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 8th February 2013, 05:22 PM   #4161
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
then it should be a peace of cake to adress these issues....

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
Those issues have been addressed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
__________________
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 8th February 2013, 05:26 PM   #4162
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
rather than calling me a troll ( which actually is a admittance of having no good arguments for your case ) i made a precise question. can you answer it ? why do men have beards, and woman do not ? i mean : why is hair not growing in the womans face ? what evolutionary advantage is it, to make men have beards, and woman not ? that is a serious question.
why does a peacock have plumage?
__________________
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 8th February 2013, 05:38 PM   #4163
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
rather than calling me a troll
You are a troll. It's not against the rules.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
( which actually is a admittance of having no good arguments for your case )
Nope. It's an observation of your behaviour.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
i made a precise question. can you answer it ? why do men have beards, and woman do not ? i mean : why is hair not growing in the womans face ?
It does.
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what evolutionary advantage is it, to make men have beards, and woman not ? that is a serious question.
More of a leftover from our ape prehistory. It doesn't have to have any particular advantage. Much like our useless appendix. Either evolution has left us with a useless and potentially dangerous appendage, or your dog intentionally put it in there for no reason other that it's capricious nature, dog's or the appendix, pick one.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 8th February 2013, 06:00 PM   #4164
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
then it should be a peace of cake to adress these issues....

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

From that link....

Quote:
  • Evolution has never been observed.
  • Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
  • There are no transitional fossils.
  • The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
  • Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

You're right. It is a piece of cake to address these issues. That's because they're not issues, they're lies. That whole page is filled with misinformation and propaganda.

If you take that site seriously, you're being deceived.
__________________
"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 8th February 2013, 06:30 PM   #4165
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
How about Jesus ? was he a man as ayone else, doing the miracles he did ?



I'll rather ask : why do you assume the authors were lying ?
Do you have any evidence Jesus's miracles existed?



Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So how do you explain the eye witnesses of Jesus were willing to give their lifes for their faith ? either they became crazy for one reason or the other, or they were convinced that Jesus was who he clamed to be. And how do you explain the explosion of the Christian faith of the early church , all over the roman empire ? If Jesus did not raise from the death, christianity would not exist today.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html




you cannot test historical facts.
A martyr's belief is no evidence their belief system is anything but a cruel scam.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Once, there was smallpox.

People prayed and sang and sacrificed so that God would lift the curse of smallpox. Devoted and fervent they were. But the smallpox remained.

People cast out and tortured and stoned the sinners and the nonbelievers among them so that God would lift the curse of smallpox. Righteous and wrathful they were. But the smallpox remained.

People went to care for those afflicted with smallpox, and taught the word of God among those afflicted with smallpox, so that God would lift the curse of smallpox. Pious and courageous they were. But the smallpox remained.

People began to study the causes of smallpox, from a naturalistic viewpoint. Observant and rational they were. Eventually, one found that by a certain treatment derived from a similar disease of cows, people were protected from smallpox. And lo! the curse of smallpox was lifted.

Which of those people pleased God?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Bravo!


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
why do you think it is ridiculous ? why do you think the apostles , almost all of them, died as martyrs, for their faith ?
What are your sources for this claim?
pakeha 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 8th February 2013, 06:38 PM   #4166
deaman
Penultimate Amazing
 
deaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 12,226
Gibhor -

You do know that none of the writers of the new testament are actually eyewitnesses. All of them were written 60 or 100 years after the fact. Did you not know that?

There are so many contradiction in the bible it's almost comical.
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 8th February 2013, 07:07 PM   #4167
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
rather than calling me a troll ( which actually is a admittance of having no good arguments for your case ) i made a precise question. can you answer it ? why do men have beards, and woman do not ? i mean : why is hair not growing in the womans face ? what evolutionary advantage is it, to make men have beards, and woman not ? that is a serious question.
Note, I didn't actually call you a troll, I simply presented the two most viable options for why you choose to present yourself the way you do, despite the responses given to you. If you're not a troll, though, you simply desire to push others to hell, you immoral ****. Or, I suppose you could just be incredibly unintelligent enough that you can't understand that your actions can have undesirable consequences, in which case I take back the immoral comment. Regardless, women do grow facial hair. Heck, I've seen my mom with a bunch of it a few times. Given that she qualifies as a woman in every way, I'd tend to say that you've really, really got nothing to work with, here.

Either way, it's a common perception among both genders that men prefer women without beards or facial hair in general. Looking at history, this is commonplace, so women with less facial hair or the ability to remove it better are more likely to reproduce, and women with more facial hair and without the ability to remove it are less likely to reproduce. And... what do you know? Evolution occurs!


ETA: Incidentally, pointing out that someone is a troll is not an admittance that one has no good arguments. It's simply not an argument, and if it's the only thing presented, which has very much not been the case here, it still doesn't count as an argument.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 8th February 2013 at 07:20 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2013, 07:10 PM   #4168
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by Brian-M View Post
You're right. It is a piece of cake to address these issues. That's because they're not issues, they're lies. That whole page is filled with misinformation and propaganda.

If you take that site seriously, you're being deceived.
Blatant lies and disinformation, no less, that tend to be able to be shown as such with even extremely basic actual understandings of the relevant subjects in question. Unfortunately, so many creationists don't even have that and accept lies at face value.
__________________
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 8th February 2013, 07:16 PM   #4169
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by deaman View Post
Gibhor -

You do know that none of the writers of the new testament are actually eyewitnesses. All of them were written 60 or 100 years after the fact. Did you not know that?.
No, i did not. How do you know that ?
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 8th February 2013, 07:20 PM   #4170
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Either way, it's a common perception among both genders that men prefer women without beards or facial hair in general. Looking at history, this is commonplace, so women with less facial hair or the ability to remove it better are more likely to reproduce, and women with more facial hair and without the ability to remove it are less likely to reproduce. And... what do you know? Evolution occurs!
thats rather funny. Why then apes continue to have facial hair, both, masculine and feminine ? Why should a woman without facial hair be more attractive ?
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 8th February 2013, 07:26 PM   #4171
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Oh please!!! Many, many cultures have flood histories. That doesn't mean they were created by God. Flood occurrence is a natural event.

When ancient historical texts talk about floods that covered "the whole world" they are talking about the whole world as they knew it at that time. In biblical times, "the whole world was essentially the area around the Mediterranean from Britain in the west to the Persian Gulf in the east.

The flood in the Bible is also mentioned in the Qu'ran, and in contemporaneous Sanskrit texts. In particular the story of Matsya (Vishnu) and Manu. Matsya forewarns Manu about an impending catastrophic flood and orders him to collect all the grains of the world and all living creatures, and put them into the boat. (Sound familiar does it?).

In reality, the biblical flood was likely caused by the flooding of the Coast of the Black Sea around 7,500 years ago. The short version is that at that time, the Black Sea was much lower, and a lot of people lived on its shores. It was a centre for commerce and trade at that time. The theory goes that as the world's seas level rose, the Mediterranean catastrophically breached a natural dam or "sill" in what what now know as the Straights of the Bosporus. While their is much debate over this issue, Dr. Robert Ballard and his team from the Woods' Hole Oceanographic Institute have identified what appears to be ancient shorelines, drowned river valleys, tool-worked timbers, and man-made structures 300 feet deep off the Turkish coast of the Black Sea. Their findings, and the fact that there is no indication of such artefacts further away from the coast (as there would be if the flooding had been gradual) tends to support the theory.
there is a lot of evidence for a world wide flood :

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYo...wide_flood.htm
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 8th February 2013, 07:30 PM   #4172
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats rather funny. Why then apes continue to have facial hair, both, masculine and feminine ? Why should a woman without facial hair be more attractive ?
Are the apes in question human, with the human cultures in question? If not, then you honestly have nothing with this line of questioning. Honestly, I don't feel like going into depth about why some traits are considered more attractive by particular populations than others, right now. There's been a lot of research done on that very question, though, as I recall, and a lot of things learned. None of them that support the validity of your desired argument, though, as I recall.
__________________
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 8th February 2013, 07:37 PM   #4173
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
there is a lot of evidence for a world wide flood :

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYo...wide_flood.htm
There is 0 evidence for a world wide flood. Quite a few of the testable claims fail. And fail hard. You are being lied to.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2013, 07:40 PM   #4174
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
No, i did not. How do you know that ?
Luke wasn't an apostle. and many of the texts contain stories where the "author" wouldn't have been present. Hence, they are clearly not eye witness accounts.
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats rather funny. Why then apes continue to have facial hair, both, masculine and feminine ? Why should a woman without facial hair be more attractive ?
Why does a peacock display it's plumage?
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
there is a lot of evidence for a world wide flood :

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYo...wide_flood.htm
We can now add geology to the list of sciences you do not understand.
__________________
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 8th February 2013, 08:17 PM   #4175
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
then it should be a peace of cake to adress these issues....

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
Who do we have here:

One well-documented treatment of this subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation) may be found in Dr. Duane Gish’s recently updated book:

- Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN 0-89051-112-8




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 8th February 2013, 08:52 PM   #4176
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Who do we have here:

One well-documented treatment of this subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation) may be found in Dr. Duane Gish’s recently updated book:

- Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN 0-89051-112-8




Quite famous for the Gish Gallop, GIBHOR, if you hadn't heard.

Quote:
The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

The formal debating jargon term for this is spreading.[1] It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call ******** on the practice, like the internet, such techniques are remarkably common.
In short, highly dishonest and demonstrably biased people are being cited as trustworthy and "unbiased" sources of information. Huge red flag, there, GIBHOR, before even getting to the utterly moronic nature of the actual arguments. GIBHOR, why should we accept that any "evidence" that you cite is remotely acceptable when your strategy is more like randomly flailing about and blindly hoping that there might maybe be something within reach of any value at all?
__________________
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 8th February 2013, 09:47 PM   #4177
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats rather funny. Why then apes continue to have facial hair, both, masculine and feminine ? Why should a woman without facial hair be more attractive ?
Apes other than humans have their own types of sexual dimorphisms. Mature male but not female gorillas develop silver hair on their backs. Female but not male baboons develop red coloration on their rears. Sexual dimorphism, as explained and cited earlier in this thread. Look it up.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2013, 09:49 PM   #4178
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
No, i did not. How do you know that ?
Frankly I'm surprised-that fact is widely understood in biblical scholarship.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th February 2013, 11:28 PM   #4179
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Frankly I'm surprised-that fact is widely understood in biblical scholarship.
It certainly makes you wonder about his depth of study.
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 9th February 2013, 05:39 AM   #4180
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Researchers were able to optimize self-replicating RNAs by selecting for replication in a matter of days; what do you think 3 billion years can do?.
first you need to provide solid evidence th earth is 3 bi years old.

http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RN...lication-3.php

Quote:
One last point, RNA replication in the lab makes use of extensive investigator interference. Chemicals like amino acids, aldehydes, and sugars (other than ribose) are arbitrarily excluded. Very specific activation agents are used to encourage replication (ImpA for adenine, ImpG for guanine, ImpC for cytosine, and ImpU for uracil). The concentration of the chemicals (especially cytosine and ribose) is billions and billions of orders of magnitude higher than what one would expect under plausible prebiotic conditions.
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 9th February 2013, 06:26 AM   #4181
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
first you need to provide solid evidence th earth is 3 bi years old.

http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RN...lication-3.php
Your arguments are getting worse.
Clearly, you are trolling.
__________________
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 9th February 2013, 06:58 AM   #4182
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Your arguments are getting worse.
Clearly, you are trolling.
Worse? I disagree. They're still at about the same level. They're just ranging further and further afield, since the topic noted in the thread title and his actual purpose here have pretty much been beating a dead horse given how many times they've been gone over. Either way, Young Earth Creationism and the validity of it are likely better dealt with in a different thread, at this point. It's utter bunk, but there's just so very much utter bunk.
__________________
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 9th February 2013, 10:19 AM   #4183
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
why is there reality, rather than no reality ?
For the same reason there's red, rather than no red.
For the same reason there's blue, irather than no blue.
For the same reason there's large, rather than no large.
For the same reason there's small, rather than no small.

Reality is a descriptor of what exists, not a thing that was created.
This is true regardless of whether what exists was created by a God, or natural mechanisms.
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 9th February 2013, 10:33 AM   #4184
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
then it should be a peace of cake to adress these issues....

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
As has already been pointed out, this article does address them:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

But, here is my own brief summary:

Evolution has never been observed.
Most Creationists accept that evolution has been observed. They choose to call it "micro-evolution", instead of recognizing how lots and lots of "micro-evolutions" could yield something like a "macro-evolution".

We have observed macro-evolution, as well, over relatively long periods of time. But, Creationists dismiss these that things that don't count as evolution, for various other reasons: "It is not an increase in information" is a common one, which is not really something that matters.

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
If this were true, life forms would never need to eat anything.

Also: That fact that the evolutionary heritage of any given species is filled with trade-offs and comprimises seems to indicate that thermodynamics isn't even close to being violated.

If you don't like things that violate thermodynamics, you should REALLY dislike the whole concept of an all-powerful god entity.
At least the science of Evolution is forced to work within the realm of physics.

There are no transitional fossils
Your parents are transitional fossils. Mine are too!

Our parents are transitions between our grandparents and ourselves.

There are small differences between our grandparents and ourselves.
Multiply those small differences by many millions of years of generations, and you can start to see how one species can look like an entirely different one, over time.

The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Not at all. Chance might go into one end of the process, but what comes out of the other end is NOT random chance. The whole reason we study the process of Evolution, is to do a LOT better than chance!!

Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
It's been proven well enough that we can make use of it to solve real problems in various fields of biology: Medical research, species conservation, etc.

That was a piece of cake!
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th February 2013, 11:19 AM   #4185
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
OK, let me have a go.

Quote:
Evolution has never been observed.
Anyone who claims this is not very observant.

Quote:
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Not as long as the sun is shining.

Quote:
There are no transitional fossils
Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

Quote:
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
No it doesn't. It says that the only part chance plays in evolution is in the provision of variety, the raw material on which natural selection acts. Natural selection is a far more powerful force than random chance, but it's not a conscious force.

Quote:
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection explains the fact of evolution, in the same way that Einstein's theory of gravity (aka general relativity) explains the fact of gravity.

ETA: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
__________________
"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

Last edited by Pixel42; 9th February 2013 at 11:22 AM.
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 9th February 2013, 11:43 AM   #4186
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
first you need to provide solid evidence th earth is 3 bi years old.

http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RN...lication-3.php
Moving the goalposts yet another round?

You initially claimed that no self-replicating molecule had ever been discovered. When proven wrong, you claimed that these self-replicating molecules were designed, rather than evolved by selection. When proven wrong, you claimed that there wasn’t sufficient selection to allow these evolved, self-replicating molecules to develop in nature. Now, when proven wrong again, you want me to explain why the Earth is more than 3 billion years old (presumably in a single post, to someone who recently demanded in this thread to have us explain how lightning evolved). At this point I will respectfully ask you to read about it yourself, because “the margin of this page is too narrow to contain the proof” and because I’ll not continue play your game.

A great place for you to start is, of course: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html.

You might also notice that many of the sites you quoted to document the problems with ribozyme evolution actually accept an old Earth.

Last edited by Giordano; 9th February 2013 at 12:33 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th February 2013, 11:45 AM   #4187
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
More generally, GIBHOR, science has shown how many of the organic molecules required for life can form naturally, how molecules can self-replicate, how evolution is a powerful process that can be documented by fossil evidence, by molecular tools, and by actual experiments running in real time. And most significantly, the gaps in our knowledge that remain have become smaller and smaller the more we learn. A major gap in Darwin’s theory when first proposed was a lack of information as to how traits are encoded genetically, until that gap was eliminated over the next hundred years of scientific progress. Transitional forms first absent from the fossil record have been subsequently found. Self-replicating RNAs, not known in 1990, were discovered in the last few decades. There is every reason to assume that the gaps that remain will have naturalistic explanations, just like all the gaps that have filled to date.

The expansion of human knowledge over hundreds of thousands of years has repeatedly revealed naturalistic explanations for the previously mysterious. These explanations are reproducible and can be tested by anyone who doubts them. Not once has God been proven as an explanation (no, not even of lightning). You propose against all logic that, unlike these previous gaps, the remaining, ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge can only be explained as the actions of an invisible, unobservable, untestable God. A God that no two religions (no two sects within one religion) fully agree on. A God whose realm of influence has been in constant retreat as more is discovered. Good luck with that.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th February 2013, 07:27 PM   #4188
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
As has already been pointed out, this article does address them:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

But, here is my own brief summary:

Evolution has never been observed.
Most Creationists accept that evolution has been observed. They choose to call it "micro-evolution", instead of recognizing how lots and lots of "micro-evolutions" could yield something like a "macro-evolution".

We have observed macro-evolution, as well, over relatively long periods of time. But, Creationists dismiss these that things that don't count as evolution, for various other reasons: "It is not an increase in information" is a common one, which is not really something that matters.
So life is not based on information?



Quote:
There are no transitional fossils
Your parents are transitional fossils. Mine are too!

Our parents are transitions between our grandparents and ourselves.

There are small differences between our grandparents and ourselves.
Multiply those small differences by many millions of years of generations, and you can start to see how one species can look like an entirely different one, over time.
what evidence do you have that this happened ?

Quote:
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Not at all. Chance might go into one end of the process, but what comes out of the other end is NOT random chance. The whole reason we study the process of Evolution, is to do a LOT better than chance!!
what other mechanism do you propose than chance, to create the first living being ?

Quote:
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
It's been proven well enough that we can make use of it to solve real problems in various fields of biology: Medical research, species conservation, etc.

[b]That was a piece of cake![
with evolution it certainly was meant macro evolution. It has indeed not been proven to be true. Actually, the more we learn, the more science finds out that things do not fit the theory.
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 9th February 2013, 07:30 PM   #4189
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
OK, let me have a go.


Anyone who claims this is not very observant.
So you have observed evolution above species ?

Quote:
Every fossil is a transitional fossil.
how do you know ?


Quote:
No it doesn't. It says that the only part chance plays in evolution is in the provision of variety, the raw material on which natural selection acts. Natural selection is a far more powerful force than random chance, but it's not a conscious force.
So did the first life originate based on evolution as well ?


Quote:
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection explains the fact of evolution, in the same way that Einstein's theory of gravity (aka general relativity) explains the fact of gravity.
where is the evidence ?
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 9th February 2013, 07:36 PM   #4190
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Actually, the more we learn, the more science finds out that things do not fit the theory.
Who is we, kemosabe?

Given the fact that you are woefully ignorant of the current scientific advancements (ever figure out anything about epigenetics, RNAi?), this statement is laughably arrogant and absurd.
__________________
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 9th February 2013, 07:42 PM   #4191
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Moving the goalposts yet another round?

You initially claimed that no self-replicating molecule had ever been discovered. When proven wrong,
You have not proven me wrong. Its not valid, if the environment and conditions ( no human help !! ) are not similar to when things supposedly happened.



Quote:
you claimed that these self-replicating molecules were designed, rather than evolved by selection. When proven wrong
No no Sir, human help invalidates the experiment.

Quote:
You might also notice that many of the sites you quoted to document the problems with ribozyme evolution actually accept an old Earth.
I don't have a problem with that
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 9th February 2013, 07:48 PM   #4192
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
No no Sir, human help invalidates the experiment.
Nope. Setting up an experiment doesn't invalidate anything. But, Keep telling yourself that. I am sure it brings you comfort.
__________________
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 9th February 2013, 07:53 PM   #4193
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
this statement is laughably arrogant and absurd.
no kidding....

http://www.bcrevolution.ca/collapse_of_evolution.htm

Quote:

"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order."

- H.S.Hamilton (MD) The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block




- Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."


"The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation."

- Niles Eldridge, PhD., palaeontologist and evolutionist, American Museum of Natural History


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 9th February 2013, 07:59 PM   #4194
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
so basically the only acceptable evidence is a replication of original conditions and billions of years?

Are you serious?
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas
devnull is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th February 2013, 08:03 PM   #4195
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So life is not based on information?
Pick a version of "information." Probably not, though.


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what evidence do you have that this happened ?
Which part? Either way, plenty, evidence wise, for each of them. Incidentally, you're free to demonstrate what the necessary hurdle is between "micro" and "macro" evolution is, if you want to even begin to claim that macro isn't just a lot of micro.



Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what other mechanism do you propose than chance, to create the first living being ?
Heh. Why would we need to? We're not claiming that life had to have arisen on Earth. As it is, though, there was a rather large area where life could have arisen and a very long time frame in which it could have. As for the creationist "probabilities" intended to make it seem nigh impossible? Generally based on blatantly false premises, which means that they're completely untrustworthy. The "probability" of life forming in conditions where it can form, with sufficient time and space, is far from negligible.

Incidentally, theists posited that every planet and asteroid in the solar systems was covered in people, all who praised the same god that they did, based on theology, and this was actually a fairly common belief for a while. That being the case, incidentally, would potentially be a reasonable argument for a "God," though not proof.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
with evolution it certainly was meant macro evolution. It has indeed not been proven to be true. Actually, the more we learn, the more science finds out that things do not fit the theory.
Sounds like empty creationist propaganda through and through, honestly.
__________________
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 9th February 2013, 08:04 PM   #4196
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Yes, laughable.
your quotes are from 1986 or unsourced.
When did RNAi get discovered?
Epigenetics?
Are you going to continue wallowing in ignorance?
__________________
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 9th February 2013, 08:16 PM   #4197
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
So life is not based on information?
Correct.

What life is "based on" might only look like information, from hindsight.

The bigger point is that evolution has been observed.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what evidence do you have that this happened ?
The fossil record, DNA evidence, etc. show this happened. The overall trends and patterns match what would be expected. Of course, you dismiss all of that as "unreliable" for various reasons.

Computer simulations show us that it can happen, but you dismiss that as "unrealistic".

We have seen significant changes emerging from specific species: Mosquitos adapting to the London subway systems, by developing parts to parasite rats better. But, you might only see that as "micro" evolution.

We have the evidence. Always did. All you have are excuses.... and no evidence.

The bigger point is that there is no shortage of "transitional fossils". All fossils are transitions, actually.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
what other mechanism do you propose than chance, to create the first living being ?
Self-replicating molecules that preceded RNA. Some proposals, such as PNA (peptide nucleic acid) could work. Abiogenesis studies are working out some of the details.

If you studied networking and graph theories, you will find it was almost inevitable for something like life to emerge, eventually, given all of the opportunities for these different molecules to form and interact over time.

The bigger point is that evolution does NOT proceed through random chance!

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
with evolution it certainly was meant macro evolution. It has indeed not been proven to be true.
The Kakapo was a highly endangered species that has been brought from the brink of extinction to a relatively successful breeding program, because scientists applies macro-scale-evolutionary thinking to help unravel their plight: They were able to pinpoint issues with their sex allocation (males vs. females) by relating their behavior to other specieis of birds.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../060401_kakapo

"Macro-evolution" (as you call it) has been proved well enough that it can help us solve problems.


Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Actually, the more we learn, the more science finds out that things do not fit the theory.
Like what?
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th February 2013, 09:07 PM   #4198
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
You have not proven me wrong. Its not valid, if the environment and conditions ( no human help !! ) are not similar to when things supposedly happened.


No no Sir, human help invalidates the experiment.
No point in repeating myseff: other posters here independently noted your obvious, if feeble, attempts to shift the argument each time you were proven wrong. Anyone can go back in the thread and see for themselves. If you don't wish to be proven wrong then don't make incorrect statements.

Last edited by Giordano; 9th February 2013 at 09:17 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th February 2013, 09:20 PM   #4199
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
so basically the only acceptable evidence is a replication of original conditions and billions of years?

Are you serious?
No, even that wouldn't be acceptable to GIBHOR because replicating the original conditions would involve "human intervention." God has to do the experiment!

As to whether he is serious or not: the "evolution of lightning" and "bearded women" posts certainly make me wonder...

Last edited by Giordano; 9th February 2013 at 09:48 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th February 2013, 09:34 PM   #4200
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
GIBHOR,

Look up Niles Eldredge at the American Museum of Natural History and you will see just how dishonest that quote mining really is! Eldredge is a founder of the punctuated equilibrium view of evolution. He disagrees with early views of slow continuous change, not with evolution itself. In fact he is noted for his satirical dismissals of creationists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niles_Eldredge

Last edited by Giordano; 9th February 2013 at 09:52 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
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 06:59 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.