive power, for example when humans were found to have two less chromosomes than our ape cousins, the only two explanations were that either chromosomes merged or that evolution was wrong. People then looked for the merge site and actually found them.

So tell us, what is your evidence that doesn't support evolution. If you have anything more than some dusty old passage written in the koran by a group of people who absolutely no understanding of biology then I'd love to hear it.

Knasher · 03-06-2011 1:23pm

dead one wrote: »

See, If you are talking evolution as general term....Like God developed life into stages.....I have no problem with it....... but problem is with philosophy.....

Okay, just taking a stab in the dark here, but it sounds like you are saying that you have no problem with evolution but you disagree with abiogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis.

If this is the case, then please use this term instead of evolution.

robindch · 03-06-2011 1:49pm

J C wrote: »

I looked at the first video ... and it was clocks ... and more clocks ... sound more like physics ... than biology!!!:(

dead one wrote: »

What i have learned from it..... It doesn't support!!!......... Today many evolutionist supports materialist philosophy of evolution... Right..... Perhaps you should learn about it....

Is "Desecration of the Full Stop" part of Creationism 101?

sponsoredwalk · 05-06-2011 11:19pm

I see the madness has spread to other threads but I came across this quote
today that explains so much about this thread:

"What branch of scholarship argues from quotations? The answer, in
general, is religious scholarship, and what branch of scholarship argues
from the evidence? The answer is science". K. Miller.

I think this is the reason why JC is so invested in his arguments from authority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppMU081Ge9Y

dead one · 15-06-2011 10:18am

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

None of the evidence points that a supernatural force is necessary. Therefore it supports a naturalistic view on evolution.

Yes, if you look the at evidence with material eye then it won't.....
materialist says only thing that exist is matter... Hypnotize by illusion

The Mad Hatter · 15-06-2011 10:24am

dead one wrote: »

materialist says only thing that exist is matter

No, sometimes antimatter exists too.

Genghiz Cohen · 15-06-2011 10:46am

And energy! Don't forget energy!

Turtwig · 15-06-2011 11:19am

ENERGY DOES NOT EXIST!!!
ENERGON DOES!!:mad:

Genghiz Cohen · 15-06-2011 11:22am

Malty_T wrote: »

ENERGY DOES NOT EXIST!!!
ENERGON DOES!!:mad:

You can't see Energon man, you can't prove it exists, man.

Therefore (My particular)God!
Checkmate!

Turtwig · 15-06-2011 1:31pm

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You can't see Energon man, you can't prove it exists, man.

Therefore (My particular)God!
Checkmate!

Can you see the wind? I may not be able to see Energon, but I can feel it and you could too.:)

Sarky · 15-06-2011 7:45pm

It's so strange that areas of science which are being derided here as illusions and lies have actually gone on to produce some damned useful results.

I'm doing a thesis which will have a pretty large emphasis on molecular evolution. It's nothing terribly special in and of itself, there's far more research by established, talented scientists out there. Of course, the FATCAT MATERIALISTS know that it's all insidious lies and misinformation, so the righteous god-fearing folk of the world will SURELY have nothing to do with it, or the results.

And why would you? If you die in a hospital bed from MRSA, then clearly it was what God intended! Using techniques based on various facets of evolution to understand a disease, its cause, and related organisms that produce substances that can fight it off? Clearly a blasphemy for which we'll burn in hell. So ignore the last couple of decades of medical advances, vomit up that spleen and sh*t blood with pride as you slap the doctor with your holy book, for yours is the kingdom of Heaven!

Unless, of course, you want to make use of such advances. But that would mean you'd have to acknowledge that science and its methods, including those based on the concept of evolution, f*cking work.

Turtwig · 15-06-2011 9:18pm

Can't remember who exactly (Lawrence Krauss or Michael Shermer?) stated that before receiving any vaccinations or antibiotics a person should be made to sign a consent form that explicitly states that they agree with theory of evolution and understand the risks and benefits of the medicine that were derived from its understanding.

robindch · 15-06-2011 9:23pm

Hmmm.., the Kraken wakes.

J C · 16-06-2011 9:30pm

Malty_T wrote: »

Can't remember who exactly (Lawrence Krauss or Michael Shermer?) stated that before receiving any vaccinations or antibiotics a person should be made to sign a consent form that explicitly states that they agree with theory of evolution and understand the risks and benefits of the medicine that were derived from its understanding.

How would you feel about a Theist demanding that, in order to receive essential medical care, that everyone must formally acknowledge that God Created them and the reason that Medical Science works, is because they are Intelligently Designed???:o

No Christian that I know would countenance such an action ... we believe that a person's worldview is a matter between themselves and God ... and their access to education, medical care or employment should never be predicated on their acceptance of a particular worldview or religous belief!!!
Jesus Christ came to Save ALL sinners ... and that is why Biblical Christians are concerned about the welfare of ALL of Humanity ... irrespective of their worldview.

robindch wrote: »

Hmmm.., the Kraken wakes.

I thought this thread had run its course ... but I was obviously wrong!!!

Turtwig · 16-06-2011 9:48pm

Is it just me or did JC say something I agree with?

Delirium · 16-06-2011 11:00pm

J C wrote: »

How would you feel about a Theist demanding that, in order to receive essential medical care, that everyone must formally acknowledge that God Created them and the reason that Medical Science works, is because they are Intelligently Designed???:o

I'd ask could I see a real doctor instead of the quack that showed up.

himnextdoor · 17-06-2011 2:31am

Malty_T wrote: »

Is it just me or did JC say something I agree with?

It's just you dude.:)

I joke of course, J C has highlighted a few problems with the science fraternity.

robindch · 17-06-2011 11:03am

J C wrote: »

How would you feel about a Theist demanding that, in order to receive essential medical care, that everyone must formally acknowledge that God Created them and the reason that Medical Science works, is because they are Intelligently Designed??? No Christian that I know would countenance such an action [...]

So you condemn the 19th century protestants who, during the Famine, fed people on condition that they first converted to protestantism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souperism

Actually, the Krauss/Shermer argument is quite different. The point being that if a creationist is sick, then he or she -- out of their innate belief -- should avoid using the medicines developed by the kind of real scientists whom creationists typically insult and demean.

The fact that creationists, like the rest of us, do use the latest medicines means that creationists don't really believe the rubbish they produce. And the fact that the people whom creationists insult provide their medicines regardless of the slander that the leading creationists make so much money from, simply suggests that the researchers are morally, as well as intellectually, just much better people.

cp · 17-06-2011 3:58pm

robindch wrote: »

So you condemn the 19th century protestants who, during the Famine, fed people on condition that they first converted to protestantism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souperism

Actually, the Krauss/Shermer argument is quite different. The point being that if a creationist is sick, then he or she -- out of their innate belief -- should avoid using the medicines developed by the kind of real scientists whom creationists typically insult and demean.

The fact that creationists, like the rest of us, do use the latest medicines means that creationists don't really believe the rubbish they produce. And the fact that the people whom creationists insult provide their medicines regardless of the slander that the leading creationists make so much money from, simply suggests that the researchers are morally, as well as intellectually, just much better people.

This reminds me of looking at Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' facebook page a couple of days ago when some new photos of her, appearing much improved, were released. I remember reading through the posts on her wall;

Every single one of them was along the lines of (insert imagined stereotypical southern accents here) "praise the lord for saving her", "god is with your gabby", "I prayed every day that god would place his healing hands over you"... after a while It occurred to me that not one person considered the skill of the surgeons and the advances in modern medicine to have been a significant factor in her recovery.

In fact, they appeared completely oblivious to the fact that, irrespective of their belief in god and how much praying they did, she simply would not be alive today but for modern science.

It just struck me how demoralizing it must be for dedicated medical personnel and scientists who work tirelessly to bring about these outcomes, only to continually have their work attributed to some magical fairy in the sky

robindch · 18-06-2011 4:28pm

cp wrote: »

It just struck me how demoralizing it must be for dedicated medical personnel and scientists who work tirelessly to bring about these outcomes, only to continually have their work attributed to some magical fairy in the sky

It would irritate me, but perhaps that's why I write software -- no chance that somebody might accidentally attribute my work to some invisible sky bunny. For a start, it's just my name in the about box

More seriously, there was an interesting documentary made a few years back about a South American eye surgeon who visited North Korea to carry out a large number of restorative eye operations. Perhaps 200 or so over the course of a week or two. At the end, the patients were herded into some sports hall and the surgeon gave them a thumbs up and wished them the best. Then, some guy down the front -- quite possibly a plant -- stood up and thanked not the surgeon, but the Dear Leader at the top of his voice, causing everybody else to start bleating the same paeans of thanks. The surgeon maintained a surprisingly fixed smile throughout.

liamw · 18-06-2011 5:45pm

robindch wrote: »

Then, some guy down the front -- quite possibly a plant -- stood up and thanked not the surgeon, but the Dear Leader at the top of his voice, causing everybody else to start bleating the same paeans of thanks.

How insulting...

J C · 19-06-2011 1:04am

I have never heard so much mis-placed whinging in all my life!!!!

Ye all seem to gleefully forget that there are many eminently qualified surgeons who are Creationists ... and it has been my experience that most modern doctors are handsomly paid for their services ... and therefore charity or gratitude don't enter the equation.
They are also quite limited in both their abilities and the outcomes of their medical practices ... as the morgues in every hospital testify!!!!

... and before ye all 'lose the run of yourselves' ... and start claiming that Evolution is God's gift to Humanity, or Medicine or whatever ... please listen to these sobering words from Evolutionist Prof Gerry Coyne on the matter (emphasis mine):-

Prof Jerry Coyne Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago

"In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture." Of Vice and Men The New Republic April 3 2000 p.27

"Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all." Nature August 31 2006 p.984

POINTBREAK · 19-06-2011 1:08am

I don't think anyone will disagree with you JC that you are not the only nutter in the world.

J C · 19-06-2011 1:14am

robindch wrote: »

So you condemn the 19th century protestants who, during the Famine, fed people on condition that they first converted to protestantism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souperism

Yes, I certainly do condemn such practices ... and if you read your own link you would find that other Christians also condemned the practice of Souperism, at the time ... and since then.

wrote:

Quote Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"One example of souperism was the Reverend Edward Nagle, who instituted 34 schools where religious instruction and meals were provided. However, souperism was rarely that simple, and not all non-Catholics made being subject to proselytization a condition of food aid. Several Anglicans, including the Anglican Archbishop of Dublin, Richard Whately, decried the practice; many Anglicans set up soup kitchens that did no proselytizing; and the Quakers, whose soup kitchens were concerned solely with charitable work, were never associated with the practice (which causes them to be held in high regard in Ireland even today, with many Irish remembering the Quakers with the remark "They fed us in the famine.").

Souperist practices, reported at the time, included serving meat soups on Fridays — which Catholics were forbidden by their faith from consuming.

Soupers were frequently ostracized by their own community, and were strongly denounced from the pulpit by the Catholic priesthood. On occasion, soupers had to be protected by British soldiers from other Catholics.

robindch wrote: »

Actually, the Krauss/Shermer argument is quite different. The point being that if a creationist is sick, then he or she -- out of their innate belief -- should avoid using the medicines developed by the kind of real scientists whom creationists typically insult and demean.

Evolutionists don't have a monopoly on the practice or the fruits of science.

robindch wrote: »

The fact that creationists, like the rest of us, do use the latest medicines means that creationists don't really believe the rubbish they produce. And the fact that the people whom creationists insult provide their medicines regardless of the slander that the leading creationists make so much money from, simply suggests that the researchers are morally, as well as intellectually, just much better people.

The scientific and logical nonesense that declares that people are the result of millions of years of trial and error ... and accumulated mistakes, without any evidence that it is even theoretically possible to spontaneously produce Complex Functional Specific Biological Information has contributed very little to Medicine ... or to any other operative science!!!
... if you doubt me, please have a look at the quote from Prof Gerry Coyne at my post #4494 above!!!

POINTBREAK · 19-06-2011 1:15am

robindch wrote: »

It would irritate me, but perhaps that's why I write software -- no chance that somebody might accidentally attribute my work to some invisible sky bunny. For a start, it's just my name in the about box

More seriously, there was an interesting documentary made a few years back about a South American eye surgeon who visited North Korea to carry out a large number of restorative eye operations. Perhaps 200 or so over the course of a week or two. At the end, the patients were herded into some sports hall and the surgeon gave them a thumbs up and wished them the best. Then, some guy down the front -- quite possibly a plant -- stood up and thanked not the surgeon, but the Dear Leader at the top of his voice, causing everybody else to start bleating the same paeans of thanks. The surgeon maintained a surprisingly fixed smile throughout.

I liked the Pilot who landed the plane in the Hudson....... he said something like God wasn't in the cockpit when the born again Christians tried to claim it.

J C · 19-06-2011 1:27am

POINTBREAK wrote: »

I don't think anyone will disagree with you JC that you are not the only nutter in the world.

Is this the best/only argument that you can come up with????

I feel you pain ... may the love and peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

J C · 19-06-2011 1:35am

POINTBREAK wrote: »

I liked the Pilot who landed the plane in the Hudson....... he said something like God wasn't in the cockpit when the born again Christians tried to claim it.

Yes indeed we are subject to the physical laws ... and we have the God-given free will to do extraordinary things ... some of which result in good outcomes ... and some of which are disasterous!!!

... and if I was in a 'tight corner' I think that I would like to have all the help that I could get ... including any help that might be forthcoming from God or His angels.

J C · 19-06-2011 1:44am

koth wrote: »

I'd ask could I see a real doctor instead of the quack that showed up.

... and I'd be inclined to do the same ... if s/he started some nonesense about me changing my worldview, as a pre-condition to rendering me the medical aid that I have paid for, as a taxpayer and Health Insurance member!!!

Sarky · 19-06-2011 1:46am

Oh good, you're back. The more time you spend embarrassing yourself here the less damage you can do in the real world.

J C · 19-06-2011 1:58am

Sarky wrote: »

Oh good, you're back. The more time you spend embarrassing yourself here the less damage you can do in the real world.

Who are you referring to here?
If it was Robin, then that's not a very nice thing to say about him ...
... OK, he did score a bit of an 'own goal' on the 'souperism' issue ... but we all make mistakes ...

... and I am also confident that Robin is an excellent computer programmer who, just like me, does nothing but good in the real world.

I see that you are a mod of the Order of Dagon ... are you a Dagon Priest?

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments