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

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

1…7778808283…101

Comments

  • #2372
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    aside from your "Golem Theory" (i.e. a being created from clay), are other world mythology origin tales to be included in the science class?

    Also, where's the demarkation between myth and science in your opinion?
    There is no demarkation between myth and science when it comes to the idea that matter spontaneously organised itself into life ... and then went on to become mankind through a process of accumulating selected mistakes.:D


  • #2373
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    The director of education at the Royal Society has said that creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than be excluded, to explain why creationism had no scientific basis.

    smacl
    FYP, you appear to have bolded the wrong bit :pac:
    I'd like them to try ... because, whatever about creationism ... Creation Science has a scientific pedigree going right back to practically all of the 'fathers' of modern science,

    SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
    BY CREATION SCIENTISTS

    DISCIPLINE ... SCIENTIST
    Antiseptic Surgery ... Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
    Bacteriology ... Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
    Calculus ... Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
    Celestial Mechanics ... Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
    Chemistry ... Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
    Comparative Anatomy ... Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)
    Computer Science ... Charles Babbage (1792-1871)
    Dimensional Analysis ... Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
    Dynamics ... Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
    Electronics ... John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)
    Electrodynamics ... James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
    Electro-Magnetics ... Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
    Energetics ... Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Entomology Of Living Insects ... Henri Fabre (1823-1915)
    Field Theory ... Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
    Fluid Mechanics ... George Stokes (1819-1903)
    Galactic Astronomy ... William Herschel (1738-1822)
    Gas Dynamics ... Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
    Genetics ... Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
    Glacial Geology ... Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
    Gynecology ... James Simpson (1811-1870)
    Hydraulics ... Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)
    Hydrography ... Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
    Hydrostatics ... Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
    Ichthyology ... Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
    Isotopic Chemistry ... William Ramsay (1852-1916)
    Model Analysis ... Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
    Natural History ... John Ray (1627-1705)
    Non-Euclidean Geometry ... Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866)
    Oceanography ... Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
    Optical Mineralogy ... David Brewster (1781-1868)
    Paleontology ... John Woodward (1665-1728)
    Pathology ... Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902)
    Physical Astronomy ... Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
    Reversible Thermodynamics ... James Joule (1818-1889)
    Statistical Thermodynamics ... James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
    Stratigraphy ... Nicholas Steno (1631-1686)
    Systematic Biology ... Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
    Thermodynamics ... Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Thermokinetics ... Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)
    Vertebrate Paleontology ... Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)


  • #2374
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    There is no demarkation between myth and science when it comes to the idea that matter spontaneously organised itself into life ... and then went on to become mankind through a process of accumulating selected mistakes.:D

    Because us being descendants of a golem is much more likely????

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2375
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    Because us being descendants of a golem is much more likely????
    If you say so ... I couldn't possibly comment !!!:pac::p


  • #2376
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    If you say so ... I couldn't possibly comment !!!:pac::p

    It's what you believe, so its strange you're now so coy about it.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #2377
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,740 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I appreciate that was a lot of work JC (the list, unless you just c/p-ed it) but please don't shout at us.


  • #2378
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    looksee wrote: »
    I appreciate that was a lot of work JC (the list, unless you just c/p-ed it) but please don't shout at us.
    Apologies ... I've fixed it ... it's now whispering to you.:)


  • #2379
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    It's what you believe, so its strange you're now so coy about it.
    Not really ... the 'muck to man' proponents are Evolutionists ... actually !!!;)


  • #2380
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,247 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    I'd like them to try ... because, whatever about creationism ... Creation Science has a scientific pedigree going right back to practically all of the 'fathers' of modern science,

    SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
    BY CREATION SCIENTISTS

    DISCIPLINE ... SCIENTIST
    Antiseptic Surgery ... Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
    Bacteriology ... Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
    Calculus ... Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
    Celestial Mechanics ... Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
    Chemistry ... Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
    Comparative Anatomy ... Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)
    Computer Science ... Charles Babbage (1792-1871)
    Dimensional Analysis ... Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
    Dynamics ... Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
    Electronics ... John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)
    Electrodynamics ... James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
    Electro-Magnetics ... Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
    Energetics ... Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Entomology Of Living Insects ... Henri Fabre (1823-1915)
    Field Theory ... Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
    Fluid Mechanics ... George Stokes (1819-1903)
    Galactic Astronomy ... William Herschel (1738-1822)
    Gas Dynamics ... Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
    Genetics ... Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
    Glacial Geology ... Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
    Gynecology ... James Simpson (1811-1870)
    Hydraulics ... Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)
    Hydrography ... Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
    Hydrostatics ... Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
    Ichthyology ... Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
    Isotopic Chemistry ... William Ramsay (1852-1916)
    Model Analysis ... Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
    Natural History ... John Ray (1627-1705)
    Non-Euclidean Geometry ... Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866)
    Oceanography ... Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
    Optical Mineralogy ... David Brewster (1781-1868)
    Paleontology ... John Woodward (1665-1728)
    Pathology ... Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902)
    Physical Astronomy ... Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
    Reversible Thermodynamics ... James Joule (1818-1889)
    Statistical Thermodynamics ... James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
    Stratigraphy ... Nicholas Steno (1631-1686)
    Systematic Biology ... Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
    Thermodynamics ... Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
    Thermokinetics ... Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)
    Vertebrate Paleontology ... Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)

    If they knew what we know now...


  • #2381
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Not really ... the 'muck to man' proponents are Evolutionists ... actually !!!;)

    So you don't believe God shaped Adam from clay and breathed life into him?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #2382
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    So you don't believe God shaped Adam from clay and breathed life into him?
    ... it's a tad more believable than the belief that clay breathed life into itself !!!:)


  • #2383
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    If they knew what we know now...
    What do we now know that would make these eminent Creation Scientists change their minds about the scientific validity of Direct Creation?


  • #2384
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Who breathed life into God then?

    All you're really doing is pushing the question back another level.
    Not really ... every action logically must have a greater cause ... and the formation of the Universe and the emergence of life therein logically requires a transcendent creative agent of effectively omniponent power ... AKA God.


  • #2385
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    We know it's a load of bollocks, ...
    Could you please clarify ... your use of Evolutionary terminology doesn't compute !!!:)


  • #2386
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Assuming your premise is valid... again, it just pushes the question back. Who created god?
    As a transcendent entity God would logically have to exist outside of time and space ... and therefore is logically eternal and immortal ... and as the Ultimate Cause of everything, God has therefore always existed ... and didn't need to be Created.


  • #2387
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    J C wrote: »
    Not really ... every action logically must have a greater cause ... and the formation of the Universe and the emergence of life therein logically requires a transcendent creative agent of effective omniponent power ... AKA God.

    Why God singular? Any particular reason to presuppose a Christian notion of God? Logically, why does this imagined creation theory seem any more viable than any other imagined piece of fantasy? From a logical point of view, the Christian creation myth is one among an infinite number of similarly unsupportable imaginings. No verifiable facts, endless dubious stories and claims that the mainstream Christian churches are distancing themselves from by referring to what was once literal truth as allegory. It is a total nonsense and the term Christian Science is about as good an example of an oxymoron as you're likely to get.


  • #2388
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smacl wrote: »
    Why God singular? Any particular reason to presuppose a Christian notion of God? Logically, why does this imagined creation theory seem any more viable than any other imagined piece of fantasy? From a logical point of view, the Christian creation myth is one among an infinite number of similarly unsupportable imaginings. No verifiable facts, endless dubious stories and claims that the mainstream Christian churches are distancing themselves from by referring to what was once literal truth as allegory. It is a total nonsense and the term Christian Science is about as good an example of an oxymoron as you're likely to get.
    I didn't say it was the God of the Bible ... philosophically and scientifically, we can definitively conclude that the entity that caused the universe and all life therin to come into existence had many of the attributes of the God of the Bible ... but whether it was actually the God of the Bible remains a matter of faith ... a well founded faith ... but faith nonetheless.


  • #2389
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,247 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    What do we now know that would make these eminent Creation Scientists change their minds about the scientific validity of Direct Creation?

    You want me to list every scientific invention and discovery since 1919? :D


  • #2390
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    J C wrote: »
    I didn't say it was the God of the Bible ... philosophically and scientifically, we can definitively conclude that the entity that caused the universe and all life therin to come into existence had many of the attributes of the God of the Bible ... but whether it was actually the God of the Bible remains a matter of faith ... a well founded faith ... but faith nonetheless.

    Philosophically you can plump for whatever floats your boat. Scientifically, you need rather more, such as evidence that survives broad objective scrutiny. God, Thor and the tooth fairy fall short on that count, being based on speculation (or faith if your looking prefer) rather than evidence.


  • #2391
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,035 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... it's a tad more believable than the belief that clay breathed life into itself !!!:)

    So you have no problem with the idea of inorganic matter becoming organic, just what was the catalyst.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #2392
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,859 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    Not really ... every action logically must have a greater cause ... and the formation of the Universe and the emergence of life therein logically requires a transcendent creative agent of effectively omniponent power ... AKA God.

    So who created this "god"?


  • #2393
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,740 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    If aliens are found that are, maybe, blobs of matter that can exist in a form outside our imaginings, are we to take it that the creator of the universe created them in his own image, or us?


  • #2394
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,740 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Incidentally JC you seem to have shifted your base fairly considerably? Since this thread is specious nonsense it doesn't really matter, but I wonder are you changing your ideas or are you just looking for a different line of argument?


  • #2395
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    As a transcendent entity God would logically have to exist outside of time and space ... and therefore is logically eternal and immortal ...
    That's about as useful as stating the category error:

    "A pink god would logically have to be pink"


  • #2396
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    looksee wrote: »
    I wonder are you changing your ideas or are you just looking for a different line of argument?
    Going to have to stick up for JC here and say that his/her posting style and content has remained essentially unchanged since 2005:
    J C wrote: »
    I recently discovered that the odds of producing the amino acid sequence for a particular 100 chain protein by accident choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is 10 to the power of minus 130. If we consider that the number of atoms in the known Universe (including Dark Matter) is 10 to the power of 80 I don't fancy the chances of even a useful protein arising spontaneously - never mind life!!!
    At this point, more than twelve years on, JC must be the most persistently predictable poster on boards.ie, quite possibly in Ireland and one suspects, stands a good chance of making the top one hundred world-wide.

    Entire creationist institutes, social movements, theme parks, academic pretensions, and hell - even things like the Kent Hovind saga (indicted, tried, convicted, appealed, rejected and served out his entire sentence and was released, his debt to society for fraud and much else being paid) - and JC has outlasted them all. Still tapping out the same stuff, day after day, night after night, year after year. The task never done because everybody just won't listen.

    JC may not have contributed one iota per se, but the debate and discussion which has resulted and which JC has entirely ignored - has been nothing less than the most wonderful education.


  • #2397
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,740 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Oh, ok then, sorry if I misspoke. I was picking up a bit of arguing both sides of the line, whereas I thought it used be more clearcut. However, as you say, there is some interesting stuff gets discussed around it.


  • #2398
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,448 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Genuine post: This thread is still going? JC, are you a committee?


  • #2399
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    endacl wrote: »
    Genuine post: This thread is still going? JC, are you a committee?

    Clarification, does 'committee' here mean 'more than one person' or 'person who has been committed'?


  • #2400
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    You want me to list every scientific invention and discovery since 1919? :D
    ... only the ones that definitively support the spontaneuos emergence of life and its evolution from muck to man.
    ... and there are none, that I'm aware of.

    ... so, it'll be a very short list :)


  • Advertisement
  • #2401
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    So you have no problem with the idea of inorganic matter becoming organic, just what was the catalyst.
    True, inorganic matter is turned into organic matter every day by living organisms themselves ... its how these organisms came to be that is the question ... was it via spontaneous natural processes without God ... or via supernatural processes with God?


Advertisement