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

Pherekydes · 07-12-2014 09:30PM

J C wrote: »

To convert evolutionist timescales to actual time you should divide by between 15 and 20 in the case of late Hominid timescales.

Can you elaborate on this. Why would you do this? Is a creationist's year different to a solar year?

/In the mood for a good laugh. #nofootballtonight

RikuoAmero · 07-12-2014 09:49PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this. Why would you do this? Is a creationist's year different to a solar year?

/In the mood for a good laugh. #nofootballtonight

Simple. Because they're wrong and he's right. It's hilarious in my opinion. He links to this article, to the finding of M. Eve and Y-C Adam as somehow being indicative of the bible couple, despite the fact that the very article in question says nothing of the sort and in fact goes out of its way to say they're not the same as the Adam and Eve from the bible.
He's cherry-picking his evidence. He's pointing to this "See! Science has found the common ancestor for all humans!" and then telling us to ignore what else science has to say about the time scales involved (since those time scales contradict the biblical account). In other words, science is right only when it backs up his arguments, and wrong when it doesn't (sounds like AiG alright, despite his assertion to the contrary).
Oh and J C...in case you want to take me to task for what I did just there...this is EXACTLY what you've been doing for quite a few posts when it came to the catholic church, when you say they're creationists, despite their public assertions to the contrary.

J C · 07-12-2014 11:18PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

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

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?

Lets recap.
It is a scientifically established fact that we are all descended from one man and one woman.
It is a scientifically established fact that the evolutionist time ranges for both of them overlaps thereby indicating their possible contemporaneous existence.

Evolutionist assumptions about gradualism are used to estimate the timelines involved - but apart from that I agree with the results obtained.

J C · 07-12-2014 11:27PM

SW wrote: »

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.

I have never claimed that Christians don't do unpleasant things ... we are all sinners saved through no merit on our parts.
My point was that while sinning doesn't exclude us from Christianity ... it also isn't in accord with the Christian principles that we espouse ... and thus Christianity is a force for good in the World ... and in the next world as well.
... so a true Christian may well do wrong ... but is much less likely to do so, because the principles they espouse demand that they don't do wrong.

Delirium · 07-12-2014 11:33PM

J C wrote: »

I have never claimed that Christians don't do unpleasant things ... we are all sinners saved through no merit on our parts.
My point was that while sinning doesn't exclude us from Christianity ... it also isn't in accord with the Christian principles that we espouse ... and thus Christianity is a force for good in the World ... and in the next world as well.
... so a true Christian may well do wrong ... but is much less likely to do so, because the principles they espouse demand that they don't do wrong.

You did it again

:pac:

J C · 07-12-2014 11:40PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this. Why would you do this? Is a creationist's year different to a solar year?

/In the mood for a good laugh. #nofootballtonight

It is when it comes to evaluating historical timescales ... that this divergence occurs ... for example, an evolutionist will look at a living crocodile and then claim that crocodile fossils are 200 million years old ... when they could literally have been fossilised a hundred years ago.
The reason for the 200 million year time tag is because long ages of time are required to give any semblance of plausibility to the idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' ... but the fact that Crocodiles have remained unchanged during the 200 million evolutionist years that they have supposedly existed, while something that looked like a glorified rat has 'evolved' into Humans over the same period ... says that crocodiles aren't 200 million actual years old and the glorified rats ... were actual rats ... and remained so.

J C · 07-12-2014 11:56PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's almost beautiful, isn't it?

OK lets recap ... how does a claim that Christianity, which demands that we love our neighbour as ourselves ... but recognizes that we may fail in this ideal ... fall into the 'no true scotsman' fallacy whereby everybody who fails in an ideal is excluded from membership of the group at issue?

How does Christianity does this?

J C · 07-12-2014 11:57PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

All that it says is you don't have a clue about the theory of evolution.

... or some evolutionists may have a bias in favour of long ages ... when these ages may not have actually existed.

Pherekydes · 08-12-2014 12:19AM

J C wrote: »

It is when it comes to evaluating historical timescales ... that this divergence occurs ... for example, an evolutionist will look at a living crocodile and then claim that crocodile fossils are 200 million years old ... when they could literally have been fossilised a hundred years ago.
The reason for the 200 million year time tag is because long ages of time are required to give any semblance of plausibility to the idea that 'Pondkind evolved into Mankind' ... but the fact that Crocodiles have remained unchanged during the 200 million evolutionist years that they have supposedly existed, while something that looked like a glorified rat has 'evolved' into Humans over the same period ... says that crocodiles aren't 200 million actual years old and the glorified rats ... were actual rats ... and remained so.

Do you teach science to kindergartners, by any chance?

It's the only explanation I can come up with for the infantile drivel you consistently come out with.

oscarBravo · 08-12-2014 12:35AM

J C wrote: »

Lets recap.
It is a scientifically established fact that we are all descended from one man and one woman.
It is a scientifically established fact that the evolutionist time ranges for both of them overlaps thereby indicating their possible contemporaneous existence.

Evolutionist assumptions about gradualism are used to estimate the timelines involved - but apart from that I agree with the results obtained.

...and now we have confirmation bias. Where logical fallacy bingo is concerned, you're the gift that won't stop giving.

No matter how much we wish you would.

Brian Shanahan · 08-12-2014 12:47AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Do you teach science to kindergartners, by any chance?

It's the only explanation I can come up with for the infantile drivel you consistently come out with.

Much more likely is that JCs science knowledge was gained one afternoon when he had a talk with a four year old with a big imagination, who had previously been told lots of science beyond their comprehension (bit like the Rugrats, really).

J C · 08-12-2014 12:50AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and now we have confirmation bias.

... from you.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Where logical fallacy bingo is concerned, you're the gift that won't stop giving.

No matter how much we wish you would.

... no logical fallacies on my part ... but your confirmation bias seems to be confusing you on this issue.

oscarBravo · 08-12-2014 12:55AM

J C wrote: »

... from you.

... so far no logical fallacies on my part ... but your confirmation bias seems to be confusing you on this issue.

And now we've descended from logical fallacies to kindergarten grade "I know you are but what am I?"

RikuoAmero · 08-12-2014 08:21AM

J C wrote: »

Lets recap.
It is a scientifically established fact that we are all descended from one man and one woman.
It is a scientifically established fact that the evolutionist time ranges for both of them overlaps thereby indicating their possible contemporaneous existence.

Evolutionist assumptions about gradualism are used to estimate the timelines involved - but apart from that I agree with the results obtained.

Did the research pointing towards M.Eve and Y-C Adam indicate, anywhere at all, that these two individuals must have been the first two humans? The article you linked to says otherwise, it says there were other humans who lived at the same time as them and before, who all had lines of descendants who all died out.
This is you cherry picking. You've got research saying something, and only accepting that which supposedly aligns with what you previously believed (that there was an Adam and Eve) and completely disregarding everything else that that research indicates (the time scales).

As for them overlapping...did you not look at the numbers at the start of the article? The newest research indicates they're much closer than what was previously believed, but they're still off by about 30 to 40 thousand years.

I also have to question why creationists like yourself bother with this scientific "evidence" at all. Creationists believed there was an Adam and Eve for centuries, long before research into M. Eve and Y-C Adam was started. The lack of research there didn't stop creationists from believing the biblical account. Since you already believed, what possible use could this research have been for you?

Colonialboy · 08-12-2014 10:19AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It goes quite well with the kindergarten grade science.

pot kettle black....

Brian Shanahan · 08-12-2014 10:42AM

Colonialboy wrote: »

pot kettle black....

And what relevance does the colour of kitchen implements have to the discussion over whether a 2,500 year old disproven fairy stories should have equal footing with oneof the best evidenced scientific theories, which well explains the eatablised factual phenomenon of evolution?

And yes I do see what you're trying to do there. But falsely equating the rest of us with JC doesn't change the fact that the creationism belief you and he share is wrong, and an utterly disproven fantasy.

oscarBravo · 08-12-2014 11:06AM

Colonialboy wrote: »

pot kettle black....

Welcome back. Let's see... oh yes: you were about to make an intelligent point about Dmanisi skulls.

Michael OBrien · 08-12-2014 11:19AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Did the research pointing towards M.Eve and Y-C Adam indicate, anywhere at all, that these two individuals must have been the first two humans? The article you linked to says otherwise, it says there were other humans who lived at the same time as them and before, who all had lines of descendants who all died out.
This is you cherry picking. You've got research saying something, and only accepting that which supposedly aligns with what you previously believed (that there was an Adam and Eve) and completely disregarding everything else that that research indicates (the time scales).

As for them overlapping...did you not look at the numbers at the start of the article? The newest research indicates they're much closer than what was previously believed, but they're still off by about 30 to 40 thousand years.

I also have to question why creationists like yourself bother with this scientific "evidence" at all. Creationists believed there was an Adam and Eve for centuries, long before research into M. Eve and Y-C Adam was started. The lack of research there didn't stop creationists from believing the biblical account. Since you already believed, what possible use could this research have been for you?

There were no first humans, the mitochondrial eve issue does not address that, only that scientists state they traced the DNA of the mitochondria in modern women back as far as that 'eve' allegedly, not that was the start of it or that it was the DNA of the WOMEN. The mitochondria have their OWN dna and that is only carried down on the female side.
These 'adam and eve' never met, lived tens of thousands of years apart and have nothing to do with the religious adam and eve.
Don't let creationists try to tell you otherwise, it's bull.

RikuoAmero · 08-12-2014 11:22AM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

There were no first humans, the mitochondrial eve issue does not address that, only that scientists state they traced the DNA of the mitochondria in modern women back as far as that 'eve' allegedly, not that was the start of it or that it was the DNA of the WOMEN. The mitochondria have their OWN dna and that is only carried down on the female side.
These 'adam and eve' never met, lived tens of thousands of years apart and have nothing to do with the religious adam and eve.
Don't let creationists try to tell you otherwise, it's bull.

I know. You just repeated basically all of my points for me. Thanks, I guess, but that was unnecessary to say as a response to me.

Michael OBrien · 08-12-2014 11:29AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I know. You just repeated basically all of my points for me. Thanks, I guess, but that was unnecessary to say as a response to me.

Sorry, I guess I was only reinforcing the issue. Especially that the issue is the wrong dna (as far as first humans), as its not the women, but the mito's dna.

Colonialboy · 08-12-2014 04:31PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

doesn't change the fact that the creationism belief you and he share is wrong, and an utterly disproven fantasy.

this is where it gets really hilarious for me, i mean your talking belly laughs, load guffaws that make everyone around me wonder whats the joke.....

You have already decided I believe in creationism and I havent (as most peopel on here will testify) expressed a position.... and then the best part is you want me to enter into a scientific debate with someone who cant even recognise that they cant grasp that fact.

You have already declared my positon as wrong and i havent even expressed it... seriously dude , theres no chance of discussing science with people who have made up their mind before Ive even hit 'submit reply' .

And then the saddest part for science is this type of attitude is supported on this thread. It reflects poorly on classical sceintific debate.. maybe thats what passes for neo-scientific debate.

oscarBravo · 08-12-2014 07:02PM

Colonialboy wrote: »

this is where it gets really hilarious for me, i mean your talking belly laughs, load guffaws that make everyone around me wonder whats the joke.....

You have already decided I believe in creationism and I havent (as most peopel on here will testify) expressed a position.... and then the best part is you want me to enter into a scientific debate with someone who cant even recognise that they cant grasp that fact.

You have already declared my positon as wrong and i havent even expressed it... seriously dude , theres no chance of discussing science with people who have made up their mind before Ive even hit 'submit reply' .

And then the saddest part for science is this type of attitude is supported on this thread. It reflects poorly on classical sceintific debate.. maybe thats what passes for neo-scientific debate.

Hi there. You were going to say something scientific about Dmanisi skulls?

Brian Shanahan · 08-12-2014 07:27PM

Colonialboy wrote: »

You have already decided I believe in creationism and I havent (as most peopel on here will testify) expressed a position.

The evidence for you supporting creationism:
1) You come on here and the first post you make is in defence of ardent creationist JC.
2) You ridicule the evidence for evolution (a proven fact) and the various scientific theories explaining it, as ridiculous, inadequate and wrong.
3) You ridicule posters who support evolutionary theory, simply because they do.
4) You have offered no alternative explanations to evolutionary theory apart from creationism.

The evidence against you supporting creationism:
1) A few very weak assertions, without supporting evidence, that you don't. Please note that this isn't really strong enough to qualify as evidence, I only include it out of completeness and courtesy.

So unless the evidence changes, it is fair to theorise that you are a creationist. Prove to us that you are not.

Turtwig · 08-12-2014 07:40PM

Turtwig wrote: »

\\\MOD:\\\

What's more amazing is how awful to a constructive discussion your postings on this thread have been. Suffice to say if you don't start contributing positively to a discussion your involvement in this thread won't continue.

Colonialboy wrote: »

Obviously posts that SPECULATE and ASSIGN a position to another poster qualify as constructive on this thread and require no censuring.
anyways its been revealing.
So long and thanks for all the loaves and fishes... (i know some of you are going to read loads into that last statement, relax dont waste your time, its just a humourous quip combining 2 popular quotes)

Ok see ya.

Colonialboy wrote: »

against my better judgement but I cant let that go without a making a modern uptodate and unbiased scientific contribution, cos someone needs to make truly modern scientific contributions to this thing.

Its a pretty picture just dont mention the Damnisi skulls....

This time Im really done, I really dont like mutual admiration societys pretending to be science and am just too busy in my work.

Err ok bye?

Colonialboy wrote: »

pot kettle black....

Thought you were going.

Colonialboy wrote: »

this is where it gets really hilarious for me, i mean your talking belly laughs, load guffaws that make everyone around me wonder whats the joke.....

You have already decided I believe in creationism and I havent (as most peopel on here will testify) expressed a position.... and then the best part is you want me to enter into a scientific debate with someone who cant even recognise that they cant grasp that fact.

You have already declared my positon as wrong and i havent even expressed it... seriously dude , theres no chance of discussing science with people who have made up their mind before Ive even hit 'submit reply' .

And then the saddest part for science is this type of attitude is supported on this thread. It reflects poorly on classical sceintific debate.. maybe thats what passes for neo-scientific debate.

And you're done here.

When your ban lifts, don't post in this thread.

Thanks.

J C · 08-12-2014 08:49PM

Very interesting.

TheChizler · 08-12-2014 08:53PM

J C wrote: »

Very interesting.

Amateurs, eh?

Pherekydes · 08-12-2014 09:32PM

J C wrote: »

Very interesting.

This is the best post you've ever composed.

Genghiz Cohen · 10-12-2014 09:44PM

J C wrote: »

but the fact that Crocodiles have remained unchanged during the 200 million evolutionist years that they have supposedly existed, while something that looked like a glorified rat has 'evolved' into Humans over the same period ... says that crocodiles aren't 200 million actual years old and the glorified rats ... were actual rats ... and remained so.

Late to the party but still.

Mr. CooL ICE · 11-12-2014 11:06AM

But I thought Adam and Eve's remains would have been destroyed in the flood, right? Therefore, who's skulls are MC Adam and M Eve? Noah and Emzara?

RikuoAmero · 11-12-2014 05:27PM

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

But I thought Adam and Eve's remains would have been destroyed in the flood, right? Therefore, who's skulls are MC Adam and M Eve? Noah and Emzara?

Nope, like everything else in the bible...magic. God would have magically made sure that the skulls survived.
FYI...it's Y-C (Y Chromosome) Adam, not MC.

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

Comments