Coroama wrote:

Rumraket wrote: back to copy-paste the "response" from the A response to an entirely different paper.

what ??

Another clueless post.

Coroama wrote:

We can infere God's existence based on creation, and his revealed word, the bible.

And why is his revealed word the bible? Given that there are different revealed words available in all the current extant religions, and if you include all the revealed words which have gone the way of all myths, what is so effing special about yours?

There are more bloody creation myths about that you've had hot dinners. The Australian Aboriginals believe that their Dreamtime stories are correct and the bible is a pile of foetid dingos kidneys. So why is yours special?

Edit sp mistake

ramseyoptom wrote:foetid dingos kidneys.

I still miss him.

hackenslash wrote:

ramseyoptom wrote:foetid dingos kidneys.

I still miss him.

I agree, I thought it a very apt quote to use.

Indeed, this is one point I keep presenting to supernaturalists, namely that on a global scale, supernaturalists cannot even agree amongst themselves, which of the multiplicity of mythologies humans have invented, is purportedly the "right" mythology. Worse still, adherents of a particular mythology cannot agree amongst themselves what that mythology is purportedly telling us. In the case of Christianity, there are now forty one thousand different denominations, all claiming that their "interpretation" of the mythology in question is purportedly the "right" interpretation, with no truly rigorous method of establishing this. All we have is mountains of supernaturalist assertions on the subject, and yet more mountains of apologetic fabrications.

This on its own should be telling even the most casual of observers, something important about the probability of any supernaturalist assertion being right.

Coroama wrote:
http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/r ... s-theorem/

No. This guy clearly does not know what he is talking about. He's one of these guys who abuse Gödel's incompleteness theorem, possibly because he doesn't understand it. Nor does he seem to understand what the Church-Turing thesis says.

Please, never refer to this nonsense again. It does nothing for you but make you look silly.

Coroama wrote:Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and 13.7 billion years time
The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem [...]

None of Gödel's theorems has anything at all to say about this situation. Really. Absolutely nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Nil.

It is too confused to even begin sorting out - it is just a huge misunderstanding of what Gödel's theorems say, and does not have any relevance at all to the topic at hand.

Anyone who wants details on why this is so, might want to consult Franzéns excellent
Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse.

I've already mentioned in a previous post, that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is not applicable to point sets, but do you think our latest creationist will pay attention to elementary facts such as this? No, he'll continue treating the wrong, incompetent and frequently dishonest content of creationist websites as The TruthTM, whilst dismissing summarily any evidence from other sources because it doesn't conform to his beloved doctrine. I've covered the aetiology in depth in numerous past posts.

Abuse of Gödel's incompleteness theorems is pretty common - it isn't creationists only.

Coroama wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Please demonstrate that thought can exist in the absense of a physical brian.

Please demonstrate that thoughts which exist in the absense of a physical brain can create matter out of nothing.

Please demontrate that thought which exists in the absense of a physical brain can physically manipulate matter into living organisms.

Without this, all you have is fantasy and fables.

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/ ... eleo2.html

Complete failure.

That demonstrated nothing...literally nothing.

Coroama wrote:

We're fine with you believing what you want. We don't give a fuck.

Thats not true. Otherwise you, and all others, would not try to convince me, that my faith is not justified.

It's not our fault that you have decided to post them in a forum for discussion of ideas.

If you don't want them discussed, don't discuss them.

And, more important than you, are the other potential people that may see your garbage and be fooled into thinking that you are presenting something rational.

Presenting counters to your bullshit is just common courtesy...kind of like warning someone when they are about to step in a pile of shit.

Coroama wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Yes. But there's no good reason to think that the first lifeform to arise at the origin of life was a modern, complex cell.
:

There are no " simple " cells.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... biogenesis

We now also realize, after a century of research, that the eukaryote protozoa, believed in Darwin’s day to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin, are actually enormously complex. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. … In terms of their basic biochemical design … no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.

I have to ask, why did you post that?

Do you think that it addressed Rumraket's post? If so, how do you think it addressed it?

Coroama wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Go and check it out if you are really interested in the evidence, instead of apologetics:
http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html.

Rather than link to a number of scientific papers, how about you quote the relevant part that shows your assertion to be true ?
I have yet to see scientific evidence how natural selection can produce coded information stored in the genome.

Explanations like these are much more convincing to me :

http://www.ucg.org/science/dna-tiny-cod ... evolution/

Explanations by people whose stated beliefs include:

"We believe that Scripture, both the Old and the New Testament, is God's revelation, and His complete, expressed will to humanity. Scripture is inspired in thought and word, infallible in the original writings, is the supreme and final authority in faith and in life, and is the foundation of all truth."

In other words, the Bible is right and anything that seems to disagree with it is automatically dismissed as wrong.

Nothing more than liars for doctrine.

Coroama wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

The evidence that the genetic code evolved is still there, waiting for you to deal with it.

Despite your assertion you did, i am still waiting to see the relevant part of your papers , that present evidence without a doubt, that its possible.

It is impossible to present evidence for ANYTHING that is without a doubt.

So, why do you set such an impossible standard?

More importantly, why do you NOT apply the same standard to your claims?

Coroama wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Have anyone ever demonstrated instantaneous magical creation? No. Has anyone ever demonstrated the supernatural? No.
Has any observed phenomenon ever turned out to have a supernatural explanation so far? No.

Argument from incredulity. We can infere God's existence

We can also infer his non-existence.

Coroama wrote:based on creation,

Bagging the question. You have to demonstrate that it WAS created to justify calling it "creation".

Coroama wrote:and his revealed word, the bible.

Bagging the question. You have to demonstrate that it WAS revealed, and revealed by the god you are proposing, to justify claiming that.

And, considering all of the inconsistencies, absurdities, contradictions, atrocities and mistakes, we again can infer that no such god exists.

Veida wrote:Anyone who wants details on why this is so, might want to consult Franzéns excellent
Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse.

Highly recommended. I was guilty of abusing Gödel's Theorem until quite recently, until I was pointed in the direction of this book and realised that I hadn't understood it.

Gratitude to Vazscep for the pointer.

MrFungus420 wrote:

Presenting counters to your bullshit is just common courtesy...kind of like warning someone when they are about to step in a pile of shit.

Why are you concerned to provide that courtesy ? Why are you concerned if others believe me, or not ?

MrFungus420 wrote:

Coroama wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Please demonstrate that thought can exist in the absense of a physical brian.

Please demonstrate that thoughts which exist in the absense of a physical brain can create matter out of nothing.

Please demontrate that thought which exists in the absense of a physical brain can physically manipulate matter into living organisms.

Without this, all you have is fantasy and fables.

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/ ... eleo2.html

Complete failure.

That demonstrated nothing...literally nothing.

Ok. Its your turn now. Please demonstrate, that your brain equals your thoughts, consciousness, and feelings. Or, that we are talking about the same thing.

Coroama wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

Presenting counters to your bullshit is just common courtesy...kind of like warning someone when they are about to step in a pile of shit.

Why are you concerned to provide that courtesy ? Why are you concerned if others believe me, or not ?

People vote. The more people that swallow bollocks, the more likely that governments will be elected that become more pro-religious, anti-secular, and anti-science.

Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, this is one point I keep presenting to supernaturalists, namely that on a global scale, supernaturalists cannot even agree amongst themselves, which of the multiplicity of mythologies humans have invented, is purportedly the "right" mythology. Worse still, adherents of a particular mythology cannot agree amongst themselves what that mythology is purportedly telling us. In the case of Christianity, there are now forty one thousand different denominations, all claiming that their "interpretation" of the mythology in question is purportedly the "right" interpretation, with no truly rigorous method of establishing this. All we have is mountains of supernaturalist assertions on the subject, and yet more mountains of apologetic fabrications.

This on its own should be telling even the most casual of observers, something important about the probability of any supernaturalist assertion being right.

Complete utter irrelevant. I simply say : Evidence in nature leads to identify design. Therefore , a intelligent designer.
Your completely unconvincing arguments just solidify my position.
In my view, to use natural selection and lots of time to explain our reality , the origin of life, is a big

Coroama wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

Coroama wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Please demonstrate that thought can exist in the absense of a physical brian.

Please demonstrate that thoughts which exist in the absense of a physical brain can create matter out of nothing.

Please demontrate that thought which exists in the absense of a physical brain can physically manipulate matter into living organisms.

Without this, all you have is fantasy and fables.

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/ ... eleo2.html

Complete failure.

That demonstrated nothing...literally nothing.

Ok. Its your turn now.

How can it be "my turn" when you haven't met the challenge given to you?

Coroama wrote:Please demonstrate, that your brain equals your thoughts, consciousness, and feelings.

Why would I try to demonstrate such an absurdity?