Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Comments
-
equivariant wrote: »A plain reading of the text ... would be the obvious solution ... but it would put a lot of theologians, priests, ministers, rabbis, bishops ... and assorted Atheists, out of business ... and a lot of people wouldn't want that !!!!:)
On the contrary, many (most?) atheists are probably in favour of people reading the bible and not explaining away the awkward stuff as metaphor. A plain reading of the bible generally exposes it for the pile of codswallop that it is (posting in A+A is much more fun than in christianity).
http://www.atheist.ie/campaigns/read-the-bible-campaign/
No equivariant, you still don't understand :rolleyes: The 10 commandments are
also metaphors, just in the places where it doesn't appear obvious :rolleyes:
Furthermore those atheists in your link also don't understand how the
bible is not a scientific text, biblical authors can write whatever they
want as long as they've included enough ridiculousness - that seems to
be the litmus test for a metaphor in this book.
Come back to me when you've studied ancient Hebrew & Greek apologetics
interpretations of how to understand what is serious and what is not. If
a book of this stature was given to a mainly illiterate community a few
centuries ago it's surely understandable how we may not understand the
impenetrable prose/meaning of such a deep book on "morality".
After all, the word of god is something we hardly want to make difficult
I feel slightly dirty...0 -
J C I am slightly Confused by your explanation of redshift. The final paragraph of your reply shows a link to an anomaly which seems to defy the use of stellar movement as an explanation for redshift. Thus (according to you or your 'save as' from the AIG) rendering redshift as inaccurate method of calculating astronomical distances.
J C your first paragraph clearly states "The following list summarizes some of the alternative explanations for the origin of this stellar red-shift".
Included in the list of alternatives is Stellar Motion. are you implying that stellar drift is not the most commonly accepted cause of redshift and only an alternative????
J C what i would like to know is are you presenting the other three explanations (Gravitational Redshift, Second-Order Doppler Effect and Photon Interaction) also as means to disregard stellar movement as the primary cause of redshift and thus also rendering redshift as an inaccurate means of calculating astronomical distance??????
Tired light, as J C obviously copied just and pasted without much
understanding, has been discounted. Furthermore this gravitational
redshift requires a much higher density (I read this off physicsforums, I am
currently only learning physics...). Is it me or do these people always use old and
bad ideas to further their nonsense (flagella, bad cosmology, complexity, yada yada
yada...).
I doubt you'll get an answer btw
0 -
OMG!!!
J C, I found the source of your Richard Dawkins comment:
(Around 1:40)
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having
been designed for a purpose.
And there was me thinking you'd actually read it :rolleyes:0 -
.sponsoredwalk wrote: »J C
All of the supposedly vestigial organs have some function ... indeed some
have important functions, for example, the role of the Coccyx in bipedalism
and the appendix in maintaining healthy gut flora, especially in young
babies.
Loss of some CFSI after it's originaly perfect Intelligent Design at Creation
can explain the loss of various characteristics, such as flight in Emus,
while mis-placed hairs is evidence of degeneracy in functionality since
Creation.
Yes of course the appendix & coccyx are going to take on these functions.
J C the point is that their "primary" purpose is gone. This, again
, is an
example of natural selection. The point of the tailbone is that it shows
common descent, J C, how do you explain a bloody tail in humans? Why
would a tailbone that so many other species share, and something that
can be traced back through evolutionary history,
The primary purpose of the Appendix was, is and will be the establishment and maintenance of a healthy gut flora, especially in young babies ... and theprimary purpose of the Coccyx was, is and will be the facilitation of bipedalism ...
... and the 'tracing back through (non-existent) evolutionary history' is entirely a figment of Evolutionist's imaginations
It's beautiful how you explain away examples in ways that actually show
your argument to be incorrect, it's an acquired skill :P
Nobody claims vestigial organs are useless, I specifically said "apparent
purpose" because it is an important distinction. The apparent inclusion of a
tailbone is important because it's lost the function of a tailbone but held on
to other things.
The actual purposes of the Appendix and the Coccyx are objectively as I have described above ... and there is nothing 'apparent' about them!!!
Oh, and you have absolutely zero evidence that the loss of functions of
anything explains how this could be loss of functions after the flood.
You're making stuff up here my friend and have no evidence to back it up
The loss of function is directly observable when mutations occur ... right up to today..
J C calling it a serious design flaw .. and a smart adaptation is a contradiction[/B]
No, no, no :eek: You've got me JC!!!!
:(:confused::mad::eek::D:rolleyes:
You really misunderstand what I meant. It's a serious design flaw if you're
trying to design a man who needs to be adequately protected from danger.
I think you'll admit having something dangling is a visible target for a
potential predator. Also, it makes you wonder seeing as most other
mammals have internal testes. It would be safer if you were designing
something "perfect" :rolleyes: It's a serious design flaw for a designer.
But, from an evolutionary standpoint, i.e. a blind struggle towards
something that will work, it makes perfect sense because keeping them
out of the body will cool them.
As usual, when it comes to Evolution and Evolutionist 'logic' ... the reverse is true.
If damage is an issue then even NS would elimiate external testes ... but damage is obviously an insignificant issue ... and design ... in the externalisation of God's brilliant handi-work is there for every man (and certain privileged women) to admire !!!!
By the way that was no proper answer...
touché!!!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I can, of course, read myself ...sponsoredwalk wrote: »OMG!!! J C, I found the source of your Richard Dawkins comment:
(Around 1:40)
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having
been designed for a purpose.
And there was me thinking you'd actually read it :rolleyes:
... and I have read the Blind Watchmaker!!!
... even the title of Prof Dawkins' book illustrates the irony of its thesis ... a blind human watchmaker wouldn't be able to produce and assemble the fine detail and CFSI in a watch ... and ditto with any other 'blind watchmaker' being able to produce the fine detail and CFSI in living organisms!!!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
The 'jury is out' on redshift as a means of calculating stellar distance, both because of the alternative explanations ... and the question marks over the Big Bangf / Universal Expansion theory that underpins the supposed link between redshift and stellar distance.
J C through reading all of your replies on this thread I thought that you would never cease to amaze me however...
By saying that "The jury is out" on this matter you are inadvertently making yourself the jury! No self-respecting physicist would for one second use these theories as a viable explanation for the shear amount of redshifted galaxies in the universe. It also highlights the shortfall in your meager understanding of physics to adequately explain and/or debate your arguments from a 'creationist science' (a phenomenon in its own rite) website.
Anyway...
J C I am going to going to conclude from your answer to my question that yes, YOU do think these other possible explanations for redshift are a viable cause for this effect and therefore (according to you,the jury and executioner) render redshift as an unreliable method of calculating distance!
I will aslo take it that you do not acknowledge expansion theory as being a plausible one and therefore according to you (the jury) also renders redshift an unreliable method for distance calculation.
Just one more question J C. By implying that using redshift as a means to calculate distance is not an accurate method, are you ultimately trying to say that our deductions of 13.5 gigayrs (approx) for the age of the universe is therefore wrong and that God really did create the heavens 6000 years ago?????????0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »Tired light, as J C obviously copied just and pasted without much
understanding, has been discounted. Furthermore this gravitational
redshift requires a much higher density (I read this off physicsforums, I am
currently only learning physics...). Is it me or do these people always use old and
bad ideas to further their nonsense (flagella, bad cosmology, complexity, yada yada
yada...).
I doubt you'll get an answer btw
You hit the nail on the head sponsoredwalk. This 'Tired Light' hypothesis originated solely as a proposal with very little evidence to back it up and to this day no evidence has been found to support it but much to oppose it!
This is another perfect example of creationist websites boasting evidence like this to support their claims. Evidence which uses complex,extravegant and strange words which on the face of it appear to hold merit but really, are just there to bamboozle uneducated creationists such as J C.
J C clearly didnt understand what tired light or photon interaction actually meant while he was copying and pasting it. The reason I know this is because what 'AnswersinGenesis' didnt tell J C is that if 'Tired Light' theory were ever proved, it would still actually support redshift as a viable means of calculating distance!
incidentally sponsoredwalk how are you finding physics in general? i am only recently delving into genetics but can honestly say that im finding it mainly difficult, not so much through lack of understanding but volume to remember.
speaking of a lack of understanding! Look at J C's responce to "loss of function and The Flood"
forgive me if im wrong sponsoredwalk but, is'nt loss of function through mutation a clear example that evolution does exist whether its due to a flood or some other disaster in nature? 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
J C wrote:The loss of function is directly observable when mutations occur ... right up to today..
This just refutes your whole argument. Another one of those brilliantly
ironic utterances out of your own e-mouth You agree with the idea of
those "evolutionists", that mutations occur, but for some reason you
are arguing with me... So strange
This is like leading a lamb to the slaugherhouse, I mean it's so ridiculousJ C wrote:The primary purpose of the Appendix was, is and will be the establishment and maintenance of a healthy gut flora, especially in young babies ...
and theprimary purpose of the Coccyx was, is and will be the facilitation of bipedalism ...
... and the 'tracing back through (non-existent) evolutionary history' is entirely a figment of Evolutionist's imaginations
how you trip yourself up
How does your miraculous explanation account for people born without a tailbone?
I don't see the correlation to "bipedalism" in these circumstances :rolleyes:
I suppose these people walk funny eh? What a joke J C...
Need we mention people being born without appendices? :pac:
Also, I'm glad you know better than wikipedia who characterize these
functions as secondary but of course wikipedia is wrong because anybody
can alter it & your creationist, sorry, ID websites are obviously more credible :P
By the way, nothing you've written gives us any reason to believe your
fairytale theory
:rolleyes:The actual purposes of the Appendix and the Coccyx are objectively as I have described above ... and there is nothing 'apparent' about them!!!
J C, if those people who were born with external testes could not survive
As usual, when it comes to Evolution and Evolutionist 'logic' ... the reverse is true.
If damage is an issue then even NS would elimiate external testes ... but damage is obviously an insignificant issue ... and design ... in the externalisation of God's brilliant handi-work is there for every man (and certain privileged women) to admire !!!!
due to their external thingamajigs then they, I mean we, would not be
around today. We survived & obviously this was not enough of a flaw to
ruin the survival of the species. Now, you've only responded to what I've
said with putting it down and then saying the magic man made things the
way they are - so there :P Again, if you're willing to be swayed by this
ridiculous logic more power to you, just don't try to get any real power
or you'll have a lot of people on your case
Again, nothing you've written gives us any reason to believe your
fairytale theory 0 -
I can, of course, read myself ...
... and I have read the Blind Watchmaker!!!
... even the title of Prof Dawkins' book illustrates the irony of its thesis ... a blind human watchmaker wouldn't be able to produce and assemble the fine detail and CFSI in a watch ... and ditto with any other 'blind watchmaker' being able to produce the fine detail and CFSI in living organisms!!!
J C, I hate to break it to you, but there is no blind watchmaker aiming to
make fine detail... There is absolutely no way you understood that book if you wrote the above.We are all descended from one man 'Y-Chromosome Adam' and one woman 'Mitochondrial Eve' ... whose diverse genomes contained the genetics that has given rise to all of the races of Mankind.
We are all truly one blood and cousins!!!
Therefore evolution didn't happen
You're using evolution to explain this my friend, strange stuffThe white variants originally migrated away from high sun areas ... and the darker skinned people migrated towards the high sun areas ... a form of Natural/Environmental Selection. Mutagenesis after the Fall caused various diseases and other genetic problems.
Therefore evolution didn't happen
This, again, is evolution you're talking. J C when will the irony end with you?
I'm sure you know how mitochondrial eve oiginated under your fairytale
thesis, right? I'd like to hear it
0 -
You hit the nail on the head sponsoredwalk. This 'Tired Light' hypothesis originated solely as a proposal with very little evidence to back it up and to this day no evidence has been found to support it but much to oppose it!
This is another perfect example of creationist websites boasting evidence like this to support their claims. Evidence which uses complex,extravegant and strange words which on the face of it appear to hold merit but really, are just there to bamboozle uneducated creationists such as J C.
J C clearly didnt understand what tired light or photon interaction actually meant while he was copying and pasting it. The reason I know this is because what 'AnswersinGenesis' didnt tell J C is that if 'Tired Light' theory were ever proved, it would still actually support redshift as a viable means of calculating distance!
incidentally sponsoredwalk how are you finding physics in general? i am only recently delving into genetics but can honestly say that im finding it mainly difficult, not so much through lack of understanding but volume to remember.
speaking of a lack of understanding! Look at J C's responce to "loss of function and The Flood" forgive me if im wrong sponsoredwalk but, is'nt loss of function through mutation a clear example that evolution does exist whether its due to a flood or some other disaster in nature?
Yeah man, it's like the 2012 stuff, sounds so important when you hear of
the alignment of the galaxies and all this amazingly complicated stuff...
It's unfortunate that these people fail to explain that this happens every
year on 2012 Similarly with J C and his ilk, get some official sounding
stuff from the world of physics and claim it accords with your woo-woo
& you've got a website & 100,000 hits in no time
For me physics is a bit strange, I worked through most of the Newtonian
mechanics portion of the book with little math, then went back to get my
math up to speed and came back but felt the explanations were really
lacking so I am now working through an engineering text to get deep into it
before moving on to waves & E&M. I know I should just plow through the
text but really I'd prefer a solid knowledge of the basics before moving on.
How about you? By the way with genetics I'd advise you working through a
basic college text on Bio before jumping into hardcore genetics, It may not
be necessary for you but I would think it'd be better.0 -
Man, nice video! I'm glad you pwned him royally here Did you get the
Dr. Cox thing from King Mob earlier in the thread btw, this post?
His comment about evolution producing oxygen is the, hands down,
the most ridiculous thing he's said. I'm glad Gene Wilder had the power to
convey that though & I'm glad you had enough sense to throw that in :pac:
I tip my Willy Wonka hat sir :cool: I haven't a clue what he
was trying to say! Was he trying to talk about air & carbon dioxide?0 -
It is possible that light waves exchange energy during their movement across space and lose some energy in the process. A loss of light energy is equivalent to a "reddening" of its light. The red sunsets at dusk are a form of redshift dues to energy loss in the atmosphere ... and nobody is arguing that the Sun is moving away from the Earth ... or that you can measure the distance to the Sun using it!!!You hit the nail on the head sponsoredwalk. This 'Tired Light' hypothesis originated solely as a proposal with very little evidence to back it up and to this day no evidence has been found to support it but much to oppose it!
This is another perfect example of creationist websites boasting evidence like this to support their claims. Evidence which uses complex,extravegant and strange words which on the face of it appear to hold merit but really, are just there to bamboozle uneducated creationists such as J C.
J C clearly didnt understand what tired light or photon interaction actually meant while he was copying and pasting it. The reason I know this is because what 'AnswersinGenesis' didnt tell J C is that if 'Tired Light' theory were ever proved, it would still actually support redshift as a viable means of calculating distance!
... the point is that a loss of information is going in the wrong direction to what is required to 'evolve' pondkind CFSI into the much greater Mankind CFSI.incidentally sponsoredwalk how are you finding physics in general? i am only recently delving into genetics but can honestly say that im finding it mainly difficult, not so much through lack of understanding but volume to remember.
speaking of a lack of understanding! Look at J C's responce to "loss of function and The Flood" forgive me if im wrong sponsoredwalk but, is'nt loss of function through mutation a clear example that evolution does exist whether its due to a flood or some other disaster in nature?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
sponsoredwalk wrote: »
For me physics is a bit strange, I worked through most of the Newtonian
mechanics portion of the book with little math, then went back to get my
math up to speed and came back but felt the explanations were really
lacking so I am now working through an engineering text to get deep into it
before moving on to waves & E&M. I know I should just plow through the
text but really I'd prefer a solid knowledge of the basics before moving on.
How about you? By the way with genetics I'd advise you working through a
basic college text on Bio before jumping into hardcore genetics, It may not
be necessary for you but I would think it'd be better.
Yes sponsored walk. The basics are absolutely vital in physics. Without which you will never understand theoretical physics or the arguments for or against theories.
I can understand why you find it strange as I find genetics strange mainly because you dont really think from a practical and spacial point of view as you should in physics.
Look i dont want you to feel insulted or anything but even a higher level leaving cert physics book is enough to give a fairly good understanding of the basics(this course is surprisingly comprehensive in mechanics, light etc but yet dosn't get bogged down in Newtonian laws) But i assume that you did Science at Uni. in which case you probably would have done physics modules before specializing in genetics?
i dont really know why you are following an engineering text, I did engineering degree at uni but to be honest i would try and revolve around basic thoery and experimental proof.
as for me and genetics im ashamed to admit that i havn't even got a basic understanding of the basics yet
so when you mention txt books sponsoredwalk im looking for something along the lines of 'genetics for dummies'. :rolleyes: 0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtP020hXiAU
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement