The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

bumper234

J C wrote: »

Nihilism isn't the truth ... Human Beings were clearly created with an magnificent eternal destiny ... as well as being given stewardship and dominion over the rest of Creation.!

????
What is this eternal destiny you speak of?

J C wrote: »

I certainly don't think it is morally correct to lie to anybody ... but comparing an objectively established historical event like Noah's Flood to 'fairytales' is self-delusion of a significant order.

Where has it been established that Noah's ark is factually correct? Unless you can show solid evidence of this event taking place then it boils down to nothing more than a tale in a book. Maybe we should start teaching children all about Harry Potter and how he saved us from Lord Voldemort......it has as much credibility as the bible imo.

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

Evolution is not an anti-god belief. Evolution is not a belief at all. Plenty of people who believe in god accept evolution as scientific fact, and they believe he had a hand in it. So, you lose on that one.

Your idea is belied by the fact that 'religion' in all its fascets is equally banned from public schools ... and a Theistic Evolutionist, who expresses his belief that God had even the most miniscule part in Evolution will find the very same law that kicks out the Creationist being used to kick him/her out from the school as well.
However, if s/he becomes a 'practical Atheist' or an irreligionist they will find their position protected by the full force of law.

[-0-] wrote: »

I'm not intolerant of you JC. I would gladly die defending your right to publicly humiliate yourself.

Thanks ... you're all heart!!!:):P

J C

koth wrote: »

the above is your religious beliefs, nothing to do with teaching children science.

... and I could say the exact same thing about your irreligious belief that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind'.

koth wrote: »

Considering the massive list of issues presented to you that you have failed to address regarding the flood story, it's a bit rich for you to accuse anyone of self-delusion.

I answered all the questions that my limited time allowed me to.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and I could say the exact same thing about your irreligious belief that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind'.

you'd be wrong to make such a statement. A science class should teach science. It's that simple.

I answered all the questions that my limited time allowed me to.

That doesn't make the answers any more convincing. You could take a leaf out of the posters who were kind enough to answer my recent questions. All answered the questions in clear language with links/articles to support their post.

bumper234

J C wrote: »

... and I could say the exact same thing about your irreligious belief that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind'.


I answered all the questions that my limited time allowed me to.

You should ask "God" to stop time or add more on for you, oh you should ask him to turn back time and let you see how things were back in the days of Noah and Jeebus. If superman can do it then it should be a piece of piss for your "God"

shruikan2553

Maybe JC is right. We should campaign to allow teachers to tell children that women should walk 20 paces behind men, that homosexuality is a sin and that unless they think God is great they will suffer for ever. To ban it would be showing intolerance towards religion. Maybe detention for eating a ham sandwich too.

J C

koth wrote: »

you'd be wrong to make such a statement. A science class should teach science. It's that simple.

... so are you saying that children shouldn't be taught that they are evolved from pond creatures via purely materialistic procesess?

koth wrote: »

That doesn't make the answers any more convincing. You could take a leaf out of the posters who were kind enough to answer my recent questions. All answered the questions in clear language with links/articles to support their post.

I've also done that ... but my answers didn't fit within your worldview ... and so you discounted and rejected them.

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

You should ask "God" to stop time or add more on for you, oh you should ask him to turn back time and let you see how things were back in the days of Noah and Jeebus. If superman can do it then it should be a piece of piss for your "God"

God has created time ... and He doesn't interfere with timelines.

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

First of all. If it's typical Ray Comfort stuff the formula is the same. Present stuff as fact that really isn't fact. Then interview people who don't have a clue of stuff and broadcast those interviews.

I hadn't heard of him before and have no desire to see him again, but in this movie he is not interviewing people who don't have a clue, he is interviewing 3rd level science students and various academics, including P.Z. Myers, who certainly have or should have more than a clue about evolution. I don't know to what degree the film was edited, maybe he selected the worst responses from the interviews, but it is absolutely your typical creationism vs evolution argument, no more no less, of the sort we are familiar with here on boards.

The evolution argument is ripe with flaws on both extremes and the movie actually highlights this in its own unsophisticated way, which should be of value to anyone interested in genuine inquiry and skepticism. Time and time again 3rd level students used the expression "yes, I have faith in science" or "I believe in evolution because really smart people say its true". They need to have this stuff slapped out of them, science is not faith based nor belief based, it is based on testable observations and predictions leading to scientific theories, which by definition have to be falsifiable. The theory of evolution is the current best explanation for the mechanisms involved in evolution, it has evolved massively since the time of Darwin and will continue to evolve.

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Maybe JC is right. We should campaign to allow teachers to tell children that women should walk 20 paces behind men, that homosexuality is a sin and that unless they think God is great they will suffer for ever. To ban it would be showing intolerance towards religion. Maybe detention for eating a ham sandwich too.

You're now moving from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Christian parents want their faith to be respected in schools that their children attend ... and not disrespected and denigrated.

Like I have said, if religion is to be banned from school ... then so too should irreligion.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... so are you saying that children shouldn't be taught that they are evolved from pond creatures via purely materialistic procesess?

Evolution as science currently understands it should be taught in the science class.

I've also done that ... but my answers didn't fit within your worldview ... and so you discounted and rejected them.

Incorrect. You presented counter-arguments that fly in the face of current knowledge regarding biology, geology and physics.

Doctor Jimbob

J C, You believe that creationism should be taught as an alternative to evolutionary biology in science classes, correct? Do you also believe that the physical fact that noahs ark could not have stood up to the deluge spoken of in the genesis flood story should be taught in a religion class? If not, why?

bumper234

J C wrote: »

You're now moving from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Christian parents want their faith to be respected in schools that their children attend ... and not disrespected and denigrated.

But what about the Muslim children? Shouldn't they be taught that their god is #1 also? What about all of the other religions in the school? Should they also be taught fairy tales? What if a pastafarian had a child in the school should the teachers spend an hour a day or week teaching all of the children about the great spaghetti monster?

J C

koth wrote: »

Evolution as science currently understands it should be taught in the science class.

... but not as Creation Science or Intelligent Design Science (or even Theistic Evolutionists) understands it ... how very convenient, if you are an irreligionist.
... and how very concerning ... if you're a Theist.

koth wrote: »

Incorrect. You presented counter-arguments that fly in the face of current knowledge regarding biology, geology and physics.

... they only fly in the face of anti-God interpretations of biology, geology and physics.

bumper234

J C wrote: »

... but not as Creation Science or Intelligent Design Science (or even Theistic Evolutionists) understands it ... how very convenient, if you are an irreligionist.
... and how very concerning ... if you're a Theist.

... they only fly in the face of anti-God interpretations of biology, geology and physics.

I LITERALLY just interpreted that as

" I'm rubber and you're glue"

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

You're now moving from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Christian parents want their faith to be respected in schools that their children attend ... and not disrespected and denigrated.

Like I have said, if religion is to be banned from school ... then so too should irreligion.

So only Christianity should be tolerated. 2/3 of the things I mentioned are part of Christianity. You seem to be intolerant of just other religions. If the irreligious people are intolerant at least they aren't hypocritical with it as well.

Thats like saying that if peanuts are banned then so should food that isn't peanuts.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... but not as Creation Science or Intelligent Design Science (or even Theistic Evolutionists) understands it ... how very convenient, if you are an irreligionist.
... and how very concerning ... if you're a Theist.

Thats a problem for anti-science theists to work out.

... they only fly in the face of anti-God interpretations of biology, geology and physics.

LOL

The breaking pressure of timber is anti)God?
The average speed of continental drift is anti-God?

This is the sort of (apologies for the bluntness) whinging that makes discussions with you counter-productive at times.

Back up your claims with facts and evidence. everyone else seems to happy with that level of discourse.

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

But what about the Muslim children? Shouldn't they be taught that their god is #1 also? What about all of the other religions in the school? Should they also be taught fairy tales? What if a pastafarian had a child in the school should the teachers spend an hour a day or week teaching all of the children about the great spaghetti monster?

Possibly ... but certainly irreligionists 'nipping in' to present their anti-God worldview as fact ... when all religions are banned, isn't fair and equitable.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

One thread for good stuff, one thread for idiocy and, uh, that should be enough!

Just to reiterate from earlier on:

This thread here is for creationists, flat-earthers, holocaust denialism, moon-hoaxers, homeopaths etc, etc, etc, etc.

That thread over there is for evolution, science, biology, physics, engineering and so on.

J C

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So only Christianity should be tolerated. 2/3 of the things I mentioned are part of Christianity. You seem to be intolerant of just other religions. If the irreligious people are intolerant at least they aren't hypocritical with it as well.

Thats like saying that if peanuts are banned then so should food that isn't peanuts.

... so as an irreligionist you want irreligion to be supported by the state ... but religion should not ... and you don't think that this might be biased??

bumper234

J C wrote: »

Possibly ... but certainly irreligionists 'nipping in' to present their anti-God worldview as fact ... when all religions are banned, isn't fair and equitable.

What makes your "God" the right one? Why is Allah not the true god or Ganesh or Thor? Genuine question.....what if you have been praying to the wrong "God"?

Doctor Jimbob

robindch wrote: »

Just to reiterate from earlier on:

This thread here is for creationists, flat-earthers, holocaust denialism, moon-hoaxers, homeopaths etc, etc, etc, etc.

That thread over there is for evolution, science, biology, physics, engineering and so on.

Where's the thread for J Cs rants about splitting the two being unfair to his beliefs?

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... so as an irreligionist you want irreligion to be supported by the state ... but religion should not ... and you don't think that this might be biased??

No, asking religion and science to be kept seperate isnt being biased. I'll ask you again , do you want the physical fact that noahs ark could not have withstood the genesis deluge to be taught in religion classes. If not, why?

robindch

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Where's the thread for J Cs rants about splitting the two being unfair to his beliefs?

Anybody who feels this split is unfair can take it up in the feedback forum here.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Their rather disappointing response:

"Third level is also about hearing & respecting opinions different from our own."

What is so disappointing about such liberalism and indeed pluralism?

... or are liberalism and pluralism only valid concepts when irreligionists are using them for their own purposes?

shruikan2553

J C wrote: »

... so as an irreligionist you want irreligion to be supported by the state ... but religion should not ... and you don't think that this might be biased??

What is an irreligionist and irreligion to you?
I want the state to support education without supporting the pissing contest of whos religion is right and others having to live by the rules of someone else's religion. We can either support all religions equally or support none. By supporting none people are free to practice their religion as they please outside of the school so the students can focus on learning.

If you want religion to be supported then you have to accept that religions like Scientology, Islam and Jehovah's Witness will also be supported.

Doctor Jimbob

robindch wrote: »

Anybody who feels this split is unfair can take it up in the feedback forum here.

Fair. I hope my comment wasnt taken as a complaint about the split, I understand the reasoning and I'm glad the other thread is being used as ot is, there's some fascinating reading on there.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Anybody who feels this split is unfair can take it up in the feedback forum here.

I have no problem with the threads being managed by the mods as they see fit.
I think the idea of confining/moving the 'origins' discussion to one thread is a good idea.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

What is so disappointing about such liberalism and indeed pluralism?

... or are these only valid concepts when irreligionists are using them for their own purposes?

So science should also be taught in religious classes?

Brian Shanahan

Sarky wrote: »

Their rather disappointing response:

"Third level is also about hearing & respecting opinions different from our own."

I'm guessing the following from their facebook page:

Recent agreements signed with the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have impacted on the numbers coming from the Middle East.

has a lot to do with the college's position on the allowance of such gibberish within the campus, especially given KSA's position on the teaching of evolution. He who pay's the piper call's the tunes after all.