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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…5758606263…201

Comments

  • #2952
    NecroSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭NecroSteve


    OK, I've got a question for J_C and other such god-nuts. Let's say the world is about 4,000 years old or whatever arbitrary term ye come up with from biblical genealogy, and all living things on Earth WERE created as they are today. Do you think that future evolution is impossible? And if so, why?

    By the way, I don't mean the stuff you can't wrap your head around (birds from reptiles, etc.), just stuff like the division and changing of species which is observable over less than the course of a human lifespan.


  • #2953
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    J C wrote: »
    My hypothesis is based on observation ... so there is no need to involve maths ... unless you don't believe what your eyes are seeing?

    ... isn't it strange that you guys pride yourselves on your supposed 'rationality' ... and your belief that what can be observed is all there is ... and yet you 'run away' from the observation in my hypothesis!!!

    ... equally, when I use maths, where it can be appropriately used, to measure the probability of getting the specific AA sequence for a specific functional protein in a particular space and time, you 'run away' shouting that maths cannot be used to prove this ... when it obviously can ... only you don't like the answer!!!:eek:

    Sounds like a perfect description of your predicament on this issue!!!:eek:
    This is just you playing around right JC?
    Cause being a scientist and all you'd understand that entropy is a mathematical concept right?

    Why are you pretending to be an idiot who doesn't understand basic physics?


  • #2954
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    NecroSteve wrote: »
    OK, I've got a question for J_C ... gratuituous insult removed ...
    Let's say the world is about 4,000 years old or whatever arbitrary term ye come up with from biblical genealogy, and all living things on Earth WERE created as they are today. Do you think that future evolution is impossible? And if so, why?

    By the way, I don't mean the stuff you can't wrap your head around (birds from reptiles, etc.), just stuff like the division and changing of species which is observable over less than the course of a human lifespan.
    All organisms were created with considerable genetic diversity potential ... so the combination of isolation, selection and recombination will produce enormous diversity up to and including speciation within Kinds.


  • #2955
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    J C wrote: »
    All organisms were created with considerable genetic diversity potential ... so the combination of isolation, selection and recombination will produce enormous diversity up to and including speciation within Kinds.

    And these organisms were created intelligently? (by the creator?)

    Would this explain say the many different breeds of dog, they were created intelligently with "genetic diversity potential" and have mixed over time?


  • #2956
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    clever_name wrote: »
    And these organisms were created intelligently? (by the creator?)

    Would this explain say the many different breeds of dog, they were created intelligently with "genetic diversity potential" and have mixed over time?
    ... the entire Dog Kind is descended from the members of the original members of the Dog Kind that were Directly Created.

    I am indebted to Creationwiki for the folowing explanation:-
    The created kind is based upon an idea that organisms were created with the innate ability to vary a great deal, and evolutionary processes are merely the means by which that innate ability to vary is expressed.

    The creation phylogenetic tree is similar in form and function to the evolutionary tree, but bears two important differences.

    First, while the evolutionary tree traces life back to a single cell or population of single-celled organisms, the creation biology tree traces life back to a number of unrelated populations of life-forms which roughly resembled the forms of life today.
    Second, while the evolutionary tree credits evolutionary change to an increase in genetic diversity from simpler to more complex organisms, the creation biology tree credits change in expressed genetics to the rearrangement and expression of genetic variation that was "built in" to the original kinds;
    Creationists assert that organisms were designed with a molecular machinery capable of editing genes, adding new alleles to the population, which generates diversity. It is generally agreed upon that natural selection, reproductive isolation (speciation), and genetic drift are effective in leading to the formation of populations that are highly adapted to their environment. Speciation and genetic drift is believed to have occurred at high frequencies during the dispersion immediately after the global flood.

    The population on board the ark is believed to have been a hybrid population containing the genetic characteristics of all the races. When the population spread over the Earth after the flood, gene pools became isolated and began to adapt differentially to the regions into which they settled. For example, skin color became lightened by natural selection, so that northern populations developed lighter skin in order to produce vitamin D in more sun-deprived areas, while equatorial populations developed darker skin to protect them from the harmful effects of the sun. As a result of the population isolation, the racial characteristics became "set" in the respective populations, resulting in the characteristic races observable today.


  • #2957
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    J C wrote: »
    ... the entire Dog Kind is descended from the members of the original members of the Dog Kind that were Directly Created.

