Darwin's theory

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This thread's gone off the rails altogether.

To get it back on the rails, please have a go at pointing out any deficiencies in the basis for ID here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

To get it back on the rails, please have a go at pointing out any deficiencies in the basis for ID here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

So you can ignore it again? No thanks, I'm grand.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

So you can ignore it again? No thanks, I'm grand.

What did I ignore?
... please give me the link

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

What did I ignore?
... please give me the link

Not going through this again, feel free to look through the thread if you want to check it though.

kingchess

J C wrote: »

What did I ignore?
... please give me the link

Did we not explain to you time and time again that Dembski is a grade A1 moron and his so called theory is a joke What branch of science are you involved in again??:rolleyes:

Doctor Jimbob

kingchess wrote: »

Did we not explain to you time and time again that Dembski is a grade A1 moron and his so called theory is a joke What branch of science are you involved in again??:rolleyes:

Relevant: http://www.durangobill.com/CreationismPics/CreationismProof.jpg

floggg

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

ah I think you missed when I said
"Having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god"
an all powerful being that require not the help of anyone. So it's not more logical to have one god then many otherwise it would contradict the very definition of a god which states
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"
such being is powerful enough to do everything himself without the help of other gods.

Can you also explain to me what do you mean by saying:
""X is Y unless it applies to me, then it's God, DUH!"
Since i cant understand how what I wrote below correspond with such an argument.
"the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."

I also want to make it clear that am not looking for a debate or an argument but rather a discussion to see whether the belief in a god is rational or not, since the psychology of a debate is like a sports competition, and no one likes to lose. So even if you make a good point, the other person isn't going to congratulate you. They are thinking about revenge.

Sweet jebus. You've picked the definition of a monotheistic God and tried to argue that excludes the possibility of other gods.

If you'd bothered to read the whole Wikipedia article you pulled that from you'd see it separately refers to a separate definition for "gods" plural.

Not all religious had or needed a single all powerful god. Other religions had gods with only limited domains or areas of responsibilities. So multiple gods is entirely compatible with their view or definition of a god.

Yiu are talking out your arse.

Defender OF Faith

floggg wrote: »

Sweet jebus. You've picked the definition of a monotheistic God and tried to argue that excludes the possibility of other gods.

If you'd bothered to read the whole Wikipedia article you pulled that from you'd see it separately refers to a separate definition for "gods" plural.

Not all religious had or needed a single all powerful god. Other religions had gods with only limited domains or areas of responsibilities. So multiple gods is entirely compatible with their view or definition of a god.

Yiu are talking out your arse.

From an earlier post:

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

The existence of multiple gods does not deny the existence of a single god, we first need to understand why multiple god exist? when people go to war they pray to a specific "god of war" when they want to get married to pray to the god of marriage and love.
Zeus, Odin and so one are names given by human to define each of these gods and what they do, however am saying that these gods are a single god whom the people gave names to based on what they need from him.

Roger Hassenforder

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I would ask him for a miracle to prove his claim, since all prophet of god had some sort of a supernatural miracle to support that in in fact god spoken to them.

I'm asking the same, not some unverifiable bullshit written in the murky past. What kind of miracle would be acceptable? Do you accept christian faith healers' miracles, or dig a little deeper and see them as the huxters and charlatans they are?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

...it does not make sense for somebody to sit down and write a book in which he invents 48 people giving them each a distinctive personality and trait and talk in detail about their origin and the events in their life.

ever read Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion? People love good story and a legend...

Defender OF Faith

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I'm asking the same, not some unverifiable bullshit written in the murky past. What kind of miracle would be acceptable? Do you accept christian faith healers' miracles, or dig a little deeper and see them as the huxters and charlatans they are?


ever read Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion? People love good story and a legend...

Except that non of these characters are celebrated by people and countries around the world for more then a thousand year such as those in the bible/quran

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Except that non of these characters are celebrated by people and countries around the world for more then a thousand year such as those in the bible/quran

Largely because thanks to easier worldwide communication and improved educations, we're much more bull**** immune these days.

Roger Hassenforder

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Largely because thanks to easier worldwide communication and improved educations, we're much more bull**** immune these days.

surely god can overcome?
no?

Doctor Jimbob

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

surely god can overcome?
no?

In fairness, he appears on logs as well :pac:

Thargor

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Except that non of these characters are celebrated by people and countries around the world for more then a thousand year such as those in the bible/quran

And what about Hercules, Theseus, Odysseus, Perseus and all the rest that were celebrated for thousands of years? Were all their magical adventures accurate accounts aswell?

Squeedily Spooch

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

If he doesn't exist and there are logical and rational reasons as to why he doesn't exist then he doesn't exist and visa versa. Before penicillin was discovered little evidence was present to prove that bacteria could be killed however the lack of evidence did not mean that nothing can kill bacteria, Similarly god while you may say that no evidence supports god logic and rational though supports his existence.

Rational thought and logic is exactly the reason I don't believe in a god, the same way I don't believe in unicorns and fairies.

Here's the biggest reason I don't believe, aside from the obvious little niggle of there being no, none, zero, zlich, nada, non evidence for a god existing: if he/she/it did exist? He'd have done something by now to prove it. The Christian-Juedo god is a gigantic asshole.
If he's omnipotent, and sees all, then he's seen the millions of lives ended in his name over the centuries, the level of arugment, doubt, war, all the nasty stuff that goes along with worshipping a tyrant and people not being sure if he exists.

Any being worth their salt would have just shown up and proved it by now to stop all the arguing, but no, a book written by farmers in one localised area of the Middle East a few millennia ago part parable part "true" and a whole lot of parts utter crazyness yup that's all you humans get, see ya in the afterlife. So either God doesn't exist, he does but isn't omnipotent, or doesn't care enough, or is just simply a gigantic dickhead who likes tormenting people (his track record vouches for this one), either way I'm not a Christian so I'm good to go, yayy!
Seems appearing to Mexicans on tortillas is the best he can muster, and this dude supposedly created the universe?

Frank Bullitt

That's no way to talk about Atheists ... or indeed Theists either.

Take your head out of your arse on that one, you know well who I am referring to. Your beliefs are indeed crazy, in every way imagine able.

... and I have given you some of the reasons to believe there is a God here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

... and here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92762061&postcount=2346

None, I repeat none of this is evidence in anyway at all. No reference to evolution in the slightest, just some red herrings to avoid the actual discussion, a tactic that you have used for this entire thread.

Of course I'm a scientist ... that is obvious from my posts ... and the fact that I have single-handedly invalidated M2M Evolution and provided the basis and argued the details of ID.:)

The only thing from your posts is that you are delusional, you have single handily proved you are blinded by your faith, and for that fact I would call you idiotic. Simple as that.

... to say nothing about the blood spilled by the Atheistic Communists, Maoists, Stalinists, Marxists, Leninists ... and more other ...'ists' and 'isms' than I could shake a stick at!!:(
We can all point to atrocities committed by Theists and Atheists ... and where does this get us?

Another red herring, no wars have ever happened in the name of atheism, for instance no one has killed in the name of atheism, unlike the millions that have in the name of god, so don't try and play that game here.

That smacks of self-righteous intolerance of diversity of opinion and pluralism of belief!!!
BTW, I agree with you that religion is a man-made construct ... but so too is science ... and Atheism, for that matter.

Belief does not constitute respect, so get that clear. The position of faith or belief is wide open to criticism, and why do you think that? Because it is ridiculous.

Your last comment is incredibly stupid, god and religion is very clearly now, man made, in every way possible. Science isn't "made" in the same way as religion, because is contains truth and evidence for these truths. Science also doesn't have doctrine to adhere to because it only cares about the truth, it doesn't force and beliefs on society.

The beliefs and comments you spew on here deserve to be called for what they are. You could well be a nice person, or an intelligent person, but religion is getting you to say incredibly stupid things and taking up a very stupid position, and there is no real issue with that, just keep it to yourself, keep calling it faith and not science or fact, and stop saying that things that are very clearly proven and true, are not.

floggg

SW wrote: »

That's the definition of the Christian god, not a god, so that's not an argument against multiple gods.

The sad thing is the Wikipedia article he lifted that definition for contains a pretty clear cross reference to the alternative polytheistic definition of gods.

Apparently reading before copying and pasting was too much to ask though.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Not going through this again, feel free to look through the thread if you want to check it though.

So I didn't ignore any posts of yours ... and you have no answer to my posting on the basis for ID and the evidence for God.

J C

kingchess wrote: »

Did we not explain to you time and time again that Dembski is a grade A1 moron and his so called theory is a joke What branch of science are you involved in again??:rolleyes:

You made unfounded assertions of a deeply prejudicial nature i.e. ad Hominem and name-calling about Dr Dembski ... but provided no evidence to back up anything you said.:(

Here is the scientific basis for ID
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836
... so any joke is on you, my friend.:)

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Relevant: http://www.durangobill.com/CreationismPics/CreationismProof.jpg

The basis for ID is logically and evidentially based ... and I didn't quote any Bible verse in this posting ... now please stop the name calling and ad hominems about Creationists ... and tell me where any errors are in the basis for ID.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

So I didn't ignore any posts of yours ... and you have no answer to my posting on the basis for ID and the evidence for God.

You did though, and claiming that you didn't is just going to make you look dishonest to anyone reading this thread. That's good enough for me.

J C wrote: »

The basis for ID is logically and evidentially based ... and I didn't quote any Bible verse in this posting ... now please stop the name calling and ad hominems about Creationists ... and tell me where any errors are in the basis for ID.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

The basis for ID is 'bible said so'. If you want to actually discuss this you can start using actual scientific terms and not creationist psuedoscience, and stop complaining every time someone says something you don't like. There's no reason to treat ID as anything other than moronic. If someone went around claiming our theories of gravity are incorrect and that the force holding us down is actually tiny gnomes that we can't see holding on to our feet, they'd be ridiculed. Same for ID.

As I said to another poster earlier, you're entitled to have faith in whatever you like, but you can't expect to claim it logically contradicts proven science and expect not to be ridiculed. You're also acting as if people are ridiculing you without first trying to engage with you, but that isn't the case at all. Many of us have tried many, many, many times to discuss this with you and explain why we think this stuff is all nonsense. No matter how much proof you're given though, you just pretend it never happened and ask where the proof is. There's no way to discuss things in a reasonable manner with someone who does that.

floggg

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

It does make more logical sense for there to be only 1 entity that created the universe & humanity rather than multiple, a god is an all powerful being, having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god. For their to be a god of the sea means that the ruler God is not all powerful as he needed another god to take care of a Domain while he watches over him, it's much more logical hence for their to be just one god.



The belief in god doesn't require evidence it requires you to use your intellect and sound logic to deduce that, unless of course you cant trust your own intelligence.

There are many rational reasons why a God exist such as the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing.

Secondly the history of the world knows a number of people who have sincerely pledged their belief in god and believed that god spoke to them & gave them a massage to deliver to people, many of them have their life documented like prophet Moses,Jeremiah,Isaiah.

When moses went to preach to the Pharaoh be knew he wanted to kill him but he went. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he must have known that the authorities will arrest him and he would be put to death.
When Mohammed fought the battle of Badr against Quraish who numbered at 950 infantry and cavalry with 100 horses and 170 camels while Mohammed & his army had only 313 infantry and cavalry with 2 horses and 70 camels and Mohammed still won the battle only loosing 13 of his men.
Death and defeat were inevitable to each of these prophets unless there was some sort of a divine intervention.
We have however two options regarding these individuals

#1)They were dishonest people and mad men
#2)they were honest and sincere in what they called for

If the first was true then they would not have risen to the importance they have risen to, and history does not celebrate mad men, otherwise we would not be able to recognise our own intelligence as we would say "Human recognise and celebrate mad men"

If we assume that they were deceiving then we are saying that the collective judgement of individuals, who celebrated such people as the best in their communities over time was not a good one.
This would cast an aspersion over our own ability to judge, as we would celebrate righteous individuals where in fact our own judgement to who's righteous or not cant be dependable,as The people that would come after us will say our judgement was not dependable and we were deceived.

It makes more sense that these individuals were in fact honest and were portraying the real experiences that they had. God spoken to them and gave them a message to give us.

These are just two good reasons for thinking that god exist now what reason do you have for thinking that god does not exist?

Yiu forgot the obvious explanation - exaggeration and the Chinese whispers effect. A modest victory can be quickly embellished, as can the odds against.

In any event, it's not like there haven't been other stunning military victories against all odds without divine intervention.

Also, since there are some pretty fundamental differences between the messages god and Allah gave moses, Jesús and Muhammad, if it was the same person talking to all he must have been bipolar.

floggg

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You claim that's a joke of an argument yet you fail to point out the flaw in the statement since I have said:
"God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god" and one of the defining characteristics of god that makes him a god is that he's uncreated.

Not at all I believe in a God one god that's the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being & I dont understand how does that make my claim more absurd?

The flaw is that you are assuming you belief as to Gods nature to be universal absolute truth, and then using that belief as evidence for your belief.

There is no objective reason to conclude he/she is an uncreated creator.

For your argument to even begin to work, you would have to offer some evidence as to how or why he could be uncreated creator, and how he could violate the principle that nothing can come from nothing.

you haven't done any such thing though, other than just say he can over and over again. there is no logic or reason to your position, and copying and pasting the same non-answer in over and over again doesn't change that.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

Take your head out of your arse on that one, you know well who I am referring to. Your beliefs are indeed crazy, in every way imagine able.

I could equally say that because God exists it is insane to not believe He exists ... but, as I'm tolerant of diversity of opinion and believe in tackling the belief and not the believer, I wouldn't do so.
... and it would add nothing to the debate, just like your insults also detract from whatever point you are trying to make.
... and your foul mouth does nothing for your case, either.:(

Gintonious wrote: »

None, I repeat none of this is evidence in anyway at all. No reference to evolution in the slightest, just some red herrings to avoid the actual discussion, a tactic that you have used for this entire thread.

Here is the logical, evidentially backed basis for ID ... you may deny it but you cannot disprove it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

Gintonious wrote: »

The only thing from your posts is that you are delusional, you have single handily proved you are blinded by your faith, and for that fact I would call you idiotic. Simple as that.

... are there any more unfounded names that you would like to call me?
I used be an evolutionist ... I evaluated the evidence and I scientifically concluded that M2M Evolution was invalid and ID is valid.
... and as a man of integrity, I have published my conclusions ... for anybody that likes to invalidate.
... and all I have received in return, is plenty of nasty personalised name-calling that would do justice to any school-yard bully ... but no invalidation of my hypothesis.

Gintonious wrote: »

Another red herring, no wars have ever happened in the name of atheism, for instance no one has killed in the name of atheism, unlike the millions that have in the name of god, so don't try and play that game here.

The killing and the general denial of Human Rights all happened in the name of atheism (and ironically also in the name of 'Reason' and the 'Rights of Man') in the French Revolution ... and the blood-letting reached it's peak with the Atheistic Communists of the 20th Century as they tried to the build a world without God or religion.
They literally killed people to 'free' society from religion ... while gleefully ignoring the fact that they held an equally human-invented idea that there is no God. They also destroyed churches or turned them into 'Museums of Atheism'. This cathedral in Eastern Europe that was taken over and turned into a Museum ... and it is now back in use as a church, after the fall of Communism
https://www.flickr.com/photos/norfolkodyssey/376765112/

Quote:-
"The former Soviet Museum of Scientific Atheism, better known as St Isaac's Cathedral in St Petersburg, photographed in December, 1985. Internally, it is the second biggest cathedral in the world.

Under Stalin in the 1930s, by which time the city had been renamed Leningrad, the building was cleared of all religious clutter and turned into a Museum of Scientific Atheism. Exhibits included a pendulum which proved the rotation of the earth.

Stalin's enthusiasm for Scientific Atheism led to the regime treating faith and belief in God as a form of mental illness. Anyone who was openly Christian had their path to promotion at work blocked, and many professions closed to them.

Thousands of people who stubbornly persisted in the Christian faith were treated as delusional, and found themselves carted off to special hospitals for treatment and re-education. Many of these people ended up in the gulags, a system of concentration camps, many in northern Siberia, where millions of people met their deaths.

Scientific Atheism also promoted the idea that bringing up your kids in the Christian tradition was a form of child abuse. Inevitably, many children of militant Christians were taken into care by the State, to be brought up in vast orphanages."

When you guys make unfounded assertions of 'delusion' and 'mental illness' against Christians, ye are following in very ignoble, evil and sinister 'foot-steps' indeed.

This church wasn't as lucky ... and was destroyed by the Atheistic Communists in a fit of wanton destruction and barbarism that beggars belief:-

Gintonious wrote: »

Belief does not constitute respect, so get that clear. The position of faith or belief is wide open to criticism, and why do you think that? Because it is ridiculous.

I fully accept that all beliefs are open to challenge ... whilst respecting the person who holds the belief.

Gintonious wrote: »

Your last comment is incredibly stupid, god and religion is very clearly now, man made, in every way possible. Science isn't "made" in the same way as religion, because is contains truth and evidence for these truths. Science also doesn't have doctrine to adhere to because it only cares about the truth, it doesn't force and beliefs on society.

Any belief system, and scientism is a belief system, can fall into the error, just like any other belief system.
Creation Science believes that it has evidence for the truth that God Created the Universe and all life ... Evolutionists believe that it created itself.
... and could you please make even one point without resorting to unfounded name-calling.

Gintonious wrote: »

The beliefs and comments you spew on here deserve to be called for what they are. You could well be a nice person, or an intelligent person, but religion is getting you to say incredibly stupid things and taking up a very stupid position, and there is no real issue with that, just keep it to yourself, keep calling it faith and not science or fact, and stop saying that things that are very clearly proven and true, are not.

I have posted the basis for ID ... it is scientifically based and logically sound ... and nobody has yet successfully and part of it ... so I'm quite entitled to publish it as the truth.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

I have posted the basis for ID ... it is scientifically based and logically sound ... and nobody has yet successfully and part of it ... so I'm quite entitled to publish it as the truth.

Weird then that a court of law disagrees with you..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)"

Doctor Jimbob

Saganist wrote: »

Weird then that a court of law disagrees with you..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)"

Its like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. No matter what evidence you can get to agree with you, they'll just claim its a cover up and everyone is against them.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You did though, and claiming that you didn't is just going to make you look dishonest to anyone reading this thread. That's good enough for me.

I've asked you to cite any post of yours that I ignored ... and you haven't cited any.
I have cited a very important post that provides the scientific basis for ID ... and nobody has cited any error in logic or evidence with it.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The basis for ID is 'bible said so'. If you want to actually discuss this you can start using actual scientific terms and not creationist psuedoscience, and stop complaining every time someone says something you don't like. There's no reason to treat ID as anything other than moronic. If someone went around claiming our theories of gravity are incorrect and that the force holding us down is actually tiny gnomes that we can't see holding on to our feet, they'd be ridiculed. Same for ID.

As I said to another poster earlier, you're entitled to have faith in whatever you like, but you can't expect to claim it logically contradicts proven science and expect not to be ridiculed. You're also acting as if people are ridiculing you without first trying to engage with you, but that isn't the case at all. Many of us have tried many, many, many times to discuss this with you and explain why we think this stuff is all nonsense. No matter how much proof you're given though, you just pretend it never happened and ask where the proof is. There's no way to discuss things in a reasonable manner with someone who does that.

Please stop the name-calling and straw-manning ... and address my post. The basis for ID is exclusively scientific.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

Chunners

J C wrote: »

I have posted the basis for ID ... it is scientifically based and logically sound ... and nobody has yet successfully and part of it ... so I'm quite entitled to publish it as the truth.

That little piece of math you keep posting doesn't prove intelligent design or anything of the sort, it just shows that there were a lot of possible ways (including the current one) that the universe could have went but didn't. No matter how high the odds the mere fact that the universes current configuration was possible proves that there is no need for a creator because it was already possible as is proven by the fact that we are here. Now you can repeat yourself over and over again, deny all you wish and write in bold until the cows come home but it is not going to change the fact that we didn't need a creator to exist.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Its like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. No matter what evidence you can get to agree with you, they'll just claim its a cover up and everyone is against them.

Here is the scientific basis for ID ... while it may point towards the existence of God (not very surprising when He exists and Created life) ... it is exclusively scientifically and evidentially based.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I've asked you to cite any post of yours that I ignored ... and you haven't cited any.
I have cited a very important post that provides the scientific basis for ID ... and nobody has cited any error in logic or evidence with it.

I'm not wasting my time going back over this thread to find every post you ignored. The important thing is anyone reading over the thread can see you ignored it. It's on you to go back and respond to any points raised if you want to retain any integrity.

Please stop the name-calling and straw-manning ... and address my post. The basis for ID is exclusively scientific.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

No problem, as soon as you stop ignoring posts and respond to the criticisms of your claims. Repeating the same points over and over again doesn't count as responding either.