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

J C · 07-12-2014 12:23PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

J C question...you've expressed here on this thread your acceptance of AnswersinGenesis.

Please give me a reason why I should accept any evidence from you that you say supports your beliefs, given that AiG say, on their website

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
Basically, and they have a presupposed bias in what you believe to be true (the book called the bible), and gleefully admit to tossing aside any evidence that turns up that contradicts it.
To me, you have no credibility at all, when it comes to the topic of religion.

I do not accept everything that AIG says ... and if there were unambiguous evidence that contradicts the Bible, I would, of course, accept it.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Also, why should I believe you when you parse the words spoken by catholic priests and say "They actually believe in creationism!" when these very same priests, bishops, cardinals and popes have said on record the opposite when asked the question point blank?

Firstly, in relation to this stuff about the Pope believing in 'evolution' ... I too believe 'evolution' to be a fact ... in the sense of Natural Selection selecting the most adapted creatures to particular environments ... using the pre-existing CFSI found in the genomes of all Created Kinds ... but I still believe in Divine Creation to be the origin of it all.
Secondly, I never said that the Roman Catholic hierarchy believes in Creationism ... please stop making things up about what I said ... what I did say was that they believe that all things were Created by God ... and they confirm their belief in God as Creator of Heaven and Earth and all things visible and invisible every day when they say Mass.
This is a fact ... and you may believe it or deny it, to suit your purposes ... but it still remains a fact, that they proclaim their belief in God as the Creator of everything.
It's not just me that is saying this anyway:-

wrote:

Originally Posted by Michael Nugent
"My personal suggestion would be a symbol of nature, or of the universe, that religious people could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as created by their god, and that atheists could identify with as a symbol of nature or the universe as naturally evolved."

This is a fair and balanced summary by Michael of the beliefs of Christians and Atheists in relation to nature and the origins of the Universe.

Nature exists and is a fact accepted by both Christians and Atheists alike ... just like Michael has correctly said.

On the question of the origins of the Universe and nature, Christians believe it to be Created by God and Atheists believe it to have 'naturally evolved' from simple structures and elements into the more complex structures observed today, just like Michael has also correctly said.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Basically, you and they have a presupposed bias in what you believe to be true (the book called the bible), and gleefully admit to tossing aside any evidence that turns up that contradicts it.
To me, you have no credibility at all, when it comes to the topic of religion.

It is an accepted fact that personal beliefs can create bias in favour of ones own beliefs and against other peoples beliefs. This is just as true about Atheist acceptance of Molecules to Man Evolution as it is about Christian acceptance of Creation ... and vice versa.
... so we need to evaluate everything that each side says about their own and the other sides beliefs and we should evaluate the evidence for these beliefs in the light of the possible biases existing on both sides of this issue.

Delirium · 07-12-2014 12:48PM

You say the Catholic church accept evolution, yet subsequently state later in the same post that only atheists accept evolution.

Which is it?

J C · 07-12-2014 01:13PM

SW wrote: »

You say the Catholic church accept evolution, yet subsequently state later in the same post that only atheists accept evolution.

Which is it?

The Roman Catholic Church accepts 'evolution' (just like I do) ... in the sense of Natural Selection selecting the most closely adapted organisms to particular environments ... using the pre-existing CFSI found in the genomes of all Created Kinds ... but they still believe that Direct Divine Creation was the origin of it all ... just like I also do.

Atheists believe in evolution as their 'origins' explanation for the gradual development of everything from the Universe to nature and life itself.
Michael Nugent has neatly summarised this belief system of Atheists in the quote below.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I meant symbolise nature or the universe, not symbolise the theory of evolution or any scientific theory.

I was using the word evolved in the wider sense of the gradual development of something, in this case nature and the universe, not the specific sense of the theory of evolution of living species on earth.

And it wouldn't involve worship. Think of it as art, which atheists can appreciate without any theological baggage.

... and BTW, Theists are also able to appreciate art without any theological (or indeed atheological) baggage, just like Atheists can.

Delirium · 07-12-2014 01:20PM

You're getting very muddled with your explanation.

You don't accept evolution, as currently understood by science. To state otherwise is dishonest.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. You would do well to pick up an introductory book on biology to avoid such basic misunderstandings regarding evolution.

J C · 07-12-2014 01:34PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You are absolutely entitled to express your beliefs as much as you like. You are not entitled to pretend your beliefs are science.

... so then, presumably, you're unreservedly condemning the recent attempt at denying the Christian people of Kerry expressing their belief on Carrauntoohill.

... and you're in full support of this action being undone by the re-erection of the cross there?

I'm not pretending that my Christian beliefs are science ... but I am claiming Scientific support for the existence of God and the events recorded in the Bible, like the Creation of Adam and Eve ... and the Great Flood.
If these events actually happened and if God exists and created life you would expect physical evidence (accessible to scientific investigation) to exist for these phenomena ... and this is what we actually do find.

J C · 07-12-2014 01:42PM

SW wrote: »

You're getting very muddled with your explanation.

You don't accept evolution, as currently understood by science. To state otherwise is dishonest.

The Roman Catholic Church also doesn't accept the Atheistic understanding of 'evolution', as the evolution of pondkind into mankind, using nothing but time and selected mistakes - and that was my point.

SW wrote: »

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. You would do well to pick up an introductory book on biology to avoid such basic misunderstandings regarding evolution.

Less of the patronizing comments, please - it does nothing for your argument.

In any event, just like Michael Nugent, I was talking about 'evolution' in the wider sense of the gradual development of everything , including nature and the Universe!!:)

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I meant symbolise nature or the universe, not symbolise the theory of evolution or any scientific theory.

I was using the word evolved in the wider sense of the gradual development of something, in this case nature and the universe, not the specific sense of the theory of evolution of living species on earth.

Delirium · 07-12-2014 01:50PM

Less of the patronizing comments, please - it does nothing for your argument.

really?.....

J C wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church also doesn't accept the Atheistic understanding of 'evolution' as the the evolution of pondkind into mankind using nothing but time and selected mistakes - and that was my point.

Seems it wasn't patronising, but rather a statement of fact since you've termed evolution as "atheistic evolution". The evolution you reject is actually accepted by the RCC. And once again it highlights that you don't accept current scientific understanding of evolution.

In any event, just like Michael Nugent, I was talking about 'evolution' in the wider sense of the gradual development of everything , including nature and the Universe!!:)

thanks for the clarification. very hard to keep up with your varied uses (both correct and incorrect) of the word.

J C · 07-12-2014 02:07PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

As a matter of fact, I think it was an utterly moronic thing to do, yeah. I have no idea how it has anything whatsoever to do with this debate though.

Thanks ... it's a pity that this wasn't the position of all other atheists ... it could have truncated the thread about this outrage, on this forum ... which is still going strong and doing enormous damage to the image of atheism in Ireland - at least among Christians, anyway.
I have never seen such an offended reaction to any event among Christians of my acquaintance.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Except no, we don't.

Oh yes we do ... ranging from the CFSI in life to the catastrophically laid down fossiliferous sedimentary rock all over the the Earth ... to the discovery of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam ... who are the scientifically established common ancestors of all Human Beings.:)

legspin · 07-12-2014 02:37PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

...you can't actually be stupid enough to think it does, can you?

I feel the evidence suggest that not only is he more that capable of being that stupid, he really does achieve it with frightening regularity. Hence, this entire thread.

J C · 07-12-2014 02:38PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Just because I personally don't agree with it doesn't mean I can't sympathise with the position of other atheists though. An argument could be made that they're expressing their belief that christianity has damaged this country and having symbols of it all over the place is outright offensive. Now my personal view but certainly one I could understand. Again though it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

Christianity hasn't done any damage to anybody ... it is a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Some Christians and their churches may have made mistakes ... but when we contrast the Ireland of the 1930's with some of its European neighbours of the time, who were busy implementing social darwinism under the Nazis and Atheistic Communism under the Russians ... Ireland was heaven on earth, in comparison.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

CFSI isn't a thing, so no. Sedimentary rock and the fossils therein is literally evidence of the exact opposite of what you claim. Just because someone called them adam and eve doesn't mean they represent the adam and eve from the bible...you can't actually be stupid enough to think it does, can you?

Genetic Information is literally Complex, Functional and Specified ... so CFSI exists in life.
How does the billions of dead things found in sedimentary rock layers, laid down under water all over the earth not provide evidence for a global water-based catastrophe?
... and is it not an established scientific fact that we are all descended from one man and one woman?
Calling me 'stupid' is an ad hominem and name calling ... and the infallible sign of a lost cause, on your part.:)

J C · 07-12-2014 02:40PM

legspin wrote: »

I feel the evidence suggest that not only is he more that capable of being that stupid, he really does achieve it with frightening regularity. Hence, this entire thread.

More unfounded name-calling ... but no actual evidence for your position that we are all descended from slimeballs.:(

Please obey your own signature ... and be pure, be vigilant, BEHAVE.

Delirium · 07-12-2014 02:47PM

J C wrote: »

Christianity hasn't done any damage to anybody ... it is a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Some Christians and their churches may have made mistakes ... but when we contrast the Ireland of the 1930's with some of its European neighbours of the time, who were implementing social darwinism under the Nazis and Atheistic Communism under the Russians ... Ireland was heaven on earth, in comparison.

more "atheists are evil" sh*te :rolleyes:

The women who were carted off to laundries would probably dispute your claim of "heaven on Earth" btw.

J C · 07-12-2014 03:30PM

SW wrote: »

more "atheists are evil" sh*te :rolleyes:

The women who were carted off to laundries would probably dispute your claim of "heaven on Earth" btw.

I never said 'atheists are evil' ... and indeed such a generalization is quite untrue and very unfair on all atheists of my personal acquaintance, who are descent, law-abiding, good people.
There are good and bad within all belief systems ... and just like the bad within Soviet Atheistic Communism isn't applicable to all Atheists ... neither are the issues with the Magdalene laundries applicable to all Christians ... or indeed all Roman Catholics, for that matter.

... so, sorry to disappoint you, but none of this is any excuse for cutting down Christian crosses ... or taking over their schools, either - which seems to be one of the objectives of the 'cross cutters'.

Delirium · 07-12-2014 03:43PM

I never suggested the laundries applied to any religious group. It was to counter your rather blinkered view of Ireland being heaven on Earth.

And you definitely were suggesting atheism is evil so don't play coy.

J C · 07-12-2014 03:53PM

SW wrote: »

I never suggested the laundries applied to any religious group. It was to counter your rather blinkered view of Ireland being heaven on Earth.

All societies have their 'blind spots' ... and I have no illusions that 1930's Ireland 'could have done better' ... but so too could our current society, that much too easily proffers procured abortion as some kind of panacea for unwanted pregnancy ... with little reference to its effects on everyone involved in this killing.

SW wrote: »

And you definitely were suggesting atheism is evil so don't play coy.

I definitely was not suggesting that atheism is evil.
I was merely citing the obvious fact that Atheism has just as many 'skeletons in its cupboards' as any other belief system.:)

Delirium · 07-12-2014 04:07PM

J C wrote: »

All societies have their 'blind spots' ... and I have no illusions that 1930's Ireland 'could have done better' ... but so too could our current society, that much too easily proffers procured abortion as some kind of panacea for unwanted pregnancy ... with little reference to its effects on everyone involved in this killing.

I definitely was not suggesting that atheism is evil.
I was merely citing the obvious fact that Atheism has just as many 'skeletons in its cupboards' as any other belief system.:)

being dishonest again, JC

J C wrote: »

Christianity hasn't done any damage to anybody ... it is a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Some Christians and their churches may have made mistakes ... but when we contrast the Ireland of the 1930's with some of its European neighbours of the time, who were busy implementing social darwinism under the Nazis and Atheistic Communism under the Russians ... Ireland was heaven on earth, in comparison.

Genetic Information is literally Complex, Functional and Specified ... so CFSI exists in life.
How does the billions of dead things found in sedimentary rock layers, laid down under water all over the earth not provide evidence for a global water-based catastrophe?
... and is it not an established scientific fact that we are all descended from one man and one woman?
Calling me 'stupid' is an ad hominem and name calling ... and the infallible sign of a lost cause, on your part.:)

You state that Christianity never hurt no-one and then state that atheism is responsible for social darwiinisim in Russia. So you apply a double-standard when it comes to judging Christianity and atheism.

Christianity isn't to be held responsible for any actions done by Christians but atheism isn't treated the same way?

Pherekydes · 07-12-2014 04:12PM

Why do you say atheism is a belief system? Why do you bring up the Nazis? You realise that they invoked God, claiming that they were God's chosen people? You realise God sent his only son down to save one single group, not all of humanity? You realise God was the original social Darwinist?

J C · 07-12-2014 04:15PM

SW wrote: »

being dishonest again, JC

Where was I dishonest?

SW wrote: »

You state that Christianity never hurt no-one and then state that atheism is responsible for social darwiinisim in Russia. So you apply a double-standard when it comes to judging Christianity and atheism.

Where did I say that atheism is responsible for social darwiinisim in Russia?

I said no such thing!!!

SW wrote: »

Christianity isn't to be held responsible for any actions done by Christians but atheism isn't treated the same way?

I was merely citing the obvious fact that Atheism has just as many 'skeletons in its cupboards' as any other belief system.
... and perennial vigilance is the correct approach under all systems.

Delirium · 07-12-2014 04:24PM

J C wrote: »

Where was I dishonest?

Where did I say that atheism is responsible for social darwiinisim in Russia?

I said no such thing!!!

here you go:

but when we contrast the Ireland of the 1930's with some of its European neighbours of the time, who were busy implementing social darwinism under the Nazis and Atheistic Communism under the Russians

I would suggest you review your own posts before clicking submit to avoid such confusion over your own words in future

I was merely citing the obvious fact that Atheism has just as many 'skeletons in its cupboards' as any other belief system.
... and perennial vigilance is the correct approach under all systems.

actually you suggest that Christianity never hurt anyone but that atheism had in Russia. So you clearly proposed that Christianity is the lesser of the two evils.

J C · 07-12-2014 04:49PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Why do you say atheism is a belief system?

Of course Atheism is an obvious belief ... and its adherents behave like any other group that has common belief ... supporting each other and critiquing the beliefs of others.
Just look at any thread on the A & A, if you doubt me.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Why do you bring up the Nazis? You realise that they invoked God, claiming that they were God's chosen people? You realise God sent his only son down to save one single group, not all of humanity? You realise God was the original social Darwinist?

Jesus Christ came to Save all of Humanity.
The Nazis invented their own occult religion, based on the 'selection of the fittest' which was a euphemism for the killing of anybody they considered 'inferior' ... including people with special needs, homosexuals, gypsies and Jews - and indeed anybody else who opposed them.
They were the first society to implement full-blown 'Social Darwinism'.

J C · 07-12-2014 05:11PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Where was I dishonest?

Where did I say that atheism is responsible for social darwiinisim in Russia?

I said no such thing!!!

SW
here you go:
Quote:
but when we contrast the Ireland of the 1930's with some of its European neighbours of the time, who were busy implementing social darwinism under the Nazis and Atheistic Communism under the Russians

I would suggest you review your own posts before clicking submit to avoid such confusion over your own words in future.

The Nazis who weren't Atheists were the ones implementing the Social Darwinism ... while the Atheistic Communists (who were a sub-set of Atheists) were implementing their particular brand of Communism in Russia.

I was merely contrasting the much-maligned situation in Ireland in the 1930's with the much worse situations caused by the implementation of alternative systems, like social darwinism in Germany and a particular variety of atheistic communism in Russia.
Which system would you prefer to live under? ... Ireland in the 1930's ... or Russia with its confiscation of property and starvation gulags and summary executions?

wrote:

SW
actually you suggest that Christianity never hurt anyone but that atheism had in Russia. So you clearly proposed that Christianity is the lesser of the two evils.

Atheistic Communism certainly did hurt and kill millions of people in Russia as it abolished private property ownership and killed or deported its owners.
... as I have already repeatedly pointed out this evil doesn't apply to all Atheists.
In fact the reverse is true ... and all atheists of my acquaintance are honourable and good people.

Delirium · 07-12-2014 05:38PM

J C wrote: »

The Nazis who weren't Atheists were the ones implementing the Social Darwinism ... while the Atheistic Communists (who were a sub-set of Atheists) were implementing their particular brand of Communism in Russia.

that merely highlights that bad people do bad things. It's not contingent on being religious/atheist.

I was merely contrasting the much-maligned situation in Ireland in the 1930's with the much worse situations caused by the implementation of alternative systems, like social darwinism in Germany and a particular variety of atheistic communism in Russia.
Which system would you prefer to live under? ... Ireland in the 1930's ... or Russia with its confiscation of property and starvation gulags and summary executions?

I wouldn't care to live in either society. Might as well ask would I prefer one or two kicks to balls

Atheistic Communism certainly did hurt and kill millions of people in Russia as it abolished private property ownership and killed or deported its owners.
... as I have already repeatedly pointed out this evil doesn't apply to all Atheists.
In fact the reverse is true ... and all atheists of my acquaintance are honourable and good people.

Then you can't argue that Christianity never hurt anyone if you're going to continue to say that atheism is to blame for deaths in communist Russia. Any evil action carried out by any religious person can therefore be laid at the feet of their respective religion. Not something I'd necessarily agree with but you are of course entitled to that opinion.

RikuoAmero · 07-12-2014 08:27PM

J C wrote:

to the discovery of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam ... who are the scientifically established common ancestors of all Human Beings

If you actually were the scientist you have repeatedly claimed to be, you would know that this is NOT what is claimed by the scientists who discovered M. Eve and Y-C Adam.
They are not the common ancestors of all human beings. They are the most recent common ancestors for all humans presently alive, in matriarchal and patriarchal lineages respectively. They had contemporaries, who lived and died at the same time as them, whose descendants all died off. None of the scientists working on M. Eve and Y-C Adam stated them to be the literal first two humans ever. Not only that, but M.Eve and Y-C Adam were not said to have lived at the same time, or closely together.

J C · 07-12-2014 08:44PM

SW wrote: »

that merely highlights that bad people do bad things. It's not contingent on being religious/atheist.

I wouldn't care to live in either society. Might as well ask would I prefer one or two kicks to balls

Then you can't argue that Christianity never hurt anyone if you're going to continue to say that atheism is to blame for deaths in communist Russia. Any evil action carried out by any religious person can therefore be laid at the feet of their respective religion. Not something I'd necessarily agree with but you are of course entitled to that opinion.

I'm saying that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance ... and no belief system should be regarded as immune from the need for such vigilance.

Christianity never hurt anybody ... but some Christians not acting in accordance with their Faith certainly did ... often to their fellow Christians, it has to be said.
... but some Atheists have also done serious violence to their fellow man ... and in the case of Soviet Communism this violence was primarily directed against Christians.

oscarBravo · 07-12-2014 08:48PM

J C wrote: »

Christianity never hurt anybody ... but some Christians not acting in accordance with their Faith certainly did ...

Bloody hell, it's a no true Scotsman fallacy. Is there any logical fallacy you're not prepared to stoop to?

Delirium · 07-12-2014 08:53PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bloody hell, it's a no true Scotsman fallacy. Is there any logical fallacy you're not prepared to stoop to?

And a strawman thrown in for good measure.

J C · 07-12-2014 08:55PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

If you actually were the scientist you have repeatedly claimed to be, you would know that this is NOT what is claimed by the scientists who discovered M. Eve and Y-C Adam.
They are not the common ancestors of all human beings. They are the most recent common ancestors for all humans presently alive, in matriarchal and patriarchal lineages respectively. They had contemporaries, who lived and died at the same time as them, whose descendants all died off. None of the scientists working on M. Eve and Y-C Adam stated them to be the literal first two humans ever. Not only that, but M.Eve and Y-C Adam were not said to have lived at the same time, or closely together.

That used to be the scientific position (that they lived many thousands of years apart) ... but the latest research proves that they could have lived contemporaneously as the evolutionist time ranges for each of them, overlaps, exactly like Creation Scientists have claimed already.
To convert evolutionist timescales to actual time you should divide by between 15 and 20 in the case of late Hominid timescales.:)
http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/science-mitochondrial-eve-adam-01282.html

J C · 07-12-2014 08:59PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bloody hell, it's a no true Scotsman fallacy. Is there any logical fallacy you're not prepared to stoop to?

It's no fallacy ... Christians Faith demands that we love one another ... and any departure from this isn't in accordance with our faith.

RikuoAmero · 07-12-2014 09:06PM

J C wrote: »

That used to be the scientific position (that they lived many thousands of years apart) ... but the latest research proves that they could have lived contemporaneously as the evolutionist time ranges for each of them, overlaps, exactly like Creation Scientists claimed already.
To convert evolutionist timescales to actual time you should divide by between 15 and 20 in the case of Hominid timescales.:)
http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/science-mitochondrial-eve-adam-01282.html

between 120,000 to 156,000 years ago for the man, and between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago for the woman.

Still not living together, like what is claimed for the biblical Adam and Eve. I've read the full paper, and nothing in there indicates that they share any characteristics with the biblical A & E.

What I find hilarious is the fact that the article YOU link to, in support of your position has this paragraph

"Despite the Adam and Eve monikers, which evoke a single couple whose children peopled the world, it is unlikely that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were exact contemporaries. These two individuals had the good fortune of successfully passing on specific portions of their DNA, called the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome, through the millennia to most of us, while the corresponding sequences of others have largely died out due to natural selection or a random process called genetic drift.

It directly refutes your stance. Why did you link to it then? Did you not read it? Or did you not bother reading the full scientific article, and simply get excited when M. Eve and Y-C Adam were named as such?
In fact, other than being named Adam and Eve, what do M. Eve and Y-C Adam share in common with the couple from Genesis?

Delirium · 07-12-2014 09:17PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bloody hell, it's a no true Scotsman fallacy. Is there any logical fallacy you're not prepared to stoop to?

J C wrote: »

It's no fallacy ... Christians Faith demands that we love one another ... and any departure from this isn't in accordance with our faith.

Ironically, you've just confirmed what oscarBravo posted:

No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.

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

Comments