|
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. |
7th May 2012, 08:37 PM | #201 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
GIBHOR, the main criticisms of your "source" are as followes:
1) Creationists are either knowing frauds or deluded, and 2) WE'VE OBSERVED planetary formation in stars. For example, here's a lovely baby picture of a protoplanet. What the Creatoinist you're linking to is doing is equivocating between "unfalsifiable" and "can't be disproved because it's right". They also ignore the fact that science doesn't require abandonment of theories that are shown to be wrong, but rather modification of those theories. We don't require that you go back to the drawing board, merely that you go back to the point where it stopped making sense. And direct photographic evidence more or less by definition makes sense.
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
|
7th May 2012, 08:50 PM | #202 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Quote:
Quote:
DNA isn't some code--it's a substrate. Demanding that it be treated as a code is no different, thermodynamically, from demanding that a seed crystal be treated as a code (Principles of Genetics, I believe fifth editions). Standard and well-understood errors in DNA replication and cellular division are sufficient to explain changes in DNA through time. And if you want to look at specific genetic variations that cause specific evolutionary adaptations, the most recent version of the Mollusca volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology is the way to go (you've got to pay for it, but if you're serious about wanting to know this stuff $35 isn't much--I'm working on saving $200 for Tertiary Mammals of North America). As for homochirality, here you go, courtesy of ten seconds on Google. Seriously, this is linked in the Wiki page and it specifically answers your question. I again have to wonder just how honestly you've been looking into this. |
7th May 2012, 09:40 PM | #203 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
Lets do a simple thought experiment in finding the function of a gene with unknown function in a human. Lets call it X.
No clue what it does, but it DOES cause cancer when its function is disturbed. Method 1 Screen the databases for genes with homology found in other organisms. Look for an organism where a gene with similar homology has a known function and see what part of the gene corresponds to the part in X that is mutated to cause cancer. IF this is in a conserved area THEN using the assumption of common descent we have some idea of what it might do. Look for the gene corresponding to X in yeast and experiment on it there to be far more certain of its function. Since yeast and human cellular biology are virtually similar we now have even more knowledge and can not only say what X does, but also where it most likely works. Transfer work to mice, repeat with X in a multicellular organism, which also allows for testing of medication. If you actually find a medicine, test in humans. But if not, keep looking. Since all these organisms are interlinked trough the theory of evolution there is a logical series here. Method 2: Screen the databases for genes with homology found in other organisms. Assume an all powerful supernatural entity made every organism individually with an unknown an unknowable plan, and said entity could chance the entire genomic makeup of every organism with but a thought. Some genes might look similar, but now that means absolutly nothing. Method 1 gives cures for cancer. Method 2 doesn't |
7th May 2012, 10:10 PM | #204 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
7th May 2012, 10:59 PM | #205 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
We are what matters to us, and why not? I make no apology for being concerned with the welfare of myself and my friends, rather than eg. the black hole in the center of our galaxy. But that doesn't mean that we are the center of all things. On the contrary it is quite obvious that we aren't. We live on an insignificant planet revolving around a nondescript star about 2/3rds out from the center of a 13.2 billion year old galaxy, which contains at least 400 billion other stars and planets. And that galaxy is just a blip in the universe!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So you are left with two choices. Either define 'Creator of the Universe' as whatever natural phenomena you can find evidence for, or be content with imagining an agent whose existence cannot be proven. Just don't expect anybody else to be satisfied by your 'explanation'.
Quote:
Evidence is now emerging of stone tools being used - and possibly even created - by chimps. Therefore when we find a stone tool we cannot blindly assume that humans must have created it. We need evidence of who the creator was. If we can't find any evidence, then all we say is that we don't know.
Quote:
I suspect we will find that the 'big bang' is a simplification of what really happened. It may be that the universe is constantly 'creating' itself, or that it oscillates between expanding and contracting, or that each black hole creates another universe inside itself, and what we see today is actually the result of one of those processes. But until we have evidence, we can only speculate about what caused it. IOW, we just don't know. However there is one thing that we do know. There is no evidence that the Universe was created by a supernatural god. |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
7th May 2012, 11:15 PM | #206 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
That would depend on what you mean by God. For example, even among Christians, there seems to be a wide variety of opinions on what properties and abilities God should have. But if you are talking about "God" in the abstract, or any supernatural being, any demonstration of anything that violates what we know of the way the world works would be a start. |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
7th May 2012, 11:19 PM | #207 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
|
|
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba |
|
7th May 2012, 11:44 PM | #208 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
8th May 2012, 12:06 AM | #209 | |||
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
might as well post this since it's pertinent:
To say this hasn't been observed and isn't evidence for speciation and macro-evolution (let's make sure you try not to force feed your own definition of what macro-evolution is by the way. Macro-evolution is just the consistent steps of micro-evolution and the products they become. You can call it speciation but speciation is a genetically determined attribute against its population; in short speciation divides what is actually a continuum) The boundaries are immensely blurred at the genetic level of all organisms so you have to determine their flow. When a creationist tries to shoot down macro evolution by saying "only within boundaries" they mean that the genes are limited by their ability to be passed and this is true and supports evolution at the same time and supports micro and macro evolution too. Common Tetrapod ancestor can still evolve and speciate and produce novel genes and novel pathways (they're interesting!) within a population or multiple different populations generating new additions and subtractions and other mutations, gene flow can still be restricted among populations and repeat, repeat, repeat repeat repeat repeat and you realize the boundaries exist but they do not limit speciation. Boundaries exist on the flow only, not on speciation. It's incredibly complex and to hear a creationist talk about these boundaries without expounding in the actual evidence (which proves their argument wrong) is disingenuous at best. And that leads me to this page too. This may illuminate on that. As for this handwaving on homochiralty it happens all the time to demand it has God's hand is admitting that chemistry came before God in the first place. Your arguments do not support a nonnaturalistic explanation they only serve to handwave. Now, I think I've refuted your claims GIBHOR. Obviously you're comfortable with your position of a supernatural explanation, but I cannot fathom why aside from faith.
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"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 |
||||
8th May 2012, 12:25 AM | #210 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
8th May 2012, 12:37 AM | #211 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
8th May 2012, 12:56 AM | #212 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
This is because you routinely reject such arguments. However, the test of our arguments is not whether they can convince you; you asked which arguments convinced US, and you have heard them. If they don't convince you, so be it. Likewise your arguments for Theism and Creationism utterly fail to convince us.
This should not keep us from debating, but you must stop pretending that it is our duty to convince you. If you want to be convinced, I suggest you study the science involved in greater detail, and not only from Creationist sources. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
8th May 2012, 02:49 AM | #213 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
8th May 2012, 03:02 AM | #214 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
|
|
8th May 2012, 03:31 AM | #215 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
thats why i wonder why so many here stick to strong atheism. So war " we don't know " has been the standard answer. And the few, that made actually the effort to present evidence for naturalim, have shown how weak the arguments actually are. Planet formation is a good example.
Quote:
|
8th May 2012, 03:35 AM | #216 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
8th May 2012, 03:37 AM | #217 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,895
|
GIBHOR, when you say "Marco evolution" are you thinking of one species changing into a different species, like a dog changing into or giving birth to a cat?
|
8th May 2012, 03:38 AM | #218 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,895
|
|
8th May 2012, 03:40 AM | #219 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
because simplicity is a bad criteria for finding out the truth in regard of the issue which we do debate. beside this, the simpler one fails on so many criterias...... how do you explain the origin of the universe, its finetuning, and specially the amazing fine tuning of the galaxy solar moon earth ? ? the planet formation ? the arise of life from non life ? conscience ? knowledge of morals ? all naturalistic explanations fail miserably on all these issues.
|
8th May 2012, 03:45 AM | #220 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
|
the universe/galaxy/solar system/earth aren't really all that fine tuned. We think they are, because they gave rise to us, but that's a fairly arrogant assumption. The universe is no more fine tuned to us than the lottery is fine tuned to a particular lottery winner.
|
8th May 2012, 03:47 AM | #221 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
|
no, you don't know where to begin. You don't know where to begin because you don't understand the concept well enough to properly critique it.
Go and do some reading, preferably from scientific sources of high quality, and come back when you understand it a little better. |
8th May 2012, 04:21 AM | #222 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
8th May 2012, 04:31 AM | #223 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
|
8th May 2012, 04:33 AM | #224 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585
|
First, as to the theory of evolution, there are working models, you can try it out yourself: http://www.spiderland.org/
But then again, you could also argue that World Of Warcraft is a working model of magic and deities... but where you to examine the mechanics then you'd see that even in make-belief, the mechanics of magic and deities is 'fake and forced' whilst those in Breve (the link) are causal. Next, I hate being ignored, but that is part and parcel of talking on this forum. So, tell me, why is there a need for a 'first cause'? As I said earlier, nature works verifiably in ways that kicks any 'good book' into the pits. What you are doing now is a bit silly. You are standing in a maze with us and are asking 'where is the exit?', even though we try to keep explaining to you that we are in a maze and we do not know YET. The fact that we do not see the exit does not mean there is none. So unless you can falsify that the maze has no exit, no matter of question that 'asks for proof' really matters. These questions are the standard tools of beliebers. Naturalism is exactly so much stronger than any faith in any deity BECAUSE the acceptance of the fact that we do not know all. This means we can explore further and find out more about a, what turns out to be, more complex universe than any of the prophets and religious hierarchists ever imagined. |
__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin --- |
|
8th May 2012, 04:44 AM | #225 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,092
|
Actually, when combined with the explanation fitting the facts fully it's a pretty good one.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul |
|
8th May 2012, 04:44 AM | #226 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
8th May 2012, 04:45 AM | #227 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
8th May 2012, 04:50 AM | #228 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
It is just as plausible that it is a science fair project for some super being with an undefined technology.
This hypothesis is just as likely, just as possible and just as plausible as your God hypothesis. Are you honest enough to acknowledge that? What is to distinguish your supernatural god hypothesis from my naturalistic science fair hypothesis? Sophistry is silly, isn't it? Iteration0 |
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 04:50 AM | #229 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Or in a more pithy manner.
"Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of [crap] you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude." |
__________________
"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. |
|
8th May 2012, 04:52 AM | #230 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
8th May 2012, 04:53 AM | #231 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
8th May 2012, 05:00 AM | #232 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
8th May 2012, 05:01 AM | #233 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
8th May 2012, 05:04 AM | #234 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
|
__________________
"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. |
|
8th May 2012, 05:39 AM | #235 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
8th May 2012, 05:53 AM | #236 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
I've been here six years and it's been my experience that most members of this forum identify themselves as agnostic atheists.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is an assertion that is by no means established as true. Premise 2: The universe began to exist. This is another assertion that has not been established as true. Many cosmologists have proposed that the universe may be finite and boundless in space/time, with no moment of creation as there is no time when the universe did not exist. Premise 3: Therefor, the universe must have a cause (God). Even if the Big Bang is a discrete moment of generation for this universe, the quantum field from which virtual particles are generated is a plausible source for the Big Bang as well. |
__________________
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. |
|
8th May 2012, 06:02 AM | #237 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
Please explain why this is so incredible to you. What structures found in avians could not have developed through the slow accumulation of tiny changes to homologous structures found in reptiles? Please be specific.
Quote:
Speaking of fantasy: Did you ever find those verses that state that God is genderless but chose to appear to humans as a male because of the order of the fall? Or is that just a fantasy that you made up and presented as fact? |
__________________
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. |
|
8th May 2012, 06:30 AM | #238 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
It seems that what you really want is for the candle of science to stop poking about in the dark places where you've declared your god to exist.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
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. |
|
8th May 2012, 06:39 AM | #239 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
Yes.
The above demonstrates why it isn't really worth discussing the science with GIBHOR. Instead of debating the points, he avoids them as though they do not exist. Rather, I would like to know why he thinks his personal view of a god as creator is any more valid than a belief that we are simply the dream of an ant. or any other untestable, invented fiction that can be inserted to explain the universe. |
__________________
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 |
|
8th May 2012, 06:48 AM | #240 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,260
|
|
__________________
Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'" |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|