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

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, no. Your point doesn't remain because as I pointed out, unlike the pioneers listed modern "creation scientists" are not out to investigate the world and report their findings.

Creation Scientists investigate the world and report their findings, like all other scientists.
Many Evolutionists, on the other hand, are a horse of a different colour:-

Quote:-
"When one reads evolutionary literature, one discovers evolutionary faith is replete with an acceptance of logical fallacies. The examples below are illustrative.

The fallacy of provincialism when one sees things solely from the perspective of one’s own particular group (in this case the evolutionary establishment). Other viewpoints, especially those with religious implications, are simply not accepted or tolerated. Thus, dogmatism is a strong component of modern evolutionary belief.

Proponents also engage in special pleading—they selectively accept data supporting their position while rejecting data that does not support it. In fact, they support their position with a confidence entirely out of proportion to the evidence.

Hasty Generalization—basing a general statement on too small a sample; building general rules from accidental or exceptional situations. (Microevolution is evidence of macroevolution; origin of life experiments in the laboratory can be extrapolated to the actual evolution of life in the primitive oceans, alleged transitionary forms [Archaeopteryx, Semouria, etc.] prove evolution.)

Begging the Question (petitio principii)—reasoning in a circle, using your conclusion as a premise, assuming the very thing to be proved as proof of itself. (Natural selection; paleoanthropology; geologic record.)

Misuse of Authority—attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to a real or alleged authority in such a way that the conclusion does not necessarily follow. (e.g. All competent scientists declare evolution is a fact!)

Misuse of Analogy—trying to prove something by improper use of a parallel case. (Hominid fossils prove evolution.)

Chronological Snobbery (argumentum ad futuris)—attempting to refute an idea merely by dating it, usually dating it very old. (e.g. Creationism was refuted long ago.)

Argument to Future—trying to prove something by appealing to evidence that might be turned up in the (unknown) future. (As science progresses, proof of evolution will eventu­ally be forthcoming.)

Poisoning the Wells—attempting to refute an argument by discrediting in advance the source of the evidence for the argument. (e.g. Creationists are “know-nothings” opposed to modern science; they get their arguments mostly from the book of Genesis.)

Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum)—substituting force or the threat of force for reason and evidence. (e.g. sacking people who question evolution or even hint at the validity of Creation)

Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum)—trying to establish a position by appealing to popular sentiments instead of relevant evidence. (e.g. Everybody believes in evolution, therefore it must be true.)

The Fallacy of Extension—attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent’s position, i.e., to attack a “straw man.” (e.g. Creationism is only the religious doc­trine of a small but vocal minority.)

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact—arguing from “what might have been,” from a past hypotheti­cal condition. (e.g. The fossil record.)

The Ultimate Fallacy: Pigheadedness—refusing to accept a proposition even when it has been established by adequate evidence. (That evolution is false is established by the law of biogenesis, probability considerations, thermodynamics, etc.)"

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So we're back to "magic man in the clouds did it".

No...there was no mention of magic man or clouds.. Did you miss that?

What we are back to apparently is, can't explain something, so best to try and belittle and downplay something as it doesn't reflect my own skewed perception

Out of curiosity... What's your input into how the universe as we know it came to be? Let's talk pre big bang now..I'd be very interested to hear that

oscarBravo wrote: »

You want to know what happened before time existed?

I want to know his opinion of what happened, what caused the big bang and how the universe came to be... And you are welcome to add yours if you wish

Everyone here seems to be attempting to make jokes / snide comments at JCs expense...so I'm interested to see what other people's beliefs are... Surely they must have some absolutle gems of absolutle truth... Going by their posts it appears that way, wouldn't you say?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Opinions don't come into it. Asking what happened before there was time is a contradiction in terms.

And why is it that you say that? Are you assuming that nothing transcends time??

No, I wouldn't. I would expect most people in this forum to say "I don't know", because that's the only honest answer about how the universe was created. Beliefs are irrelevant.

Again what makes you say that? I'm genuinely curious

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't even know what that question means.

By you stating that nothing can happen "before" time, you are implying that everything that ever existed is bound by time then? Am I correct?

Mick_1970 wrote: »

Thanks, I know we need oxygen and various other elements for life, but I am curious where you think this carbon came from?

I believe that it was created (along with all of the other elements).

If you are asking how living organisms acquire the carbon that they use to grow and live ... it largely comes from atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is captured by plants using photosyntesis ... and then become available to all living organisms right along the food-chain.

King Mob wrote: »

JC,
You seem to have missed the entirety of oldrnwisr's post and seem to have mistakenly stolen and copypasted some random list that you clearly don't understand.

I'm sure that this is some oversight and you'll be quick to go back and properly return the courtesy Old has given you by replying in a clear, well written and knowledgable way.

Oldrnwisr is up to his usual posting style of producing a wall of quite turgid text ... that is almost impossible to penetrate.

I'd be happy to address individual points one at a time ... but I'm not prepared to address walls of text.
Life is too short ... and all that !!!:)

J C wrote: »

Oldrnwisr is up to his usual posting style of producing a wall of quite turgid text ... that is almost impossible to penetrate.

I'd be happy to address individual points one at a time ... but I'm not prepared to address walls of text.
Life is too short ... and all that !!!:)

Kettle

Pot

Black

:pac:

pone2012 wrote: »

By you stating that nothing can happen "before" time, you are implying that everything that ever existed is bound by time then? Am I correct?

... and that is another reason these guys don't believe in God ... and/or ask who created God.

The reason they say that nothing can happen 'before' time is clearly driven by their materialistic beliefs that nothing (can) exist outside this physical realm.

... and the weakness in their argument is that 'something' obviously had to exist outside this physical realm ... to produce this physical realm, in the first place ... and that 'something' had to be at least as powerful as what 'It' produced ... which makes 'It' effectively omipotent.

I believe that the 'something' that produced it all was God.

Mick_1970 wrote: »

Ah OK. Do you believe carbon came from dying stars like a lot of other elements?

Ah ... the old 'we are all stardust' canard raises it's illogical head.:)
The late Carl Segan was a firm believer that he was made from stardust ... but I disagree ... he was a descendent of the first man and woman made by God in His image and likeness, actually.

Delirium wrote: »

You posted without a link to source a copyand paste of text.

I didn't think that a link was required as it was clearly from a fellow Creationist source.

Delirium wrote: »

Oldrnwsr actually took time to compose a lengthy response to what you've posted on this thread, and the best you can do is call call it 'turgid'?

Poor form, JC. That's pretty disrespectful.

I have no wish to be personally disrespectful towards oldrnwsr ... but I'm not prepared to metaphorically 'drown' myself and my readers in reams of text ... responding to his reams of text.

If Oldrnwsr wants to write a book on his ideas, I may read it ... but I'm certainly not going to respond to every incorrect idea and claim cited by him in it.
This is not the place for such heavy prose !!!:)

Mick_1970 wrote: »

No illogical reasoning here, Carl Sagan was correct. Then only way to produce carbon is inside a star, how do you postulate it got created?

Says who? ... and how?

If carbon was indeed created within a star, the temperatures and pressures would have been such that it would have been ejected as the diamond metastable allotrope of Carbon ... and not the biologically useful forms of carbon, found in carbon dioxide, sugars, etc.

... and we'd all be eating diamonds ... instead of dinner !!!:)

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's take just one aspect of his post, where he disproves (using Shannon's work) the assertion that a mutation can't increase information.

You clearly believe Dembski over Shannon. Can you explain why Claude Shannon is wrong?

Both Dembski and Shannon are correct ... but they are talking about totally different things ... Dembski is talking about CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) whilst Shannon is talking about the quantification, compression, storage, and communication of all forms of information ... including non-complex, non-functional, non-specified information.