"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

And boy did poor Colin's skepticism about aspects of evolution get him into 'hot water'!!!!

Creationist dishonesty 101 but we've been down this specific road so many times I don't see any reason in bothering explaining how dishonest your above post is. It's like you just wait 50 posts or so then bring back up the same old arguments again.

Perhaps you'd get more grain in the CT forum?

J C

fatmammycat wrote: »

You were never a scientist JC, ever.

This is an example of what I most regret about modern discourse.

Calling somebody a liar has no place in civil discourse ... especially when you must know that I am a scientist from my writings.

Could I also suggest the following, even more embarssing reality, if I am not a polymath ... then hundreds of top class evolutionary scientists (many of them specialists in their own fields) on this thread and the mega-thread have felt it necessry to write hundreds of thousands of words to try and cope with the scientific writings of a lay-man (if I am not a scientist as you baselessly claim)!!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Creationist dishonesty 101 but we've been down this specific road so many times I don't see any reason in bothering explaining how dishonest your above post is. It's like you just wait 50 posts or so then bring back up the same old arguments again.

Perhaps you'd get more grain in the CT forum?

More of the same thing ... throwing around baseless allegations of dishonesty/lying without 'standing up' your argument!!!

If I am dishonest or a liar about my scientific qualifications it will be obvious from my writings ... and you will be able to easily discount my arguments.

The fact that no substantive defence of Materialistic Evolution has been provided shows that, not only am I presenting the truth on this issue ... but I am also an honourable and honest person.

... anyway, what did you think of what Prof Lewontin had to say in the video?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

If I am dishonest or a liar about my scientific qualifications it will be obvious from my writings ...

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

you will be able to easily discount my arguments.

This has already been done.

Frankly I don't care if you're a scientist or not, you might be, you might even be the next Einstein. Being a scientist doesn't necessarily mean that the assertion you make is valid or will ever be.

I didn't watch the video, might do it later, think I've already seen it before anyways. Either way, merely providing a quote wall of quotes is not a form of discussion.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

All I can say to that is that standards within Evolutionism seems to have slipped to a very low ebb!!!

Contrast this narrow-minded bigotry against everything non-evolutionist with Prof Lewontin's liberal open-minded attitude to evidence and different opinions.

That is the way it was within Evolutionary Science ... but alas, if this thread is anything to go by, this seems to no longer be the case!!!

For science to make progress there needs to be a free exchange of ideas and a willingness (on all sides) to listen to alternate opinions.

... but the most important (and precious) thing has got to be academic freedom ... the freedom of everyone to express their viewpoint and to pursue the evidence wherever it may lead (even if eventually doesn't lead anywhere) ... without fear for your career prospects.
This principle is just as important for Evolutionists ... and I would be just as insensed if people suggested discriminating against and badmouthing the many able and honest Evolutionists who are out there doing excellent work for the benefit and enrichment of society.

The ability to present alternative opinions without fear or favour is the mark of a free and progressive society ... and the use of name-calling and worse is the hallmark of a closed society ... to both progress and new ideas!!!

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

The Christian Church or indeed any revealed religion fits these requirements perfectly, and so religion has been an ideal institution for legitimating society. If only people with special grace, whether they be priests, pastors, or ordinary citizens, are in direct contact with the divine inspiration through revelations, then we must depend upon them completely for an understanding of what has been divinely decreed.

:eek:

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Frankly I don't care if you're a scientist or not, you might be, you might even be the next Einstein. Being a scientist doesn't necessarily mean that the assertion you make is valid or will ever be.

I agree ... any evidence I present should be fairly and robustly assessed ... however unwarranted ad hominem attacks on my good name does nothing for the debate ... and it actually damages your case much more than me in the minds of any fair-minded observer.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

All I can say to that is that standards within Evolutionism seems to have slipped to a very low ebb!!!

Contrast this narrow-minded bigotry against everything non-evolutionist with Prof Lewontin's liberal open-minded attitude to evidence and different opinions.

That is the way it was within Evolutionary Science ... but alas, if this thread is anything to go by, this seems to no longer be the case!!!

For science to make progress there needs to be a free exchange of ideas and a willingness (on all sides) to listen to alternate opinions.

... but the most important (and precious) thing has got to be academic freedom ... the freedom of everyone to express their viewpoint and to pursue the evidence wherever it may lead (even if eventually doesn't lead anywhere) ... without fear for your career prospects.
This principle is just as important for Evolutionists ... and I would be just as insensed if people suggested discriminating against and badmouthing the many able and honest Evolutionists who are out there doing excellent work for the benefit and enrichment of society.

The ability to present alternative opinions without fear or favour is the mark of a free and progressive society ... and the use of name-calling and worse is the hallmark of a closed society ... to both progress and new ideas!!!

That would be great and all JC if you were actually being serious.
So why don't you tell us what made up science degree you have?

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

I agree ... any evidence I present should be fairly and robustly assessed ... however unwarranted ad hominem attacks on my good name does nothing for the debate ... and it actually damages your case much more than me

Agreed.

A fair minded observer would also like to see less use of the quote wall technique.:)

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
The Christian Church or indeed any revealed religion fits these requirements perfectly, and so religion has been an ideal institution for legitimating society. If only people with special grace, whether they be priests, pastors, or ordinary citizens, are in direct contact with the divine inspiration through revelations, then we must depend upon them completely for an understanding of what has been divinely decreed.:eek:

I think that Prof Lewontin does have a point there ... and if you read the rest of his quote he drew parallells with the current position in society of science as being akin to the church in times gone by!!!!

The people with the 'special grace' today are the 'high priests' of science ... and many people hang onto their every word and treat their every utterance with the same fawning respect that was once reserved for 'high' churchmen!!!

sensibleken

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

I think that Prof Lewontin does have a point there ... and if you read the rest of his quote he drew parallells with the current position in society of science as being akin to the church in times gone by!!!!

The people with the 'special grace' today are the 'high priests' of science ... and many people hang onto their every word and treat their every utterance with the same fawning respect that was once reserved for 'high' churchmen!!!

Whilst I agree to a certain extent that many, perhaps most, people abdicate the search for knowledge to scientists and that an opportunity for charlatons does exist, I would say that at least science can be, and often is, challenged by observation.

That is to say, a charlaton in the science community is weeded out very quickly whereas priests, mediums, palm-readers, etc., hide behind a curtain of 'unknowability' reliant on the fact that a negative cannot be proven.

How old is the universe?

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

Whilst I agree to a certain extent that many, perhaps most, people abdicate the search for knowledge to scientists and that an opportunity for charlatons does exist, I would say that at least science can be, and often is, challenged by observation.

That is to say, a charlaton in the science community is weeded out very quickly whereas priests, mediums, palm-readers, etc., hide behind a curtain of 'unknowability' reliant on the fact that a negative cannot be proven./QUOTE]Prof Lewontin would disagree with you ... science, like other Human institutions is subject to Human frailties (emphasis mine):-

"Despite its claims to be above society, science, like the Church before it, is a supremely social institution, reflecting and reinforcing the dominant values and views of society at each historical epoch. Sometimes the source in social experience of a scientific theory and the way in which that scientific theory is a direct translation of social experience are completely evident, even at a detailed level. The most famous case is Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.! Biology as Ideology (1992) p.8-9

Critical evaluation ... and a constant examination of the logic employed and all of the evidence is very important.

There also should be no 'sacred cows' that cannot be questioned ... and people who question should not be ostracised.

Evolution is indeed a 'sacred cow' of Materialism ... and it is treated as 'an article of faith' by evolutionists. Anybody who doesn't believe in it ... and says so will be 'excommunicated' from the company of most Evolutionists!!!

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Evolution is indeed a 'sacred cow' of Materialism ... and it is treated as 'an article of faith' by evolutionists.

This is another lie, you are a complete liar when you make a statement like
this. This is a lie JC, a lie by which you intend to bear false witness against
your "fellow scientist" neighbour:

• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)

You have knowingly & repeatedly broken the above commandment in this
thread. Shameful (though predictable) coming fom a (supposed)
fundamentalist.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

Critical evaluation ... and a constant examination of the logic employed and all of the evidence is very important.

Indeed, all of which puts creationism out of business and IDists on the back foot.

Existence is at least billions of years old and there has been plenty of time for nature to develop life by means of physics. The logic and the evidence support this.

Simply saying God did it so therefore evolutionism is bunkum does not qualify as scientific reasoning or logic.

Creationism is dead, JC, and Intelligent Design relies too much on the same evidence that creationism did so it won't be far behind.

dead one

himnextdoor wrote: »

If Creationists are right then all of physics must be scrapped.

If you take two angular-measurements, six months apart, of a distant observable galaxy, by using trigonometry you can work out its relative distance. You probably know that, right?

Sometimes galaxies are measured to be billions of light years away. That is to say, it has taken billions of years for the light emitted by those galaxies to reach us.

How can light have been travelling for billions of years in a creation that may be aged at only six- to eight- thousand years or so?

Is there any point in any further study of Creationism?

There is no scientific law which requires speed of light to be constant. Many people simply assume it is constant. It is proved by experiments that speed of lights has decreased so rapidly that experimental error can't explain it. Whenever a scientist remeasured speed of light with same equipment it is always showed a decrease.

How can light have been travelling for billions of years in a creation that may be aged at only six- to eight- thousand years or so?

Can please clarify on what bases you said, Creation may be aged at only six to eight thousand years. (post edited)

It is true laws of physics state "matter can't be created from nothing" but these laws have some limits So scientists don't have source to proof or a disproof of the existence of God.

legspin

dead one wrote: »

There is no scientific law which requires speed of light to be constant. Many people simply assume it is constant. It is proved by experiments that speed of lights has decreased so rapidly that experimental error can't explain it. Whenever a scientist remeasured speed of light with same equipment it is always showed a decrease.

Can please clarify on what bases you said, Creation may be aged at only six to eight thousand years. (post edited)

It is true laws of physics state "matter can't be created from nothing" but these laws have some limits So scientists don't have source to proof or a disproof of the existence of God.

dead one

legspin wrote: »

Remember your limits. You're just one person. You're not infallible. It actually IS possible that you're wrong.

legspin

dead one wrote: »

Remember your limits. You're just one person. You're not infallible. It actually IS possible that you're wrong.

That you have no understanding of physics is your problem, not mine.

sensibleken

dead one wrote: »

Remember your limits. You're just one person. You're not infallible. It actually IS possible that you're wrong.

yeah theres only one guy thats infalible. you know, that guy who keeps apologising to people....ah crap whats his name

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Evolution is indeed a 'sacred cow' of Materialism ... and it is treated as 'an article of faith' by evolutionists.

sponsoredwalk
This is another lie, you are a complete liar when you make a statement like
this. This is a lie JC, a lie by which you intend to bear false witness against
your "fellow scientist" neighbour:

• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)

You have knowingly & repeatedly broken the above commandment in this
thread. Shameful (though predictable) coming fom a (supposed)
fundamentalist.

Firtly, I am not a 'fundamentalist'!!!!

... and secondly I'm not a liar

... and thirdly, the truth may hurt a little ... but it will set you free, once you accept it!!:)

... you guys react to Creationists the same way as many religious believers have reacted to 'heretics' down through the ages!!!

... just think of me as somebody with an alternative (and very well founded) belief ... and keep studying the Creationist literature and sites ... and one day you may join the real world ... and become a Creation Scientist, yourself!!!!:D

J C

legspin wrote: »

... two evolutionists just after they realise just how silly the theory that pondkind spontaneously 'evolved' into Mankind really is!!!

... it's OK guys ... there is life after Evolutionism ... and you will be surprised just how many people have changed from Evolutionism to Creationism ... but are too afraid to say so!!!!

AhSureTisGrand

J C wrote: »

... and secondly I'm not a liar

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

Firtly, I am not a 'fundamentalist'!!!!

... and secondly I'm not a liar

... and thirdly, the truth may hurt a little ... but it will set you free, once you accept it!!:)

... you guys react to Creationists the same way as many religious believers have reacted to 'heretics' down through the ages!!!

... just think of me as somebody with an alternative (and very well founded) belief ... and keep studying the Creationist literature and sites ... and one day you may join the real world ... and become a Creation Scientist, yourself!!!!:D

Modern physics demonstrates reasonably and logically that the universe is billions of years old and therefore you deny the reliability of modern physics.

Tell me, since you can't refer to physics, what branch of science do you call upon to support your position? And remember, chemistry obeys the purported laws of physics and so does biology.

AhSureTisGrand

himnextdoor wrote: »

Modern physics demonstrates reasonably and logically that the universe is billions of years old and therefore you deny the reliability of modern physics.

Tell me, since you can't refer to physics, what branch of science do you call upon to support your position? And remember, chemistry obeys the purported laws of physics and so does biology.

Creation science! :pac:

himnextdoor

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Creation science! :pac:

Ah, I see; Physics/2,000,000 = Creation Science.

dead one

J C wrote: »

... two evolutionists just after they realise just how silly the theory that pondkind spontaneously 'evolved' into Mankind really is!!!

... it's OK guys ... there is life after Evolutionism ... and you will be surprised just how many people have changed from Evolutionism to Creationism ... but are too afraid to say so!!!!

Atheists-evolutionists removed God and creation. Their first move was to gain control over the same area of text books that creation had control over. Which were the science text books (yes, creation was considered science until evolution rewrote it's definition). And you know who else said he could gain control by controlling such material?

GO_Bear

dead one wrote: »

Hypocrite

equivariant

dead one wrote: »

"Pass the salt" - Adolf Hitler, sometime in the 1930's

Remember that the next time you are out for dinner.