    Lets stick with something easier first, if dogs were created intelligently with the ability of mixing, why do some fall victim to genetic mismatches that produce problems?, diabetes & arthritis for example.

    That seems particularly unintelligent to me however I'm sure you have an answer that will make sense to you.
    J C wrote: »

    The population on board the ark is believed to have been a hybrid population containing the genetic characteristics of all the races. When the population spread over the Earth after the flood, gene pools became isolated and began to adapt differentially to the regions into which they settled.

    Sounds a bit like survival of the fittest... careful now.
    J C wrote: »
    As a result of the population isolation, the racial characteristics became "set" in the respective populations, resulting in the characteristic races observable today.

    When exactly did people "set" and stop (best not say evolving for fear of derailment) lets say when did people stop "adapting differentially"?

    Why cant people in Australia adapt to have their genes edited to prevent sun cancer?

    Why cant we add some "new alleles to the population" that would prevent sickle-cell anaemia ?

    It is so unfair that humans are now locked into our races and "set".

    Why would an creator with intelligence design something with so many flaws?

    I'm going to take a guess at the answer being along the lines of all the good stuff is from the creator and the bad stuff is a result of people.


  • #2958
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    clever_name wrote: »
    .
    If dogs were created intelligently with the ability of mixing, why do some fall victim to genetic mismatches that produce problems?, diabetes & arthritis for example
    The fall.
    Why cant people in Australia adapt to have their genes edited to prevent sun cancer?
    The fall.
    Why would an creator with intelligence design something with so many flaws?
    We fell from His grace - the fall.

    Why cant we add some "new alleles to the population" that would prevent sickle-cell anaemia ?
    The fall.
    I'm going to take a guess at the answer being along the lines of all the good stuff is from the creator and the bad stuff is a result of people.
    Precisely.


  • #2959
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    God did it™


  • #2960
    NecroSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭NecroSteve


    This is beyond ludicrous. I'm beginning to think that someone profits somehow from such absurd beliefs as creationism, and that vested interest in it is why it for some reason isn't dead with most of the rest of those ancient desert superstitions. Anyone want to help me get to the bottom of this?


  • #2961
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    NecroSteve wrote: »
    Anyone want to help me get to the bottom of this?
    Creationism is popular because it allows people to think what they want to think about themselves and their place in the world.

    As Andy Thompson (and Wicknight :)) point out, if you can understand the psychology of the big mac, you can get a handle on why creationism and religion in general are so pervasive and popular.

    It's more complicated than that, of course, but in a nutshell, that's it.

    148500.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #2962
    NecroSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭NecroSteve


    somewhere.jpg


  • #2963
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    There are many things that don't demand (or indeed lend themselves) to mathematical proof. For example, the hypothesis (and Biological Law) that all living organisms arise from pre-existing life is proven by observation
    So who is god's dad? Or is god not alive?

    Oh dear, I think your hypothesis has already fallen down if god exists.


  • #2964
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    All organisms were created with considerable genetic diversity potential ... so the combination of isolation, selection and recombination will produce enormous diversity up to and including speciation within Kinds.
    Why did god bother with that? It seems to me he would either

    a) create all life as finished objects with no need of, or point in, future speciation
    b) start things off at a microbial level with the potential for evolution that we see in the real-world evidence, and let things develop from there.

    Instead, you claim he started us off from point a. with the potential (more or less) required for point b. - how odd.

    I'm sure there is a simpler explanation for this latest apparent mystery...


  • #2965
    darjeeling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    creationwiki.org wrote:
    [other creationists] assert* that organisms were designed with a molecular machinery capable of editing genes, adding new alleles to the population, which generates diversity. (link)

    If that's what creationists are beginning to say, then it's a big change from their previous position that novel genetic information could never evolve without direct intervention by some intelligent agent - a view still proclaimed by many, including JC on and off (but then we all know JC by now).

    * 'assert' is the word. Never mind actually doing any experiments.


  • #2966
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    God did it™
    Hallelujah ... can I quote you on that Robin?;)


  • #2967
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Malty_T wrote: »
    The fall.


    The fall.


    We fell from His grace - the fall.



    The fall.


    Precisely.
    ... are you having a bad hair day ... or something???

    ... while the Fall accounts for all of the bad things in the World ... there are still many amazing and good things here also ... directly as a result of God's Creation.


  • #2968
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    clever_name wrote: »
    Lets stick with something easier first, if dogs were created intelligently with the ability of mixing, why do some fall victim to genetic mismatches that produce problems?, diabetes & arthritis for example.
    That seems particularly unintelligent to me however I'm sure you have an answer that will make sense to you.
    ... this is due to an accumulated mutation load combined with inbreeding exposure of recessive alleles.
    clever_name wrote: »
    Sounds a bit like survival of the fittest... careful now.
    ... it is survival of the fittest ... but then this is a bit of a circular concept ... because only thee 'fittest' survive and anything that survives is 'fittest' ... and it is therefore a somewhat useless and meaningless idea!!!


    clever_name wrote: »
    When exactly did people "set" and stop (best not say evolving for fear of derailment) lets say when did people stop "adapting differentially"?

    Why cant people in Australia adapt to have their genes edited to prevent sun cancer?

    Why cant we add some "new alleles to the population" that would prevent sickle-cell anaemia ?
    ... because selection eliminates genetic diversity. For example, the reason that a pedigree animal produces effectively identical offspring is because the high selection pressure used to produce pedigree animals practically eliminates all genetic diversity within the pedigree population.
    ... and the reason that Caucasian Australians have a problem with skin cancer ... is because they have lost the genetic diversity to produce significant quantities of the sunlight protectant melanin in their skins.
    clever_name wrote: »
    It is so unfair that humans are now locked into our races and "set".

    Why would an creator with intelligence design something with so many flaws?

    I'm going to take a guess at the answer being along the lines of all the good stuff is from the creator and the bad stuff is a result of people.
    You guessed correctly!!!!


  • #2969
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    darjeeling wrote: »
    If that's what creationists are beginning to say, then it's a big change from their previous position that novel genetic information could never evolve without direct intervention by some intelligent agent - a view still proclaimed by many, including JC on and off (but then we all know JC by now).
    Creation Scientists say that Materialistic processes alone cannot produce novel genetic information ... but intelligently designed systems can do so.


  • #2970
    Marcus.Aurelius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    May have already been posted, but meh.

    0501creation.jpg

    tadah.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #2971
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    God did it™
    Hallelujah ... can I quote you on that Robin?
    No -- a bit like Jonathan Well's pretentious, but ultimately very silly, Ten Questions -- the intellectual property on that is protected and you're not free to use it :P


  • #2972
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    First let me say JC, I admire your ability to continue to post
    J C wrote: »
    ... are you having a bad hair day ... or something???

    ... while the Fall accounts for all of the bad things in the World ... there are still many amazing and good things here also ... directly as a result of God's Creation.

    But all the bad things?

    A result of "the fall"? interesting that you never mentioned this until someone else posted about it, much like the use of the sun in your theory, really its like you are simply looking at previous posts and picking what to add to your theory...

    BTW what is your scientific theory of the fall? break it down for us please.
    J C wrote: »
    ... this is due to an accumulated mutation load combined with inbreeding exposure of recessive alleles.

    Great... any chance you might answer the question?, Inbreeding... according to the bible there were about ten people on the ark... we are all inbred...

    no need to answer that (also I fear the mangled logic) just pretend to reply with the usual fluff... " but the plan of the mighty! ... he of the wind shall blow the truth!!!... a light in the dark makes the doubters feels the cold!!!!!...
    J C wrote: »
    ... it is survival of the fittest ... but then this is a bit of a circular concept ... because only thee 'fittest' survive and anything that survives is 'fittest' ... and it is therefore a somewhat useless and meaningless idea!!!


    Only the sky has clouds... and I only see clouds in the sky... circular concept!!! Really J.C. is that all there is?


    This is when you broke the fourth wall.. survival of the fittest is only the the fittest things surviving... running out of steam are we?. its a bit weak to not even try to obscure things...

    If god existed he would laugh at this, as I am created in his image then he would find this as funny/tragic as I do, ... note to mods... (i understand if this results in a ban, however I feel that JC needs to hear it) I am about 80% sure you are a troll or 20% that you are ...other. either way please read these words... life exists beyond the keyboard.

    Keeping up this post after post nonsense betters nobody, if you are real and want to tribute your god... go outside... meet people... relax... live life...

    Your response could be that defeating unbelivers and praising the creator is all the truth and glory you need. Cool.

    Honestly if you are for real keep posting, however if you want to see a way beyond were I think you are... please send me a pm or talk to a friend, ask a trusted neighbour, do anything that you need to... but consider that if your life is posting this (true or not) stuff then maybe you could be happier?

