Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

Edited to add more information for posters:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Atheism = self defeating.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by towerwatchman View Post


    Sounds more like a children’s bedtime story than reality. On what planet does the judge decide a criminal case based on the defense’s evaluation of the prosecution’s case? What you have proposed is called imaginary doubt. That does not fly in a court of law.

    The defense may choose not to present any evidence if it believes that the prosecution failed to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The rule in criminal cases is that the prosecution must establish his case on its own and cannot rely on any weak defense. If the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense does not have to do anything to win an acquittal. The problem, however, is that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is subjective, meaning that what may not amount to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the mind of the defense lawyer may in fact have establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. Most defense attorneys take the safer course and present evidence on behalf of the accused. After presenting all the evidence, the defense rested its case. [ Criminal procedures, law and practice]

    Note, the high standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, It is the defense’s obligation to its client to present reasonable doubt. The defense could remain quiet, which is their right. OJ Simpson was acquitted of double murder based on 'reasonable doubt' [the glove does not fit, therefore you must acquit] but lost the wrongful death lawsuit based on "Clear and Convincing Evidence." We could lower the standard to "Clear and Convincing Evidence" which requires the proposition to be more true than untrue and Johnny pays for the window.

    God Bless
    TWM
    The thing is, the judge just has to take one look at the prosecution's case to realize that the prosecution doesn't actually have a case. Thus the dismissal and recommendation for stripping the prosecution of it's license due to gross incompetence.
    "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - Thomas Paine - THE AGE OF REASON

    Comment


    • Originally posted by HRG View Post
      Whooosh (the sound my point made when you missed it). It should have been obvious that a prosecution based solely on a view in a crystal bowl raises reasonable doubt, and no counter-evidence is required.
      The whoosh was made by you, and its amazing you think you are right and two of us are wrong. The point put to was Reasonable doubt requires evidence and is subjective. How is a crystal bowl evidence? Can all see what the evidence in the crystal bowl? If not then its not evidence and so there is no reasonable doubt.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by brightmorningstar View Post
        As I said, perhaps you should ask yourself why you dont sense the presence of God.'s spirit.
        Asking yourself a question is the surest way to the answer you want.

        What do you expect an atheist's (self-)answer to be, by the way?
        Dillahunty said it - that settles it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by brightmorningstar View Post
          The whoosh was made by you, and its amazing you think you are right and two of us are wrong. The point put to was Reasonable doubt requires evidence and is subjective. How is a crystal bowl evidence? Can all see what the evidence in the crystal bowl? If not then its not evidence and so there is no reasonable doubt.

          You are right. A crystal ball is not evidence - that's my point -, and neither is a personal statement of belief in a god. Thus if the theist's case remains on that level, atheists have no burden to refute it.
          Regards, HRG.

          "The universe doesn't care what happens to its inhabitants, but its inhabitants do" (Tyrrho).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by HRG View Post
            You are right. A crystal ball is not evidence - that's my point -, and neither is a personal statement of belief in a god. Thus if the theist's case remains on that level, atheists have no burden to refute it.
            whoosh, the sound of you missing the point again. The created world and universe is observable evidence; just depends to whom and what it is attributed.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by brightmorningstar View Post
              whoosh, the sound of you missing the point again. The created world and universe is observable evidence; just depends to whom and what it is attributed.
              Where do you observe a "created" world ? A clearer petitio principii can hardly be imagined.
              Regards, HRG.

              "The universe doesn't care what happens to its inhabitants, but its inhabitants do" (Tyrrho).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                Ok, but this is confusing, the two highlighted parts being contradictory. It's also confusing in that He believes in a God, but there isn't too much said here that's specific. Thing is, within Christianity there are widely varying views of what God is and whether, for example, hell exists or not. You may have a point here about Eichman, but i'm left none the wiser about what he actualy specificaly believed from the above… Ok. But he obviously believes in a God. I'm left none the wiser as to which one. His own version of the Christian God? What?
                As to Christianity Eichmann was not a Christian. Being a Christian is following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Many incorporate Christianity into their belief system [polytheism]. Hindu is polytheistic. Eichmann sought out his god in nature, basically pantheism [the belief that the universe is a manifestation of god”]. As to what Eichmann specifically believed who knows, most likely he did not know, but what is known after the interview by Hull is that Eichmann was not a Christian or a theist.

                Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                Lots of Christians don't believe everything in the bible… A previous Arch Bishop of Canturbury doesn't believe in hell, as one of my Christian friends doesn't.
                This is a fallacy. Fallacy of appealing to the masses.
                When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence of the claim. Accepting another person’s belief, or many people’s belief, without demanding evidence as to why that person accepts the belief, is lazy thinking and a dangerous way to accept information. [Logically Fallacious]

                Follow the author’s advice, you would have to question those [Christians] why they don’t believe everything in the Bible to come to a conclusion.

                My answer. Claiming to be a Christian is to state that one is a follower of Jesus Christ. Our understanding of Jesus comes primarily from the New Testament. Then it is logical to conclude that if one believes Jesus’ statements as truth, then His endorsement of the Old Testament is sufficient evidence that the OT is true. To deny one part is to deny it all. Anyone who teaches any more or less has no integrity, because there is no credibility when one picks and chooses to support their agenda.

                Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-19 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

                “The Law and the Prophets” refer to the entire Old Testament. (cf. 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Rom. 3:21).

                Jesus’ fulfillment would extend to the smallest Hebrew letter, the “jot” (lit., yôd), and even to the smallest stroke of a Hebrew letter, the “tittle.” In English a jot would correspond to the dot above the letter “i” (and look like an apostrophe), and a tittle would be seen in the difference between a “P” and an “R”.

                The meaning is that “not so much as the smallest loss of authority or vitality shall ever come over The Law or The Prophets.”

                Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                TWM: Page 30: Eichmann had no use for the NT. =Eichmann: “…there is not only the Old Testament which, in this regard, offers me nothing, by likewise I have no use for the New Testament...”

                What is the regard?
                “…My reasons were deeper, namely, I acted upon my conceptual understanding in regard to the validity of ultimate matters. And yesterday I saw again how wide the chasm separates me from the Evangelical interpretations. To mention but one example: there is not only the Old Testament which, in this regard, offers me nothing, by likewise I have no use for the New Testament…” [Eichmann]
                My conclusion, Eichmann did not believe that the Bible reflected reality.

                Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                TWM [During the execution] Eichmann was standing in the middle of the room. A hole had been cut in the floor and there is a plywood that now filled this hole. The platform was level with the floor. Eichmann stood on this platform. A heavy rope was coiled above his head and fasten to an iron frame. I stood in front of Eichmann, about two or three feet from him. I said to him, Jesus, Jesus, Herr Jesus, mein Heiland' - Jesus Jesus, Lord Jesus my Savior. He looked at me but gave no recognition or awareness of what I said...[William Hull, The Struggle for the Soul]

                TWM[As they were pouring Eichmann's ashes into the Mediterranean] “what more can I say for this man who had attained world notoriety as one of history's most monstrous assassins? He had one of the fairest trials in history. He had rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ. When told of salvation through Him Who had died for him, even for an Adolf Eichmann he boldly claimed that he needed no mediator no savior. ...[William Hull, The Struggle for the Soul]

                Ok, you may have a point here, but I need more context. What exactly did he mean? Did he mean he thought he was going to be saved? What?
                “I stood in front of Eichmann, about two or three feet from him. I said to him, Jesus, Jesus, Herr Jesus, mein Heiland' - Jesus Jesus, Lord Jesus my Savior. He looked at me but gave no recognition or awareness of what I said...” [Hull]
                Hull was reciting a quick prayer, that if Eichmann prayed out loud and believed in his heart, he would have been save. Eichmann ignored Hull.
                That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [Romans 10:9]

                “He had rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ. When told of salvation through Him Who had died for him, even for an Adolf Eichmann he boldly claimed that he needed no mediator no savior.” [Hull]

                As per Christianity salvation is only through Jesus Christ.
                For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. [Jn 3:16]
                Eichmann rejected Jesus Christ, rejecting Jesus Christ is rejecting the salvation offered by God. Therefore Eichmann sealed his eternal fate.

                Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                Ok, you may have a point. But again, even within Christianity, opinions vary widely.
                Unity if not uniformity. Yes there many Christian denomination, and they all do not agree on many issues, but they do agree on the essential ones.

                Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                TWM: My apologies that really got jumbled. Instead of the atheist or the theist setting the bar as to what is acceptable and what is not, let's use the bar set by courts of law. If this was a court proceeding where the existence of God is being debated, the theist presents his evidence, the atheists has to present reasonable doubt which requires evidence, or evidence for the non-existence of God. The atheists is not the jury so it's not up to the atheist to judge whether the existence of God has been proven or not, it's up to the atheist to prove the theist evidence false with evidence, or evidence for God’s non-existence. “Lack of faith” has no logical connection to “God does not exist”.

                No, no, no. By your reasoning, you have to believe in fairies if someone can't prove them false.
                I am not an expert on fairies, so I will substitute something I am an expert in, Santa Clause. [Parenting]
                Do we as adults disbelieve in Santa Clause because there is lack of evidence for his existence or because there is positive evidence that he does not exist. No factory at the North Pole, no reindeer sleigh sighted on the radar, we as adults buy all the toys, I ate the cookies and drank the milk, I was the one who threw broken carrots and horse manure on the front lawn. Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence.

                Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                You miss the point, which is, you can't prove it. By all means prove me wrong by disproving the teapot.
                The teapot in space lacks empirical adequacy=- is there an empirical way to verify this or is the idea so absurd that I cannot falsify it. It also does not correspond to reality. Before I argue against it, it would be your academic duty to present positive proof for the existence of a teapot in space. In any court of law it would be your job to present positive proof that the teapot is in space, to which I will present reasonable doubt. Therefore, the ball is in your court.

                Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                I can't remenber the context, but logicaly, we don't believe things until they are shown to be true. The existence of God has not been shown to be true. Prove me wrong by taking all of your evidences and arguments to academia and see how far you get. A nobel prize awaits anyone who can prove God exists. Can you do it?
                Your argument is particularly superficial, given the obvious impossibility of personally examining all the evidence relative to the matter. The fact that you may not have seen any evidence for God is meaningless, you most likely haven't seen any evidence for evolution or quantum mechanics and unless you are well versed in quantum mechanics you would not be capable of judging the evidence even if you were to examine it. You can state that no scientific evidence for God exists based on its absence from the scientific literature. But then there is no scientific evidence that you or your mother exist. Science is an excellent tool for increasing knowledge but it's far from the only means of obtaining it because scientific evidence is only one of the various forms of evidence. In almost every case an argument from lack of evidence indicates in whom one has elected the place once unquestioning trust.
                You have placed your unquestioning trust in atheism. You have a predetermined mindset not to accept anything miraculous, even if the miraculous appears before you.

                John Polkinghorne, quantum physicist wrote, “We now know that atoms themselves are made out of still smaller constituents (quarks, gluons, and electrons….we do not see quarks directly, but their existence is indirectly inferred)…Physicists can only see the "shadow" of these tiny particles, which make up all materials around us. A quark does not wave at you but following a rational series of deductions from the evidence we can conclude that they exist…The same applies for God. The probability of God appearing and waving at you is near zero.

                Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                TWM: Rather poor argument. You're basically arguing ‘why did God not create the universe the way I think He should of’. God is sovereign He creates as He wishes, He is not bound by what you want or what you think is best. Regardless, fine tuning or no fine tuning God still created the universe from nothing by the power of His word. Fine tuning a universe is insignificant when compared to the universe being created from nothing. Why did God fine tune the universe? According to the Bible, God created the universe to display His majesty, fine tuning would be equivalent to His signature. But notice the duplicity and the hypocrisy, above you argue that there is no evidence for the existence of God, God fine tuning the universe is evidence of His existence, and you argue why it's there.

                Can't remember the context. I think your arguments are poor.
                Can’t remember the context? Read above. And don’t just write that the arguments are poor, [that’s opinion]; show how there are poor.

                Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                TWM. Which is more reasonable, life arising from non-life without direction, or life arising from non-life with direction. The atheist possibility is a mathematical impossibility. Both explanations [atheist or theist] are miracles. But let’s put it to rest prove life arose from non-life. The ignorance is on the atheist side, why not disprove the statement, instead of calling it ignorance. Louis Pasteur proved spontaneous generation false, now you have the opportunity to prove it true.

                I think it more reasonable to go with evidence.
                Good, where is the evidence that life arose from non-life without intelligent direction?

                God Bless
                TWM

                Comment


                • Originally posted by towerwatchman View Post

                  Do we as adults disbelieve in Santa Clause because there is lack of evidence for his existence or because there is positive evidence that he does not exist. No factory at the North Pole, no reindeer sleigh sighted on the radar, we as adults buy all the toys, I ate the cookies and drank the milk, I was the one who threw broken carrots and horse manure on the front lawn. Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence.
                  That's the identical reasoning science uses to reject a 6000 year old Earth, created "kinds", and a literal Noah's Flood / Noah's Ark. A complete lack of evidence for their existence and plenty of positive evidence such events didn't happen.
                  "We have a pathological liar in the White House, unfit intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically to hold this office, and the whole world knows it, especially those around him every day." - Gregg Popovich

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tim H View Post

                    That's the identical reasoning science uses to reject a 6000 year old Earth, created "kinds", and a literal Noah's Flood / Noah's Ark. A complete lack of evidence for their existence and plenty of positive evidence such events didn't happen.
                    Again, don't tell me about it, post it.

                    Comment



                    • Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                      By all means, go for that Nobel prize with this.
                      Let’s start with a simple topic, the origination of the first living cell = life arising from non-life.
                      “The odds of the essential elements coming together over time by chance to form the initial building blocks of one cell is a statistical impossibility.
                      To construct even one short protein molecule of 150 amino acids by chance within the prebiotic soup there are several combinatorial problems – probabilistic hurdles- to overcome. First, all amino acids must form a peptide bond when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. If the amino acids do not link up with one another via a peptide bond, the resulting molecule will not fold into a protein. In nature many other types of chemical bonds are possible between amino acids. In fact, when amino acid mixtures are allowed to react in a test tube, they form peptide and none peptide bonds with roughly equal probability. Thus, with each amino acid addition, the probability of it forming a peptide bond is roughly ½. Once four amino acids have become linked, the likelihood that they are joined exclusively by peptide bonds is roughly [1/2]^4. The probability of building a chain of 150 amino acids in which all linkages are peptide linkages is {1/2**^149, or 1 chance in 10^45.

                      Second in nature every amino acid found in proteins [ with one exception] has a distinct mirror image of itself, there is one left handed version, or L form, and one right handed version, or D form. These mirror image forms are called optical isomers. Functioning proteins tolerate only left handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right handed and left handed isomers are produced with roughly equal frequency. Taking this into account further compounds the improbability of attaining a biologically functioning protein. The probability of attaining, at random only L amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 150 amino acids long is [1/2]^150 or roughly 1 chance in 10^45. Starting from mixtures of D and L form the probability of building a 150 amino acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L form is, therefore, roughly 1 chance in 10^90.

                      Amino acids link together when the amino group of one amino acid bonds to the carboxyl group of another. Notice that water is the byproduct of the reaction. [Condensation reaction].

                      Functional proteins have a third independent requirement, the most important of all, their amino acids, like letters in a meaningful sentence, must link up in functionally specified sequential arrangements. In some cases, changing even one amino acid at a given site results in the loss of protein function. Moreover, because there are 20 biologically occurring amino acids, the probability of getting a specific amino acid at a given site is small 1/20 [actually the probability is even lower because in nature, there are also may none protein forming amino acids.] On the assumption that each site in a protein chain requires a particular amino acid, the probability of attaining a particular protein 150 amino acids long would be [1/20]^150 or roughly 1 chance 10^195.

                      For 150 amino acid long protein you are looking roughly at 1x10^285.

                      But is this beyond the reach of chance, was there sufficient ‘probabilistic resources?” = Sufficient opportunities for this event to occur. Dembski calculated the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the beginning of the observable universe, to establish the upper boundary on the probabilistic resources. Dembski was able to calculate this number by multiplying three relevant factor together: the number of elementary particles [10^80] times the number of seconds since the big bang [10^16] times the number of possible interactions per second [10^43**. His calculation fixed the total number of events that could have taken place in the observable universe since the origin of the universe at 10^139.

                      In 1983 distinguished British cosmologist Sr. Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of producing the proteins necessary to service a simple one celled organism by chance at 1 in 10^40K.

                      [Stephen C. Meyer]

                      Life either arose by blind process or intelligent design. The above proves that life could not have arisen from blind processes, therefore intelligent design. Now you can either agree or prove it wrong with reasonable doubt. Waving it off based on personal opinion would be academically dishonest, and only partially acceptable on religious grounds.

                      Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                      Note the only molecules that are found anywhere in nature that exhibit such specified complexity and information is the gene expression system and the cell’s machinery. Everything else is redundant order or mere complexity. Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. This complexity had to be there in the beginning for life to have evolved into the atheist possibility. Using the same cause and effect’ principle used by Darwin, we can only conclude that the only known cause of information is intelligence.
                      Sorry, but if you look at the way chemistry works, the reactions within it are manifold.
                      Sorry, but that is not an answer based on science or nature but your opinion.

                      Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                      WIF: None of your listed arguments prove God, nor show God to the evidential standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. What they amount to, again, are arguments from ignorance. As I said, the more arguments there are that don't get you all the way to God, is in itself an argument against God.

                      TWM: What reasonable doubt, no one has presented any. They have presented imaginary or probable doubt, but as to reasonable =zero. And remember reasonable doubt carries evidence.

                      Context?
                      You ask me for context? Your statement. “None of your listed arguments prove God, nor show God to the evidential standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.”
                      The Anthropic Principle, The Transcendental Argument, The Teleological Argument, The argument from Aesthetic Experience, The Axiological Argument ,The Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument, The Argument from Religious Experience, The Anthropic Principle, The Resurrection, DNA complex and specified information.
                      Please be my guest, post your reasonable doubt, with evidence, to any of the arguments.

                      Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                      Look, I appreciate you have gone to trouble to answer my post in as much detail as you have, but leaving it so long makes it harder work to properly reply. I'm not a fan of long posts anyway. If you are going to reply, why not pick a few key points and stick to them?
                      One of my teachers once said, “You can smell a rose this way” [and smelled it with his nose]. Then he held it up to the back of his head and said “You can smell a rose this way.” The point is, somethings are easy to explain and prove, and some are not. I you are seriously seeking truth and are willing to go the length to find it, spending three minutes reading a post should be insignificant. And if you see yourself in the future as an authority on this subject, prepare to invest thousands of hours in research and study.

                      Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                      Michael Behe's term "irreducible complexity" is, to be frank, plainly silly — and here's why.
                      Let’s see what we can identify as ‘silly’. So let us address this step by step.

                      "Irreducible complexity" is a simple concept. According to Behe, a system is irreducibly complex if its function is lost when a part is removed1. Behe believes that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve by direct, gradual evolutionary mechanisms.
                      True:

                      However, standard genetic processes easily produce these structures.
                      Not a statement of science, for it contains nothing of nature or science. Proper scholarship would dictated that you now present these standard genetic processes that produce ‘irreducibly complex’ X.

                      Nearly a century ago, these exact systems were predicted, described, and explained by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist H.J. Muller using evolutionary theory. Thus, as explained below, so-called "irreducibly complex" structures are in fact evolvable and reducible. Behe gave irreducible complexity the wrong name.

                      Let’s establish terms. The author of the above does not know the basics of the argument. Evolution and NS are not one item but two. NS is the cause, evolution is the effect. Decent with modification through natural selection is the creation model the atheist present. Descent with modification, represents variations, and through natural selection means selection and accumulation in a direction.

                      Behe's argument
                      Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced directly by gradual evolution3. But why not? Behe's reckoning goes like this:
                      (P1) Direct, gradual evolution proceeds only by stepwise addition of parts.
                      (P2) By definition, an irreducibly complex system lacking a part is nonfunctional.
                      (C) Therefore, all possible direct gradual evolutionary precursors to an irreducibly complex system must be nonfunctional.

                      True:

                      Of course, Behe's argument is invalid since the first premise is false: gradual evolution can do much more than just add parts. For instance, evolution can also change or remove parts (pretty simple, eh?).

                      What would make it simple is if you were to provide proof from nature. Again the above is not a statement of science or does it contain anything of nature. It is a testimonial.

                      In contrast, Behe's irreducible complexity is restricted to only reversing the addition of parts. This is why irreducible complexity cannot tell us anything useful about how a structure did or did not evolve. The Mullerian two-step

                      Rather funny, you are stating that Behe is unable to explain how anything useful evolves or did evolve when the Darwinist is incapable of doing the same thing. It is simple, it is hard to explain how something took place when it never took place.

                      With Behe's error now in hand, we immediately have the following embarrassingly facile solution to Behe's "irreducible" conundrum. Only two basic steps are needed to gradually evolve an irreducibly complex system from a functioning precursor: Add a part.
                      Theoretically false, you have ‘fully functioning’ X which is not IC, and you add Y and it becomes Z which is IC? IC states that the removal of any part causes the function to cease. Reverse the equation. You have Z which you claim is IC and then remove Y and you now have X with is fully functional. Basic logic and reasoning.

                      Make it necessary.
                      Again no science, no nature. Explain. How does ‘descent with modifications through natural selection’ makes a function necessary?

                      As a scientific explanation, the Mullerian two-step is extremely general and powerful, since it is independent of the biological specifics of the system in question. In fact, both steps can happen simultaneously, in a single event, even a single mutation. The function of the system can remain constant during the process or it can change. The steps can be functionally beneficial (adaptive) or not (neutral). We don't even need to invoke natural selection in the process — genetic drift or neutral evolution will do4. The number of ways to add a part to a biological structure is virtually unlimited, as is the number of different ways to change a system so that a part becomes functionally essential. Plain, ordinary genetic processes can easily do both.
                      Note = happen simultaneously, single event, single mutation, remain constant, process, change functionally beneficial, natural selection, genetic drift, neutral evolution, add, part, structure, unlimited, number, different ,ways, system, essential. Plain, ordinary genetic processes can easily do both.
                      The above terms are not tied to nature, have nothing to do with nature, or dependent upon nature as other terms found in nature. Such as temperature [*F, *C] , distance [feet, meters], time [ hours, years], weight [lb, kg], volume [cubit feet], germs [ rabies, cholera ect.]. The above terms are attributed by the user, similar to other terms that do not exist in the physical world, such as far, near, hot, cold, ect.
                      These are testimonial terms, not found in nature.

                      For the reader.

                      To be quick. The cell has unique and complicated transportation systems within the cell. In particular we are discussing lysosomal enzymes which travel about one thousandth of an inch from the cytoplasm to the lysosome, yet requires the service of dozens of different proteins to ensure a smooth travel. I-cell disease is caused by a defect in the protein transportation pathway. The cells affected lack one of the machines in the long chain that takes proteins from the cytoplasm to the lysosome. Because of a defect the enzymes that were intended for the lysosome never make it there. Instead they are shunted off in the wrong vesicle to the cell's membrane and dumped into the extracellular space.

                      The cell is a dynamic system where new structures are being built and all structures are continually being degraded. All material waste product is bought to the lysosome for degradation. Children with I-cell disease, the garbage is dumped into the disposal as it should be, [the lysosome], but the disposal is broken, there is no degradative enzymes to decompose the structures. As a result the garbage piles up, the lysosomes get filled. In an attempt to accommodate the cell makes new lysosomes but these new compartments eventually get filled up, and over time the entire cell becomes bloated tissue becomes enlarged and the patient dies. Notice the child dies because of a single flaw in the cells protein transport pathway. Unless the entire system were immediately in place, our ancestors would have suffered a similar fate. Attempts at a gradual evolution of the protein transport systems are a recipe for extinction. [Michael J. Behe]

                      We call that irreducible complexity. This complexity had to be there in beginning for the atheist possibility to unravel.

                      BTW I will be busy this year and cannot attend the annual awards ceremony. I would appreciate it, if you could be in Stockholm to accept my award and say a few words. [I will write you speech.]
                      God Bless
                      TWM

                      Comment


                      • Oh, look. TWM is reposting the same nonsense again.

                        Now wait for him to complain I'm not engaging, while it has been months now since his last attempt to address my previous posts.
                        "It is a kindness neither to science nor religion to leave unchallenged inadequate arguments for the existence of God... Belief cannot be alive & relevant unless it is responsive to the most serious criticism that can be mustered against it." - Sagan

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Spacemonkey View Post
                          Oh, look. TWM is reposting the same nonsense again.

                          Now wait for him to complain I'm not engaging, while it has been months now since his last attempt to address my previous posts.
                          Cool the ego, courtesy dictates to answer in the order they were received.
                          Last edited by towerwatchman; 10-13-17, 11:40 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Spacemonkey View Post
                            Oh, look. TWM is reposting the same nonsense again.

                            Now wait for him to complain I'm not engaging, while it has been months now since his last attempt to address my previous posts.
                            Yep. It's just a verbatim regurgitation of the same plagiarized nonsense he's posted and seen rebutted a dozen times before. Quantity seems to matter much more to him than quality.
                            "We have a pathological liar in the White House, unfit intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically to hold this office, and the whole world knows it, especially those around him every day." - Gregg Popovich

                            Comment



                            • Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                              For a start, evolution is the most well evidenced subject in all of science.
                              Again a statement that contains no science of nature in it. But let’s continue. If such a process as natural selection’s gradual creation of new life forms ever took place then the fossil record should contain billions upon billions of incomplete creatures in various stages between two fully formed creatures. We should find the original parents, then a series of incomplete intermediates, both good variations that accumulate to form the new creature and the multiple rejected variations, and finally the fully formed new creature. Now following Darwinian scripture ‘descent with modification through natural selection’ necessitates that new bodies form through selected ‘good’ variations that formed accumulations that became each new organ, body part, and complete architecture. The modification in ‘descent through modification’ are the parts that are incomplete, the variations that are accumulating over millions of years. So a gradually created new creature would appear on the fossil record 1% formed gradually increasing till 100% formed over millions of years alongside multiple rejected variations. The fossil record contains zero evidence, intermediate or rejected intermediate fossils. There exist zero evidence of any new life form evolving from a previous life form. Everything disappears from the fossil record as it appears. Again it is not science it's a religious testimonial.

                              Why do you think the only alternative to God is the universe coming from nothing?
                              I don’t believe in any alternative. I argue against NS because it is false and taught in school as a science when in fact it is a religion; side stepping the separation of church and state.

                              As for life and your point, just because there isn't a complete explanation for something now doesn't mean there isn't one.
                              This is known as appealing to possibility. When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true, but because it is possible that it is true, or it has not been demonstrated to be impossible not matter how improbable. This also falls under argument from ignorance. The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.
                              The reason why there is no evidence of life arising from none life is because it never happened.

                              Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                              TWM “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [Charles Darwin = On The Origin Of Species.]
                              Slight Quotemine there, as you left out the next sentence, being, "But I can find out no such case". Why leave that out?
                              You really think it makes a difference? So let’s satisfy your objection.
                              “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. ” [Charles Darwin = On The Origin Of Species.]
                              I don’t see how this makes a difference. The objective is Darwin’s statement that if IC is proven true his theory of Evolution by NS false. True Darwin did not record any such findings. But that is irrelevant to the discussion. I Cell Dx is proof of IC.

                              Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                              Rather narrow view of reality. Difference between Darwin and Einstein was that Einstein did produce works that were based and supported by science. Darwin never did.
                              What Darwin did, was science.
                              Let’s repost.
                              Darwin's origin of species is one long argument, which is a process of marketing and proselytization, but not science. Same as the models used for major religions, Darwin presents nothing that is self-evident in nature, something that Darwin can ‘say look here it is’. In Origin of Species there are no experiments, no equations, no observations, no measurements, basically no science. Everything in his book is either persuasion, re-visualization, probabilities, subtle consequences of minute chance in changes, constantly drawing on analogies between what we do know and what we do not know. One major difference between religion and Darwin's Origin of Species is that Darwin claimed his book as science ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as ‘testimonial science”.

                              Should take note, Darwin had a unique way of writing, He claims to be a scientist, but does not write using terms found in nature but testimonial terms. As you read it you will encounter, ‘if’, ‘I believe’, ‘I think’, ‘perhaps’, ‘maybe’, ‘I suspect’, ‘on this view’, along with personifications, correlations, extrapolations, analogies, and metaphors. For example, as to cause and effect, the effect is ‘evolution’ the cause is ‘survival of the fittest.’ The term ‘fittest’ is not tied to nature, has nothing to do with nature, or dependent upon nature as other terms found in nature. Such as temperature [*F, *C] , distance [feet, meters], time [ hours, years], weight [lb, kg], volume [cubit feet], germs [ rabies, cholera ect.]. Fitness is attributed by the user, similar to other terms that do not exist in the physical world, such as far, near, hot, cold, ect. [Irrational Atheism]

                              Originally posted by Whatsisface View Post
                              TWM: 148M dead over 90 years was just an amazing coincidence of every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism
                              This sort of statment comes up here a lot. Sorry, but what do you propose by it?
                              Let’s post the topic in its entirety.
                              The total body count for the 90 years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of 52 atheist, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire 20th century combined. The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse than the annual basis that Christianity's worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole hell bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was the Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with the red hand... If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not 1 in 1000 religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but 52 incidents in 90 years reeks of causation”. {Vox Day: The Irrational Atheists : Dissecting the holy trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens.**

                              God Bless
                              TWM

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tim H View Post

                                Yep. It's just a verbatim regurgitation of the same plagiarized nonsense he's posted and seen rebutted a dozen times before. Quantity seems to matter much more to him than quality.
                                Nice to see that your time at the computer has been increased at the ALF. This is a forum that discusses truth. Truth does not have to be reinvented. Refuted is a prepubescent term being thrown around. I post the same because it has not been refuted, so why reinvent the wheel. [that round thing that your chair sits on]. Now if you think you are capable of refuting my post, and are able to articulate the material in a coherent mature fashion, and cite your sources be my guest.

                                BTW: Based on your post I doubt you could. Seems you consider my post long, that only comes from individuals who rarely read a book. Takes approx 2 minutes to read, you consider that long? And you want to discuss science as an authority on it. Stick to your expertise [regular bowel movements]. Or just keep rolling your eyes, that seems to be the only thing you can do right. [In other words; you inadvertently stated you have no reading skills.]

                                Last edited by towerwatchman; 10-13-17, 12:04 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X