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

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

A year is inded a year ... but Humans (and other life) before the Flood carried a much lower 'genetic load' than we do now ... and therefore lived longer than we do now.

That's not how genetic load works, that's not how evolution works, and it's most certainly not how floods work.

You've just shoehorned a scientific term in there in an attempt to make your argument appear more valid.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, I asked if those events not happening was a plausible explanation. That's not the same as asking if the events themselves are implausible.

... you're just using semantics now.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The loss of genetic information? Where does it go?

It becomes corrupted by mutagenesis.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You've literally just admitted mutations can benefit an organism. If that can apply in one case, do you not see how it could apply in others?

... such limited (and rare) benefit (like insects on wind-blown islands losing the information for wings thereby reducing the risk of being blown out to sea and dying) is outwighed by the corruption/loss of genetic information for wings ... and it is definitely going in the wrong direction as a mechanism for the increase in that quality and quantity information required to transition from pondkind to mankind.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, it isn't.

It is actually.

Pherekydes

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Must have been the paleo diet.

The lack of fast food. :P

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

A year is inded a year ... but Humans (and other life) before the Flood carried a much lower 'genetic load' than we do now ... and therefore lived longer than we do now.

And you can of course back this ludicrous claim up with hard evidence?

Hotblack Desiato

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So people 2000 years ago lived longer? :pac:

Isn't it odd that all the archaeological evidence indicates quite the reverse.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... you're just using semantics now.

No, I'm asking an entirely different question than what you're choosing to think I am. Thinking the non-occurrence of an event is plausible doesn't mean you think it's occurrence is implausible. I'm asking the former, you're answering the latter.

It becomes corrupted by mutagenesis.

How?

... such limited (and rare) benefit (like insects on wind-blown islands losing the information for wings thereby reducing the risk of being blown out to sea and dying) is outwighed by the corruption/loss of genetic information for wings ... and it is definitely going in the wrong direction as a mechanism for the increase in that quality and quantity information required to transition from pondkind to mankind.

Going in the wrong direction? Have you even tried opening a basic textbook on how evolution works? You don't necessarily have to believe what it's telling you, but at this stage you don't even have enough of an understanding of the topic to coherently argue against it.

It is actually.

Any chance of a link to some papers on that?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

More self-serving straw men ... than you could shake a stick at.
For example, he talks about rain being an impossible method of flooding the earth ... but the prime flooding mechanism was sub-terranean waters being tectonically released ... and not rain.

Also discusses this and why it's impossible. Watch again.

Do you agree with the conclusions of the paper when it states that rain is an impossible method at least?

robindch

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's not how genetic load works, that's not how evolution works, and it's most certainly not how floods work.

Of all the splendidly half-baked thoughts which comprise modern creationism, my favourite one has to be Doctor Doctor Ken Ham's assertion that the bible does actually contain references to dinosaurs - if one translates "dragon" as "dinosaur":

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dragon-legends/dragons-fact-or-fable/

You'd have thought that nobody could make this stuff up, but people clearly have.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So people 2000 years ago lived longer? :pac:

Isn't it odd that all the archaeological evidence indicates quite the reverse.

It wouldn't be the first time a creationist has closed his eyes, stuck his fingers in his ears and declared that black was white - see above.

Michael OBrien

J C wrote: »

I'm merely using the smooth earth idea to illustrate the scale of the total water volume on Earth ...
It is also thought that the ante-diluvian Earth had a much smoother surface than it does today ... whose mountains and valleys are the result of the massive tectonic upheavals during the Flood.

That is more "alternative facts". We know how mountains and valleys form, it takes many thousands if not millions of years for such developments across the planet. Sudden movement of such massive areas of land and sea would have destroyed a wooden boat, especially one that is so impractical that no one even today can build as it is a failed design.
There is ZERO possibility that the noah story is true.

robindch

USA: Belief in creationism continues to decline

Only 38% of the adult population believe in young-earth creationism, while 57% accept evolution over a long period of time, guided or unguided, gave rise to us humans.

The 57% includes includes 19% who accept the scientifically-accurate view that evolution proceeded without divine intervention, and it's more than doubled since since figures were first collected by Gallup in 1982.

More here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

38%.

Jesus.

(Ironic)

J C

robindch wrote: »

USA: Belief in creationism continues to decline

Only 38% of the adult population believe in young-earth creationism, while 57% accept evolution over a long period of time, guided or unguided, gave rise to us humans.

The 57% includes includes 19% who accept the scientifically-accurate view that evolution proceeded without divine intervention, and it's more than doubled since since figures were first collected by Gallup in 1982.

More here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

The 19% figure for those who believe the so-called 'scientifically accurate' view (that muck spontaneously generated life and it developed into Man via selected mistakes) ... is an interestingly low figure IMO.
You gotta hand it to 80% of Americans for not getting taken in by that particular fable !!!:D

J C

Deleted User wrote: »

38%.

Jesus.

(Ironic)

You called??

J C

... and its not just in the good ole US of A ... where the skeptics are skeptical of spontaneous evolution ... and recognise the evidence for Creation.
Quote:-
"South Korea
Since 1981, the Korea Association for Creation Research has grown to 16 branches, with 1000 members and 500 Ph.Ds. On August 22-24, 1991, recognizing the 10th anniversary of KACR, an International Symposium on Creation Science was held with 4,000 in attendance. In 1990, the book The Natural Sciences was written by Dr. Young-Gil Kim and 26 other fellow scientists in Korea with a creationist viewpoint. The textbook drew the interest of college communities, and today, many South Korean universities are using it.

Since 1991, creation science has become a regular university course at Myongji University, which has a centre for creation research. Since that time, other universities have begun to offer creation science courses. At Handong Global University, creationist Dr. Young-Gil Kim was inaugurated as president in March 1995. At Myongji University, creationist Dr. Woongsang Lee is a biology professor. The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology is where the Research Association of Creation Science was founded and many graduate students are actively involved. In 2008, a survey found that 36% of South Koreans disagreed with the statement that "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." In May 2012, publishers of high school science textbooks decided to remove references to evolution following a petition by a creationist group. However, the ensuing controversy prompted the government to appoint a panel of scientists to look into the matter, and the government urged the publishers to keep the references to evolution following the recommendation of the panel."

The truth will set you free.:)

looksee

You don't have to go to South Korea - degrees in such subjects as surfing, the science of Harry Potter, queer music (thats what they call it), Star Treck are all available and just as pointless.

J C

looksee wrote: »

You don't have to go to South Korea - degrees in such subjects as surfing, the science of Harry Potter, queer music (thats what they call it), Star Treck are all available and just as pointless.

... and degrees in evolutionary codology, no doubt ... as well !!:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e80Tj1WIHbs

J C

robindch

J C wrote: »

... and degrees in evolutionary codology, no doubt ... as well !!:D

The Institute for Creation Research already offers courses in codology which they advertize as being at the bachelor and master level.

A qualification - as desirable as a social disease - could be yours for as little as $25,600 (plus extras!):

http://www.icr.edu/compare

robindch

J C wrote: »

Guy looks like he's trying out phone-sex for the first time.

J C

robindch wrote: »

The Institute for Creation Research already offers courses in codology which they advertize as being at the bachelor and master level.

A qualification - as desirable as a social disease - could be yours for as little as $25,600 (plus extras!):

http://www.icr.edu/compare

Robin ... Robin ... tut ... tut

Sour Grapes ... eh ?:)

... and with state funding (to enourage diversity and all that) the cost could be brought down significantly.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Guy looks like he's trying out phone-sex for the first time.

... one word for that post of yours, Robin ... projection !!!:)

druss

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/do/search/?q=author_lname%3A"Lee"%20author_fname%3A"Woong"&start=0&context=234296&facet=download_type%3APDF#

Can't find Dr Lee's scientific doctorate details (not saying that he isn't suitably qualified). I can find his thesis for a Doctor of Ministry submitted to the excellent Liberty University. I'm sure they rigourously analysed the findings.

Timberrrrrrrr

robindch wrote: »

Guy looks like he's trying out phone-sex for the first time.

I thought it was a priest at 1st glance.

J C

druss wrote: »

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/do/search/?q=author_lname%3A"Lee"%20author_fname%3A"Woong"&start=0&context=234296&facet=download_type%3APDF#

Can't find Dr Lee's scientific doctorate details (not saying that he isn't suitably qualified). I can find his thesis for a Doctor of Ministry submitted to the excellent Liberty University. I'm sure they rigourously analysed the findings.

You're forgetting about the 500 PhDs who are helping him !!!:)

robindch

J C wrote: »

Sour Grapes ... eh ?:)

Nope - just codology as you say.

J C

Who ressurrected this thread??

You guys really do love ... Creationism ... its your secret guilty pleasure !!!:)

Samaris

J C wrote: »

A year is inded a year ... but Humans (and other life) before the Flood carried a much lower 'genetic load' than we do now ... and therefore lived longer than we do now.

That is absolute nonsense.

I don't even have a starting point for how much this is nonsense. It would be like having to make a serious argument against "the moon is made of cheese".

robindch

Samaris wrote: »

I don't even have a starting point for how much this is nonsense.

Pauli's excellent aphorism springs to mind.