PDA

View Full Version : AC's Waffle Supposedly Re Arguments For & Against God's Existence



antichrist
17-08-2013, 07:57 PM
There is a new term, to me anyway, that explains the biological system without reference to a necessary god. It is called abiotic factor.

It goes like this. The biological world is ""arranged"" so that just as the spring plants are growing, the animals bear their babies, and the snow melts replenishes the streams.

Some people, religiously inclined and uneducated folk,who want simple quick answers, demand a designer.

But the answer to those who don't narrow their horizons for an immediate answer is entirely opposite.

Life has exploited the pattern of seasons to bring maximum advantage to itself. The creatures that did not ""fit the mould"" in this regard died out. Babies born in the middle of winter froze or starved, taking with them the genes that increased the likelihood of giving birth in midwinter etc.

The world has not been 'set up' for life. Life has set itself up to fit to the world.

Actually it reminds me of one of Richard Dawkins books. Actually there may be some creatures that do survive idealistically being mid-winter born, but you can get the trend of the argument. If these particular creatures were born mid-summer that would be unsuitable to survive and flourish.

antichrist
18-08-2013, 09:40 AM
I have just been looking at historical documents that supposedly prove the existence of Jesus, well what do we find? Scraps of scrolls, often vertical pieces with approx 4/5 of script missing. But we are expected to respect such.

Whereas, theists will argue that a few so called missing links in evolutionary tree/ladder demolishes the tree. At least about 90%+ of evolutionary history is there and provable, whereas with the Scriptures it is opposite, 90% are missing.

Besides scientists only have to establish a single case of evolution to prove the Theory.

antichrist
18-08-2013, 10:21 AM
Tacitus on Christ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_Jesus#Josephus

The title page of 1598 edition of the works of Tacitus, kept in Empoli, Italy.
The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[166][167][168]
Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[121][169][170][171][172] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[24] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus's death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine.[121]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AC
Oh yes there is a saviour mentioned in Tacitus, but what these scholars fail to point out is that Tacitus mentions about five such Jesus/saviour characters and none of them, in my opinion of listening to thousands of sermons, fit the mould of Jesus of Nazarus. It actually seems that they combined the whole five to form the final Jesus. But there have been right through out human history been saviours, five born of virgin birth before Jesus and all Sons of God. So Jesus becomes just another deluded journeyman if he did exist.

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2013, 12:57 PM
Thread retitled

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
18-08-2013, 10:28 PM
this should help a/c.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090724163812AAhA7FS

Rincewind
19-08-2013, 12:18 AM
this should help a/c.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090724163812AAhA7FS

This should help everyone...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090528095631AAgcYze

antichrist
19-08-2013, 09:41 AM
listen you peasantry, this is supposed to be a high brow philosophical thread to morph into Does God Exist when the good lord smiles upon us - I wanted to display my class

antichrist
19-08-2013, 10:41 AM
As I was explaining someone yesterday when we could see the moon in the bright sun arvo - there are reasons for everything (except for loving me)

The reasons for life on Earth is due to its proximity to the sun, any closer or further and the appopriate conditions would not exist. Too cold too hot too dry etc. for the existence of life-bearing water, for life as we know it.


When one considers the billions of planets out there that life does not exist on (as far as we are aware) then the likelihood of any planet having life is extremely remote.

This set up is used by theists as a argument of God's existence, that God has placed Earth exactly in the appropriate position.

But because we are here debating the rarity of such, on such on a rarity of a planet already, answers the question that there could be more planets out there with life and we are not specifically aligned here by a god. We are that needle in a haystack and there could very well be more needles in other haystacks.

Though I don't recommend searching for such as an unnecessary waste of resources, and I dont consider such questions importance for everyday survival, and can indeed can be very detrimental to every day survival.

Ian Murray
19-08-2013, 09:52 PM
As I was explaining someone yesterday when we could see the moon in the bright sun arvo - there are reasons for everything (except for loving me)

The reasons for life on Earth is due to its proximity to the sun, any closer or further and the appopriate conditions would not exist. Too cold too hot too dry etc. for the existence of life-bearing water, for life as we know it.


When one considers the billions of planets out there that life does not exist on (as far as we are aware) then the likelihood of any planet having life is extremely remote.

This set up is used by theists as a argument of God's existence, that God has placed Earth exactly in the appropriate position.

But because we are here debating the rarity of such, on such on a rarity of a planet already, answers the question that there could be more planets out there with life and we are not specifically aligned here by a god. We are that needle in a haystack and there could very well be more needles in other haystacks.

Though I don't recommend searching for such as an unnecessary waste of resources, and I dont consider such questions importance for everyday survival, and can indeed can be very detrimental to every day survival.
If there are a whole bunch of planets orbiting a star, as per our solar system at birth, and after natural attrition eight survive into modern times, it is not particularly surprising that at least one of them is in the Cinderella zone.

Nor is it particularly surprising that hundreds of exoplanets have been identified so far, in the few years that the technology has been developed to spot them (analogous to a bug flying in front of a car's headlights on the horizon, and detecting the resulting reduced brightness).

Garrett
20-08-2013, 03:05 AM
Nor is it particularly surprising that hundreds of exoplanets have been identified so far, in the few years that the technology has been developed to spot them (analogous to a bug flying in front of a car's headlights on the horizon, and detecting the resulting reduced brightness).

On a related note the Kepler mission is in jeopardy due to wheel failure.

antichrist
04-09-2013, 08:16 PM
http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/blogs/view/id/128160/t/Top-ten-funniest-documentaries

antichrist
08-09-2013, 09:59 AM
There is any amount of evidence demonstrating the fallibility of human memory as well as false memory. Ten eyewitnesses will give ten eyewitness accounts differing in fact and detail. So eyewitness accounts should be corroborated first, and not accepted as prime testimony.

Lonesome Earl from Palestinian thread
Split-second observations are irrelevant here; we're talking about ample observation time, e.g. from the source I cited above:
When a man broke into Jennifer Thompson's apartment in 1984 and raped her, the 22-year-old college student made a point of studying his face so she could later identify him. When she picked Ronald Cotton out of both a photo and a physical lineup, she was dead sure she'd found her attacker, and the jury took just 40 minutes to find him guilty. In prison, Cotton met an inmate who bragged that he'd committed the rape. At a new trial, Thompson looked at the two men and again chose Cotton. "I have never seen" the other man, she said. Nearly a decade later, DNA proved the other inmate had been her rapist. Because Cotton was the only person who appeared in both lineups presented to Thompson, she may have unconsciously settled on him as her attacker. She didn't recognize the real rapist in court because she'd "been picking [Cotton] all along," says memory expert\ Elizabeth Loftus. After more than a decade in prison, Cotton was exonerated. He and Thompson, now friends, travel the country lobbying for reformed identification procedures.

AC
What ramifications does this have for those who claim to have seen JC after he supposed died? And didn't some of his own apostles disown him, that is did not recognise him. That is how we got the doubting story. And I tell you, in the Philippines 20 years ago when they were see apparicions of Mama Mary, her birthday today or yestada by the way, they asked what colour clothes was she wearing and the supposed eye witnesses, there on the spot, gave different colours - so you work it out. And the very powerful TV cameras there at the time saw nothing.

ER
08-09-2013, 01:54 PM
There is any amount of evidence demonstrating the fallibility of human memory as well as false memory...

There is also evidence that you still can't quote properly despite having been told and / or warned numerous times!

antichrist
14-09-2013, 10:48 AM
Jono from Travyon Martin thread

On why GZ was right to invoke his fifth amendment (and note that GF often advises his own clients to remain silent), here is a good 50-min lecture by a law school professor and former criminal defense attorney, explaining why you should never agree to talk to the police. Anything you say or do can only be used against you in a court of law, not for you. There are too many ways that innocent people can be tripped up. He cites
a number of Supreme Court rulings to back him up.

AC
well Jono JC was not very smart - coz he certainly opened his gob when questioned by Pontious Pilate - and got him into trouble it did. Could a defendant keep quiet in those days? Was their soldier brutality?

Kevin Bonham
15-10-2013, 08:25 PM
Posts moved

A discussion on-topic for the "Does God Exist?" thread that started on this thread has been moved there, and the "Does God Exist?" thread has been reopened.

antichrist
29-10-2013, 08:28 PM
from Nine News
THE Australian War Memorial secretly decided during the election campaign to delete the iconic words "Known Unto God" from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and replace them with quotes from Paul Keating.
But after complaints to the Abbott government, the original words will be retained.
As a compromise, a bronze plaque containing quotes from a 1993 speech by Mr Keating will be placed at the entrance of the tomb.
The Keating inscription will read: "We do not know this Australian's name, we never will . . . He is one of them, and he is all of us."
The deletion of "Known Unto God" is believed to have been proposed by memorial director Dr Brendan Nelson and approved by its council, chaired by retired Rear Admiral Ken Doolan. Dr Nelson was previously the Defence Minister and the Australian ambassador to Belgium.
A memorial spokeswoman said yesterday: "The council did approve it but they have revised the decision recently so the words 'Known Unto God' will remain."
But the original proposal angered veterans and war buffs who say it is sacrilegious to delete "God".

