ramseyoptom wrote:

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

that might be a good starting point :

http://en.lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+the+bible+true+%3F+

Coroama wrote:

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 :

And what you "simply say" can be dismissed with an equally simple declaration that you are wrong.

Rumraket wrote:

Coroama wrote:

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

what ??

Well, i just asked you in order that you could check your assertion, which of course is completely false. The website treats the right paper, only the title is wrong. It seems rather that you adopt the modo operandi of which you accuse me......

btw. i don't indeed bother to waste my time to examine closely your paper. Of course its absolutely nonsense, and does not answer the question of where coded information comes from correctly, ( it cannot be through natural selection ) . Why ? Because that mechanism cannot work . Intelligence is the only mechanism. Period.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/da ... racle.html

I shall argue that it is not enough to know how life's immense structural complexity arose; we must also account for the origin of biological information. As we shall see, scientists are still very far from solving this fundamental conceptual puzzle.

(1976, pp.258-259, parentheticalitemin orig.,emp.added )

The almost unimaginable complexity of the information
on the genetic code along with the simplicity
of its concept (four letters made of simple chemical
molecules), together with its extreme compactness,
imply an inconceivably high intelligence behind
it. Present-day information theory permits no other
interpretation of the facts of the genetic code .

Coroama wrote:

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.

And that is the one of the many fundamental problems with your position Coarama, your inability to be convinced by naturalistic explanations do nothing to support your alternative, biblical assertions. And you would be making a ridiculous error in judgement to think that is the case.

In my view, to use natural selection and lots of time to explain our reality , the origin of life, is a big

And for everyone that understands the basics of biology, they can see as plain as day that, that is a fucking strawman characterisation of what abiogenesis entails.

Bribase wrote:
And that is the one of the many fundamental problems with your position Coarama, your inability to be convinced by naturalistic explanations do nothing to support your alternative, biblical assertions.

Nope. All examples i have raised here are phenomenons present in nature : The amazing Motor Proteins, Cianobacteria and their incredible ability of Nitrogenase, the impossibility of evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, the problem of the origin of the genetic code, irreducible complexity in the cell, the gears of planthopper insects etc.......
So, no. I don't need to open the bible to show you that naturalistic explanations do not withstand scrutiny of the Skeptic minds.

And for everyone that understands the basics of biology, they can see as plain as day that, that is a fucking strawman characterisation of what abiogenesis entails.

I just wonder why Abiogenesis is not a explanation that makes you skeptic....

Coroama wrote:

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.

Wrong, it IS relevant, because it demonstrates that supernaturalists cannot even make up their minds about which of their multiple invented magic men was purportedly responsible. Which means that you can't assert that your pet choice of magic man was responsible, unless you can provide real evidence that all of those other supernaturalists, who think their choice of magic man was responsible, are all wrong. Good luck with that one, given the manner in which supernaturalists construct their apologetics deliberately to avoid such scrutiny.

Coroama wrote:I simply say : Evidence in nature leads to identify design.

Blind assertion and nothing more. One you can't even support with respect to human design, when confronted with some rocks.

Coroama wrote:Therefore , a intelligent designer.

Which of those rocks is "designed", once more? And how can you tell? Because if you can't even tell which of those rocks was shaped by a human hand for a purpose, and point to ways in which you can tell said rock apart from the other rocks that weren't thus "designed", you have nothing to offer with respect to your assertion about a Bronze Age magic man "designing" the biosphere.

Coroama wrote:Your completely unconvincing arguments just solidify my position.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Which of those rocks is "designed", again, and how can you tell? Because if you can't even perform this simple exercise successfully with a known instance of human design, why should anyone regard your assertions on the subject as other than discardable?

Coroama wrote:In my view, to use natural selection and lots of time to explain our reality , the origin of life, is a big

Until you pass that test with those rocks, your opinion is worthless.

Coroama wrote:

Bribase wrote:And that is the one of the many fundamental problems with your position Coarama, your inability to be convinced by naturalistic explanations do nothing to support your alternative, biblical assertions.

Nope. All examples i have raised here are phenomenons present in nature : The amazing Motor Proteins, Cianobacteria and their incredible ability of Nitrogenase

All accompanied by a large volume of scientific literature covering the evolution of these entities ...

Coroama wrote:the impossibility of evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes

Lynn Margulis, the founder of the endosymbiont hypothesis, would like a word with you. Especially after she spent 20 years struggling to persuade the scientific community of the validity of her work.

Coroama wrote:the problem of the origin of the genetic code

Those papers on the evolvability of the genetic code are pointing and laughing at your assertion ...

Coroama wrote:irreducible complexity in the cell

Behe's canards about "irreducible complexity" were known to be canards by biologists before Behe was even born ... Müllerian Two Step, anyone?

Coroama wrote:the gears of planthopper insects etc.......

How come other planthopper species function perfectly well without them?

Coroama wrote:So, no. I don't need to open the bible to show you that naturalistic explanations do not withstand scrutiny of the Skeptic minds.

Oh please, "Magic Man did it" isn't the product of a sceptical mind, it's the product of a septic mind.

Coroama wrote:

And for everyone that understands the basics of biology, they can see as plain as day that, that is a fucking strawman characterisation of what abiogenesis entails.

I just wonder why Abiogenesis is not a explanation that makes you skeptic....

Because invisible magic men are far more ridiculous than chemistry?

Coroama wrote:

Bribase wrote:
And that is the one of the many fundamental problems with your position Coarama, your inability to be convinced by naturalistic explanations do nothing to support your alternative, biblical assertions.

Nope. All examples i have raised here are phenomenons present in nature : The amazing Motor Proteins,

Argument from Ignorance.

Coroama wrote:Cianobacteria

Argument from Ignorance.

Coroama wrote:and their incredible ability of Nitrogenase,

Argument from Ignorance.

Coroama wrote:the impossibility of evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes,

Unsubstantiated claim.

Coroama wrote:the problem of the origin of the genetic code,

Argument from Ignorance.

Coroama wrote:irreducible complexity in the cell,

Argument from Ignorance...and no such IC has been demonstrated.

Coroama wrote:the gears of planthopper insects etc.......

Argument from Ignorance.

Let me ask you: Do you think that we have learned everything that it is possible to learn?

Because that is the ONLY way for any of this to be a problem.

Coroama wrote:So, no. I don't need to open the bible to show you that naturalistic explanations do not withstand scrutiny of the Skeptic minds.

Spouting the same logical fallacy over and over does not pose any such problem from a skeptical standpoint.

Then there is the fact that even if you were to disprove every naturalistic explanation, you have done NOTHING to demonstrate the existence of a god.

Coroama wrote:

And for everyone that understands the basics of biology, they can see as plain as day that, that is a fucking strawman characterisation of what abiogenesis entails.

I just wonder why Abiogenesis is not a explanation that makes you skeptic....

Because abiogenesis is a fact.

At one point there was no life on this planet.
Now there is life on this planet.
The term for the origin of life is "abiogenesis". It doesn't matter what that origin is. If there is a god that magically "poofed" all life into existence, then THAT was the abiogenesis event.

Jesus H. Christ on a crooked stick, that guy makes some schoolboy arguments, doesn't he?

Coroama wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Coroama wrote:

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

what ??

Well, i just asked you in order that you could check your assertion, which of course is completely false. The website treats the right paper

No it doesn't.

Coroama wrote:btw. i don't indeed bother to waste my time to examine closely your paper. Of course its absolutely nonsense, and does not answer the question of where coded information comes from correctly, ( it cannot be through natural selection ) . Why ? Because that mechanism cannot work . Intelligence is the only mechanism. Period.

Right, okay. You're just right because you're right and you don't need to bother checking the evidence. Okay.

The_Metatron wrote:Jesus H. Christ on a crooked stick, that guy makes some schoolboy arguments, doesn't he?

I wouldn't even classify them as arguments.

Coroama wrote:

ramseyoptom wrote:

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

that might be a good starting point :

http://en.lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+the+bible+true+%3F+

Oh great and the first one I click on is a load of bollocks.

http://www.essentialbibleblog.com/2013/03/top-10-reasons-bible-is-true.html

1) If we were dealing with quantity then the "Lord of the Rings" would be history.

2) Most archaeology does not confirm the existence of the bible, except in some of the most general terms ie the Persian Empire existed.

3) Eyewitness accounts - try to go into court these days with just eyewitness accounts and the Crown Prosecution Service will just laugh in your face. It has been shown to be one of the most unreliable forms of evidence in fact it is next door to making things up.

4) Most of the corroborating accounts aren't.

5) Literary consistency isn't there.

6) Profit motive?? or how about re-writing some of the stories to force fit them to the agreed narrative.

7) Expert Scrutiny Oh please! The idea of truth regarding narrative and stories was different 2,000 years ago to what we agree now is required.

8) If you are brought up to believe, and that belief is embedded in your culture in general then you are going to believe, and ascribe everything to your holy book of any variety.

9) Global influence - well when some of the persuasion is done with men (usually) with long sharp pointy bits of metal at your throat then the argument is going to be persuasive. Especially if your army has just been efficiently slaughtered with better technology.

10) Buddhism has changed lives so has Toaism - so what is special about the bible?


For an argument Coroama the mark is 0/10 needs to do a lot better.

Coroama wrote:

Bribase wrote:
And that is the one of the many fundamental problems with your position Coarama, your inability to be convinced by naturalistic explanations do nothing to support your alternative, biblical assertions.

Nope. All examples i have raised here are phenomenons present in nature : The amazing Motor Proteins, Cianobacteria and their incredible ability of Nitrogenase, the impossibility of evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, the problem of the origin of the genetic code, irreducible complexity in the cell, the gears of planthopper insects etc.......
So, no. I don't need to open the bible to show you that naturalistic explanations do not withstand scrutiny of the Skeptic minds.

But you miss the fundamental point, Coarama. Features of the natural world being amazing, fallacious nonsense about irreducible complexity and your own intuitive sense of what had to be designed and what did not, does not constitute an argument for design.

If you are convinced that evolutionary mechanisms fall short of explaining the occurence of certain features in nature, that is an argument against evolution, at no point is it an argument for design. If you want to make an actual, positive argument for your assertion of design you would do better to flesh out the mechanism by which these features are designed and how we would go about detecting this mechanism at work.

Until then, as you have been reminded by others, these are just arguments from ignorance and incredulity, nothing more.

Calilasseia wrote:Wrong, it IS relevant, because it demonstrates that supernaturalists cannot even make up their minds about which of their multiple invented magic men was purportedly responsible.

1. Its not relevant to the topic, and
2. Its not relevant to my argument for design.

Which means that you can't assert that your pet choice of magic man was responsible, unless you can provide real evidence that all of those other supernaturalists, who think their choice of magic man was responsible, are all wrong.

Even if there are 40k denominations, they still all worship the God of the bible.

Good luck with that one, given the manner in which supernaturalists construct their apologetics deliberately to avoid such scrutiny.

40k denominations neither means 40k different doctrines. It means simply 40k denominations. Nothing wrong with that.

Coroama wrote:I simply say : Evidence in nature leads to identify design.

Blind assertion and nothing more.

Your advanced indoctrination into naturalism and inhability to recognize when something must be designed is noted.

One you can't even support with respect to human design, when confronted with some rocks.

Irrelevant counter argument.

Coroama wrote:
Even if there are 40k denominations, they still all worship the God of the bible.

Tell that a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a Pagan. Calilasseia was referring to all varieties of supernaturalists, not just Christian sects.

Coroama wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Wrong, it IS relevant, because it demonstrates that supernaturalists cannot even make up their minds about which of their multiple invented magic men was purportedly responsible.

1. Its not relevant to the topic, and
2. Its not relevant to my argument for design.

You are yet to make an argument for design, Coarama. So far you have made an argument for "I can't believe it came about naturally" And an argument for "You're not currently able to explain how it happened naturally." Neither of which support your assertion one bit.

Coroama wrote:

Bribase wrote:
And that is the one of the many fundamental problems with your position Coarama, your inability to be convinced by naturalistic explanations do nothing to support your alternative, biblical assertions.

Nope. All examples i have raised here are phenomenons present in nature : The amazing Motor Proteins, Cianobacteria and their incredible ability of Nitrogenase, the impossibility of evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, the problem of the origin of the genetic code, irreducible complexity in the cell, the gears of planthopper insects etc.......
So, no. I don't need to open the bible to show you that naturalistic explanations do not withstand scrutiny of the Skeptic minds.

All you've presented in the above quote is one big appeal to personal ignorance and incredulity fallacy.
Just because you cannot imagine something doesn't mean it isn't true.
Jus because you cannot understand how A evolved into B, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You have failed to present any evidence whatsoever for ID, Christian or otherwise.
Disproving evolution, if you'd managed to do so, doesn't prove that everything is designed by your god.

Coroama wrote:

One you can't even support with respect to human design, when confronted with some rocks.

Irrelevant counter argument.

Arse-water. It's entirely relevant, as you claim to be able to identify design (completely evading the question of the means by which you do this), while being spectacularly unable to identify an instance of actual design.

Kids, this is your brain on religion. Just say no.

Coroama wrote:... modo operandi ....

That rings a bell!

I can't understand why someone who believes Genesis 2:7 has a problem with abiogenesis.