"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

17-03-2012 08:15PM

J C wrote: »

There isn't anything that has been reliably radiocarbon dated before about 10,000 BP.

Course I'm sure you are aware of the other forms of radiometric dating JC...

Delirium · 17-03-2012 08:18PM

JC, can you please define CFSI as you mention it in the response to oldrnwsr? And I'm begging you to please not define each individual word, as I'm trying to get to grips with your post above.

Also, why are you using a biblical story to counter scientific arguments? And if you're using the Noah story, then you can only mean the creator is the Christian god otherwise the Noah story doesn't support your argument.

You've also made the point that why should we presume that animals that exist today are a result of mutation that happened over time? But you yourself support such an idea, albeit with limitations to suit your creationist narrative. by this I mean that all lions, tigers, panthers, pumas, cheetahs and all variety of house-cat evolved from one pair of cat (i.e. the original mating pair of the "Cat Kind"). Aside from your religious convictions, what reason have you to presume that evolution didn't happen on a larger scale than what you suggest?

Evade · 17-03-2012 08:21PM

J C wrote: »

There isn't anything that has been reliably radiocarbon dated before about 10,000 BP.

That is why Humans have always had writing ... but it only goes back a few thousand years.

What about the Chauvet Cave?

Delirium · 17-03-2012 08:23PM

J C wrote: »

There isn't anything that has been reliably radiocarbon dated before about 10,000 BP.

Not so according to this article. The oldest discovered fossils are microfossils that are dated at 3.4 billion years old

Evade · 17-03-2012 08:30PM

J C wrote: »

Creation could be as long ago as 10,000 years.
... and interestingly our written history starts about 6,000 years ago.

... pretty bizzarre if we have been around for millions of years.

J C wrote: »

That is why Humans have always had writing ... but it only goes back a few thousand years.

There's as much as a 4000 year discrepancy there, care to explain?

J C · 17-03-2012 08:37PM

koth wrote: »

JC, can you please define CFSI as you mention it in the response to oldrnwsr? And I'm begging you to please not define each individual word, as I'm trying to get to grips with your post above.

Also, why are you using a biblical story to counter scientific arguments? And if you're using the Noah story, then you can only mean the creator is the Christian god otherwise the Noah story doesn't support your argument.

You've also made the point that why should we presume that animals that exist today are a result of mutation that happened over time? But you yourself support such an idea, albeit with limitations to suit your creationist narrative. by this I mean that all lions, tigers, panthers, pumas, cheetahs and all variety of house-cat evolved from one pair of cat (i.e. the original mating pair of the "Cat Kind"). Aside from your religious convictions, what reason have you to presume that evolution didn't happen on a larger scale than what you suggest?

Evolution (at any scale) can only proceed on the basis of the CFSI component of the population involved ... and the CFSI is always the result of an ultimate intelligent input or manipulation.
'Evolution' isn't confined within Kinds ... it proceeds via genetic engineering with the artificial transfer of CFSI right across different Kinds.

It is therefore entirely possible that an advanced civilisation (of some type of Alien) was responsible for the Creation of Humans. Whether this was how it happened ... or it was the God of the Bible who did it is a matter of Faith.
... but the God of the Bible is ultimately the superior explanation ... because the Alien Hypothesis begs the question as to who 'engineered' / Created the Aliens?
... while an omnipotent and transcendent God has the capacity to Create without any need for further agents to be involved in His Creation.
I accept that we have left science at this point ... and entered philosophy/theology and the faith realm.

J C · 17-03-2012 08:40PM

Evade wrote: »

There's as much as a 4000 year discrepancy there, care to explain?

The disruption/destruction caused by the Flood to ante-diluvian writings is the most likely explantion.

J C · 17-03-2012 08:42PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
There isn't anything that has been reliably radiocarbon dated before about 10,000 BP.

koth
Not so according to this article. The oldest discovered fossils are microfossils that are dated at 3.4 billion years old

These certainly weren't dated using radiocarbon techniques!!!

J C · 17-03-2012 08:47PM

Evade wrote: »

What about the Chauvet Cave?

I think that you'll find the answer here.

Evade · 17-03-2012 08:49PM

King Mob wrote: »

Course I'm sure you are aware of the other forms of radiometric dating JC...

koth wrote: »

Not so according to this article. The oldest discovered fossils are microfossils that are dated at 3.4 billion years old

J C wrote: »

These certainly weren't dated using radiocarbon techniques!!!

Pretty self explanatory.

J C wrote: »

The disruption/destruction caused by the Flood to ante-diluvian writings is the most likely explantion.

Right, and where's your scientific evidence for such an event fairy tale?

Evade · 17-03-2012 08:53PM

J C wrote: »

I think that you'll find the answer here.

I got as far as

Creationist Drivel Site wrote:

When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible.

And you wonder why people question your scientific method?

Delirium · 17-03-2012 08:54PM

J C wrote: »

Evolution (at any scale) can only proceed on the basis of the CFSI component of the population involved ... and the CFSI is always the result of an ultimate intelligent input or manipulation.
'Evolution' isn't confined within Kinds ... it proceeds via genetic engineering with the artificial transfer of CFSI right across different Kinds.

You haven't defined CFSI so that argument currently has no merit, as CFSI is nowhere in any documentation relating to evolution. And if evolution isn't confined to Kinds, then why is evolution not a valid explanation if evolution can happen across Kinds?

It is therefore entirely possible that an advanced civilisation (of some type of Alien) was responsible for the Creation of Humans. Whether this was how it happened ... or it was the God of the Bible who did it is a matter of Faith.

But if it was aliens then God didn't do it, and it means using the Noah story to argue against evolution makes even less sense.

... but the God of the Bible is ultimately the superior explanation ... because the Alien Hypothesis begs the question as to who 'engineered' / Created the Aliens?

And that also means that someone has to answer who 'engineered'/created God of the bible

... while an omnipotent and transcendent God has the capacity to Create without any need for further agents to be involved in His Creation.

And thus your own creationism idea falls foul of your own 'everything needs a creator' argument. Adding in clauses to suit creationism is hypocritical.

At least evolution has a consistency to how things work.

shizz · 17-03-2012 08:57PM

J C wrote: »

... because the Alien Hypothesis begs the question as to who 'engineered' / Created the Aliens?

So to does the God Hypothesis.

J C · 17-03-2012 09:02PM

Evade wrote: »

I got as far as

"When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible."

And you wonder why people question your scientific method?

Didn't see that myself ...

... but it's good advice ... and makes a pleasant change from the secular equivalent ... which boils down to 'all phenomena must be explicable by non-supernatural means' ...
... or 'we are here ... so we must have got here via purely materialistic means'.

These are all faith-based paradigms - that close out other possibilities.

As a Creation Scientist ... I would report something ... even if it conflicted with the Bible ... and Ken Ham would then have to make of it as he might.

Delirium · 17-03-2012 09:06PM

J C wrote: »

Didn't see that myself ...

It's good advice ... and makes a pleasant change from the secular equivalent ... which boils down to 'all phenomena must be explicable by non-supernatural means' ...
... or 'we are here ... so we must have got here via purely materialistic means'.

These are all faith-based paradigms.

No, science is following the evidence and so far the need for a super-natural agent isn't required. Whereas creationism goes straight to the super-natural and works from there.

J C · 17-03-2012 09:06PM

shizz wrote: »

So to does the God Hypothesis.

... not an omnipotent eternal transcendent God Hypothesis.
... (please note that this would be a philosophical, rather than a scientific hypothesis).

Evade · 17-03-2012 09:08PM

J C wrote: »

Didn't see that myself ...

It's good advice ... and makes a pleasant change from the secular equivalent ... which boils down to 'all phenomena must be explicable by non-supernatural means' ...
... or 'we are here ... so we must have got here via purely materialistic means'.

These are all faith-based paradigms.

Seriously?

Proof positive that JC's scientific method is "I don't know, so it was magic."

I think the stupidity is giving me a headache.

J C · 17-03-2012 09:13PM

koth wrote: »

No, science is following the evidence and so far the need for a super-natural agent isn't required. Whereas creationism goes straight to the super-natural and works from there.

The truth is that nobody can definitively say whether a super-natural agent is required to Create Life or not ... but there is a very strong circumstantial evidence that it is required, due to the inordinate levels of CFSI present in even the 'simplest' life-forms.
Conventional scientists should be able to agree to differ on this point ... without 'all hell breaking loose' over it!!!
Its an amazing ... and often counter-intuitive scientific world out there ... let's agree to share it in mutual respect ... and love.
... learning from each other as we go along!!!