AC
on another site it mentions that the revision was due to the new LIB/NP government, they want to keep God in the equasion. But first they have the obligation to prove that such a god exists

Tony Dowden
29-10-2013, 09:58 PM
... I wanted to display my class
Best of luck then pal :D

antichrist
05-11-2013, 09:37 AM
went to a Catholic Nuptial mass the other day and lo & behold watching the priest turn bread and wine into body and blood of Christ - well streuth surely this would have to be the greatest step in evolution ever, and all peformed in about 3 mins.


And if you cannot believe it then you cannot be a Catholic - like most of the western world was until the proddos got jealous and kicked up a stink

antichrist
07-11-2013, 11:14 AM
if we can sell our soul to the Devil then why cant we sell body organs to a fellow human?

antichrist
07-11-2013, 06:38 PM
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jimmy+barnes+youtube+a+man+loves+a+woman&docid=4697265212624323&mid=F50ACBF3A37575F00725F50ACBF3A37575F00725&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=F50ACBF3A37575F00725F50ACBF3A37575F00725
some how Jimmy Barnes mutates into The ATheist Experience - at least we know that Jimmy exists

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2013, 03:41 PM
if we can sell our soul to the Devil then why cant we sell body organs to a fellow human?

I have no problem with the latter; see this poll and thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?7468-Should-it-be-legal-to-sell-our-kidneys-and-other-organs).

antichrist
17-11-2013, 04:53 PM
I have no problem with the latter; see this poll and thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?7468-Should-it-be-legal-to-sell-our-kidneys-and-other-organs).

and what about the former???

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
24-11-2013, 11:23 PM
do you really think satan is going to offer you much more than a broken toaster oven and a grubby threadbare sock for your soul ?

satan may be really really evil but that does not require him to be a complete moron as well.

antichrist
25-11-2013, 09:43 AM
do you really think satan is going to offer you much more than a broken toaster oven and a grubby threadbare sock for your soul ?

satan may be really really evil but that does not require him to be a complete moron as well.

But this soul is of a once holy mass-attending Latin-speaking Catholic altar-boy whom was not violated by the priests - surely that is worth a few fallen ladies

antichrist
01-12-2013, 07:44 AM
SHOUTBOX: [01-12, 03:50] Jono: I guess "A eats B" counts whether it's predation or parasitism.

But when Catholics eat the body and blood of Christ in the consencrated Holy Communion Host is it predation or parasitism?

antichrist
03-12-2013, 11:08 AM
Jono from Abbott pm thread: Former treasurer Peter Costello criticised the decision on Sunday. On Monday, former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett said it had condemned Australia to be a “10th-order country” and “we are still back in the 18th century”.

AC
And Jono are any of your ideas are still 18th century pre-scientific?

Desmond
03-12-2013, 12:08 PM
pre-kindergarten, certainly.

antichrist
03-09-2014, 10:07 PM
As Abel offered fat portions from some of the first born of his flock" as an offer to God as sacrifice, whereas Cain only offered plants, yet God favoured Abel's offering over Cain"s. This is why Cain killed Abel. This proves that God is not a vegetarian and prefers meat over veggies. This is consistent with the Catholic Holy Communion host/wafer being from grain crops rather than the abattoir. The host being the body and blood of Christ one would think it should be made of meat

antichrist
12-09-2014, 01:15 PM
Richard Dawkins: Christians are dumb, disillusional and dangerous. Spot opn Bro Dawkins, also: when has theology every said anything useful to anyone

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/big-ideas/FA1308H063S00#playing

antichrist
23-09-2014, 07:13 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/archbishop-of-canterbury-justin-welby-questions-the-existence-of-god-20140919-10jary.html

The archbishop of Canterbury is doubting if God even exists - is the Pope a Catholic. Remember that episode in Yes Minister about the arch bishop not having to believe in God, as long as he did not rock the boat

antichrist
19-10-2014, 07:15 AM
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof."
- Ashley Montague

AC: that I call looking through the telescope at the wrong end

Desmond
19-10-2014, 07:21 AM
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof."
- Ashley Montague

AC: that I call looking through the telescope at the wrong endOr looking through the telescope with the wrong eye closed.

MichaelBaron
19-10-2014, 09:55 AM
If accept that a multi-dimensional environment is possible...then there is no proof of anything :)

antichrist
19-10-2014, 05:39 PM
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/384049/news/nation/cbcp-head-calls-to-stop-use-of-phrase-act-of-god

CBCP head calls to stop use of phrase ‘act of God’
By TRISHA MACAS, GMA NewsOctober 17, 2014 5:58pm

The president of Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) called on Friday for the cessation of the use of the phrase "act of God" commonly written in contracts—especially insurance contracts—in law, and jurisprudence.

Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas noted in a statemend that other terms such as "fortuitous events," "natural calamities," and "force majeure" can be used instead.

...................... so as not to perpetrate a mistaken notion of Divine causality and the will of God."

The phrase "acts of God," according to the CBCP head, "conveys the thought that God is the cause of human misery and tragedy." It contradicts the image of an all-loving God.


.............................The use of 'acts of God' in reference to tragic events conveys the misleading thought of a God who wills catastrophe, calamity and misfortune," he further explained. — VC, GMA News

AC:after threatening everyone and sundry with all these calamities for thousands of years, actually upon which religious superstition was based, now they want to ditch their stick and only offer their carrot. Well stick it up them I reckon - have none of it.

Kevin Bonham
19-10-2014, 10:34 PM
The other problem with the expression "act of God" is that it creates the impression that any God supposed to exist actually does anything on an even remotely regular basis, in spite of a complete lack of evidence that that is so.

Capablanca-Fan
20-10-2014, 07:58 AM
Or looking through the telescope with the wrong eye closed.

Who Refused to Look through Galileo's Telescope? (http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-refused-to-look-through-galileos.html)
James Hannam (Ph.D. in history of science from Cambridge), 20 NOVEMBER 2006

According to popular legend, when Galileo presented his telescope to senior cardinals/Jesuits/Aristotelian philosophers/the Inquisition (delete as applicable) they refused to even look through it. This tale has become a standard trope for when we want to attack anyone who won't accept 'obvious' evidence.

So who refused to look through Galileo's telescope? According to the historical record, no one did for certain. The argument was over what they could see once they once they did look.

MichaelBaron
20-10-2014, 10:26 AM
Who Refused to Look through Galileo's Telescope? (http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-refused-to-look-through-galileos.html)
James Hannam (Ph.D. in history of science from Cambridge), 20 NOVEMBER 2006

According to popular legend, when Galileo presented his telescope to senior cardinals/Jesuits/Aristotelian philosophers/the Inquisition (delete as applicable) they refused to even look through it. This tale has become a standard trope for when we want to attack anyone who won't accept 'obvious' evidence.


So who refused to look through Galileo's telescope? According to the historical record, no one did for certain. The argument was over what they could see once they once they did look.
Not sure about this particular case. But overall, it is will known that the church inquisition was prosecuting those who questioned existance of God. People were burned.

Rincewind
20-10-2014, 10:44 AM
James Hannam

Church apologist and writer of popular histories.

antichrist
20-10-2014, 11:21 PM
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

AC: one does not create darkness, it is just a lack of light, I know that and I only got 11/15 of those science questions answered correctly

Capablanca-Fan
20-10-2014, 11:36 PM
Church apologist and writer of popular histories.

A writer with an earned doctorate in the history of science from Cambridge, hardly known as a degree mill. But according to RW, one must be a rabid atheopath or else one can't be trusted. That's why RW trusts Charles Freeman, who is really a freelance writer on history with no academic qualifications in the area, because Freeman really is a rabid atheopath.

Rincewind
20-10-2014, 11:38 PM
The guy has a history degree but a massive conflict of interest since his a priori position is to defend the church.

I much prefer historians who don't have axes to grind.

antichrist
20-10-2014, 11:43 PM
The guy has a history degree but a massive conflict of interest since his a priori position is to defend the church.

I much prefer historians who don't have axes to grind.

As long as they are not into chopping wood at my place and charging by the hour I would not really mine

Capablanca-Fan
20-10-2014, 11:57 PM
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

AC: one does not create darkness, it is just a lack of light, I know that and I only got 11/15 of those science questions answered correctly
Darkness indeed is an absence of light, but it's reasonable to equate the removal of light with creation of darkness. It is a real word after all. Similarly, evil is a privation of good. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, in solid state physics, there is a phenomenon called ‘hole conduction’, where a vacancy or ‘hole’ is filled by an electron, leaving a vacancy in turn where the electron was, which is in turn filled by still another electron. So the hole travels throughout the solid for all practical purposes like a positive charge carrier, but ultimately it has no reality and it’s the electrons that are moving.

Capablanca-Fan
20-10-2014, 11:58 PM
Not sure about this particular case. But overall, it is will known that the church inquisition was prosecuting those who questioned existance of God. People were burned.

Very few actually, and no scientists. See also Tim O'Neill, The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews God’s Philosophers by James Hannam (http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/).

Desmond
21-10-2014, 06:12 AM
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”


― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

antichrist
21-10-2014, 02:41 PM
Darkness indeed is an absence of light, but it's reasonable to equate the removal of light with creation of darkness. It is a real word after all. Similarly, evil is a privation of good. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, in solid state physics, there is a phenomenon called ‘hole conduction’, where a vacancy or ‘hole’ is filled by an electron, leaving a vacancy in turn where the electron was, which is in turn filled by still another electron. So the hole travels throughout the solid for all practical purposes like a positive charge carrier, but ultimately it has no reality and it’s the electrons that are moving.

But when there was no world created there was already darkness so God is not responsible for darkness. God is trying to take credit for things he did not create

MichaelBaron
21-10-2014, 08:13 PM
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”


― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man
Nothing travels faster than gossip!

Rincewind
21-10-2014, 11:58 PM
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.

- Douglas Adams

BTW This quote is also used in the game Civilisation IV

antichrist
23-10-2014, 10:04 AM
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.

- Douglas Adams

BTW This quote is also used in the game Civilisation IV

You want to bet about which is faster - people complain about my explosions when they have not even reached them yet

antichrist
06-11-2014, 05:26 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jacn5cgN9yE

Worshipping Jesus is worshipping the Roman Emperor in disguise - so it says

antichrist
06-11-2014, 05:31 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJMd5UiTeys

John's Gospel a fraud

Rincewind
06-11-2014, 09:02 PM
I think there are good arguments that Jesus never existed. They aren't compelling but they certainly are serious. But "just because John's gospel is bogus" is not one of them. John's gospel could have been totally made up with all kinds of weird stuff that aren't in the synoptic gospels but that doesn't tell you very much about the existence of an historical Jesus figure. The two questions are largely unrelated.

By way of analogy, just because von Daniken wrote Chariot of the Gods with lots a crazy claims, it does not mean the Nazca people didn't exist. Just most don't think that the Nazca were visited by aliens.

antichrist
09-11-2014, 10:09 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNn7b_kz9dM

Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

his point is that there were no eye witnesses who have written the Resurrection, and he makes many good points but I am sleepy from surfing so you work out for yourself

antichrist
09-11-2014, 10:32 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAsQULGs1kU

an interesting guy

antichrist
09-11-2014, 10:33 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz-z8j67Ids

another by Professor Ehrman

plus plenty more on line

Adamski
10-11-2014, 12:01 PM
AC I hope that you also read and view material from the other side of the argument...

antichrist
10-11-2014, 12:11 PM
AC I hope that you also read and view material from the other side of the argument...

adamski, hundreds of years ago scientists just looked at nature and could not deny what they saw - whether on a cliff face or through a telescope. I just observe the forests at Byron and my own garden on house lot and can't help but notice the behaviour of creatures and plants. The explanation does not need a supreme being. Some Pommie floral cousins of Aussie plants are poisonous for snails and caterpillars - only an evil god would poison such creatures. Now massive changes of nature due to climate change - why doesn't god with a blink of an eyelid protect our environment. Coz he is useless and does not exist - or He is scared of Jono!

Rincewind
10-11-2014, 07:16 PM
AC I hope that you also read and view material from the other side of the argument...

There isn't really that much of an argument about the topic of Bart Ehrman's talks. He is presenting pretty standard stuff. The text of the gospels have thousands of variations between them. Most insignificant but many important. Some of the changes were introduced by the scribes probably deliberately.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2014, 03:47 PM
There isn't really that much of an argument about the topic of Bart Ehrman's talks. He is presenting pretty standard stuff. The text of the gospels have thousands of variations between them.
NT scholars like Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary do a fine job of demolishing Ehrman (http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart)without denying that there were scribal changes, since they affect only a tiny fraction of the text and most are extremely trivial. For example, spelling variants, esp. of names (as an example of how name spelling was very flexible, Henry VIII's first wife Catherine of Aragon spelled her own name in several ways 1500 years later), whether the article has a nu before a vowel, and just the different ways of saying the same thing (e.g. there are about 16 different Greek ways of saying "Jesus loves Paul" just using the verb agapao). All these would be included in Ehrman's "400,000 variants", which scares those who don't know the issues.

Nothing Ehrman says is news, and his best examples are trivial, but he is a good self-publicist. He waited till his Ph.D. supervisor, the renowned NT textual scholar Bruce Metzger, had died before writing his crap.


Most insignificant but many important.
Actually, only a handful are important, <1% (http://danielbwallace.com/2014/03/24/can-we-still-believe-the-bible/). Craig Blomberg pointed out (http://danielbwallace.com/2014/03/24/can-we-still-believe-the-bible/)that “the only disputed passages involving more than two verses in length” are Mark 16.9–20 and John 7.53–8.11 (18). Even Ehrman admitted (http://danielbwallace.com/2012/12/28/five-more-myths-about-bible-translations-and-the-transmission-of-the-text/), “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”


Some of the changes were introduced by the scribes probably deliberately.
The only possibly deliberate example would be the later Byzantine manuscripts that are the basis for the KJV, which show "expansion of piety". It is irrelevant for other translations such as ESV, NASB, NIV.

antichrist
11-11-2014, 05:09 PM
Jono from above: "Jesus loves Paul"

what exactly was meant by this?

antichrist
11-11-2014, 09:28 PM
An atheists Last Supper

2715

A great concept and pic by anyone's standards

Can anyone name all participants first off?

Rincewind
11-11-2014, 09:42 PM
NT scholars like Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary do a fine job of demolishing Ehrman without denying that there were scribal changes, since they affect only a tiny fraction of the text and most are extremely trivial.

Wallaces article isn't all bad but it is a pity he spoils it with well-poisoning fallacies and amateur psychoanalysis. Regarding Ehrman's spiritual journey the realisation of textual corruption was an issue regarding his conversion from fundamentalist to liberal but after giving up inerrancy Ehrman remained a liberal Christian for many years (something like 15) before realising that agnosticism made more sense. The issue for him were things like the problem of suffering in the world rather than anything to do with textual criticism.

I note far from providing a demolition of Ehrman Wallace actually admits


Now, to be sure, there are some challenges in the textual variants to inerrancy. This is not denied. But there are simply bigger fish to fry when it comes to issues that inerrancy faces.

:hmm:


For example, spelling variants, esp. of names (as an example of how name spelling was very flexible, Henry VIII's first wife Catherine of Aragon spelled her own name in several ways 1500 years later), whether the article has a nu before a vowel, and just the different ways of saying the same thing (e.g. there are about 16 different Greek ways of saying "Jesus loves Paul" just using the verb agapao). All these would be included in Ehrman's "400,000 variants", which scares those who don't know the issues.

1% of 400,000 is still a good number. The issue for inerrancy from my viewpoint would depend on the sort of inerrancy that was adopted. If God inspired the written word, then why did he allow it corruption? I mean most inerrant-believers will tell you that God has given mankind his message in the Bible. So if the original was miraculously inspired why allow even one semantic corruption?


Nothing Ehrman says is news, and his best examples are trivial, but he is a good self-publicist.

Sounds like thinly veiled jealousy. He is a successful author who has reached a wide audience with his popular output. His scholarly works he does not try to sell to a wide audience but "Misquoting Jesus" is not one of those volumes.


He waited till his Ph.D. supervisor, the renowned NT textual scholar Bruce Metzger, had died before writing his crap.

Repeating of Wallace's well-poising fallacy. I knew there was no fallacious argument you wouldn't think worth repeating.


Actually, only a handful are important, <1%.

You are aware that 1% of 400,000 is still 4,000. If the word was inspired why would god allow even one corruption?


Craig Blomberg pointed out that the only disputed passages involving more than two verses in length are Mark 16.9-20 and John 7.53-8.11.

Why is the length of 2 verses an important watershed? If something was miraculously inspired even one word corruptions are problematic. Especially when they are deliberately made by scribes with theo-political agendas.


Even Ehrman admitted, Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

No the stories are there but there are big issues with regard certain specific articles of faith things like corroboration between the gospels which is some cases has been deliberately improved. Mary referring to Joseph as Jesus' father, etc. Not "essential Christian beliefs" especially Ehrman who was a liberal Christian for his last 15 years in the faith, but things that a biblical-inerrant literalist would not like.


The only possibly deliberate example would be the later Byzantine manuscripts that are the basis for the KJV, which show "expansion of piety". It is irrelevant for other translations such as ESV, NASB, NIV.

Mark 16.9-20 is earlier than that and several verses long and so hardly can be classed as accidental. The fact that almost everyone knows they are bogus is a little beside the point when people still publish them in nearly every standard bible.

Rincewind
11-11-2014, 10:47 PM
He waited till his Ph.D. supervisor, the renowned NT textual scholar Bruce Metzger, had died before writing his crap.

I have since noticed that Misquoting Jesus was published in 2005, where Bruce Metzger passed away in 2007.

antichrist
12-11-2014, 06:14 AM
from Greatest Scientific Discovery
Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan
It was bad enough that AC hijacked a thread about scientific inventions, in particular one (vaccination) that has saved countless lives and immensely reduced human suffering, to his misanthropic whinging that not enough people die of horrible diseases any more.

AC:
Now Jono, for people who live in fairy land like yourself why doesn't God just eliminate about 8/10 of the population and simultaneously change all our memories so that we don't know anything about them and the over population problem is solved for about another 50 years when another culling will be necessary.

But ask God to leave the disappeareds mansions they may have built, I could do with a new shack.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2014, 08:57 AM
Wallaces article isn't all bad but it is a pity he spoils it with well-poisoning fallacies and amateur psychoanalysis. Regarding Ehrman's spiritual journey the realisation of textual corruption was an issue regarding his conversion from fundamentalist to liberal but after giving up inerrancy Ehrman remained a liberal Christian for many years (something like 15) before realising that agnosticism made more sense. The issue for him were things like the problem of suffering in the world rather than anything to do with textual criticism.
I know someone who went to Moody with Ehrman. Ehrman is lying when he says he could never have his questions answered well at school. This fellow student remembers him being a rather dull student who rarely asked hard questions from the professors. Contrary to him, this other student had just gotten saved at the time from a liberal Methodist background and he was asking the same questions Ehrman asks now in his popular books, and the professors answered him well and obviously satisfactory. In short, Ehrman is a big bluffer. His academic material is not nearly as "critical" of Christianity in its conclusions as his popular level stuff he is putting out now. That's because the radical conclusions he makes in his popular stuff regarding the reliability of the text of scripture would not stand up to serious academic scrutiny in academic circles.


I note far from providing a demolition of Ehrman Wallace actually admits
Hardly an admission, because the main attacks on the Bible come against the passages that are undisputed from a textual perspective. E.g. even Ehrman knows that the original text taught the Resurrection of Jesus, which of course he doesn't believe.


1% of 400,000 is still a good number.
But in Bart's serious works, the significant ones are those we already know: the pericope adulterae (one of Finn McCool's favorite passages; typical) and the long ending of Mark.


The issue for inerrancy from my viewpoint would depend on the sort of inerrancy that was adopted. If God inspired the written word, then why did he allow it corruption? I mean most inerrant-believers will tell you that God has given mankind his message in the Bible. So if the original was miraculously inspired why allow even one semantic corruption?
So God should hold the hand of all copyists and translators? Apparently so according to Bart and RW.


Mark 16.9-20 is earlier than that and several verses long and so hardly can be classed as accidental. The fact that almost everyone knows they are bogus is a little beside the point when people still publish them in nearly every standard bible.
Wallace wishes that they wouldn't, and I agree with him.

Goughfather
12-11-2014, 07:20 PM
This fellow student remembers him being a rather dull student who rarely asked hard questions from the professors.

Given that Ehrman graduated magna cum laude at both Wheaton and Princeton, sounds like your friend is simply jealous and is likely to be every bit the miserable failure that you are.

Rincewind
12-11-2014, 10:30 PM
I know someone who went to Moody with Ehrman. Ehrman is lying when he says he could never have his questions answered well at school. This fellow student remembers him being a rather dull student who rarely asked hard questions from the professors. Contrary to him, this other student had just gotten saved at the time from a liberal Methodist background and he was asking the same questions Ehrman asks now in his popular books, and the professors answered him well and obviously satisfactory. In short, Ehrman is a big bluffer. His academic material is not nearly as "critical" of Christianity in its conclusions as his popular level stuff he is putting out now. That's because the radical conclusions he makes in his popular stuff regarding the reliability of the text of scripture would not stand up to serious academic scrutiny in academic circles.

The hearsay from a supposed contemporary of Ehrman at Moody sounds apocryphal at best. As GF points out Ehrman has had a stellar student record and academic career where he is regarded one of the leading experts on new testament textual criticism.

Trade publications meant for a wide-audience and not meant to be held to the same level of scrutiny as a serious academic publication. Authors like Wallace who complains about these sorts of issues is either clueless or being deliberately mendacious by implying otherwise.


Hardly an admission, because the main attacks on the Bible come against the passages that are undisputed from a textual perspective. E.g. even Ehrman knows that the original text taught the Resurrection of Jesus, which of course he doesn't believe.

In various ways. The Mark finishing at 16.8 tells a very different story to the other gospels and to the Mark 16.9-20. In particular Mark 16.15-18 as a deliberate corruption is problematic since it is very obviously pushing a political agenda.


But in Bart's serious works, the significant ones are those we already know: the pericope adulterae (one of Finn McCool's favorite passages; typical) and the long ending of Mark.

They are still a problem though since inerrantists have to answer the question of why did god inspire the original text when he knew it would be deliberately corrupted by scribes?


So God should hold the hand of all copyists and translators? Apparently so according to Bart and RW.

If he is going to inspire the original text why allow it to be corrupted? Was it a problem of it being too hard to prevent the corruption?


Wallace wishes that they wouldn't, and I agree with him.

Yes, I agree. It is a big problem for inerrantists.

antichrist
19-11-2014, 01:18 AM
http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo&position=3857&with_photo_id=35484757&order=date_desc&user=2422709
Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2014, 02:45 AM
Given that Ehrman graduated magna cum laude at both Wheaton and Princeton, sounds like your friend is simply jealous and is likely to be every bit the miserable failure that you are.
My books have probably outsold his, moron. But trust you to be enamoured with the likes of Ehrman.

Rincewind
19-11-2014, 02:18 PM
My books have probably outsold his, moron. But trust you to be enamoured with the likes of Ehrman.

Have any of your books made it onto the NYT Best Sellers List?

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2014, 03:14 PM
Another halfwit ↑↑ who reverses cause and effect: a book doesn't become a best-seller by getting on some list; ideally, the best-sellers list should reflect those which really are best-sellers.

Rincewind
19-11-2014, 09:15 PM
Another halfwit ↑↑ who reverses cause and effect: a book doesn't become a best-seller by getting on some list; ideally, the best-sellers list should reflect those which really are best-sellers.

Translation: No. :lol:

Also ignorant as the New York Times best sellers list is (as the name suggests) based on retail sales. And the pre-eminent such list in the USA.

antichrist
22-11-2014, 03:39 AM
Translation: No. :lol:

Also ignorant as the New York Times best sellers list is (as the name suggests) based on retail sales. And the pre-eminent such list in the USA.

Isn't the Bible the biggest seller in the fiction range?

antichrist
22-11-2014, 03:41 AM
After billions of moves isn't time the God and Satan called a draw and begin a new game? Billions of pieces have dropped off the board but they are still at it.

Rincewind
22-11-2014, 09:28 AM
Also ignorant as the New York Times best sellers list is (as the name suggests) based on retail sales. And the pre-eminent such list in the USA.

The New York Times Best Sellers List only tracks new books.

I was making a serious point because in post #69 Jono was making that ludicrous claim that he probably had sold more books that Ehrman. That claim should be classified in the fantasy section.

antichrist
22-11-2014, 10:39 AM
New 22-11, 02:16 Capablanca-Fan
Person of Interest is a good show

AC: have they ever posted your Superhero on there?

Adamski
22-11-2014, 11:55 AM
New 22-11, 02:16 Capablanca-Fan
Person of Interest is a good show

AC: have they ever posted your Superhero on there?"PI" is a great show but it is a real pity that currently in NSW it only shows on Thursday nights at 11.50 pm or so through to 12.50. Jesus Christ is yet to appear on the show. But I have bought the DVD set for series 2 (which includes 2 pi r episode).

Desmond
23-11-2014, 08:12 PM
Jesus Christ is yet to appear on the show. Scheduling conflicts?

Rincewind
24-11-2014, 12:28 AM
Scheduling conflicts?

It's been 2000 years since his last appearance and despite many confident predictions of his imminent return (going back nearly 2000 years) he remains remarkably reclusive.

antichrist
24-11-2014, 10:51 AM
It's been 2000 years since his last appearance and despite many confident predictions of his imminent return (going back nearly 2000 years) he remains remarkably reclusive.

If there are the supposed billion universes then he is a busy guy - and making all of it out of nothing, what an act. Come on Adamski, you are a decent guy don't get taken in with this stuff, making yourself an easy target.

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2014, 06:32 AM
New 22-11, 02:16 Capablanca-Fan
Person of Interest is a good show

AC: have they ever posted your Superhero on there?

No, but an actor who famously played Him is one of the two main stars.

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2014, 06:39 AM
An atheists Last Supper

2715

A great concept and pic by anyone's standards

Can anyone name all participants first off?

Left #1 looks like Galileo, and #5 could be Pasteur, who were not atheists but Roman Catholic creationists. #4 is Newton, who was a devout Bible-believer who called atheism "senseless", and wrote more on the Bible than on science. But then, that pic has also been called "Scientists' Last Supper", which would be more accurate, but then it wouldn't include the atheopathic propagandist Richard Dawkins.

Adamski
25-11-2014, 07:26 AM
If there are the supposed billion universes then he is a busy guy - and making all of it out of nothing, what an act. Come on Adamski, you are a decent guy don't get taken in with this stuff, making yourself an easy target.It takes more faith to believe in a tending towards infinitely small chance conicidence that allowed life to appear uncreated than to believe in a Creator God. The mathematics of the probability are covered inter alia by John Lennox in his book 'Has Science Buried God'.

Desmond
25-11-2014, 07:48 AM
It takes more faith to believe in a tending towards infinitely small chance conicidence that allowed life to appear uncreated than to believe in a Creator God. The mathematics of the probability are covered inter alia by John Lennox in his book 'Has Science Buried God'.Roll the dice enough times and you get any result. The universe is a big place.

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2014, 08:04 AM
Roll the dice enough times and you get any result. The universe is a big place.

Nowhere near big enough or old enough (http://creation.com/answering-another-uninformed-atheist-galileo-miller-urey-probability), even granting the big bang time scale.

Adamski
25-11-2014, 08:16 AM
The universe is a big place.That is part of the point!

antichrist
25-11-2014, 09:40 AM
It takes more faith to believe in a tending towards infinitely small chance conicidence that allowed life to appear uncreated than to believe in a Creator God. The mathematics of the probability are covered inter alia by John Lennox in his book 'Has Science Buried God'.

over billions of years such co-incidences will come up. But even if not completely correct strictly speaking it is not an important issue. As long as happy whilst we are alive and not wasting time on ancient superstitions and not making other people's lives misery that is the all we need to do. Environmentalism has become the new religion and rightly so.

Kevin Bonham
25-11-2014, 09:42 AM
It takes more faith to believe in a tending towards infinitely small chance conicidence that allowed life to appear uncreated than to believe in a Creator God. The mathematics of the probability are covered inter alia by John Lennox in his book 'Has Science Buried God'.

Those post hoc probability calculations are invariably riddled with errors and logical fallacies. From the extracts/summaries of Lennox here (http://www.focus.org.uk/lennox.php) and here (http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/has_science_buried_god/), it looks like he commits many of the common errors, including looking at the consequences of just one constant being different at a time without considering what would happen if multiple constants were different.

antichrist
25-11-2014, 09:51 AM
Jono: Why would anyone vote for them in the first place? With that name, it was never about coherent policies but all about the whims of Palmer.

AC: would you comment the same on why would people join The Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints? Being just all about the whims of Jesus Christ

Patrick Byrom
25-11-2014, 06:16 PM
Those post hoc probability calculations are invariably riddled with errors and logical fallacies. From the extracts/summaries of Lennox here (http://www.focus.org.uk/lennox.php) and here (http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/has_science_buried_god/), it looks like he commits many of the common errors, including looking at the consequences of just one constant being different at a time without considering what would happen if multiple constants were different.
Then you definitely won't like the argument Capablanca-Fan quotes in #85 (http://creation.com/answering-another-uninformed-atheist-galileo-miller-urey-probability):


Even evolutionary writers implicitly concede that some sequences are essential, but they call them ‘conserved’—i.e. the sequence was so vital that natural selection conserved it by eliminating variants. As the following conservative calculation shows, even making generous assumptions to the evolutionists (e.g. ignoring the chemical problems), the origin of life from non-life still defies probability.

20 amino acids

387 proteins for the simplest possible life

10 conserved amino acids on average

∴ chance is 20–3870 = 10–3870.log20 = 10–5035
This is one chance in one followed by over 5000 zeroes. So it would be harder than guessing a correct 5000-digit PIN on the first go!

Of course you can't simply multiply probabilities like this unless you are certain that the events are independent. And determining post-hoc probabilities is extremely risky, as Kevin points out.

But I'm fairly sure that the first sentence is wrong anyway, because a lot of those variant sequences could still be useful.

Patrick Byrom
25-11-2014, 06:23 PM
"PI" is a great show but it is a real pity that currently in NSW it only shows on Thursday nights at 11.50 pm or so through to 12.50.
Have you considered buying a pvr? You can get one without a hard drive (you supply the usb stick or hard drive) for less than $50 now.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2014, 01:28 AM
Those post hoc probability calculations are invariably riddled with errors and logical fallacies. From the extracts/summaries of Lennox here (http://www.focus.org.uk/lennox.php) and here (http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/has_science_buried_god/), it looks like he commits many of the common errors, including looking at the consequences of just one constant being different at a time without considering what would happen if multiple constants were different.
Lennox, a mathematician, is well aware of that. So are all the cosmogonists who make the same arguments about fine-tuning but then explain it away with multiverses, a tacit concession to the strength of fine-tuning arguments.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2014, 01:29 AM
Jono: Why would anyone vote for them in the first place? With that name, it was never about coherent policies but all about the whims of Palmer.

AC: would you comment the same on why would people join The Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints? Being just all about the whims of Jesus Christ

Palmer and Joseph Smith were not God, and Joseph Smith stayed dead.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2014, 01:42 AM
Then you definitely won't like the argument Capablanca-Fan quotes in #85 (http://creation.com/answering-another-uninformed-atheist-galileo-miller-urey-probability):


Even evolutionary writers implicitly concede that some sequences are essential, but they call them ‘conserved’—i.e. the sequence was so vital that natural selection conserved it by eliminating variants. As the following conservative calculation shows, even making generous assumptions to the evolutionists (e.g. ignoring the chemical problems), the origin of life from non-life still defies probability.

20 amino acids

387 proteins for the simplest possible life

10 conserved amino acids on average

∴ chance is 20–3870 = 10–3870.log20 = 10–5035
This is one chance in one followed by over 5000 zeroes. So it would be harder than guessing a correct 5000-digit PIN on the first go!

Of course you can't simply multiply probabilities like this unless you are certain that the events are independent.
There is no chemical reason to believe otherwise before there is a cell to make them dependent.

Once there are self-reproducing entities, natural selection can be invoked for cumulative selection of very small changes, provided that they have a sufficient selective advantage, so such probability calculations don't work. However, natural selection is by definition differential reproduction, so it can't explain the origin of the first living cell.


And determining post-hoc probabilities is extremely risky, as Kevin points out.
Not really: there are many more ways of being dead than being alive. The force of such arguments has been tacitly conceded the likes of Crick and by KB's friend, microbiologist and respectable chessplayer Dr Martin Line, since they resort to panspermia. In Line's paper The enigma of the origin of life and its timing (http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/148/1/21.full):


There is an enormous leap from pre-biotic chemistry to the complexity of DNA replication, protein manufacture and biochemical pathways existing at the time of the primary divergence of life. Although progress is being made on the evolution of some structural components and biochemical pathways, there remain numerous unsolved ‘chicken and egg’ problems. Margulis (1996a⇓ ) said, ‘To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to that bacterium’, yet accumulated evidence from the physical and biological sciences indicates that advanced life existed at a very early stage of Earth’s development. While derived evolution is clearly more efficient than de novo evolution, why then did it (coupled with symbiosis) take a further 3 gigayears to arrive at plants and animals, when most of the basic, often unique, developments appear to have been established in the first 500 million years or less?

Hence the enigma: an origin of life on Earth appears highly improbable, an origin elsewhere is highly conjectural. While this conundrum has been identified in various forms for several decades, its magnitude has dramatically increased over the last five years as new constraints are placed on the timing of the primary divergence of the domains of life (Shen et al., 2001⇓ ). The problem can be likened to one faced by cosmologists a few years ago, and since resolved, that the universe appeared to be younger than the oldest stars in our galaxy. The cumulative evidence suggesting an extra-terrestrial origin for life on Earth is the subject of this review.

The concept of interstellar panspermia has been a philosophical luxury; it may soon become a necessity if constraints of evolutionary theory continue to conspire against an origin of life in our solar system. Perhaps fresh calculations are in order, to consider possibilities other than those provided by a Mars/Jupiter slingshot. Pluto may once have hosted a stable ocean beneath an ice cover, to therefore be a contender as a cradle for life. Would it be possible for splashed material from Pluto (by Oort cloud debris) to be expelled from the solar system by its moon Charon if the obliquity of the Pluto/Charon system was better aligned in the plane of the solar system? What of a mud/micorbial ‘fog’ created in a splash event being accelerated to escape velocity by a red giant? What optimal system might we construe to improve the odds of interstellar transport?


But I'm fairly sure that the first sentence is wrong anyway, because a lot of those variant sequences could still be useful.
This is covered by the third line: assuming only 10 conserved amino acids per protein, which of course gives massive leeway for variant sequences. However, for many of the enzyme active sites that closely match substrate structure, 10 is far too low a number.

Adamski
26-11-2014, 07:31 AM
Have you considered buying a pvr? You can get one without a hard drive (you supply the usb stick or hard drive) for less than $50 now.Good suggestion. I will look into it. Thanks.

antichrist
26-11-2014, 09:42 AM
Only a complete moron would deduce that I made such an equation. Rather, we have a dangerous liberty-eroding profusion of laws, because far too many go from "I don't like something" to "government should outlaw it".

AC: but doesn't God do that about everything - we can't even eat meat on Friday in peace, the free enterprise money lenders in the temple can't even make a decent profit

Kevin Bonham
26-11-2014, 10:40 AM
Lennox, a mathematician, is well aware of that.

Not in the excerpts I linked to.


So are all the cosmogonists who make the same arguments about fine-tuning but then explain it away with multiverses, a tacit concession to the strength of fine-tuning arguments.

I'm far from convinced multiverses are necessary but also far from convinced that they're absurd or even necessarily a concession. Indeed it seems more extraordinary to assert without evidence that only matter detectable within our "universe" could exist and that other "universes" that do not even interact with ours could not, than to assert otherwise. What I don't take seriously is the kind of argument that maintains that whenever some relatively trivial event happens a parallel universe pops into existence in which it didn't happen.

Rincewind
26-11-2014, 01:28 PM
Lennox, a mathematician, is well aware of that.

Lennox's area is group theory. Not probability, stochastic modelling or statistics which would be directly relevant to this criticism so an appeal to authority is disingenuous.

Patrick Byrom
26-11-2014, 01:30 PM
There is no chemical reason to believe otherwise before there is a cell to make them dependent.
Argument from ignorance :)

Since this is fundamental to your calculation, I assume that you can provide me with references to peer-reviewed literature which support this claim.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2014, 09:27 AM
Argument from ignorance :)
Actually an argument from what we DO know about chemistry. One point in favour is how the information carried by DNA is extraneous to chemistry of the DNA molecule. Michael Polanyi (1891–1976), a former chairman of physical chemistry at the University of Manchester (UK) who turned to philosophy, confirmed this:


As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of occurrence of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning—a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content …. Life’s irreducible structure, Science 160(3834):1308–1312, 1968; p. 1309.

When it comes to the universal constant, one fairly recent paper is:

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8794857&fileId=S1323358000001491)

Luke A. Barnes, Postdoctoral Researcher, Sydney Institute for Astronomy
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 29(4):529–564, 2012.


The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life has received a great deal of attention in recent years, both in the philosophical and scientific literature. The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well as more recent work. To sharpen the discussion, the role of the antagonist will be played by Victor Stenger's recent book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. Stenger claims that all known fine-tuning cases can be explained without the need for a multiverse. Many of Stenger's claims will be found to be highly problematic. We will touch on such issues as the logical necessity of the laws of nature; objectivity, invariance and symmetry; theoretical physics and possible universes; entropy in cosmology; cosmic inflation and initial conditions; galaxy formation; the cosmological constant; stars and their formation; the properties of elementary particles and their effect on chemistry and the macroscopic world; the origin of mass; grand unified theories; and the dimensionality of space and time. I also provide an assessment of the multiverse, noting the significant challenges that it must face. I do not attempt to defend any conclusion based on the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. This paper can be viewed as a critique of Stenger's book, or read independently.

Barnes also wrote a blog piece, Fine-Tuning and the Myth of “One variable at a time” (http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/fine-tuning-and-the-myth-of-one-variable-at-a-time/):


“Multivariation” is not a word, but in this context presumably means varying more than one variable at a time. There is an objection to fine-tuning that goes like this: all the fine-tuning cases involve varying one variable only, keeping all other variables fixed at their value in our universe, and then calculating the life-permitting range on that one variable. But, if you let more than one variable vary at a time, there turns out to be a range of life-permitting universes. So the universe is not fine-tuned for life.

This is a myth. The claim quoted by our questioner is totally wrong. The vast majority of fine-tuning/anthropic papers, from the very earliest papers in the 70’s until today, vary many parameters1. I’ve addressed these issues at length in my review paper. I’ll summarise some of that article here.

The very thing that started this whole field was physicists noting coincidences between the values of a number of different constants and the requirements for life.

Even if fine-tuning calculations varied only one parameter, it wouldn’t follow that fine-tuning is false. Opening up more parameter space in which life can form will also open up more parameter space in which life cannot form. As Richard Dawkins (1986) rightly said: “however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive.”

Rincewind
27-11-2014, 11:24 AM
“Multivariation” is not a word, but in this context presumably means varying more than one variable at a time. There is an objection to fine-tuning that goes like this: all the fine-tuning cases involve varying one variable only, keeping all other variables fixed at their value in our universe, and then calculating the life-permitting range on that one variable. But, if you let more than one variable vary at a time, there turns out to be a range of life-permitting universes. So the universe is not fine-tuned for life.

This is a myth. The claim quoted by our questioner is totally wrong. The vast majority of fine-tuning/anthropic papers, from the very earliest papers in the 70’s until today, vary many parameters.

Barnes seems to be missing the point here. In multivariate calculus there are many cases of functions where the limit of a function depends on the path taken to singular point. Given the terminology I believe this is the sort of multivariate variation being alluded to by the term multivarition and just varying more than one parameter is not sufficient defence to this criticism since it is not just a function of varying multiple parameters must also depends on how they are varied.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2014, 12:19 PM
AC: but doesn't God do that about everything - we can't even eat meat on Friday in peace, the free enterprise money lenders in the temple can't even make a decent profit
Eat what you want, on any day you want. I don't care at all.

antichrist
27-11-2014, 09:18 PM
Eat what you want, on any day you want. I don't care at all.

I think I have already done that too much thanks all the same.

But what about the free enterprise money lenders in the temple can't even make a decent profit - that JC guy sounds like one of your leftard ABC types

Patrick Byrom
29-11-2014, 12:22 AM
Actually an argument from what we DO know about chemistry. One point in favour is how the information carried by DNA is extraneous to chemistry of the DNA molecule. Michael Polanyi (1891–1976), a former chairman of physical chemistry at the University of Manchester (UK) who turned to philosophy, confirmed this:

As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of occurrence of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaning—a meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content …. Life’s irreducible structure, Science 160(3834):1308–1312, 1968; p. 1309.
Polyani doesn't appear to actually confirm the independence your calculation requires - and the reference is forty years old. Compared to this detailed counter-argument (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html), supported by dozens of recent refereed papers, it doesn't look very convincing.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2014, 12:07 PM
Polyani doesn't appear to actually confirm the independence your calculation requires - and the reference is forty years old. Compared to this detailed counter-argument (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html), supported by dozens of recent refereed papers, it doesn't look very convincing.

Who gives credence to Talk Obnoxious? That was just the usual same-old handwaving review of the desperate attempts to support chemical evolution.

Patrick Byrom
29-11-2014, 09:33 PM
Who gives credence to Talk Obnoxious? That was just the usual same-old handwaving review of the desperate attempts to support chemical evolution.
Handwaving!? :P Their arguments covered several pages, and were supported by detailed references. Admittedly some points are less detailed than others, but it is definitely proof of concept. All you have is a single probability calculation, with no supporting evidence.

Adamski
01-12-2014, 11:31 AM
I think I have already done that too much thanks all the same.

But what about the free enterprise money lenders in the temple can't even make a decent profit - that JC guy sounds like one of your leftard ABC typesThe Temple was meant to be a place of prayer. The moneylenders had turned it into a place of commerce and on the Sabbath (Saturday for them). Therefore Jesus turfed them out. Matthew 21:13 e.g., referring to Isaiah 56:7.

Adamski
01-12-2014, 11:33 AM
Handwaving!? :P Their arguments covered several pages, and were supported by detailed references. Admittedly some points are less detailed than others, but it is definitely proof of concept. All you have is a single probability calculation, with no supporting evidence.Actually, there are several probability calculations in Lennox's book. When time permits (I am playing chess tonight) I will post them here.

antichrist
01-12-2014, 08:00 PM
The Temple was meant to be a place of prayer. The moneylenders had turned it into a place of commerce and on the Sabbath (Saturday for them). Therefore Jesus turfed them out. Matthew 21:13 e.g., referring to Isaiah 56:7.

It is in the Scriptures that we must tithe so maybe they had to provide cash for donations and work out the interest - fair enough. Of course the Sabbath was the relevant day because that is when they attended the temple. Maybe they had to travel miles so inconvenient on other days. I doubt they had ATM's credit cards in those days. Did God accept IOUs?

Adamski
01-12-2014, 10:05 PM
Nope.

Adamski
02-12-2014, 11:42 AM
Prof John Lennox quotes, from "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God", relating to the very low probability of life arising without being created.

To give the full context these quotes have to be quite extensive, sorry:
P. 126: "The building blocks of life"

First of all, the consensus of opinion among geochemists as to the composition of the earth's early atmosphere has changed. They now think that it did not contain significant amounts of ammonia, methane or hydrogen that were needed to produce a strongly reducing atmosphere as required by the Oparin hypothesis, but was much more likely to have consisted of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapour. There is also evidence of significant amounts of free oxygen. This alters the picture completely, for there are theoretical and practical reasons why amino acids could not be formed in such an atmosphere, as has been confirmed experimentally....In short then, the evidence suggests that the atmosphere of the early earth would have been hostile to the formation of amino acids.

Now suppose that we want to make a protein that involves 100 amino acids (this would be a short protein - most are at least 3 times as long). Amino acids exist in two chiral forms that are mirror images of each other, called L and D forms. These two forms appear in equal numbers in prebiotic simulation experiments, so that the probability of getting one or other of the forms is roughly 1/2. However, the great majority of the proteins found in nature contain only the L-form. The probability of getting 100 amino acids of L-formis, therefore, (1/2) E 100 {one half raised to the 100th power}, which is about 1 chance in 10 E 30. Next, our amino acids have to be joined together. Functional protein requires all the bonds to be of a certain type - peptide bonds - in order for it to fold into the correct 3-dimensional structure. Yet in prebiotic simulations no more than half of the bonds are peptide bonds. So the probability of a peptide bond is about 1/2, and again the probability of getting 100 such bonds is 1 in 10 E 30. Thus the probability of getting 100 L-acids at random with peptide bonds is about 1 in 10 E 60. ...

Of course a short protein is much les complicated than the simplest cell - for that the probabilities would be very much smaller....The very building blocks of life show the kind of evidence from which we might well infer that our bodies are fine-tuned for life [by God]."

Adamski
02-12-2014, 11:48 AM
The major problem: the origin of protein structure:
P. 129:
... The point of this argument is made very clear from simple-minded , probabilistic considerations. Among the many different kinds of amino acids there are twenty involved in making proteins, so that if we had a pool consisting of all twenty the probability of getting the correct amino acid at a specific site in the protein would be 1/20. Thus the probability of getting 100 amino acids in the correct order would be (1/20) E 100 {i.e. to the power of 100}, which is about 1 in 10 E 130, and therefore VANISHINGLY SMALL [my capitals]."

antichrist
02-12-2014, 12:09 PM
Adamski, I don't think you are any more a chemist than I am. Just use your common sense. Nobody lived to a thousand years, there are no flying saviours amongst the heavens, the earth is billions of years old and actually an unimportant question, the solar system is billions of years old due the light from other stars billions of light years away already reaching Earth - all just common sense. Religion is just a con job to get preachers money - they should be up for false advertising.

Rincewind
02-12-2014, 01:09 PM
Wow, they are simple minded calculations. Firstly Lennox is just looking at the number of combinations and not looking at the other side of the calculation, the number of opportunities. He also seems wedded to the idea that the basic building block protean is at least 100 amino acids long. This is not necessarily so and if shorter chains are functional then these can lead to more complex longer chains by evolutionary processes. Finally the consideration of L/D symmetry is unjustified since the choice is largely arbitrary. If life had formed with D-symmetry acids then in principle everything would still work pretty much as it does now. The are probably other problems with his calculations but these seem to be the most obvious and fatal to his hypothesis.

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2014, 12:45 AM
Physicist Paul Steinhardt Slams Inflation, Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/12/01/physicist-paul-steinhardt-slams-inflation-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/)
By John Horgan, blogs.scientificamerican.com, 1 December 2014


I talked to Steinhardt about cosmology and in particular inflation, an idea that he helped refine in the early 1980s. Inflation holds that immediately after the big bang, our universe underwent an almost unimaginably explosive, faster-than-light growth spurt. Lately, Steinhardt has been criticizing inflation and related ideas, notably multiverses, in unusually blunt terms.

Steinhardt: From the very beginning, even as I was writing my first paper on inflation in 1982, I was concerned that the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. Andy Albrecht and I (and, independently, Andrei Linde) had just discovered the way of having an extended period of inflation end in a graceful exit to a universe filled with hot matter and radiation, the paradigm for all inflationary models since. But the exit came at a cost — fine-tuning. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.

Horgan: In a recent essay on Edge.org, you criticized multiverse and string as well as inflationary theories. Can you summarize your concerns?

Steinhardt: My concern was that the multiverse is a ‘theory of anything’, a proposal that allows all possible cosmological outcomes (smooth or not smooth, curved or flat, etc.) and, consequently, is not subject to empirical tests. Some claim that superstring theory allows exponentially many (or perhaps infinitely many) possibilities for the fundamental laws (masses of particles, types of forces, etc.) and that there is no guiding principle to determine which set of physical laws is more probable. The sets of laws comprise what is called the “string landscape.”

Horgan: Are you religious? Can you be a physicist and also believe in God?

Steinhardt: I never answer the first question because I consider religion to be a private matter. My scientific views stand on their own and I would like them to be evaluated independent of my private views about religion.

In answer to your second question, it is a demonstrated fact that successful physicists can believe in God.

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2014, 12:55 AM
Wow, they are simple minded calculations. Firstly Lennox is just looking at the number of combinations and not looking at the other side of the calculation, the number of opportunities. He also seems wedded to the idea that the basic building block protean is at least 100 amino acids long. This is not necessarily so and if shorter chains are functional then these can lead to more complex longer chains by evolutionary processes.
Nonsense. 100 aa is a conservative estimate given what we know of enzymes in even the simplest self-reproducing cells (http://creation.com/how-simple-can-life-be). And as noted before, natural selection can't operate until there is reproduction. Yet many people make this mistake who should know better (I don't count RW since he is just a mathematician and an obsessive atheopath and socialist):


Without catalysts, there would be no life at all, from microbes to humans. It makes you wonder how natural selection operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow reaction. [Richard Wolfenden, Cited in Lang, L.H., Without enzyme catalyst, slowest known biological reaction takes 1 trillion years (http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/may03/enzyme050503.html), UNC School of Medicine, unc.edu, 5 May 2003. See also World record enzymes (http://creation.com/world-record-enzymes-richard-wolfenden).


Finally the consideration of L/D symmetry is unjustified since the choice is largely arbitrary. If life had formed with D-symmetry acids then in principle everything would still work pretty much as it does now.
No one doubts this. The point is that it must be 100% one or the other, whereas real chemistry produces racemates or 50/50 mixtures, as I have explained for years—Origin of life: the chirality problem (http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem). It's like the chance of getting all 100 heads or all 100 tails; both are highly improbable because there is only one way out of 2^100 for either. And ample experiments show that in a polymerizing chain of amino acids, chirality is directed by the previous ones.


The are probably other problems with his calculations but these seem to be the most obvious and fatal to his hypothesis.
If that's the best you have, Lennox is on very solid ground.

Rincewind
04-12-2014, 09:39 AM
Nonsense. 100 aa is a conservative estimate given what we know of enzymes in even the simplest self-reproducing cells (http://creation.com/how-simple-can-life-be). And as noted before, natural selection can't operate until there is reproduction. Yet many people make this mistake who should know better (I don't count RW since he is just a mathematician and an obsessive atheopath and socialist):


Without catalysts, there would be no life at all, from microbes to humans. It makes you wonder how natural selection operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow reaction. [Richard Wolfenden, Cited in Lang, L.H., Without enzyme catalyst, slowest known biological reaction takes 1 trillion years (http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/may03/enzyme050503.html), UNC School of Medicine, unc.edu, 5 May 2003. See also World record enzymes (http://creation.com/world-record-enzymes-richard-wolfenden).

Quoting your church newsletter is unconvincing. Your argument reduces to one of lack of imagination. I can't think of a smaller self-replicating possibility and therefore none exists. I believe the premise but not the conclusion.


No one doubts this. The point is that it must be 100% one or the other, whereas real chemistry produces racemates or 50/50 mixtures, as I have explained for years—Origin of life: the chirality problem (http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem). It's like the chance of getting all 100 heads or all 100 tails; both are highly improbable because there is only one way out of 2^100 for either. And ample experiments show that in a polymerizing chain of amino acids, chirality is directed by the previous ones.

I agree sorry I missed that due to the slightly odd notation. Normally E 100 would mean "x10^100" but Lennox uses it to mean simply "^100" .


If that's the best you have, Lennox is on very solid ground.

If all you have is quotes from a church newsletter then I am on unshakeable ground.

Patrick Byrom
04-12-2014, 01:10 PM
No one doubts this. The point is that it must be 100% one or the other, whereas real chemistry produces racemates or 50/50 mixtures, as I have explained for years—Origin of life: the chirality problem (http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem). It's like the chance of getting all 100 heads or all 100 tails; both are highly improbable because there is only one way out of 2^100 for either. And ample experiments show that in a polymerizing chain of amino acids, chirality is directed by the previous ones.
But the Talk Origins FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html) explains it quite easily, and supports their argument with several peer-reviewed studies:

In summary, a plausible scenario for the emergence of homochirality on the prebiotic earth can be envisioned from all the findings described:
1. Origin of local enantiomeric excesses – slight or pronounced – of amino acids
2. In case these ee’s are just slight, a tremendous amplification by solid phase-liquid phase equilibria; these can also enhance already high ee’s.


You can't compare bio-chemical processes to coin tosses, as each coin toss is independent. This is the fatal flaw in these type of probability calculations.

antichrist
07-12-2014, 06:17 PM
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e034rpCalvin_Franca05.htm

an excellent written by a Jesuit, how could it be otherwise

Desmond
07-12-2014, 06:56 PM
Calvin, the Tyrant

https://thecomicninja.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/calvin-and-hobbes-parenthood.gif?w=640

antichrist
08-12-2014, 11:43 PM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/outraged-grand-theft-auto-ban-754136

Aussies want to ban Bible - satirically speaking

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2014, 11:07 AM
But the Talk Origins FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html) explains it quite easily, and supports their argument with several peer-reviewed studies:
Talk Obnoxious is rife with bluffing with citations that don't prove their point.



In summary, a plausible scenario for the emergence of homochirality on the prebiotic earth can be envisioned from all the findings described:
1. Origin of local enantiomeric excesses – slight or pronounced – of amino acids
2. In case these ee’s are just slight, a tremendous amplification by solid phase-liquid phase equilibria; these can also enhance already high ee’s.

Yeah yeah, hardly news that people have been saying that for years. But the papers often claim to have finally solved the problem of homochirality, which is a tacit admission that the previous attempts have not. Anyway, I updated my 1998 article Origin of life: the chirality problem (http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem) in 2010 to address those claims.


You can't compare bio-chemical processes to coin tosses, as each coin toss is independent. This is the fatal flaw in these type of probability calculations.
But they are independent when it comes to real polymerization reactions.

Patrick Byrom
11-12-2014, 03:14 PM
Talk Obnoxious is rife with bluffing with citations that don't prove their point.
I notice that your article doesn't actually reference the website ("An atheopathic website claims:"), even though you quote liberally from it :)


Yeah yeah, hardly news that people have been saying that for years. But the papers often claim to have finally solved the problem of homochirality, which is a tacit admission that the previous attempts have not. Anyway, I updated my 1998 article Origin of life: the chirality problem (http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem) in 2010 to address those claims.But your 'update' ignores most of the references from the TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html) website - only three of your references are from this century, while almost all from TalkOrigins are.


But they are independent when it comes to real polymerization reactions.
More handwaving, which is contradicted by experimental evidence :(

Adamski, as Capablanca-Fan is unable to provide experimental evidence for his claim of independence, can you provide any citations from Lennox that quote actual peer-reviewed studies?

antichrist
21-12-2014, 04:08 AM
was catching up on my Good Weekends last night and one story was on a guy who converted to Christianity, a Baptist, during the Billy Graham Crusade about 40 years ago, he lived and breathed Christianity. Well it took him 21 years of get over it, due mainly due to Bible contradictions. Now he regrets that he lost that time out of his life. He should be able to sue Graham's estate for misleading him.

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2014, 09:04 AM
I notice that your article doesn't actually reference the website ("An atheopathic website claims:"), even though you quote liberally from it :)
Yes, so you should have noticed that I was long aware of all the claims you cite from.


But your 'update' ignores most of the references from the TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html) website - only three of your references are from this century, while almost all from TalkOrigins are.
But what do expect? My main article was from 1998. The update from 2010 included a reference to a 2010 paper and one from 2007, the main ones asserting the proposed scenario. And even the Talk.Obnoxious handwaving must admit “much of the origin-of-life scenarios is still hypothesis.”


More handwaving, which is contradicted by experimental evidence :(
As shown, the alleged evidence cancels each other out. How can one paper seriously claim to have finally solved the chirality problem unless the previous papers that claimed this are actually wrong?


Adamski, as Capablanca-Fan is unable to provide experimental evidence for his claim of independence, can you provide any citations from Lennox that quote actual peer-reviewed studies?
The experimental evidence is precisely that amino acid chirality itself doesn't direct the chirality of the next amino acid in the polymer. Instead, evos must resort to implausible scenarios, meanwhile overcoming the strong tendency to racemize especially with any alkali present.

antichrist
21-12-2014, 10:34 AM
Capablanca-Fan: I am pro-science. I am pro-physics and pro-chemistry, and also pro-vaccination unlike you who resent it because it stops diseases culling the population.

AC: if you are pro-science and pro-physics how can you believe that Jesus broken the laws of physics and ascended up to heaven?

Did members of the trinity draw straws to see who will have carnal knowledge and get hung up on the cross?

Rincewind
21-12-2014, 11:12 AM
Classic God of the Gaps argument from Spammer-Fan: 'Since abogenesis is hypothesis then my small-minded God must have done it all.'

Adamski
21-12-2014, 07:03 PM
Adamski, as Capablanca-Fan is unable to provide experimental evidence for his claim of independence, can you provide any citations from Lennox that quote actual peer-reviewed studies?Lennox's footnote to the second passage I cited (a while ago):"It is known that some sites in the amino acid chain of a protein can be occupied by more than one possible amino acid, and so the calculation must be modified to take this into account. Biochemists Reidhar-Olson and Sauer have done these calculations, and reckoned that the probability may possibly be increased to 1 in 10 [to the power of] 65 which, in their opinion, is still vanishingly small' (Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics, 7, 1990, pp306-316). Of course, if we factor in the requirement for L-acids and peptide bonds the probability drops to 1 in 10 [to the power of] 125." Lennox, God's Undertaker, p.217.

antichrist
20-02-2015, 12:18 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/19/rabbis-absolute-power-how-sex-abuse-tore-apart-australias-orthodox-jewish-community?CMP=share_btn_link

Child abuse in Melbourne's Jewish community

antichrist
23-02-2015, 12:37 PM
I am confused, I thought that Abraham was supposed to sacrifice his son Issac by beheading him, but God held his arm up carrying the axe - that is how close it was. Now I read it was supposed to be a burnt sacrifice and old Abe was about to carry it out - how sick and stupid

Rincewind
23-02-2015, 10:07 PM
In blood-magic cults (like Judaism and Christianity) voluntary human sacrifice provides the strongest magic (hence the cult of martyrs and the cult of the self-sacrificing messiah). Often substitutional sacrifice is allowed but then the magical effect is typically not as great.

Regarding the near sacrifice of Isaac, the intention was to make a burnt offering but typically in such sacrifices the sacrificial being is slain with a knife or similar implement and then parts of the body are burnt.

But how unlucky was that sheep? Talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Capablanca-Fan
24-02-2015, 01:56 PM
Capablanca-Fan: I am pro-science. I am pro-physics and pro-chemistry, and also pro-vaccination unlike you who resent it because it stops diseases culling the population.

AC: if you are pro-science and pro-physics how can you believe that Jesus broken the laws of physics and ascended up to heaven?
He didn't; He added to them, as I've explained before (http://creation.com/miracles-and-science).

Capablanca-Fan
24-02-2015, 01:59 PM
Classic God of the Gaps argument from Spammer-Fan: 'Since abogenesis is hypothesis then my small-minded God must have done it all.'

The above small-minded atheopathic socialist with a blind faith in chemical evolution hasn't a clue about what God of the Gaps (http://creation.com/whose-god-the-theological-response-to-the-god-of-the-gaps) even means. My argument (and Lennox's) is not based on gaps in our knowledge but on what we DO know about chemistry and information theory (http://creation.com/who-designed-the-designer-the-old-who-created-god-canard-revisited). But all atheopaths believe in evolution of the gaps.

Rincewind
24-02-2015, 04:31 PM
The above small-minded atheopathic socialist with a blind faith in chemical evolution hasn't a clue about what God of the Gaps (http://creation.com/whose-god-the-theological-response-to-the-god-of-the-gaps) even means.

You can tell the person who is losing the argument as they always begin with ad hominem assault on their target and then waffle with claims that they already know it all and it is demonstrated in these blog posts they wrote once on the subject. However even a cursory glance at said posts show how facile their appreciation of the subject matter actually is.


My argument (and Lennox's) is not based on gaps in our knowledge but on what we DO know about chemistry and information theory (http://creation.com/who-designed-the-designer-the-old-who-created-god-canard-revisited).

The God of the Gaps is employed whenever a antiscientific creationist points to a shortcoming in present understanding as a knock-down argument for science and (by the faulty assumption that their theistic worldview is the only alternative) a vindication of their particular cult. As such Jono's childish criticisms of chemical evolution which he regularly spams this board with are a classic example of the genre. All helical proteins have a certain chirality therefore Christ is Lord. Pretty funny really.


But all atheopaths believe in evolution of the gaps.

The inverse does not hold true because I know of no scientific argument for evolution (or anything else) which relies on the same line of argument. Something like "immortal souls are unattested by evidence and therefore evolution is true". While the premise is certainly true it adds no weight to evolution at all. All one can really say is that if you have a belief in an immortal soul, you do so without any objective evidence for that belief.

Rincewind
24-02-2015, 04:45 PM
The following looks like a good read...

Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-That-Divide-World/dp/0310492173)

John C Lennox

From Amazon...


What did the writer of Genesis mean by “the first day”? Is it a literal week or a series of time periods? If I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, am I denying the authority of Scripture? In response to the continuing controversy over the interpretation of the creation narrative in Genesis, John Lennox proposes a succinct method of reading and interpreting the first chapters of Genesis without discounting either science or Scripture. With examples from history, a brief but thorough exploration of the major interpretations, and a look into the particular significance of the creation of human beings, Lennox suggests that Christians can heed modern scientific knowledge while staying faithful to the biblical narrative. He moves beyond a simple response to the controversy, insisting that Genesis teaches us far more about the God of Jesus Christ and about God’s intention for creation than it does about the age of the earth. With this book, Lennox offers a careful yet accessible introduction to a scientifically-savvy, theologically-astute, and Scripturally faithful interpretation of Genesis.

Apparently the author is a mathematics professor from Oxford. He must know what he is talking about.

Patrick Byrom
24-02-2015, 10:40 PM
... My argument (and Lennox's) is not based on gaps in our knowledge but on what we DO know about chemistry and information theory (http://creation.com/who-designed-the-designer-the-old-who-created-god-canard-revisited). ...
But your argument (and Lennox's) does not consider the known bio-chemical fact that non-racemic mixtures are known to be formed in certain circumstances, and that these can lead to even more non-racemic mixtures. This is not included in your probability calculations, which rely on independence.

Kevin Bonham
09-07-2015, 10:37 AM
Post deleted and thread locked for at least a week

I've asked AC before not to drag stuff by random posters from generic debating forums here. If a point of view is interesting then a more credible source for that point of view can usually be found.