IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 26th February 2013, 04:25 AM   #5241
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that does not mean that dna and its information has a natural ( aka chance ) origin......
btw. dna contains literally information, as shown to you.
How do you explain epigenetics ?

You are stagnant. Your ideas are sadly outdated.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 04:34 AM   #5242
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
the ten commandments are universal. I don't remember a time, when it was universal and as commonly accepted as good, to steal, kill, torture, etc.
Torture? I didn't know there was a commandment against that. Can you quote the chapter and verse for that one?

But half the commandments are NOT UNIVERSAL.

Some were commonplace long before the Ten Commandments existed, for very good reasons which do not require religious belief to accept.
  • Murder
  • Theft
  • Perjury
  • Adultery
And maybe the bit about honoring your mother and father.

But the remaining five commandments are complete bollox. Especially the bit about coveting. You can't choose your emotions, making rules against feeling a certain way is nonsense.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
It's a very anthropic mistake to believe codified information as contained in DNA can arise by chance. It cannot, in the same way as this written message was written by a conscious mind, and could not be result of " nothing ".

We've repeatedly explained to you how it can arise, but you keep acting like we haven't and continue to claim that it can't happen.

Why is this? Do you fail to understand our explanations? Do you not bother to read them and think them through? Do you keep forgetting?

Or do you deliberately choose to ignore the truth?

ETA:

IIRC the only response I got the last time I tried to explain it in detail was the accusation that it was "science fiction", and a complete refusal to make any attempt to explain exactly which part(s) of my explanation you disagreed with and why.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

Last edited by Brian-M; 26th February 2013 at 04:38 AM.
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 05:10 AM   #5243
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
the ten commandments are universal. I don't remember a time, when it was universal and as commonly accepted as good, to steal, kill, torture, etc.
I am starting to think that you haven't even opened a bible, let alone read it.


This is just a small sampling of killing that is considered good by the bible.

Exodus 22:17
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Exodus 21:15
Leviticus 20:9
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
Zechariah 13:3
Deuteronomy 13:13-19
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Deuteronomy 17:2-5
Leviticus 24:10-16
Exodus 31:12-15
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 05:14 AM   #5244
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
This is just a small sampling of killing that is considered good by the bible.

To be fair, the "you shall not kill" commandment would better be translated as "you shall not murder", and many of those things wouldn't have been regarded as murder by the ancient Hebrews.
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 05:38 AM   #5245
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer View Post
http://s22.postimage.org/scluflq75/C...nist_Bingo.png

After looking through the thread, Thanks to GIBHOR I got BINGO!
You missed... irreducible complexity, DNA is computer code (I think. It was really close, though not necessarily that exact claim), molecular machines were mentioned in the copypasta, as I recall, he's tried the mutations don't add information, he's definitely tried the random/chance one, and he's heavily implied the "Just a theory" and "theory in crisis."
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 05:44 AM   #5246
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
How nice. That's only been a straw man argument for how many years, now? Darwin's original theory is not being used. When the evidence showed that it was flawed, it was discarded in favor of a theory that fit the evidence. That is one of the major things that happens in science, after all.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 26th February 2013 at 06:01 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 06:01 AM   #5247
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
To be fair, the "you shall not kill" commandment would better be translated as "you shall not murder", and many of those things wouldn't have been regarded as murder by the ancient Hebrews.
Indeed. Naturally, killing the mutant, the heretic, the witch, and the unbeliever sounds like it wouldn't be murder, though I doubt GIBHOR will get the reference.

Of course, there's always the lovely verses about being allowed to beat your slaves within an inch of death and not being punished at all if you manage to keep them suffering for a day or two before they die. Ahh, the joys of Exodus 21:20-21.

More directly related, though, if I recall correctly in my tired state, I seem to remember reading that the commandments that dealt specifically with things like killing were intended to *only* apply to the Jewish people.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 06:25 AM   #5248
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
To be fair, the "you shall not kill" commandment would better be translated as "you shall not murder", and many of those things wouldn't have been regarded as murder by the ancient Hebrews.
Yes, the definition of murder is very subjective, which is exactly my point.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 07:08 AM   #5249
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Didn't even look, did you?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 07:13 AM   #5250
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
the ten commandments are universal. I don't remember a time, when it was universal and as commonly accepted as good, to steal, kill, torture, etc.
Do you even read the stuff you post, any more?

Your superstitions are not "universal".

It is difficult to understand how you think your demonstrably false claim constitutes the reason you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 07:15 AM   #5251
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Of course God inspired the writers of the bible through his spirit to write down what he wanted us to know.......
Please explain how your superstition that 'god' "inspired the writers (and collators, and editors, and translators, and redactors) of the bible" is the reason you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 07:26 AM   #5252
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that does not mean that dna and its information has a natural ( aka chance ) origin......
btw. dna contains literally information, as shown to you.
Those who disagree with you are the ones learning more about DNA.

Why is that?
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 07:37 AM   #5253
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
It's a very anthropic mistake to believe codified information as contained in DNA can arise by chance. It cannot, in the same way as this written message was written by a conscious mind, and could not be result of " nothing ".


You must know that the above untrue.

You are deliberately misusing the word "information" to falsely claim that cells must be the product of an intelligent designer.

When you write your posts here, you are using a human invented language. But there are no such "written” letters and words in any cell.

What you really mean is that cells are composed of non-living chemical elements and molecules which scientists (not theologians) can understand in terms of whatever chemical reactions those constituent atoms and molecules can produce.

There is no “information” in the literal sense of that word. All the cell has is it’s chemical structure & nothing more.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 07:46 AM   #5254
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
its amazing how much atheists of this forum like to debate a troll.....
I missed this the first time 'round, this morning.

Thank you for your honest admission that you are, in fact, a troll, and that your OT posts are, in fact, trolling. [/thread]
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 08:53 AM   #5255
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
It's a very anthropic mistake to believe codified information as contained in DNA can arise by chance. It cannot, in the same way as this written message was written by a conscious mind, and could not be result of " nothing ".
I never said it arose from nothing and I expect it arose as all self-organizing molecules have, with entropy and chemical interactions. There is nothing magical or as you like to say "far too fantastic". Throw in Natural Selection and you explain the sequence.

That's a far better explanation than "poof". Naturalism uses reality such as physics and chemistry all of which reduce your "chance" argument to dust. Hell it's far simpler with this explanation (using naturalism BTW) than resorting to a Fred Hoyle argument which is just another strawman attempt to discredit the naturalistic position. Again you're resorting to a dishonest tactic so again I will call you dishonest. You and your sources abuse odds and ignore chemical interactions to make your case which means your attempts are intellectually bankrupt. And by using a bankrupt position to prop another using God you're then resting on a bankrupt idea which means your position cannot be considered until you use a better source of information. Good luck. Until then naturalism better explains our existence.

Also it's not a message so every time you say that you're lying and you already know why. It's not a code, it's not a language. It's a sequence of chemical sites and that's about it. Origins explained through chemistry, sequence explained through biochemistry over time. Naturalistic, plausible, and not intellectually bankrupt. <SNIP>.

Also that's not how you use the word anthropic. To understand what I mean try understanding why your assumption that DNA is a message from God is similar to seeing Jesus in your toast, but swap toast with DNA and Jesus with God.

Edited by Locknar:  SNIPed, breach of rule 9.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Locknar; 27th February 2013 at 08:47 AM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 11:13 AM   #5256
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
the ten commandments are universal.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." No, I don't see how that is universal. Can you walk me through that one?

"You shall not make for yourself an idol." Obviously, a lot a people do. Why would that be a universal moral?

"Thou shalt not take my name in vain." I do it all the time. Goddamn! No lightning. The Christian god is an incompetant idiot! Nope, still nothing. They must not be as universal as you believe them to be.

"Keep the Sabbath holy." Is that Saturday or Sunday? Is that why it is ok in the bible to murder your neighbor for picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

"Honor your father and mother." What if they are abusive?

"You shall not covet." Your bible really is into thought crime, isn't it?

Do you see now how idiotic the belief that morals come from the Christian bible is?

Quote:
I don't remember a time, when it was universal and as commonly accepted as good, to steal, kill, torture, etc.
Why didn't you cite the commandments about your god's insecurities? What makes it objectively moral to have no other made up gods before your made up god? Why does the bible condone murder and slavery? Your bible is one big mass of hypocrisy, not morals.

So, answer the questions. Is it moral to kill your neighbor for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Is it moral to kill your daughter for having sex outside of marriage? Just a YES or NO will be fine, then we can discuss the Bible condoning them.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 11:18 AM   #5257
deaman
Penultimate Amazing
 
deaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 12,229
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So you completely copped out!?!?

Not surprising at all. Just a fairy tale. Here is a quote from the site you posted.

Rather, most scholars agree that Jesus means we will do greater works because there are many of us.

This is how you explain the scripture? Sad. So, you and your god have absolutely no power to do anything. Do you realize that is the same as saying, there is no god at all?

Of course you also left out the "doing the same works as jesus". When will you be walking on water, or healing the sick?

You say the universe is created by a god. I say there is no god. I ask god and his supposed follower to show us his creative power. The answer comes back a cop out.

No power is demonstrated. Why? Because there is no god!
deaman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 11:38 AM   #5258
Astrodude
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 371
I think naturalism is the best explanation for our existence largely because it's the most logically consistent explanation. The notion that the most powerful being affecting the universe is also the creator of the universe is a logically unstable notion. Also, the problem of evil is one that theologians can't logically explain unless they admit that god is either the author of evil or that god is not all powerful.

If I see evidence that my reasoning is flawed, I will consider changing my religious views.
Astrodude is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 11:58 AM   #5259
deaman
Penultimate Amazing
 
deaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 12,229
Originally Posted by Astrodude View Post
IIf I see evidence that my reasoning is flawed, I will consider changing my religious views.
Same here. My mind is open.

Show the evidence, and I will happily change my mind on the subject.
deaman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 03:01 PM   #5260
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
You missed... irreducible complexity, DNA is computer code (I think. It was really close, though not necessarily that exact claim), molecular machines were mentioned in the copypasta, as I recall, he's tried the mutations don't add information, he's definitely tried the random/chance one, and he's heavily implied the "Just a theory" and "theory in crisis."
Thanks in advance for your and others pointing out my missed dabs.

I might be able to go for a full card.

GIBHOR I don't suppose it worries you that your parroting repeatedly debunked creationist claims does it?
__________________
Memento Mori
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 03:43 PM   #5261
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Every fossil is a transitional fossil, as has been explained to you numerous times. There's also punctuated equilibrium, which has also been explained to you numerous times.
Because you assert it, that makes it not automatically true......

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t169...-change-theory

Quote:
The existence of fossils shows that there are many extinct organisms, all
of which appear in the fossil record fully formed. (The supposed links in lineages
are inferences required by the theory of descent with modification but not otherwise
demanded by the evidence.) Many fossils appear abruptly, with no apparent
ancestral lineage (e.g., in the "Cambrian Explosion"), and fossils thought to be
transitional forms are rare. Yet by Darwin's own admission in his book Origin of
Species, the fossil record did not then support his theory because we should find
literally millions and millions of transitional fossils. Darwin believed that later fossil
finds would confirm his theory of gradual descent with modification. Stephen J.
Gould, the preeminent modern evolutionist and Harvard paleontologist recognized
Darwin's fossil problem persisted and was essentially unchanged from Darwin's
day, stating: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as
the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have
data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however
reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

Quote:
Or people fooling themselves because they vastly underestimate how likely coincidences are to occur, commit the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, etc etc.
I think you take a precipitated conclusion, and underestimate the intelligence of other people, wich can well judge if a miracle happened, or not.


Quote:
A pretty good description of what actually happens over millions of years, except for the use of the word 'fantastic'. There's nothing fantastic about it, it's absolutely inevitable.
why is inevitable ?


Quote:
Written messages do not reproduce themselves, nor do watches or any of the other examples usually used in this argument from incredulity. For anything which doesn't reproduce there are only two possible explanations: either it was deliberately made by a conscious entity, or it's the result of pure chance. For a living thing which can reproduce itself there are three possible explanations: either it was deliberately made by a conscious entity, or it's the result of pure chance, or it's the result of millions of years of evolution by natural selection, the last being by far the most reasonable and likely explanation.
the arise of the first living being cannot be explained through evolution.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-...arise-on-earth

Quote:
After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 03:44 PM   #5262
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by jof View Post
Nobody says it's a result of nothing. Nobody says its chance.
So whatelse do you propose ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 03:45 PM   #5263
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
How do you explain epigenetics ?

You are stagnant. Your ideas are sadly outdated.
you propose it. You explain it
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 03:48 PM   #5264
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
Probably most of them are the product of self-deception, delusion/hallucination, confirmation bias, exaggeration, ect. Looking at a few of them, I'm not convinced.
argument from incredulity. There are millions of reports of miracles from all ages, just to classify all as delusion etc. , isnt that a simplistic explanation ?

i have seen miracles by myself, i know they happened
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 03:51 PM   #5265
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
I am starting to think that you haven't even opened a bible, let alone read it.


This is just a small sampling of killing that is considered good by the bible.

Exodus 22:17
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Exodus 21:15
Leviticus 20:9
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
Zechariah 13:3
Deuteronomy 13:13-19
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Deuteronomy 17:2-5
Leviticus 24:10-16
Exodus 31:12-15
i know you have it easy to point out what you think you can use as justification to be against the bible. If i would be you, i would rather make a serious and unbiased bible study, then you will understand these issues in a other light.

You would be more convincing, if you would point out , what positive evidence you have for your case of strong atheism. Thats not so easy, isnt it ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 03:52 PM   #5266
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Because you assert it, that makes it not automatically true......

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t169...-change-theory


<snipped BS>
Quote mining?!?!?! AGAIN!?!?!?!?

Quote:
It shouldn't surprise those familiar with Gould's books that an article for the magazine Natural History would show up in one of his essay collections, but it is surprising that it has a different title and that there are some differences in the body of the article. And so, it's now obvious why the last sentence in the above is also in Quote #14 of the original Quote Mine Project. They both refer to the same article, and in fact appear in the same pages in "The Panda's Thumb" (pp. 181-182). John Wilkins certainly did more than an adequate job of clarifying Gould's beliefs in that entry, but a slightly different claim is being made here, so I'll do what I can.

A more complete quote would be as follows (words in square brackets ([]) appear in the "Panda's Thumb" essay, and not in the original):

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

[The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.]

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

[1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.

So it would seem that Gould has no problems with the fossil record. But did he believe that transitional forms are lacking? Note that in the quote originally presented, the claim is made that they are rare, not absent. Also, as anyone who is familiar with Gould's writings will know, the text quoted reflects his recognition that, while there is a scarcity of transitional fossils between species, there is no such lack of transitional fossils between major groups.

- Jon (Augray) Barber
from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

Jesus GIBHOR....that quote is about Punctuated Equilibrium. Dishonest quotemine is dishonest. Again.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 26th February 2013 at 03:57 PM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 03:52 PM   #5267
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
To be fair, the "you shall not kill" commandment would better be translated as "you shall not murder", and many of those things wouldn't have been regarded as murder by the ancient Hebrews.
well said.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 03:55 PM   #5268
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
How nice. That's only been a straw man argument for how many years, now? .
kkkkk.....thats a funny one.

Have you checked who made the argument ????
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 03:58 PM   #5269
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
Those who disagree with you are the ones learning more about DNA.

Why is that?
who disagrees with me ? and dawkins ? and collins ? and crick ? and and and ??
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 04:07 PM   #5270
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
There is no “information” in the literal sense of that word. All the cell has is it’s chemical structure & nothing more.
its hard to believe that " rational " atheists write and insist in such unscientific nonsense.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t287...-for-a-creator

Quote:
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this.
"There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 04:10 PM   #5271
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
I missed this the first time 'round, this morning.

Thank you for your honest admission that you are, in fact, a troll, and that your OT posts are, in fact, trolling. [/thread]
there is a dictate in german :

gleich mit gleich gesellt sich gern
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 04:13 PM   #5272
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
And again you're looking at the end point of DNA and calling it a code ignoring the fact that it's a self-organizing system and self-organizes through natural selection. This is obvious because DNA is within a system (its organism) undergoing biochemistry and that organism is participating in selection within the environment system. So again your claim is invalid.

Also Francis Collins describes DNA incorrectly as it's not a software program in a strict sense, it doesn't give orders or commands. It merely acts as a binding site chemically. DNA gives no more commands than water when it forms a hydration sphere (hint: I'll say it again. Thermodynamics). You have no way of dismissing this fact at all even on a naturalistic level unless you could demonstrate that for some reason physics decided to change the rules. It's almost hilarious that you would actually have to invoke a supernaturalistic explanation to deny that.

So another post debunked and you're still left wanting GIBHOR.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 26th February 2013 at 04:15 PM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 04:20 PM   #5273
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
I never said it arose from nothing and I expect it arose as all self-organizing molecules have, with entropy and chemical interactions. There is nothing magical or as you like to say "far too fantastic". Throw in Natural Selection and you explain the sequence.
throw a thousand paper snippets, each one with a different alphabet letter, one billion times into the ear, let it fall on the floor, and, who knows , one day, it will fall in the right order, to write a sentence, like : what a amazing miracle !!


Quote:
That's a far better explanation than "poof".
you certainly believe the same mechanism could be a good explanation, when you see written on a sand dune : lowpro loves tina ?



Quote:
Naturalism uses reality such as physics and chemistry all of which reduce your "chance" argument to dust.
no kidding !! and you know that how exactly ? have you ever seen a written message written by chance, or physical necessity ? that are the two alternatives, you have beside intelligent design......


Quote:
Again you're resorting to a dishonest tactic so again I will call you dishonest.


one more on my ignore list.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 04:23 PM   #5274
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Astrodude View Post
The notion that the most powerful being affecting the universe is also the creator of the universe is a logically unstable notion..
why logically unstable ? i actually don't understand what you mean.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 04:24 PM   #5275
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer View Post
Thanks in advance for your and others pointing out my missed dabs.

I might be able to go for a full card.

GIBHOR I don't suppose it worries you that your parroting repeatedly debunked creationist claims does it?
you have yet to show how they have been debunked.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 04:25 PM   #5276
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
throw a thousand paper snippets, each one with a different alphabet letter, one billion times into the ear, let it fall on the floor, and, who knows , one day, it will fall in the right order, to write a sentence, like : what a amazing miracle !!




you certainly believe the same mechanism could be a good explanation, when you see written on a sand dune : lowpro loves tina ?





no kidding !! and you know that how exactly ? have you ever seen a written message written by chance, or physical necessity ? that are the two alternatives, you have beside intelligent design......






one more on my ignore list.
The paper snippets argument is not an accurate representation of DNA though. DNA is a chemical it does not interact randomly. No chemical acts randomly; that's just something chemistry doesn't allow. It is not a thousand snippets being thrown in the air and trying to phrase it as such means you're using a dishonest tactic of lying, presenting the lie as the scientific position, and then crapping all over that lie/ positioning us to defend your lie. That is the problem with you trying to frame it as a code or a message. The sequence is not a code or message either because it's not spelling anything out but neither is it arbitrary and natural selection explains that. The sequences that continue on remain as they are barring biochemical interactions which alter it which THEMSELVES participate within the continuum.

Since you've given no strong evidence and rather a mix of opinion and just plain ignorance your argument remains the dust it was. Keep trying though. If I'm on your ignore list that's your loss because then you won't see the evidence against you which means you won't have the topic of this thread answered for you which means you don't need to be here which means you'll leave which mea.... wait....PUT ME ON YOUR IGNORE LIST.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 26th February 2013 at 04:29 PM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 04:27 PM   #5277
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
Originally Posted by indomitablespirit View Post
reposted with appropriate quote
No quote in post.
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 05:07 PM   #5278
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
i know you have it easy to point out what you think you can use as justification to be against the bible. If i would be you, i would rather make a serious and unbiased bible study, then you will understand these issues in a other light.
Yes, it's easy to use the bible to disprove you and the bible. If I would be you, I would try to defend it unless you know there is no defense.

Quote:
You would be more convincing, if you would point out , what positive evidence you have for your case of strong atheism. Thats not so easy, isnt it ?
You would be more convincing if you could defend your bronze age beliefs. You can't.

So you're admitting that morals are not objective nor do they originate with your murderous bible?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 05:19 PM   #5279
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Because you assert it, that makes it not automatically true......

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t169...-change-theory






I think you take a precipitated conclusion, and underestimate the intelligence of other people, wich can well judge if a miracle happened, or not.




why is inevitable ?




the arise of the first living being cannot be explained through evolution.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-...arise-on-earth
I know that because you are a false witness, just being a parrot that blindly cuts and pastes whatever material you feel my be appropriate that you really don't care.

But get a clue GIBHOR, there are no fossils that suddenly appear in the Cambrian explosion despite your cut and paste of
Quote:
Many fossils appear abruptly, with no apparent
ancestral lineage (e.g., in the "Cambrian Explosion"), and fossils thought to be
transitional forms are rare.
So just keep being a bad blind faith witness GIBHOR it is pretty apparent that you act like a mindless robot, you refuse to discuss the actual merits of any of your arguments, you don't even understand the Fine Tuning Argument enough to pretend to defend it.

So SQUAWK for Jesus and make you parrot copy and paste.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

Last edited by Dancing David; 26th February 2013 at 05:20 PM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th February 2013, 05:24 PM   #5280
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Because you assert it, that makes it not automatically true......

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t169...-change-theory
...nor does your automatic denial, without consideration, make it any less true than it actually is.

The phrase "appear in the fossil record fully formed" is a long-debunked creationist canard. I could help you understand what is so fundamentally wrong with that silly claim, if you would but tell me what definition you use for species. OTH, that would be OT.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I think you take a precipitated conclusion, and underestimate the intelligence of other people, wich can well judge if a miracle happened, or not.
Why is it that all you offer as evidence of "miracles" is anecdote? You know the canard about the plural of anecdote...the number of anecdotes does not change that.

Think of the number of anecdotes offered in support of the existence sasquatch. Or alien visitation.

...or is it your postion that multiple sensationalist anecdotes about "miracles" are the reason you beleive naturalism to be the best evidence for your existence?

<snip>

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
the arise of the first living being cannot be explained through evolution.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-...arise-on-earth
Repeating a lie does not make it come true. Biopoesis and ToE are two different subjects. In fact, since evolution by natural selection is a characteristic process that happens to living things, ToE properly does not address biopoesis. Do you not find repeating the same claim, when its error has been pointed out to you, to be dishonest?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 26th February 2013 at 05:32 PM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.