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

J C · 12-02-2017 09:46PM

jackboy wrote: »

Yeah, fairytales like virgin births and rising from the dead.

You might say so ... but I believe that God did that.

Unlike Spontaneous Evolutionists, I'm not claiming these miracles ... or any other miracles (like living organisms) ... were produced by spontaneous processes.:)

Hotblack Desiato · 12-02-2017 09:48PM

That's the easy answer to any hard question.

J C · 12-02-2017 10:02PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's the easy answer to any hard question.

It's the only plausible answer to the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus ... and the origins of life.

Other questions, like where all the Flood-water went, are answerable from repeatably observable evidence.

13-02-2017 01:20AM

J C wrote: »

Other questions, like where all the Flood-water went, are answerable from repeatably observable evidence.

So aside from how all flood geology is abject lies and nonsense, here's a good video explaining how the actual process of the flood is physically impossible:

Michael OBrien · 13-02-2017 06:08PM

J C wrote: »

Amazingly, conventional science believes that there was a Flood on Mars ... where tiny amounts of water currently exist ... and no Flood on Earth, where there is sufficient water in the Oceans of the World to cover the entire Earth to an average 2.6 Km if the surface was a smooth sphere.

It might have something to do with the inconvenient fact that the earth is not a PERFECTLY smooth sphere. The span of the earth is 12,756 km (approximately) across so a few km difference makes little difference but your argument is to say that IF the earth was not the way it is, then your view might be in with a chance. That is clutching at straws.
There are all sorts of reasons that the water could not be as you say, if Noah was to survive, including pressure and temperature involved with the sudden appearance of multiple times the water that is on the surface of the earth.
There is zero possibility for that story to be true. We have earlier stories from other religions that show a chain of custody for it being a human retelling of normal flood experiences to express religious beliefs.

J C · 13-02-2017 10:34PM

King Mob wrote: »

So aside from how all flood geology is abject lies and nonsense, here's a good video explaining how the actual process of the flood is physically impossible:

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.

J C · 13-02-2017 10:38PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

It might have something to do with the inconvenient fact that the earth is not a PERFECTLY smooth sphere. The span of the earth is 12,756 km (approximately) across so a few km difference makes little difference but your argument is to say that IF the earth was not the way it is, then your view might be in with a chance.
.

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.

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-02-2017 10:41PM

J C wrote: »

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

And yet Noah's little home made boat managed to survive the massive tsunamis that these upheavals would have caused?

I would say you couldn't make this up yet here you are doing exactly that.

J C · 13-02-2017 10:43PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think "they didn't happen" is also a pretty plausible answer to the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus.

They certainly couldn't happen by naturalistic processes ... so they were supernatural events ... just like the creation of life, as well.:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What about the repeatedly observable evidence for evolution, which you're surely familiar with as an evolutionary biologist?

What about them? ... all they prove is that artificial/natural/sexual selection selects ... with no plausible naturalistic mechanism for producing the genetic information ... and its phenotypes that are selected by these mechanisms.:)

J C · 13-02-2017 10:47PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And yet Noah's little home made boat managed to survive the massive tsunamis that these upheavals would have caused?

I would say you couldn't make this up yet here you are doing exactly that.

Tsunamis don't present much of a threat to shipping at sea ... they only become dangerous, when they make landfall ... and even then, they rapidly run out of momentum upon reching the coast!!:)

Pherekydes · 13-02-2017 11:12PM

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.

I don't recall this being mentioned in the bible. Someone's telling porkies...

J C · 13-02-2017 11:14PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

I don't recall this being mentioned in the bible. Someone's telling porkies...

Gen 7:11 refers

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-02-2017 11:18PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

I don't recall this being mentioned in the bible. Someone's telling porkies...

It's his personal take on how it must have happened

J C · 13-02-2017 11:18PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Okay, but what if they just didn't happen? I'm not asking you do deny they happened, I'm curious as to whether you think it's plausible that they didn't.

They could only happen by supernatural intervention.
... so they would seem implausible to somebody who doesn't believe that God exists.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I would have thought an evolutionary biologist would be familiar with mutations.

I am of course familiar with them ... and they are invariably destructive/degrading of genetic information ... so therefore not a plausible mechanism to generated the vast quantities of perfect (or almost perfect) genetic information observed in living organisms.

J C · 13-02-2017 11:20PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It's his personal take on how it must have happened

Its not my 'personal take' on it ... its what Gen 7:11 says happened:-
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-02-2017 11:22PM

J C wrote: »

Its not my 'personal take' on it ... its what Gen 7:11 says happened:-
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

600th year lol how can you take anything serious when they claim the man was 600 years old :pac:

J C · 13-02-2017 11:28PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

600th year lol how can you take anything serious when they claim the man was 600 years old :pac:

You're making the mistake of confusing conditions now ... and then.

... and assuming they are identical ... when they aren't.

Pherekydes · 13-02-2017 11:34PM

J C wrote: »

You're making the mistake of confusing conditions now ... and then.

... and assuming they are identical ... when they aren't.

A year is a year, innit?

J C · 13-02-2017 11:36PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's not what I asked though.

You asked if the Virgin Birth and Resurrection were implausible ... and I answered you that they could be implausible for an Atheist ... but not for a Christian, because one believes that God (and by extension the supernatural) exists ... and the other believes that they dont't.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Nope, they certainly aren't invariably destructive. Destructive in the majority of cases, but certainly not invariably destructive.

Destructive of genetic information in all cases. In rare cases, like with antibiotice resistance, the loss of genetic information can benefit the organism ... but at the cost of weakening it in other ways ... so that when the a/b challenge is removed ... the original variety starts to dominate again.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The genetic information observed in living organisms isn't even well enough understood to claim that it's perfect, so that's quite the leap you're making there.

It is well enough understood to determine that it is perfect ... or almost perfect, where mutagenesis has occurred.

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-02-2017 11:36PM

J C wrote: »

You're making the mistake of confusing conditions now ... and then.

... and assuming they are identical ... when they aren't.

So people 2000 years ago lived longer? :pac:

J C · 13-02-2017 11:41PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

A year is a year, innit?

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.

J C · 13-02-2017 11:52PM

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 · 14-02-2017 12:04AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Must have been the paleo diet.

The lack of fast food. :P

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-02-2017 12:11AM

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 · 14-02-2017 12:32AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So people 2000 years ago lived longer? :pac:

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

14-02-2017 01:48AM

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 · 14-02-2017 02:01PM

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 · 14-02-2017 02:11PM

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 · 14-02-2017 07:42PM

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 · 27-05-2017 07:39PM

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

Comments