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

gaynorvader

J C wrote: »

Its the opposite actually ... background mutagenesis affects the egg cells as they age ... leading to greater genetic issues with children of older mothers ... while the genetic correction mechanisms present in all reproducing cells ensure that newly produced sperm are genetically almost as good in a 60 year old man as in a 20 year old ... and that is why the age of the father isn't linked to genetic issues in children!!!

A forty five year old egg cell has much greater potential to be mutated than a 60 day old sperm cell.

Actually that's not true. When a man and a woman love each other very much when feasting on roast stork and cabbage, a child is left outside their back door by Jabberwocky. And that's where babies come from.

And I have as much evidence as you gave!

J C

Sarky wrote: »

J C completely misses the point of evolution by saying "millions of years later they're still bacteria". You're damn right they're still bacteria, they've evolved to become really good at being bacteria. And millions of years after the last human dies off and the planet becomes a radioactive wasteland, they'll still be there, winning at evolution.

... its a big problem for the theory of Evolution, which claims that in the 26 million or so supposed generations of mammalian evolution that a rat-like creature evolved into a Human ... yet over the same number of generations, in a thousand years ... bacteria are still 'muching about' in the dirt ... as bacteria.
... thereby providing evidence of stasis/oscillation within Kinds rather than evolution out of them.

J C

nagirrac wrote: »

The founding fathers of the USA were mainly deists and were driven by the desire to keep religious intolerance out of state affairs.

What you say is quite true and keping religious intolerance out of state affairs is indeed a laudible objective IMO ... but the founding fathers, by accident or design, left the door open to irreligious intolerance raising its head in state affairs ... and that's what has now happened.

... and anybody who says that irreligion cannot be intolerant of religion or dedicated to proselytising its own beliefs, need only visit this thread ... to be rapidly disabused of this notion.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... and anybody who says that irreligion cannot be intolerant of religion or dedicated to proselytising its own beliefs, need only visit this thread ... to be rapidly disabused of this notion.

You seem to be arguing for compulsory religion. But which religion do you want to force on everybody?

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

Actually that's not true. When a man and a woman love each other very much when feasting on roast stork and cabbage, a child is left outside their back door by Jabberwocky. And that's where babies come from.

And I have as much evidence as you gave!

It's an accepted biological fact that late motherhood is higher risk for both the mother and the child ... while late fatherhood carries none of these risks.
... although, speaking personally, I'd have no great desire to be still changing dirty nappies at 50 TBH!!!:)

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

You seem to be arguing for compulsory religion. But which religion do you want to force on everybody?

I'm arguing for the state to not favour either religion or irreligion.
... but if the ideas and dogmas of irreligion (like materialistic Evolution) are to be favoured to the point of being mandated by law ... then the ideas and dogmas of religion should be equally favoured.

[-0-]

J C wrote: »

I'm arguing for the state to not favour either religion or irreligion.
... but if the ideas and dogmas of irreligion (like materialistic Evolution) are to be favoured to the point of being mandated by law ... then the ideas and dogmas of religion should be equally favoured.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It has nothing to do with irreligion. Plenty of people who are religious accept evolution as fact because it has been observed. Plenty of people were atheist well before the theory of evolution was even proposed by Darwin.

Evolution is a scientific fact. It has nothing to do with religion. That's like saying the US government, by accepting the theory of gravity, are giving favoritism to all gravity-accepting religions and not to the ones who deny its existence.

Quacked, JC.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Its the opposite actually ... background mutagenesis affects the egg cells as they age ... leading to greater genetic issues with children of older mothers ... while the genetic correction mechanisms present in all reproducing cells ensure that newly produced sperm are genetically almost as good in a 60 year old man as in a 20 year old ... and that is why the age of the father isn't linked to genetic issues in children!!!

A forty five year old egg cell has much greater potential to be mutated than a 60 day old sperm cell.

gaynorvader
Actually that's not true. When a man and a woman love each other very much when feasting on roast stork and cabbage, a child is left outside their back door by Jabberwocky. And that's where babies come from.

... do all Evolutionists believe this stuff ... or is it just you?:)

Pherekydes

[-0-] wrote: »

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It has nothing to do with irreligion. Plenty of people who are religious accept evolution as fact because it has been observed. Plenty of people were atheist well before the theory of evolution was even proposed by Darwin.

Evolution is a scientific fact. It has nothing to do with religion. That's like saying the US government, by accepting the theory of gravity, are giving favoritism to all gravity-accepting religions and not to the ones who deny its existence.

J C wrote: »

... do all Evolutionists believe this stuff ... or is it just you?:)

There ya go, JC.

[-0-]

[-0-] wrote: »

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It has nothing to do with irreligion. Plenty of people who are religious accept evolution as fact because it has been observed. Plenty of people were atheist well before the theory of evolution was even proposed by Darwin.

Evolution is a scientific fact. It has nothing to do with religion. That's like saying the US government, by accepting the theory of gravity, are giving favoritism to all gravity-accepting religions and not to the ones who deny its existence.

Quacked, JC.

Similarly, the US Government regulates the meat industry. Should the Jainists, Hindus and Buddhists be up in arms over this?

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It has nothing to do with irreligion. Plenty of people who are religious accept evolution as fact because it has been observed. Plenty of people were atheist well before the theory of evolution was even proposed by Darwin.

Evolution is a scientific fact. It has nothing to do with religion. That's like saying the US government, by accepting the theory of gravity, are giving favoritism to all gravity-accepting religions and not to the ones who deny its existence.

Quacked, JC.

It all sounds so reasonable ... and inclusive ... until you look into it and find that Molecules to Man Evolution has no logical or evidential basis and is implaccibly opposed to Divine Creation ... and many of the people who believe in it are grossly intolerant of religion and dedicated to proselytising their own irreligious and anti-theist beliefs - and using their Evolutionary Dogma in the process .

... that's fair enough ... but the state has no obligation to support an intolerant irreligious person in their religious intolerance ... no more than it has to support an intolerant religious person in their religious (or indeed irreligious) intolerance.

Respect for diverity of belief is where it's at ... and I'd respectfully suggest, that you all should 'get with the programme'!!!

Delirium

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Hallelujah, at last we have some sensible questions to discuss.

I would agree with Robin in that mutation is constantly happening but is also something which is affected by enviromental factors.

Our current estimate of mutation rate suggests that each child is born with about 128 mutations compared to the genomes of their parents.

Mutation rates in humans. II. Sporadic mutation-specific rates and rate of detrimental human mutations inferred from hemophilia B.

We also know that only, at most, about 4 of these 128 mutations are actually deleterious or harmful mutations.

The X Chromosome and the Rate of Deleterious Mutations in Humans

with regards to the 4/128 being deleterious or harmful, can the harmful mutations accumulate with each generation? I.e. generationA = 4 harmful, generationB =6, generationC =9? Or are there corrective traits that remove some of the traits before passing on mutations to the next generation?

[-0-]

J C wrote: »

It all sounds so reasonable ... and inclusive ... until you look into it and find that Molecules to Man Evolution is implaccibly opposed to Divine Creation ... and many of the people who believe in it are grossly intolerant of religion and dedicated to proselytising their own irreligious and anti-theist beliefs.

How many people? Have you done a survey, and if so can I see the statistics?

This is all fluff. I could basically say the same thing: many of the religious are grossly intolerant of lack-of religion and dedicated to their own religious and anti-atheist beliefs.

Do you see what I did there? It's whataboutery and a classic strawman logical fallacy, also known as an Aunt Sally.

... that's fair enough ... but the state has no obligation to support an intolerant irreligious person in their religious intolerance ... no more than it has to support an intolerant religious person in their religious intolerance.

