Darwin's theory

AtomicHorror · 12-10-2014 01:48PM

J C wrote: »

As I'm a member of Mensa, that would be as impossible ... as spontaneous evolution.:cool:

Mensa's entry requirement is 98th percentile of the population based on IQ scores. That makes about 140 million people eligible globally. Ask yourself why Mensa only has 120,000 members.

The need for validation is the second, unspoken entry requirement.

Canis Lupus · 12-10-2014 02:02PM

J C wrote: »

Ye said this not me ... I have a cure for that - do you want it?

Followed your link ... but no British Mensa Letter in the images provided.
... so where/how did you get the link?

It's right there in the image search results but then if this and other evolution threads is anything to go by I appreciate you have selective vision and are probably mentally blocking it out unknowingly. :rolleyes:

endacl · 12-10-2014 02:09PM

J C wrote: »

Followed your link ... but no British Mensa Letter in the images provided.
... so where/how did you get the link?

Smokescreen?

Anyway, as was pointed out earlier, you do avoid trickyish questions. So...

In the absence if a primitive creation myth to support, would creation 'science' exist. Just a simple yes or no to start with. I'll prod you for details after that. It's a simple question, but in the context of the *ahem* debate, it's quite an important one.

In the interests of moving in, let's just say that I for one accept you're a genius and move on.

Wibbs · 12-10-2014 02:35PM

J C wrote: »

You are correct that there are billions of fossilized large sea creatures perfectly preserved in billions of tonnes of sedimentary rock hundreds of feet thick. Only water-based tectonic processes operating catastrophically (as distinct from gradually) on a worldwide scale could generate such quantities of sediment and deposit it fast enough to produce these fossil beds - that have a worldwide distribution.

Nope and we can see such processes going on today. In any event you didn't answer my question. If whales and sharks survive this "flood" why ichthyosaurs, ammonites, to name but two of a legion don't? Or trilobites for that matter. They were around for a looong time and occupied every niche in the ocean, from the shallows to the stygian depths. If any creature was to survive a "great flood" they should have.

Humans and other creatures were Created perfect and with significant inbuilt genetic diversity.

So untrue to be laughable. This house of cards is beyond shaky.

This diversity has declined since the Fall (and continues to do so).

By what process and for what reason? So this middle eastern god purposely designed a weak system, or is punishing all life?

It has declined via loss of diversity due to selection (pedigree animals being an extreme example of this in action) and it has degraded via mutagenesis to the point where all creatures carry hundreds of lethal genes (that are masked in the recessive state, in most cases).

Oh man this is good.

Up to the Flood and for some years afterwards, genetics hadn't declined to the point where there was significant risk of uncovering lethal and semi-lethal traits by breeding closely related organisms ... and that is why ADAM's children married each other ... and Noah's grandchildren did likewise.

Oh man you could not make this sheer bloodyminded lunacy up. :pac::pac: For a start in the original text that you so cling to Adam and his missus only had sons. Bit of a fault there in the old creator plan. Maybe He went digging around for spare ribs again. Still when your fundy has to paper over the chasms of logic by bringing in incest you know all bets are off. :pac::pac:

J C wrote: »

Some individuals have wide diversity in their genes ... and others, like pedigree animals, have very narrow diversity.

For example, two genetically diverse creatures of the Dog Kind gave rise to all Dog breeds and species today.
... whereas pedigree poodles can only produce more pedigree poodles.:)

Again your basic scientific knowledge is sorely lacking. For one example, wild wolf populations often have less diversity than domestic dogs. Though it makes sense that your basic scientific knowledge is lacking, because otherwise your house of cards would crash down in most areas of discussion.

Again what happened to ichthyosaurs? And again how come there were other types of humans before we came along? In your timeline and theology how do you begin to explain Neandertals and Homo Erectus and the like "before the fall"? Was Adam a Neandertal or an Erectus? Oh and those folks were around with some overlap with us modern humans, which muddies the water(no pun) even more. I'd love to see how your creationists square that circle.

5uspect · 12-10-2014 02:44PM

Nothing then? Or would you rather ignore me?

Vinnie L · 12-10-2014 02:46PM

Poster JC, why do you not believe in theistic evolution ?
There is no conflict between true Christian faith and true science.
One does not contradict the other.
The truth is just the truth.

endacl · 12-10-2014 02:46PM

5uspect wrote: »

Nothing then? Or would you rather ignore me?

It's Sunday dude. No arguin' on the sabbath!

smcgiff · 12-10-2014 02:49PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope and we can see such processes going on today. In any event you didn't answer my question. If whales and sharks survive this "flood" why ichthyosaurs, ammonites, to name but two of a legion don't? Or trilobites for that matter. They were around for a looong time and occupied every niche in the ocean, from the shallows to the stygian depths. If any creature was to survive a "great flood" they should have.

So untrue to be laughable. This house of cards is beyond shaky. By what process and for what reason? So this middle eastern god purposely designed a weak system, or is punishing all life? Oh man this is good.
Oh man you could not make this sheer bloodyminded lunacy up. :pac::pac: For a start in the original text that you so cling to Adam and his missus only had sons. Bit of a fault there in the old creator plan. Maybe He went digging around for spare ribs again. Still when your fundy has to paper over the chasms of logic by bringing in incest you know all bets are off. :pac::pac:

Again your basic scientific knowledge is sorely lacking. For one example, wild wolf populations often have less diversity than domestic dogs. Though it makes sense that your basic scientific knowledge is lacking, because otherwise your house of cards would crash down in most areas of discussion.

Again what happened to ichthyosaurs? And again how come there were other types of humans before we came along? In your timeline and theology how do you begin to explain Neandertals and Homo Erectus and the like "before the fall"? Was Adam a Neandertal or an Erectus? Oh and those folks were around with some overlap with us modern humans, which muddies the water(no pun) even more. I'd love to see how your creationists square that circle.

If true to form JC will invent a straw man to divert the thread, such as a slight he has received, rather than debate the above.

Squeedily Spooch · 12-10-2014 02:57PM

The more JC tries to defend his utterly laughable "science" the funnier this thread gets. Creation Science simply doesn't exist, it's not real science. Science has evidence, observable data and results and changing theories based on available data. Creationism has a mythology book at it's core. Without the book the science just isn't plausible (well it's not plausible anyway). Science doesn't need myth and backstory to work.

I do chuckle every time JC runs out the zoo from goo line. As if the idea that life came from some primordial material is so crazy when we were magicked out of thin air by a god who doesn't seem to like us much and you mostly believe in based on the geography of your birth is the alternative.

He reminds me of a guy I went to school with who was a notorious bull****ter, who would spin lies upon lies and when called on them would either slink away for a few days or just try turn the argument back on people calling him out on his bull****, it's the same type of dishonest debate you see on here.

smcgiff · 12-10-2014 02:58PM

Vinnie L wrote: »

flict between true Christian faith and true science.

Depends on what you think is true Christian faith.

JC believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and the Flood and Genesis are not allegorical, but actual events.

It's hard to square that with a lot of science.

Squeedily Spooch · 12-10-2014 03:00PM

I'm almost afraid to ask why he could think the earth is 10,000 years old when we know it's not...

smcgiff · 12-10-2014 03:02PM

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

I'm almost afraid to ask why he could think the earth is 10,000 years old when we know it's not...

Extrapolation from the lifespans in the bible, starting with Adam born on the seventh day of creation.

endacl · 12-10-2014 03:03PM

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

I'm almost afraid to ask why he could think the earth is 10,000 years old when we know it's not...

He only has one book in his shelf.

Squeedily Spooch · 12-10-2014 03:11PM

smcgiff wrote: »

Extrapolation from the lifespans in the bible, starting with Adam born on the seventh day of creation.

Ah ok, back in the days when living to 900 years old was easy and being eaten by a big fish wasn't an inconvenience.

Vinnie L · 12-10-2014 03:25PM

smcgiff wrote: »

Extrapolation from the lifespans in the bible, starting with Adam born on the seventh day of creation.

Frist carried out by an Anglican Bishop in the 1800's who didn't do his sums very well, and didn't study the rest of the bible very well either.

Vinnie L · 12-10-2014 03:27PM

smcgiff wrote: »

Depends on what you think is true Christian faith.

JC believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and the Flood and Genesis are not allegorical, but actual events.

It's hard to square that with a lot of science.

It's even harder to sqaure it with the Bible. But creation happened and floods happen all the time, just not the way JC claims. No where does the bible date creation, in fact it states to God a year is like a thousand days and a day is like a thousand years.

smcgiff · 12-10-2014 03:28PM

Vinnie L wrote: »

Frist carried out by an Anglican Bishop in the 1800's who didn't do his sums very well, and didn't study the rest of the bible very well either.

I added in a few thousand years onto that calculation to give some leeway

Vinnie L · 12-10-2014 03:30PM

smcgiff wrote: »

I added in a few thousand years onto that calculation to give some leeway

The bible doesn't date creation, it's not a science text book and was never meant to be so. So I wonder where you got them ?

smcgiff · 12-10-2014 03:32PM

Vinnie L wrote: »

The bible doesn't date creation, it's not a science text book and was never meant to be so. So I wonder where you got them ?

You're preaching to the converted. However, not all agree.

Edgarfrndly · 12-10-2014 03:38PM

J C wrote: »

Some individuals have wide diversity in their genes ... and others, like pedigree animals, have very narrow diversity.

For example, two genetically diverse creatures of the Dog Kind gave rise to all Dog breeds and species today.
... whereas pedigree poodles can only produce more pedigree poodles.:)

Sorry, but you just don't understand biology.

An individual does not have diversity in their genes. Diversity comes from within collection of individuals.

Dogs are visually diverse, not because of two "genetically diverse creatures". But rather, due to artificial selection. It was dog breeders who deliberately selected dogs with specific physical traits, that give rise to the vast array of breeds we see today.

Every single dog alive today is a descendant of the wolf. It was through a culmination of natural and artificial selection that saw some become more tame around humans than others. It was that lineage of wolves who would go on to become today's domestic dogs.

Vinnie L · 12-10-2014 03:42PM

smcgiff wrote: »

You're preaching to the converted. However, not all agree.

The majority of european Christians know this and agree with evolution, it doesn't conflict with the bible, there is little point talking to the ones that insist otherwise.

smcgiff · 12-10-2014 03:48PM

Vinnie L wrote: »

I'm not preaching to anyone, I'm just stating the facts

It's After Hours not a debate at Trinity.

However, what do you believe, that the Earth was created 4.5 Billion years ago, and man has slowly evolved over billions of years and came about a trifling 200,000 years ago?

That god created millions of species that died out before man came along, but ultimately the earth was created for man?

AtomicHorror · 12-10-2014 03:51PM

Vinnie L wrote: »

Poster JC, why do you not believe in theistic evolution ?
There is no conflict between true Christian faith and true science.
One does not contradict the other.
The truth is just the truth.

J C follows a fundamentalist church. Never been able to pinpoint which one though. Could be old fashioned northern Irish presbyterianism.

Anyway, not Catholicism, which is why theistic evolution of the Old Earth variety is off the table for him.

Jimoslimos · 12-10-2014 03:57PM

J C wrote: »

As I'm a member of Mensa, that would be as impossible ... as spontaneous evolution.:cool:

My feelings on Mensa,

...CJ from Eggheads is a member of Mensa, Kevin from Eggheads is not

Vinnie L · 12-10-2014 04:07PM

smcgiff wrote: »

It's After Hours not a debate at Trinity.

So why are you bothering so hard, do you practice what you preach ?

However, what do you believe, that the Earth was created 4.5 Billion years ago, and man has slowly evolved over billions of years and came about a trifling 200,000 years ago?

Other than JC, can you find anyone on boards that believes otherwise ?

smcgiff · 12-10-2014 04:08PM

Vinnie L wrote: »

So why are you bothering so hard, do you practice what you preach ?

You're not so different from JC after all.

Edit. You're also pretty good at the ninja edits.

Vinnie L · 12-10-2014 04:09PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J C follows a fundamentalist church. Never been able to pinpoint which one though. Could be old fashioned northern Irish presbyterianism.

Anyway, not Catholicism, which is why theistic evolution of the Old Earth variety is off the table for him.

doubtful he belongs to any, as it's much easier to make up whatever you want then

smcgiff · 12-10-2014 04:09PM

Vinnie L wrote: »

Other than JC, can you find anyone on boards that believes otherwise ?

You mean, apart from the hundreds in the Atheists forum?

AtomicHorror · 12-10-2014 04:14PM

Vinnie L wrote: »

So why are you bothering so hard, do you practice what you preach ?

Other than JC, can you find anyone on boards that believes otherwise ?

There are a few on this thread, and plenty on the Christianity forum. It's a filter for that, somewhat. A user called wolfsbane was long a supporter of him and very much on the same page. Haven't seen him post in a couple of years though...

AtomicHorror · 12-10-2014 04:18PM

Vinnie L wrote: »

doubtful he belongs to any, as it's much easier to make up whatever you want then

Perhaps, I doubt he'd be drawn on the question anyway.

Darwin's theory

Comments