|
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. |
27th February 2013, 09:27 PM | #5361 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
Yea well when he's practically sourcing videos like this
http://www.cracked.com/video_18538_t..._ibsrc=fanpage |
__________________
"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 |
|
28th February 2013, 12:05 AM | #5362 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
If you believe in absurd (at least according to science) probabilities.
From the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Geisler and Turek; p. 116 The incredible specified complexity of life becomes obvious when one considers the message found in the DNA of a one-celled amoeba... Staunch Darwinist Richard Dawkins admits that the message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined, and the entire amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica... Now we must emphasize that these 1000 encyclopedias do not consist of random letters {information} but letters {information} in a very specific order just like {the letters of}real encyclopedias. So here's the key question... If simple messages such as "Take out the garbage --mom",... and "Drink Coke" require an intelligent being , then why doesn't a message 1000 encyclopedias long require one? ___ From the book "Examine the Evidence" by Ralph Muncaster pg. 108: "There is a limit beyond which something is for all practical purposes impossible...scientists generally regard anything with less than 1 chance in 10 {to the 50th power} of occurring randomly as essentially impossible or absurd. So when we look at the odds of evolutionary events taking place we will use the same standard." Basically what he is saying is we know how the old the finite universe is and we know the incredible complexity of even a single cell. He goes into a rather deep discussion of DNA. Here is a statement he makes after talking about the various DNA processes that have to occur for even a simple one cell life form to have a chance of occurring From page 108 "One hundred and fifty people attempting to flip 150 heads in a row at a rate of one attempt per second for 15 billion years would still yield a probability of only 1 chance in ten thousand trillion trillion The simplest life form would require110,000 such coin flips, not just 150." |
28th February 2013, 12:11 AM | #5363 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
28th February 2013, 12:12 AM | #5364 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
How many more times? Complex life forms are not the result of chance, there are the result of over 4 billion years of evolution by natural selection. The only part chance plays is in the provision of variety - the raw material upon which natural selection acts. Pointing out how unlikely X is to happen by pure chance is utterly irrelevant when no-one has suggested that X happened by pure chance.
|
__________________
"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 |
|
28th February 2013, 01:02 AM | #5365 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,580
|
Quote:
Moreover, it is false. It is trivial to construct an event that occurs, whose probability of occurring given the setup within which is occurred is less than 1/10 to the 50 th. The order of any ordinary thoroughly-shuffled deck of playing cards is 1 in 52 factorial, or about 1 in 10 to the 68th. And yet every deck of cards whatsoever is a specific ordering of its constituents, a realization of an event with less than 1 in 10 to the 50th chance of occuring. The "essentially impossible or absurd" occurs routinely, and cannot not occur, in a world where sinners play fair card games. Finally, the deeper critique is that this incompetent falsehood has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection. While undirected mistransmission is a mechanism for genetic change, genomes were not constructed randomly, but by processes which can be modeled as incorporating random features subject to a variety of constraints. It is altogether different, as has been explained. So, that's pretty good for you, DOC. A brief string of your signature copypasta manages to be both innumerate and irrelevant. So, we are faced with a really tough question. Was the sequence of letters in the quote block the product of intelligent design? Obviously not. Perhaps there are other examples of things which superficially appear to be the product of intelligence, but which, on closer examination, turn out to be otherwise. |
28th February 2013, 01:06 AM | #5366 |
I say nay!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
|
|
__________________
Memento Mori |
|
28th February 2013, 01:45 AM | #5367 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
It is no use at all for you to paste quotes from books of creationist religious beliefs. If you are going to make scientific claims saying that evolution is wrong, then you must quote research results that have been genuinely published in real research journals. Do you have any real research papers where properly qualified independent scientists (not creationist religious fanatics) have published in well known science journals claiming evidence to show that evolution is untrue and that instead all living species were created by a miraculous God? Please post any real scientific research papers where any scientists say that. Do you have any? Even one? Afaik, there are NO such real research papers disagreeing with evolution. On the other hand, for over a century, the research literature has been crammed full of tens of thousands of research papers describing mountains of evidence for evolution. |
28th February 2013, 01:46 AM | #5368 |
Heretic Pharaoh
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
|
|
__________________
Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon |
|
28th February 2013, 02:06 AM | #5369 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
You are guilty of doing exactly the same thing again. You are now deliberately misusing the word "faith". "Faith" is a word that is mostly used in the context of religious belief, where it means "belief" without material evidence. In religion, you accept what is said about God, miracles and creation on the basis blind "Faith" rather than any real reproducible or confirmed evidence. Science does not do that. In science, scientists do of course "believe" various things, but those beliefs are always based on the discovery of confirmed physical evidence, or else on mathematical calculations and theory that predicts where such evidence should be found. IOW - you are entirely wrong to imply (as you are trying to do yet again ), that scientists rely on the same sort of blind faith that all religions rely on. Unlike religious faith in creationism and ID, in science, if you claim evidence of anything, then you must publish it in real science journals that are available for scrutiny under worldwide peer review. |
28th February 2013, 02:32 AM | #5370 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
28th February 2013, 02:34 AM | #5371 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
28th February 2013, 02:36 AM | #5372 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
28th February 2013, 02:38 AM | #5373 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
28th February 2013, 02:41 AM | #5374 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
28th February 2013, 02:43 AM | #5375 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
28th February 2013, 02:46 AM | #5376 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
28th February 2013, 02:50 AM | #5377 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
many secular scientists aknowledge that abiogenesis is a problem that might never be resolved, and is a obstacle, which has no solution.
despite of this, strong atheists keep firmly believing their religious faith in no God to exist to be true. That shows their emotional commitment, which speaks stronger than their reason ....... its indeed a very difficult thing for someone to change its whole world view. Some need even a miracle.... |
28th February 2013, 02:53 AM | #5378 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
my definition in this context is different
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 |
28th February 2013, 03:57 AM | #5379 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
|
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
28th February 2013, 04:12 AM | #5380 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,580
|
Thank you for your reply, Gibhor
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But your half-of-a-joke raises a good point. If the current biosphere is seen to provide evidence of any intelligent design, then it is plainly more plausible to have been a committee effort, or perhaps the upshot of an outright conflcit among hostile powers, rather than the work of any single, even modestly coherent intelligence. Lucky break for the tenability of monotheism, then, that there is so little evidence for fantasies about intelligent direction. |
28th February 2013, 04:19 AM | #5381 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
28th February 2013, 04:29 AM | #5382 |
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 |
|
28th February 2013, 04:41 AM | #5383 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
Are you still under the impression that abiogenisis is part of the theory of evolution? You have been making claims about evolution being untrue. Saying there is no such thing as what you call "Macro" evolution, such as the evolution of Homo sapiens from earlier ape species. I have asked you half a dozen times now to produce any genuine independent science paper which claims evidence to say that evolution is untrue and that Homo sapiens and other species were instead created by God. But you do not have even one such genuine science research paper claiming that evolution is untrue, do you? If you are going to claim that published scientific theories are untrue, then you can only do that by publishing your alternative evidence in the same genuine established scientific peer-reviewed journals ... you cannot refute published scientific evidence and scientific theories by quoting passages of religious belief from creationist books. Where are your properly published scientific research journals claiming that evolution is untrue and that Homo sapiens were instead created through a miracle from God? Do you have any such genuine independent research papers or not? Yes or No? Where are they? |
28th February 2013, 04:52 AM | #5384 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
I'm sorry, but you are yet again offering me quotes from a creationist website called the "Discovery Institute" ! I'm not asking you for quotes of what creationist websites claim. I'm asking you to produce even one genuine independent science research paper from the established and well known body of peer-reviewed science journals, where the authors (not creationists) claim to show evidence that evolution is untrue and that instead Man and other species were created by a miracle from God ... ... do you have any such genuine research paper, or not? Yes or No? Just one will do ... where is that paper? |
28th February 2013, 05:10 AM | #5385 |
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 |
|
28th February 2013, 05:13 AM | #5386 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
We have already demonstrated why this argument is meaningless. You have ignored the discussion of reverse transcriptase, epigenetics, and RNAi.
As such, you repeated demands for evidence ring hollow. Address the points made, or admit you have no argument. The middle (ignoring the arguments) ground is dishonesty. |
__________________
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 |
|
28th February 2013, 05:54 AM | #5387 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
28th February 2013, 06:05 AM | #5388 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Let us discuss the model and not you strawman of it.
I can't remember, do you answer direct questions? If two molecules meet one a year and have a .005 chance of interacting, how many interactions will there be over a million years? It two molecules meet once a year have a .1 chance of interacting in the presence of a third molecule, how many interactions will there be over a million years? Now say that the three molecules exist in a soup of precursors and that in the presence of each other A has a .1 chance of synthesis, B has a .01 chance of synthesis and C has a .001 chance of synthesis, the three catalysts AB and C all bump together once a year, how many of each A, B and C will there be after a million years? Show that you are more than a robot parrot DOC and answer these simple questions. |
__________________
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 |
|
28th February 2013, 06:06 AM | #5389 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
28th February 2013, 06:07 AM | #5390 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
28th February 2013, 06:49 AM | #5391 |
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 |
|
28th February 2013, 06:53 AM | #5392 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
28th February 2013, 06:55 AM | #5393 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
28th February 2013, 06:55 AM | #5394 |
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 |
|
28th February 2013, 06:57 AM | #5395 |
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 |
|
28th February 2013, 06:57 AM | #5396 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
28th February 2013, 07:01 AM | #5397 |
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 |
|
28th February 2013, 07:08 AM | #5398 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
28th February 2013, 07:11 AM | #5399 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
|
Why are you going on about something called "strong atheism"? Invented terms like that are irrelevant. Nor is what atheists believe any kind of "ism". The only thing that makes anyone an atheist, is that he or she does not believe in ancient religious claims of supernatural gods. That's also quite obviously not a "religious faith" as you have just called it. It's simply people saying "I do not believe ancient superstitions claiming that invisible gods are responsible for everything". It's hardly a "religion" or an "ism" to say you don’t believe that invisible supernatural miraculous creatures exist. |
28th February 2013, 07:19 AM | #5400 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
It is transparently obvious why you are focussing on gnostic atheism despite the fact that Joobz is not endorsing it.
We are well aware that gnostic atheism is epistemologically unsupportable because it would require the ability to survey the entire universe. That is why Joobz and many others, including myself, are agnostic atheists. We don't claim to have positive certainty that gods do not exist. We simply note the complete lack of evidence that they do exist and therefor lack belief. Your continued insistence on fighting your gnostic atheist strawman demonstrates that you recognize your inability to address Joobz's actual argument. This is rather dishonest of you. |
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|