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 22nd February 2013, 07:36 PM   #4961
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
GIBHOR thinks that the theory of evolution isn't true, because it doesn't say 'therefore god exists'. Like the creationist sites he parrots without understanding, he has his conclusion (god created everything) and then desperately tries to find evidence to suit It, discarding anything that doesn't fit.
what does not fit ?
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 22nd February 2013, 08:07 PM   #4962
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what does not fit ?
Pretty much all of biology, geology, astrophysics..

It's discarded if the answer isn't 'And therefore GOD!'.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 22nd February 2013, 10:12 PM   #4963
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
but whatever speaks against evolution, you ingnore, don't you ? the holy cow of evolution cannot be killed.
I haven't ignored you- that's why I've been carefully reading your posts and in response explaining what we really do know, and what we don't know, about evolution. In contrast, if I may quote you:

Originally Posted by GIBHOR: "Well, i just explained you what i believe. That does not mean, that i will examine your evidence for evolution..."

I've already posted how there have been many scientists who have challenged existing ideas about evolution, sometimes radically, and have gotten their ideas accepted. But that is because they first took the trouble to truly understand the theory that they were questioning, and because they were then able to provide scientific evidence for why certain aspects were wrong. Science encourages people to prove a theory wrong. Religions do what to heretics?

You see, I view this thread as a great educational opportunity. An educational opportunity for me, because I learn a lot from vast majority of the other posters here. An educational opportunity for any lurkers, who get to see the profound errors in the creationist and theological arguments you cite. And, believe it or not, I see it as a marvelous educational opportunity for you! Yes, I see you are learning more about science as the thread continues.

First, you have already learned that not all the information on the creationist websites is correct: that is an important step in the right direction. Next, every time you move the goalposts in response to a reply to one of your posts, or refuse to answer a simple direct question, it means that you recognize that you can't really defend your original position. Every time you change the subject in response to a post, it means you recognize that you can't defend a entire topic area. Every time you deny that you haven't seen any evidence for naturalism despite all of the many pages in this thread, or you abruptly shift from a scientific argument to theological preaching, it means that you recognize the wealth of evidence that you are forcing yourself to ignore.

I certainly do not expect you to ever post, "Yes, you guys are right!' That would be... a miracle. But little by little, I think you are understanding more of the real science. That's good enough to keep me going here.

Last edited by Giordano; 22nd February 2013 at 10:17 PM.
Giordano 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 23rd February 2013, 01:11 AM   #4964
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
But little by little, I think you are understanding more of the real science.
Wow, its a rare day that Gibhor is only the second most delusional person in a thead
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas
devnull 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 23rd February 2013, 02:34 AM   #4965
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by dogjones View Post
ETFA: Damn this is a long thread
Sure is. Every time I log in I half-expect to find it moved to AAH.
__________________
"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 23rd February 2013, 04:45 AM   #4966
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I've already posted how there have been many scientists who have challenged existing ideas about evolution, sometimes radically, and have gotten their ideas accepted. But that is because they first took the trouble to truly understand the theory that they were questioning, and because they were then able to provide scientific evidence for why certain aspects were wrong. Science encourages people to prove a theory wrong. Religions do what to heretics?
What has one thing to do with the other ? Since when is there a competition between science and religion ? these are different things, and cannot be compared one to the other.

Quote:
You see, I view this thread as a great educational opportunity. An educational opportunity for me, because I learn a lot from vast majority of the other posters here. An educational opportunity for any lurkers, who get to see the profound errors in the creationist and theological arguments you cite.
You think you can take a few paragraphs of creationist sites i cite, that make wrong assertions, and think based on that you can conclude a whole world view is wrong. Not so !! beside this, don't think only creationists get it wrong sometimes. I think you do know well, how many times darwinists have willfully distorted their data and lied, to make their theory fit. So that happens on both sides.......



Quote:
And, believe it or not, I see it as a marvelous educational opportunity for you! Yes, I see you are learning more about science as the thread continues.
I agree on that. I have always learned a lot with atheists, because they make me search for answers, when a certain question has not been presented to me. And there is my learning process. But fact and truth is, we are have both our preconceived world view, which is based on a lot of information, and ones our starting point is, that our world view is the right one, its difficult to convince the other side, that this is not the case. I have actually in years never met one atheist, which openly admitted , that he switched sides. Thats because nobody participates here as a true agnostic, withous preconceptions.
But neither is that my expectation......the more i learn, the more i wonder how someone truly can believe that God does not exist. The evidence is overwhelming, nature speaks such a clear language, its almost as nature would scream out : look how incredibly intelligent the creator of all this is....
but atheists seem blinded through their persistent and irrational will, no God to exist.

Quote:
First, you have already learned that not all the information on the creationist websites is correct: that is an important step in the right direction.
I don't have to learn that, i knew it already. How do you know that the right direction is to get closer to atheism ? ah.... forgot, that is your preconceived world view. I am more and more distant from atheism......


Quote:
Next, every time you move the goalposts in response to a reply to one of your posts, or refuse to answer a simple direct question, it means that you recognize that you can't really defend your original position.
I don't need to be able to answer all questions with indepth knowledge, to have a strong case for theism. But is this thread not about atheists defend their case for philosophical naturalism ?!!

Quote:
Every time you change the subject in response to a post, it means you recognize that you can't defend a entire topic area. Every time you deny that you haven't seen any evidence for naturalism despite all of the many pages in this thread, or you abruptly shift from a scientific argument to theological preaching,

what you call theological preaching, many times in reality is a philosophical position, which is in the end always our answer to explain natural phenomenas. Science is limited in its findings, and what we can do, is make conclusions based on the data. Unfortunately for the case of philosophical naturalism, scientific advance has lead to a different direction that atheists hoped. The universe is not existing forever, but had most probably a beginning, as the bible states for thousands of years. The universe is tuned to a razors edge, not only to permit life, but to exist as a whole. Abiogenesis is a lost case for naturalists. The evidence, like the information stored in the cell, homochirality etc. all point to a supernatural event. Sex, conscience, the hability of speech, etc. are all things that cannot be explained in a convincing manner through naturalism......


Quote:
it means that you recognize the wealth of evidence that you are forcing yourself to ignore.
i have yet to see a good case for philosophical naturalism. So far, i have not!!

Quote:
I certainly do not expect you to ever post, "Yes, you guys are right!' That would be... a miracle. But little by little, I think you are understanding more of the real science. That's good enough to keep me going here.
Again : its not science x religion. Its strong atheism x theism. Both can and do rely on scientific data. Science is neutral.

Last edited by GIBHOR; 23rd February 2013 at 04:53 AM.
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 23rd February 2013, 04:54 AM   #4967
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by crhkrebs View Post
GIBHOR, if you can't understand the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science that are presented by this website, .
I indeed cant. Could you point them out, please ?
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 23rd February 2013, 05:08 AM   #4968
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
It's technically 2 threads combined. GIBHOR tried to do the exact same thing a number of months ago, failed utterly, and eventually gave up.
What criterion have you applied to conclude i failed ? And , on what exactly have i failed, could you explain please ?



Quote:
More recently, apparently having learned nothing about the actual trustworthiness of the creationist arguments
please point out what exactly is not thrustworthy about them.


Quote:
that he's relying on, he tried to raise the exact same question in a supposedly new thread, mistakenly believing that he had actually learned anything of value from the empty rhetoric and propaganda of more creationist arguments.
what propaganda exactly ?


Quote:
Most of his basis, initially, was again on just one of the assumptions of the cosmological argument, namely, that something cannot come from nothing, with a couple minor alterations from before. He specifically specified a lack of potentialities, for example, after QM was shown to more than address reasons why that assumption was flawed, last time.
Indeed. Absolutely nothing has no potentials. You don't know this ?


Quote:
He seemed not to realize, in his attempt, that he was excluding the answer he wanted to be accepted as the case, as well. Either way, GIBHOR's simply and repeatedly shown that he's let confirmation bias rule his evaluation of arguments, again, and that he's completely accepted the demonstrably and deeply flawed arguments that he's presented.
how about you present arguments, that are solid, and not flawed. Thats what this thread should be about. Forgot that ?



Quote:
To be clear, the flaws tend to be logical, philosophical, and scientific, with the first two being as good as invariable and the third coming into play with most attempts to invoke science or things testable with science, like beard growth, apparently.
I probably have missed to see ONE good and convincing answer, why women have no beard, while men have.



Quote:
It, of course, gets worse when his arguments are validly refuted, often in numerous ways, (though, very admittedly, there have been invalid attempts at refutation mixed in for some arguments, more frequently as some people let their disgust as the dishonesty with which GIBHOR's approached the discussion continues,)
acusing me of dishonesty is a frequent attempt to try to disqualify me. that rather disqualifies the accuser, since it seems he has no good arguments to make a strong own case, so rather preferes to acuse me of dishonesty. thats a old, wellknown practic.....which is a open admittance of failure.



Quote:
and GIBHOR continues to try to reuse them, usually without even acknowledging the valid refutations,
again, you continue superficial. could you be more detailled, and show just one valid refutation ?
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 23rd February 2013, 05:28 AM   #4969
jof
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Unfortunately for the case of philosophical naturalism, scientific advance has lead to a different direction that atheists hoped. The universe is not existing forever, but had most probably a beginning, as the bible states for thousands of years. The universe is tuned to a razors edge, not only to permit life, but to exist as a whole. Abiogenesis is a lost case for naturalists. The evidence, like the information stored in the cell, homochirality etc. all point to a supernatural event. Sex, conscience, the hability of speech, etc. are all things that cannot be explained in a convincing manner through naturalism..
This is why I suspect that you really have not looked very deeply into the subject. The points you mention doesn' t really present a problem for a naturalistic world wiew.
jof 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 23rd February 2013, 06:02 AM   #4970
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
This reminded me of a thread from about five years ago. A fellow who went by Radrook (now banned) presented a list of scientists who reject the theory of evolution by natural selection. Thirteen were famous scientists who died long before the publication of Darwin's work. Ultimately, only a few people on the list of 57 scientists turned out to be biologists who were alive in the last half century.

The really funny part came when Radrook tried to claim that his computer had accidentally jumbled two separate lists together and that it wasn't his intent to include all those blatantly irrelevant names on the list. I have to admit that watching him squirm as he was confronted with the easily obtained fact that the list was lifted, in toto, from a creationist website, was rather amusing. He sure was dumb.
Ah Radrook, one of the line of god botherers who lie and deceive when forced to deal with reality.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Interesting developments on the Big Bang origin question (my bolding).

Cosmos may be 'inherently unstable'
A variation on the 'Pulsating Steady-State Universe' theory.

Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
Sure is. Every time I log in I half-expect to find it moved to AAH.
Well it's not going anywhere else.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 23rd February 2013, 06:15 AM   #4971
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
What has one thing to do with the other ? Since when is there a competition between science and religion ? these are different things, and cannot be compared one to the other.

Conflict arises when scientific evidence conflicts with religious belief. For example, large numbers of people might hold the religious belief that a global flood once wiped out most life on earth. What happens when they're presented with scientific evidence that contradicts this belief?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
You think you can take a few paragraphs of creationist sites i cite, that make wrong assertions, and think based on that you can conclude a whole world view is wrong.
It's not just the sites you cite. Every creationist site makes "wrong assertions". If a world view clearly contradicts the observable facts of the world, that world view is wrong.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Not so !! beside this, don't think only creationists get it wrong sometimes. I think you do know well, how many times darwinists have willfully distorted their data and lied, to make their theory fit. So that happens on both sides.......
The instances of biologists and other scientists lying and providing false or distorted information to support their conclusions is rare and unusual. Being discovered in this kind of deception is enough to ruin careers.

The instances of creationists lying and providing false or distorted information to support their conclusions is commonplace. It's standard practice. Being discovered in this kind of deception has no negative consequences for them, and the false information will continue to be disseminated long after it's been publicly demonstrated as being false.

The "you too" argument doesn't really work in this case. Surely you can see the difference?

"Yes I can see the difference, and don't call me Shirley." [/humor]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Thats because nobody participates here as a true agnostic, withous preconceptions.
Technically, being gnostic or agnostic has nothing to do with whether or not you believe God exists. You can easily be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

People often misuse the term "agnostic" to mean "weak atheist". Used properly, it means a person who holds the belief that it's not possible to know for certain whether God does or does not exist. (But not thinking it's possible to know for certain is no barrier to holding a belief on the subject.)

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
But neither is that my expectation......the more i learn, the more i wonder how someone truly can believe that God does not exist.
For me it's the other way around. I was raised without any religious instruction. No prayer, church service, or anything. I was never taught that God existed, but was never taught that God didn't exist either. Religion was a subject that never came up, and I was only peripherally aware of it from sources like movies or television shows.

But the more I learned about religion, the more bizarre it seemed to me that anyone could believe such nonsense.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
The evidence is overwhelming, nature speaks such a clear language, its almost as nature would scream out : look how incredibly intelligent the creator of all this is....
The "evidence" is all in your head.

Nature is amazing and wonderfully complex, I'll grant you that. But only someone with deeply ingrained preconceptions about God could ever see it as evidence of an intelligent creator.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
but atheists seem blinded through their persistent and irrational will, no God to exist.
You seem to think that atheist possess a strong desire for god not to exist, but that's not necessarily true.

Personally, I think it'd be pretty awesome if we discovered that a god of some kind actually existed, especially if we could communicate with it.

But the only "evidence" we have for such a thing existing are ancient stories, flawed logic, self-deception and deliberate lies. No verifiable evidence at all. Believing in God makes as much sense as believing in magic pixies.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
But is this thread not about atheists defend their case for philosophical naturalism ?!!
If we're getting back to the thread topic "Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence?" the question itself is based on a misunderstanding of what naturalism is.

Naturalism isn't an explanation for "our existence" or anything else. It's a useful philosophical tool that can be used to develop a better understanding of the world.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Unfortunately for the case of philosophical naturalism, scientific advance has lead to a different direction that atheists hoped. The universe is not existing forever, but had most probably a beginning, as the bible states for thousands of years.
The idea of the universe existing forever has never been the basis of atheism, so finding out it hasn't is hardly leading in a "different direction that atheists hoped". The steady state theory of the universe was discredited back in the 60's, and the fact that the universe appears to have an earliest point in time is common knowledge. Pointing out something that many atheists have been aware of for their entire lives is hardly going to make atheists rethink their position.

But you specifically credit the Bible with saying that the universe had a beginning. So what? Practically every religion claims the universe had a beginning, including far older religions than yours. Infinity is a fairly modern concept, and so primitive societies without this concept would naturally assume the universe had a beginning.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
The universe is tuned to a razors edge, not only to permit life, but to exist as a whole. Abiogenesis is a lost case for naturalists.

The conditions that permit life to exist in the universe only occur in extremely rare and unusual situations, in infinitesimally tiny regions compared the the universe as a whole. If you were to paint the entire near side of the moon with a pie chart comparing the habitable areas of the universe to the uninhabitable areas of the universe, the slice representing the habitable areas would be so narrow that an astronaut kneeling on the moon with a magnifying glass would be incapable of even seeing it.

The period of time (past an future) when these conditions are even capable of occurring is only the tinyist sliver of a moment in the lifespan of the universe. If you were to create a chart long enough to wrap around the entire earth that represented the period of time in which atomic matter is capable of existing, and were to mark on the chart the period of time in which it was physically possible for life to exist, the marked section would be so small that you still wouldn't be able to see it.

The idea that this universe is fine-tuned to support life is absurd.

And quoting phony figures from creationists about how "improbable" this universe is (as you have done repeatedly) is hardly convincing.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
The evidence, like the information stored in the cell, homochirality etc. all point to a supernatural event. Sex, conscience, the hability of speech, etc. are all things that cannot be explained in a convincing manner through naturalism......
Yes, it can. All it takes is the recognition that the "facts" provided by creationist websites are lies, and a little effort to actually examine and understand the concepts presented.
__________________
"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 23rd February 2013, 06:17 AM   #4972
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
You think you can take a few paragraphs of creationist sites i cite, that make wrong assertions, and think based on that you can conclude a whole world view is wrong. Not so !!
well then, present the "not wrong" assertions.
So far, you have failed to o that.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I agree on that. I have always learned a lot with atheists, because they make me search for answers, when a certain question has not been presented to me..
as creationism doesn't create new discoveries, you will always be playing catch up.
__________________
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 23rd February 2013, 06:35 AM   #4973
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
GIBHOR, I have a question that has been bothering me for a while.

Why would you, or any other Christian even want to argue that the universe is fine-tuned? It makes no sense to me.

After all, the only kind of God who would need to create an entire, mostly uninhabitable and supposedly fine-tuned universe like the one we see around us would be a deistic God who initiates the process but doesn't meddle.

But if the universe was created by a deistic God, that means your entire religion is false, that the entire Bible is a lie. So why would you even make this argument?

The God you believe in, the one who simply pops life into existence, who summons global floods, who destroys cities, parts oceans, turns water into wine an brings the dead back to life, YOUR God...

... Why wouldn't he just pop the solar system into existence? He could have simply popped a single sun into existence and surrounded it with thousands of habitable worlds.

So why would he bother creating an entire vast, hostile universe filled with countless trillions dead worlds simply to create life on a single planet?

Why?
__________________
"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 23rd February 2013, 07:36 AM   #4974
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
GIBHOR: when do you intend to address your demonstrably dishonest misquote of Dr. Sagan's words--you know, the one that shows that you did not read the source form which some creationist cherry-picked a carefully incomplete idea?
__________________
"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 23rd February 2013, 07:41 AM   #4975
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
You think you can take a few paragraphs of creationist sites i cite, that make wrong assertions, and think based on that you can conclude a whole world view is wrong.
That is precisely what you do.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   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 23rd February 2013, 08:32 AM   #4976
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what does not fit ?
-the combined chromosome of humans vs. the other great apes
-the design of the retina with the blood vessels in front of the photoreceptors
-the fact that all humans will develop as female without the presence of androgens
-the multiple errors and mistakes in replication and reproduction
-the insertion of genetic material by viruses
__________________
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
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 23rd February 2013, 08:37 AM   #4977
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I indeed cant. Could you point them out, please ?
I pointed out a major flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument,which you have refused to address, why is that GIBHOR?

I have asked over twenty times, and you are dishonest, you do not want to discuss it because you know the FTA is wrong or you just don't understand it and all you do is parrot and copy.
__________________
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
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 23rd February 2013, 08:40 AM   #4978
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
What criterion have you applied to conclude i failed ? And , on what exactly have i failed, could you explain please ?
You have failed to address the huge flaw in the Fine Tuning Argument, you have failed to understand or defend the FTA, you seem to think that just parroting some one else's statement is honest. You are incapable of actual debate, all you do is copy and paste and witness.
__________________
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
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 23rd February 2013, 09:35 AM   #4979
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
What has one thing to do with the other ? Since when is there a competition between science and religion ? these are different things, and cannot be compared one to the other.
Then religion doesn't belong in a thread about the best explanation for our existence, because while it gives an answer (the same answer for every question, as it turns out), it doesn't explain.

Since religion doesn't explain, would you care to come up with a superior explanation for our existence that is non-religious and superior to naturalism?
TjW 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 23rd February 2013, 10:20 AM   #4980
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
GIBHOR, Please address this question: If Evolution was a "failed hypothesis", then what accounts for its many, many success stories?

How come the Science of Evolution:

Saved the kakapo from the brink of extinction: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../060401_kakapo

Helped us help the cheetahs prosper: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...070701_cheetah

Helped us understand the avian flu: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...051115_birdflu

Allowed us to find where SARS came from: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...060101_batsars

Is helping us understand and combat super-weeds: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...1015_superweed

Just to name a few examples.
__________________
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 23rd February 2013, 11:47 AM   #4981
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by jof View Post
This is why I suspect that you really have not looked very deeply into the subject. The points you mention doesn' t really present a problem for a naturalistic world wiew.
certainly you do have a better explanation then based on naturalism. Would you mind to present 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 23rd February 2013, 12:09 PM   #4982
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
What has one thing to do with the other ? Since when is there a competition between science and religion ? these are different things, and cannot be compared one to the other.
You're setting them in direct conflict, actually, factually speaking. Not your fault, really, since the creators of a lot of the arguments want exactly that, because the beliefs that they want to support are very much not supported by science.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
You think you can take a few paragraphs of creationist sites i cite, that make wrong assertions, and think based on that you can conclude a whole world view is wrong.
No one's done that here. Seriously. The conclusions that we've formed about creationism are, for a number of us, due entirely to a serious look at the matter. Of course, after the 20th claim that's been found to be completely dishonest and none found to be honest, one tends to be less trusting of creationism. After the 50th, fairly certain of the vacuousness of the position. After multiple hundreds without a single positive mark? It's just really, really pathetic.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
beside this, don't think only creationists get it wrong sometimes.
To err is human, as I recall. To intentionally repeat known mistakes is openly dishonest.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I think you do know well, how many times darwinists have willfully distorted their data and lied, to make their theory fit. So that happens on both sides.......
Less than you likely think, actually, just going by the nature of the systems. Science has checks, rechecks, peer review, and encourages challenges to existing theories... so long as the challenges can be backed up with actual evidence. Dishonesty is dealt with harshly and watched for constantly. That's not to say that everything's perfectly right, but its structured so that the most likely truth, based on the relevant evidence, will be accepted as such, even in the face of entrenched opposition.

Creationism, on the other hand, has no actual controls. Blatant lies, terrible arguments, logical fallacies, and impossibilities are still spread around as "fact" centuries after they've been discredited, even by people who have just been shown why they're very dishonest and wrong, despite being shown to be bad arguments over and over and over and over again. What's worse, a number of people have found that there's a lot of money to be made in openly lying to people about such matters, giving them false validation in the place of honest understanding.


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I agree on that. I have always learned a lot with atheists, because they make me search for answers, when a certain question has not been presented to me. And there is my learning process.
If only you wouldn't run straight to openly dishonest people for your trusted information.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
But fact and truth is, we are have both our preconceived world view, which is based on a lot of information, and ones our starting point is, that our world view is the right one, its difficult to convince the other side, that this is not the case.
Ehh... when the "information" on a particular side is consistently wrong, there being a lot of it isn't really helpful. When the reasons for why a particular worldview is being held to the exclusion of others fail upon consideration, that doesn't help it, either. Both are the case for creationism.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I have actually in years never met one atheist, which openly admitted , that he switched sides. Thats because nobody participates here as a true agnostic, withous preconceptions.
If you're dealing with forums like this? The participating part is important. Much in the way of discussions like these are for the lurkers or casual observers, with just the people who have something to contribute doing so.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
But neither is that my expectation......the more i learn, the more i wonder how someone truly can believe that God does not exist. The evidence is overwhelming, nature speaks such a clear language, its almost as nature would scream out : look how incredibly intelligent the creator of all this is....
When you're looking through smudged, rose-tinted glasses, things do tend to look rather different.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
but atheists seem blinded through their persistent and irrational will, no God to exist.
Well... that's you projecting. Again. I really have nothing against the existence of deities of a lot of kinds. I'd even call a lot of them gods without them even coming close to reaching the claims made about YHWH. I just don't see valid reason to conclude that any do exist.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I don't have to learn that, i knew it already. How do you know that the right direction is to get closer to atheism ? ah.... forgot, that is your preconceived world view. I am more and more distant from atheism......
And most of us here would have a hard time caring less about your theological position. Your arguments for your position leave a lot to be desired, though. Your reasons for rejecting naturalism as a better explanation have been utterly lacking, too.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I don't need to be able to answer all questions with indepth knowledge, to have a strong case for theism. But is this thread not about atheists defend their case for philosophical naturalism ?!!
No. That conversation left off at valid, if weak reasons are better than invalid reasons, either way. You've yet to come up with a valid reason for why your answer should be accepted at all, after all.


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what you call theological preaching, many times in reality is a philosophical position, which is in the end always our answer to explain natural phenomenas.
Nice attempt at using rhetoric to obfuscate events.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Science is limited in its findings, and what we can do, is make conclusions based on the data.
Yes, in concept. Less so than you seem to think, though.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Unfortunately for the case of philosophical naturalism, scientific advance has lead to a different direction that atheists hoped.
You keep trying to say that, but... you've made it fairly clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
The universe is not existing forever, but had most probably a beginning,
Likely so. And that our universe likely had a beginning in no way either implies a creator god or challenges philosophical naturalism.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
as the bible states for thousands of years.
False. Just, flat out, false. None of the available evidence suggests that. The Bible doesn't even state thousands of years. That was taken from a bunch of attempts to interpret it in ways that it was never designed to accurately answer. For that matter, Christians were the ones who demonstrated that that was a pathetically foolish position to hold. And that was before Darwin's time, no less.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
The universe is tuned to a razors edge, not only to permit life, but to exist as a whole.
Wishful thinking. You've yet to present a case here that wasn't completely riddled with gaping holes.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Abiogenesis is a lost case for naturalists.
Wishful thinking. You've yet to present a case here that wasn't completely riddled with gaping holes.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
The evidence, like the information stored in the cell, homochirality etc. all point to a supernatural event.
Not really, as has been demonstrated to you over and over again.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Sex, conscience, the hability of speech, etc. are all things that cannot be explained in a convincing manner through naturalism......
Wishful thinking. You've yet to present a case here that wasn't completely riddled with gaping holes.


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
i have yet to see a good case for philosophical naturalism. So far, i have not!!
You've also shown that you're an absolutely terrible judge of what constitutes a "good case" and have made it clear that you're completely uninterested in honest discussion in the matter as you openly profess that you won't even try to understand what the position that you seek to attack actually says, means, or is.



Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Again : its not science x religion. Its strong atheism x theism. Both can and do rely on scientific data. Science is neutral.
You've been attacking science like a madman to try to make your religion look better and you expect your attacks to go unanswered or unassociated with the reason why you're attacking science? Come now. I doubt that anyone's fooled.
__________________
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 23rd February 2013, 12:30 PM   #4983
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
Yes, it can. All it takes is the recognition that the "facts" provided by creationist websites are lies, and a little effort to actually examine and understand the concepts presented.
your problem is, that its not creationist websites that make these assertions. They are not baseless assertions, but scientific facts......
If you do not know that molecules are homochiral, and that the cell stores a hudge amount of information, than you need to educate yourself......
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 23rd February 2013, 12:36 PM   #4984
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
You've been attacking science like a madman.
false. I have attacked strong atheism. Thats a different thing.
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 23rd February 2013, 12:38 PM   #4985
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
false. I have attacked strong atheism. Thats a different thing.
Ah well then you should be ok with the fact that science supports naturalism and evolution and considers creationism to be laughable rubbish.

Glad we could settle all this.
__________________
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 23rd February 2013, 12:41 PM   #4986
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
The universe is tuned to a razors edge, not only to permit life, but to exist as a whole.
Wishful thinking. You've yet to present a case here that wasn't completely riddled with gaping holes..
hahaha..... that supposed to be a joke, or what ??!!

Lee Smolin Wrote (Three Roads, p202)

The apparently improbable values of the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces. One can estimate the probablilty that the constants in our standard theories of the elementary particles and cosmology would, were they chosen randomly, lead to a world with carbon chemistry. That probability is less than one part in 10^220. but without carbon chemistry the universe would be much less likely to form large numbers of stars massive enough to become black holes, and life would be very unlikely to exist.


Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”
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 23rd February 2013, 12:42 PM   #4987
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
What criterion have you applied to conclude i failed ? And , on what exactly have i failed, could you explain please ?
Appearances and quality of arguments. All you've done is show that your position is vacuous with the tactics that you've used.


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
please point out what exactly is not thrustworthy about them.
Quote mining, outright lying, presenting false information, fallacious logic, and so on as if it was truth are all reasons not to consider something trustworthy.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what propaganda exactly ?
See above answer.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Indeed. Absolutely nothing has no potentials. You don't know this ?
Oh, I suspect that I understand the subject a fair bit better than you, based on what you've been trying to do. The simple fact is that your attempt to argue along those lines will get you nowhere at all. Really. If you're invoking that form of absolute nothing, "God," no matter what form or properties you claim for it, CANNOT exist, which dooms your argument completely from the start.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
how about you present arguments, that are solid, and not flawed. Thats what this thread should be about. Forgot that ?
Been there, done that. You've yet to present a response, let alone a valid response.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I probably have missed to see ONE good and convincing answer, why women have no beard, while men have.
That's because your question's so far out of touch with reality that it's worthy of ridicule. It's been answered, either way, completely reasonably. Your acceptance of such is up to you, but you do realize that you're just making yourself look dumb by trying to make that a relevant issue with regards to why you don't think that naturalism is the best explanation for existence, itself?


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
acusing me of dishonesty is a frequent attempt to try to disqualify me.
When the shoe fits... Would you like us to make a list of a few things that we consider dishonest? Such as trying to pass off terrible logic as good logic, repeating discredited arguments, and claiming expertise where one has none?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that rather disqualifies the accuser, since it seems he has no good arguments to make a strong own case, so rather preferes to acuse me of dishonesty.
Not in the least, if the arguments have been dealt with separately, as they have, and the person's demonstrated their dishonesty in what they use and how they use it. Creationism's demonstrated its dishonesty for centuries, now, especially models like young earth creationism.


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats a old, wellknown practic.....which is a open admittance of failure.
Is identifying a pigeon as a pigeon an admission of failure? Hardly.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
again, you continue superficial. could you be more detailled, and show just one valid refutation ?
It was a summary. It was in no way intended to be detailed. See my last post for a few. Actually, this one a bit, too, with regards to your attempt at using absolute nothing as an argument.
__________________
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 23rd February 2013, 12:45 PM   #4988
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer View Post
Ah well then you should be ok with the fact that science supports naturalism and evolution and considers creationism to be laughable rubbish.

Glad we could settle all this.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t380...cal-naturalism

Quote:
The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity). The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification.
that does not make philosphical naturalism automatically become true.....
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 23rd February 2013, 12:50 PM   #4989
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
GIBHOR, Please address this question: If Evolution was a "failed hypothesis", then what accounts for its many, many success stories?

How come the Science of Evolution:

Saved the kakapo from the brink of extinction: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../060401_kakapo

Helped us help the cheetahs prosper: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...070701_cheetah

Helped us understand the avian flu: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...051115_birdflu

Allowed us to find where SARS came from: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...060101_batsars

Is helping us understand and combat super-weeds: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...1015_superweed

Just to name a few examples.
maibe i should define better : macro evolution is a failed hypotheses. micro evolution is a scientific fact, on which i fully agree.
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 23rd February 2013, 12:53 PM   #4990
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t380...cal-naturalism



that does not make philosphical naturalism automatically become true.....
You link and quoted from a pro creationist site, You owe me a soda from making me spit all over my keyboard from laughter.
__________________
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 23rd February 2013, 12:55 PM   #4991
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
maibe i should define better : macro evolution is a failed hypotheses. micro evolution is a scientific fact, on which i fully agree.
Evidence.
__________________
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 23rd February 2013, 12:56 PM   #4992
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
GIBHOR, I have a question that has been bothering me for a while.

Why would you, or any other Christian even want to argue that the universe is fine-tuned? It makes no sense to me.

After all, the only kind of God who would need to create an entire, mostly uninhabitable and supposedly fine-tuned universe like the one we see around us would be a deistic God who initiates the process but doesn't meddle.

But if the universe was created by a deistic God, that means your entire religion is false, that the entire Bible is a lie. So why would you even make this argument?

The God you believe in, the one who simply pops life into existence, who summons global floods, who destroys cities, parts oceans, turns water into wine an brings the dead back to life, YOUR God...

... Why wouldn't he just pop the solar system into existence? He could have simply popped a single sun into existence and surrounded it with thousands of habitable worlds.

So why would he bother creating an entire vast, hostile universe filled with countless trillions dead worlds simply to create life on a single planet?

Why?
That the universe is finely tuned to life is a scientific fact. Thats why people like Stenger, Dawkins et al try to avoid God as explanation , and present science fiction fantasies, like the multiverse hypotheses.

Why God created the universe the way he did, and not differently, will maibe be a good question i will make him, when i am in heaven
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 23rd February 2013, 01:02 PM   #4993
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
If you do not know that molecules are homochiral, and that the cell stores a hudge amount of information, than you need to educate yourself......
Once again, it is clear you do not know what you are talking about.
Molecules are NOT homochiral. Some molecules are, not all.
Do you even know what that word means?

Have you learned about reverse transcriptase yet? Or epigenetics?

Your problem here is you simply do not know the subjects at hand.
You don't know biology
You don't know cosmology
And you certainly don't know the bible.
__________________
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 23rd February 2013, 01:06 PM   #4994
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
maibe i should define better : macro evolution is a failed hypotheses. micro evolution is a scientific fact, on which i fully agree.
MACRO-Evolution (not just micro) has helped scientists do the following:

Save the Kakapo from the brink of extinction: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../060401_kakapo

Save tasmanian devils from the threat of a new form of cancer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...ws/080901_dftd

Understand the impact of climate change on various species: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...le/mcelwain_01

Develop strategies to promote biodiversity in general: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...1101_diversity

And, of course, build to build a Tree of Life encompassing all known species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)
The Hillis Plot has further allowed us to continue making more discoveries in the realm of biology.

We already mentioned the fly studies, and how far scientists can expect them to apply to humans, based on Macro-evolutionary theory.

If MACRO-Evolution is a "failed hypothesis", then what accounts for all of these success stories?!
__________________
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!!!!

Last edited by Wowbagger; 23rd February 2013 at 01:08 PM.
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 23rd February 2013, 01:09 PM   #4995
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Before starting, you quoted me as stating what you said, as well as what I said. That's false attribution and as such, is officially dishonest.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
hahaha..... that supposed to be a joke, or what ??!!
Not in the least. That we exist under conditions that we could come to exist is not evidence for the supernatural, no matter how much you might wish it to be so. If we existed under conditions that we could not have come to exist under, that would be, on the other hand. Regardless, I strongly, strongly doubt that you understand where those numbers that you cite are coming from, especially given some of your other arguments.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that does not make philosphical naturalism automatically become true.....
Of course it doesn't. Has anyone here argued that anything in particular makes philosophical naturalism automatically become true? If not, this is another example of a dishonest rhetorical tactic, no matter what. For that matter, if the specific person you're addressing wasn't arguing such there, it's still such.

Regardless, here, let's put the obvious right back in front of your eyes, again. Naturalism has a good case for it being the best actual explanation for anything, of the methods that have been tried, which, at the very least, gives it a weak argument for why it's the best explanation for our existence. The creationism that you're trying to push has no demonstrated valid case and a massive amount of invalid and dishonest attempts at making a valid case, which gives a strong case to not trust it for any explanations about anything.

Theism against atheism might be able to be portrayed as equal contenders. Naturalism against creationism cannot, by any honest standards. Atheistic creationism and Theistic naturalism are both valid stances, as well as the atheistic naturalism and the theistic creationism that you've been trying to pit against each other and failing, so your attempts to portray this as a debate between naturalism and theism fail utterly. Still.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 23rd February 2013 at 01:15 PM.
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 23rd February 2013, 01:12 PM   #4996
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
That the universe is finely tuned to life is a scientific fact. Thats why people like Stenger, Dawkins et al try to avoid God as explanation , and present science fiction fantasies, like the multiverse hypotheses.

Why God created the universe the way he did, and not differently, will maibe be a good question i will make him, when i am in heaven
Your behind the times, once again,
Based on new information, our universe is actually unstable.
http://www.tgdaily.com/space-brief/6...se-is-unstable

But by all means, tell me more about how our universe is finely tuned to be unstable.....
__________________
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 23rd February 2013, 01:21 PM   #4997
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
-the combined chromosome of humans vs. the other great apes
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t270...ommon-ancestor

Quote:
we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading.

Quote:
-the design of the retina with the blood vessels in front of the photoreceptors
http://www.icr.org/article/backwards...e-poor-design/

Quote:
Our knowledge now shows that the retina design is superior to what we understood even just a few short years ago. Gratitude rather than impertinence seems the more appropriate response to its ingenious design.
Quote:
-the fact that all humans will develop as female without the presence of androgens
So what ?

Quote:
-the multiple errors and mistakes in replication and reproduction
proofreading, and mismatch repair show how incredibly elaborated the cell works, that is rather a argument for design........

Quote:
-the insertion of genetic material by viruses
http://creation.com/did-god-make-pathogenic-viruses

Quote:
Viruses now are known to serve several beneficial roles, and research has indicated several others may be important. According to this model, disease is not a result of viruses as much as a breakdown of a virus/host relationship. Thousands of virus types exist in host cells without problems. Problems that do cause disease are a result of reshuffling of virus genes, genetic mutation of the host, or a breakdown in the general health of the host organism. Research is showing that viruses are a critical part of life. Holmes has noted:

‘For sheer numbers, no other ocean beings can match viruses. Thousands, sometimes even millions of these molecular parasites inhabit every drop of surface seawater, outnumbering even bacteria by 10 to 1 … evidence that suggests that viruses are a powerful force in the sea, and one that determines how many plankton and ultimately how many fish, and even humans, an ocean ecosystem can support … viruses must have a profound influence on the entire oceanic ecosystem. When protozoans eat bacteria, energy passes along the food chain leading from protozoa to other zooplankton to larger predators, including fish. But when virus-infected bacterial cells burst, their energy-rich cell contents spill into the water for other bacteria to scavenge. “Viruses tend to keep nutrients away from the big stuff and keep them going around in the little stuff,” says Fuhrman. If so, viruses have shaped the entire structure of the ecosystem.’
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 23rd February 2013, 01:23 PM   #4998
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Your behind the times, once again,
Based on new information, our universe is actually unstable.
http://www.tgdaily.com/space-brief/6...se-is-unstable

But by all means, tell me more about how our universe is finely tuned to be unstable.....
what does one thing have to do with the other ?
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 23rd February 2013, 01:32 PM   #4999
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
MACRO-Evolution (not just micro) has helped scientists do the following:

Save the Kakapo from the brink of extinction: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../060401_kakapo

Save tasmanian devils from the threat of a new form of cancer: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...ws/080901_dftd

Understand the impact of climate change on various species: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...le/mcelwain_01

Develop strategies to promote biodiversity in general: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...1101_diversity

And, of course, build to build a Tree of Life encompassing all known species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)
The Hillis Plot has further allowed us to continue making more discoveries in the realm of biology.

We already mentioned the fly studies, and how far scientists can expect them to apply to humans, based on Macro-evolutionary theory.

If MACRO-Evolution is a "failed hypothesis", then what accounts for all of these success stories?!
http://www.cob-net.org/inspire/evolution.htm

Quote:
Early Complexity, Diversity, and Numbers is exactly the opposite evidence that would be expected from one who contends that the earliest organisms were the simplest and least complex. If life began so simple, how did it become so complex, so quickly? Were are those simple organisms, anyway? Why is there such a vast explosion of organisms in such a short period of time? The evidence that is to be observed just does not lead one to conclude that Evolution successfully explains the history of life on this planet.
Character Acquisition fails to prove that certain traits can be transferred to successive generations, because it is the gene that controls these attributes. It is not convincing to me that environment will alter genetics. As noted above, Dr. Matthias Krings and William Goodwin have not found any evidence that Neanderthals passed any genetic material to modern humans. They're structures were similar but the genetics were different. They were truly a different species.
Mutation has not adequately explained or demonstrated that mutants can produce healthy, stronger, more adaptable, and desirable offspring. Usually, such offspring are sickly, weak, disease ridden, and fail in the arena of competition or adaption. Geneticist Dr Jim Allan insists that "additional genetic information does not appear." Biologist Dr. Lane Lester, again see above, contends that new genetic information is never added. Thus, an organism will not just sprout wings or claws because the environment may so demand.
The Geologic Column does not record the gradual transitional forms which Evolutionists claimed to be the elusive answer. In fact, most sample from Transitional Jumping (Punctuated Equilibria) also fails to adequately explain that most animals remain unchanged for millions of years, and then somehow leaped into new forms due to dynamic environmental changes. This is not fact, theory, or hypothesis. These are mere suggestions. No one has adequately explained how the jumping process works? This is really jumping to a conclusion. This process requires a greater degree of faith than believing the biblical record.
Transitioning through gradual processes has been abandoned by many Evolutionists. The very thing, the very proof, the intermediary links that Darwin searched and longed to find, have been largely rejected by Evolutionists. The ground simply does not possess their remains.
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 23rd February 2013, 01:33 PM   #5000
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Once again, it is clear you do not know what you are talking about.
Molecules are NOT homochiral. Some molecules are, not all.
Do you even know what that word means?

Have you learned about reverse transcriptase yet? Or epigenetics?

Your problem here is you simply do not know the subjects at hand.
You don't know biology
You don't know cosmology
And you certainly don't know the bible.
Since you know, teach me
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
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 11:51 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.