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 Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…7071737576…232

Comments

  • #2162
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    You offered "proof" that your beliefs were the truth. But all you gave me were Articles written by creationists like yourself. That can never be considered objective proof. I'm not even getting into the details of the web pages, because they were as accurate as the smokers beliefs, laced with half truths that any objective scientist would drive a bus through. Show me objective evidence that your way of thinking has been proved by independent laboratories or even independent publications. Not by subjective pro creationists like yourself.
    I gave you reasons that the Earth is thousands of years old ... and you are engaging in the favourite behaviour of many 'long agers' when faced with this overwhelming evidence ... you go into denial ... and start making dark mutterings and unfounded insults ... but you provide no substantive challenge to the evidence.


  • #2163
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    There are many things which logic and common sense tells us are dangerous ... and we don't need exhaustive scientific studies to prove them!!!

    Smoking is objectively dangerous ...

    That was only discovered after "exhaustive scientific studies"

    So basically you are saying we don't need science to show what science has already shown. Brilliant JC, slow clap :rolleyes:


  • #2164
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    That was only discovered after "exhaustive scientific studies"

    So basically you are saying we don't need science to show what science has already shown. Brilliant JC, slow clap :rolleyes:
    Common sense tells us that inhaling the products of the combustion of organic material (AKA smoke) is dangerous and to be avoided, if you want to live a healthy life.
    What science has exhaustively documented are the details of the chemicals involved and the statistics on morbidity and mortality.
    Its like common sense telling us that it is dangerous to 'jay-walk' ... and science providing the stats for the number of jay-walkers killed/injured each year.
    Nobody needs to study a science paper in order to logically decide to not jay-walk ... or smoke ... except, perhaps somebody who is an acolyte of Scientism!!:)
    ... and if they have to consult lengthy scientific articles before taking action, every time they encounter dangers ... they are not likely to survive long enough, to consult said science reports.:)


  • #2165
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    Common sense tells us that inhaling the products of the combustion of organic material (AKA smoke) is dangerous and to be avoided, if you want to live a healthy life.

    "Common sense" is merely common culturally accepted information, irrespective of its truth. The information about smoking came from science originally and entered the mainstream (ie became "common sense") through the dissemination of the information by media outlets.

    Humans working simply on instinct, without the medical research into the lungs, cancer and the effect of smoking on both, would know nothing about the effects of smoke without science, and for thousands of years didn't.

    All this is rather off topic, but thanks again for demonstrating how utterly scientifically ignorant you truly are JC :cool:


  • #2166
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    "Common sense" is merely common culturally accepted information, irrespective of its truth. The information about smoking came from science originally and entered the mainstream (ie became "common sense") through the dissemination of the information by media outlets.

    Humans working simply on instinct, without the medical research into the lungs, cancer and the effect of smoking on both, would know nothing about the effects of smoke without science, and for thousands of years didn't.

    All this is rather off topic, but thanks again for demonstrating how utterly scientifically ignorant you truly are JC :cool:
    If Humans worked on mere instinct ... they would run a mile from smoke ... just like animals do!!!

    You don't need a scientist to tell you that something that chokes you and blinds you is bad for you!!


  • Advertisement
  • #2167
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    J C wrote: »
    If Humans worked on mere instinct ... they would run a mile from smoke ... just like animals do!!!

    You don't need a scientist to tell you that something that chokes you and blinds you is bad for you!!
    Are you joking? There's is just so much wrong with your post.

    I also think you don't know the meaning of instinct, nor how it operates biologically. Instinct isn't the end all and be all of animal behaviour, of any kind, at all.


  • #2168
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Are you joking?

    Trolling is probably more accurate.


  • #2169
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    Zombrex wrote: »

    Trolling is probably more accurate.
    The sad thing is, I'm not sure this is the case.


  • #2170
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Gumbi wrote: »
    The sad thing is, I'm not sure this is the case.

    I am, he pretty much admitted as much a few times when he was trolling the Atheism forums. He isn't a Christian, nor a Biblical Creationist. But lots of people on this forum are, so it is often useful to counter his nonsense even if he himself doesn't believe any of it.


  • #2171
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I am, he pretty much admitted as much a few times when he was trolling the Atheism forums. He isn't a Christian, nor a Biblical Creationist. But lots of people on this forum are, so it is often useful to counter his nonsense even if he himself doesn't believe any of it.

    I have to agree that Mr. JC is not all he lets on to be. I have a vision of a little man sitting in front of a computer screen googling topics he knows very little about, and posting them as replies. The trouble with creationists who believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, is that there is very little support from scientists who do not embrace their ideas. If the Young Earth proponents were correct and the Earth was indeed 6-7000 tears old, and if as JC says, there is overwhelming evidence for this, then logically there would be scientists from all religious backgrounds, including agnostics and atheists who would say, “ wait a minute, there is good evidence for this” Good scientists don’t tend to ignore hard, scientific facts. But guess what, there are very few such scientists. The vast majority don’t support the creationist way of thinking and to my mind, if the vast majority don’t support it, then I don’t either. But JC still does!

    However, when you are a believer in creationism, you start with the biblical account and then use whatever evidence you can to make the story fit. That is why we read words like “may have” or “it is possible that this was caused by”, as in the account put forward by JC that “it is possible that the great flood caused Everest to push up to its current height”. Or someone else who says “the great flood may have formed the Grand Canyon”. There is no real evidence for these theories, but they use spurious facts to back up their claims. The bible does not say these things happened, so where do they get them from? Spurious Logic? But not God’s word certainly.
    In discounting radiometric dating they will say things like “ If a fossil is 100,000 years old there should be no carbon 14 present and if it is present that proves that the fossil is much younger”. Very unscientific and not true. No real objective scientist would say such a thing. They may say “well, there is more evidence of carbon 14 than normal in that fossil, but its presence in no way diminishes other evidence that gives us a truer reading like the levels of Uranium 235 or thorium 230. We all know that Carbon 14 is inaccurate for measuring fossils of that age.” That would be a reasonable scientific approach.

    When a person passionately believes in the biblical account, he will quote whatever he can to back up his claims. He will ignore the fact that God appears to support things in the bible which are unpalatable and unacceptable today, such as stoning people to death for adultery, or killing a son if he behaves in certain ways, or even slavery. Should we reintroduce these into our society JC, after all, they are in the words written by God? No doubt you will have concocted an answer that has some foundation in the scriptures, or more likely in Wikipedia or maybe in your head.


  • Advertisement
  • #2172
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Are you joking? There's is just so much wrong with your post.
    ... and you then fail to point out anything that is wrong with it!!
    Gumbi wrote: »
    I also think you don't know the meaning of instinct, nor how it operates biologically. Instinct isn't the end all and be all of animal behaviour, of any kind, at all.
    ... whatever ... the reality is that smoke is an irritant and a signal of danger ... and a five year-old could tell you that ... but of course somebody who believes in Scientism ... would want 200 PhD Docs to confirm these obvious facts ... before they would believe it!!!!:eek::)

    Ye guys must have serious issues when negotiating day to day issues ... like deciding when to cross the road ... when no scientific verification is immediately available to back up your decision!!!:eek::D


  • #2173
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I am, he pretty much admitted as much a few times when he was trolling the Atheism forums. He isn't a Christian, nor a Biblical Creationist. But lots of people on this forum are, so it is often useful to counter his nonsense even if he himself doesn't believe any of it.
    I have admitted no such thing ... and as for your claim that lots of people on this forum are Biblical Creationists ... if they are ... they are keeping it a closely guarded secret!!!
    ... although, come to think of it ... the vitrol that would descend on them for such an admission ... would justify them keeping it secret!!!:eek:


  • #2174
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    I have to agree that Mr. JC is not all he lets on to be. I have a vision of a little man sitting in front of a computer screen googling topics he knows very little about, and posting them as replies.
    ... in your dreams ... and whatever I am ... I'm beating the pants off you guys on every issue ye raise!!!

    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    The trouble with creationists who believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, is that there is very little support from scientists who do not embrace their ideas. If the Young Earth proponents were correct and the Earth was indeed 6-7000 tears old, and if as JC says, there is overwhelming evidence for this, then logically there would be scientists from all religious backgrounds, including agnostics and atheists who would say, “ wait a minute, there is good evidence for this” Good scientists don’t tend to ignore hard, scientific facts. But guess what, there are very few such scientists. The vast majority don’t support the creationist way of thinking and to my mind, if the vast majority don’t support it, then I don’t either. But JC still does!
    You'd think that would happen ... but obviously most Atheists and their fellow travellers are more committed to their religious belief in the non-existence of God than they would like to admit.:)
    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    However, when you are a believer in creationism, you start with the biblical account and then use whatever evidence you can to make the story fit. That is why we read words like “may have” or “it is possible that this was caused by”, as in the account put forward by JC that “it is possible that the great flood caused Everest to push up to its current height”. Or someone else who says “the great flood may have formed the Grand Canyon”. There is no real evidence for these theories, but they use spurious facts to back up their claims. The bible does not say these things happened, so where do they get them from? Spurious Logic? But not God’s word certainly.
    In discounting radiometric dating they will say things like “ If a fossil is 100,000 years old there should be no carbon 14 present and if it is present that proves that the fossil is much younger”. Very unscientific and not true. No real objective scientist would say such a thing. They may say “well, there is more evidence of carbon 14 than normal in that fossil, but its presence in no way diminishes other evidence that gives us a truer reading like the levels of Uranium 235 or thorium 230. We all know that Carbon 14 is inaccurate for measuring fossils of that age.” That would be a reasonable scientific approach.

    When a person passionately believes in the biblical account, he will quote whatever he can to back up his claims. He will ignore the fact that God appears to support things in the bible which are unpalatable and unacceptable today, such as stoning people to death for adultery, or killing a son if he behaves in certain ways, or even slavery. Should we reintroduce these into our society JC, after all, they are in the words written by God? No doubt you will have concocted an answer that has some foundation in the scriptures, or more likely in Wikipedia or maybe in your head.
    ... and Spontaneous Evolutionists ... do exactly the same thing ... but starting from the premise that God doesn't exist ... and working out from this premise.


  • #2175
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    ... in your dreams ... and whatever I am ... I'm beating the pants off you guys on every issue ye raise!!!


    You'd think that would happen ... but obviously most Atheists and their fellow travellers are more committed to their religious belief in the non-existence of God than they would like to admit.:)


    ... and Spontaneous Evolutionists ... do exactly the same thing ... but starting from the premise that God doesn't exist ... and working out from this premise.
    Now that, JC, is ridiculous. They start from the premise that the world is very, very old. God, unfortunately, doesn't come into it for them, sorry!

    Sorry JC Most Atheists are not interested in religion at all, just the scientific facts. And none that I have seen, support a young earth.


  • #2176
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    I have admitted no such thing ...
    J C wrote: »
    ... in your dreams ... and whatever I am ... I'm beating the pants off you guys on every issue ye raise!!!

    Lol :rolleyes:


  • #2177
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    ... and Spontaneous Evolutionists ... do exactly the same thing ... but starting from the premise that God doesn't exist ... and working out from this premise.[/QUOTE]

    JC, Do "Spontaneous Evolutionists" as you call them, support stoning people to death, slavery or killing your kids if they behave in a certain way?


  • #2178
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... and Spontaneous Evolutionists ... do exactly the same thing ... but starting from the premise that God doesn't exist ... and working out from this premise.
    JC, I've said it before but worth repeating.

    I think you overestimate the place of religion in the work of scientists. Of course, I'm sure it would suit you very much to imagine that everyone working in the field of evolution/genetics/development uses religion (or lack of) as some kind of starting premise. However, you are sorely mistaken.

    Evolutionary biologists DO NOT start with the premise that god doesn't exist. They start with the observation that finches on different islands have different-shaped beaks, or that a species of beetle contains DNA from a bacteria, or that a mutation in a protein allows it to have a novel function. They then use current biological knowledge to explain such observations and, occasionally, where such knowledge is absent, put forward biologically-plausible theories for future testing.

    That is all.

    So now, you can cease your fevered imaginings that we all sit around, debating current results, wringing our hands at how we're going to explain this or that without god.


  • #2179
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    JC, Do "Spontaneous Evolutionists" as you call them, support stoning people to death, slavery or killing your kids if they behave in a certain way?

    No, but they sure know how to troll.


  • #2180
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I am, he pretty much admitted as much a few times when he was trolling the Atheism forums. He isn't a Christian, nor a Biblical Creationist. But lots of people on this forum are, so it is often useful to counter his nonsense even if he himself doesn't believe any of it.
    J C wrote:
    I have admitted no such thing

    You sort of have J C:
    Masteroid wrote:
    It's easy to plain read a bible that you yourself wrote.
    J C wrote:
    You don't realise how close to correct, in a sense you are ...


    This is not the kind of thing that one would expect from either a Christian or Biblical Creationist.


  • #2181
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    PDN wrote: »
    No, but they sure know how to troll.

    What is a 'Spontaneous Evolutionist'? And could you point out an example of a post where a Spontaneous Evolutionist is trolling?

    If you are going to denegrade a group of people then you should really provide evidence that supports your claim.


  • Advertisement
  • #2182
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    Masteroid wrote: »
    What is a 'Spontaneous Evolutionist'? And could you point out an example of a post where a Spontaneous Evolutionist is trolling?

    You are going to have to give him time Masteroid. Looking up Wikipedia for suitable answers can take time.


  • #2183
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,165 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Masteroid wrote: »
    What is a 'Spontaneous Evolutionist'? And could you point out an example of a post where a Spontaneous Evolutionist is trolling?

    You are going to have to give him time Masteroid. Looking up Wikipedia for suitable answers can take time.

    Nah, J C probably thinks Wikipedia is an atheist conspiracy.


  • #2184
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

    Nah, J C probably thinks Wikipedia is an atheist conspiracy.

    No, I think he is a Wikipedia Junkie. I also think he has delusions of Grandeur more closely associated with some really great person who had the same initials.


  • #2185
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,165 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    PopePalpatine wrote: »

    No, I think he is a Wikipedia Junkie. I also think he has delusions of Grandeur more closely associated with some really great person who had the same initials.

    Jeremy Clarkson? :pac:


  • #2186
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Masteroid wrote: »
    What is a 'Spontaneous Evolutionist'? And could you point out an example of a post where a Spontaneous Evolutionist is trolling?

    If you are going to denegrade a group of people then you should really provide evidence that supports your claim.

    This was in response to the comment "... support stoning people to death, slavery or killing your kids if they behave in a certain way". Afaik, PDN doesn't dismiss evolution. Though it must be said that "evolution" can refer to different things depending on the situation and context.


  • #2187
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I am, he pretty much admitted as much a few times when he was trolling the Atheism forums. He isn't a Christian, nor a Biblical Creationist. But lots of people on this forum are, so it is often useful to counter his nonsense even if he himself doesn't believe any of it.

    It's rare that I agree with JC but I've never seen anything to suggest that he is the world most persistent troll.


  • #2188
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    It's rare that I agree with JC but I've never seen anything to suggest that he is the world most persistent troll.

    Ok ... I have, but then I spend a lot more time on the A&A forum that you do I would imagine.


  • #2189
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Ok ... I have, but then I spend a lot more time on the A&A forum that you do I would imagine.

    I'd be interested to see the links if you had them handy (though perhaps this isn't the thread).


  • #2190
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'd be interested to see the links if you had them handy (though perhaps this isn't the thread).

    You must have missed the bit where J C single-handedly saved mankind from little green men from another world.

    I think you'll find that true biblical creationists rule out that possibility altogether since it would create a huge problem regarding 'The Chosen Ones'.

    Shouldn't Genesis have mentioned that there were other worlds created with other populations that would be more technologically advanced and could possibly attack us at sometime in the future?

    And if mankind manifest the evil in the universe, wouldn't aliens be 'pure' in the sight of God?

    Of course J C is trolling.
    Fanny Cradock wrote:
    This was in response to the comment "... support stoning people to death, slavery or killing your kids if they behave in a certain way". Afaik, PDN doesn't dismiss evolution. Though it must be said that "evolution" can refer to different things depending on the situation and context.

    The term 'Spontaneous Evolutionist' as used by J C is a derogatory term for scientists that are not creationists.

    PDN has further derogaded that particular group by labelling the non-creationists posting here as 'trolls'.

    If PDN is expressing a view at all, then it is in fact in support of creationism. I just didn't think that the huge non-sequitor contributed by PDN,
    PDN wrote:
    No, but they sure know how to troll.

    should be allowed to pass without comment.

    Surely the act of labelling non-creationists as 'trolls' is itself an act of trolling?


  • Advertisement
  • #2191
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    ... and Spontaneous Evolutionists ... do exactly the same thing ... but starting from the premise that God doesn't exist ... and working out from this premise.

    JC, Do "Spontaneous Evolutionists" as you call them, support stoning people to death, slavery or killing your kids if they behave in a certain way?
    Not that I am aware of ... but neither does anybody else I know, support this either!!!


Advertisement