Evade · 17-03-2012 09:17PM

J C wrote: »

The truth is that nobody can definitively say whether a super-natural agent is required to Create Life or not ... but there is a very strong circumstantial evidence that it is required, due to the inordinate levels of CFSI present in even the 'simplest' life-forms.

And CFSI is what exactly? A compound? A mico-organism? A Creationist False Science Idea?

Delirium · 17-03-2012 09:19PM

J C wrote: »

The truth is that nobody can definitively say whether a super-natural agent is required to Create Life or not ... but there is a very strong circumstantial evidence that it is required, due to the inordinate levels of CFSI present in even the 'simplest' life-forms.

An excellent argument against injecting a deity into the argument, especially as that is an argument against abiogenesis and not evolution. Plus CFSI is still undefined so can't be used to argue for creationism from a scientific angle.

Conventional scientists should be able to agree to differ on this point ... without 'all hell breaking loose' over it!!!

Of course they can. But creationism doesn't fall under the umbrella of science. And usually scientists that go against the majority have a working model and/or evidence to back up their claims if they wish to be taken seriously.

Its an amazing ... and often counter-intuitive scientific world out there ... let's agree to share it in mutual respect ... and love.
... learning from each other as we go along!!!

Of course we can. But from where I sit, creationism shows no respect to the field of science. It comes from a "this is my religion, make science work to suit this" perpective, which isn't scientific at all.

J C · 17-03-2012 09:20PM

Evade wrote: »

Seriously?

Proof positive that JC's scientific method is "I don't know, so it was magic."

I think the stupidity is giving me a headache.

"I don't know, so it was magic" ... could equally apply to the Materialist position ... nobody knows whether it was a materialistic miracle ... or an omnipotent God.

... but isn't it great to be alive and with the freedom to try and find out ... This is one very big 'mountain' that scientists haven't yet conquered ... so will it be the Materialists ... or the Creationists who will finally plant the flag??

Exciting stuff!!!:)

Corkfeen · 17-03-2012 09:24PM

J C wrote: »

Didn't see that myself ...

... but it's good advice ... and makes a pleasant change from the secular equivalent ... which boils down to 'all phenomena must be explicable by non-supernatural means' ...
... or 'we are here ... so we must have got here via purely materialistic means'.

These are all faith-based paradigms - that close out other possibilities.

As a Creation Scientist ... I would report something ... even if it conflicted with the Bible ... and Ken Ham would then have to make of it as he might.

If you hadn't lost your credibility thousands of posts ago, you'd have lost it as a result of this. Science requires evidence for its 'beliefs' and if there is evidence that supports other hypotheses, they will be investigated and accepted if it proves to be correct (So it doesn't close out other possibilities). So science is ever changing in its beliefs based on evidence. A key example of this coming into play is a CERN particle accelerator supposedly breaking the speed of light. Scientists were perfectly willing to investigate it even though it would have changed the entire field of physics.

So nothing like religious faith in which you say 'god did it' followed by pseudoscience that has already been proven to be incorrect. Creation 'science' websites and the bible are not a legitimate source of information to backup creationism as a field of science.

Sarky · 17-03-2012 09:29PM

I'm sure J C will tell us all WHY ignoring evidence when it contradicts the bible is scientific.

And then he shall fly a winged mushroom to the land of the Sherbet Queen and marry Jebus and live happily ever after.

Christ, his latest guff was almost physically painful, it was so hilariously bad.

Zombrex · 18-03-2012 01:58AM

Sarky wrote: »

I'm sure J C will tell us all WHY ignoring evidence when it contradicts the bible is scientific.

Cause he is a troll who is just trying to wind you guys up.

Anyone who still thinks JC is actually a Christian Creationist needs to take a break, get a bit of fresh air, re-evaluate your life. He is a troll playing a Christian for sh8ts and giggles. He has practically admitted as much, every time he says something completely unChristian and this is pointed out to him he jokes it off and gives a knowing wink. No one on the Christian forum will go near him because they know he is not a Christian and is just giving Christianity a bad name (perhaps on purpose, I'm guessing he is an atheist, certainly non-religious).

Its all a big game to him. If people aren't enjoying playing along with him they should leave the game.

J C · 18-03-2012 01:59AM

Sarky wrote: »

I'm sure J C will tell us all WHY ignoring evidence when it contradicts the bible is scientific.

I didn't say that ... and had you read my full post you would clearly see that I didn't say that I would ignore evidence when it contradicts the Bible
I agreed with the statement that "When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible."... which is a faith-based paradigm in relation to the Bible.

I then went on to point out that Materialists have similar faith-based paradigms - that close out other faith possibilities.
These secular paradigms boil down to something like 'all phenomena must be explicable by non-supernatural means' ...
... or 'we are here ... so we must have got here via purely materialistic means'.
... and I finished with my stance as a Creation Scientist ... which is that I would scientifically report something ... even if it conflicted with the Bible ... and Ken Ham would then have to make of it as he might.
... and indeed I myself, as a Bible believing Christian, would have a significant issue with my faith, if this were to occur.
... but I would hope that I wouldn't go into denial ... like the Materialists have done when faced with the challenge of the latest breakthroughs in ID research to their paradigm that 'we are here ... so we must have got here via purely materialistic means'.
.

fatmammycat · 18-03-2012 09:31AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Cause he is a troll who is just trying to wind you guys up.

Anyone who still thinks JC is actually a Christian Creationist needs to take a break, get a bit of fresh air, re-evaluate your life. He is a troll playing a Christian for sh8ts and giggles. He has practically admitted as much, every time he says something completely unChristian and this is pointed out to him he jokes it off and gives a knowing wink. No one on the Christian forum will go near him because they know he is not a Christian and is just giving Christianity a bad name (perhaps on purpose, I'm guessing he is an atheist, certainly non-religious).

Its all a big game to him. If people aren't enjoying playing along with him they should leave the game.

This, a thousand times over.

shizz · 18-03-2012 11:53AM

J C wrote: »

... not an omnipotent eternal transcendent God Hypothesis.
... (please note that this would be a philosophical, rather than a scientific hypothesis).

But isn't that just an easy way to ignore a problem?

J C · 18-03-2012 02:21PM

shizz wrote: »

But isn't that just an easy way to ignore a problem?

It certainly isn't ignoring the origins issue ... and it's philosphically and logically valid.
Direct Creation by an Omipotent Transcendent God is the best available explanation for the origin of the Universe and all life therein.

It doesn't mean that another better explanation may not be discovered, nor does it stop anybody trying to find one.

It isn't a scientific (repeatably observable) explanation ... but neither are any of the other current explantions repeatably observable ... and therefore within the scientific realm, either.

Sarky · 18-03-2012 02:23PM

You're posting bollocks again. I thought you said you were a scientist?

J C · 18-03-2012 02:35PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Anyone who still thinks JC is actually a Christian Creationist needs to take a break, get a bit of fresh air, re-evaluate your life. He is a troll playing a Christian for sh8ts and giggles. He has practically admitted as much, every time he says something completely unChristian and this is pointed out to him he jokes it off and gives a knowing wink. No one on the Christian forum will go near him because they know he is not a Christian and is just giving Christianity a bad name (perhaps on purpose, I'm guessing he is an atheist, certainly non-religious).

I have posted on the Christianity Forum ... and I have found that the Christians there seem to be largely Old Earth Evolutionists.
I was challenged on points of Christian Doctrine by many of them, but they invariably ended up losing every argument ... so they largely gave up ... and went back to discussing being better social workers ... or whatever!!!
The main substantive challenges to me over there ... actually came from you guys!!!:eek::)
Anyway ... if I am an Atheist, like you say, surely you should be welcoming me as a 'brother' with a different outook on life ... or are you saying that Atheism is a 'narrow church' with certain tightly held articles of faith ... and any Atheists who doesn't hold these beliefs are to be 'shunned' or 'excommunicated' from amongst the body of Atheists on the A & A!!!:eek::)

... and if I'm giving Christianity a bad name, like you say ... that should be right up your street ... or are you some kind of 'closet Christian'???

... the reality is that large sections of Christianity are in a fatal embrace with Evolutionism ... and they need to go back to basics ... and start to study and proclaim Scripture ... if they are to become effective and relevant again within society.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments