1301. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

Hi Theo

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

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

Logic demands that something must have always existed

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

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

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

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

1302. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

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

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

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

1303. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

1304. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

1305. Pope abolishes limbo

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

devolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I genuinely wish you well.

You too

1306. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

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

Fedler

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

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

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

1307. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

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

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

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

1308. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

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

SRWB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1309. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

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

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

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

Na, didnt think so.

1310. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

1311. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

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

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

1312. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

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

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

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

1313. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

1314. Pope abolishes limbo

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

Devolved

Again you present no evidence!

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

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

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

Sorry, what challenge was that?

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

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

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

I think you should drop your presupposition about presuppositions.

I'll keep a weather eye open for you

1315. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

1316. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

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

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

1317. Two idiots get a forum

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

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

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

1318. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

devolved

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

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

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

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

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

I dont see any evidence refuting this scientists respone!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1319. Two idiots get a forum

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

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

1320. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

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

1321. Two idiots get a forum

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

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

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

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

Couple of idiots!

1322. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

1323. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

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

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

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

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

Oh well my computer is still in tact.

1324. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

1325. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

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

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

1326. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

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

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

We have debated before - haven't we

1327. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

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

Spaghettimonster

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

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

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

1328. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

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

newathiest

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

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

1329. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

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

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

1330. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

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

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

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

1331. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

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

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

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

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

1332. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

1333. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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

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

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

1334. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

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

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

1335. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

Got a lot of catching up to do.

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

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

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

1336. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

1337. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

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

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

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

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

Got any fossil Humans living with Dinosaurs?

1338. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

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

scottishgeologist

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

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

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

1339. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

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

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

1340. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

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

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

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

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

1341. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

1342. Vote for the Time 100 - Are They Worthy?

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

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

1343. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posiedon (Alan?)

I saw her first :-)

1344. Pope abolishes limbo

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

Lee

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

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

1345. Pope abolishes limbo

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

Forgot to deal with these ones

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

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

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

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

Have I come across you before by another name?

1346. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

It would be if true.

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

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

And which gaps would they be?

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

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

1347. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

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

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

1348. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

Mark,

Here is Stevie's quote:

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

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

1349. Pope abolishes limbo

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

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

1350. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

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

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