1151. 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.

1152. 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!

1153. 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

1154. 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

1155. 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

1156. 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)

1157. 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

1158. 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?

1159. 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

1160. 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!

1161. 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

1162. 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.

1163. 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.

1164. 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.

1165. 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

1166. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35136 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 10:15 am

Spaghettimonster

My request for evidence is open to the interpertation of what weefree himself calls evidence. Were he to present it, we could then scrutinise how good or otherwise it is.

So I must ask….? Am I as delusional as those who believe in God; or perhaps I'm a little less delusional?

Of course you're not as delusional - you are not making an unjustifyable leap, and if you view yourself as les delusionl, then you still hold a more rational view than theists.

1167. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35123 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 9:25 am

newathiest

Newatheist – welcome to the Brave New World of fundamentalist atheism where people never talk to 'trolls' (that is those who disagree with them or can out argue them) and where the story has already ended.

Notice the love David (weefree) shows those who disagree with him and his reluctance to give his best evidence for God - surely an evangelists wet dream! The truth is if you have read any of his stuff (and lots of people here have - how odd that a minister should lie!) his evidence is the sound of the sea and the sound of the singing of psalm making im realise that god was the only explanation for beauty - hmmm - he appears to be mad and angry at atheists. Immagine for some bizzare moment he is correct. He is helping people lose their faith - Jesus said that for such people it would be better for them that they have a mill stone tied round their neck and thrown in a pond than face gods anger at what they have done. I wouldnt worry for hom though, he will have all etenity to work out a way of learning to breathe underwater

1168. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35116 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 8:56 am

SG Thanks for putting a horrible image of Winston's c*m face as he wacks off onto his microscope slide in my mind - Im going to have to look through the Ann Summers catalogue to push the disturbing image out of my head

1169. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35106 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 8:09 am

Hey
David, I challenged you to provide your best evidence for the existance of God. I'm still waiting!

Who ever said science had all the answers. Dawkins for one didn't. Is it really reasonable to assume the supernatural exists when you have no evidence for it. Face it avid, you inherited the Christian meme, you dont believe because of any evidence - if you do, supply some - nice to see you are still calling those who are not deluded fundamentalists - very big and clever of you. Is that all you have in your arsenal in defense of theism. Tell me, I know someone who was abused by a church elder (her father) Would it be appropriate of me to come back on your site and refer to every one on it as an incestuous kiddie fiddler?
Ah, but you would just delete them wouldn't you! Even if you get put on a troll thread, you still are allowed to post here - Double standards David! you dont give to other what you expect yourself.
Try dropping the stereo types. I like the fact that you are showing yourself up, but it is getting soooooo boringly repetetive

1170. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #35101 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 7:56 am

Hi Mark, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you sure you mean daniel 12? although it would appear so.

1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

I dont see the disagreement. We both agree the bible says that god and bad will both be resurrected. My point is that even the first ressurection - that of the "good" occurs after the return of Jesus, so neither the good or the bad (the priest in this instance) can ever see jesus return. The logical conclusion is that jesus meant his return was to occur shortly after his death. Eitherway, the prophecy has to fail. If you accept jesus meant an early return, it failed. If you assert that it is yet to be fulfilled, then the events of revelation prevent this from happening, so it can not be fulfilled - otherwise Revelation is wrong - eitherway something is wrong. The most plausable interpretation is that the original prophecy is wrong. I don't think it is reasonable to conclude otherwise. Do you see my point? By saying it needs more interpretation, you are confirming what others have said here that interpretation of prophecy is subjective. It is not allways clear. Therefore it is not strong evidence. We have to remember that this is supposedly the word of the all knowing creator of the universe, but he is not able to make himself crystal clear (actually the cyrus "prophecy" isaiah 42 is crystal clear - why aren't they all?) If he wanted us to know him why would he make it so difficult? You are after all arguening that your faith is based in reason, so it should be obvious if that were true (dont get big headed now, but you are the only theist on this site who actually tries to provide something testable:-) )and it is refreshing, but I do feel you see it the way you want to see it because of your faith. Are these the arguements that made you believe, or do you believe them because you already have faith?

Did I ever ask you what it would take to make you not believe?

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree though. It's sunny, I should be having my afternoon tea outside (i'm not addicted)

1171. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #35090 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 7:14 am

Mark,
I was not meaning to imply that there was no resurrection of the "unjust". I was pointing out that this is the first resurrection. Therefore, the "unjust" must be resurrected after this - which is after the return - which they would be unable to see.
Would you agree that Daniel 12 is also incredibly vague, and that the end of the daily sacrifice could refer to Antiochus IV banning it and the abomination could easily refer to his practice of sacrificing pigs to Zeus in the temple?

1172. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #35069 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 6:04 am

Hi Mark I knew I could Taunt (forgive the pun) you into making your own prophecy fail (all in good humour :-) ).

Hovever, the problem with the prophecy is that if yo read revelation, the first resurrection (the good guys) happens after the return, so the preist can hardly see jesus returning on the clouds - he has already returned. I think you are going way beyond the justification of the text here. There are many other werses that hint at an early return. eg Mark 9:1 "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."
There are others i can fish out later if need be

incidentally, Matthew 12:40 says jesus will rise again after 3 days and nights. He was buried late friday and had risen by early sunday. Also, in Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." This could not be possible if he was in the bowels of the earth. This suggests that gospel accounts are far from acurate representations of things alledged to have happened.

1173. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35047 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 4:47 am

I agree with newatheist here. The trolls are tools at our disposal to help others break their delusion. The trolls are not interested in an exchange of ideas in an attempt to understad the truth, but they do show up what is wrong with theism, and that helps liberate others. So for those lost sheep it is worth it. As someone else said, if they are here it stops them bothering people on the street.

1174. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #35041 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 4:12 am

Got a lot of catching up to do.

For the simplest possible reason - the prophecy was clearly false. In the relevant year, the Aztecs' god did not return. Instead, the white man (who was not Quetzalcoatl) arrived...

In much the same way, Jesus never returned when he said he would (in the lifetime of his generation)
eg Matt 26: 64 Jesus replied, "You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God's right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Surely that failed for the same reason above. Mark Can I ask why you say the Aztec prophecy failed but the tyre and second comming didn't. Should the same logic not apply to these as well?

1175. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34948 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Devolved
I have read robertsons letters. I find them exceptionally poor as do many others - he has had his own thread on this site and has been torn to shreds.
Again you are not listening. I had presuppositions as a christian. The overwhelming weight of evidence for evolution was something I was convinced in as a christian. I am now open minded and lack those christian presuppositions, so drop the amateur psychology. Evolution is testable. You can make predictions - and they are confirmed. For example, we have one less pair of chromosomes than other primate species. How do we explain this? We can hypothesise that there could have been a fusion of two chromosomes in our recent past. We can test this by sequencing them. Chromosomes only have areas called telomeres on there ends. It turns out human chromosome 2 has internal telomeric sequences - hence 2 chromosomes fused to form no. 2 If the hypothesis failed we would have no alternative other than to reject it. Where is the preconception here.

The problem also is that you do not consider the supernatural to be meerly a possibility (as any honest atheist will agree) you make a leap that you cant justify and assert that it is THE ultimate explanation for everything. Infact, evolution works very well with out any need for the supernatural.

1176. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34941 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 4:13 pm

"Can I be blamed if I lack his unwarranted confidence in the scientific community that gave us such intellectual beauties as spontaneous generation and Piltdown man?"

Truely Bizzaro and well rebutted already. It is amazing that Trolls forget that the christians gave us the flat fixed earth at the centre of creation. So convinced were they that they threatened to execute gallileo.

As for reasonable faith - what evidence for the supernatural? i have never even heard anyone justify the leap from natural to supernatural thinking other than "well you cant rule it out" then they claim it is not testable - very rational - NOT! Most of these trolls concentrate on things that they dont understand or cant explain and hold this up as evidence that there must be something else. How is an inability of a limited intellect ever evidence that no physical explanation can ever be produced? (actually, usually they just deny reasonable explanations like evolution). Basically all they have is a personal opinion that reeks with the unjustifiable presupposition that rational explanation can never explain the issue in question. Scientific models are testable, supernatural ones (apparently) are not. So by definition, naturalism is the only reasonable position of the two. Not that that will make any impact on the closed mind.

Got any fossil Humans living with Dinosaurs?

1177. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34806 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 10:04 am

scottishgeologist

So when it comes to "the truth" only one lot can be right - the others MUST contain some degree of eror or omission.

Your comment remids me of 1 cor:6:2-3 "Don't you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can't you decide even these little things among yourselves? Don't you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life."

Worrying stuff if it were true considering even Paul is having a go at them for not being able to decide things amongst themselves.

1178. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34785 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 8:37 am

Go on weefree Give us your best evidence of the existence of god then - but only do so if you are open to the possibility that you may be wrong and will not run away if micah 5:2, Isaiah 7:14 or quirinius are mentioned. One other rule, no ad homenim or branding people fundamentalists - can you do that? And if you do think there is something wrong with rejecting the likes of Micah 5:2, try explaining why - dont throw accusations!

1179. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34736 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 3:11 am

Since Winston is a Jew, I wonder how he explains the religions of those who do not follow his God - a one that proclaims to be the only one. Does he somehow think they are not deluded? or is he just pissed off because his belief in his one true God fits the delusion tag too. I think he is setting up a straw man arguement here that scientists think science is the absolute truth. Most scientists agree that views change with evidence. What is true however is that there is no evidence to believe in the supernatural. By saying some scientists deal with uncertainty with certainty, he is misrepresenting and damaging the public image of science himself. Interestingly, the scientist he seems to have most of a problem with says this in the article

"I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known."

I have some serious confectionary at stake here on the predictability of wee free's response to this (us godless typs know how to party)- wonder if he is going to the talk. Please dont disappoint us David

1180. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34727 by BillySands on April 25, 2007 at 2:30 am

Devolved
I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Regarding lungs (and the rest of evolution) You don't suddenly go from no lungs to lungs. It is a gradual process. I suggest sean b carrol's book the making of the fittest for explanations and evidence on how "information" increases. You can also radically change body shape by altering or changing the expression of HOX genes - go look them up! There is one gene (Alx-4)that when part is lost in dogs gives them a whole new claw - altered "information" - again, another example of loss of information causing change, so please drop this you need more information to increase complexity fallacy.
I have to agree with everyone else her, you dont understand what you are talking about. Babies are not copies of their parents. Go read some proper books and then come back. I also doubt that you ever believed in evolution. I certainly did when I was a christian - as do many christians, so please also drop the preconception fallacy as well. Go check the ken miller video on this site - he is a catholic and really hates intelligent design theory. Simon conway morris (anglican) and your friend Behe also believes in evolution, only behe erroneously thinks some things are too complex to have evolved - Ken Miller rips this idea appart. So, now we have disposed of preconceptions, are you going to give Richard Dawkins your money? - bet you dont.

I dont really see much point continueing this discussion now, because all you are doing is throwing propaganda our way. That CMI article really was bad. Were you actually convinced by it?

1181. Vote for the Time 100 - Are They Worthy?

Comment #34598 by BillySands on April 24, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Interesting the pope is so far down the list and Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley appear as a couple (of fannies!)

1182. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34434 by BillySands on April 24, 2007 at 3:51 am

Does antone else find it funny that Devolved claims not to know about pseudogenes but is using them as "evidence" againt evolution. There is so much wrong in that article he links to, but I wont waste my time on it, because he is clearly not interested. He can find articles on pseudogenes on the net if he is really interested.

You can all dodge the question till the cows come home but without scientific evidence of a mechanism for adding new genetic information the evolutionary hypothesis is just that.

He really is not listening is he? By the way, sometimes, one base change is all it takes for the development of drug resistance, and evolution often loses "information" too - such as olfactory receptors, haemoglobin in ice fish, whole biosynthetic pathways in parasites (and the "fossil" genes remain decaying in the genome). He clearly does not understand evolution.
If he is a christian, perhaps he could explain why he believes the bible? It is afterall full of failed prophecies, non prophecies and absurdities, historical inaccuracies, contraditions and bad moral teachings. Oh yeah, and Pagans came up with christianity first. Could it be a "delusion" that allows him to believe this stuff and deny evolution.
He should watch some of the evolution links etc here and make his own mind up and not site Creation ministries International who cleary state on their website that they are predisposed to defend the bible no matter what - nice rational starting point - NOT!
BTW see if you can work out what is wrong with this statement from the begining of the article.

Creationist scientists (including me) generally assume that God would not create purposeless genes in different primates, and that God did not independently disable the same genes in humans and nonhuman primates during the Curse.

In addition to the obvious problems, I wonder how this guy explains the facy that there is a great deal of variation in the human genome (Ask a forensic scientist) or that some of us contain forms of genes that will cause disease - or even predispose us to particular behavioural responses - bad news for those who believe in absolute free will.
I suspect that you haven't even read the article and are just throwing creationist propaganda at us. Why did you not read about processed pseudogenes first? Why did you just ask us to read something you dont understand. Why not approach it from the other way first. It is after all mormal to be familiar with the facts before you attempt to offer an alternative. To help you, go find out about bovine seminal ribonuclease - a a processed and converted pseudogene pseudo gene. (I didn't plan this, but I,ve just noticed that I have duplicated AND mutated my pseudogene - see how easy it is!)

Posiedon (Alan?)

I saw her first :-)

1183. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34106 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 8:39 am

Lee

Too true. I find it bizarre that people come on this site to preach, deny, and say that we all have faith like theirs. The really just show up the irrational nature of their beliefs.

Think I've had enough of the troll too for now

1184. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34096 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 7:57 am

Forgot to deal with these ones

Why does it? Just because I haven't met the person who designed and built my computer doesn't mean that I'm personally ignorant.

The problem here is that you know your computer is designed, but if you didn't, then it would still be an arguement from ignorance. Infact, just in the same way that creationists deny evolution because they have not seen a fish crawl out the water, I could say that since you have not seen the designer of your computer, he does not exist. That's the logic of denial. Hopefully you will realise that this is not a reasonable statement, but thats what those who deny evolution do.
What about snow flakes? they look designed - ah, but we can explain then - not so 500 years ago! See the problem?

That's an amazing statement. Why not? Do you know everything about the subjects you study? Don't you make claims without having 100% of the evidence.

I make claims based on the evidence. There is a difference between my own area (immunology/biochemistry) and argueing for design. We make models based on the evidence, and then test these models, and discard ones that fail. I do not need to know everything about the area to progress it (that woulb be hard if I knew it all. To argue for design, you have to reject all other possibilities, and since you do not know all the facts, you have a very weak starting position. Are you a cosmologist or a quantum physicist? No? then you are argueing for design when you dont even know all the available facts (let alone ALL the facts) Can you not see the deficiency in this line os arguement? The nice thing about science is that every now and then a true genius comes along and explains our ignorance - another reason why arguements for design are unsound.

Have I come across you before by another name?

1185. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34086 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 7:14 am

blockquote
I've never said or believed any such thing. Show me a website that says that please. If you are going to attack my views please attack what I believe and not what someone else has claimed I believe.

I never said that you did. I used it as an example of how someone can get the idea that something is so complex that it has to be designed wrong. Please read carefully

It would be if true.

correct me if I am wrong, but are you not claiming that the universal constants require a creator? And in so doing have not considered that they may have a natural explanation - that you/we do not yet understand (god of the gaps)

Which gaps? The gaps that exists or those that your belief system creates?

And which gaps would they be?

Now explain to me how luck, mutations and natural selection increase genetic information.

How about gene duplication, altered distribution of HOX gene expression, unequal cross over, retroviral and transposon integration, conversion of processed pseudogenes, horizontal gene transfer etc etc. Then natural selection favouring the advantageous ones.
Are you really here to argue a point or just deny evolution because you subscribe to a particular religious view (if so, please state which). Als, are you truely open to the possibility you are wrong? Dinosaurs fossilised with humans will convince me that I am wrong. That is why I don't have a belief system as theists like to assert (incorrectly) What about you?

1186. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34069 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 6:10 am

St Augustine said that unbaptised babies went to hell, so that's at least twice they have changed their mind. Fear of hell is also a good way to control people .... hmmm - nah, surely that's not what religion was all about!

Quetz
I thought all that stuff did happen to you - are you just testing me here? Eagerly awaiting you sending me Jessica Biel your holiness :-)

Devolved
My last comment to you. How on earth is the fact that you personally cannot (or will not) explain something be seen as evidence of design? Those proposing design of things such as the bacterial flagellum were basically saying "wow that's complicated, I cant explain it. It must be god. This is a poor reason to base any hypothesis on. By the way, almost immediately, it was reduced further tho the type III secretory system (bacterial syringe). So much for going "wow". This idea of design appeals to personal ignorance and is nothing more than worshiping the god of the gaps. You can not claim design in the universe unless you know everything about it, which none of us do. But we do progress our understanding and close those gaps.
To sumarise, personal incredulity or current ignorance is not evidence of design. It is only evidence that someone either does not know or understand something. Ask youself why you reject natural explanations and see how reasonable your views are.

1187. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #34064 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 6:03 am

Mark,

Here is Stevie's quote:

Lastly, and slightly off topic, I presume that you believe God made the world for mans benefit. My minor addition to the mass of evidence against this is this - the best way man has to tell time is marking the passage of the sun. Vital for farmers (as most of Gods early creations would have been presumably.) So does he make a system that is perfect for mans needs? Does he make the earth go around the sun in a nice, easy whole number of days? 365? 366? Errr, no. 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds. Making any attempt to create a meaningful calender fraught with problems. Adding a day every four years help, but becuase the year isnt even a decent fraction, being slightly short of 365 and 1/4 days, even this means any calender will degenerate. So much for the anthropic principle. Surely a nice, human brain friendly number would have been better evidence of Gods existence than a few vague prophecies?

He is argueing about the calendar, not the moon, so, no, you have not disproved his point. He is pointing out (i believe) an example of the lack of good design in solar system - something that was supposedly set up to allow man to chart the seasons. All you have done is shown that the moons orbit can be explained rather simply - but that does not prove design ( Lee I may be wrong here, but does the part of the moon facing the earth not change over very long periods of time anyway?)

1188. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34051 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 5:42 am

Hi lee, It would be nice if he wasn't, but experience has made me cautious. There is a nice non troll guy (Mark) on the God of the bible is no delusion thread though http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg#34050

1189. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #34050 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 5:40 am

Mark,
I can only say what I interpret Stevie to have meant, and that was his point referring to the usefullness or otherwise of the solar calener, and I agree with that point. For something as important as this, you would imagine that a god creating it for our benefit would have made it consistant. I do not agree that apparent design is evidence for god, and I would imagine that stevie doesn't either. The lack of a sensible design for the calendar however is inconsisdtant with the idea that it was designed - and the oort cloud, that would just be nasty had it been designed

1190. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34046 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 5:29 am

Logicel and Lee
After your posts, I think he is a troll. He is very dishonest in his selective quoting from Dawkins. If the universe was only a couple of thousand years old with only one planet in it, then the anthropic principle would be more theist friendly. However, it is over 12 billion years old with perhaps a billion billion planets. Then perhaps our universe spawns other similar universes, or has indeed been spawned itself. Then, the anthropic principle clearly does not favour the possibility of a creator
It is amazing the burden of proof these guys try do put on rationalists when their beliefs have no evidence at all.
Regarging my earlier comment about Christianity plagiarising Pagan myths, perhaps the theists should listen to the 2nd century apologist Justin Martyr :"When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." [First Apology, ch. xxi]

Quetz
I didnt realise that you too were:
born of a spotless virgin
retired to the wilderness and fasted for forty days
was worshipped as a God
was crucified between two thieves
was buried and descended into Hell
rose the third day

1191. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #34039 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 5:03 am

Mark,
I was under the impression that Stevie was pointing out that the solar system was a bad calendar considering the christian point of view that it was made for our benefit. Plenty of things argue against this, such as the presence of the oort cloud, which occasionally launches things in our direction.

1192. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34031 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 4:48 am

Devolved
Evolution in its simplest form is the change in the gene frequencies of a population over time. This happens everytime a new individual is born or dies. Evolution is based on evidence and is tested - and stands up to testing. It is in no way equivalent to a belief in a god.

Please give your money to the RDF!

PS if youy are an evolution denying creationist troll, I'm going to ignore you

1193. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #34012 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 3:21 am

Mark

Stevie B (936) and Billy (957): Lee has just rendered your proposed alternative proof of God's existence (= a purported disproof of his existence) quite worthless.

How?

Lee
I see you sorted out the avatar. There is also an interesting lecture there on the human body as a mosaic. It reminded me that our genomes are an "ecosystem" that contains integrated retroviruses amongst other things. It was also interesting that our tapeworms are most closely related to those of lions.

Brian Nice to finally put a face to you.

1194. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34002 by BillySands on April 23, 2007 at 2:58 am

I thought the popes were supposed to have a direct line to the unchanging god. Next he will be telling us that the whole of christianity from the virgin birth to the resurrection is ripped off from other pagan religions - TSK! - really!

1195. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31532 by BillySands on April 13, 2007 at 6:53 am

Lee and Stevie
I guess we could list a lot of things about the earth that would be stupid from a design perspective. Theists meerly concentrate on the fact life exists (interestingly, the early planet was much less habitable to human life and there have been many catastrophies - we are in a cosmic firing range for example Interestingly genesis 1 says that the stars are there to tell the seasons by, so it is a very bad calendar in that case.

There may be some lectures here that are of interest to you http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/
I've only watched the first one of the undesigned universe series so far.

JC
Mark cant get a word in edgeways because of all your facts ;-)

1196. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31504 by BillySands on April 13, 2007 at 3:07 am

JC

in spite of Billy & Quetz's not-so-subtle hint that I'm posting too much

I hope you dont think I was implying that. I was merely submitting to your superior knowledge of Ezekiel, and was hoping you may comment on the dating of it.

Billy

1197. T. rex tissue shows they are related to chickens

Comment #31503 by BillySands on April 13, 2007 at 3:02 am

For those who can access it, the original paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5822/277

1198. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31415 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Quetzalcoatl
That sounds very reasonable your godship. If she does not satisfy, can I exchange her for Carmen Electra - or is that just the old testament god that allows that? If that is acceptable, then please give me absolutely no sign at all :-)

Mark In my rush for some lunchtime sunshine, I may not have made my point clearly.
This is what Nebuchadrezzar's army will do to Tyre:
Ezekiel 26:12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.

From Ezekiel 29:18 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth.

So, in the first verse, we can see that there is a prediction of plunder, but in the second, we are told that no reward was obtained. Basically the first verse is predicting the destruction of Tyre. The second shows this did not quite happen according to plan, and mirrors actual events. Because of the language, it is also clear that the second verse is written after the attack, we may presume that the first was written before (this dates the writing of this part of the book. I'll need to think more about the implications of this for ezekiel - maybe JC could save me some research here :-) ).
By the way, what would it take for you to accept JC's point about equivocation? I think he has demonstrated his point beyond any reasonable doubt.

1199. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31359 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 6:16 am

Hi Mark,
Sorry to be brief, I want to have my lunch in the sun. Egypt was not desolate because it's pharonic system was intact. Nebuchadnezzar (who apparently made no claim to have won egypt - think he got defeated by them at carchamesh?) attacked in 586/7 BCE. The pharaoh at the time was Apries (598-570 BCE). In 570 BCE, he was defeated and replaced by Amasis, who reigned until 526 BCE, and was replaced by Psammetichus III (526-525 BCE), who was then replaced by the son of the Persian Cyrus the great.
Interestingly, it appears that Ezekiel is admitting he got it wrong about the handing over of plunder from tyre: Ezekiel 29: 17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the LORD came to me: 18 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign LORD.

Slightly off topic, I believe daniels 70 sets of 7s was an attempt to rescue or even extend a false prophecy in a time of national crisis (antiochus epiphanies). Eitherway, no messia came - see the link i posted earlier for more details

1200. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #31347 by BillySands on April 12, 2007 at 5:07 am

Stevie Nice point about the calender. I haven't come across that before.

Quetzalcoatl That's me convinced. How would you like do be worshiped? Can you fix it for me to hook up with Jessica Alba? :-)

Lee

That site really is bad. My former church had a link to it, and I pointed out that it is full of lies and crap. It was then that I discovered that the minister wasn't really interested in the truth