Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Darwin's theory

1…7273757778

Comments

  • #2222
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Saganist wrote: »
    Answer my question JC.
    I've answered you here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92774029&postcount=2501


  • #2223
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    J C wrote: »
    I've answered you here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92774029&postcount=2501

    So, no new applications. And yet you still insist its "science" ?

    You're just full of it JC.


  • #2224
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,187 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I find it outright insulting that these cretins with no relevant qualifications waltz around acting as if they know better than people who have spent their lives researching such things. With this barrister it would be like me walking into his office and smugly telling him that he doesn't have a clue about legal matters and that I've worked out the answer in my spare time by reading a couple of books on the matter. Completely ignoring the fact that he has probably read hundreds of books on the same topics and has a much deeper understanding of such things.

    By any chance, would those "couple of books" be written by "Freemen on the Land"? :pac:


  • #2225
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    Time began with the Big bang as Hawkins stated, we know that the universe is Finite/limited with the universe continually expanding meaning at one point at was a solid ball of mass that continues to expand, God or the creator of the universe would be outside the universe and hence outside the laws of space and time.
    With the big bang scientists says not only did the universe come into begin but the laws of physics as well, and hence God is a begin outside the Universe & space and time therefore he does not have a beginning or an end more importantly no one has made him everything else is within the universe must have a cause to make them come into existence.
    God is the Ultimate Cause ... and you are correct He has to logically be eternal and transcendent.:)

    The rest of your story is an attempt by Atheists to explain the presence of the Universe without God.


  • #2226
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,187 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    5uspect wrote: »
    So stop feeding him. You'll never get him to admit to his deception and misinformation. He is the kind of individual you see at Speaker's Corner ranting and raving while the world moved on regardless of their rantings.

    There's another option: report his posts for trolling. He uses those smilies just to ****ing rile people all of the time, and it makes his posts look like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTxUKRkOoHM


  • Advertisement
  • #2227
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    And you were complaining about other people going off topic? :rolleyes:
    I wasn't complaining ... just trying to keep on topic ... whilst answering any questions that arise about 'Articles of Faith' of Atheism, like Abiogenesis and M2M Evolution ... and the dissing of the Bible.


  • #2228
    Uncle Ruckus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭Uncle Ruckus


    Once the next generation dies off no one will take these fairy tales seriously. So what is the point in debating with these brainwashed faith-heads. I'm outta' here.


  • #2229
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    There's another option: report his posts for trolling. He uses those smilies just to ****ing rile people all of the time, and it makes his posts look like this:
    By calling the use of smileys 'trolling' ... you are trivializing a very nasty and serious form of on-line bullying ... which real trolling is.

    It's like accusing somebody who smiles at you of rape!!!:(


  • #2230
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Uncle Ruckus wrote: »
    Once the next generation dies off no one will take these fairy tales seriously. So what is the point in debating with these brainwashed faith-heads. I'm outta' here.
    Yes, M2M Evolution is on it's 'last (erroneous) legs' allright.


  • #2231
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,594 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Rape? Like in the bible?

    Where are the peer reviewed papers?
    Where are the predictions of your so called creation science?
    Where is the evidence to falsify the thousands and thousands of evolution peer reviewed journals?
    What is your consistently claimed yet never evident scientific background in?


  • Advertisement
  • #2232
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    From an earlier post:

    As I said, talking out of your arse.

    The fact that you can't comprehend how circular and subjective your nonsense is bodes pretty poorly for you.


  • #2233
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    kingchess wrote: »
    And is it not amazing that the only "scientists" who believe in creation story are those who believe that the bible is correct( and a science manual as well)

    I wonder what the odds are of finding a scientist who believes in the creation theory but does not believe the stories in an old holy book??:rolleyes::rolleyes: It would be well outside the universal probablity bound and thus,can not happen:confused::. (Besides the little fact that there is no science to back up creation story-eh J C?.:D:D)


  • #2234
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    J C wrote: »
    So I didn't ignore any posts of yours ... and you have no answer to my posting on the basis for ID and the evidence for God.

    You ignored mine and plenty of others.

    I even had a few follow up posts pointing out what you ignored. Stop the posturing - you've refused to even acknowledge any argument that didn't suit you.


  • #2235
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    By any chance, would those "couple of books" be written by "Freemen on the Land"? :pac:
    Why ... are you looking for a loan of them from Jimbob ... to add to your collection of books making claims that end up being unsubstantiated ... like the books about the claim that 'Pondslime spontaneously arose and spoke to many'.:)


  • #2236
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    J C wrote: »
    I'm just as real a scientist as any Evolutionist one .../QUOTE]

    Reminds me of Pinocchio,He was a real boy too.:)


  • #2237
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    floggg wrote: »
    As I said, talking out of your arse.

    The fact that you can't comprehend how circular and subjective your nonsense is bodes pretty poorly for you.
    Lol! you didn't bother refuting the replay I just gave you because you simply couldn't.
    I referred to a well know scientist and a theory the science world have largely accepted yet you resort to completely ignoring my argument without pointing out any flaws in the argument nor which laws and theory would make my argument false, and yet claim that I even refused to acknowledge any argument that didn't suit me, clearly indicating that your cherry picking my posts and seeing which fits your narrow poor intellect, which you have trapped in a box and so far appear to be refusing to let it escape.
    I have replied and refuted to everything comment & argument that "didnt suit me" show me how I didnt.


  • #2238
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    floggg wrote: »
    As I said, talking out of your arse.
    I never came across this before ...

    Is this some kind of skill that some Evolutionists have evolved, so to speak???:confused::D

    ... or is just the way they have always talked to each other?:)


  • #2239
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Saganist wrote: »
    So, no new applications. And yet you still insist its "science" ?

    Science is an attempt to explain reality.

    If the evidence points toward a creative intelligence being the best explanation for something, as it does in the creation and evolution of life, then that explanation shouldn't be discounted because it clashes with your worldview.

    Most of you believe evolution is a blind, dumb and directionless process. What evidence is there to back this up, beyond just assuming it?


  • #2240
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,459 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    mickrock wrote: »
    Science is an attempt to explain reality.

    If the evidence points toward a creative intelligence being the best explanation for something, as it does in the creation and evolution of life, then that explanation shouldn't be discounted because it clashes with your worldview.

    Most of you believe evolution is a blind, dumb and directionless process. What evidence is there to back this up, beyond just assuming it?

    What evidence, in the first bolded point?


  • #2241
    Chunners
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭Chunners


    J C wrote: »
    No ... I evaluate the evidence that 'God did it' and 'it did itself' and I come to a reasoned conclusion on which is correct (in relation to 'origins' issues).

    The only evidence that conventional science is allowed to evaluate is the evidence that 'it did itself' ... no matter how invalid or implausible such a hypothesis may be ... when it comes to 'origins' issues.

    Conventional Science has hoisted itself on it's own anti-God petard on this one, I'm afraid!!:)

    ... and then they go into court and confirm it ... and claim some sort of 'scientific' victory against ID as a result.

    Now see thats where you are 100% wrong, science isn't "anti-god" , science is anti-fantasy. Science has no more reason to investigate the existence of a god than it does to investigate the existence of unicorns. You keep calling science Atheistic because it doesn't believe in god but thats not what it is, belief has nothing to do with it. Science knows god doesn't exist. Both of those are two totally different things and investigating a non existing entity would be a waste of time and resources.


  • Advertisement
  • #2242
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    mickrock wrote: »
    Science is an attempt to explain reality.

    If the evidence points toward a creative intelligence being the best explanation for something, as it does in the creation and evolution of life, then that explanation shouldn't be discounted because it clashes with your worldview.

    Most of you believe evolution is a blind, dumb and directionless process. What evidence is there to back this up, beyond just assuming it?

    Only it simply doesn't. If there was any evidence for it that could be demonstrated by science then we were is it ? No peer reviewed journals, no theories, nothing.

    I do not believe evolution is a blind, dumb, directionless process. It's simply a process of how we, along with every other species evolved/s over time.


  • #2243
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You posted a couple of points about the big bang theory and shoehorned in 'god woz ere too'. That's not in any way a valid argument.

    Lol! you didn't bother refuting the replay I just gave you because you simply couldn't.
    I referred to a well know scientist and a theory the science world have largely accepted yet you resort to completely ignoring my argument without pointing out any flaws in the argument, and claim that I even refused to acknowledge any argument that didn't suit me, clearly indicating that your cherry picking my posts and seeing which fits your narrow poor intellect, which you have trapped in a box and so far appear to be refusing to let it escape.
    I have replied and refuted to everything comment & argument that "didnt suit me" show me how I didnt.
    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    Time began with the Big bang as Hawkins stated, we know that the universe is Finite/limited with the universe continually expanding meaning at one point at was a solid ball of mass that continues to expand, God or the creator of the universe would be outside the universe and hence outside the laws of space and time.
    With the big bang scientists says not only did the universe come into begin but the laws of physics as well, and hence God is a begin outside the Universe & space and time therefore he does not have a beginning or an end more importantly no one has made him everything else is within the universe must have a cause to make them come into existence.


  • #2244
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,575 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    It's simple, this is what happened:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY


  • #2245
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    And the creator of that creator of that creator who created the universe is called what??and the uncreated creator who created all the creators -where did it come from again.


  • #2246
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    kingchess wrote: »
    And the creator of that creator of that creator who created the universe is called what??and the uncreated creator who created all the creators -where did it come from again.

    According to JC's logic.

    The Creator ? :eek: :pac:


  • #2247
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    Time began with the Big bang as Hawkins stated, we know that the universe is Finite/limited with the universe continually expanding meaning at one point at was a solid ball of mass that continues to expand, God or the creator of the universe would be outside the universe and hence outside the laws of space and time.
    With the big bang scientists says not only did the universe come into begin but the laws of physics as well, and hence God is a begin outside the Universe & space and time therefore he does not have a beginning or an end more importantly no one has made him everything else is within the universe must have a cause to make them come into existence.

    No, that didn't in any way provide an answer or evidence.

    Just because you dress up your belief as an absolute truth, doesn't mean it is one.

    Please point to any EVIDENCE (other than the bible) that god is an uncreated creator. Something objectively verifiable.

    I look forward to it.


  • #2248
    Chunners
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭Chunners


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    Time began with the Big bang as Hawkins stated, we know that the universe is Finite/limited with the universe continually expanding meaning at one point at was a solid ball of mass that continues to expand, God or the creator of the universe would be outside the universe and hence outside the laws of space and time.
    With the big bang scientists says not only did the universe come into begin but the laws of physics as well, and hence God is a begin outside the Universe & space and time therefore he does not have a beginning or an end more importantly no one has made him everything else is within the universe must have a cause to make them come into existence.

    Personally I like how you took my previous post, threw in a few references to your delusion and then claimed it as your own
    Chunners wrote: »
    Actually it is not irrational at all to believe that something can come from nothing because that whole "Something can't come from nothing" rule only applies within the laws of our own universe but our own universe didn't begin within itself, it started in a space that existed before it began (and still does otherwise what would our universe still be expanding into?) which had/has it's own laws. The laws of physic that we are all subject to are only as old as our universe is (15 billion odd years) and only exist within our own universe bubble. True nothingness (no light, no energy, no mass, no radiation, nothing) does not exist within our universe so we don't know what is possible in the existence of it since it would also not be subject to any laws.


  • #2249
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    No one thinks evolution is a blind, dumb directionless process.

    Ok, evolution is a creative and intelligent process then.

    Thanks for clearing it up.


  • #2250
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    Lol! you didn't bother refuting the replay I just gave you because you simply couldn't.
    I referred to a well know scientist and a theory the science world have largely accepted yet you resort to completely ignoring my argument without pointing out any flaws in the argument nor which laws and theory would make my argument false, and yet claim that I even refused to acknowledge any argument that didn't suit me, clearly indicating that your cherry picking my posts and seeing which fits your narrow poor intellect, which you have trapped in a box and so far appear to be refusing to let it escape.
    I have replied and refuted to everything comment & argument that "didnt suit me" show me how I didnt.

    Or perhaps i was reading the replies sequentially. Which would be the logical and rational way of doing things.

    And I was responding to J C.

    I worry for you.


  • Advertisement
  • #2251
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    mickrock wrote: »
    Ok, evolution is a creative and intelligent process then.

    Thanks for clearing it up.

    It's not that either. Just in case you take away a wrong assumption.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement