|
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. |
23rd February 2013, 01:38 PM | #5001 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
23rd February 2013, 01:54 PM | #5002 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
23rd February 2013, 01:57 PM | #5003 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
23rd February 2013, 02:01 PM | #5004 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
That doesn't answer my question.
My examples all relate to ideas that emerged from macro-scale evolutionary thinking: sexual allocation, the founder effect, fossil patterns, cladistics etc. These examples demonstrate that MACRO-scale thinking can be VERY productive in science, in spite of the Creationist doubters. Take a closer look at my first example, for starters: Scientists looked to other species of birds, to estimate how much to feed Kakapos, and when, to save their lives. If macro-evolution wasn't true, that strategy would not have worked. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../060401_kakapo If MACRO-Evolution is a "failed hypothesis", then what accounts for all of the success stories that involve utilizing it in some way?! You can't just say "macro-evolution isn't true because....". You have to account for scientists who have discovered that "macro-evolution is true enough that we can use it to a certain reliable degree". |
__________________
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!!!! |
|
23rd February 2013, 02:01 PM | #5005 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
23rd February 2013, 02:09 PM | #5006 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
You clearly do not understand the way what you are carelessly calling "information" is "stored" in the cell. You never responded to the explanation of the difference between how a word conveys information, and the shape of a protein conveys "information"...
And it is, in fact, "creationist" websites that, for instance, continue to claim that Michael ("I'm not saying that the "designer" is 'god'...but it's 'god') Behe's "irreducible complexity" has been "proven"; when in fact, every case of "irreducible complexity that has been studied has been demonstrated not to be so...to name but one of a series of anti-science mis-statements. |
__________________
"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 |
|
23rd February 2013, 02:12 PM | #5007 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
...and you have presumed to press that attack in a thread titled, "Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence" (seriously, that's the thread title...you could look it up...). Is it therefore your position that your "attack" on "strong atheism" is the reason you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence? You really ought to consider honest, accurate thread titles...
|
__________________
"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 |
|
23rd February 2013, 02:18 PM | #5008 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
23rd February 2013, 02:28 PM | #5009 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
Your repetition of an error does not make it less an error. The universe is NOT "fined tuned" for life--your superstitiously narrow opinion of what "life" must be leads you to repeat your error. Your hole is perfect, puddle--but (despite your dishonest quote-mining of Dr. Sagan's words) life is not limited to your concepts (a hole of a different shape would hold a puddle of a different shape--a puddle just as superstitiously confident that the universe was designed for it, and no other...).
You use the word "avoid" carelessly. Six unsupported superstitious assumptions in one short sentence. |
__________________
"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 |
|
23rd February 2013, 03:08 PM | #5010 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
YOU ASKED, "[w]hy do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence".
You are being entirely off-topic, so I will continue to report your posts as long as you blather on with god nonsense in this thread. |
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book |
|
23rd February 2013, 03:47 PM | #5011 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
|
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
23rd February 2013, 04:00 PM | #5012 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
Until we have any way of determining the underlying factors behind the constants and composition of the universe, the fine tuning argument is mere speculation based on the assumption that these things could have been different than they are.
If we don't know why these things are as they are, how can we conclude that they were made the way they are in order to permit life to exist? |
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
23rd February 2013, 06:13 PM | #5013 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
|
23rd February 2013, 06:27 PM | #5014 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
I told you already: I don't really care if you believe in god or not. But when you try to support your position by repeatedly posting false information, I am going to correct the errors you post.
As to a "few paragraphs" - in reviewing your posts I can't really see very much that your creationist quotes have gotten right. The fundamental errors go on and on: no self replicating molecules, no ability of genetics to generate new information, no transitional forms, no evolution past species, the differences between therapod bones and bird bones eliminating the origin of one from the other, etc, etc. What have your quotes, used to support your position, gotten right? Before you demand evidence, you will find it if you review this thread. Which reminds me: news article demonstrating that even the largest dinosaurs were able to evolve very light, bird like bones:http://news.yahoo.com/dinosaurs-grew...154618663.html |
23rd February 2013, 06:47 PM | #5015 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
After 126 pages I still haven't heard anything from GIBOR that doesn't boil down to "I lack the education, logic, and mental abilities to understand even the most basic of scientific concepts, therefore magic."
It really is just farcical at this point. 126 pages to try to explain to someone why an explain that actually explains something is superior to an explination that just renames and personifies what you don't know. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
23rd February 2013, 07:38 PM | #5016 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
what scientific evidence do you have to back up above claims ?
http://renewedthoughts.com/tag/genetic-information/
Quote:
|
23rd February 2013, 07:40 PM | #5017 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
23rd February 2013, 07:41 PM | #5018 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
23rd February 2013, 07:41 PM | #5019 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 12,229
|
I don't understand. Are you not in touch with your god? Can you not just ask him and he will give you the answer now?
New Living Translation (©2007) Yes, ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it! Please ask him now, for the answer. In fact, if anyone has any questions for Gibhor to address to god, let us ask him now. |
23rd February 2013, 07:45 PM | #5020 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
|
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
23rd February 2013, 07:55 PM | #5021 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
You admit that when you post demonstrably incorrect information, about which you have been corrected, it "might be" disingenuous?
After all this, after all your devotion to your superstition, after all of your mis-statements, have you any sense of decency left? When do you intend to address your demonstrably dishonest cherry-picked mined quote of Dr. Sagan's words? |
__________________
"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 |
|
23rd February 2013, 08:00 PM | #5022 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
I missed this, apparently. Ahh, well, I can just deal with this now.
I'm calling you a liar, here, directly, though, I suppose that I could accept that you've simply not been paying attention to what you've said and what it's actually saying. That would still make your statement factually incorrect and speak volumes about your unpreparedness to discuss these matters, though. You've been attacking science, given the arguments that you've chosen and the philosophies that you've attempted to support. To name a couple examples... Science has no prejudice against conclusions that something was designed intelligently. It simply doesn't assume, without evidence, that they must have been. ID, which you've tried to argue for, is based on assuming, without evidence or even the ability to investigate, that things were intelligently designed. It's not science, cannot be science, and accepting it as a valid way to understand reality is actually anti-science. This is not the same thing as saying that things weren't intelligently designed, as a note, but rather that the construct of the creators of ID is fundamentally anti-science. Young Earth Creationism is worse. It requires actively rejecting science and the scientific method to even bear some small semblance of "truth." It rests solely on deeply untrustworthy assumptions and seems to think that which observations of reality are held as true is entirely subservient to a demonstrably untrustworthy standard. Baraminology's an easy example of that methodology, for that matter, as they shown when they've come to a conclusion based on the data that they don't like, then arbitrarily changed the conclusion to one that they did like, and then proclaimed that the arbitrarily changed conclusion supported what they wanted to support, despite not being supported by the data. Edit: I suppose that I should made a minor addendum. Looking at the differences between the apologists and scientists, the trustworthiness tends to be very clear. Apologists are rewarded for spreading comforting lies. Scientists, in a professional capacity, can ruin their careers and credibility for doing the same. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
23rd February 2013, 08:28 PM | #5023 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Why not try understanding the simple things, first? Like why "Something cannot come from absolute nothing, therefore my version of God is true" is an utterly contemptible and flawed argument? This is, after all, the form that you've tried to use of it. It's still utterly contemptible and flawed in the more direct form, "Something cannot come from absolute nothing, therefore a God must be the case," though.
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
23rd February 2013, 09:05 PM | #5024 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
Oh don't be dishonest GIBHOR none of that has ever been an issue here. Chirality is not special it's a consequence for chemistry (also thermodynamics) and the cell storing huge amounts of information no one disagrees with but rather we disagree with your attempts to frame that information as evidence for a designer; it demonstrably is not. You want information to mean code in order to demonstrate it's a message and that's not true. It's no more a code that any enzyme in your body or a hole in the sand. DNA's sequence is adequately explains by biochemistry and natural selection. It's origin can be inferred by just chemistry though.
What you're trying to do is mask your BS extensions of failure in logic by treading back saying it's rooted in chemistry. There is not link between thermodynamics and goddidit, there is just thermodynamics and that's all you need. So they are not points in your court (queue the elshamah BS quote) Also do you mind telling me why you cherry picked Lee Smolin's book but forgot to put the conclusion of that chapter?
Originally Posted by Lee Smolin
|
__________________
"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 |
|
23rd February 2013, 09:53 PM | #5025 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
"Originally Posted by GIBHOR:
Well, i just explained you what i believe. That does not mean, that i will examine your evidence for evolution... " And you are requesting evidence again? I and other posters here already tried multiple times to explain how new "information" is generated during evolution. But you absolutely have ignored all the explanations and attempts to engage you in discussions on this matter. If you wish to arrive late at this party, you can begin by answering my three times asked question: if I duplicate a computer file that has a picture of my brown eyed son, and due to a computer error the duplicate file colors his eyes blue, do I have more information on my hard drive now than before? Yes or no? Your website quote is actually about a different topic: the ratio of beneficial to neutral to detrimental mutations. I am happy to discuss that once you understand how new genetic information is generated by gene duplication and mutation (hint, my computer file question is relevant). |
23rd February 2013, 10:08 PM | #5026 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
|
23rd February 2013, 10:12 PM | #5027 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
24th February 2013, 01:17 AM | #5028 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th February 2013, 03:49 AM | #5029 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
24th February 2013, 03:52 AM | #5030 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
24th February 2013, 03:55 AM | #5031 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th February 2013, 03:55 AM | #5032 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. The argument is logically valid; so if you want to deny the conclusion, you must reject one of the two premisses. So which one do you deny? |
24th February 2013, 03:58 AM | #5033 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
24th February 2013, 04:02 AM | #5034 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
24th February 2013, 04:03 AM | #5035 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
24th February 2013, 04:06 AM | #5036 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
24th February 2013, 04:21 AM | #5037 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
24th February 2013, 04:22 AM | #5038 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
24th February 2013, 04:23 AM | #5039 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
24th February 2013, 04:23 AM | #5040 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|