Darwin's theory

SW wrote: »

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

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

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

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

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

kingchess wrote: »

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

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

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

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

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

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gintonious wrote: »

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

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

Gintonious wrote: »

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

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

Gintonious wrote: »

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

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

Gintonious wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gintonious wrote: »

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

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

Gintonious wrote: »

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

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

Gintonious wrote: »

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

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

Saganist

J C wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

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

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

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

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

J C wrote: »

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

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

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

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

Saganist

J C wrote: »

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

What is your opinion then of the outcome of the Dover trial ?

Here's a snippet of the courts decision:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]

I can bold stuff too

Chunners wrote: »

That little piece of math you keep posting doesn't prove intelligent design or anything of the sort, it just shows that there were a lot of possible ways (including the current one) that the universe could have went but didn't. No matter how high the odds the mere fact that the universes current configuration was possible proves that there is no need for a creator because it was already possible as is proven by the fact that we are here.

We are here allright ... but there are two basic hypotheses for how we got here ... by Special Creation ... or by creating ourselves.
ID proves that it was impossible for life to create itself ... something that we also know from our every-day experiences.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

We are here allright ... but there are two basic hypotheses for how we got here ... by Special Creation ... or by creating ourselves.
ID proves that it was impossible for life to create itself ... something that we also know from our every-day experiences.

ID proves. NOTHING.

Uncle Ruckus

Science may not have all the answers yet but it sure has a pretty damn good track record. Far better than a talking snake and a magic apple.

J C wrote: »

We are here allright ... but there are two basic hypotheses for how we got here ... by Special Creation ... or by creating ourselves.
ID proves that it was impossible for life to create itself ... something that we also know from our every-day experiences.

No actually, Intelligent Design proves nothing of the sort, as a matter of fact it "proves" nothing at all, all it does is put forth a hypothesis that with all the possible combinations the universe could have went the odds of this one would be pretty high but that proves nothing, the odds of any combination would be equally high so this one had just as much chance as any other ergo was equally possible ergo there was no need for a creator. Your use of the word "Impossible" is a misdirection thats all, it wasn't impossible it was just highly improbable but non the less still possible.

Saganist wrote: »

What is your opinion then of the outcome of the Dover trial ?

Here's a snippet of the courts decision:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]

I can bold stuff too

Firstly, can I point out that the court stated that the ID arguments may be true ... and made no ruling in relation to the validity or otherwise of ID:-
Quote:-
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position,

Secondly, lets examine the reasoning behind this decision (my comments in blue):-
(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; Centuries old ground rules that prevent supernatural causation being examined, even where the cause was clearly supernatural (a construct of Practical Atheism and the desire to remove God from all spheres of thought).

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; All functional specified systems, whether artificial or living are observed to be irreducibly complex ... i.e. made up of steps and component parts whereby if only one step or one component is removed, the system ceases to be functional. This is a repeatably observable, i.e. scientific fact.

and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. Not true, as even a casual observation of this thread and many more like it proves. Evolutionists are unable to provide any plausible materialistic mechanism for the production of the CFSI found in living things and they conflate the Natural Selection of CFSI with its origins.

…It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. All of which is due to the first cited Catcch 22 that ID "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation" ... thereby making it impossible to generate peer-reviewed publications because ID is outlawed a priori by science (in its current exclusively materialistic incarnation). It's like saying "you can't do that" (peer-review something with a supernatural cause) ... and then blaming you for not doing it ... even thought you aren't allowed to do it, in the first place.

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. More of the 'only Atheistic beliefs can be tested by science' stuff that rules out supernatural causes ... even where the cause was clearly supernatural, as with life.
Great stuff if you are an Atheist and you can get away with privileging your worldview to the point where science only accepts explanations in line with your belief that God doesn't exist ... and a priori bans the consideration of all hypotheses involving God ... regardless of the weight of logic and evidence in their favour ... or the paucity of logic and evidence in favour of the Atheistic alternative.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

And yet not you nor anyone in this thread so far have proved to me how is logic and rational is against god you keep saying that their is no evidence but am not looking for evidence am looking for a logical argument as to why god does not exist and no one seems to find any your trying to hard to deny the truth my friend.

I think you should be asking if there is there any logical reason why there should or must be a god. There isn't.

There are detailed explanations as to the origins of the universe and the species. Even if we can't answer all the questions, that doesn't logically mean there must be.

Yiu should also ask if God is a logical explanation. He clearly is not. Certainly the biblic/abrahamic god is far from logical.

A god who creates man in his own image, who he grants free will, and then gets mad when man acts in accordance with his nature (which he got from god).

A god who claims to love all yet commits genocide, murder, slaughtered the innocent and condemns rape victims.

Yiu should also ask does God and the biblical narrative logically fit with what we know of the earth, it's origin and man's origins.

Clearly ir doesn't - it's totally at variance with what we know. So the creation narrative is a lie. Is God lying to us in his holy book logical?

So clearly the only person not using logical here is yourself. I realise that won't sink in for you - because you clearly don't want it to.

Brian Shanahan

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

<snipping of mealy mouthed insults, ill-formed arguments and illogical lies>

Seriously, after this last post I'm done with you. Unless and until you offer a full apology to every poster you've insulted and denigrated on this thread with your constant ignoring of their rebuttals to your claims, I see no point in even reading a single more word you post.

You are simply worthless to me, to yourself and to all other posters here, when you go on like you are currently.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Nobody claims we created ourselves.

... its even worse ... Evolutionists claim that the Universe and all life created itself.
... at least Humans creating other Humans doesn't violate the principle that every effect has a similar or greater cause ... whereas the 'evolution' of Humans from Pondslime does.!!!

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Best give the court a call and tell them they got it wrong then :rolleyes:

The Court got it 'right' on the basis that Practical Atheism dominates science to the point where it only accepts explanations in line with the belief that God doesn't exist ... and has an a priori ban the consideration of all hypotheses involving God ... regardless of the weight of logic and evidence in its favour.

That science should be Atheistic to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... is something that science may need to re-consider ... and not the courts.

J C wrote: »

The Court got it 'right' on the basis that Practical Atheism dominates science to the point where it only accepts explanations in line with the belief that God doesn't exist ... and has an a priori ban the consideration of all hypotheses involving God ... regardless of the weight of logic and evidence in its favour.

That science should be Atheistic to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... is something that science may need to re-consider ... and not the courts.

What "Overwhelming evidence" would this be?

PopePalpatine

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

I think J C has made previous claims in A&A about "evidence" for creationism being "suppressed". :rolleyes:

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Evolution claims absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe or life. Are you sure you're a qualified scientist?

Please read exactly what I said ... I've emboldened the crucial words below.

J C wrote:

... its even worse ... Evolutionists claim that the Universe and all life created itself.
... at least Humans creating other Humans doesn't violate the principle that every effect has a similar or greater cause ... whereas the 'evolution' of Humans from Pondslime does.!!!

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think J C has made previous claims in A&A about "evidence" for creationism being "suppressed". :rolleyes:

Not just me ... we have it on the authority of the Judge that Saganist quoted:-

Quote:-
Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

... so there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into the evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.

... its not just 'suppression' ... its an outright ban ... confirmed by Evolutionist scientists themselves under oath to a court.

When it comes to 'origins', science has been made into a 'one trick pony' ... that only allows the evidence for Evolution ... to be considered by Evolutionists ...
... with No Intelligence Allowed.

J C wrote: »

Not just me ... we have it on the authority of the Judge that Dr Jimbob quoted:-

Quote:-
Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

... so there is an outright ban on any research and its publication, where the research is into evidence for the supernatural origin of life - even though all logic and physical evidence is pointing in the direction of God.

... its not just 'suppression' ... its an outright ban ... confirmed by the scientists themselves under oath to a court.

Again I ask where is all this "logic and physical evidence" for your anthropomorphic personification?

housetypeb

That science should be Atheistic to the point of denying overwhelming evidence for the action of God ... is something that science may need to re-consider ... and not the courts.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to ask Mr Science to reconsider his position when we meet later for some baby ribs.:pac:

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Yet another unfounded assertion ... with nothing cited to back it up!!!

Is this the best you can do?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I didn't quote that :pac:

You're correct Saganist did ... and the Judge was the author