Darwin's theory

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?

Why would one search for supernatural causes to explain natural phenomena?

5uspect

Has J C produced a peer reviewed paper to back up his claims yet?
Has he produced any original research yet?
Has he shown ANY flaw in a peer reviewed paper discussing evolution yet?
Has he revealed anything to back up his claims that he is a scientist?
Has be continued to quote mine, selectively copy paste and generally be dishonest?

Do you really think he gives a **** about the truth? He is only here to feed off the reaction he generates. There is some bizarre idea that if people engage in debate it somehow validates his preposterous and utterly false claims. He has continued this tactic for a decade and in all this time has contributed nothing of note.

So stop feeding him. You'll never get him to admit to his deception and misinformation. He is the kind of individual you see at Speaker's Corner ranting and raving while the world moved on regardless of their rantings.

Squeedily Spooch

This is JC in a nutshell:
http://www.happyjar.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014-05-30-Confirmation-Bias.png

5uspect

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't think anyone thinks they can actually change his mind. I know I don't. It's fascinating in a way to watch him just completely ignore all the evidence put in front of him though.

He has had evolution explained to him many, many times. Yet he continues to misrepresent it. So either he incapable of understanding it or he's being dishonest. Why continue to attempt to debate with someone like this?

floggg

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Thanks for your input, the bible may have been written by individuals however among these 48 prophets are the likes of Jesus who was know at this time for his honesty,truth and sincerity, Mohammed the prophet of Islam lived and died in poverty there are narrations by his companions that say that he would wrap a stone around his stomach from hunger in fact at the start of his massage his tribe came and offered him money until he become the richest and the most beautiful women in Quraish at that time yet he refused. I find it hard to believe that such people were after money fame and influence.
Being a student of comparative religion the Quran speaks about those who did in fact attempt to use their influence for money and fame:

"Indeed, they who conceal what Allah has sent down of the Book and exchange it for a small price - those consume not into their bellies except the Fire. And Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them. And they will have a painful punishment."{2/174}

Now for someone to be seeking money and kingship why would he include this verse in his own book? and why would someone write a book and threaten him self in his own book by saying

"And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,We would have seized him by the right hand;Then We would have cut from him the aorta.And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him." {69/44-47}

the similar massage can be said about both Jesus and Moses in the bible.

****ing hell.

Do you believe and accept both the Quran and the New Testament.

Because one says Jesus was the son of God and the other said he was just a mortal prophet.

So clearly at least one of them is wrong.

hence proving that yes, you can have a made up book of nonsense under the guise of a religious text.

Chunners

Pherekydes wrote: »

Yes. Science is the search for evidence. Creationism is trying to explain things by ignoring evidence.

And why the fcuk have you capitalised practical atheists?

And what the fcuk is a practical atheist? Is there any other type?

And who wants practicality anyway?

Not sure if it was intentional or not but read the bolded words there backwards lol

Defender OF Faith

floggg wrote: »

****ing hell.

Do you believe and accept both the Quran and the New Testament.

Because one says Jesus was the son of God and the other said he was just a mortal prophet.

So clearly at least one of them is wrong.

hence proving that yes, you can have a made up book of nonsense under the guise of a religious text.

Actually neither are wrong, as I found no evidence in the Bible that suggest Jesus was God or the Son of god nor a statement by Jesus were he said am god or worship me.
This appear to be a claim made by the Christians due to their misunderstanding of their own book and religion.

Chunners

J C wrote: »

You may nit-pick all you like ... but Evolution and Abiogenesis are both part of a continuum from non-life to life to Human life that Atheists and their Atheist-dominated science presents as fact.

If they can why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?

Why is there a ban within science, limiting it to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena?

Simple, because people who fund all this research don't want their money being wasted trying to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist, if creationists/the church want to waste their own funds researching it then go ahead but they shouldn't expect funds for real scientific research to be wasted looking for evidence of the delusions too.

kingchess

According to J C we should be looking for supernatural proof???Is that what he said??maybe I have read it the wrong way-Anyway the Leprechaun at the bottom of my garden is calling in for a session on the Ouija board ,

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't think too many people have referred to Christians as deluded and insane. Just creationists. I know you like to pretend they're the same thing because it suits your argument, but they really aren't.

Its still the vocabulary of Stalin and not Einstein or Jefferson.
... and we know that this vocabulary led to the 're-education' centres and the gulags.

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.
- Thomas Paine

This is a point of view ... an erroneous point of view IMO ... but there is nothing personal or objectionable about it.

J C

kingchess wrote: »

According to J C we should be looking for supernatural proof???Is that what he said??maybe I have read it the wrong way-Anyway the Leprechaun at the bottom of my garden is calling in for a session on the Ouija board ,

We should be looking for physical proof ... as no physical evidence exists for Abiogenesis and M2M Evolution it should be abandoned by science ... and the alternative ID theory evaluated ...
... but science is self-censoring itself by limiting itself to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena ... and having not discovered a plausible natural cause for life (or its diversity), it refuses to evaluate the physical evidence for an intelligent cause for life.

They have now apparently extended the limits on science to the search for natural causes excluding any consideration of intelligent causes.

'No Intelligence (or God) Allowed' neatly summarizes the current scientific modus operandi on 'origins' issues.

... and that is fair enough ... as long as everybody understands that science is refusing to evaluate the evidence for Intelligent Design - and therefore is not in a position to comment on its validity.

The impression is sometimes given that they have exhaustively evluated the evidence for ID ... but the evidence given under Oath at the Dover Trial is that they are prohibited from even looking at it, under the rules of science.

housetypeb

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

.. as I found no evidence in the Bible that suggest Jesus was God or the Son of god nor a statement by Jesus were he said am god or worship me.
This appear to be a claim made by the Christians due to their misunderstanding of their own book and religion.

You and J C should trash that out between you-I've had my dinner and would enjoy some cabaret.

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

You and J C should trash that out between you-I've had my dinner and would enjoy some cabaret.

That's all completely off-topic
... and we have had enough diversion on this thread already.

kingchess

J C wrote: »

We should be looking for physical proof ... as no physical evidence exists for M2M Evolution it should be abandoned by science ... and the alternative ID theory evaluated ... but science is self-censoring itself by limiting itself to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena ... and having not discovered a plausible natural cause for life (or its diversity), it refuses to evaluate the physical evidence for an intelligent cause for life.
They have apparently now extended the limits on science to the search for natural causes excluding any consideration of intelligent causes.

'No Intelligence (or God) Allowed' neatly summarizes the current scientific modus operandi on 'origins' issues.

... and that is fair enough ... as long as everybody understands that science is refusing to evaluate the evidence for Intelligent Design - and therefore is not in a position to comment on its validity.

AND that is what real scientists do,and they came up with the theory of evolution:D:D

Pherekydes

Chunners wrote: »

Not sure if it was intentional or not but read the bolded words there backwards lol

Not intentional on my part anyway. Must be proof of a higher authority or some such...

/sniggers

J C

kingchess wrote: »

AND that is what real scientists do,and they came up with the theory of evolution:D:D

I'm just as real a scientist as any Evolutionist one ... the difference is that I don't preclude myself from evaluating the evidence for either Evolution, ID or Creation Science.
Conventional science has confined itself to only evaluating the evidence for natural causes ... whereas I have no such limitation imposed upon me.

... nor would I accept such limitations, as I believe in the academic freedom to go where the evidence leads ... and not where some anti-God principle hammered out in the 1700's would direct me.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

That's all completely off-topic
... and we have had enough diversion on this thread already.

Lots of diversion tactics on this. From you.

I'm going to put this question in capitals so you can't ignore it. I want a straight answer from you.

WHAT WORK HAS ID/CREATIONISM DONE IN THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS THAT HAS PRODUCED A NEW APPLICATION THAT BENEFITS SOCIETY ?

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

I'm just as real a scientist as any Evolutionist one ... the difference is that I don't preclude myself from evaluating the evidence for either Evolution, ID or Creation Science.
Conventional science has confined itself to only evaluating the evidence for natural causes ... whereas I have no such limitation imposed upon me.

... nor would I accept such limitations, as I believe in the academic freedom to go where the evidence leads ... and not where some anti-God principle hammered out in the 1700's would direct me.

Another joke post.

The only evidence you consider is goddidit.

looksee

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Actually neither are wrong, as I found no evidence in the Bible that suggest Jesus was God or the Son of god nor a statement by Jesus were he said am god or worship me.
This appear to be a claim made by the Christians due to their misunderstanding of their own book and religion.

Matthew 1:18 - Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

John 14:9 - Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

John 17:1 - These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

John 20:31 - But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 10:30 - I and [my] Father are one.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Right. Because none of your posts have been remotely off topic. Comparing atheists to stalin is completely relevant to the discussion.

... only Atheists (and anybody else) who starts using Stalinist language by calling Christians 'deluded and insane'.

kingchess

And is it not amazing that the only "scientists" who believe in creation story are those who believe that the bible is correct( and a science manual as well)

Uncle Ruckus

J C wrote: »

... only Atheists (and anybody else) who starts using Stalinist language by calling Christians 'deluded and insane'.

Hitler and Stalin has moustaches. Quick people- feck Movember! :P

Uncle Ruckus

J C wrote: »

... only Atheists (and anybody else) who starts using Stalinist language by calling Christians 'deluded and insane'.

Hitler and Stalin had moustaches. Quick people- feck Movember! :P

Thargor

J C wrote: »

... and that is fair enough ... as long as everybody understands that science is refusing to evaluate the evidence for Intelligent Design - and therefore is not in a position to comment on its validity.

Do you realise how ridiculous this claim is? All of "science" is refusing this? Did the Science Lord decree that any of his science vassals who dare investigate this suppressed evidence for supernatural activity be executed and hanged from the walls of Castle Science?

Nobody tells "science" what it can and cant research, if there was a single shred of evidence for intelligent design or any supernatural activity it would have been poured over by literally millions of researchers down the years, one. single. piece. of evidence and there would be billion dollar universities and institutes directed at investigating it, but there isnt, you have been asked multiple times to say what this evidence is and you ignore the post every time.

Theres a very obvious reason the evidence for intelligent design receives about the same attention or funding as research into intelligent unicorns, can you guess why that is?

Saganist

J C wrote: »

... only Atheists (and anybody else) who starts using Stalinist language by calling Christians 'deluded and insane'.

WHAT WORK HAS ID/CREATIONISM DONE IN THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS THAT HAS PRODUCED A NEW APPLICATION THAT BENEFITS SOCIETY ?

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Another joke post.

The only evidence you consider is goddidit.

No ... I evaluate the evidence that 'God did it' and 'it did itself' and I come to a reasoned conclusion on which is correct (in relation to 'origins' issues).

The only evidence that conventional science is allowed to evaluate is the evidence that 'it did itself' ... no matter how invalid or implausible such a hypothesis may be ... when it comes to 'origins' issues.

Conventional Science has hoisted itself on it's own anti-God petard on this one, I'm afraid!!:)

... and then they go into court and confirm it ... and claim some sort of 'scientific' victory against ID as a result.

J C

kingchess wrote: »

And is it not amazing that the only "scientists" who believe in creation story are those who believe that the bible is correct( and a science manual as well)

Many Muslims are Creationists and they don't believe in the New Testament ... and I don't believe the Bible is a science manual ... it is far more important and error-free for that!!!:)

Defender OF Faith

floggg wrote: »

The flaw is that you are assuming you belief as to Gods nature to be universal absolute truth, and then using that belief as evidence for your belief.

There is no objective reason to conclude he/she is an uncreated creator.

For your argument to even begin to work, you would have to offer some evidence as to how or why he could be uncreated creator, and how he could violate the principle that nothing can come from nothing.

you haven't done any such thing though, other than just say he can over and over again. there is no logic or reason to your position, and copying and pasting the same non-answer in over and over again doesn't change that.

Time began with the Big bang as Hawkins stated, we know that the universe is Finite/limited with the universe continually expanding meaning at one point at was a solid ball of mass that continues to expand, God or the creator of the universe would be outside the universe and hence outside the laws of space and time.
With the big bang scientists says not only did the universe come into begin but the laws of physics as well, and hence God is a begin outside the Universe & space and time therefore he does not have a beginning or an end more importantly no one has made him everything else is within the universe must have a cause to make them come into existence.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

Many Muslims are Creationists and they don't believe in the New Testament ... and I don't believe the Bible is a science manual ... it far more important and error-free for that!!!:)

Answer my question JC.