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 27th February 2013, 09:27 PM   #5361
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I've tried step by step on how evolution can add new "information" to the genome. Couldn't get GIBHOR to even begin to engage in the discussion. Good luck!
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
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 12:05 AM   #5362
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
The reason is extremely simple: Naturalism, as an explanation for phenomena, works...
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."
DOC 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 28th February 2013, 12:11 AM   #5363
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
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."
Not impressed. How did he arrive at these conclusions?
Craig4 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 28th February 2013, 12:12 AM   #5364
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
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
Pixel42 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 28th February 2013, 01:02 AM   #5365
eight bits
Graduate Poster
 
eight bits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,580
Quote:
"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."
I have often wondered about the origin of this particular bit of webly bullshyness. Clearly, the prospects of anything dicey occurring is an increasing function of both the per-trial probability and also the number of trials. The assessment proposed is incompetent, since it omits the number of trials.

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.
eight bits 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 28th February 2013, 01:06 AM   #5366
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
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.
Because then they can't feel important by throwing out meaningless statistics.
__________________
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 28th February 2013, 01:45 AM   #5367
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
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 …. Etc etc.

From the book "Examine the Evidence" by Ralph Muncaster pg. 108:

"There is a limit beyond …. Etc. etc.


From page 108

"One hundred and fifty people attempting to flip 150 heads in a row” …. Etc. etc


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.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 01:46 AM   #5368
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
From the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Geisler and Turek; p. 116

<snip>

From the book "Examine the Evidence" by Ralph Muncaster pg. 108:

<snip>


It doesn't matter how many threads you spam with this nonsense - it's still drivel.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten 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 28th February 2013, 02:06 AM   #5369
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
How about you ?




How about yours ? Or do you have something else than faith to present ?


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.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 02:32 AM   #5370
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
both questions are dumb.
we have no evidence for god, and therefore have no way to presume one exists or doesn't exist.
we have no evidence for strong atheism, and therefore have no way to presume God does not exist
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 28th February 2013, 02:34 AM   #5371
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Why are you unable to prove your god? Is it imaginary?
why are you unable to prove strong atheism ? is it imaginary ?

i guess we have reached to bottom of this thread......
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 28th February 2013, 02:36 AM   #5372
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I've tried step by step on how evolution can add new "information" to the genome. Couldn't get GIBHOR to even begin to engage in the discussion. Good luck!

maiby you can show hoe evolution can add new " information " to shakespeares Hamlet ? that would be EXACTLY the same thing.

NOTHING writing a book.... are you sure you want to go ahead with this argument ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 02:38 AM   #5373
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I thought that clever wording of lies to beguile people was the work of satan in your religion, not god.
So you call me a liar now as well ?

go ahead, post the answer again, i'll try to make sense of 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 28th February 2013, 02:41 AM   #5374
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
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.
you keep bringing evolution into the question, which however is not the question. The "X" of the question is how first life began. Evolution begins, ones the first life exists.
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 28th February 2013, 02:43 AM   #5375
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Not impressed. How did he arrive at these conclusions?
these are commonly known facts. You don't know it ?

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.
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 28th February 2013, 02:46 AM   #5376
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by eight bits View Post
I have often wondered about the origin of this particular bit of webly bullshyness. Clearly, the prospects of anything dicey occurring is an increasing function of both the per-trial probability and also the number of trials. The assessment proposed is incompetent, since it omits the number of trials.
who or what made the trials, and why ?


Quote:
Finally, the deeper critique is that this incompetent falsehood has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.
One more time. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of evolution.



Quote:
Was the sequence of letters in the quote block the product of intelligent design? Obviously not.
its not obvious to me. why is it obviously not ? could you present a book, that has obviously not a mind as origin ?
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 28th February 2013, 02:50 AM   #5377
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
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.
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....
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 28th February 2013, 02:53 AM   #5378
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
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.
my definition in this context is different



Quote:
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.
i am not a " religious " person.

Quote:
Science does not do that.
but strong atheists do it commonly.

Quote:
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.
that has been done. Why do you ignore the outcome and result of these papers ?

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
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 28th February 2013, 03:57 AM   #5379
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that has been done. Why do you ignore the outcome and result of these papers ?

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Here's why: http://www.skeptical-science.com/sci...esign-examined
__________________
"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 28th February 2013, 04:12 AM   #5380
eight bits
Graduate Poster
 
eight bits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,580
Thank you for your reply, Gibhor

Quote:
who or what made the trials, and why ?
You would have to ask the other poster, whose example it was. As what you quoted from me mentions, the other fellow hadn't even disucssed how many trials we're talking about.

Quote:
One more time. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of evolution.
It can't be repeated enough. However, the only species of living organism mentioned in the post I quoted from was the amoeba. Lately, they are reliably the offspring of existing amoebas, not a product of spontaeous generation. The feature discussed in the other post was the information content of their genome. That is the product of evolution by natural selection, not specific creation.

Quote:
could you present a book, that has obviously not a mind as origin ?
So many straight lines, so little time.

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.

Last edited by eight bits; 28th February 2013 at 04:29 AM.
eight bits 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 28th February 2013, 04:19 AM   #5381
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
these are commonly known facts. You don't know it ?

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.
How does that relate to DOC's quote about chance?
Craig4 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 28th February 2013, 04:29 AM   #5382
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of evolution.
I do believe you have finally learned something from this thread, and we only needed to explain it to you about a dozen times before you grasped it. Congratulations.

Quote:
could you present a book, that has obviously not a mind as origin ?
Can you present a book that can reproduce itself?
__________________
"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 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 28th February 2013, 04:41 AM   #5383
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
many secular scientists aknowledge that abiogenesis is a problem that might never be resolved, and is a obstacle, which has no solution.


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?

Last edited by IanS; 28th February 2013 at 04:42 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 04:52 AM   #5384
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post

that has been done. Why do you ignore the outcome and result of these papers ?

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640


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?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 05:10 AM   #5385
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
we have no evidence for strong atheism, and therefore have no way to presume God does not exist
We have no evidence for god and therefore have no why to presume god exists.
Since presuming god exists is a positive claim, the burden of proof rests on you.
I do to need to prove god doesn't exist any more than I need to prove monkeys in your butt don't exist.
__________________
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 28th February 2013, 05:13 AM   #5386
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
maiby you can show hoe evolution can add new " information " to shakespeares Hamlet ? that would be EXACTLY the same thing.

NOTHING writing a book.... are you sure you want to go ahead with this argument ?
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
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 28th February 2013, 05:54 AM   #5387
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
How will you prove me strong atheism to be true ?

your question is nonsense.
Naturalism does not require strong atheism.
__________________
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 28th February 2013, 06:05 AM   #5388
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
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."
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
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 28th February 2013, 06:06 AM   #5389
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
we have no evidence for strong atheism, and therefore have no way to presume God does not exist
naturalism doesn't care
__________________
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 28th February 2013, 06:07 AM   #5390
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
why are you unable to prove strong atheism ? is it imaginary ?

i guess we have reached to bottom of this thread......
Or the origin of your strawman, not all naturalism is philosophical naturalism.

__________________
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 28th February 2013, 06:49 AM   #5391
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
we have no evidence for strong atheism, and therefore have no way to presume God does not exist
So, your misunderstanding, or dishonest misuse, of the concept of the burden of proof is the reason you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence?

"Russel's Teapot" is the reason you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 06:53 AM   #5392
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
why are you unable to prove strong atheism ? is it imaginary ?

i guess we have reached to bottom of this thread......
No, you have the positive claim, you have the burden of proof. I'm not a strong atheist.

So, why are you unable to prove your god? Is it imaginary?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 06:55 AM   #5393
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
who or what made the trials, and why ?
Who or what made your god and why?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 06:55 AM   #5394
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So you call me a liar now as well ?

go ahead, post the answer again, i'll try to make sense of it.....
Given your previous boasts about not needing to read the explanations presented, how is this not disingenuous, not to mention OT?
__________________
"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 28th February 2013, 06:57 AM   #5395
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
you keep bringing evolution into the question, which however is not the question. The "X" of the question is how first life began. Evolution begins, ones the first life exists.
You keep bringing biopoesis up in a thread about why you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence. The " 'x' of the question (sic)" is why you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 06:57 AM   #5396
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
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....
Are you strongly atheistic about Thor? Have you never heard thunder? I thought you were all ears.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 07:01 AM   #5397
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
these are commonly known facts. You don't know it ?

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.
This is a dishonestly cherry-picked mined quote. What does the rest of the chapter say?
__________________
"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 28th February 2013, 07:08 AM   #5398
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
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."
So you believe that the first cell was just as complicated as cells are now.
tsig 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 28th February 2013, 07:11 AM   #5399
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
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....


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.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 07:19 AM   #5400
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
we have no evidence for strong atheism, and therefore have no way to presume God does not exist
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.
Foster Zygote 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 10:28 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.