Author Topic: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge  (Read 20592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Darwins +57/-452
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #435 on: March 09, 2014, 01:18:07 PM »
http://www.oocities.org/campuschristians_sjc/articles/famhoax.html

See, the problem here is that, at the time, scientists didn't know they were hoaxes, so your point is moot. It's like saying teaching kids Newton and Galileo all those years ago was spreading lies.

Non-stop strawmen, never looking to learn, and I get called close-minded?  :o

And people say I'm too literal.
We (or at least I) were joking.

It shows that they don't examine it well enough. They just want anything and everything to prove their fantastical theory that they disregard the actual evidence.

This is why you shouldn't trust scientists of today. 100 years from now, they could be laughing at evolution thinking, "How could anyone have believed that crap?" Meanwhile, you guys boast about it like it's set in stone fact.

Just like how you guys make fun of people saying, "get out of the Plato mindset, you're thousands of years behind." Imagine thousands of years from now people saying, "Get out of the Dawkins mindset, you're thousands of years behind."

And we use Evolution to design drugs,, and yes hopefully in 100 years we will Laugh at what we didn't know as new drugs are developed using a better understanding of evolution...

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Interesting read, thank you, quite a bit too take in and review. but I will :)

They don't show that website in science class. Formal education is going down the tubes. Kids can learn more these days by reading wikipedia all day than they ever can at school. School is just glorified babysitting these days. This is why I laugh when parents say that children aren't learning enough in school. The parents should just let them learn on their own.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2793
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #436 on: March 09, 2014, 01:26:25 PM »
Skeptic, you do realise that if you don't get an answer that could indicate that Natlegend is your god - because your god never answers anyone either?

Nonsense, I get answered prayers.

The main difference between theists and atheists is that theists understand that God says "No" sometimes. It would be foolish to say "My parents don't exist" when they say "No" wouldn't it?

Atheists most likely prayed to God, got pissed God said no, got an ego and said, "God would answer MY prayer! He must not be real!" and they give up.

Well, that might be right. Well, it would be if people all got a response from god. In fact, the majority of people who pray to god are left with the position are realising they are not going to get what they asked for or, and this is quite common, look around at all sorts of things to see if the answer from god might be very different from what they asked. This is where prayer is a bit a dodgy thing to manage - because some people claim they hear a response and some people do not.

I'm not getting into the question of whether Jesus promised prayers would or would not be answered, but I am concerned that so many time - possibly every time, a very sick person person is prayed for but the illness carries on the exact same course a a person who was not prayed for. Quick thought experiment here. You father is one of 20 people on a cancer ward and they all have a form of cancer where the recovery rate is just 5% (maybe pancreatic cancer). Now, you pray for your father to get better and so do the other 19 families. A while later and only one patient is alive - your father and 18 other have died. Did god answer any prayers? If your relative died you would probably question that whilst the family of the patient who lived will be thanking god for a long time. What, though, if there is not a god at all? The result would be the same 5% survival rate. How do you tell the difference between god being there listing to prayers and hi,m being only an illusion and not existing?

Well, God allows people to die at all kinds of ages. This is why you see young children die, or really old people, and sometimes 40 year olds die.

Everyone plays a role in life.

I didn't ask for platitudes but a straight answer of how one can tell, in this though experiment if there is a god or not. I assume from your silence that you have no answer as, in reality, there is no way of telling. This means that the million or billions of prayers to save the life or heal people have all fallen on deaf ears. The alternative possibility is that the god people pray to is and only exists in the mind of the person praying. This accounts for the fact that they claim to get responses (from the sub conscious brain) but nothing physical ever happens.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1459
  • Darwins +55/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #437 on: March 09, 2014, 01:34:55 PM »
They have put known hoaxes in science textbooks in an effort to prop up the theory. Kids don't question it so they could get away with lies.
Here, let me fix that for you:

They have put known hoaxes in the Bible in an effort to prop up the theory. Kids don't question it so they could get away with lies.

That sounds like the Pee-Wee Herman line of argumentation.

So it's OK for evolutionists to lie because you think people lied in the Bible?
Evolution is the basis of our medical understand, it is due to our understanding of evolution that vaccines, anti retro viral drugs for aids exist etc....
If you don't accept evolution then you are a demonstrable fool. Plain and simple, and no one need listen to you because you're a nutjob.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Darwins +57/-452
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #438 on: March 09, 2014, 01:41:19 PM »
Evolution is the basis of our medical understand, it is due to our understanding of evolution that vaccines, anti retro viral drugs for aids exist etc....
If you don't accept evolution then you are a demonstrable fool. Plain and simple, and no one need listen to you because you're a nutjob.

Well, isn't that something?

That is answered here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

2 for 2 so far. You guys should really get into this website.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2793
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #439 on: March 09, 2014, 01:50:39 PM »
Jerry BergmanWiki Gosh he looks really like he represents the mainstream in science today! The PhD from Columbia Pacific UniversityWiki looks like it must have been hard to get!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1682
  • Darwins +112/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #440 on: March 09, 2014, 01:53:38 PM »
Yes. You should defer to the majority of experts if you are not an expert yourself.

And yet when I point to the countless Christian theologian experts, they get laughed away.

Shouldn't you listen to the experts?

What happened to listening to the experts?

The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5236
  • Darwins +598/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #441 on: March 09, 2014, 04:00:49 PM »
Well, isn't that something?

That is answered here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

2 for 2 so far. You guys should really get into this website.
And how much of your agreement with what that website says is based on the fact that you already agree with it?  I think we've all figured out by now that the only things you're skeptical of are the things you don't agree with.  Frankly, it's laughably easy to be skeptical of such things, because the human mind is wired that way.  So the real challenge to a skeptic is whether they can be skeptical of things which they're inclined to agree with.  And frankly, you are anything but, based on everything I've observed of your behavior on this website.  You blindly accept what seems obvious to you, and are only skeptical of things when they conflict with what you already think is true or simply that you really want to be true.

I read the whole paper you linked above, and I was decidedly unimpressed with it.  For one thing, biology is only one of the natural sciences, yet Bergman doesn't seem to understand that when he states that "Darwinism is often totally ignored in most science classes".  Of course it is, because evolution has no real impact on chemistry, or physics, or astronomy, or geology, or most of the natural sciences.  The only branch of science that it impacts is biology.  Even in biology, there are a lot of situations where it isn't especially important to focus on evolutionary theory - because while evolutionary theory underlies them, the focus is on other parts of the science.  I liken it to someone studying fruits or leaves on a tree, even though without the roots, neither fruits nor leaves would have grown.

Frankly, the whole paper seems to be based on an misapprehension of Dobzhansky's statement.  In essence, Bergman assumes that unless evolution is necessary to understand biology, then Dobzhansky's statement about it being the cornerstone of biology is false.  However, a person does not have to understand evolution or even have heard of it to gain some understanding of the science of biology, just as a person doesn't have to know that trees have roots to understand that you can pick fruits from them.  But if that person wants to understand why trees produce fruit, then knowing about roots is essential, just as a person who wants to understand how biology on this planet developed needs to know about evolutionary theory.

Bergman would like his readers to believe that 'Darwinists' simply say things about how important evolutionary theory is to the public as a kind of propaganda, but don't actually believe that themselves.  Yet this is simply more faulty assumptions on his part.  As I stated above, he's inflating Dobzhansky's statements about the importance of evolution to biology into meaning the importance of evolution to natural science and then using that to paint a false picture of 'divisions' between scientists.  For example, he wrote of a conference at Philadelphia's Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology where unnamed mathematicians made a challenge about evolutionary theory and, ultimately, the mathematicians and biologists agreed to disagree.  His purpose was to show that there is division between 'Darwinists', yet how can mathematicians - especially mathematicians who presumably, at least according to Bergman, didn't agree with evolutionary theory in the first place - be described as Darwinists with a straight face?

This sort of fallacious logic pervades the entirety of Bergman's essay.  In the end, he concluded that evolution was not really necessary for biology, and in fact was largely unnecessary, a sort of biological 'history' which may or may not be accurate.  Yet what he actually showed was his agenda - to drum up a rationale to exclude 'Darwinism' from science and to make it seem as if 'Darwinism' was a largely unsupported belief, not even supported by most scientists except in what they said to the general public.  Notably, he gave no examples of prominent biologists, or indeed, any biologists, who disagreed, and invariably had to generalize into natural sciences as a whole to create the appearance of disagreement regarding a cornerstone of biology.

He is, of course, correct in saying that biochemistry is necessary for biology.  He would also be correct if he said that physics was necessary for biology.  Yet neither of those fields really do anything to explain biology, except in a Tinkertoy or Lego sense - they serve as the building blocks for biological organisms, but aside from creating constraints within biology, they don't do a thing to explain why biology took the particular course that it did here on Earth.  And that is the 800-pound gorilla in the room that he wrote his essay to try to avoid recognizing - that without evolution, we have no explanation for how life developed through it's several billion year history here on Earth.  That's why evolution is a cornerstone if biology, that's why nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution, and Bergman's attempts to pretend otherwise won't change that.

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1561
  • Darwins +104/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #442 on: March 09, 2014, 05:31:40 PM »
Jerry BergmanWiki Gosh he looks really like he represents the mainstream in science today! The PhD from Columbia Pacific UniversityWiki looks like it must have been hard to get!

With all due respect, I'm not sure the credentials are as important as the content of the writing. 

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1682
  • Darwins +112/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #443 on: March 09, 2014, 06:34:49 PM »
Jerry BergmanWiki Gosh he looks really like he represents the mainstream in science today! The PhD from Columbia Pacific UniversityWiki looks like it must have been hard to get!

With all due respect, I'm not sure the credentials are as important as the content of the writing. 

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

There are places which sell fake qualifications for a single term's work (about three months). The honesty and ability of anyone who takes these qualifications is compromised. They cannot be taken seriously.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Grendel

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 94
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #444 on: March 09, 2014, 07:29:42 PM »
I can't believe you guys are still letting this moron troll you.
This 'free will' nonsense didn't seem to bother your god when it set up the sting operation in the Garden of Eden with two magic trees and a Talking Snake™

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1377
  • Darwins +42/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #445 on: March 09, 2014, 07:32:20 PM »

Agreed - it's time to stop the nonsense replies. I have learned nothing from any of his posts with the exception of how to fill a bag with shit and pretend its worthy of talking points.
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1561
  • Darwins +104/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #446 on: March 09, 2014, 08:02:48 PM »
Jerry BergmanWiki Gosh he looks really like he represents the mainstream in science today! The PhD from Columbia Pacific UniversityWiki looks like it must have been hard to get!

With all due respect, I'm not sure the credentials are as important as the content of the writing. 

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Quote
There are places which sell fake qualifications for a single term's work (about three months). The honesty and ability of anyone who takes these qualifications is compromised. They cannot be taken seriously.

Interesting.  So the content can be simply rejected out of hand?

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #447 on: March 09, 2014, 09:26:35 PM »
If this can't be done, then atheism is a belief.

A lot of atheists falsely think that atheism just means "without belief" but it actually means, "No God." Atheism is a positive claim that God does not exist. Agnosticism is the view where they don't have an opinion either way.

Sure, some atheists like to say, "Atheism just means that we lack belief in God" but this is an attempt by modern atheists to redefine the word. The word NEVER meant that. The word always meant "No God."

I even heard some of them say, "Atheism means that we don't think there is enough evidence for God." But, this backfires too because there ARE theists out there who agree with this statement, but believe in God anyway. So, this definition gets thrown out the window too.

The proper meaning of "lacking belief in God" means that you believe God is there, but you don't believe in Him. Sort of like having a friend who betrays your trust and you lose your faith in him. The friend still exists, but you lose your belief in your friend. So, this is why "lacking belief" backfires and actually means you DO think God is real, you just lost faith in Him.

So, that leaves atheism as meaning "No God" which is a positive claim. So, any atheists out there want to defend their positive claim of "No God?"

Sorry, I don't buy into your bullshit definition. Plus, you don't get to define for me what my position is, especially since your nonsense definition doesn't apply to all non-theists. How would you like it if I defined your position for you? Therefore it is bogus. Theism is the BELIEF in a god. A-theism is the LACK OF THAT BELIEF. That definition applies to all non-theists.

Try taking your irrational definition and applying it to Santa Claus. "The proper meaning of "lacking belief in Santa" means that you believe Santa is there, but you don't believe in him." FAIL. You just contradicted yourself. Why don't you just stop with these lame attempts at defining your way into victory? It's a very dishonest approach. Instead, allow us to state what our respective positions are and go from there. Oh, wait, I know why you don't like doing that - because then the burden of proof would be on you and you don't like that (b/c you'd rather shirk off the burden off proof b/c you know you can't demonstrate jack diddly squat when it comes to this alleged invisible "Yahweh" thing you believe in). Instead you want to attempt to turn the tables b/c you know you've got nothing but a "because I say so" fallacy behind all the smoke and mirrors.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #448 on: March 09, 2014, 09:33:20 PM »
They have put known hoaxes in science textbooks in an effort to prop up the theory. Kids don't question it so they could get away with lies.

Evidence?

http://www.oocities.org/campuschristians_sjc/articles/famhoax.html

That link is to a Cretin Research Site.  By David Dewitt, Ph.D., Oct. 1999
Associate Director of Cretin Studies at Liberty University


Your assertion that the hoaxes were made, "to prop up the theory", is wrong. Hoaxes are made to further the career of the hoaxer, and are always going to damage the reputation of the theory. There is no need to prop it up with anything.

Piltdown man was suspected as a fraud, rapidly,   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man#Scientific_investigation  , however, how do you dismiss something that seems to have come out of the ground, given the tech available and the forger not coming forward? Piltdown man was not even a fossil.

People are always going to produce hoaxes for their own personal reasons. That says nothing about "falsifiability", and real finds contradicting the theory of evolution. You have to demonstrate that fossil finds that disrupt the theory are being hidden, not the converse: conforming hoaxes are being revealed.

The Peppered Moth    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/the-peppered-moth-story-is-solid/

Haekel's Embryos: there is no need to show that embyos look the same at early stages. ToE does not rely on, or even suppose it.

Quote
With each new edition the text grew fatter as Haeckel deployed
more evidence; and the illustration in question expanded the comparison from 8
species of embryo to 20 by the 5th edition (1905). In the subsequent editions, the
images grew ever more refined, so that even by the 4th edition (1891), the
differences among them became more pronounced (Fig.4. The refinements were a
function of more material available and better instrumentation (embryos at the
earliest stages are invisible to the naked eye). Had the Science article compared
Richardson’s photos with illustrations from Haeckel’s later editions, the argument
for fraud would have withered.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud%20not%20proven.pdf

Quote
Haeckel explicitly indicated that he pictured his
specimens without yolk, allantois, and amnion (Haeckel
1874 , p. 256)

Quote
Haeckel defended himself by arguing you could not tell the
differences among these vertebrates at this very early-stage; and given the
instrumentation at the time, this was true. He nonetheless recognized that he
egregiously erred and immediately corrected the text in the next edition two years
later. But the damage was done, and his enemies never ceased to remind readers of
his misstep. Even with this stumble, however, he did not lose the support of such
stalwarts as Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, August Weismann, and Carl
Gegenbaur. When Haeckel’s science is placed in the wider context of his particular
circumstances and the times, as I have attempted to do in my recent intellectual
biography, his accomplishments appear in a decidedly more favorable light
(Richards 2008). And in the particular instance under reviewed here, I think that
light shows that fraud has not been proven.

Nebraska Man: Is an inconsequential bit of tat. From its initial description, Hesperopithecus was regarded as an inconclusive find by a large portion on the scientific community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man#Retraction






Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1682
  • Darwins +112/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #449 on: March 09, 2014, 09:34:33 PM »
Jerry BergmanWiki Gosh he looks really like he represents the mainstream in science today! The PhD from Columbia Pacific UniversityWiki looks like it must have been hard to get!

With all due respect, I'm not sure the credentials are as important as the content of the writing. 

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Quote
There are places which sell fake qualifications for a single term's work (about three months). The honesty and ability of anyone who takes these qualifications is compromised. They cannot be taken seriously.

Interesting.  So the content can be simply rejected out of hand?

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

Would you want to be treated by a doctor who had fake qualifications?
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #450 on: March 09, 2014, 09:38:37 PM »
I think we've all figured out by now that the only things you're skeptical of are the things you don't agree with.  Frankly, it's laughably easy to be skeptical of such things, because the human mind is wired that way.  So the real challenge to a skeptic is whether they can be skeptical of things which they're inclined to agree with. 

We found out recently, the Skeptrick is only skeptical of everyone he's is talking to's existence, because he is a solipsist. Ironically, he is skeptical of nothing else.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1682
  • Darwins +112/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #451 on: March 09, 2014, 09:57:58 PM »
I can't believe you guys are still letting this moron troll you.

He is good for the reader. It doesn't matter if you disagree with him or don't like him. You need someone who says something different in the way he says it.

He doesn't use bad language or randomly insult people as much as some of the other Christians do. I think he is the best ever for this site.

I would be very sorry if he had to be banned.


« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 10:31:01 PM by Foxy Freedom »
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #452 on: March 09, 2014, 10:07:02 PM »
2 for 2 so far. You guys should really get into this website.

How long have you been here? Your personal opinion is that you have now won two arguments, by quoting from AiG and Cretin sites.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6749
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #453 on: March 09, 2014, 10:33:50 PM »
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Holy fucking crap, skep, this is amazing. The good Dr. Johnson has managed to lay bare the flaws of evolution in one handy-dandy paper, probably written at his actual research center, which I am thoughtfully including an actual picture of:



I know it is irrelevant, but guess what, they have a telescope too! Which I am thoughtfully providing a picture of:



And a wall full of environmental controls! Which I am thoughtfully providing a picture of:



I am astonished at how important such research is to you ID supporters, You're really pouring the money into this one. I, for one, think that real science should give up. There is no way that we can match the funding your guys are providing to your pioneering forefronty pseudo-scientists.

Anyway, on to the linked paper. Dr. Johnson's ability to redefine evolution to fit his needs is both impressive and in blue text. How much more legit can a guy get?

But as I read the paper, I was surprised that he didn't bring up any of several tyrosine-recombinase family families , which I'm sure you will agree is relevant. So I did a little digging and found this citation that seems to negate the good Dr. Johnson's findings:

Quote
Comparative analysis of all the integrases associated with integrons, including both characterized and hypothetical examples, shows that they group together and form a specific clade within the tyrosine-recombinase family38, 46, 47 (Fig. 2). Additionally, all integron-associated integrases contain a conserved sequence of 16 amino acids43, 48 located between domains II and III (Ref. 49). Integrons are undoubtedly ancient entities, as indicated by the species-specific clustering of the respective superintegron integrase genes in a pattern that adheres to the line of descent among the bacterial species in which they are located (as in the Vibrionaceae37 and Xanthomonadaceae39 radiations). Therefore, the establishment of superintegrons probably pre-dates speciation in the respective genera, indicating that integrons are ancient structures that have been impacting on the evolution of bacterial genomes for hundreds of millions of years. Even if superintegron platforms are not associated with an identifiable mobile DNA element, it remains possible that horizontal transfer of part or all of the structure occurred over the course of a long period of evolution. Indeed, the process of horizontal gene transfer could be the cause of the discrepancies observed between the superintegron integrase gene tree and the 16S rRNA gene tree generated for V. fischeri38, 46. Horizontal gene transfer could also be responsible for the presence of the many intI-like genes in the genome sequences of different delta- and beta-proteobacteria. Further analysis should reveal whether these intI-like genes are part of mobile elements.

Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 608-620 (August 2006)

I'm anxious to hear your response. Because your good Dr. Johnson implies that horizontal gene transfer cannot lead to genetic change, whereas this paper says that they clearly can. Are you aware of any responses from your hero in this matter?

Oh yea, and they also have a stalactite research project going on, which damn near got me to think about sending them a couple bucks, as I am sure you have already done. Here is that impressive stalactite research project, which I am thoughtfully providing a picture of:



As much as I disagree with the ID movement, I do commend all of you for putting so much money and effort into your cause and your passion. The next time you see him, let Dr. Johnson know I have three or four pieces scrap pieces of PVC in the back of my garage if he wants to expand that stalactite experiment.

(Note: Just to confirm that I am impressed. Here is a solar power toy windmill that I am thinking about getting my four year old nephew. Note the similarity in sophistication between the above photos and this one. I mean, wow!)

« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 10:35:30 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Darwins +57/-452
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #454 on: March 09, 2014, 10:49:46 PM »
I think we've all figured out by now that the only things you're skeptical of are the things you don't agree with.  Frankly, it's laughably easy to be skeptical of such things, because the human mind is wired that way.  So the real challenge to a skeptic is whether they can be skeptical of things which they're inclined to agree with. 

We found out recently, the Skeptrick is only skeptical of everyone he's is talking to's existence, because he is a solipsist. Ironically, he is skeptical of nothing else.

I have never said that I am a solipsist. I said that solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist because only you know that your mind exists. You don't have any proof of anyone else's mind. They could all be philosophical zombies.

My position is immaterialism, the complete opposite of materialism.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Darwins +57/-452
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #455 on: March 09, 2014, 10:54:04 PM »
They have put known hoaxes in science textbooks in an effort to prop up the theory. Kids don't question it so they could get away with lies.

Evidence?

http://www.oocities.org/campuschristians_sjc/articles/famhoax.html

That link is to a Cretin Research Site.  By David Dewitt, Ph.D., Oct. 1999
Associate Director of Cretin Studies at Liberty University


Your assertion that the hoaxes were made, "to prop up the theory", is wrong. Hoaxes are made to further the career of the hoaxer, and are always going to damage the reputation of the theory. There is no need to prop it up with anything.

Piltdown man was suspected as a fraud, rapidly,   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man#Scientific_investigation  , however, how do you dismiss something that seems to have come out of the ground, given the tech available and the forger not coming forward? Piltdown man was not even a fossil.

People are always going to produce hoaxes for their own personal reasons. That says nothing about "falsifiability", and real finds contradicting the theory of evolution. You have to demonstrate that fossil finds that disrupt the theory are being hidden, not the converse: conforming hoaxes are being revealed.

The Peppered Moth    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/the-peppered-moth-story-is-solid/

Haekel's Embryos: there is no need to show that embyos look the same at early stages. ToE does not rely on, or even suppose it.

Quote
With each new edition the text grew fatter as Haeckel deployed
more evidence; and the illustration in question expanded the comparison from 8
species of embryo to 20 by the 5th edition (1905). In the subsequent editions, the
images grew ever more refined, so that even by the 4th edition (1891), the
differences among them became more pronounced (Fig.4. The refinements were a
function of more material available and better instrumentation (embryos at the
earliest stages are invisible to the naked eye). Had the Science article compared
Richardson’s photos with illustrations from Haeckel’s later editions, the argument
for fraud would have withered.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud%20not%20proven.pdf

Quote
Haeckel explicitly indicated that he pictured his
specimens without yolk, allantois, and amnion (Haeckel
1874 , p. 256)

Quote
Haeckel defended himself by arguing you could not tell the
differences among these vertebrates at this very early-stage; and given the
instrumentation at the time, this was true. He nonetheless recognized that he
egregiously erred and immediately corrected the text in the next edition two years
later. But the damage was done, and his enemies never ceased to remind readers of
his misstep. Even with this stumble, however, he did not lose the support of such
stalwarts as Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, August Weismann, and Carl
Gegenbaur. When Haeckel’s science is placed in the wider context of his particular
circumstances and the times, as I have attempted to do in my recent intellectual
biography, his accomplishments appear in a decidedly more favorable light
(Richards 2008). And in the particular instance under reviewed here, I think that
light shows that fraud has not been proven.

Nebraska Man: Is an inconsequential bit of tat. From its initial description, Hesperopithecus was regarded as an inconclusive find by a large portion on the scientific community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man#Retraction

I see. Interesting. So it is a lie that they were in the textbooks?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Darwins +57/-452
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #456 on: March 09, 2014, 10:58:42 PM »
http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

Holy fucking crap, skep, this is amazing. The good Dr. Johnson has managed to lay bare the flaws of evolution in one handy-dandy paper, probably written at his actual research center, which I am thoughtfully including an actual picture of:



I know it is irrelevant, but guess what, they have a telescope too! Which I am thoughtfully providing a picture of:



And a wall full of environmental controls! Which I am thoughtfully providing a picture of:



I am astonished at how important such research is to you ID supporters, You're really pouring the money into this one. I, for one, think that real science should give up. There is no way that we can match the funding your guys are providing to your pioneering forefronty pseudo-scientists.

Anyway, on to the linked paper. Dr. Johnson's ability to redefine evolution to fit his needs is both impressive and in blue text. How much more legit can a guy get?

But as I read the paper, I was surprised that he didn't bring up any of several tyrosine-recombinase family families , which I'm sure you will agree is relevant. So I did a little digging and found this citation that seems to negate the good Dr. Johnson's findings:

Quote
Comparative analysis of all the integrases associated with integrons, including both characterized and hypothetical examples, shows that they group together and form a specific clade within the tyrosine-recombinase family38, 46, 47 (Fig. 2). Additionally, all integron-associated integrases contain a conserved sequence of 16 amino acids43, 48 located between domains II and III (Ref. 49). Integrons are undoubtedly ancient entities, as indicated by the species-specific clustering of the respective superintegron integrase genes in a pattern that adheres to the line of descent among the bacterial species in which they are located (as in the Vibrionaceae37 and Xanthomonadaceae39 radiations). Therefore, the establishment of superintegrons probably pre-dates speciation in the respective genera, indicating that integrons are ancient structures that have been impacting on the evolution of bacterial genomes for hundreds of millions of years. Even if superintegron platforms are not associated with an identifiable mobile DNA element, it remains possible that horizontal transfer of part or all of the structure occurred over the course of a long period of evolution. Indeed, the process of horizontal gene transfer could be the cause of the discrepancies observed between the superintegron integrase gene tree and the 16S rRNA gene tree generated for V. fischeri38, 46. Horizontal gene transfer could also be responsible for the presence of the many intI-like genes in the genome sequences of different delta- and beta-proteobacteria. Further analysis should reveal whether these intI-like genes are part of mobile elements.

Nature Reviews Microbiology 4, 608-620 (August 2006)

I'm anxious to hear your response. Because your good Dr. Johnson implies that horizontal gene transfer cannot lead to genetic change, whereas this paper says that they clearly can. Are you aware of any responses from your hero in this matter?

Oh yea, and they also have a stalactite research project going on, which damn near got me to think about sending them a couple bucks, as I am sure you have already done. Here is that impressive stalactite research project, which I am thoughtfully providing a picture of:



As much as I disagree with the ID movement, I do commend all of you for putting so much money and effort into your cause and your passion. The next time you see him, let Dr. Johnson know I have three or four pieces scrap pieces of PVC in the back of my garage if he wants to expand that stalactite experiment.

(Note: Just to confirm that I am impressed. Here is a solar power toy windmill that I am thinking about getting my four year old nephew. Note the similarity in sophistication between the above photos and this one. I mean, wow!)



Is that an argumentum ad crappy facility??
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Darwins +57/-452
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #457 on: March 09, 2014, 11:00:04 PM »
I can't believe you guys are still letting this moron troll you.

This I do not condone.

Love you, brother.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #458 on: March 09, 2014, 11:08:42 PM »
So prayer is kissing ass? Sorry, I have never and will never kiss ass. Ever. It's a matter of principle. No being deserves my (or anyone's) ass kissing.

Do you hate your parents?

As both a parent and a child, I can state that I've never encountered a situation where I was being obsequious to one of My parents, and never has My daughter sucked up to Me.

In fact, if she did, I'd feel insulted rather than pleased.  I see that kind of fawning subservience as a loss rather than a gain.  It certainly isn't respectful, and has a strong undertone of fearfulness, infantile dependence and even a bit of contempt.  It certainly isn't a gift worthy of a god.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5236
  • Darwins +598/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #459 on: March 09, 2014, 11:54:02 PM »
I have never said that I am a solipsist. I said that solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist because only you know that your mind exists. You don't have any proof of anyone else's mind. They could all be philosophical zombies.
Just because you consider something to be logical doesn't mean it actually is, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's a position that someone holds.

Quote from: skeptic54768
My position is immaterialism, the complete opposite of materialism.
So, that would be something along the lines of "nothing exists because it's all in God's mind"?

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #460 on: March 09, 2014, 11:57:13 PM »
I see. Interesting. So it is a lie that they were in the textbooks?

No. It's a lie that they represent "hoaxes" that were put into text books because "they" were trying to "prop up" evolution.

Nebraska : mistake not hoax (it was a single pig tooth)
Embryo: semi-mistake not hoax, debunked by people who also made a mistake
Moths: maybe poor science (but still probably true), with photos made by photographers who couldn't get moths to do what they needed.
Piltdown: hoax, probably put in some text books, but by people who didn't know it was a hoax.


Skep-troll, again subtly changing the direction of each reply, so as not to resemble the original argument.

I believe it started off about falsifiability. The detection of hoaxes and mistakes indicates that there are criteria which which falsify evolution.

People who spout "irreducible complexity" are showing that they have a criterion for falsifiability. Do you claim irreducible complexity, or would you like to dodge that one, or change the topic subtly?

Your whole Creationism position is based on hoaxes, which you have no ability to detect, because you have no theory, science; only trollbait.

Would you like to highlight some Creationst research pages which you disagree with? Detail why, and give evidence.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Darwins +57/-452
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #461 on: March 10, 2014, 12:04:42 AM »
No. It's a lie that they represent "hoaxes" that were put into text books because "they" were trying to "prop up" evolution.

Nebraska : mistake not hoax (it was a single pig tooth)
Embryo: semi-mistake not hoax, debunked by people who also made a mistake
Moths: maybe poor science (but still probably true), with photos made by photographers who couldn't get moths to do what they needed.
Piltdown: hoax, probably put in some text books, but by people who didn't know it was a hoax.

So some people didn't know they were hoaxes?
Why were these scientists so sloppy with their fact checking?

People who spout "irreducible complexity" are showing that they have a criterion for falsifiability. Do you claim irreducible complexity, or would you like to dodge that one, or change the topic subtly?

I guess falsifying it would be to produce an organism that is not irreducibly complex.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2830
  • Darwins +57/-452
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #462 on: March 10, 2014, 12:07:41 AM »
So, that would be something along the lines of "nothing exists because it's all in God's mind"?

Yes, only minds and their mental perceptions exist. Objective reality exists as things in God's mind and things everyone else can see and agree on, such as California and trees. Things such as hallucinations and mind altering drugs are subjective and based on the individual mind. This is why not everyone can see a hallucination except for the one person. That is a big problem for materialism.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
« Reply #463 on: March 10, 2014, 12:10:51 AM »
I have never said that I am a solipsist. I said that solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist because only you know that your mind exists. You don't have any proof of anyone else's mind. They could all be philosophical zombies.

Explain to me why there aren't two logical positions. Either the world is true, or false. If it is false, then there may be nothing to learn externally, and Skep is an illusion of my mind. If it is true, then we can learn things from the environment. Explain why I am compelled to accept that the material world is false, because I cannot prove it to be true. The observation that I'm conscious is not yet incompatible with materialism.

Incidentally, I have no proof that my mind exists. I appear to be conscious, but that is also likely to be an illusion. I appear to be a construct of a material world. Atoms build brain. If there is no external world, then atoms could not have built a brain. With that deception in mind, then why should I accept that I exist? If I accept that I am being deliberately fooled, then why should I take that bait, either?

Quote
My position is immaterialism, the complete opposite of materialism.

You made it clear that you have Berkley style "skepticism", that you cannot prove that you exist physically. Bully for you. In cases where you cannot prove one way of the other, you should examine both.

As such, you name skep is a word game, and nothing more. Berkley's skepticism is not skeptical of its own position.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.