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…94959799100…232

Comments

  • #2882
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    How so?

    Answer me this, what scientific breakthroughs have been a direct result of applications of Creationist knowledge?

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



  • #2883
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Answer me this, what scientific breakthroughs have been a direct result of applications of Creationist knowledge?
    Please don't change the subject ... and please stop talking like a Kerryman ... by answering a question with another one.


  • #2884
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Please don't change the subject ... and please stop talking like a Kerryman ... by answering a question with another one.

    Happy to oblige. There have been no scientific breakthroughs as a direct result of applications of Creationist knowledge. Scientific evidence doesn't support the biblical explanation for the origin of life on this planet.

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



  • #2885
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Happy to oblige. There have been no scientific breakthroughs as a direct result of applications of Creationist knowledge. Scientific evidence doesn't support the biblical explanation for the origin of life on this planet.
    ... you're now behaving like a politician ... answering your own question instead of the one I asked you!!!:eek:

    To correct your answer to your own question ... I would say that all operative science relies on the coherence and logic found in all of Creation because it was Created by the coherent profoundly logical mind of God.
    In that sense all scientific breakthroughs are insights into the mind and the works of God.


  • #2886
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    It is thought that the Kind is Felidae ... the Cat Kind.:)

    But look at what you are saying here.

    God created 'Kinds' which then, presumably, devolved through dimorphic mutagenesis into the Geni and Species we observe today?

    Sounds like evolution to me.

    God didn't make polar bears did He, bears did.

    Not only that but we can look at species and categorise and classify them all the way up to Kingdom, Domain and unify all life as having common ancestry.

    It's as if God was limited in terms of diversity in relation to the mechanisms He used. Proteins, amino acids, all life seems to have some very basic principles in common.

    Why should this be so? Why should every animal from man to mouse be composed of exactly the same stuff and, anatomically speaking, have so much in common. Different models made from the same plastecine.

    It is as if God used the same process, over and over in order to create the diversity of life we observe today. It certainly wasn't diverse when He first created it though.

    Looks like evolution to me.

    Everything you have accepted as being true vis a vis biology puts you in the position of being able to say that God may have created the Kingdom but it was not necessary for Him to create kinds.

    The first perfect bacteria was broken and an amoeba formed. The amoeba got broken and a fish formed. The fish got broken and a frog formed.

    But you don't have to call it 'devolution', we already have a word for it: EVOLUTION!


  • Advertisement
  • #2887
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... you're now behaving like a politician ... answering your own question instead of the one I asked you!!!:eek:

    To correct your answer to your own question ... I would say that all operative science relies on the coherence and logic found in all of Creation because it was Created by the coherent profoundly logical mind of God.
    In that sense all scientific breakthroughs are insights into the mind and the works of God.
    but that's your Christianity speaking rather than science.

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



  • #2888
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    But look at what you are saying here.

    God created 'Kinds' which then, presumably, devolved through dimorphic mutagenesis into the Geni and Species we observe today?
    Mutagenesis in limited cases ... mostly via pre-existing genetic diversity that speciated.
    Sounds like evolution to me.
    Its evolution within Kinds - with some devolution where dimorphic mutagenesis has occurred
    God didn't make polar bears did He, bears did.
    Correct ... there probably wasn't even a frozen pole at the time, to put the white and the pole into the bear!!!
    Not only that but we can look at species and categorise and classify them all the way up to Kingdom, Domain and unify all life as having common ancestry.
    Not a common ancestry ... just a common designer. Its like being able to classify vehicles into bikes, cars, lorries, etc ... and variations within each vehicle type.
    It's as if God was limited in terms of diversity in relation to the mechanisms He used. Proteins, amino acids, all life seems to have some very basic principles in common.
    Again evidence of a Common Designer using common 'materials and methods'.
    Why should this be so? Why should every animal from man to mouse be composed of exactly the same stuff and, anatomically speaking, have so much in common. Different models made from the same plastecine.
    ... and manufactured by the same designer.
    It is as if God used the same process, over and over in order to create the diversity of life we observe today. It certainly wasn't diverse when He first created it though.
    It wasn't as diverse as we observe today ... but all the Kinds were there.
    Looks like evolution to me.
    Looks like creation - with rapid speciation to me.
    Everything you have accepted as being true vis a vis biology puts you in the position of being able to say that God may have created the Kingdom but it was not necessary for Him to create kinds.
    He Created the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory ... as well as the Kinds.
    The first perfect bacteria was broken and an amoeba formed. The amoeba got broken and a fish formed. The fish got broken and a frog formed.
    All of the Kinds were directly and simultaneously Created.
    Nothing got 'broken' to produce anything else ... and anything that got 'broken' by accident ... tended to die!!!
    But you don't have to call it 'devolution', we already have a word for it: EVOLUTION!
    Evolution within Kinds and devolution within mutagenesis.
    You're so tantalisingly close to the truth ... and to being a Creation Scientist ... I could cry!!!

    I particularly like your credit to God for all of life.

    I have commented in red above ... you get A- in Creation Science ... which is very good for a first attempt.:)


  • #2889
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    but that's your Christianity speaking rather than science.
    It's the other way around actually ... it's my scientific observations (that the coherence, CFSI and logic found in all of Creation is indicative of a coherent profoundly logical Intelligence of enormous creative capacity AKA God) that is speaking to my Christianity.:)


  • #2890
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    How so?

    Because science operates in the absense of unfalsifiable hypotheses such as 'God did it' whereas creationism starts from an unfalsifiable hypothesis from whence it extropolates almost all its facts.

    The rest of the 'creationist facts' (LOL) are plagiarised from the science they challenge.

    In other words, science is lying to the world about evetything. Everything, that is, apart from the scientific data that can be bent out of context construed as being in support of creationism.

    In those circumstances, science is being conducted in an honest way by honourable scientists.

    That's 'How so?'


  • #2891
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    Not a common ancestry ... just a common designer. Its like being able to classify vehicles into bikes, cars, lorries, etc ... and variations within each vehicle type.

    Not just a common designer, a common design.

    And that is the problem with God creating 'kinds'. Sticking with your analogy, God created a kind of lorry, a kind of car, a kind of bicycle... why should everything that God creates be classifiable as a member of the kingdom of vehicles?

    And again, you accept 'speciation', 'evolution' and adaptation - what need is there of a 'meticulous creator' when a random one will do?


  • Advertisement
  • #2892
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    That's precisely my point ... you're using the scientifically imprecise language of the fishmonger ... and then berating me for being 'unscientific' ... and anything else that you can dredge up, to call me.

    But snuggle puss, the scientifically precise term for flatfish is Heterosomata, which have bone skeletons. And when I used that you complained

    The term 'flatfish' is just a common name for fish with a flat profile - it isn't a scientifically precise term

    But when I point out that "Flatfish" the layman term also refers to bony fish, you get mad and shout at me. So you complain I'm using the scientifically imprecise use, but then I'm also being too precise.

    Oh honey bunny, you seem awful confused at this point as to what you want and that makes me a sad bunny. I just want to make you happy of course, but I'm a weaker person than you, can you explain to me what you want me to do because neither the scientifically precise, nor the "fishmonger" refer to rays as flatfish.
    J C wrote: »
    ... please get with the programme ... and use precise scientific descriptions if you want to argue scientifically about this issue!!!

    When I was being too precise you didn't like it, and being too imprecise you don't like it. It is such a challenge to make you happy honey pie, but a challenge I'm more than happy to accept.

    How about I get it just right, my little goldie locks. Flatfish refer to bony fish, rays are not bony fish, thus rays are not flatfish. They might be fish that are flat, but they are not flatfish.

    You can ask the fishmonger or the scientist, whether you want to be too precise or not precise enough, and I'm sure that will make you happy my gum drop bear.
    J C wrote: »
    ... otherwise you're arguments are little better than those of a fishmonger ...

    Would this be the fishmonger who said

    The term 'flatfish' is just a common name for fish with a flat profile - it isn't a scientifically precise term

    So it was the fishmonger who was confusing you. Oh snookums, I'm so relieved, I thought it was because you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. Oh that silly fishmonger making you all confused and causing you to act all silly. Silly old fishmonger
    J C wrote: »
    If you were doing that at self, you might have a point!!!
    ... and my feelings are much more robust than that ... I have challenged and defeated vastly more powerful spiritual entities than you could even imagine ... so I'm made of very tough stuff!!!
    ... However I must point out that the ad hominisms that are routinely deployed against me are a nasty and lazy way of debating. It is nasty as it targets the person and personality of your opponent instead of their ideas.

    But snuggle pie, your idea is that Rays are flatfish. They aren't.

    That might hurt your feelings and make you very upset, you might have get all tempie wempie and stompie stampie and cry and cry. And this makes me sad

    But unfortunately my little flower pot, it won't turn Rays into flatfish, whether you ask a scientist or a fishmonger.

    Of course if you want to go back to the original question I asked you, which fish did flatfish evolve from (as a Creationist you surely know that, right my little gum drop ;)), we can certainly do that. You made a fool of yourself the last time you randomly picked a fish without know anything about its classification, but then that is the great thing about love, it means you never have to say you are sorry.
    J C wrote: »
    It is lazy because it involves little more than throwing plenty of verbal 'mud' in the hope that some of it will stick ... or that casual observers will conclude that 'there is no smoke without fire' when it comes to the terrible things you guys say about me.

    Well snuggy bear we wouldn't want that. We wouldn't want anyone to think you have just been making stuff up for the last few years, that would make you look terrible!!

    I mean yeah you totally made up the Ray thing. And yeah you totally made up the triceratops thing. And yeah you totally made up your idea on how the flatfish eye evolved (I mean sledgehammers, what were you thinking).

    And yeah you totally made up the vast majority of the stuff you post on this thread.

    But snookum pie we can have people thinking you made up everything. That would make you look like some sort of weirdo.

    How can we rectify this situation? Perhaps if you make a claim that you can actually back up with scientific research. Can you try, can you try for me. It might put you out of your comfort zone I know, but WE GOT TO TRY JC!
    J C wrote: »
    ... and finally, it's a logical fallacy ... because it doesn't actually matter if I am the greatest moron the world has ever known or if I never spent a day at school ...

    JC, enough of that, not another word. I won't have you thinking you are the greatest moron in the world.

    Yeah sure you have said some really moronic things. I mean like really really moronic things. I mean like mind bogglingly stupid things.

    But I see past that, past the complete nonsense you make up to try and sound scientific, I see past that to your heart.

    So let everyone think you are the greatest moron in the world, you will always be my special guy.
    J C wrote: »
    if I am making an argument that goes to the core of the issue under discussion and you don't have an answer to the argument ... then you have lost the debate

    Oh dear. I don't want to loose the debate. Then all our wonderful time together will come to an end.

    Quick, how do I counter what you said? Ummm, oh dear, oh dear, count down.

    Oh I know, how about you just made all that up. How about you have nothing to back up anything you said about the evolution of the flatfish, or the original fish you claim were divinely created (contradicting all known biological evidence), nor does your notion that eyes move to one side of the head occur due to "damage" of the chromosome. How about pointing out that despite repeated requests from me and others to provide the Creationist method of adaption you never do. How about the one time you actually did try and give specifics of your "idea" in response to a question of mine, it emerged that you thought rays were flatfish. How about every time you claim something that is actually verifiable and testable about an animal (such as saying a triceratops is a rhino) you are demonstrated wrong, but rather than admit you are wrong you start on a nonsense argument that either we are being too specific or not specific enough in our classifications.

    Phew! I think we made it honey bear, I think we are safe.
    J C wrote: »
    That wasn't my argument ... and I challenge you to provide a quote from me to prove this.

    Oh honey bunny, you know the thing I love about you is that you challenge me. Isn't that what life is all about, finding that special someone who challenges you.

    Challenge accepted

    There are different types of Flatfish ... with different ancestors.
    Some are descended from Ray-type fish ... and others are possibly descended from 'ordinary' fish that have suffered serious 'twisting' of their bodies ... including damage resulting in 'cock-eyed' mutations.
    J C wrote: »
    More ad hominems focussed on my person and my abilities ... but no engagement with the substance of my argument or ideas.

    Like I pointed out at the time, the Triceratops is both an odd-toed ungulate Perissodactyl (like modern Rhinos) and an even-toed ungulate Artiodactyl ... so it had the genetic diversity of two mammalian orders, no less ... and the modern Rhino has lost it.

    Oh how wonderful, I didn't realize that the triceratops was both a rhino and not a rhino at the same time. That is amazing.

    Although when I said this to my biologist friends they said don't be stupid, you can't be both an pterodactyl and a artiodactyl at the same time, these are classification systems, it would be like saying something is both a fish and an elephant.

    But we won't let them win, those silly biologists! What do they know about this stuff, its not like it is their own classification system that very specifically classifies Rhinos as having 3 toes on each foot. Bah, scientists! What do they know.

    They are just trying to make you look stupid and ignorant and like you are just making stuff up on the spot.

    But we won't let them win snookums!
    J C wrote: »
    ... only in your dreams!!!!:)

    You are forever in my dreams JC


  • #2893
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It's the other way around actually ... it's my scientific observations (that the coherence, CFSI and logic found in all of Creation is indicative of a coherent profoundly logical Intelligence of enormous creative capacity AKA God) that is speaking to my Christianity.:)

    I thought you wanted people to avoid using non-scientific terms? And considering that creationism stems from a literal reading of the bible, you definitely are not using science to inform your opinion.

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



  • #2894
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    koth wrote: »
    I thought you wanted people to avoid using non-scientific terms? And considering that creationism stems from a literal reading of the bible, you definitely are not using science to inform your opinion.

    I think Robin coin the phrase "barnyard biology" to describe what JC does.

    Sure its flat, and a fish, isn't it a flatfish?

    Sure it has a horn like a rhino, isn't it a rhino?

    Basically it is the stuff a 5 year old who wouldn't know any better does. Nothing scientific about it. But then when fishermen 400 years ago know more about the biology of the fish you are talking about, it is probably not a good idea to make biological claims about how it evolved, lol :P


  • #2895
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    It's 'boldly going where no Evolutionist has gone before' ... and is at the cutting edge of science!!

    Devolution is an objectively verifiable phenomenon ... indeed all 'evolution' via mutagenesis is actually devolution.

    Study the following:

    243016764a249360021b458586373l.jpg

    Everything you've said about evolution is inside your head. Everything we've said about evolution is in the real world.


  • #2896
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    Every sane Scotsman knows ... and all that.
    You're long on hype ... but very short on evidence!!!

    All of the evidence has been presented, you choose to ignore it. You disregard established scientists, in favour of some obscure ones, dredged up from God knows where. You argue for the sake of arguing. Not once have you ever said "maybe you have a point". Every single person posting on this thread, disagrees with you, or should I say, you disagree with every poster. You present yourself as an absolute expert on every topic, which you clearly, are not. Nobody is, but at least other people have the good grace to either refrain from commenting, or admit that they are not familiar with a topic.
    If you were ever to engage in a debate, with a wider audience than this thread, you would be destroyed and made to look very foolish, very quickly. But then, people like you never engage in live debates, because you would have to think on your feet without the comfort of referencing Wikipedia or some other information centre.


  • #2897
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    All of the evidence has been presented, you choose to ignore it. You disregard established scientists, in favour of some obscure ones, dredged up from God knows where. You argue for the sake of arguing.

    Actually what he does is worse, he ignores the evidence provided and the theories extrapolated by established scientists which fits that evidence in order to assume that the words of disgraced charlatans like Michael Behe are true.


  • #2898
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... how about using proper and precise scientific terminology instead, Emma?
    Because I prefer not to make it patently obvious that I've had to supplement my knowledge from Wikipedia.
    J C wrote: »
    The proper collective scientific descriptor for the bony 'flatfish', that Zombrex has been making such a fuss over, is Demersal Benthic groundfish with dimorphic mutagenesis.
    The proper collective scientific descriptor for cartilaginous 'flatfish', like Stingrays is Demersal Benthic groundfish without dimorphic mutagenesis.:)
    And yet, even with a lack of the specific scientific terminology, everyone currently engaged in this conversation understands exactly what the others are talking about when we use the terms "flatfish" and "rays".

    Except you.

    Imagine.


  • #2899
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    Because science operates in the absense of unfalsifiable hypotheses such as 'God did it' whereas creationism starts from an unfalsifiable hypothesis from whence it extropolates almost all its facts.
    Atheists have succeeded in defining their version of 'origins' science to only encompass 'origins' hypotheses based on the premise that 'God didn't do it'!!! It is OK for them to do that ...

    ... but they don't have the right to prevent other conventionally qualified scientists pursuing the hypothesis that 'God did it'.
    Sauce for the Goose ... and all that.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    The rest of the 'creationist facts' (LOL) are plagiarised from the science they challenge.
    More unfounded deeply prejudicial ad homonem nonesence about honourable scientists that have succeeded in amazing breakthroughs in our understanding of the origins of Humanity.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    In other words, science is lying to the world about evetything. Everything, that is, apart from the scientific data that can be bent out of context construed as being in support of creationism.
    I believe that many scientists and other people are mistaken about the origins of Humanity.
    I prefer to concentrate on the ideas and hypotheses that are at issue rather than engaging in nasty, lazy, ad hominems which needlessly and gratuitously insult people who have a different viewpoint to me ... and I would encourage you to do likewise.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    In those circumstances, science is being conducted in an honest way by honourable scientists.
    I have no doubt that both Evolutionist Science and Creation Science is being conducted honestly by honourable scientists ... so there should be no issue with each scientific discipline respecting and learning from each other.


  • #2900
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    It's extremely dishonest to imply that atheists are actively suppressing scientific data they don't agree with. Evolution is accepted across the board, be it by atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews etc.

    The reason creationism is "out in the cold" is because there isn't any evidence to support it.

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



  • #2901
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    Not just a common designer, a common design.
    A common design is indicative of a common designer ...

    Masteroid wrote: »
    And that is the problem with God creating 'kinds'. Sticking with your analogy, God created a kind of lorry, a kind of car, a kind of bicycle... why should everything that God creates be classifiable as a member of the kingdom of vehicles?
    God created much more than living organisms ... so to use your analogy ... every vehicle He Created is classifiable as a member of the kingdom of vehicles ... and every house He designed is classifiable as a member of the kingdom of houses.

    Masteroid wrote: »
    And again, you accept 'speciation', 'evolution' and adaptation - what need is there of a 'meticulous creator' when a random one will do?
    Because a random process creates such overwhelming damage that it isn't capable of creating any complex functional specific entity. It can destoy ... but it can't create something that is complex functional and specified.
    The 'speciation', 'evolution' and adaptation is utilising pre-existing intelligently created CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information).


  • Advertisement
  • #2902
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    It's extremely dishonest to imply that atheists are actively suppressing scientific data they don't agree with. Evolution is accepted across the board, be it by atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews etc.
    I never said that Atheists were suppressing scientific data ... they're just not following hypotheses and producing data that could prove the exixtence of God, in the first place.
    Like I have said, I don't blame them for this ... they're quite entiltled to set whatever limits they like to their scientific research
    ... but they don't have the right to prevent other convetionally qualified scientists pursuing the hypothesis that 'God did it'.

    You do raise a very interesting point about why some Christians, Muslims, Jews agree with Atheists on limiting 'origins' science to only encompass 'origins' hypotheses based on the premise that 'God didn't do it'.
    They seem to have become convinced that science cannot prove the existence of God ... when it can.
    This suits the Atheists perfectly in that they can be certain that their version of science will never prove the existence of God ... because any research that could do so is never done.
    koth wrote: »
    The reason creationism is "out in the cold" is because there isn't any evidence to support it.
    Creationism is 'out in the cold' because Science has been taken over by practical Atheism ... and the very definition of science now 'locks out' anybody who disagrees with the idea that the only acceptable 'origins' hypotheses that can be scientifically evaluated are based on the premise that 'God didn't do it'!!!


  • #2903
    maguffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭maguffin


    J C wrote: »

    I have no doubt that both Evolutionist Science and Creation Science is being conducted honestly by honourable scientists ... so there should be no issue with each scientific discipline respecting and learning from each other.
    Creation science is not science but pseudoscience. It is religious dogma masquerading as scientific theory. Creation science is put forth as being absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the world must conform to its understanding of the Bible. Where creation science differs from creationism in general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead, the evidence must be refuted.
    Compare this attitude to that of the leading European creationists of the 17th century who had to admit eventually that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not revolve around our planet. They did not have to admit that the Bible was wrong, but they did have to admit that human interpretations of the Bible were in error. Today’s creationists seem incapable of admitting that their interpretation of the Bible could be wrong.

    Creation scientists are not scientists because they assume that their interpretation of the Bible cannot be in error. They put forth their views as irrefutable. Hence, when the evidence contradicts their reading of the Bible, they assume that the evidence is false. The only scientific investigation they do is aimed at proving some evolutionary claim is false.
    Creation scientists see no need to test their belief, since 'God' has revealed it.

    What is most revealing about the creation scientists’ lack of any true scientific interest is the way they willingly and uncritically accept even the most preposterous of claims, if those claims seem to contradict traditional scientific beliefs about evolution.
    For example, any evidence that seems to support the notion that dinosaurs and humans lived together is welcomed by the creationists. And the way creation scientists treat the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics indicates either gross scientific incompetence or deliberate dishonesty. They claim that evolution of life forms violates the second law of thermodynamics, which “specifies that, on the macroscopic scale of many-body processes, the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease (Stenger).”
    If we consider the entire system of nature, there is no evidence that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by evolution.

    What makes "scientific creationism" a pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing.

    Pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo!!!


  • #2904
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I never said that Atheists were suppressing scientific data ... they're just not following hypotheses and producing data that could prove the exixtence of God, in the first place.
    Like I have said, I don't blame them for this ... they're quite entiltled to set whatever limits they like to their scientific research
    ... but they don't have the right to prevent other convetionally qualified scientists pursuing the hypothesis that 'God did it'.

    You do raise a very interesting point about why some Christians, Muslims, Jews agree with Atheists on limiting 'origins' science to only encompass 'origins' hypotheses based on the premise that 'God didn't do it'.
    They seem to have become convinced that science cannot prove the existence of God ... when it can.
    This suits the Atheists perfectly in that they can be certain that their version of science will never prove the existence of God ... because any research that could do so is never done.

    It's out in the cold because Science has been taken over by practical Atheism ... and the very definition of science now 'locks out' anybody who disagrees with the idea that the only acceptable 'origins' hypotheses that can be scientifically evaluated are based on the premise that 'God didn't do it'!!!

    It's amazing if you actually believe the nonsense you posted above. You honestly are saying that atheists have issued an edict that evidence will be only be accepted if it falls under "God didn't do it"?

    I thought you said you had a scientific education? You've just put forward an idea that ( you said you weren't doing in the same post above) atheists are barring evidence of creationism from being shared with the world because it proves "God did it". Science follows the evidence and based on the silliness you've just posted, you've given a fine example of not understanding the very basis of how scientific investigation works.

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



  • #2905
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    ... everyone currently engaged in this conversation understands exactly what the others are talking about when we use the terms "flatfish" and "rays".

    Except you.

    Imagine.
    I think this 'flatfish' stuff has reached its 'use by date' ... and needs to be hygenically disposed of.:D


  • #2906
    Compu Global Hyper Meganet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭Compu Global Hyper Meganet


    Creationism has always seemed like willful ignorance to me. Believe in whatever you want, but never disregard fact or science.


  • #2907
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    Atheists have succeeded in defining their version of 'origins' science to only encompass 'origins' hypotheses based on the premise that 'God didn't do it'!!! It is OK for them to do that ...

    Atheists don't actually do that though do they.

    In fact, someone starting from the premise that 'God didn't do' wouldn't be an atheist at all.

    But what atheists don't do is unecessaily intruduce an unfalsifiable hypothesis into the solution when faced with the trickier questions that have yet to be answered.

    Another thing that atheists don't do is deny the existence of God. The concept of a god is unhelpful in the quest for knowledge and morality. 'God' provides an excuse for abdicating responsibility.

    How many tragedies and injustices have been put down to 'The Will of God'?

    Presidents say things like, 'God willing, the bombing strategy will be successful.'

    Shouldn't that be, 'God willing, there will be a world-wide epiphany and the bombing strategy can be abandoned.'

    And if the bombing campaign is successful, should we assume that we are pleasing God in committing these atrocities.

    Simply put, atheists don't need to make excuses for human behaviour.

    And on questions that are unanswered, an atheist would use the term 'We're not sure yet' where you would say 'Godunnit'.
    J C wrote: »
    ... but they don't have the right to prevent other convetionally qualified scientists pursuing the hypothesis that 'God did it'.
    Sauce for the Goose ... and all that.

    Well, if you want sauce for the wild goose you are chasing that is fine but you are not entitled to public funding and your doctrines cannot be taught as science to children.

    And this is how it should be.
    J C wrote: »
    More unfounded deeply prejudicial ad homonem nonesence about honourable scientists that have succeeded in amazing breakthroughs in our understanding of the origins of Humanity.

    All of the 'scienctific' evidence you have provided has been creationist propoganda. You've posted videos of pseudo-scientists lying to children and presenting the false dichotomy of - either God did it or 150 twenty-sided dice were rolled 10 to the power of 164 time - GARBAGE!!!

    And the cherry-picked science that creationists choose is always misapplied and misrepresented or gleaned from the musings of journalists. The science that opposes you is designated as being part of a conspiracy against a God that can't be shown to exist.

    And like creationists you warp texts and meanings presented to you as a matter of record. If you had some idea about what you are talking about, you might make a good creationist yourself.
    J C wrote: »
    I believe that many scientists and other people are mistaken about the origins of Humanity.
    I prefer to concentrate on the ideas and hypotheses that are at issue rather than engaging in nasty, lazy, ad hominems which needlessly and gratuitously insult people who have a different viewpoint to you ... and I would encourage you to do likewise.

    More lies.

    In fact, these empty posts of yours are only exposing your frailty.

    You are like a fish on a hook here. A dozen hooks in fact and not one of your post has addressed the fundamental problem of your position.

    There is absolutely no evidence to support your hypothesis.

    So persue away, J C, just leave my children out of it and don't ask people for money to sustain your wild goose chase.
    J C wrote: »
    I have no doubt that both Evolutionist Science and Creation Science is being conducted honestly by honourable scientists ... so there should be no issue with each scientific discipline respecting and learning from each other.

    Respect and learn then but please, don't try to teach.


  • #2908
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    maguffin wrote: »
    Creation science is not science but pseudoscience. It is religious dogma masquerading as scientific theory.
    Such emotive language doesn't do your cause any good.
    I could equally say that Evolution Science is 'pseudo-science' based on Atheist dogma that there is no God ... and therefore material processes alone are considered to have 'done it all'.
    ... but that only adds heat rather than light to the debate.
    maguffin wrote: »
    Creation science is put forth as being absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the world must conform to its understanding of the Bible. Where creation science differs from creationism in general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead, the evidence must be refuted.
    Creation Science changes as the evidence is examined and evaluated. For example, many Biblical Christians believed that all species were Created at Creation ... it was known as the 'fixity of species'. Creation Science now accepts that speciation occurs (rapidly) and Natural Selection is a fact ... using pre-existing genetic diversity.
    maguffin wrote: »
    Compare this attitude to that of the leading European creationists of the 17th century who had to admit eventually that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that the sun does not revolve around our planet. They did not have to admit that the Bible was wrong, but they did have to admit that human interpretations of the Bible were in error. Today’s creationists seem incapable of admitting that their interpretation of the Bible could be wrong.
    Creation Scientists freely admit that the Geocentrism of Aristotle and Ptolemy is erroneous.
    maguffin wrote: »
    Creation scientists are not scientists because they assume that their interpretation of the Bible cannot be in error. They put forth their views as irrefutable. Hence, when the evidence contradicts their reading of the Bible, they assume that the evidence is false.
    Creation Scientists are no more committed to their worldview that God exists ... than Atheists are committed to their worldview that God doesn't exist.
    So whatever bias you attribute to Creation Scientists in favour of the existence of God logically also applies to the bias that Atheists have against the existence of God. The fact that I can see the possibility that both biases exist ... but you seem to believe that the only bias that can exist is amongst Theists ... shows that you are incapable of objective judgement on this issue.

    Please tell me why you believe that Atheists can never suffer from bias caused by their belief that God doesn't exist ... while Creationists always suffer from bias caused by their belief that God does exist?
    maguffin wrote: »
    The only scientific investigation they do is aimed at proving some evolutionary claim is false.
    Creation scientists see no need to test their belief, since 'God' has revealed it.
    They do research aimed at proving the existence of God ... as well as the invalidity of Materialistic Evolution.
    maguffin wrote: »
    What is most revealing about the creation scientists’ lack of any true scientific interest is the way they willingly and uncritically accept even the most preposterous of claims, if those claims seem to contradict traditional scientific beliefs about evolution.

    For example, any evidence that seems to support the notion that dinosaurs and humans lived together is welcomed by the creationists.
    ... and such evidence is shunned by Evolutionists ... but the evidence objectively exists ... and whether Creationists welcome it or Atheists shun it ... its sitting there looking up at us.

    maguffin wrote: »
    And the way creation scientists treat the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics indicates either gross scientific incompetence or deliberate dishonesty. They claim that evolution of life forms violates the second law of thermodynamics, which “specifies that, on the macroscopic scale of many-body processes, the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease (Stenger).” If we consider the entire system of nature, there is no evidence that the second law of thermodynamics is violated by evolution.
    Creation Scientists say that Evolution contradicts the laws of thermodynamics because entropy always increases (even locally) in the absence of an intelligently designed mechanism for intelligently harnessing energy.
    Just think of an explosion of a gallon of petrol contrasted with the consumption of a gallon of petrol in a car.
    maguffin wrote: »
    What makes "scientific creationism" a pseudoscience is that it attempts to pass itself off as science even though it shares none of the essential characteristics of scientific theorizing. Pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo!!!
    methinks you protest too much!!!
    ... and all your protests bely the fact that you realise that Creation Science is a force to be reckoned with ... because it is shining a scientific light on the reality of our 'origins'.
    ... and it has better explanitory power then 'evolution' science.


  • #2909
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Compu Global Hyper Meganet wrote: »
    Creationism has always seemed like willful ignorance to me. .
    Why should Creationists always be 'wilfully ignorant' ... while Atheists never are?
    Compu Global Hyper Meganet wrote: »
    Believe in whatever you want, but never disregard fact or science.
    That is an operative principle of Creation Science.


  • #2910
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    It's amazing if you actually believe the nonsense you posted above. You honestly are saying that atheists have issued an edict that evidence will be only be accepted if it falls under "God didn't do it"?
    Are you saying that Conventional Science is pursuing the evidence for the existence of God ?
    Is conventional science pursuing research on hypotheses that life was Directly Created?
    I must have missed that one.:rolleyes:
    koth wrote: »
    I thought you said you had a scientific education? You've just put forward an idea that ( you said you weren't doing in the same post above) atheists are barring evidence of creationism from being shared with the world because it proves "God did it". Science follows the evidence and based on the silliness you've just posted, you've given a fine example of not understanding the very basis of how scientific investigation works.
    I'm saying that conventional science currently excludes any hypotheses that scientifically evaluates the physical evidence for the existence of God.
    Why do you think this is so?


  • Advertisement
  • #2911
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Are you saying that Conventional Science is pursuing the evidence for the existence of God ?
    Is conventional science pursuing research on hypotheses that life was Directly Created?
    I must have missed that one.:rolleyes:
    Scientists examine anything and everything they wish to. If they want to attempt to find some shred of evidence to support creationism, then they can fire ahead. they'll then provide any findings they make for review to see if their claims have an truth to them.
    I'm saying that conventional science currently excludes any hypotheses that scientifically evaluates the physical evidence for the existence of God.
    Why do you think this is?

    No it doesn't. There hasn't been any evidence provided to support creationism. If evidence was to be provided in support of creationism, it would be examined in the same manner as all other evidence.

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



Advertisement