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 3rd March 2013, 07:41 AM   #5641
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
no, we shall not. If you want , please open a new thread.
...but the inconsistencies of the vengeful, tantrum-throwing, incompetent, deceitful, spoiled-brat 'god' of the bible are one set of very good reasons to reject 'god'-ism entirely; in fact, some people embrace methodological naturalism precisely because the representatives of what is superstitiously supposed to be the "supernatural" alternative are so repugnant...

Which makes discussion of the inconsistencies of a 'god', or any 'gods' directly topical, Much more than, say, dishonestly quote-mined claims about cosmology.
__________________
"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 3rd March 2013, 07:47 AM   #5642
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
Indeed. Do you think Jesus meant that literally ?
The majority of existing christians, and the overwhelming majority of historical christans, take it so. Upon what naturalistic idea do you gainsay them?
__________________
"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 3rd March 2013, 07:54 AM   #5643
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
There are no real moral values in atheism. Therefore, there cannot be anything wrong to kill someone, to eat his flesh. We are just one of thousands of different species. We have no more value than a cow. So it makes no difference, if you kill a cow, or a human, to eat........
Keep on pretending that what you dishonestly set up as "atheism" is a real thing. There is no atheist creed, there is no atheist agenda. Some atheists may, in fact, revel in what you would consider immorality...as do some christians, and some members of other 'god'-isms. You hae demonstrated that the "moral code" you derive from the bible is situational. Is the fact that you apparently believe 'god'-ists get to play by different rules than you want to apply to others the reason you find naturalism to be the best explanation for out existence?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So its disrespectful towards a human, but not to kill a duck, or a pork, or a cow ?

Well, maibe the best proof of love, is to kill someone, and then cannibalize that person ?
...just as christians are told to do to their saviour...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 3rd March 2013 at 07:58 AM. Reason: remove hilarious typo--I first typed the last word as "savour"...
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 3rd March 2013, 07:58 AM   #5644
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So how and why has evolution set the goal to have more reproductive success ?
It didn't. Natural selection is not "goal driven". Those individuals that have variations that make them better able to reproduce will leave more copies of their genome in subsequent generations.
__________________
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
Old 3rd March 2013, 07:59 AM   #5645
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
it simply could not be. Evolution has no goals, there is no reason to create successive generations.
...Alright. Whoever you picked this attempt at an argument off of really, really is a moron. While it's true that evolution has no goals, in exactly the same way that gravity has no "goals," trying to say that therefore there is no reason to create successive generations is much like trying to make a point out of gravity having no reason for gravity to act on you, right now.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 3rd March 2013 at 08:02 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2013, 08:03 AM   #5646
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Not to the papuas. I have been in Papua new guinea. There are still cannibals, and unreached tribes. To them , human meat tastes excellent. So , is it morally ok in your view that they eat human meat ?
No, it isn't. What is your point?
__________________
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
Old 3rd March 2013, 08:07 AM   #5647
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
it simply could not be. Evolution has no goals, there is no reason to create successive generations.
Does the weather have goals?
dafydd 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 3rd March 2013, 08:09 AM   #5648
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Like most believers you have never read the bible.

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

http://www.evilbible.com/
No comment, Gibhor?
dafydd 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 3rd March 2013, 08:14 AM   #5649
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post

Answer the question, GIBHOR.
slow down. You are not in the position to give me orders
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 3rd March 2013, 08:17 AM   #5650
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
It is true that everything pre-big bang is highly speculative, but you can at least give more weight to the hypothesis which is most like what we already know.

You cant completely rule out other ideas obviously, but you can say that it is *more likely* that whatever existed "before" our universe or "outside" our universe is made of the same stuff our universe is.

If you lived in an all red town, with all red streets, all red houses and all red townspeople..... and you're sitting on your all red couch with your all red dog eating your all red sandwich and drinking your all red beer, and the all red postman arrives and delivers your all red mail, and you use your all red letter opener and open an all red envelope...... what colour do you reckon the letter might be?
I don't know. What does Gloria Allred's stationery look like?
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 3rd March 2013, 08:23 AM   #5651
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
No comment, Gibhor?

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...7225234AAG8h4W

Quote:
The whole matter is keeping the priestly clans pure, free from sin as much as possible. When sin comes close, the practice was to eliminate the person guilty of the sin, so that the clan is freed from guilt for the sin. The sin, of course, stained the entire family and even the clan. There is much discussion of all of this in other areas of the Torah.
please stay on topic.
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 3rd March 2013, 08:25 AM   #5652
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...Alright. Whoever you picked this attempt at an argument off of really, really is a moron. While it's true that evolution has no goals, in exactly the same way that gravity has no "goals," trying to say that therefore there is no reason to create successive generations is much like trying to make a point out of gravity having no reason for gravity to act on you, right now.
thats really a bad comparison. Please explain, what one thing has 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 3rd March 2013, 08:29 AM   #5653
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Does the weather have goals?
what has the weather to do with evolution ?

but, since you named it :

wherever you look around, there is evidence of design :

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

Quote:
Humans also require an atmosphere with exactly the right proportion of tri-atomic molecules, or gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor. Small temperature variations from day to night make Earth more readily habitable. By contrast, the moon takes twenty-nine days to effectively rotate one whole period with respect to the sun, giving much larger temperature fluctuations from day to night. Earth's rotational rate is ideal to maintain our temperature within a narrow range.

Most remarkable of all, the sun's radiation has gradually increased in intensity by 40 percent over time--a fact that should have made it impossible to maintain Earth's temperature in its required range. This increase, however, has been accompanied by a gradual decrease in the Earth's concentration of carbon dioxide. Today although the Earth receives more radiation, the atmosphere traps it less efficiently, thus preserving approximately the same temperatures that the Earth experienced four billion years ago. The change in the concentration of carbon dioxide over four billion years has resulted first from plate tectonics (by which carbon dioxide has been converted to calcium carbonate in shallow waters), and more recently through the development of plant life. Such good fortune on such a grand scale must be considered a miracle in its own right. But there is still more to the story.

Mercury, Venus, and Mars all spin on their axes, but their axis angles vary chaotically from 0 to 90 degrees, giving corresponding chaotic variations in their planetary climates. Earth owes its relative climatic stability to its stable 23-degree axis of rotation. This unique stability is somehow associated with the size of Earth's large moon. Our moon is one-third the size of Earth--rare for any planet. To have such a large moon is particularly rare for planets in the inner regions of the solar system, where a habitable temperature range can be sustained. The most current theories explaining this proposition lead us again to the suspicion that such a remarkable and "fortuitous accident" occurred specifically for our benefit
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 3rd March 2013, 08:36 AM   #5654
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Run Away!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAp9sFVdERQ
jond 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 3rd March 2013, 08:42 AM   #5655
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
slow down. You are not in the position to give me orders
Answer the questions, GIBHOR.
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 3rd March 2013, 08:44 AM   #5656
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Gibhor can you grasp on any intellectual level the size and scope of the universe?

Right now we know that they are at least between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the known, observable universe. Do you have any idea, any grasping of just how large that number is?

If even only a teeny, tiny, fractional, microscopic percentage of a percent of those stars have planets, the sample size of planets is massive beyond any measure. The fact that out of those countless, countless numbers of planets one hit the sweat spot is not evidence of design.

So basically what you are arguing is that your God, your all powerful, all knowing, all encompassing God has a know success rate of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
__________________
"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.
JoeMorgue 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 3rd March 2013, 08:45 AM   #5657
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
what has the weather to do with evolution ?

but, since you named it :

wherever you look around, there is evidence of design :

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
Yes puddle, your hole is perfect. So, the fact that you cling to the"fine-tuned" myth 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 3rd March 2013, 08:46 AM   #5658
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
where does the bible say that ?
Deuteronomy 22. This chapter is but one place in the Bible that makes it clear that women are property and that they can be punished with death simply for having sex.

You claimed that the morality of this practice was context dependent. Please, explain the context that makes it morally good to kill women for having sex with someone of their own choosing.
__________________
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
Old 3rd March 2013, 08:49 AM   #5659
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Gibhor can you grasp on any intellectual level the size and scope of the universe?

Right now we know that they are at least between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the known, observable universe. Do you have any idea, any grasping of just how large that number is?

If even only a teeny, tiny, fractional, microscopic percentage of a percent of those stars have planets, the sample size of planets is massive beyond any measure. The fact that out of those countless, countless numbers of planets one hit the sweat spot is not evidence of design.

So basically what you are arguing is that your God, your all powerful, all knowing, all encompassing God has a know success rate of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
To put it another way, if you played a lottery with odds of winning of one trillion to one, but you had one septillion tickets, you'd win that lottery one trillion times over.
__________________
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
Old 3rd March 2013, 08:53 AM   #5660
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
slow down. You are not in the position to give me orders
You are not in the position to provide honest answers to our questions.
dafydd 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 3rd March 2013, 08:54 AM   #5661
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats really a bad comparison. Please explain, what one thing has to do with the other.
It is a good comparison. Put the bible and the religious nonsense out of your head for a while and think about it. Read up on evolution too.
dafydd 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 3rd March 2013, 08:56 AM   #5662
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
First line: "This is a book that should not have been written, but it does."

LOL. Something sure is stupid but it isn't evolution!
If you wrung the stupid out of that book you wouldn't even have a one liner.
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 3rd March 2013, 08:58 AM   #5663
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
You claimed that the morality of this practice was context dependent. Please, explain the context that makes it morally good to kill women for having sex with someone of their own choosing.
I prophecize that he will not provide a straight answer. Lo, it is written that believers never answer awkward questions, even unto the umpteenth generation.
dafydd 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 3rd March 2013, 09:02 AM   #5664
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats really a bad comparison. Please explain, what one thing has to do with the other.
From the book you linked to:

Quote:
Catch an ordinary housefly. Now smash it. There you have all the ingredients for a "simple" housefly. So, MAKE ONE.
This is not an argument against evolution.
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 3rd March 2013, 09:18 AM   #5665
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
From the book you linked to:



This is not an argument against evolution.
It sounds like an argument made by a complete moron.
dafydd 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 3rd March 2013, 09:30 AM   #5666
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats really a bad comparison. Please explain, what one thing has to do with the other.
Gravity acts without consciously choosing to do so. Anything with non-zero rest mass in a gravitational field must fall.

Natural selection acts without consciously choosing to do so. Anything which produces multiple non-identical offspring in an environment where resources are finite must evolve.
__________________
"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 3rd March 2013, 10:17 AM   #5667
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
From the book "Examine the Evidence" by Ralph Muncaster, pgs. 110 - 111.

Chirality is the term given to the necessity that all nucleotides (sugars) in a DNA or RNA chain be of a certain molecular orientation (“right-handed,” technically dextroform) for the chain to work. Likewise, nearly all of the 20 different amino acids (actually 19) used in cellular protein chains must also be of a specified orientation (“left-handed,” technically levoform) for a protein to work. Not one can be defective. If these chirality requirements are not met, the entire process of manufacture from DNA to RNA to “working protein” fails. Hence, for the first bacterium, a perfect mix of both nucleotide orientation (right -handed) and amino-acid orientation (left handed) had to occur... we also need to keep in mind that both the DNA and protein chains are extremely long... In nature, however, we find that all amino acids occur randomly, in equal proportions of right- and left-handed...To create the first cell, all of the thousands of amino acids in the hundred-plus functional proteins required for the first cell would have to suddenly show up—the right types at exactly the right place at exactly the right time—all left-handed. This is the only way they would have been able to properly bond as instructed by the DNA... Likewise, all 100,000-plus nucleotides would have to show up at exactly the right time in exactly the right way—all right-handed... In other words, to just get the 100,000 correctly oriented nucleotides together in the first place would be like flipping a coin and getting 100,000 heads in a row. To get the 10,000 correctly oriented amino acids together would be like flipping 10,000 tails in a row. To do both, which is necessary, would be like correctly getting 110,000 specified flips in a row. Of course there are other problems of random assembly, but we need not go beyond the chirality problem to make the point.
Gee if only there were some...physical force in the universe that dictated how the "stuff" in it works... I dunno some kinda "chemistry" or something or other...

Every coin flip comparison used to try illustrating how physical particles behave with regards to other physical particles (excluding QM to placate those physicists...even though using probability approaches to QM isn't a coin flip unless you assume no interaction...) is wrong DOC and you already know that. You've been told it before. If intellectual bankruptcy had a monetary consequence you wouldn't have a coin to flip -.-
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 3rd March 2013 at 10:33 AM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2013, 10:22 AM   #5668
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats really a bad comparison. Please explain, what one thing has to do with the other.
*headdesk*

How is it a bad comparison?! Evolution is physically driven; inheritable traits is not a goal it's a consequence of physics just like (acts of) gravity.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 3rd March 2013 at 10:26 AM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2013, 10:24 AM   #5669
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what has the weather to do with evolution ?

but, since you named it :

wherever you look around, there is evidence of design :

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
That's not evidence for design, that's puddle thinking. You cannot demonstrate that it was a "garden with a gardener" at all. I can just say that it's not a garden with a gardener but a forest left alone. Stuff tends to live fine there too and the ones who didn't don't demonstrate that because they aren't there.

Your anthropocentric reasoning is sickeningly stupid.

Originally Posted by Dr. Douglas Adams, MD PhD DDA IRS MP3
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”

This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 3rd March 2013 at 10:28 AM.
Lowpro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2013, 10:26 AM   #5670
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
it simply could not be. Evolution has no goals, there is no reason to create successive generations.
The reason is that that is part of life, one part of the definition is that it reproduces. Who said evolution has goals, someone prior to 1970?

Yes or no GIBHOR, life does not need a reason, it reproduces.
__________________
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 3rd March 2013, 10:27 AM   #5671
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Robot parrot copy pasta, where is your discussion.
__________________
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 3rd March 2013, 11:34 AM   #5672
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
1. Thats a BIG if.....

2. according to the Big Bang model, energy was created at the Big Bang. To create a vacuum energy field, you need pre existing energy.......

1. Why do you think the vacuum energy is a "BIG if"? Your own quote from Tippler and Barrow is accepting that the vacuum energy exists. Are you disagreeing with your own quotes now?

2. How do you think the BB actually created it’s own energy? Do you have a mechanism for that? Any maths model to support it?
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 3rd March 2013, 11:54 AM   #5673
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
From the book "Examine the Evidence" by Ralph Muncaster, pgs. 110 - 111.

Chirality is the term given to the necessity that all nucleotides (sugars) in a DNA or RNA chain be of a certain molecular orientation (“right-handed,” technically dextroform) for the chain to work. Likewise, nearly all of the 20 different amino acids (actually 19) used in cellular protein chains must also be of a specified orientation (“left-handed,” technically levoform) for a protein to work. Not one can be defective. If these chirality requirements are not met, the entire process of manufacture from DNA to RNA to “working protein” fails. Hence, for the first bacterium, a perfect mix of both nucleotide orientation (right -handed) and amino-acid orientation (left handed) had to occur... we also need to keep in mind that both the DNA and protein chains are extremely long... In nature, however, we find that all amino acids occur randomly, in equal proportions of right- and left-handed...To create the first cell, all of the thousands of amino acids in the hundred-plus functional proteins required for the first cell would have to suddenly show up—the right types at exactly the right place at exactly the right time—all left-handed. This is the only way they would have been able to properly bond as instructed by the DNA... Likewise, all 100,000-plus nucleotides would have to show up at exactly the right time in exactly the right way—all right-handed... In other words, to just get the 100,000 correctly oriented nucleotides together in the first place would be like flipping a coin and getting 100,000 heads in a row. To get the 10,000 correctly oriented amino acids together would be like flipping 10,000 tails in a row. To do both, which is necessary, would be like correctly getting 110,000 specified flips in a row. Of course there are other problems of random assembly, but we need not go beyond the chirality problem to make the point.
That is a rather ignorant description of the situation. It sounds impressive, but is meaningless.
1.) reactions that are aided by a catalyst can actually favor one chiral organization over another. Hence the claim that "they occur equally in nature" is only true if we expect solution chemistry to develop aminoacids. Since we don't, not only is that claim wrong, it is foolishly wrong.
2.) Amino acids that are not all L chiral. there are a number of examples where the D form is actually used. Look up vancomicin antimicrobial activity to understand this.
__________________
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 3rd March 2013, 12:13 PM   #5674
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,692
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
maibe human meat tastes good as well.
No morals involved......

I don't know where you live, but in the UK we have laws against things like that.

Those laws cover a huge range of unacceptable behaviour, inc. cruelty to animals, rape, all sorts violence, etc.

Where do you think those laws came from?

Those laws were made by committees of men and women in government and in the courts, who have decided that all sorts of practices like that are unacceptable in a civilised society.

They can only maintain those laws with the democratic agreement of the people of the nation.

Point is - those laws and those standards have all been set and maintained by ordinary men & women. No god's actually made or enforced any of those laws ...

... the moral aspects of all those laws, and the moral aspects of public behaviour which adheres to those laws, all comes from the people of the country themselves.

As a religious person you might only act in a moral way out of fear of your God, but the rest of us act morally because we care about a fair and honest society, and we obey the laws.



I’ve just been listening on the BBC news about Cardinal Keith O’Brien who has just apparently admitted that his sexual conduct quote “has at times fallen beneath the standards expected of me”. O’Brien was until last week one of the UK’s most senior Christian leaders.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21572564

That does seem like yet another case of bad moral standards amongst those who preach that they have received the highest moral standards direct from God.
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 3rd March 2013, 04:16 PM   #5675
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
As RoboTimbo put it...



Some of the statements there reveal a pattern...

Quote:
So, there were these bacteria, see, swimming around having a good time. They really seemed to be pretty happy, so who knows what prompted them to want to kiss, but they did just that. Two bacteria kissed each other. Right there on the screen. And the next thing you know, they turned into men and women.
Quote:
Well, on the one hand you had lizards running downhill. Once they got to cruising speed, they started flapping their arms. And – the video actually SHOWED their arms turning into wings, and they took off into the wild blue yonder! So, if it was on a "science" video, it MUST be true, right?!

On the other hand, there were the tree lizards. Now, these guys learned to fly by jumping off branches! When they realized they were falling, they started flapping their arms, and sure enough the video actually SHOWED their arms turning into wings, before they hit the ground, in which case they would not have been much use to evolution, but the video makers somehow missed that point.

If he's getting his understanding of evolution from absurd and nonsensical videos made by people who don't understand evolution, of course he's going to think it's stupid.

Quote:
How come we don't have millions of fossils of attempts to build nests as creatures evolved this knowledge? Because it's STUPID, that's why. It's dumb to think that that ability just popped out of nowhere, or slowly evolved into the minds of animals and bugs and other creatures.
We do have fossils of nests, but what would a fossil of an attempt at a nest look like? A half-complete nest? A random bundle of sticks/straw? Either way, we wouldn't be recognize it as a failed attempt to make a nest.

But yes, it slowly "evolved into the minds of animals and bugs and other creatures". These creatures would have evolved to be better suited to living in nests/hives/ect instead of without them as their ability to build them improved.

Quote:
Let's start with the Big Bang.

What? He doesn't even know the difference between evolution and cosmology.

I read through a fair bit more, but it was such unmitigated bullcarp there was no point reading the whole thing.
__________________
"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 3rd March 2013, 04:23 PM   #5676
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Gravity acts without consciously choosing to do so. Anything with non-zero rest mass in a gravitational field must fall.

Natural selection acts without consciously choosing to do so. Anything which produces multiple non-identical offspring in an environment where resources are finite must evolve.
I could quibble with a couple minor specifics, but my time is very limited right now, so I'll simply say thank you, Pixel42.


Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
*headdesk*

How is it a bad comparison?! Evolution is physically driven; inheritable traits is not a goal it's a consequence of physics just like (acts of) gravity.
And thank you, Lowpro.


This is, in short, just another case where GIBHOR did not apply any quality filters to the arguments that he's trying to use.

GIBHOR, once again, I'm going to ask you to do something completely necessary for honest discussion. Please, at least try to UNDERSTAND what you're talking about. You DON'T have to accept it to be the case, but arguing without understanding is a sure was to just end up making both yourself and your position look foolish and vacuous.
__________________
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 3rd March 2013, 04:25 PM   #5677
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...7225234AAG8h4W

Quote:
The whole matter is keeping the priestly clans pure, free from sin as much as possible. When sin comes close, the practice was to eliminate the person guilty of the sin, so that the clan is freed from guilt for the sin. The sin, of course, stained the entire family and even the clan. There is much discussion of all of this in other areas of the Torah.
please stay on topic.

So are you saying that it is morally acceptable to kill a priest's daughter for having sex?
Or are you saying that it was morally acceptable, bit isn't any more?

This relates to the topic of objective morality, which you brought up in the first place.
__________________
"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 3rd March 2013, 04:32 PM   #5678
deaman
Penultimate Amazing
 
deaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 12,226
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So how and why has evolution set the goal to have more reproductive success ?
I cannot even believe, you would need to ask such a question.
deaman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2013, 04:48 PM   #5679
Lowpro
Philosopher
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
Originally Posted by deaman View Post
I cannot even believe, you would need to ask such a question.
Maybe GIBHOR thinks that Evolution asked Tony Robbins for goal-setting tips?
__________________
"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 3rd March 2013, 04:52 PM   #5680
jof
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?

GIBHOR,
Your mind seems to be stuck to the question WHO?
Until you try to forget it, the answers to HOW will continue to make no sense to you.
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
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 07:02 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.