The state has no obligation to support any religion, because religious favoritism is not acceptable. This is why Jefferson built up a mighty wall which separates church and state, and what a mighty fine wall it is, similar to Hadrian's wall, but mightier because it is not prone to erosion.

bumper234

J C

koth wrote: »

with regards to the 4/128 being deleterious or harmful, can the harmful mutations accumulate with each generation? I.e. generationA = 4 harmful, generationB =6, generationC =9? Or are there corrective traits that remove some of the traits before passing on mutations to the next generation?

There are auto-correction mechanisms that seek out transcription errors and fix them ... but these mechanisms are evidence of overview and directed systems that are evidence of intelligent design.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

There are auto-correction mechanisms that seek out transcription errors and fix them ... but these mechanisms are evidence of overview and directed systems that are evidence of intelligent design.

Apologies if I wasn't clear, JC, but I was asking a question regarding evolution rather than creationism.

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

Obliq

J C wrote: »

.........Molecules to Man Evolution has no logical or evidential basis

:eek:

(edit: rhetorical question, totally unnecessary) That's a similarly daft statement to some of my 12 yr old's pronouncements, and he doesn't pay attention/thinks he knows it all already .

[-0-]

Obliq wrote: »

:eek:

EXCUSE ME?? Haven't you been paying attention JC? That's a similarly daft statement to some of my 12 yr old's pronouncements, and he doesn't pay attention/thinks he knows it all already too.

It has been explained to him, ad nauseam. He just ignores EVERYTHING that is said to him and continues to harp away in his blissful ignorance.

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

How many people? Have you done a survey, and if so can I see the statistics?

This is all fluff. I could basically say the same thing: many of the religious are grossly intolerant of lack-of religion and dedicated to their own religious and anti-atheist beliefs.
Do you see what I did there? It's whataboutery and a classic strawman logical fallacy, also known as an Aunt Sally.

By definition an anti-theist (as distinct from a liberal atheist, for example) is intolerant of religion.
They are entitled to their opinion ... but they are not entitled to translate their intolerance into discrimination ... and the censorship of ideas that are opposed to their own.
... and they are certainly not entitled to recruit the state into backing their intolerance with the force of law.

[-0-] wrote: »

The state has no obligation to support any religion, because religious favoritism is not acceptable. This is why Jefferson built up a mighty wall which separates church and state, and what a mighty fine wall it is, similar to Hadrian's wall, but mightier because it is not prone to erosion.

... and the state also has no obligation to support irreligion or anti-religion either ... and the weakness in Jeffersons concept of 'separation of church and state' ... is that it doesn't also include the separation of irreligion and state ... and the anti-theists have exploited this 'loophole' to the point where the irreligious theory that God had no input into life (Materialistic Evolution and Abiogenesis) is now mandated to be compulsorily taught by law ... and the opposing theory (that God Created life) is now banned by law from being taught.

J C

koth wrote: »

Apologies if I wasn't clear, JC, but I was asking a question regarding evolution rather than creationism.

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

No problem ... and no need to apologise ... I was just giving the scientifically validated answer to your question.

[-0-]

J C wrote: »

by definition an anti-thesit (as distinct from a liberal atehist, for example) is intolerant of religion.
They are entitled to their opinion ... but they are not entitled to translate their intolerance into discrimination ... and the censorship of ideas that are opposed to their own.


... and the state also has no obligation to support irreligion or anti-religion ... and the weakness in Jeffersons concept of 'separation of church and state' ... is that it doesn't also include the separation of irreligion and state ... and the anti-theists have exploited this 'loophole' to the point where the irreligious theory that God had no input into life (Materialistic Evolution and Abiogenesis) is mandated to be taught by law ... and the opposing theory (that God Created life) is banned by law from being taught.

Creationism is banned from schools because it's wrong. It has nothing to do with the religion of it, it has to do with the fact that evolution is a scientific fact, as is the age of the universe, and to teach children that the world is 10,000 years old, or whatever you think it is, is detrimental to their mental health.

