Prove it or remove it challenge

[Subduction Zone]

Krauss said to ridicule beliefs. In practice he ridicules people. Big difference.

Where? Again there is enough video out there. Surely you can find an example.

In his three part debate with Craig he started the first debate with 15 minutes of ridicule and ad hominem attacks, along with unfounded direct accusations of deceit. By the end of the third debate he took it all back and conceded that Craig is a sincere upstanding fellow.

Are you talking about David Lane Craig? If that is the case it sounds like Krauss was lying more towards the end of that debate. DLC constantly and shamelessly uses debunked arguments.

But then in his rockstar movie with Dawkins, they sit and ridicule and defame Christians to the cheers and applause of thousands.

Again links please. I don't feel that it is out of line to ridicule people that put themselves out in public as a false icon for their beliefs. Those people do deserve to be ridiculed.

My belief is that it's a debate technique intended to cow your opponent into submission. Christians are easy to cow because we want to be Christ-like and inoffensive. Our hope is that by some miracle you (atheists) won't end up on the wrong end of Gods judgement.

Sorry but that just is not true. Far too many Christian debaters are extremely dishonest debaters. One of the few honest ones was Ken Ham, of course that is why he lost so badly to Bill Nye. Bill Nye was very polite to Ken Ham because for once the theist was honest.

If you reject us, we don't want that rejection to be because we have been offensive personally.

Then you need to clean up your act quite a bit too.

Of course many Christians are guilty, myself included, of offensive language. It's just hopefully very rare and it's not our "go to" technique. We admit that it goes against our moral foundation.

What is "offensive language"? There are times that strong invective is called for. Dropping the F-bomb in every other word simply makes on look uneducated, but if you use it very very rarely it is an extremely strong tool. Over use quickly makes it a tool against the user.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Where? Again there is enough video out there. Surely you can find an example.


Are you talking about David Lane Craig? If that is the case it sounds like Krauss was lying more towards the end of that debate. DLC constantly and shamelessly uses debunked arguments.



Again links please. I don't feel that it is out of line to ridicule people that put themselves out in public as a false icon for their beliefs. Those people do deserve to be ridiculed.



Sorry but that just is not true. Far too many Christian debaters are extremely dishonest debaters. One of the few honest ones was Ken Ham, of course that is why he lost so badly to Bill Nye. Bill Nye was very polite to Ken Ham because for once the theist was honest.



Then you need to clean up your act quite a bit too.



What is "offensive language"? There are times that strong invective is called for. Dropping the F-bomb in every other word simply makes on look uneducated, but if you use it very very rarely it is an extremely strong tool. Over use quickly makes it a tool against the user.

It's William Lane Craig. But you were close. Watch his debate with Sam Harris if you get a chance. He (Sam) talks at the beginning about all the emails he got from colleagues prior to the debate begging him "please brother, don't blow this" ha ha. WLC is the most feared debater out there. Dawkins won't chance it. But Sam held his own sort of and is extremely articulate.

Unfortunately for him he is a thorough-going determinist (so is Coyne by the way) who attempts to argue for objective morality based on intuitions. So a subjectivist who believes we are all 100% determined (though most of us don't know it) and that we can by consensus determine objective morality. Go figure. Anyway it's a good debate.

I've watched all his (Craigs) debates and he hasn't lost any, so I don't know why you would say all his arguments are debunked. But the beauty of a debate is that often there isn't a "winner" or a "loser". You just have an opportunity to make your best arguments and the listeners can decide who made the best case. Obviously there will be differing opinions.

You're always asking me for citations, could you please give me an example of the dishonest Christian debaters?

And you do have google. You can watch the Krauss debates, but I think they end up being 6 hours long total. A big time investment. Also the name of the Krauss/Dawkins movie is "The Unbelievers" I think. It's on YouTube.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's William Lane Craig. But you were close. Watch his debate with Sam Harris if you get a chance. He (Sam) talks at the beginning about all the emails he got from colleagues prior to the debate begging him "please brother, don't blow this" ha ha. WLC is the most feared debater out there. Dawkins won't chance it. But Sam held his own sort of and is extremely articulate.

Right, thank you for the correction. And no, WLC is no longer feared. All of his claims have been refuted and no one takes him seriously anymore. He had a good schtick but he can't seem to find a new one.

Unfortunately for him he is a thorough-going determinist (so is Coyne by the way) who attempts to argue for objective morality based on intuitions. So a subjectivist who believes we are all 100% determined (though most of us don't know it) and that we can by consensus determine objective morality. Go figure. Anyway it's a good debate.

I've watched all his (Craigs) debates and he hasn't lost any, so I don't know why you would say all his arguments are debunked. But the beauty of a debate is that often there isn't a "winner" or a "loser". You just have an opportunity to make your best arguments and the listeners can decide who made the best case. Obviously there will be differing opinions.

