1051. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39843 by BillySands on May 12, 2007 at 5:02 am

Good post Robert

devolved

1. So when presented with a scientific challenge you dismiss it by calling it a 'waste of time'.

I dont consider scientific challenges a waste of time. You however have not provided any. An article containing someones opinion and misrepresentation of facts - and as we shall see lies does not constitute a scientific challenge

2. You presume but cannot prove that there are rocks 'older than a few hundred thousand years old'.

See the responses on the limbo thread! Then again, we dont need to know absolute ages to know that you don't get mamals and trilobites in the same rock layers. We can even see the gradual reduction in toe numbers in horses in susessive rock layers - see pliohippus http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
so, where are all the humans?

3. "..tell us why there are no humans and dinosaurs fossilised together"
With pleasure, follow the link unless you've already closed your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong in which case it would be a waste of time (but for the wrong reason)

I've already told you if there were indeed humans with dinosaurs, I would say I was wrong. Now, that is a very specific unambiguous statement - I am just waiting for that fossil. I have read your link, so where exactly are the fossils? That's right, there aren't any in your link - no evidence!
Now for one of the lies - no plants. Well, here are just a few that are found with dinosaurs: Angiosperms, Bennettitalites, Caytonialites, Equisetites, Ferns, Ginkoes and Lots more.
I challenged you previously to explain this sequence of habitats: reef, coal forest, reef, coal forest. Needless to say you couldn't - that would be impossible in a flood model.

Here's what the bible says about another creature claimed to be a dinosaur: the Leviathan: job 41 "19 Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out."
Hmm mythical creature or evidence of dinosaurs?????? What a bout unicorns? They are in the bible!
Robert dealt with the dragon stuff, but here is yet another possibility: people found big bones in old rocks and let their immagination do the rest.

No fossils, no evidence! I am dissapointed, I thought you were going to give us a laugh by providing the glen rose footprints as evidence for us http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm you will also find other stuff there refuting the "forbidden archaeology" in yout links.

4. "Where is the evidence that endosymbiosis is in trouble?"
here-

Oh no it isn't! All I see is incredulity: "how could this happen?" etc. Some of these are of course valid questions, and thet are being answered - in a way that just happens to support evolution. NOW READ THAT NATURE ARTICLE I TOLD YOU TO!.

* This is a belief based upon a highly questionable interpretation of data

Justify that statement in your own words! And I dont see how it is making the data fit the model. Things become extinct - they dissappear - become dead ends. In fact, new finds only fine tune our understanding. They dont diminish it!

The Renault Scenic on my drive looks very much like my neighbour's Citroen Picasso. One did not evolve from the other. They were both designed.

And your point is?

Here's my position: show me the fossils and I will concede (that however is unlikely given the overwhelming and self supporting nature of evolutionary theory)
I presume this is your position from your CMI propaganda : Unbelieving scientists are in willfully ignorant denial (Rom. 1:20 ff., 2 Peter 3).

Every thing you post is an attempt to make creationism true! I am open minded, but the evidence convinces me that evolution occurs - come on, all it takes is one naughty little fossil from the millions so far uncovered

1052. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39659 by BillySands on May 11, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Devolved
Forgot to add the journal of creation doesnt cut it either. I wonder, do non christians review it - does anyone review it? At least proper scientific journals will let any qualified person review it - regardless of faith.
Where is the evidence that endosymbiosis is in trouble? they provide none! And you just accept that!!!!!!!!!!!
They say our views have changed, but that's science - new evidence and all that! and the HRT stuff, how is that not "new information" to the recipient? Then they say when the selective pressure is removed, these horizontally transferred genes degrade - they mutate and change - well, that is evolution!
This junk just exasperates me.
Read a proper scientific article and tell us - yourself what is wrong with it. If yoy can get it, try this http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/abs/nature02848.html;jsessionid=4507516DE18AF5C10391DF3F98B720BF apparently you can register and get it free.

See you aroung, but I can see why people dont debate creationists.

1053. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39648 by BillySands on May 11, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Devolved
From previous experience, I find that your CMI links are a waste of reading time, so why not cut it out and just tell us why there are no humans and dinosaurs fossilised together? Why are there no humans in rocks older than a few hundred thousand years of age?

BTW, I notice CMI seem to think scientific american is a source of peer reviewed original data - chortle!
I'm in no rush to get back to you, but thought I would ask those questions that creationist ignore so others can practice their debating skills on you

1054. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #39572 by BillySands on May 11, 2007 at 7:10 am

Forgot to mention, concerning psalm 22, Lion does actually fit in well with the bestial theme of it v12 bulls, v13 lion, v16 dog (and Kaari = Lion)) v 21 lions and unicorns. There is a good article on the subject here http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html

1055. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #39560 by BillySands on May 11, 2007 at 6:13 am

Mark
If I were God, I would like to be clear. After all, souls are allegedly at stake.
The footnote I referred to was actually in the NIV - I do apologise - I think my screen did not refresh when I tried the KJV on bible gateway. However, what ever this date is, it is not relevant to chapter 26. Because as verse 2 makes clear Jerusalem had already fallen (587/6 BCE). Nebuchadnezzar was still king when that verse was written. That chapter does not prophecy that he will become king. He was already King.

1056. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #39548 by BillySands on May 11, 2007 at 5:36 am

Evolutionary scientists used to think that amphibians evolved from a group of fishes that included the coelacanth, which was known only from fossils. But they dropped this idea when living coelacanths were found from 1938 showing no evidence of evolution from the oldest fossil coelacanths to the living examples. The evidence from the coelacanth is good evidence for creation, for it shows that DNA, the genetic code, has remained stable throughout time
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html

What a typical creationist comment! We do not have fossil coelacanth DNA to compare. It is also not true that the coelacanth has not changed. There are some differences between modern and fossil ones.
The fact that coelacanths are extant is no evidence againt their links to tetrapods. There are other morphological reasons that make them dubious tetrapod ancestors. Also, as I said, things dont have to change. So, we have 2 lies and a strawman in that one short paragraph.

BTW, SteveN Made me realise I should clarify my point about humans and dinosaurs. They would have to occur together in rocks much older than those that contain the earliest humans. That should have been clear from the other example I gave though.

1057. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #39527 by BillySands on May 11, 2007 at 4:06 am

Mark

Got a spare few minutes, so I hope Lee doesn't mind if I answer this

Can you explain how, please? Even though the coelacanth living today doesn't seem to have changed from the ones found as fossils (and claimed to date from over 400 million years ago), no doubt that won't do the job, as far you are concerned. What would?

The coelacanth is not a problem. Other things remain relatively unchanged in the fossil record. The brachiopod genus Ligula has remained relatively unchanged for about 500 million years. These are not problems because they appear in a logical sequence. Coelacanths only appear after the first jawed vertebrates, not before. Things dont have to change. Stable enviroments or a very sucess ful "design" can favour stability. What would upset evolution would be to find a dinosaur fossil pre-dating the oldest fish, or indeed humans and dinosaurs fossilised together (insitu and articulated). Does this seem like a reasonable falsifying criterion for you?

1058. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #39441 by BillySands on May 10, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Mark The KJV of Ez1:1-2 does not help any. The footnote indicates one of two possible translations - in Ezekiel's 30th year or a thirtieth year in relation to an undefined event. It offers no clarification. However If we read Ezekiel 26:2, we see that the "prophecy" that you refer to was given after the fall of Jerusalem ""Son of man, because Tyre has said concerning Jerusalem, 'Aha, the gateway of the peoples is broken; it has opened to me. I shall be filled, now that she is laid waste,' (NSAB for clarity)

Nebuchadnezzar was the king when this was given. It is not a prophecy.

as an aside, if God were real, the mistranslation blame would have to rest with him - afterall, the translators prayed about it. You have already criticised the NLT and NIV. Why do you hold with the KJV? For example, Psalm 22:16 (an alledged crucifiction prophecy)is not an accurate translation in the KJV. The word pierce does not appear in Hebrew manuscripts. The word Lion does.

I also think that a simpler explanation for Daniel's discrepancy is that he did not live around the time he said he did, but we are perhaps getting off topic a bit.

1059. Apocalypse Of The Honeybees

Comment #39237 by BillySands on May 10, 2007 at 8:04 am

This has been going on for sometime. I first heard about it 4 0r 5 years ago. I haven't seen a honeybee in Scotland for over 3 years

1060. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #39154 by BillySands on May 10, 2007 at 5:21 am

Theo

Doubt it. Either God exists or he doesn't. If you are right, we both rest in peace. If I am right, well…

You may want to take heed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W78SRXRxGs

1061. Gene mutation linked to cognition is found only in humans

Comment #39133 by BillySands on May 10, 2007 at 4:18 am

Chadvader - how incredibly interesting!!!!

By the way, Pascal's wager - what a laugh! Applies to all faiths and is unbiblical. CS Lewis - Muppet! St Augustine - promoted and justified slavery through the "will of God" think he also said unbaptised babies went to hell.
Why dont you do some brain excercises and become an atheist. You afterall have no evidence - uncritical slack jawed admiration of the universe doesn't count as evidence by the way.

1062. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #39108 by BillySands on May 10, 2007 at 2:37 am

Well Mark, Here's the NLT version of that Text
1 On February 3, during the twelfth year of King Jehoiachin's captivity, this message came to me from the Lord: 2 "Son of man, Tyre has rejoiced over the fall of Jerusalem, saying, 'Ha! She who was the gateway to the rich trade routes to the east has been broken, and I am the heir! Because she has been made desolate, I will become wealthy!'

So, which is it? At best you can say is it is not a clear issue - Why has god giver Richard Dawkins better communication skills than his prophets and translators? :-)

1063. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #38897 by BillySands on May 9, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Mark

Obviously neither the Bible nor the other sources of information such as documents from Babylon or elsewhere actually quote dates as xxx BC (or BCE, for that matter)! Could you tell me by what calculation you conclude that Ezekiel's prophecy did not pre-date Nebuchadnezzar's accession?

If dates were given in BCE, that would truely be prophecy. The dates are worked out using evidence such as historical documents, inscriptions, decrees, etc. They often include the length of the reign of a king etc, so you can count backwards. These are the standard dates that most agree on (even the NLT- bible) There is however a discrepency in Daniel that makes Nebuchadnezzar the king a year or two before he actually was (Dan1:1-2).
However, lets use the bible. 2 Kings 24 tells us that Nebuchadnezzer the king of Babylon invaded during the time of his jehoiachin's father (jehoiakim). This also presents a further problem for biblicists:
Jeremiah 36:30
Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, he shall have no heirs to sit on the throne of David.

versus

2 Kings 24:6
So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.
I have discussed this failed prophecy earlier on this thread

For all that (although I stand by what I said), the particular aspect you picked on is not of central importance in my broader case.

That's why I chose it to be brief. Do you still stand by your statement?

1064. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #38719 by BillySands on May 9, 2007 at 3:19 am

This reminds me of your wet laxative episode :)

That's nothing compared to the time I stuck my head out of the train window
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdkT9sGRw_E

Got to go and stuff lots of paper down the lavatory now

1065. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #38524 by BillySands on May 8, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Mark Your lengthy post will be answered when I have time to give it the consideration that it deserves. Briefly though

The prophecy was given to Ezekiel in "the eleventh year" (v1). With reference to chapter 1:1-2 and other scriptures, that year can be determined at about three years before Nebuchadnezzar became king of Babylon. While still crown prince, he is named and characterised by the prophet as a "king of kings". So Ezekiel was predicting that Nabopolassar his father would be dead, and Nebuchadnezzar enthroned, before Tyre was actually attacked. (And of course, he was perfectly correct in that respect.)

That timing is of course according to Ezekiel. More importantly, the 11th year of Jehoiachin's captivity was 585 BCE. Nebuchadnezzar was already King, and had been since 605 BCE. There was therefore no prophecy

Theo

One question, does this represent your collective positions? - Reason allows for the possibility of an eternal God, but that does not mean nor will it ever mean He exists.

Basically, Just as logic dictates there may be pink unicorns. However, no one is saying that he cannot exist. We are saying there is no evidence for one. I personally think that there are lots of reasons why your god is not real though.

Couldn't I say the same thing about you guys? You all think life must have arisen by natural chance (except J.C.)

You could say that if you want to be wrong. We will evaluate possibilities on their merits. You seem to have decided how it must have happened.

Yes, I know, not in one jump. But it cannot explain how self organization took place, or how complex information originated.

Why not? This sounds like incredulity.

Was I absent when the debate shifted from origins to evolution?

No, dont you remember saying what a bunch of top chaps we were and how you were wrong, and we were all invited over for a holiday. This was before you said you were going bunjee jumping without a helmet :-)
Sorry, silly mood catching

1066. Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US

Comment #38129 by BillySands on May 7, 2007 at 4:14 am

L. Minnik
I wonder if he visits christian sites such as http://www.godhatesfags.com/
and tells them they are preaching hatred. Doubt it somehow

1067. A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin

Comment #38119 by BillySands on May 7, 2007 at 2:53 am

Politics aside, true Darwinism does explain human behaviour much better than religion - and it is testable!

1068. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38116 by BillySands on May 7, 2007 at 2:46 am

How can you have a friendly chat and a nice polite social exchange with people who you honestly believe are going to burn in hell forever?

Not only that, but they actually believe that the other lot deserve to burn forever in eternal torment.

Even the Germans and Allies managed to get a game going during world war I

1069. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38115 by BillySands on May 7, 2007 at 2:44 am

Obvioulsly the discrimination is wrong, but I thought if you wanted to build bridges, you have to respect the opposite view. Looks like the church fails again. The muslims show why religion is bad for using the koran to suppress people without any real justification behind it. Of course, the bible isn't any better when it comes to women.

Sounds like two teams arguing over who owns the pinkest unicorn.

1070. Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US

Comment #38110 by BillySands on May 7, 2007 at 2:27 am

Nice links Irate Harry. Having read them, I suppose Bizarro is intellectually fulfilled in his own little delusional world somewhere.

1071. 'No proof Jesus heals Aids'

Comment #37906 by BillySands on May 6, 2007 at 7:52 am

Aaaron

The result was these unfortunate people were put on medications because they didn't get a second opinion and went through serious physical trama as a result.

And no doubt emotional trauma - bunch of evil god bothering cu*ts!
Do you have any links to that?

1072. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #37903 by BillySands on May 6, 2007 at 7:43 am

AMEN Brother Lee

(reminds me of the Kenny Everet character Brother Lee Love :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX03hgf_LcM )

I may as well believe in an impossibly complex god who really can assemble anything at all, anytime anyplace anytime (and in the dark if you believe the bible)

I have always wondered why the almighty God who knows when even a single star drifts out of position would need to create light to work. I could understand that story however if it was totally made up by a human who needs light to see.

I think john cleese is god because he moves in a mysterious way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jDCxtC-yPw

1073. 'No proof Jesus heals Aids'

Comment #37704 by BillySands on May 5, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Of course Jesus wont heal AIDS. He gave it as a gift to mankind to show his love to us

1074. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #37306 by BillySands on May 4, 2007 at 3:55 am

Theo

I am trying to figure out the possibility of a living replicating cell forming just like that

You seemed certain that you knew the probability. That seems to be the crux of your arguement: that life is so improbable that creation is more probable. If you have no figures, you have no arguement. As I said earlier, you seem to be biasing your results by setting up your own rules for how things must have come about. The fact is that we do not know yet how life arose, so your assumptions hold no wieght, and any attempt to put a probability on it happening will not be accurate. For us it is simpler. We dont need accurate figures to know that introducing a complex creator makes your arguement less probable. If you want to consistently use reason, you must apply your reasoning to god too. The problem is that you are presuming qualities about the god of your aguement without any evidence for them.

1075. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #37295 by BillySands on May 4, 2007 at 2:45 am

Hi Theo

I am trying to figure out the possibility of a living replicating cell forming just like that. How molecules came together to form the phospholipid layer and ribosomes while other molecules came together to form RNA/DNA which just so happen to have formed in such a way as to be chemically encoded with information on how to build phospholipid layers and ribosomes. It just so happen also that this advanced information storage system was assembled with replicating machinery as well as energy harnessing machinery. It's a good thing that science has provided proof that this really happened, otherwise someone would have been free to disagree!

You are biasing your arguement with your own presupposition of the way you think that life must have arisen, and the requrements that it needs to be life. In the simplest terms, all you need is a simple self replicating molecule. Once you have that, then you can evolve more efficient ways of replication. Thats the thing about abiogenesis (and evolution) you do not go from simple replicator to cell in one jump.

Logic demands that something must have always existed

Why must something have always existed? Also, why rule out the universe in your answer? If this is your strongest case for the existence of the supreme relational being, then you dont have a case.

since the simplest form of life is designed, you know where my money is. I will ask you the same question: If the simplest and "earliest" form of life was indeed designed, what would it look like?

That is a bit of a silly question. It requires a presupposition, and my point is a rational one based on evidence. There is no evidence of design. From a logical point of view, you can not claim design, because you have not ruled out the alternatives. From a practical point, all Behe's examples of Irreducible Complexity have been explained. All claims concerning design are simply an opinion coupled with a desire to not consider that there may be a naturalistic explanation - like the flagellum fallacy.

Who created the designer?
Also, you are a literal creationist, so these arguements are a bit pointless, because modern lifeforms did not just suddenly appear.

1076. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #37008 by BillySands on May 3, 2007 at 6:06 am

BTW, if (science forbid!) evolution was proven false tomorrow, what would the probability of Humans spontaneously forming in a snap?

Very little, but that is not how evolution works. It works through gradual change.

Well anyway let's go back to logic; something cannot come from nothing therefore, since something exists, something must have always existed. If there is design in life then there must have always been a designer since intelligence cannot come from nothing.

If you claim this is logic, then it must also be used on god. To do otherwise is to resort to special pleading it is not evidence . To do otherwise is also to say that you only accept logic as long as it agrees with your belief. If you are going to use logic, then you have to cnclude that either something can come from nothing, or that god has to come from something - you are not being consistent here. If you want to assert that god has always existed, then you have neither evidence for that - or his existence. This gives you no rational starting point for your arguement on the existence of God.
You may want to check some of the comments on this thread, as they are relevant to some of the things you have said in the past. http://richarddawkins.net/article,912,Pope-abolishes-limbo,The-Daily-Telegraph-Waterstones

1077. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #36989 by BillySands on May 3, 2007 at 4:22 am

Welcome back Theo.
Perhaps you could explain how you calculate the probability of life and how you would calculate the probability of god.
I have problems with all such calculations and dont believe they are realistic.
Also, assuming the eternal existence of a creator proves nothing. You have to prove he exists first.
Got to have lunch. Catch you later.

1078. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36195 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Robert
Great post. All I would add to that is that a lot of the carbon that molluscs use to make their shells comes from dissolved carbonaceous minerals - like calcite and aragonite found in rocks. this is already ancient and 14C levels are negligible, this gives the artificially old dates for mollusc shells

1079. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36180 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 12:30 pm

devolved

analogous structures: Structures in different species that look alike or perform similar functions (e.g., the wings of butterflies and the wings of birds) that have evolved but do not develop from similar groups of tissues, and that have not evolved from similar structures known to be shared by common ancestors.

Now, you said homologus structures were evience of a single designer. To clarify the point you were trying to make, homologus structures are based on a common plan- Forexample the vertebrate wing, flipper or foot are variations of the pentadactyl limb. Because there are undeniable similarities, you claim there is one creator. However, insects have wings, "flippers" and feet, but they are structurally very different. Surely then, by your logic, there must be more than one designer. Afterall, are you telling me that you would look at a bike and a car and conclude there was only one designer?
The trouble is you then undermine your attempts to reason and reveal your true position here:

The Bible is clear that there is only one God who created different kinds of living creatures separately. There's no reason why the one God should not use common design principles in differently created kinds. So by my reasoning the answer is no.

So If it disagrees with the bible, it must be wrong then? It appears that you only sparingly use reason. Can you see why we dont buy this?

You obviously wouldn't expect me to buy into any of the presppositional biases in the PBS definition.

That's correct! what is the most likely possibility? one where the theory of evolution works perfectly well without a god or one that requires one?
Hint: god only complicates any theory by needing to explain him too. Without evidence, I have no more reason to believe in god as I do in fairies. At least you admit your presupposition, but that is NOT evidence or logic. We need EVIDENCE!

If that doesn't satisfy you who don't you enter the lion's den and pit your considerable intellect against the creation scientists directly.

I already have! I got one reply that I trashed and have heard nothing since. I also challenged http://christiananswers.net/ , http://clarifyingchristianity.com/ and http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ . None of them replied. I have also been on David Robertsons site - fortunately not every one there is as innane as he is!

I genuinely wish you well.

You too

1080. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #36140 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 9:19 am

Fedler

I was reading some of your other posts on older threads and one statement that stuck out was you said that you were "as certain of God's existence as anything".

I read him claiming that he was as certain that jesus is alive as he is of his wifes existance.

Sometimes I feel like we are cats torturing this theistic wee free mouse with logic before it dies

1081. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #36131 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 8:54 am

I really do hope that people will actually get to meet Jesus Christ - in reality. And wouldn't it be great if RD became a Christian? He wouldn't be the first atheist to 'see the light' and I'm sure he won't be the last!

I am not even the first of many who have realised that christianity is a delusion. And I wont be the last!

1082. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #36129 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 8:51 am

SRWB

Thanks for puting in the effort. I wonder which of these David thinks is best?

Agreed. But the fact that we exist, and that the conditions for our existence are there, is a powerful indicator that someone or something created those conditions.

Justify! You assume god already exists when you make that statement. Evolution shows clearly that we evolved. We did not suddenly appear on the planet.
Who created God? If you want to use that arguement, you have to apply it to god too - This is where you show that your faith has no foundation in any reality.
Why is the universe so old and vast? Is god trying to confuse us?

2. "The Human mind and spirit. Why are we conscious? Why are we special? And life. Where does it come from? How can we get life from non-life?"

Ah, the good old arguement of I dont understand it, it must be god. I dont understand how this computer works. Therefore my computer must be god. Again it pre-assumes the existence of God.

Why does he rule out a natural explanation? again presupposition!

He must be really desparate if he thinks saying "I dont know" is positive evidence for god

"The Moral Law. How do we know what good and evil is? Why do we have a sense of that at all?"

How stupid! I'm guessing not from the bible. I find the moral laws of the OT quite disgusting. Where do people who have never heard of god get their morality from. I remember david saying that his reason for why homosexuality was wrong was because the bible said so. He could not give a reason. If this moral law was so perfect, why do we not know why homosexuality should be considered wrong. Again he presupposes gods existence. Where do chimps get their moral laws from - must be natural selection.

Got to go. Im sure everyone else will have fun ripping this fragile wishful thinking to pieces

1083. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36112 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 8:03 am

Is this not another case of yet another flea jumping on Dawkins back trying to make money?

What? like you? I think you will find he has been bashing God for a while - do some basic research.
Found any avidence for God yet David?

Na, didnt think so.

1084. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36080 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 6:25 am

devolved
I do read your stuff. Also, I am very familiar with pro- bible apologetics. I case you dont know, I used to be a Christian and had the same presuppositions as you - that the bible must be true and everything must be done to interpret the world in biblical terms. However, you can not reason your way out of biblical difficulties. So, when I criticise the bible, rest assured that a lot of thought has gone into my specific attacks.

I'll ask you again. By your reasoning, do analagous structures argue for more than one creator?

1085. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #36062 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 4:46 am

I have some questions for creationists: Where did Noah find space for a pair of 100 tonne Argentinasaurus (and how did he get them to the middle east from South America?). Why did antelope not go extinct after the lions ate the only two on the ark. Given that a flood would KIll all fresh and salt water life, the ark must have been full of water. Why did it not sink? Finally, Why do you believe this? Were you all out taking a whizz when intelligence evolved?

1086. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36058 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 4:33 am

"Robert as ever the data don't support your arguments. You interpret data to fit your world view and then claim that as proof.."

Well, why dont you read about it for yourself, then you can reason and not swallow. To help you, this one is written by a christian. Although, I dont care who wrote it, I let the evidence and arguements speak for themselves.
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Are you really saying that a book who cant get its genalogies correct is a better way to date the earth? Read the genealogies of Jesus in matt one and Luke three. They are mutually exclusive - and there are many other serious problems with them too - such as "illegal" moabite ancestors,"illegal" bastards, people whose line was cursed, and the wrong son of David in luke. Hmmmm!

By the way, what about ice cores and tree ring records going back over 30 000 years.

All you do is just make unsubstantiated claims, appeals to authority, arguements from incredulity and ignore facts - you are in denial! You are providing a good lesson for others on the difference between reason anf foundationless faith.

1087. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36038 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 2:56 am

Tim
I wonder why he did not respond to you? Lets also not forget that the fossil record shows that meat eating, disease and deformity occurred long before man came on the scene either.

That's the problem for creationists, evolution disproves their account of special creation (actually even genesis 1 and 2 disagree with each other on the order of things). It also means that we are not special, and that if we evolved, then sin is not an issue, because selection favours selfish traits. The whole of christianity rests on the idea of sin. Actually there is good evidence now that genes predispose to certain behavioural choices. You may find the nature/nurture lecture here particularly interesting: http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/ I like the prairie voles!

1088. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36031 by BillySands on April 30, 2007 at 2:38 am

Devolved

Again you present no evidence!

Billy doesn't like evidence for fossils that forms quickly so he makes sure his definition excludes the evidence. Neat footwork there.

It's not me changing the definition of fossil. I presume you are refefing to the cowbow boot then. Find out for yourself what a fossil actually is before you accuse me of lying like an agenda promoting creationist. I find your comment amusingly absurd in light of the fact I have told you what it would take for me to drop evolution.

Billy doesn't respond to my challenge to do some real science

Sorry, what challenge was that?

Feel free to bury frogs if you want. We can find plenty of non fossilised frogs that are a few hundred to a thousand years old. Perhaps you could actually find out what fossilisation actually is first

Billy seems to know the impact of a unique global catastrophe that may have happened in the past and started with a deluge that covered the entire earth for more than a year and continued to affect the entire Earth for hundreds of years thereafter

Well, yes I do have a good idea what went on: we have other localised catastrophic events to compare it with - duh!
I suspect you are in a strop because you cant answer the challenge of reason. I'm sure you wont read this - you haven't read anything else we posted! Anyway, here are some good reasons why the flood is just plain stupid! http://www.google.com/custom?q=flood&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org

I think you should drop your presupposition about presuppositions.

I'll keep a weather eye open for you

1089. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #35903 by BillySands on April 29, 2007 at 8:42 am

It just occurred to me that biblical literalists like to claim that life is only possible because of the values of physical constants in the universe. They make the a priori assumption that no other values will do however, if Gen 9:8-17 is to be believed, water droplets did not refract light and make rainbows before the flood. Looks like the bible argues against the biblicists view of the anthropic principle, since it says other values must have been attributed to the universal constants.
I think more compelling evidence for the theists case would be a young universe with a single planet in it. Not the 12 billion+ year old one with a possible billion billiion planets that we inhabit. Given the vastness of the universe, we have already found another potential life friendly planet. The theists mis representation of the anthropic principle is nothing more than a misrepresentation and an arguement from incredulity

1090. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #35871 by BillySands on April 29, 2007 at 6:51 am

Thanks Tim
Here is some more evidence concerning chromosome 2 fusion:
1) The analogous chromosomes (2a and 2b) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2.
2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused.
3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion.
4) this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.
5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.
6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere

Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.
(taken from http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm )

Here is a little prediction I made of my own: The genes above the join and below the join should be in roughly the same order as they are in the analagous chimp chromosomes(remember, duplications and evolution occurring post common ancestor etc can occur and disrupt things). I chose one gene at random above the join on Human chromosome 2 (RasGRP2) and one below (HOXD8). Lets compare orders:

Human chromosome 2 CARD12 TTC27 LTB1 RasGRP3 CRIM1
Chimp chromosome 2a CARD12 TTC27 LTB1 RasGRP3 CRIM1
Human chromosome 2 PDK1 CCA7 CHN1 HOXD8 HOXD4
Chimp chromosome 2b PDK1 CCA7 CHN1 HOXD8 HOXD4

1091. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35860 by BillySands on April 29, 2007 at 5:17 am

Andrew Brown and Mathews
Apology accepted.
When I was deluded Tamaki gave a semon at my Church - he is an idiot! I am happy to say that although the congregation was relatively conservative, they reacted angrily to him.

Now please accept my apologies for the likes of David Livingston and David Robertson (well actually, the latter keeps us all amused)

1092. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #35858 by BillySands on April 29, 2007 at 4:46 am

I must be a glutton for punishment!(that or the fact I'm trying to put off doing some work on the sabbath)

devolved

There's excellent scientific evidence that a fossil can form within the span of a human lifetime.

No there isn't. Are you going to tell us about cowboys and hats that are encrusted with calcite (not fossils) now?

Use catatastrophic beliefs and it gets near instant burial and preservation.

I mentioned previously different habitats fossilised in sucession. This is not possible in a catastrophic event! A catastrophic event would also bury animals randomly.

Well here's a scientists response, "In fact human chromosome 2 does not match the two small ape chromosomes it is claimed to have fused from. There are significant differences, and what similarities there are have been highly exaggerated by those making the claim.

I dont see any evidence refuting this scientists respone!

Incidentally, it is not the case that a correct prediction proves a theory. Even if human chromosome 2 did look just how one would expect if it were to have came about via joining of two smaller chimp chromosomes, to suggest that this proves that it came about this way is to commit a logical fallacy, the fallacy of verified prediction. In fact similarities between different kinds of creatures is evidence of a common Designer, not common ancestry—see the attached notes on homology.

Really???? My point here hovever is that it survives the test if it did not, then the idea would be rejected The more tests it survives, the more likely it is - now provide some testable evidence for creation!
By the way, do you then concede -based on your presupposition of a creator- that analogus structures must therefore argue for the existence of more than one creator ?

Why did you ignore my comment on Alx-4? That is a mutation that causes an extra claw on dogs." For the simple reason that more claws is no evidence of new information. If I bought two copies of 'The God Delusion' instead of one I'd have the same stuff twice over. If you used a photocopier to make a copy of a document and it malfunctioned and printed two copies, you would not conclude that you had created new information by this accident. It is like this with the extra organs that sometimes appear on animals (and plants). There is no new information created, so it has nothing to do with evolution!

Now, you should know fine well that my point was that you dont need new genes to change body plan, so your idea that you do is false. How is the altered protein that is produced not "new information"? It doesnt exist in other dogs. You conveniently ignored other sources of new DNA too.
Also, I think you will find that Photocopiers are more reliable than recombining, copying and repairing DNA systems.

Do you accept that mutations occur (If not, then we could only ever have no more than 4 allelles of any given gene - ond one for y chromosome genes). Can natural selection then favour good ones?

In a recent paper, evolutionist Dr George Gabor Miklos summed it up nicely when he said: 'We can go on examining natural variation at all levels ... as well as hypothesising about speciation events in bed bugs, bears and brachiopods until the planet reaches oblivion, but we still only end up with bed bugs, brachiopods and bears. None of these body plans will transform into rotifers, roundworms or rhynchocoels.'
[George L. Gabor Miklos, 'Emergence of organisational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism', Mem. Assoc. Australas. Palaeontols15, 1993, p. 25]

Sorry? Recent paper? In terms of molecular biologys progress, 1993 was the stone age. Take a look at the graph of known sequences on this page http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/index.html
One fundamental flaw with this quote mining business is that you are giving no reasons why this guy made this statement - incidetally an evolutionist that does not believe in evolution - come on! Think! it is creationist propaganda. You need to provide evidence of your own, not expect us to bow to the "authority" of others - that's religions philosophy! Its like me saying that you are wrong because the dalai lama says so. Wereas if I said you were wrong because there is no prophecy saying the messiah will be born to a virgin (and there isn't isaiah 7:14 is about someone else 700+ BCE concerning a threat to israel) them my position is much stronger.

Be honest, someone who comes here willing to donate £1000 to charity if they can be proved wron has already closed his mind to other possibilities. Show me a T rex with a human (articulated and insitu) and I will conclude I am wrong - that's all it needs is some evidence- not arguements concerning gaps or points of personal incredulity. You however will not entertain the possibility you are wrong. Your wager told us that from the start

1093. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35681 by BillySands on April 28, 2007 at 9:20 am

I still cant stop laughing. I wonder if his penis has 5 ridges on it?

1094. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #35657 by BillySands on April 28, 2007 at 6:03 am

Good luck Robert,
This guy just wishes to deny. Here is another piece of ignorance quoted in that last post

For example, a single mutation that might prevent legs from forming is much different from a mutation that produces legs in the first place. Making a leg would require a large number of different genes present simultaneously. Moreover, where do the wings come from? Just because an organism loses a few legs doesn't convert a shrimp-like creature into a fly. Since crustaceans don't have wings, where does the information come from to make wings in flies?

As well as Alx-4 (which has been ignored A mutation called bithorax which gives flies an extra pair of wings.
Then we have this guy spouting rubbish about enzymes in muscle - the standard creationist misrepresentation that something must suddenly form if a fully functional moden way from nothing. They ignore preadaptation and selection.
Be prepared for denial and the arguement of infinite regress - like i say, good luck to you.
You are of course right about continuing this discussion for the benefit of those willing to consider evidence

1095. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35651 by BillySands on April 28, 2007 at 5:38 am

Behold, the Creationist! - the - well.... erm? creationists nightmare!

Anyone ever told him you have to climb trees to get bananas? Now a banana the peels itself and jumps into your mouth, that would be amazing.

Behold mucocutaneous leishmaniasis: http://tmcr.usuhs.mil/tmcr/chapter46/large46/46-16.jpg
Caused by a parasite so well designed that it subverts the immune response in several ways and is able to live in lysosomes (acidic bath of "digestive" enzymes, bleach and corrosive free radicles). Behold the wonderfull creation of the god of love.

Couple of idiots!

1096. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #35424 by BillySands on April 27, 2007 at 5:48 am

Does anyone else (specifically devolved) want to continue this discussion in a forum thread, as opposed to.. an article on Catholic Limbo? At least then I could get e-mail updates so I knew when to waste time writing stupidly long replies.

I will only continue when he proposes a mechanism for creation that can be tested. I think he is just here to deny evolution takes place. He has ignored the evigdence presented so far and just gone quote mining

1097. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35419 by BillySands on April 27, 2007 at 5:37 am

What David, still no evidence? This is your chance to win back some of those people that nasty Prof Dawkins has liberated.

All we want to hear is your best evidence. We would like you to just say what you think is proof. What made you believe - Oops thats right, your parents told you about god when you were young. Surely god is so great he can tell you something to say. He has not done so yet - perhaps he is not on your side - then, maybe he is out having taking a wizz.

Lets have a contest like that on mount carmel. If god is real, let my computer catch fire before I end this post. If he is not real, then it wont.

Oh well my computer is still in tact.

1098. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #35413 by BillySands on April 27, 2007 at 5:02 am

I really like the fact that you can swap mouse and fruit fly Hox genes (which differ in sequence) and still get mice and fruit flies. So you dont need a specific sequence to make a mouse or fly - God must really be trying to confuse us.

1099. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #35382 by BillySands on April 27, 2007 at 3:26 am

Not least massacring all those creatures and arranging their bones (or fossils, and please explain how they fossilised in such a short space of time!) into neat strata!

And different Habitats in succession - eg coral reef, coalforest, coralreeef, coal forest, lava flow, sand dune, coral reef - etc.

They don't have to explain it. God did it. End of discussion.

Exactly. This guy wants a mechanism, is given one and ignores it. So if he wants a mechanism as proof, then why does he not have one for god? - simple really he is in denial of reason because it threatens his primitive world view.

1100. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #35373 by BillySands on April 27, 2007 at 2:41 am

Ok, Devolved. You dont understand a word of what you said! (or did you lie earlier?) Your response is clearly one of denial. How can you be claiming to seek the truth when you have gone to great length to find a poor rebbuttal of evolution and then just copied and posted it.

Why did you ignore my comment on Alx-4? That is a mutation that causes an extra claw on dogs.

Also, explain the fact that we dont have a functioal gene for ascorbic acid synthesis (other close relatives do) But we contain the decaying remains of that gene (we lost it through mutation - because we sont need it - out diet provides enough). Explain a simmilar situation where ice fish only contain decaying relics of their haemoglobin genes.
What about chicken mutants that occasionally have teeth? or snakes with hips or 4 finned dolphins? http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=23906&in_page_id=34
You are also going to have to explain the logical sequence of the fossil record now - good luck!

oh and read this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
You asked for a mechanisms, and you seem to ignore them - give us a mechanism for creation - go on!
The fossil record corroborates evolution - that makes the theory strong. - where is your evidence of creation? Further discussion is dependant on you providing one

We have debated before - haven't we