    As I said I might be banned for this but having read this thread I fell I need to say it.

    No offence intended to anyone. best wishes to all.


  • #2973
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    Creation Scientists say that Materialistic processes alone cannot produce novel genetic information ... but intelligently designed systems can do so.
    Surely any random jumbling of DNA is novel genetic information?


  • #2974
    legspin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    Forget it lads, you won't get a coherent answer to any of your questions. JC is incapable of direct answers 'coz all he has is bull****.


  • #2975
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    J C wrote: »
    ... while the Fall accounts for all of the bad things in the World ... there are still many amazing and good things here also ... directly as a result of God's Creation.

    Which was basically what I just said.:)


  • #2976
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »
    May have already been posted, but meh.

    0501creation.jpg
    Creation Scientists ... use the scientific method for their research ... it is the Evolutionists that are running away from repeatably observable evidence ... and mathematical proof that Materialistic Evolution is a nonesense!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #2977
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    Wow, this is still going.


  • #2978
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »
    tadah.jpg
    God Created Mankind ... and gave us the free will to love or to reject Him. The first Man and Woman chose to reject God ... and to listen to Satan's lies ... thereby choosing sin and death over God's gift of eternal life.
    God's perfect justice demanded a perfect atonement for Mankind's sins ... and His love demanded total mercy to anybody who asked for it.
    These two apparently irreconcilable issues ... were reconciled in the perfect atoning death of the perfect Man-God Jesus Christ.

    Each person today also has the free will to love God and ask for his Salvation ... or to reject God and not be Saved.
    FionnMatthew wrote: »
    Wow, this is still going.
    It sure is!!!
    ... but I suspect that the truth is beginning to dawn ... that God exists ... and wants to Save you all ... even Robin is beginning to believe ...
    robindch wrote:
    God did it™
    ... said in jest ... meant in earnest!!!:)
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Surely any random jumbling of DNA is novel genetic information?
    ... it may be 'novel' ... but it certainly won't be functional !!!


  • #2979
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    clever_name wrote: »
    First let me say JC, I admire your ability to continue to post



    But all the bad things?

    A result of "the fall"? interesting that you never mentioned this until someone else posted about it, much like the use of the sun in your theory, really its like you are simply looking at previous posts and picking what to add to your theory...

    BTW what is your scientific theory of the fall? break it down for us please.



    Great... any chance you might answer the question?, Inbreeding... according to the bible there were about ten people on the ark... we are all inbred...

    no need to answer that (also I fear the mangled logic) just pretend to reply with the usual fluff... " but the plan of the mighty! ... he of the wind shall blow the truth!!!... a light in the dark makes the doubters feels the cold!!!!!...




    Only the sky has clouds... and I only see clouds in the sky... circular concept!!! Really J.C. is that all there is?


    This is when you broke the fourth wall.. survival of the fittest is only the the fittest things surviving... running out of steam are we?. its a bit weak to not even try to obscure things...

    If god existed he would laugh at this, as I am created in his image then he would find this as funny/tragic as I do, ... note to mods... (i understand if this results in a ban, however I feel that JC needs to hear it) I am about 80% sure you are a troll or 20% that you are ...other. either way please read these words... life exists beyond the keyboard.

    Keeping up this post after post nonsense betters nobody, if you are real and want to tribute your god... go outside... meet people... relax... live life...

    Your response could be that defeating unbelivers and praising the creator is all the truth and glory you need. Cool.

    Honestly if you are for real keep posting, however if you want to see a way beyond were I think you are... please send me a pm or talk to a friend, ask a trusted neighbour, do anything that you need to... but consider that if your life is posting this (true or not) stuff then maybe you could be happier?

    As I said I might be banned for this but having read this thread I fell I need to say it.

    No offence intended to anyone. best wishes to all.
    No offence taken.

    I don't see anything in your post that would merit any censure ... you are expressing your opinions honestly and a little robustly ... and long may free speech reign!!!!

    I live a very full life ... I work in a high-pressure senior position ... I have a young family and I am happily married, to a beautiful loving woman, thank God ... and I have a wide circle of friends!!!!

    Christians can have it all ... the very best that this life has to offer ... and the best that the next life has to offer as well!!!!:)


  • #2980
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    I work in a high-pressure senior position ...
    Hmmm, perhaps that is what has caused the psychotic break...?

    MrP


  • #2981
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Hmmm, perhaps that is what has caused the psychotic break...?

    MrP

    I'm just wondering what high-pressure senior position allows for as much free time as J C evidently has.


  • Advertisement
  • #2982
    Dexter Hollow Peacock
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Dexter Hollow Peacock


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    I'm just wondering what high-pressure senior position allows for as much free time as J C evidently has.

    president of makey uppy land


  • #2983
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Master of the Cookie Jar?


  • #2984
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    I'm just wondering what high-pressure senior position allows for as much free time as J C evidently has.
    ... what 'free time'??

    ... do you mean a few minutes/hours in the evening after work ... as I 'unwind' by helping to straighten out your thinking on a few fundamental issues of life!!!


  • #2985
    Dexter Hollow Peacock
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Dexter Hollow Peacock


    Maybe all JC's ellipses are some kind of morse code telling us who he really is


  • #2986
    Scarab80
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »
    0501creation.jpg

    My favourite example of this has to be the RATE project. A "research project" set up by the Institute of Creation Research in an attempt to reconcile radioisotope dating evidence to a literal biblical interpretation. For any of you that haven't read their conclusions before, behold!
    The key points of the book can be summarized as follows:
    1. There is overwhelming evidence of more than 500 million years worth of radioactive decay.
    2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific studies indicate a young earth.
    3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have been accelerated by approximately a factor of one billion during the first three days of creation and during the Flood.
    4. The concept of accelerated decay leads to two unresolved scientific problems, the heat problem and the radiation problem, though there is confidence that these will be solved in the future.
    5. Therefore, the RATE project provides encouragement regarding the reliability of the Bible.

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

    How someone can actually write those words without their heads exploding in some kind of cognitive dissonance mushroom cloud is beyond me.

    EDIT: By the way as to the heat problem referred to they acknowledge - "Thermal energy from radioactive processes is a major source of heat in the earth. If those processes were accelerated by many orders of magnitude, the earth would have quickly evaporated from the heat..."

    Their confidence in resolving this problem.... "the authors acknowledge that accelerated decay requires a most unusual heat removal mechanism that is outside the known laws of thermodynamics."


  • #2987
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Scarab80 wrote: »
    My favourite example of this has to be the RATE project. A "research project" set up by the Institute of Creation Research in an attempt to reconcile radioisotope dating evidence to a literal biblical interpretation. For any of you that haven't read their conclusions before, behold!



    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

    How someone can actually write those words without their heads exploding in some kind of cognitive dissonance mushroom cloud is beyond me.

    EDIT: By the way as to the heat problem referred to they acknowledge - "Thermal energy from radioactive processes is a major source of heat in the earth. If those processes were accelerated by many orders of magnitude, the earth would have quickly evaporated from the heat..."

    Their confidence in resolving this problem.... "the authors acknowledge that accelerated decay requires a most unusual heat removal mechanism that is outside the known laws of thermodynamics."
    All of the above is contained in a review of the book "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. II" by Dr Randy Isaac, executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation.
    The quotes that you have cited are not direct quotes from the book, as you are indicating ... they are Dr Isaac's opinion of what is being said in the book ... and others accuse me of 'quote mining' when I use direct accurate and fully attributed quotes!!!

    You may have made a genuine error ... so I would ask you to make it clear that these quotes are Dr Isaacs opinion of the book ... and they not direct quotes from the authors of the book; Dr. Larry Vardiman, Dr Andrew Snelling and Dr Eugen Chaffin.

    ... and here are the career and academic facts about these three eminent, conventionally qualified Creation Scientists

    http://creationwiki.org/Larry_Vardiman
    http://creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling
    http://creationwiki.org/Eugene_Chaffin

    As for cognitive dissonance, you guys have 'cornered the market' on this one ... don't tempt me to start direct accurate quotes from evolutionists accepting facts that are completely at odds with Materialistic Evolution !!!!


  • #2988
    Dexter Hollow Peacock
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Dexter Hollow Peacock


    J C wrote: »
    ... don't tempt me to start

    Ok, we won't.


  • #2989
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Ok, we won't.
    Good!!:)

    Do you have anything to say about Scarab80's misquotation of Doctors Vardiman, Snelling and Chaffin ... when the quotes are actually from Dr Isaacs???

    ... Robin and Malty T have thanked him for it ... or did they simply not read what Scarab80 was saying ... before they thanked him ... or does it matter whether anybody accurately quotes anybody else on the A & A???


  • #2990
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    That was me! :(

    (Link)

    Sorry :o
    J C wrote: »
    or does it matter whether anybody accurately quotes anybody else on the A & A???

    Look at your sig!!!!!!!!!

    Pot%20Kettle%20Black.jpg?m=1272644241


  • #2991
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Look at your sig!!!!!!!!!

    Pot%20Kettle%20Black.jpg?m=1272644241

    My signature is an accurate directly attributed quote correctly ascribed to the cited author ... and it is therefore perfectly legitimate.

    Scarab80 is saying that the cited quotes are from a book by Doctors Vardiman, Snelling and Chaffin ... when the quotes are actually Dr Isaacs words!!!

    Like I have said, you guys go into fits of 'moral indignation' when I legitimately and accurately make direct fully attributed quotes by leading evolutionists that highlight serious issues for Materialistic Evolution ... yet you justify these erroneously ascribed quotes by Scarab80.

    Are you guys so 'committed to the cause' of Evolution that you are now justifying misquotation to prop up your crumbling case????

    ... and what will ye do if and when Scarab80 admits his error, as I'm sure he will do, when he realises his mistake?

    Ye are certainly not covering yourselves in glory on this one!!!!!

    ... and the first rule when you are in a hole ... is to stop digging!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #2992
    Dexter Hollow Peacock
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Dexter Hollow Peacock


    J C wrote: »
    Good!!:)

    Do you have anything to say about Scarab80's misquotation of Doctors Vardiman, Snelling and Chaffin ... when the quotes are actually from Dr Isaacs???

    No, cos I don't really care


  • #2993
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Do you have anything to say about Scarab80's misquotation of Doctors Vardiman, Snelling and Chaffin ... when the quotes are actually from Dr Isaacs???

    bluewolf
    No, cos I don't really care
    An interesting admission about your standards ...
    ... which raises the important question as to whether these standards are also shared by the rest of the people on this thread???


  • #2994
    Dexter Hollow Peacock
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Dexter Hollow Peacock


    J C wrote: »
    An interesting admission about your standards ...
    ... which raises the important question as to whether these standards are also shared by the rest of the people on this thread???

    Considering I rarely post in here and only came in again to go "wtf, are they still on about this", no it doesnt


  • #2995
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Considering I rarely post in here and only came in again to go "wtf, are they still on about this", no it doesnt
    I haven't seen anybody else distance themselves from Scarab80's misquotation ... thanks all round ... and justification seems to be the 'order of the day' ... so far!!


  • #2996
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    quoteThe RATE researchers concede that there is evidence for “more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay” (p. 284). This is a key departure from previous creationist claims that radioactive decay is much less than reported. quote

    quote The authors state:
    The removal of heat was so rapid that it likely involved a process other than conduction, convection, or radiation … We believe it may be possible to discover how [God] did it (p. 763).quote
    Seems to me that the reviewer quoted directly from the book before dissecting it. where's the problem?


    I take it that the wiki article about Dr Vardiman was written by Vardiman himself:D
    quote Dr. Vardiman’s ability to converse in technical terms about creation science and also being able to communicate with the lay person has allowed God to use him in many ways — from the classroom to the great outdoors as a tour guide, to the radio waves on ICR’s radio program, Science, Scripture and Salvation quote


    Like i said before JC, Misdirection is your forte.


  • #2997
    Scarab80
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    J C wrote: »
    All of the above is contained in a review of the book "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. II" by Dr Randy Isaac, executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation.
    The quotes that you have cited are not direct quotes from the book, as you are indicating ... they are Dr Isaac's opinion of what is being said in the book ... and others accuse me of 'quote mining' when I use direct accurate and fully attributed quotes!!!

    You may have made a genuine error ... so I would ask you to make it clear that these quotes are Dr Isaacs opinion of the book ... and they not direct quotes from the authors of the book; Dr. Larry Vardiman, Dr Andrew Snelling and Dr Eugen Chaffin.

    ... and here are the career and academic facts about these three eminent, conventionally qualified Creation Scientists

    http://creationwiki.org/Larry_Vardiman
    http://creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling
    http://creationwiki.org/Eugene_Chaffin

    As for cognitive dissonance, you guys have 'cornered the market' on this one ... don't tempt me to start direct accurate quotes from leading evolutionists showing the acceptance of facts that completely invalidates Materialistic Evolution ... while simultaneously engaging in a 'jaw dropping' 'handwaving' dismissal of the implications of these fact!!!!

