751. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58072 by BillySands on July 23, 2007 at 9:22 am

Hi bouwe. It's a pretty diverse thread at the start. I guess the prophecy stuff changes a bit. There is some early stuff on whether it was prophesied that jesus would be born to a virgin in Bethlehem. Then Mark proposed that Deuteronomy 28 was a prophecy about Rome, and there is some stuff about the book of Daniel. Then there is some evolution stuff and some stuff about prophecies concerning the destruction of Tyre. I try to keep a way from the strangeness that is DG. The good thing about the prophecy stuff is that it is largely testable, and I think this is the best evidence that a theist could present. I hope Mark wont mind too much if I say it doesn't live up to its potential :-)

If I change my mind about my favourite color in mid-sentence am I going to get thrown off into the Valley of What-ya-m-call-it?

No, we use the bridge of Death on this thread. Those valley of What-ya-m-call-it folk are bastard splitters! We will not have them mentioned here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b4bGAoVR7g

752. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58033 by BillySands on July 23, 2007 at 3:57 am

Go the falcons! I think this has only just started to happen, so I guess the falcons may catch up soon. It would be interesting to see how. We have pigeons and seagulls here. Apparently there is one for every person in Scotland. I'd like to know where I can collect my free one and feed it to the local fox

753. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58023 by BillySands on July 23, 2007 at 3:19 am

Anyway- perhaps we could occupy ourselves in the meantime by trying to work out what the hell Mark's Avatar is supposed to be.

I think it may be an Owl Butterfly. This is an example of automimicry. When threatened it opens its wings and predators see two huge Owl like eyes staring at them. A wonderful example of adaptation through evolution - I'm sure Mark might disagree. There are some studies actually showing a change in pigeon rump pattern being driven by Falcons. It is thought a white patch infront of the tail confuses falcons as the pigeons roll to evade the attack. Paint normal ones white there and they are more likely to evade and survive attacks

754. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #58015 by BillySands on July 23, 2007 at 2:15 am

No worries Mark, although I've probably fogotten what we were discussing :-)

755. Darwin or Design

Comment #57596 by BillySands on July 20, 2007 at 4:59 am

Oh well… looks like I'm late onto a debate again

That's what happens when you buy a watch made by a blind watchmaker - design flaws :-)

756. Darwin or Design

Comment #57583 by BillySands on July 20, 2007 at 2:58 am

If I do, would you object to my reposting your answers on this thread?

I think many of us would read read them. I dont know why he doesn't want to discuss on a forum that challenges his views. There isafter all no better way to test the validity of your views than getting your toughest critics to attack it. Good luck Quetz and keep us posted if you do. Just a slight word of caution though, I have personally seen creationists take things from such debates out of context and use them as propaganda. This is the standard that many stoop to http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1351,Rival-to-evolution-may-enter-schools,Adam-Forest#53288 Although I believe there is an article on this site about an honest creationist, so there are some

757. Darwin or Design

Comment #57582 by BillySands on July 20, 2007 at 2:41 am

Nope. I wont be goaded by you give it up.

Really, so what are you doing answering me then? You are the one trying to goad me by suggesting cowardice. I've displayed my willingness here - you ran off to mummy

I don't care for a debate I think it is a waste of time especially in a place like this.

So why are you here? You are being a bit petulant here. You were invited to explain your position by quetz. You can always put your fingers in your ears with anyone you dont want to engage with. I suspect it is a symptom of the fact that ID has no evidence and all it's arguements have been blown appart

Only because Darwin or Design got mentioned in the news article.

But you expect us to play by your rules. Lets face it, you didn't exactly get off to a good start here now. Did you?

Not at all. You seem sufficiently confused that you think ID is not compatible with common descent. If you want a reasoned discussion at least give the impression that you understand the issue well enough not to spout complete nonsense.

Ooh, sounds like I'm being told of by an angry gerbil here. Tremble tremble. I am aware that Behe claims that he believes in common decent, although his latest book makes me wonder about that. The problem is that Darwinism does not allow for things like eyes, flagella, blood clotting, VDJ recombination etc to be designed. Like most creationists, you are ignorant of the basics of Darwinian evolution. It is incompatible with the idea of design

Actually your use of the term "evolution denier" is an allusion to the concept of Holocaust Denial.

Actually, the term evolution denier refers to some one who denies the overwhelming evidece for evolution and instead prefers to so submit to ignorance and proclaim "god did it". How you got on to Hitler says more about you than me.

Have a nice day.

PS come back if you actually have anything to contribute. From what I've seen of you so far, you wont actually present a case, but will just deliver ad homs, twist meanings and assume to know what people think.
Auchtung! Wo meine Stulpenstiefel sind? (holocaust denial - really!)

758. Darwin or Design

Comment #57520 by BillySands on July 19, 2007 at 3:40 pm

I've offered to make a stronger case in a more neutral forum. Should I take it as cowardice on your part that you have not taken that up ?

Sounds like you're the one running away matey. If I came on your forum and presented no evidence, then you could criticise me. If you wanted to debate, you could have done it here. You are on our forum afterall. We have seen nothing in your posts to make it look worth our while - typical of creationists really.

Not that your later comment indicates that you are open to reason or understand the issue though

Ah, another unjustified ad hom (creationists are good at this and poor on data) It is even more amazing that you say this as I have just told you what will change my mind. If you had such evidence, there would be no arguement - tell you what, I'll settle for the silurian instead. I wonder what you would take as evidence that you are wrong? You have been asked this politely by Quetz amongst others - and evaded responding. Could it be that you are actually evolving into chicken?

This pretty much violates the spirit of Godwin's Law.

Only if I was comparing you to the Nazis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't. I really must stop being willing to be swayed by evidence, so I can fit your ignorant stereotyping - like I say I dont see any evidence that it would be worth debating you
I'm really off to bed now.

759. Darwin or Design

Comment #57509 by BillySands on July 19, 2007 at 3:07 pm

If this guy actually presented any real evidence, then he would be able to have a debate. ID is nothing more than a wilful submission to personal ignorance. This has been clearly demonstrated time and time again for all Behe's claims. As an immunologist, I cringed when he said that evolution could never account for antibody recombination - what a poorly thought out and sweeping statement. Even then there were folk working on this field. Then come the dover county ID trial, he was presented with wads of data that he wasn't even aware of. Ignorance is not a reason to believe in design.

Rant over, I'm off to bed

PS to give the evolution deniers a chance, I'll settle for rabbits in the ordovician instead of the precambrian - that gives them an extra few hundred million years of fossil record to play with - I wont hold my breath

760. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57393 by BillySands on July 19, 2007 at 6:24 am

I personally dont have a problem with attacking those who attack me or my values. I'm not going to stay quiet when there are creationist retards out there spouting lies, or when some brain dead moron says that "the devil is the author of secular values y'all - By the way bud, have you already got dibs on yer sister or can I have a shot? Let's nuke them muslims sodomites!"

I also find that debating reasonable types makese me even more aware of how wrong it is to believe in gods.

761. Darwin or Design

Comment #56733 by BillySands on July 17, 2007 at 4:23 am

BILLY SPEAK TO US!

Go forth and bring me gifts of orange sherbet.

Actually has anyone seen CJ22's new avatar - that does provide some evidence for resurrection - ooh err missus ;-)

But I am Displeased that Billy is not crediting me with his recovery.

Ah The concussion is gone and I now acknowledge quetzdidit. He foresaw it and placed me next to the hospital. By the way, can you fix it for me to meet the model in CJ22s picture - that I may clone her for the good of all mankind - and your glory

762. Darwin or Design

Comment #56728 by BillySands on July 17, 2007 at 4:15 am

Phew, that was a close call guys - dont worry I've not been ressurected or anything like that, I just work next door to the local hospital. As usuall, there is a rational explanation.

763. Darwin or Design

Comment #56719 by BillySands on July 17, 2007 at 3:33 am

Big Yawn for the sciphishow.
Go find me some rabbits in the precambrian and then you may have something worth listening to - oh no, I've admitted evidence will sway me - but I'm supposedly dogmatic and religious - does not compute does not compute -BOOOM!

764. Fears Grow Over 'Mega Mosque'

Comment #56717 by BillySands on July 17, 2007 at 3:26 am

I see the petition was a christian one - how tolerant of them

765. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56532 by BillySands on July 16, 2007 at 7:04 am

Hi Mark, was bracing myself for an enormous reply there.
I do believe there is quite abit of truth in the history of the bible - although, like any document written with an agenda, there are many errors too. There are anachronisms concerning Grerar and Moab. JC previously pointed out an error in the title of Nebuchadnezzar. The exile only lasted 49 years (not 70) and Sennacherib actually won in 701 BCE, and certainly did not die. There is also the date of the nativity, and Archaeological evidence points to jericho not having a wall at the time of joshua, and Ai was not inhabited then either. The Kingdom of David seems to have been grealy exagerated in size - to name a few off the top of my head, so I dont think it is a totally reliable history book - then there are the creation accounts and the flood - those never happened. In fact, the flood is clearly refuted

766. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56340 by BillySands on July 15, 2007 at 6:26 am

Mark,
Sorry to increase your workload, but that Pilate business has got me wondering, what exactly was the case against the existence of Babylon. Shaun mentioned this before as an example of how sceptics were wrong in the past. From what I can see the existence of Babylon was always well supported. I worry this may be an attempt by christians to pretend they have one over us, when no such serious claim was ever made - just like Pilate. I certainly am not accusing you of dishonesty here, but sometimes things we trust turn out to be false when we check them out properly.

767. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #56157 by BillySands on July 14, 2007 at 6:33 am

Lee

"I will have to cut my hair short…. NNNNooooooo"

I should think so too

1 cor 11:14 "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,"

I'm allowed long hair because I'm an apostate and going to hell

768. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #55984 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 5:07 am

So if that is Samson in the Judges quote, what prophesy is Matthew referring to in his gospel? I am going cross eyed...

As well you should, but that doesn't stop apologists claiming it is about jesus. In Comment #55847 I mention the return from Egypt to fulfil that prophecy. However, click on the link to hosea 11:1-2 and you will see that the son here is not jesus, but the sinful nation of Israel - another attempt by Matt to make jesus appear to be divne

769. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #55979 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 4:57 am

Hi Quetz,
I think they are separate, and the verse is about Samsom, but that has never prevented christians trying to claim a verse about someone else is supposed to be about jesus - Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:2 being good examples. It all seems that the life of jesus was constructed around other (non relevant) prophecies in an attempt to make him appear to be divine.
I have seen a few sites where fundies (usually barking mad inerrantists) claim the verse about samson is about Jesus and nazareth though - This truely is clutching at straws.
I would be interesting to hear Mark's take on it.

770. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #55967 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 3:56 am

I found the inscription its a bit like saying witches are real because Salem exists really

Be sure to get your favorite colour right or else :-)

Thanks for the gift J - I found Danielos too "different" to get involved with, but hats off to those who had the patience

771. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55954 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 3:03 am

Hey bizzaro, we are still waiting to hear you explain chicken's teeth on the inferior design thread

772. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #55948 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 2:35 am

Could someone tell me exactly what inscription was discovered the other day

773. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #55847 by BillySands on July 12, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Concerning Nazarareth, there seems to be some confusion in the bible as to whether jesus was from bethlehem or Nazareth
Matthew 1:24-2:1
When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea...

vs

Mark 6:1
"He [Jesus] left that place and came to his hometown of Nazareth"

There is also confusion concerning how Jesus got to Nazareth. Matthew says Jesus went from bethlehem to Egypt (actually, there is a problem with that prophecy too - it is not about Jesus )then Nazareth. Luke says he went via Jerusalem

this thread is no longer the longest one on the site

To catch up, what's everyones favorite colour?

Mine is red

774. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #55763 by BillySands on July 12, 2007 at 7:14 am

Hi Mark, Just back and you bombarded with more questions, we should give you some peace :-).

Experiments are performed routinely now where DNA can be deleted from organisms and no effects are noticed, so this claim is backed up by experimental evidence - sometime even deleting functional genes has no effect on the organism. We actually have a non functional form of a gene for vitamin C deficiency. It has become corrupt and cant work. It makes no difference to us because we get enough vitamin C from our diet. It is therefore junk, but reflects our evolutionary past, when our recent ancestors had a functional copy.

Josephus mentions Pilate(Antiquities 18:3:1,) "But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws." The vere is not in relation to Jesus so I am more inclined to believe that is true than the testimonium flavium, which has some big problems associated with it. I didn't doubt pilate was real, I think Christians are making something out of nothing here.

only to be proved wrong themselves, as human knowledge increases?

Do you apply this philosophy to those who argue god's existence from incredulity? Sorry, another question :-)

775. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #55747 by BillySands on July 12, 2007 at 6:33 am

Welcome back mark.
There are a lot of things in the human body for which there is no function. Junk DNA being a particularly good example.
Your evidence about pilate however loses its punch, because I am fairly that sure Josephus mentions him.

776. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55742 by BillySands on July 12, 2007 at 6:26 am

Good detective work Donald. How did you ID Bizzaro? I checked DeWitt on pubmed. His publication record is poor and all in low impact journals.

I wonder if biz has become an atheist because of chicken teeth?

777. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55459 by BillySands on July 11, 2007 at 7:18 am

My commitment to my wife would be less firm...

And how would you then ensure the survival of your genes?

778. Praying to a milk jug

Comment #55435 by BillySands on July 11, 2007 at 5:00 am

my God does this..."

The real problem here Philip that no God does anything.
I'm glad my struggles with geometry have been of value to you, it puts it all in perspective. Praise the TV set! May quetz protect you from the dark TV set aka "Evil Edna"

779. Praying to a milk jug

Comment #55420 by BillySands on July 11, 2007 at 4:01 am

It seems that when folk want you to believe, they say god will answer your prayers. It seems that when you do believe, people spend all their time trying to explain why god doesn't answer their prayers.
There is always the god doesn't answer because he is disciplining - teaching you more about himself and his will arguement. The trouble with that is that you dont need a god. All you need is an assumed set of values that you want to focus on (usually the god loves you ones of the NT and not the god wants you to kill and eat babies ones of the OT).
I was having a similar disussion on my old ministers blog this week - a christian would no doubt see more than coincidence here. I was using the illustration that I could pray to my TV set and that way find out if it wants me to apply for an expensive peice of equiptment for my lab (you always have to apply though, they never just magically appear). If i get it, I say yes, the TV set wants to bless the work. If I dont, I contemplate the nature of my TV set by reading the manual. I notice my TV set is a rectangle, the apparatus I want is square. The TV set is obviously telling me not to put trust in non rectangular objects - Praise the wisdom of the TV set! By not getting what I want, I've learned that squares are evil. I then ask for a rectangular shaped alternative - If I get it, praise the TV! If I dont, well, the TV wants me to watch it alone, maybe the TV set wants me to focus on it and not not waste my time studying practical things like inflammatory cardiovascular diseases -Praise the TV! etc
Think I've had too much caffiene today :-)

780. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #55205 by BillySands on July 10, 2007 at 8:44 am

Couldn't watch more than a few minutes of that pile of shite before my stomach churned and I vomited blood because of the absolute inanity of it

781. Neutral evolution has helped shape our genome

Comment #55162 by BillySands on July 10, 2007 at 6:45 am

On one level, an example of bad design. On another level, it is good for the mitochondrial DNA. This is only inherited from the mother, so a fathers' mitochondrial DNA is at a dead end. At least some of this DNA can now be transmitted by the father. Since it does nothing, yet gets transmitted at the expence of host energy resources, would "parasitic DNA" be a better term.

782. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55099 by BillySands on July 10, 2007 at 2:42 am

Interesting essay on the evolution of morality here http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/evolpsych.html

783. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55090 by BillySands on July 10, 2007 at 2:19 am

Going to try not to get drawn into the morality debate, but how do theists reconcile the fact that certain brain lesions alter the "moral sensor"? The only logical explanation is that it is solely a physical-chemical process?

Biz,
My question about hen's teeth too challenging for you?

784. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54805 by BillySands on July 9, 2007 at 2:55 am

Creationists will argue that mutations are the result of the fall, and I am inclined to agree.

Why? You deny evolution, yet you say this. Evidence? I will dgive you some evidence against this: There are lots of deformed fossils that are older than humans out there- short bones, twisted bones, bones with knobs on and two heaged embryos for example

In the context, I was obviously implying that the human body functions just as it is supposed to function if it was created by a Creator.

Evidence of a purpose please. BTW what harm did hamsters ever do that god should punish them and what do you think T rex ate before the fall?

This is irrelevant. It can also support common design. GM used the LT1 engine for Camaros and Corvettes, but no one is going to argue that the Corvette evolved from the Camaro.

No it isn't. I presume the LT1 is exactly the same in both cars. Mouse and fly genes are not exactly the same. Mouse and human genes are more alike, as are fy and beetle genes. The gene swap experiments show the sequence is irrelevant. Evidence of a common designer would be identical gene sequences- as in your fallacious analogy

Calling it all "evolution" and utilizing it in an attempt to prove common descent is just clouding the water.

No it's not, because it is all evolution. If you means something particular, then be specific.

Nothing more than useless duplications of features that were already pre-existent in the organism. Copying two pages of Harry Potter doesn't add any new information to the book does it? Now I am not exactly well-read on the first two examples, but I am aware that the extra set of wings on the fruit flies are totally non-functional.

Feally? I think you'll find that its not duplication. However, you might want to ask what those genes for tooth development are doing in toothless birds in the first place. Also a simple doubling of something can alter body plan in a gene dose way - evolution.
Also, you are setting yourself a straw man here. Duplication + mutation = new information. Do you deny duplications occur? Dou you deny mutation occurs?
This is how our opsin genes evolved - one has even duplicated part of the flanking sequence. The duplicated one aquired mutations that shifted wavelength sensitivity.

What I find logically challenging is trying to support common descent with mutations that are either neutral or destructive.

Now, we both know (i hope) that some mutations are beneficial. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2 http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

The Galapagos wingless beetle is a great example of evolution in action, but it cannot explain how the wings arose in the first place considering that the observed evolution is the exact opposite of what must occur in order for common descent to be a valid theory.

Really, that is not evidence against common decent - it is decended from winged ancestors, and has lost its wings. So what! Bet it still contains decaying genes for wings - just like chickens with teeth. How about the evolution of multicellularity in chlamydomonas an the presence of predators?

785. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54601 by BillySands on July 8, 2007 at 4:33 am

I don't quite understand what you're attempting to prove with this argument. The human body works just like the human body is supposed to work. What objective model to you have with which to critique the human design?

That implies purpose. What evidence do you have to back that up? The point is that we have an eye built a certain way because we had to use what was available to our anacestors. If we had mammals with mamalian type eyes and squid like eyes, you may have a point. However, we dont see that. Do you believe in a deceptful designer? It is the same when we look at gene sequences - mammals are more similar to each other than they are to insects. In fact the pax6 gene (which controls development of the eye) is interchangeable between mice and flies. So, sequences were not "designed" for a specific purpose, as you can effectively change the sequence and still produce a fully functional mouse or fly. The reason they vary is evolution. you dont need a particular sequence to make a mouse look like a mouse

That is not to say that we have not undergone substantial "devolution".

No, you mean evolution, unless you can show that we have changed from a "created" genotype in someway. Either way, that is still change and evolution.

I never argued that evolution doesn't occur; I only argued that the evolution we observe cannot be used to support common descent.

Please clarfy your position on evolution then

This is akin to the wingless Galapagos beetle argument that has been dismantled by creationists time and time again. The physiological features that were eliminated by the mutations in both cases may have served to ensure higher survival rates in their respective environments, but these selective advantages were only achieved through a loss of genetic information.

Maybe you need to understand what evolution actually is: change over time - drop the straw man of information. Anyway, why do you call this a loss of information? Any way, what the mutation does is confer new abilities on the protein - it can still transport oxygen, but can now sense low oxygen tensions and transfer that into structural changes. Sounds like a new information property of the protein to me, that is transmitted by the gene. Also, you do not need to gain genetic material to change body shape. You can change the timing and positioning of gene activation, or even lose DNA in the case of the ALX4 gene and hind paw morphology. Tell me, why do chickens sometimes produce teeth or dolphins an extra set of flippers, of fruit flies an extra pair of wings?

Just ask yourself this question: if you had to bet your life savings on how long a greyhound could survive in the wilderness compared to how long a wolf could survive in the wilderness, which would you choose? The greyhound may have one specific feature that is superior to a wolf, but it is lacking in other important areas such as jaw strength and intelligence, and it is still susceptible to many health problems that wolves are not.

I'm going to take a wild guess here, but you haven't researched the biomechanics of canine jaws - have you? If red deer go extinct, and all you have left to eat are rabbits, which do you think will be more sucessfull? Selective breeding shows it is possible for wolves to change in such a way - over a very short time-that they could evolve to chase faster and smaller prey. The health issue is also a red herring. Evolution does not optimise - it is constrained by the raw materials available to it. That is why certain genes like the sickle cell one survive. That is why we have design flaws and why some animals have better solutions than we do - like the squids eye - no blind spots or blood vessels running over the retina that can burst and blind the organism.
Also, what health problems do greyhounds have, or is this just hopeful thinking? Even if there are, some, like I say, it's not a problem

786. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #54444 by BillySands on July 7, 2007 at 6:23 am

Of course this is a pretty weak argument as for something to appear designed it must have the qualities of things that we know are designed

What? like something that has straight lines and repreating pattern? Like a copper sulphate crystal or a snow flake - oops, they're not designed, they just form

Similarly, as Davies and Hoyle and Hawking have pointed out it is highly improbable mathematically that the physical constants of the universe are the result of chance.

And? Who says we may not think differently one day? How is that evidence of a so called relational god? Its hardly up there with seeing him now is it. It really is just an arguement from ignorance.

This is really poor, Billy, especially for an intellectual like yourself. None of these examples even touch upon the question of design. In fact, short of some further elabaoration by your good self they don't even contradict Genesis.

Wll, if you think it is poor, then you are the one who needs to say why. Genesis says the universe (which is small) came into being over 6 days and that the sun was made after the earth - how is that not contradictory? Which of these 2 scenarios are more likely if the universe was designed?
1) The universe is young, contains one planet, and the oldest rocks contain fossilised remains of modern creatures.
2) the universe is 14 billion years old, there are billions of planets and the earliest known life (which is simple) occurs in old rocks that formed 10-11 billion years after the beginning of time. Furthermore, there are radically different life forms in different rock layers, with some forms linking different groups?

Well, I've yet to do this but in regard to selective breeding as Phillip Johnson has pointed out this is the purposeful work of intelligent human beings so the analogy to NS is flawed to say the least. Similarly, your appeal to'imagination'further serves to highlight the weakness of your case. This is not about lack of imagination its about lack of evidence - evidence for evolution.

strange comment to say the least considering your confession that you have not looked at the evidence. Not suprisingly, you miss the point. Selective breeding shows that large changes can happen in a very short period of time. So, imagine red deer go extinct and wolves then need to rely on prolific, smaller and faster prey, we know that is possible - it's called a greyhound!

Not at all. It is the scientists like Hawking, Hoyle, and Davies who are admitting that it is as if a super-intellect has been playing around with the laws of physics. I've simply shown that the attempt to dismiss a Designer by asking where did it come from is flawed. The evidence leads to a designer and the arguments against a designer are false. I don't dny you can come up with alternatives but I deny that they are the most reasonable.

See above! Also, you need to state why demanding to know the origin of the designer is flawed. All you have done is give him some properties without any justification, so I'm not just going to take your word for it - evidence please!
Your designer seems very deceitful. i'm guessing he must think you are wasting your time (as do we) since he has not made his designing hand obvious - infact every time we modify an organism, we are effectively saying - that was a bad design, lets fix it (maybe that's why 99.9% of his designs are extinct) Do you believe he designed pathogens too? You really are just saying "wow, we exist, and this book tells me why" - I'll pass on that thanks

the example of chimps was an ad hoc explanation.

Dont try and deflect. Answer why we have an intrachromosomal telomere sequence that inverts. Do it in such a way that both denies evolution and provides evidence of a creator

Nope, 99.9% of fossilevidence for evolution isn't there and the best examples eg Archaeopteryx are questionable. For a specialist to say it is no more than a perching bird is a denial of the claims you're making

Again you fail to provide evidence. Who is this specialist? Well actually, I dont need to know, unlike theists, I make my own mind up about evidence and dont say it must be true because the milk man says so - and he has a goldfish so it must be true. The fact is that the fragment of the fossil record we have is in perfect harmony with evolution. Small samples are more prone to random error, but the fossil record is consistent.

Answer some of the other guy's points too - I would love to hear what you think a transitionl species should be

787. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54062 by BillySands on July 5, 2007 at 6:52 am

Surely, ALL things - and certainly dogs - are absolutely subject to natural selection. In this particular instance humans may be taken as a process within natural selection and if a breed does not withstand the "oohs" and "aahs" of Crufts judges, then it will be deleteriously selected. Can someone comment upon this?

Good point Galactor, I've never thought of that before. It is those that are best adapted to the environment that are more likely to be selected. So big slobbery stupid dogs exploit an ecological niche ang perpetuate their advantageous genes

788. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54056 by BillySands on July 5, 2007 at 6:09 am

Dr. Dawkins, as much as I enjoy your scathing attacks on these people, I think it's about time to stop reading Behe, and stop giving him credence (and no doubt extra sales) by acknowledging him. His theory was publically torn to pieces, he has absolutely no credit among people with an IQ of over 80 and now you are simply kicking a man while he's down.

I generally find creationism is a mixture of ignorance and lies, with a political agenda. We need to keep showing the likes of behe and co to be the fools they really are. An example of a blatant lie I came across recently is this: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1351,Rival-to-evolution-may-enter-schools,Adam-Forest#53288

Some of them are probably posting in this thread, actually.

Think he's actually a flood believing YEC

789. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54025 by BillySands on July 5, 2007 at 2:28 am

Chihuahuas are certainly not as healthy as wolves

And??????? They are not subject to natural selection. My eye is not as good as that of an eahle or "constructed" as well as that of a squid. My back is a bad "design" and gives my lungs sloppy mechanical properties, unlike salamanders, I cant grow new limbs. My second chromosome has an extra centromere and internal telomeric sequences that invert. The scickle cell mutant causes disease, yet is an evolutionary advantage How many misrepresentations do you intend fitting into a post? Anomals have a tool kit of genes that allows gross morphological changes, so what is your point?

If anything, the different dog breeds are excellent examples of the often destructive power of mutations.

So, greyhounds are not faster than wolves then? Hmmm - try again. I'm sure some dog lovers could point out other "non degenerative" qualities of other breeds

Straw man alert:

Actually, in a Godless world ethics have no meaning or relevance in that morality implies choice. If I murder a toddler, you would all deem it "bad" and say that I ought not kill innocent children. However, "ought" implies "can", and "can" implies free will, i.e., the ability to choose. However, if we are naught but chemical masses, then I fail to see how any such choice isn't anything less than a logical absurdity. My "choices" are merely complex chemical reactions that were inevitable since the beginning of the Universe. In light of the scientific challenge to free will, the concept of "choice" becomes silly, and with it, the idea of morality and ethics.

How about chemical processes allow you to shape a moral position - that is in harmony with an evolutionary past. How on earth do you come up with your ultimate predetermination sillyness?

790. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53981 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 3:45 pm

The fact that you can ignore 99.9% failure rate for evolution

Come to think about it, he cant be a very good designer if only 0.1% of his designs are capable of surviving :-)

791. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53967 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Hi NLHB
How are you these days? Those CDs sound great

Billy

792. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53958 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 11:51 am

Hi quetz,
you are most welcome. Thanks for sorting out the selfish gene stuff. As I suspected, it was just another YEC lie. Naivety used to make me use the word misrepresentation in the past. Lie is a much better word. Here is another lie I came across recently:

just checked the truth in science joke site, Apparently there is a new design feature in the eye - shame they have no evidence of ths claim, I checked the flagellum page http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/240/63/
they cite this paper as evidence that the flagellum gave rise to the ttss and not the otherway around http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/17/7116
thet say

The authors disagree with the idea that the flagellum has evolved from the TTSS, and write that TTSS genes are "derived from" (p. 7120) flagellar genes. There is some evidence that the simpler structure of the TTSS could have evolved from the more complex structure of the flagellum, not vice versa.

However, the paper actually says

"The structural features of the flagellum, along with the evidence of homology between FliI and ATP synthase subunits and between MotA/B and the secretion proteins TolQ-TolR, suggests that it originated as a primitive secretion system (16), first involving ATPase and then adding the rod, hook, and filament components by gene duplication and diversification. Its original role as a secretion apparatus is also supported by the clear links between the flagellum and the TTSS, a protein delivery system whose genetic architecture is similar to and derived from a flagellar gene complex (17, 20)."

The paper also points out that some proteins are not necessary for flagellar function, further reducing its complexity.
Typical lying fundies!

Originally posted here

793. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53928 by BillySands on July 4, 2007 at 8:46 am

Now really GBG

Well, clearly you're talking nonsense a fact thats confirmed by all the books Prof dawkins has written trying to escape from the reality of Design in nature. Both the physicists and biologists like dawkins acknowledge the evidence for design and, indeed, in the early part of The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins criticises an atheist philosepher for being so naive in dismissing the need for an answer to this evidence.

Really? I haven't read much of the blind watchmaker, although my peers discussed it a lot (Richard forgive me). I think you actually mean interpretation, not evidence. Like I say, Evolution argues against design. The fact that the universe is so huge with so many planets and is so old and the fact that humans have only been around for an insignificant fraction of this time argue against design - I can see where your need to deny science comes from though.

'Who designed the designer" argument which is, as shown, irrelevant

Justify. It has not been shown to be irrelevant. All you have done is made a special pleading

Of course, this is also irrelevant because there exists no evidence that NS and RM can produce new characteristics or information.

Want a bet? look up opsin gene duplication and mutation. Look up selective breeding - look what can happen is only a few years - imagine you had billions to play with.

So, the fact remains that a designer is required by the evidence and it is logically possible that that Designer is not contingent or caused but is, in fact, Necessary

Erm no. this is really poor reasoning - considering you have not provided any evidence against evolution or indeed considered other possibilities - like the multiverse or the universe always existing in some form. It appears that you want there to be a designer, so you have logic filters in place.

No, they make no such "predictions". What they do is observe the data and then mould their theory to fit it which is what you're doing here.

What a total lie. Is this the best that you can do? I really am offended by this, and it is so typical of YECs. perhaps you may want to read this post and see some predictions that I made concerning the ordering of genes if this were true, then look at the results I came up with after comparing genomes:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,912,Pope-abolishes-limbo,The-Daily-Telegraph-Waterstones,page4#35871
Another embarassimg prediction (for fundies) was that there would be links between land mammals and whales - ever heard of Ambulocetus?

You then offer the totally unsupported ad hoc explanation above.

Erm, intra-chromosomal telometic sequences? and a decaying second centromere! as will as gene seguences - see above post

The allegation of "quote mining" is simply a fundamentalist atheist's way of conveniently ignoring the facts.

YAAAAWWWN! Wake me up when you have something other than conspiracy theories and unsupported ad homminems - remember. evolution is in no way, shape or frm the reason I am an atheist - Yawn!

facts are that 99.9% of the fossil evidence for evolution doesn't

Yet we still have Archaeopteryx and Ambulocetus! Your point is?

Archaeopteryx are debated (and even denied) by evolutionists.

Ah the old tactic of trying to exagerate differences. The view you refer to is by no means mainstream,or even very well supported - I presume this is why you have not presented an anatomical challenge - going stroppy and stamping your feet will not give archaeopteryx an anapsid skull for example

Well it does harmonise with the facts but you use a few examples to undermine the massive amounts of evidence testifying to its essential trustworthiness. The fact that you can ignore 99.9% failure rate for evolution and yet complain about Luke 2 demonstrates you're blinkered view

Finished your girlie outburst yet? No it doesn't make sence - joseph has two dads? (luke, 3 actually) contrived prophecies? historical inaccuracies - census of quirinius? God defeated by iron charriots? did jehoiachin have a sucessor or not? etc etc How does any of this contradict the facts of evolution?

Come on, I gave you a chance to disprove evolution - where are all those early mammals?

Well if evolution was true the Bible would be false.

The pope and Ken Miller disagree. Seriously though, if that is what it means to you, then try being honest with yourself about why you need to deny evolution. Like I say, I am not the one with an agenda to promote.

794. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #53844 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Hi SG, we can just set the big man on them


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8yQIg7ydbg

795. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #53838 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 1:22 pm

We wont let the bastards get us down. Here is an email i just got

two quotes from an eye-witness.........John Smeaton (these
are real) John just surpassed himself on the National ITV news. The
interviewer asked "What message do you have for the bombers" - he
replied:
"This is Glasgow - we'll just set about you"

John done an interview on CNN and they asked how he restrained the guy
and he said "Me and other folk were just tryin tae get the boot in and
some other guy banjoed him" !

Apparently John Smeaton now has his own site http://www.johnsmeaton.com/

796. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53812 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 10:22 am

GBG

Totally incorrect as you know. I am not asserting that "God is no longer necessary"

so you mean he is? well you did say

and necessary (eg God).

well, you still haven't justified this statement

but rather that the mere POSSIBILITY of the existence of a Necessary Being doesn't mean that such a being exists.

What a thourughly feeble statement. What evidence do you have that there is a need for aneccessary being - any more than a necessary can of coca cola for existence?

This however is not the case because it is possible that the designer exists 'Necessarily'

Evidence? Not only do you invent a designer, but you give him particular qualities that prevents you questioning further. Suppose there was a designer, and he was designed. It seems you are being selective in your arguements and are trying to prove your point (and failing). Who designed the designer is a valid question, but there is no point in addressing that since there is no evidence of a designer

Again you're response is wrongheaded. The word 'illusion' is an INTERPRETATION of the data and not the most reasonable one but is, instead, an attempt to escape the obvious. Richard acknowledges that organisms are extremely complex and appear to be intelligently designed and his attempt to undermine the argument to design is unsuccessful.

No, evolution destroys design, not just who designed the designer. Evolutionists make predictions based on the evidence, that gets confirmed : chimps have one more chromosome than us, therefore 2 of ours fused after splitting from chimps. Further predictions include the existence os inta chromosomal telomeric sequences and an extra centromere in the fusion product - guess what, its chromosome 2 and all these exist. What do you have? god made man (or was it man, anoimal and people -or animals and people together?)

sorry Billy but note this from the site you cite:

Try reading the peer revievwed studies they quote. a review is not a piece of original research

When we previously discussed this I cited one of the world's leading authorities on birds and an evolutionist. He acknowledges that Archaeopteryx is merely a bird and not an intermediate.

From what I recall, you quote mined and presented no evidence, so what's your point?

Its funny the way you keep harping on about Archaeopteryx. This stands as proof of the pitiful absence of evidence for Darwinian theory. 99.9% of the fossil evidence isn't there remember?? And you complain about problems in the Bible???

Call me pedantic, but I would expect the inspired word of the so called creator of the universe to actually make sense and be in harmony with the facts. The rarity of fossilisation makes it all the more remarkable we have so many intermediates.
Were are all the vertabrates in the oldest rocks?

Out of interest, what would it mean to you if you discovered evolution was true

797. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53781 by BillySands on July 3, 2007 at 5:54 am

personally, I wish the bishop would just strap semtex to himself and jump off a bridge. Of course all christians talk bollocks from time to time. I just read my former ministers blog (a friend pointed out he wrote an article on muppet bishop above). I noticed however, he claimed that he had been cured of a cold by prayer (wonder if it had anything to do with me knocking healing on a friends blog). Turns out, he (still)has whooping cough: "Attacks of a choking cough that lasts from 1 to 2 minutes, often with vomiting, severe facial congestions and a feeling or appearance of suffocation. Between these attacks of coughing the sufferer appears and usually feels perfectly well.These choking attacks of coughing happen as little as twice a day or as many as fifty. Between attacks ('paroxysms' is the technical name) the sufferer may not cough at all.'Whooping' is a noise that comes from the voice box after a paroxysm when the sufferer is suddenly able to take a breath in again."
Hope he hasnt been spitting in the communion wine or kissing babies in the mean time - one of the more subtle dangers of faith.
Healing my arse!

798. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53673 by BillySands on July 2, 2007 at 1:37 pm

The creationist concept of kind on you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY8SMVPubKo

The "science" of Behe's book has already been well trashed:http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#links
I personally like the fact he has built an arguement around a false fact (so unlike him). You do not need 2 mutations for chloroquine resistance. one is enough: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7148/full/4471055a.html

Dr Benway have you just had your ringpiece bleached?

799. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53610 by BillySands on July 2, 2007 at 8:38 am

GBG

The fact that it is logically possible for a Necessary Being to exist doesn't mean it does but it is, at least possible.

So, you are back tracking. God is no longer necessary, but possible. That's a step in the right direction. Your statement was however that he was necessary, and thats wwhat I asked you to back up.

I'm not quoting Dawkins out of context but simply asserting that his famous argument against a Designer doesn't stand up

You are, because he goes to great length to explain the illusion of design. I find this fundie misrepresentiation very distasteful.

As for Archaeopteryx you really need to stop the wishful thinking. There is zero, zilch, nada evidence that it is more reptile than bird or that it is a transitional form between the same.

Oh really? I'm not the one who is indulging in wishful thinking. I have provided evidence in the past. You have provided none to support your claim it was a bird. If you want to convince me otherwise, you better come up with some pretty damn good evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Variation
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/dromey.htm
Discuss!

800. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53569 by BillySands on July 2, 2007 at 4:39 am

Maybe god is angry at the fact we dont have enough Gay bishops
Well, obviously not the OT god, he wants to kill them