Discourse with you, is like holding christ's skull in my hand and looking into it, looking all the way back and finding someone from the middle east around 400 BC. You are so far behind the present moment, I'm surprised you have the mental ability to write. You clearly don't have the ability to read and you have shown that time and again.

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

All I will say to that piece of self serving irreligious dogma is that one man's 'ignorance' is another man's 'enlightenment'!!!:)

bumper234

J C wrote: »

All I will say to that piece of self serving irreligious dogma is that one man's 'ignorance' is another man's 'enlightenment'!!!:)

So you believe teachers should be allowed to teach young impressionable children that their was an ark and it had dinosaur's on it?

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

Have people actually watched the movie? It consists of a creationist interviewing college professors and 3rd level students, all of whom identified as atheists. It is actually quite entertaining, the funniest moment for me was when a UCLA professor was asked to name a famous atheist and after careful consideration she said Newton. Newton! Better than the students interviewed though who were stumped. The most disturbing thing about the movie was the appalling inability of the 3rd level students interviewed, some of whom were biology majors, and all of whom were science majors, to answer a few basic questions about evolution.

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. It like me asking Nagirrac about Object Orientated Programming implemented through Python. It makes no difference to your life how much or little you know about it. Evolution is the same. Comfort then asks lay people about esoteric physics and biology. That's like expecting you to know how machine code operates on this post. You don't need to know it. Comfort then uses that supposed ignorance to shoe horn in his "own" facts. Depending on the documentary these facts vary but the formula is the same. The sources quoted are qoute mined and dragged out of context. The bible is then quoted in a manner as to appear relevant and finally some bit of intuitive pseudoscience is thrown in.

I might be wrong, his films do change every now again. But there are very common tropes in all of them. As to why it mightn't be shown. It's emotional propaganda not opinion; that's why. (The optimist in me is hoping he's finally dropped the Nazi references.) But I agree it should be shown.

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

Creationism is banned from schools because it's wrong. It has nothing to do with the religion of it, it has to do with the fact that evolution is a scientific fact, as is the age of the universe, and to teach children that the world is 10,000 years old, or whatever you think it is, is detrimental to their mental health.

Of course Creation Science is banned from school precisely because of its religious implications ... and a better example of irreligion and anti-God belief being favoured by the state to the detriment of religion, you couldn't find.

[-0-] wrote: »

Discourse with you, is like holding christ's skull in my hand and looking into it, looking all the way back and finding someone from the middle east around 400 BC. You are so far behind the present moment, I'm surprised you have the mental ability to write. You clearly don't have the ability to read and you have shown that time and again.

... your irrational intolerance of me and my faith oozes from every word you write. You are quite entitled to your opinion ... but you are not entiled to recruit the state into supporting your intolerance and bitterness.

[-0-]

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.

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

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

So you believe teachers should be allowed to teach young impressionable children that their was an ark and it had dinosaur's on it?

It's certainly no worse that teaching them that they have come from nothing and are nothing but a 'bag of senseless atoms' with a bit of intelligence added as a selected mistake, going nowhere fast.

bumper234

J C wrote: »

It's certainly no worse that teaching them that they have come from nothing are nothing but a bag of atoms with a bit of intelligence added as a mistake, going nowhere fast.

You mean the truth?

So you think it's ok to lie to children and tell them fairy tales of boats with dinosaurs and mythical floods and magic men? Would you agree on teachers telling children about wizards and witches? How about telling children that unicorns exist?

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

You mean the truth?

Nihilism isn't the truth ... Human Beings were clearly created with the posibility of a magnificent eternal destiny ... as well as being given stewardship and dominion over the rest of Creation, in this life.

bumper234 wrote: »

So you think it's ok to lie to children and tell them fairy tales of boats with dinosaurs and mythical floods and magic men? Would you agree on teachers telling children about wizards and witches? How about telling children that unicorns exist?

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.

Delirium

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.

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

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.

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.