    The fact that the quoted text is a summary of the RATE project conclusions by someone critiquing their "paper" does not mean that the summary is incorrect.

    1. Do you disagree that the RATE project found evidence for millions of years or radioactive decay at constant rates?
    2. Do you disagree that the purpose of the paper was an attempt to find radioisotope evidence for a 6,000 year old earth? (The whole reason this was posted, starting with the conclusion and trying to fit the evidence in)
    3. Do you disagree that the authors proposed non-constant rates of decay to fit their millions of years of evidence into the YEC timeframe?
    4. Do you disagree that the authors failed to come up with a credible hypothesis for how or why this accelerated decay could have happened?
    (Hint: [DIRECT QUOTE] "For example, the cooling of granite plutons would have taken thousands of years by conventional thermal diffusion. Of course, God was directly involved in all of these events, so it is possible that He employed some supernatural process which does not occur today or cannot be detected.")
    5. Do you disagree that the authors claimed evidence for a 6,000 year old earth despite these unresolved problems.

    Quote mining is a problem where out of context quotes are used to try and infer a position on someone who does not actually hold that position. In this case that criticism is clearly not valid.

    Regardless the post was intended as a humourous example of starting with your conclusion and trying to fit in evidence to match it (even if that means melting the earth!). I will not be getting into a discussion about it with you lest some impressionable youngster might read it and think that there is actually a discussion to be had instead of recognising that someone has devoted a not insignificant portion of their life to trolling the internet.


  • #2998
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    3000!
    I win the thread.

    Edit: ****.
    Stupid difference between reply count and post count.


  • #2999
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    housetypeb wrote: »
    quote The RATE researchers concede that there is evidence for “more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay” (p. 284). This is a key departure from previous creationist claims that radioactive decay is much less than reported.quote

    quote The authors state:
    The removal of heat was so rapid that it likely involved a process other than conduction, convection, or radiation … We believe it may be possible to discover how [God] did it (p. 763).quote

    Seems to me that the reviewer quoted directly from the book before dissecting it. where's the problem?

    I take it that the wiki article about Dr Vardiman was written by Vardiman himself:D
    quote Dr. Vardiman’s ability to converse in technical terms about creation science and also being able to communicate with the lay person has allowed God to use him in many ways — from the classroom to the great outdoors as a tour guide, to the radio waves on ICR’s radio program, Science, Scripture and Salvation quote


    Like i said before JC, Misdirection is your forte.
    The misquotation by Scarab80 that is at issue is the following:-
    wrote:
    Scarab80
    By the way as to the heat problem referred to they acknowledge - "Thermal energy from radioactive processes is a major source of heat in the earth. If those processes were accelerated by many orders of magnitude, the earth would have quickly evaporated from the heat..."

    Their confidence in resolving this problem.... "the authors acknowledge that accelerated decay requires a most unusual heat removal mechanism that is outside the known laws of thermodynamics."
    Scarab80 is clearly indicating that these are quotes from Doctors Vardiman, Snelling and Chaffin ... when the quotes are actually Dr Isaacs words from a review of Doctors Vardiman, Snelling and Chaffin's book !!!

    This shouldn't be an issue at all ... Scarab80 should simply admit his mistake ... and you guys should be helping him by pointing out his error.

    Instead ye are trying to justify/ignore/thank him for his error!!!
    ... and I see that Mark Hamill has now joined the thanks up on post #2987 ... which is all the more bizzarre, given that he now definitely knows that the quotes are erroneous!!!

    ... this indicates that ye are not at all objective when it comes to anything to do with your blind faith in Evolution ... ye even accept and justify obvious errors once you think they will help bolster the case for your worldview!!!


  • #3000
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    King Mob wrote: »
    3000!
    I win the thread.

    Edit: ****.
    Stupid difference between reply count and post count.
    It is about the only thing that an evolutionist is going to 'win' on this thread ... and you didn't even get the 3000th post ... I did that !!!:D


  • Advertisement
  • #3001
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    J C wrote: »
    It is about the only thing that an evolutionist is going to 'win' on this thread ... and you didn't even get the 3000th post ... I did that !!!:D

    Actually I think Scarab did, then a couple of posts seemed to get moved/deleted.
    So if you did win, it was through mod divine intervention :pac:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement