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

Pherekydes · 11-12-2013 10:33PM

bumper234 wrote: »

A birth cert would be a start

And a death cert, of course!

Delirium · 11-12-2013 10:35PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Noah lived to 950. What more evidence do you need?

MrP

Which is older than Adam lived to be (930). And Enoch is still alive, which puts him at something like 5,000 years old (tip of hat to QI for that nugget :pac:).

robindch · 11-12-2013 10:51PM

J C wrote: »

Don't panic Obliq ... Creation Science to the rescue!!!:)

Ye gods.

J C · 12-12-2013 12:37AM

MrPudding wrote: »

Noah lived to 950. What more evidence do you need?

MrP

You really are very insightful Mr P.:)

MrPudding · 12-12-2013 01:15AM

J C wrote: »

You really are very insightful Mr P.:)

What I did there was I imagined I had suffered from a massive blow to the head. This then put me, roughly, in the position of a YEC and I was, therefore, able to work out what utter sh1t one might come up with.

MrP

J C · 12-12-2013 01:22AM

MrPudding wrote: »

What I did there was I imagined I had suffered from a massive blow to the head. This then put me, roughly, in the position of a YEC and I was, therefore, able to work out what utter sh1t one might come up with.

MrP

Please stop punishing yourself for being insightful.

It can be needlessly stressful on you to engage in high levels of denial of your God-given abilities.:)

IT-Guy · 12-12-2013 02:13AM

J C wrote: »

Please stop punishing yourself for being insightful.

It can be needlessly stressful on you to engage in high levels of denial of your God-given abilities.:)

Nothing god given about Mr.Pudding's insightful abilities, simply the product of an open, educated mind and knowing the difference between reality and fantasy. Speaking of which and without referring to the bible, how do you know the fictional character Noah lived to 950?

kiffer · 12-12-2013 02:29AM

IT-Guy wrote: »

Nothing god given about Mr.Pudding's insightful abilities, simply the product of an open, educated mind and knowing the difference between reality and fantasy. Speaking of which and without referring to the bible, how do you know the fictional character Noah lived to 950?

Are you calling God a liar?...
Because lies make Baby Jesus cry.
If Noah didn't live to 950 then there is no heaven and there's just gotta be a heaven, there's just gotta be...

Obliq · 12-12-2013 08:40AM

Obliq wrote: »

Oh. Dear. Yes, it really does, doesn't it? How awful.

Sometime after posting this yesterday, I noticed that my "how awful" might look like I thought it was awful that the Noah's ark myth was blown out of the water by this news story. Surely, I thought, nobody could take me up that way....

J C wrote: »

Don't panic Obliq ... Creation Science to the rescue!!!:)

Oh.

robindch · 13-12-2013 11:02AM

Wondering about climate change? Wonder no longer as fact-challenged Ken has taken up the challenge of explaining it to his fact-challenged sheep.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab4/climate-change

But soft, what's this Figure 2 in the section "Is the Truth about Climate Change Really Inconvenient?" which has a diagram plotting time versus temperature variation going back over 12,000 years?

Strange indeed for an organization committed to the holybelief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

robinph · 13-12-2013 02:40PM

Shouldn't the flood have caused a pretty major spike in the temperature of the earth as well at some point on that graph?

J C · 13-12-2013 08:40PM

robindch wrote: »

Wondering about climate change? Wonder no longer as fact-challenged Ken has taken up the challenge of explaining it to his fact-challenged sheep.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab4/climate-change

But soft, what's this Figure 2 in the section "Is the Truth about Climate Change Really Inconvenient?" which has a diagram plotting time versus temperature variation going back over 12,000 years?

Strange indeed for an organization committed to the holybelief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Quote from the AIG article immediately above Figure 2:-

"No temperature measurements are available before 1880. Scientists have tried to correlate other scientific data with global temperature, but estimating temperatures in this way is fraught with difficulties. Correlation of ice core or tree ring data to global temperatures is full of assumptions that cannot be verified. Figure 2 shows eight different attempts that were made to predict global temperature. The dark line is the average of these data for what they presume to be the last 12,000 years of earth history. Confused as to why anyone would be convinced by these data? You should be. The most recent reconstructions are shown in the insert of figure 2 for the last 2,000 years. These data have led many climatologists to conclude that the climate is much warmer now than in the last 2,000 years."

... Dr. Alan White was using 'Evolutionist' timescales and the average of 'long-agers' graphs to show that current temperatures have declined (if anything) since the initial temperature rise (on the left side of the graph) following the ice age that immediately followed the Flood.

Don't feel too bad, Robin, I see the 7th December issue of New Scientist page 68 refers to the same issue ... where it says that Ken Ham's website 'blithely reproduces a graph of global temperatues over the past 12,000 years'.

J C · 13-12-2013 08:44PM

robinph wrote: »

Shouldn't the flood have caused a pretty major spike in the temperature of the earth as well at some point on that graph?

The graph starts immediately after the Flood (in the ice age that followed it) ... and the 'spike' (that you're asking about) is on the left of the graph ... and it is the rise in temperature that melted the post-Diluvian ice age icecaps.:)

J C · 13-12-2013 08:49PM

Obliq wrote: »

Sometime after posting this yesterday, I noticed that my "how awful" might look like I thought it was awful that the Noah's ark myth was blown out of the water by this news story. Surely, I thought, nobody could take me up that way....

Oh.

... a 'Freudian Slip' no doubt!!!
... no need to deny your secret admiration for the Bible.:)

J C · 13-12-2013 11:20PM

One of the arguments put forward against the genetic evidence that we are all descended from Adam and Eve i.e. one man and one woman was that 'Y-chromosome Adam' was separated in time by thousands of years from 'Mitochondrial Eve'.

... and now I see that recent evidence places 'Y-chromosome Adam' living at the same time as 'Mitochondrial Eve'.

... all they need to do now is to correct the mutation rates ... and voila ... they will be found to have lived 6,000 to 10,000 years ago!!!:)

Quote Wikipedia
"The age for the Y-MRCA has been variously estimated as 188,000,[2] 270,000,[3] 306,000,[4] and 142,000[5] A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years.[6] Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years,[7] and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years.[8]

Analogous to Y-chromosomal Adam, Mitochondrial Eve is the woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally, who lived about 140,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa."

robindch · 17-12-2013 03:20PM

Don McLeroy, a dentist who's done his best to damage and corrupt the science standards in his native Texas, gets pwnd by Stephen Colbert's show.

The analysis of how the creationist movement is evolving a new set of greasy tactics is worth a read:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/15/when-creationists-collide-with-stephen-colbert.html

gaynorvader · 18-12-2013 12:08PM

J C wrote: »

{...}

... all they need to do now is to correct the mutation rates ... and voila ... they will be found to have lived 6,000 to 10,000 years ago!!!:)

{...}

"Correct" them a little more...and voila ... they will be found to have lived 60 to 100 years ago!!!:)

robindch · 03-01-2014 12:58AM

Bill Nye agrees to debate Ken Ham on the 4th of February.

The best of luck to Bill of course, but unless he's been in training, he's not the right guy to go up against a fraud like "doctor-doctor" Ham. Somebody like Hitchens (for the fast, devastating retort) or perhaps Bozo the Clown (to match Ham's value to biology and humanity) would be better:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/Nye-Ham-Debate/

Turtwig · 03-01-2014 01:06AM

What does Nye actually know about evolution?

Edit: I think too that I saw him in another debate once and he was absolutely crap. Ham may be a whacky creationist but you still need someone who know's their stuff about evolution and who also happens to be able to express themselves in an eloquent manner. Debating skills are an absolute necessity too. Ham has lots of experience in the latter. What has Nye got?

PopePalpatine · 03-01-2014 01:08AM

Infinitely more than Ham the Scam, for starters.

robindch · 03-01-2014 01:11AM

Jernal wrote: »

What has Nye got?

Credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty, but that's about it.

None of those are going to be much use in a debate against doctor-doctor Ham.

nagirrac · 03-01-2014 01:42AM

robindch wrote: »

None of those are going to be much use in a debate against doctor-doctor Ham.

To be more precise, its doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham versus doctor-doctor-doctor Nye (Ham has 4 honorary PhDs, and Nye 3). A debate between a mechanical Engineer (Nye) and an environmental Biologist (Ham) is unlikely to further our knowledge 0f evolution too much I would say.

sephir0th · 03-01-2014 03:29AM

Looking forward to some new creationist arguments in 2014...

PopePalpatine · 03-01-2014 01:39PM

You give J C and his ilk too much credit. :pac:

Genghiz Cohen · 03-01-2014 04:26PM

sephir0th wrote: »

Looking forward to some new creationist arguments in 2014...

He's been using the same arguments for nearly 10 year now, what makes you think he'll actually start debating now?

sephir0th · 03-01-2014 05:23PM

I was being facetious

Sarky · 03-01-2014 07:47PM

You're assuming creationists know what that means.

J C · 03-01-2014 11:27PM

robindch wrote: »

Credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty, but that's about it.

None of those are going to be much use in a debate against doctor-doctor Ham.

I know Ken Ham personally - and I can vouch for his credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty.
I'm also sure that Bill Nye is an equally honourable and knowledgeable man ... he is the 'Science Guy' after all ... and I therefore look forward to this debate.
... and may the best argument presented by the best man, win!!!:)

Robin, why do you always accuse every Creationist of being dishonourable and intellectually challenged ... when it is just their ideas that you have a problem with?

J C · 03-01-2014 11:46PM

nagirrac wrote: »

To be more precise, its doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham versus doctor-doctor-doctor Nye (Ham has 4 honorary PhDs, and Nye 3). A debate between a mechanical Engineer (Nye) and an environmental Biologist (Ham) is unlikely to further our knowledge 0f evolution too much I would say.

I think it will ...
... it can only be better than a talk I saw recently by an Evolutionary Biolgist who gave examples of NS in action (something we all agree happens) ... and a few examples of losses of genetic information ... and then made a giant 'leap of faith' with a proclamation that this somehow 'proved' that pondkind evolved into mankind!!!

Doctor Strange · 03-01-2014 11:50PM

J C wrote: »

I think it will ...
... it can only be better than a talk I saw recently by an Evolutionary Biolgist who gave examples of NS in action (something we all agree happens) ... and a few examples of losses of genetic information ... and then made a giant 'leap of faith' with a proclamation that this somehow 'proved' that pondkind evolved into mankind!!!

J C your anecdotal points are tedious and add nothing to the discussion.

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

Comments