Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Darwin's theory

Options
1…8283848587

Comments

  • Options
    #2582
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    This is what pope palpatine was on about with his trolling comment. That adds nothing at all to the discussion, it's just a silly little attack - something you're very quick to criticize the rest of us for.
    I'm just reflecting back some of the more outlandish statements of Evolutionists on this thread ... to let ye see how ye might feel if ye were on the receiving end of some of the stuff that ye post about other people, especially Creationists.

    I'm glad you now share my belief that this adds nothing to the discussion ... so please don't do it!!!


  • Options
    #2583
    irish coldplayer
    Registered Users Posts: 203 ✭✭irish coldplayer


    For anyone that is genuinely interested in the science disproving creationist "pseudo science" this is an excellent resource with links to peer reviewed papers and explanations.
    Its a pretty exhaustive list.
    talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    had to delete the www part, as I am a new user and so cant post links


  • Options
    #2584
    Saganist
    Registered Users Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭Saganist


    irish coldplayer wrote: »
    For anyone that is genuinely interested in the science disproving creationist "pseudo science" this is an excellent resource with links to peer reviewed papers and explanations.
    Its a pretty exhaustive list.
    talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    had to delete the www part, as I am a new user and so cant post links

    +1.


  • Options
    #2585
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    On the off chance that if we don't somebody gullible will start listening to him and take his lying bullshit as the truth.

    I know it's a fairly small chance, as those who believe in creatardism are weaned on it from birth and heavily insulated against reality by their criminally irresponsible and maliciously negligent families and communities, but the chance still exists that there are people out there genuinely interested in finding out, yet not in possession of a bullshit detector good enough to find JC and his rotten and corrupt ilk out.
    Sounds like you are in sympathy with Stalin that the children of Christians should be removed by the state for re-education in anti-God philosophy ... or do you reckon that 'public education' will do the same thing ... without all the fuss (and at a fraction of the cost) of Stalinism's re-education facilities?


  • Options
    #2586
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    J C wrote: »
    Sounds like you are in sympathy with Stalin that the children of Christians should be removed by the state for re-education in anti-God philosophy ... or do you reckon that 'public education' will do the same thing ... without all the fuss (and at a fraction of the cost) of Stalinism's re-education facilities?

    Most Christians = normal
    Creationism = extremist

    He also raises a good point . Creationism is mostly forced from birth through schooling and community . If creationist were allowed believe what they want from birth then how many do you think would adopt creationism beliefs . I think it would be pretty low.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2587
    Saganist
    Registered Users Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭Saganist


    J C wrote: »
    Sounds like you are in sympathy with Stalin that the children of Christians should be removed by the state for re-education in anti-God philosophy ... or do you reckon that 'public education' will do the same thing ... without all the fuss (and at a fraction of the cost) of Stalinism's re-education facilities?

    Another passive aggressive comment. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #2588
    Chunners
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭Chunners


    J C wrote: »
    Sounds like you are in sympathy with Stalin that the children of Christians should be removed by the state for re-education in anti-God philosophy ... or do you reckon that 'public education' will do the same thing ... without all the fuss (and at a fraction of the cost) of Stalinism's re-education facilities?

    Is this your attempt at the Stalin version of Godwin's Law? to be honest it just all comes across as an attempt by you now to get this thread closed by implying basically the same thing that Godwin's deals with


  • Options
    #2589
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    Forgive me but I don't seem to fully understand what your saying if you meant that if we discovered gravity we simply sat down and didn't bother delving deeper into it because it would be impossible for us to understand, then this doesnt contradict what I said because gravity is in our universe and is possible to understand.
    The point is that science doesn't delve any deeper into any physical evidence that might prove the existence of God ... such research is actually banned within conventional science.
    That is OK ... in so far as willful ignorance of anything is OK .. but what is not OK is that scientists who do scientifically investigate the evidence for God are bad-mouthed and name-called and asked for peer-reviewed papers ... when such papers and such peer review is actually banned by conventional science, in the first place.


  • Options
    #2590
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,625 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Bible? Koran? There's only one true faith! (check the sig)


  • Options
    #2591
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Chunners wrote: »
    Is this your attempt at the Stalin version of Godwin's Law? to be honest it just all comes across as an attempt by you now to get this thread closed by implying basically the same thing that Godwin's deals with
    If the cap fits ... and all that.
    Actually Godwin's law is a form of Holocaust denial ... the denial that such a thing could ever happen again ... when genocide still continues to be pursued where and when the opportunity arises ... Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia being some recent examples ... and antisemitism continues to be an ever present possibility.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2592
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    Does god allow genocide for his own amusement or is there some other reason?


  • Options
    #2593
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    Most Christians = normal
    Creationism = extremist

    He also raises a good point . Creationism is mostly forced from birth through schooling and community . If creationist were allowed believe what they want from birth then how many do you think would adopt creationism beliefs . I think it would be pretty low.
    As a matter of fact I was an Evolutionist ... before I became a Creationist ... and most Creation Scientists I know were the same.

    I also don't 'force' Creationism on anybody ... including my children ... I encourage them to look at all the evidence for and against evolution and creation ... they can then make up their own minds, from a position of knowledge.

    We have been over the 'extremist/normal' stuff already. I have a well-founded difference of opinion on where we have come from and where we are going ... and I believe in tolerance, love and respect for everyone, including those with whom I disagree ... nothing 'extreme' about that.


  • Options
    #2594
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    The point is that science doesn't delve any deeper into any physical evidence that might prove the existence of God ... such research is actually banned within conventional science.
    That is OK ... in so far as willful ignorance of anything is OK .. but what is not OK is that scientists who do scientifically investigate the evidence for God are bad-mouthed and name-called and asked for peer-reviewed papers ... when such papers and such peer review is actually banned by conventional science, in the first place.

    Source? or purely because trying to prove the supernatural is wasting funding?

    Any scientist worth their salt proposing something would be asked for peer reviewed papers, and rightly so. Having a theory reviewed by people with the same confirmation bias is poor scientific method. Can't you as a "scientist" see this? If there was any evidence for ID worth reviewing scientists would do it, but there's none. Not a bit. At all. Nobody has it in for you, you're just a ****e scientist.


  • Options
    #2595
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    J C wrote: »
    As a matter of fact I was an Evolutionist ... before I became a Creationist ... and most Creation Scientists I know were the same.

    I also don't 'force' Creationism on anybody ... including my children ... I encourage them to look at all the evidence for and against evolution and creation ... they can then make up their own minds, from a position of knowledge.

    We have been over the 'extremist/normal' stuff already. I have a well-founded difference of opinion on where we have come from and where we are going ... and I believe in tolerance, love and respect for everyone, including those with whom I disagree ... nothing 'extreme' about that.

    Why did you change to creationism ?


  • Options
    #2596
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    Does god allow genocide for his own amusement or is there some other reason?
    God allows Humans free-will ... sometimes they use it for noble purposes ... and sometimes they use it for evil purposes.
    It wouldn't be free-will if God stood over everyone with a big stick, jumping in every time that free will was used for evil.


  • Options
    #2597
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    Why did you change to creationism ?

    Same way Doc Brown invented time travel, slipped and bonked his head off the sink.


  • Options
    #2598
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    Why did you change to creationism ?
    The evidence for Spontaneous Evolution was so poor and for Creation so great that I couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance any longer.


  • Options
    #2599
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    God allows Humans free-will ... sometimes they use it for noble purposes ... and sometimes they use it for evil purposes.
    It wouldn't be free-will if God stood over everyone with a big stick, jumping in every time that free will was used for evil.

    So God is happy to let millions die? That's nice of him. If I were an all powerful deity and millions of my worshippers were being murdered, I'd kinda step in and do something about it. Least the Greek gods got their hands dirty when it came to stuff like that.


  • Options
    #2600
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    The evidence for Spontaneous Evolution was so poor and for Creation so great that I couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance any longer.

    maybe because Spontaneous Evolution isn't a thing? Nor does Evolution claim that's what happened. Unless you don't actually understand what Evolution is and think mankind just morphed from pond slime as you put it into thinking homosapiens (this wouldn't surprise me in the slightest). Yet humankind spontaneously appearing from almost nothing, ie dust, is EXACTLY what you're claiming happened.


  • Options
    #2601
    bitemeluis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭bitemeluis


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    So God is happy to let millions die? That's nice of him. If I were an all powerful deity and millions of my worshippers were being murdered, I'd kinda step in and do something about it. Least the Greek gods got their hands dirty when it came to stuff like that.


    https://v.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/6CFEDEA7981132759165266243584_205c20af19a.5.1.3502281290495505338.mp4?versionId=7u6CdCocTVva5s2OwWou_H8l4hQfAvRs


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2602
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    Source? or purely because trying to prove the supernatural is wasting funding?

    Any scientist worth their salt proposing something would be asked for peer reviewed papers, and rightly so. Having a theory reviewed by people with the same confirmation bias is poor scientific method. Can't you as a "scientist" see this? If there was any evidence for ID worth reviewing scientists would do it, but there's none. Not a bit. At all. Nobody has it in for you, you're just a ****e scientist.
    I agree with the thrust of your argument that funding must only be provided to worthwhile projects ... but the 'kicker' is that conventional science doesn't allow any research, irrespective of its potential or merit, into any physical evidence that might prove the existence of God ... such research is actually banned within conventional science.

    ... so we never actually get to the point of conventionally reviewing any of the evidence for ID ... because research into any cause that isn't 'natural' is banned.
    ... and 'natural' has been defined to exclude intelligent causes as well.
    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    Having a theory reviewed by people with the same confirmation bias is poor scientific method.
    On that basis, the Theory of Evolution should be reviewed by Creation Scientists ... and not confirmation biased Evolutionists.
    What are the chances???:eek:


  • Options
    #2603
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    I agree with the thrust of your argument that funding mus only be provided to worthwhile projects ... but the 'kicker' is that conventional science doesn't allow any research, irrespective of its potential, into any physical evidence that might prove the existence of God ... such research is actually banned within conventional science.

    ... so we never actually never get to the point of conventionally reviewing any of the evidence for ID ... because research into any cause that isn't 'natural' is banned.
    ... and 'natural' has been defined to exclude intelligent causes as well.

    Banned by who? the science police? It's banned in schools and rightly so because myth masquerading as facts shouldnt be taught to children.

    Simple fact is if there was any weight behind ID and Creationism it'd be the leading theory for how we evolved, but it's not, unless every scientist is an atheist out to get your and your kind? What about theists who agree with evolution, hell even the Catholic Church does, or are you trying to say the RCC has an atheist bias?


  • Options
    #2604
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    So God is happy to let millions die? That's nice of him. If I were an all powerful deity and millions of my worshippers were being murdered, I'd kinda step in and do something about it. Least the Greek gods got their hands dirty when it came to stuff like that.
    ... do you have any examples of these god's actions in Greek history?


  • Options
    #2605
    Saganist
    Registered Users Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭Saganist


    J C wrote: »
    The evidence for Spontaneous Evolution was so poor and for Creation so great that I couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance any longer.

    So you agree with the below ?



  • Options
    #2606
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    Banned by who? the science police?
    Banned by the rules of conventional science. Research is only allowed into natural explanations ... even when the leading contender for the Creation of life is an intelligent God.
    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    It's banned in schools and rightly so because myth masquerading as facts shouldnt be taught to children.
    On that basis, M2M Evolution shouldn't be taught either ... but I'm a tolerant type and I think that the principles of Evolutionism should be taught in school ... with its deficiencies also highlighted.
    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    Simple fact is if there was any weight behind ID and Creationism it'd be the leading theory for how we evolved, but it's not, unless every scientist is an atheist out to get your and your kind?
    The simple expedient of banning any consideration of causes other than 'natural causes' sees to it that ID is never scientifically evaluated.

    Squeedily Spooch wrote: »
    What about theists who agree with evolution, hell even the Catholic Church does, or are you trying to say the RCC has an atheist bias?
    ... The RCC proclaims Creation in it's Creed ... and recognizes whatever science researches ... and the result is a Creationist Church that follows the principles of Practical Atheism ... when it comes to 'origins' science.
    ... all things to all men ... I guess.


  • Options
    #2607
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Saganist wrote: »
    So you agree with the below ?

    Its not just in Peanut Butter ... we never have observed new life or even new proto-life spontaneously emerging anywhere on any substrate.

    Of course, there is a very good reason for this ... it is mathematically and logically impossible and is in breach of the Law of Biogenesis.


  • Options
    #2608
    Saganist
    Registered Users Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭Saganist


    J C wrote: »
    Its not just in Peanut Butter ... we never have observed new life or even new proto-life spontaneously emerging anywhere on any substrate.
    Of course there is a very good reason ... it is mathematically and logically impossible and is in breach of the Law of Biogenesis.

    Law of Biogenesis ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


  • Options
    #2609
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    ... do you have any examples of these god's actions in Greek history?

    Only in tales written by men, exactly the same examples as your god's actions.


  • Options
    #2610
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    J C wrote: »
    Banned by the rules of conventional science. Research is only allowed into natural explanations ... even when the leading contender for the Creation of life is an intelligent God.

    On that basis, M2M Evolution shouldn't be taught either ... but I'm a tolerant type and I think that the principles of Evolutionism should be taught in school ... with its deficiencies also highlighted.

    Nor is it, I don't ever remember being taught that man spontaneously evolved from pond slime, merely that we shared a common ancestor with apes. You know that pesky thing that we have evidence for? I know you're not big on being able to "prove" things with "evidence" but go visit a museum , you'll see it there yourself. Mention how there should be vegetarian T-Rexes in the dinosaur display too, it'll give the people working there a good laugh.

    you also avoided (surprise surprise) my question about your god being happy to sit by and watch millions of his worshippers be murdered, any thoughts on that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2611
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    J C wrote: »
    I'm just reflecting back some of the more outlandish statements of Evolutionists on this thread ... to let ye see how ye might feel if ye were on the receiving end of some of the stuff that ye post about other people, especially Creationists.

    I'm glad you now share my belief that this adds nothing to the discussion ... so please don't do it!!!
    J C wrote: »
    Sounds like you are in sympathy with Stalin that the children of Christians should be removed by the state for re-education in anti-God philosophy ... or do you reckon that 'public education' will do the same thing ... without all the fuss (and at a fraction of the cost) of Stalinism's re-education facilities?

    And yet there you go again, comparing those of us who disagree with you with stalin :rolleyes:

    Look, the simple fact of the matter is this: you're entitled to believe in whatever you like. No one can take that away from you. But trying to claim anyone following what the observable evidence says is wrong just comes across as ridiculous. Maybe god is having a laugh with all of us and you'll turn out to be right, in which case you win, fair play and all that. Can't you just be happy with that?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement