Let’s see if you have the integrity to address this? Though I suspect your outrageous sophistry has already provided the answer.
It appears that joylessgirl2 is no improvement on joylessgirl1.
This seems fundamentally misguided on two levels:
- Science isn’t true (of false for that matter), it is a methodology. In the same way sorting a list alphabetically isn’t “true or false”; science isn’t true or false.
- The notion that “resembling X” is equivalent to “X”; seems dubious.
1 Like
Correct, it would appear that the premier tactic of a deity with limitless knowledge and power, is now to secretly convince its adherents to espouse not just rank idiocy, but blatantly false and contradictory claims.
In viewing this car crash descent from crap to craptacular examples of joylessgirl2’s rationale, one is reminded of the opening lines of a classic movie, The Blues Brothers…
One prophylactic new…
One prophylactic…used
It is manifestly demonstrated in the dearth of objective evidence to support your superstitious wares.
And in each case I specifically demonstrated the logical fallacies on which you’d based your rationale. You chose to ignore this initially, and shoot the messenger. Now you’re simply denying it’s obvious validity. Quelle surprise, it’s hardly a new tactic for those who come here to peddle superstition.
So if Harry Potter contains any truth, then wizards are real? This isn’t getting any less funny, bless.
Uh, oh, oh no…
irony overload…
Wow, that’s (a) deep(ity) maaan.
Not at all…
Ahem, we?
Given the asinine leaps of assumption you are using to choose to see whatever you want in that archaic superstitious tome, one couldn’t rule out that it’s a sketch for an earlier version of Blackadder, or a recipe for ox tail soup, or basically anyfuckingthing at all, given that such idiocy has no objective basis whatsoever…
If I haven’t said this enough yet, YOU ARE FUNNY.
Whasatnow? A deity with limitless knowledge to create a message, and limitless power to communicate it, FUCKED SOME OF IT UP?
Your scientific evidence? 
I hope you’re trolling, as the alternative inference is painfully embarrassing.
Cough BULLSHIT cough…
Spillage warning!
Please try not to step in that, until we have had a chance to clean it up.
Cough SOPHISTRY cough…
Straw man fallacy…so much for his lie his superstion is rational…
Ok, time out…
Can I ask which principles of logic you are claiming validate those bizarre assertions?
Wasatnow? Evidence? What evidence? 
Wooooow woooow woooow. …
Are you denying the evidence for fairies?
Seriously, best laugh I’ve had since antibiotics cleared up the bacterial infection of my prostate.
Nurse! NURSE!
This man needs attention here…
1 Like
Based on his sophistry thus far, I’d be prepared to bet that @GodisReal won’t understand either objection, or if he does will simply ignore them, and misrepresent them.
He has no interest in honest discourse. Also his posts suggest he is barking mad…
I respectfully disagree. GodisReal is politely (and I thank GodisReal for that) attempting to explain the rationale in his thinking. He has presupposed that a god exists, and is attempting to cram what we consider valid evidence into ill-fitting nooks and crannies that do not accept that argument.
The logic is flawed, and there are too many fallacies in the proposition(s).
I reference Bishop Ussher, who meticulously went through the bible and calculated that the first day of creation was October 23, 4004 BC
Based on that, the chronology of the bible is incredibly incorrect. Evolution requires thousands of years just for minor changes, millions for large scale changes in evolution.
Well - that does it…
Your “belief” crosses a line. Your “belief” could be racist in nature - but alas, it is targeted to women. Same shit, different pile.
It is a claim without evidence; hurtful, hateful, degrading, disrespecting and a peek into the thinking of your mind.
It is not welcome on this board.
ohhhh, lookie lookie - a woman in reality can do something (at least about you and your belittling, misogyny)
EDITED TO ADD: Joygirl2 account has been forever silenced
2 Likes
What do you imagine is “true” about this thing you are calling science? What are you defining as “true”? I know the scientific method is useful and it tends to lead us to the best possible understanding in that we have no other method that can come close to quantifying and empirically verifying the same results as the scientific method and independent verification. Does that qualify as “true” in your mind? Science builds models and the models help to explain the world around us.
- Creation is in the wrong order.
- Bats are not birds.
- The earth is not flat and suspended on four pillars.
- There is no good evidence for most of the Biblical stories from the Patriarchs, to the Life of Jesus, and on to the teachings of Paul, scientific research is at odds with the time lines, existence, location, miracles asserted, and more.
- Canaan were annihilated: Biblical Assertion - not true - They mixed with the Jews.
- [Proverbs 6:6-8] The ant is an individual animal. - Not true.
- The Bible mentions a circle whose dimensions would make pi equal to 3. This has been a source of humor for skeptics and consternation for literalist Christians and Jews. (1 Kings 7:23)
8, The is claimed to be a solid “roof” over the world. - The Moon is referred to as a “light” and was believed to have its own source of illumination. WRONG!
- The Bible makes it clear that stars are tiny objects in the sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back.
***Science resembles the stories of the bible? Only a complete buffoon would make such an argument. You don’t have a fact to stand on. ***
Similar things are not “The same things.” Many things are similar. Using your logic, “I am you.” (I feel dumber already.) I am you for no other reason than we are similar. Really dumb assertion.
The Bible can line up with any frigging theory you want it to line up with. All you have to do is cherry-pick your verses… But if you want to use the bible as a whole you are going to have to explain a few things evolutionarily…
- Talking snakes and donkeys.
- Bats that are birds.
- Rabbits that chew their cud.
- Why does an all knowing God assert the smallest seed is a mustard seed?
- People are made of clay?
- People lived to be 500 years old…
- A man can live inside a big fish…
*More inane bullshit. And we have not even gotten to ‘spirits, demons, gods, and other silly claims.’
Citation Needed: “Life originated from Water.” Your assertion "The origin of life is from water. Not God. And this is supported by the bible? Demonstrate it.
You can’t rule it out? Seriously? ( An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance ’ stands for “lack of evidence to the contrary”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.)
1 Like
@Sheldon has already ripped this apart, but…
I don’t think you understand what you are saying.
It is not, and Sheldon is correct. You assume things, appealing to the authority of science, and you make non-logical inferences, thereby invalidating your entire line of reasoning.
…which is faulty reasoning. You infer “truth” from “resembles truth”.
By your line of reasoning:
- Archaeology provides evidence that bronze age Troy VIIa was destroyed deliberately in an act of war. Since this resembles the story in the Epic Cycle about the sacking of Troy, then the story about the sacking of Troy in the Epic Cycle is true.
- Trains and train stations are known for a fact to exist. Trains and train stations are featured in Harry Potter. Thus the chapters and paragraphs concerning magic trains and train stations in Harry Potter are true.
For 1, there may be a faint kernel of actual history in the Epic Cycle about the city of Troy being involved in a war, and was destroyed as a result. There is, however, no evidence it was destroyed by a coalition of greeks. And absolutely no evidence that any of the adjoining stories in the Epic Cycle have anything to do with actual events. Most likely, the Epic Cycle is a mishmash of old legends and stories and fantasy, put together into a fascinating story (find a good translation of The Iliad and The Odyssey, they’re well worth reading…as fictional literature). The most you can infer is that the Epic Cycle might be loosely based on a possible actual war. It’s like those Hollywood movies that are “based on a true story”, but do not resemble the true story at all. Or Fox News, which is news reporting in name only.
For 2, this is obviously absurd, but is still totally analogous with your statement above.
So here’s the meat of the argument. You inferred “X is true” from “X resembles something that is true”. But this time you have added “may”. Which reduces your “argument” to nothing. Your argument is now “X resembles something that is true, therefore it may be true”. But it also may not be true. Which leaves you with the conclusion that “X may or may not be true”. Which is basically drawing no conclusion at all.
It most definitely does not.
What you believe or do not belive is irrelevant. What matters is objective facts and evidence, and you have provided none. What you are dealing in here is taking a random sentence containing the words “water”, “creature”, and “life”, and then, by wishful thinking, retrospectively interpreting this as having to do with evolution. But if so, then this almighty godly creator-god did an extremely lousy job of explaining it. Here she had a unique chance of really showing off, by adding information about genes, mutations, evolving species, etc., but no. Just a diffuse sentence about water and life. It would be extremely easy to expand on this in such a way to make wishful interpretation unnecessary. Instead, this godly god chose to explain in minute detail the haute couture for the priests, how it should look and be decorated, and the shape of the candle holders in the temple. This shows that she didn’t quite get her priorities right. Or far more likely that it is a very strong indication that the whole Bible is written by men, based on vague bronze age myths.
Again, your error is that you infer “X is Y” from “X resembles Y”, which has nothing to do with logic. You have no case here.
You are dealing in pareidolia here. You see something that your pattern recognition brain interprets as something completely different, and you draw faulty conclusions. Same with your Bible story - you infer a pattern that just isn’t there.
1 Like
Oh dear, anogther mythology fanboy doesn’t understand the basics of proper discourse.
First of all, just because your favourite mythology asserts that certain things happened, doesn’t mean that they did. Indeed, the risible Genesis creation myth has everything ass backwards. It asserts that plants were purportedly “created” before the Sun existed to power photosynthesis (both the world’s biologists and astrophysicists consider this assertion risible, and flagrantly in violation of known facts).
Your mythology also has the order of appearance of relevant organismal clades ass backwards. It asserts that whales appeared before land animals, which is known to be wrong from the fossil record. The first land animals appeared in the late Devonian, between 380 and 360 million years ago, while whales didn’t appear until the Eocene, around 50 million years ago. Likewise, your mythology asserts that birds appeared before land animals, but oops, they didn’t appear until the late Jurassic, around 150 million years ago, around 200 million years after the first land animals.
So already, the provenance of your mythology as a purported source of knowledge is in serious doubt. That’s before we factor in such risible elementary failures as the failure to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, or asserting that genetics is purportedly controlled by coloured sticks. That last assertion was found to be a risible lie by an Austrian monk in the 19th century, whose landmark scientific research laid the foundations of modern genetics. As a corollary, if your cartoon magic man ever existed, it was not only a liar about the operation of the natural world, but also insufficiently “omniscient” to foresee the the emergence of said Austrian monk and his diligent scientific experiments.
The short version of the above: your mythology is made up shit.
As for your assertion that the universe was “created” with us in mind, this is laughably excremental nonsense. 99.999999999999999999% of the universe is uninhabitable by humans, consisting as it does of the vacuum of space. Much of the remainder is made up of stars, whose interior temperatures are of the order of tens of millions of Kelvins. Good luck living there. For that matter, numerous parts of Planet Earth are hostile to humans - the polar ice caps and the Sahara Desert spring to mind.
As for your assertion that your cartoon magic man was purportedly “necessary” to produce the universe and its contents, several million peer reviewed scientific papers toss that assertion into the bin, courtesy of the fact that they provide ample evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to account for the universe and its contents. Indeed, your predictable and infantile dismissal of evolution is rendered inane and absurd, by the 1½ million plus peer reviewed scientific papers documenting the evidence for evolution, including direct experimental test and validation of evolutionary postulates, and the replication of speciation events in the laboratory.
The short version of all the above: you’re talking out of your arse.
Oh, and reality has nothing to do with “default assumptions”, the only “default assumption” at work here being your assumption that a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology is real.
By the way, humans are animals, specifically hominid apes. No less a person than Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy, wanted to place humans and chimpanzees in the same taxonomic Genus. The reason he didn’t, was because of religious interference in his scientific work, about which he lamented in a letter written to fellow taxonomist Johann Georg Gmelin in 1747. Note that he arrived at this conclusion, on the basis of comparative anatomy, sixty-two years before Darwin was born, and while being a de facto creationist (but only because no competing explanation was available in his lifetime). The letter in question can be viewed here, and the original Latin reads as follows:
This translates into English as follows:
Meanwhile, since you have brought the execrable apologetic garbage from Arsewater in Genesis to the table with respect to insects, viz:
I’m here to tell you that I don’t even need to be an invertebrate zoologist to know that this is bullshit, but of course it helps. First of all, this only covers the Orthoptera, the Order containing grasshoppers and related insects, but which, oh wait, are routinely observed to use all six legs for walking. Indeed, I’ve observed several species thereof doing precisely this during my career. But wait, there’s at least twenty other Orders of insects to take into account, many of which contain species that don’t jump. Even more hilariously, there’s an entire Family of beetles, the Elateridae, which do jump, but don’t use their legs for this. Instead, they have a special protrusion from the underside of the thorax, which is held in place by a hook under muscular tension, and released when the insect decides there’s a need for a quick escape. The distinctive clicking noise made by these beetles during said escape leads to their common name of Click Beetles.
Apparently the authors of your sad little mythology could neither count to six, nor spend time reliably observing the actual behaviour of organisms around them.
4 Likes
JG2
I’m going to keep answers and further discussion to a minimum.
My contributions yesterday were lengthier than usual and only possible because I had a free day to spend on them. I do not always have that advantage.
Do not misconstrue my words. I am an atheist. Gods are merely an idea, a complex concept. That’s my consistent and freely given testimony. Don’t misconstrue my words if I seem to be conferring attributes or abilities to any god. The English language is extremely flexible. I can speak of Harry Potter, Rumpole or Batman as if they were real, but they remain firmly fictional as do all gods.
I understand your explanation about the lower status of women, but I can’t accept the validity of any of it. You will claim it is my hubris on display to challenge the social order demanded by a god and its implementations of hierarchy. You have presented this permanent implementation as equating women with criminals and unruly children and defined it as a punishment. Equal but not quite. How do you recognise the difference between 100% truly honoured women and the lower 99%? Do they glow? How does that 1% manifest itself? Aren’t you judging others?
A busy day, thats all I can offer for now. You are free to ask whatever questions you like. Keep them to a mininmum and I will answer what I can.
2 Likes
Sorry Smilingbirdfood- post 150.
JG2 won’t be here to answer - maybe read 
Point of order; usually, but not always.
I only know of one exception, but that’s enough.
The exception of which I’m aware is a species of peppered moth in 19th century England. Over a relatively short time, they became black as did the bark of the trees on which they rested. The cause was industrial pollution.
Point well taken and I admit my error. I was aware of those moths too, write it off as senility or just a brain fart.
That was my thought, brain fart I mean.
I mentioned it for your sake, not for that of the interlocutor. Not nice to imply older people are senile
Oh, another thing… In the trainwreck of this pretend argument of yours, I forgot to mention the obvious: The verse you are referring to here mentions life in water after life according to the Bible-myth had been created on land (Genesis 1:11-12). Your very own source says that life did not originate in the sea, but on land. Therefore, your cherry-picking, context-ignoring pretend argument is dead as a dodo. Haven’t your read your Bible, or are you just gambling on us not having read it? But I do suspect that you have read Genesis 1 over and over. In which case you are lying consciously.
3 Likes
I believe in sporting parlance what Get_off_my_lawn has posted there is called a “slam dunk”.
@GodisReal may need a fire extinguisher, as the last remnants of his risible verbiage has just crashed and burned.
Since not only was his conclusion naught but assumption, the premise his argument offered that the bible reflected scientific fact has been demonstrated as false with multiple examples.
2 Likes
Good call Pillowpug.
That whole section about women was disturbing. If JoyGirl is a woman, it’s depressing to think she just dutifully accepts the misogyny of her particular brand of Christianity. Equally galling was her blithe acceptance that the categorisation of women was equivalent to the punishment of criminals, as if the crime, is being born female. Her wholehearted defence was pathetic to read. Its the battered wife syndrome writ large. Despite understanding that its part and parcel of the accepted culture for Nigeria does not make it any more palatable or justifiable.
In my break today I revisited “Nairaland” the Nigerian website, which serves as a national conduit for general information. It’s not exclusively a theist site. There is a ‘Religion’ section, and not surprisingly, it’s heavily fundamental, much like Joygirl. Lots of OT references and emphatic declarations of genealogical connections with the Jews.
AR has had involvement with the contributors there before. Some trolls were compiling theist arguments from NL and presenting them here under several guises. In the ensuing debate here there were some curiously uneven responses.
A little research showed that AR responses were cut and pasted and compiled and presented at the Nairaland forums as atheist arguments. The point of the excercise was lost on me. But Nyar took care of them.
You might be pleased to hear that in the different sections of the Nairaland forum no-one uses those Annoying Capital Letters to Accentuate Important Words and to Add Weight and Authority such as JoyGirl favours.
1 Like