Then you were not paying attention. His Kalam argument fails, just about every argument he uses fails. He may have convinced the ignorant and weak minded, I don't call that "winning a debate". You might as well claim that Kent Hovind won all of his debates. Hovind of course is far worse than Craig. Hovind openly lies.

You're always asking me for citations, could you please give me an example of the dishonest Christian debaters?

I just gave you one. Pick out a debate of his and I will show you where he is lying. He either has to be lying or is a total moron since his lies have been corrected many times.

And you do have google. You can watch the Krauss debates, but I think they end up being 6 hours long total. A big time investment. Also the name of the Krauss/Dawkins movie is "The Unbelievers" I think. It's on YouTube.

You do realize that you can start a YouTube video anywhere that you like in a link, don't you?+[/QUOTE]

 

[Paterfamilia]

Ha ha ha I finally get it!!

You don't believe yourself either!! You just say anything that pops into your head!

Now why should I do all your work for you?? Ha ha. (actually I didn't know that YouTube part)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha ha I finally get it!!

You don't believe yourself either!! You just say anything that pops into your head!

Now why should I do all your work for you?? Ha ha. (actually I didn't know that YouTube part)

I don't want you to do all of the work, just your fair share. Now I could easily pick a Kent Hovind video where he debates someone and definitely lies. Any debate where he introduces himself as "Dr. Kent Hovind" is technically a lie. His "doctorate" is a thing of beauty. It is the only known doctoral thesis that begins "Hello my name is ..." The start of his doctoral "thesis" actually begins that way. I could link it for you if you would like.

But even where we let him get away with the lie you will find countless others in his videos. Again, I could pick one that I like, making my job even easier, or you could try to make my job tougher and find a video where you think that he does not lie.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Dude you don't know much about Dr Dino apparently.

Lying on video is the least of his problems - try the ten years in jail for tax resistance.

We all have our problem children.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude you don't know much about Dr Dino apparently.

Lying on video is the least of his problems - try the ten years in jail for tax resistance.

We all have our problem children.

I said he was one of the worst. But in almost every creationist argument video against evolution I will spot lies. They are lies and not mistakes because the people making those statements should know better.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I said he was one of the worst. But in almost every creationist argument video against evolution I will spot lies. They are lies and not mistakes because the people making those statements should know better.

Cmon man sincere people stating sincere beliefs are not lying.

Find a single lie by WLC and I will give you a crisp $100 signed by George Clooney ha ha!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cmon man sincere people stating sincere beliefs are not lying.

Find a single lie by WLC and I will give you a crisp $100 signed by George Clooney ha ha!

I disagree. If a basic point has been refuted more than once, then it is no longer a "sincere belief" it is merely self delusion at best. If a person has to lie to himself is he being honest? It is pretty obvious that Kent Hovind is seriously mentally ill or lying. Perhaps not so much with WLC.

Have you ever seen the various videos of Aron Ra? Many years ago, before I joined up here, he used to be a member at this site. He does not show up on the membership because a bit over a year ago there was a major overhaul with a new software company's software running the site. It seems that old nonactive members were not carried over. Aron Ra is a a pretty big voice in the atheist community. Another famous member was Poe, of Poe's law. He noticed that one could not tell the difference between a hard core creationist and a troll pretending to be one.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Familiar with both.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I disagree. If a basic point has been refuted more than once, then it is no longer a "sincere belief" it is merely self delusion at best. If a person has to lie to himself is he being honest? It is pretty obvious that Kent Hovind is seriously mentally ill or lying. Perhaps not so much with WLC.

You'd have to define "refuted". According to you the entire bulk of Christendom has been refuted. You stated earlier that WLC has been refuted at every point. That is simply not true. (We're you lying? Ha ha)

WLC, according to Sam Harris, is the "one Christian apologist who seems to strike fear into the hearts of atheists everywhere" because he argues with incredible grasp of every subject, impeccable logic, intuitive reasoning, and precise verbiage. Also he's just an affable, engaging personality.

Have you heard of Steve Baughman? Friendly Banjo Atheist. De-converted from Christianity.

We've had some knock-down drag-outs over Ravi Zaccarias (among other things) who he has a bug for for some reason. I moderated a debate between he and another pretty well known atheist over moral ontology.

One supported objective morality based on intuitions same as Sam Harris; Banjo is non-cognitivist, which seems more like true Atheism to me. He goes with the idea that moral propositions are not "truth apt" and that saying anything is wrong or right is nonsense or meaningless. "Rightness" is redefined to being only that which is preferred.

So the title of the debate was something like "torturing babies for fun is always wrong" or something like that.

Anyway he has several YouTube videos of him playing the banjo. Very talented guy.

 

[-57]

For me what is funny....is how all the evos banter around these forums and still there isn't a single evolutionist who can explain how a so-called extremely rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.

The evolutionist are calling the creationist liars...yet they can't explain how evolutionism works. They pass it off as the truth while if you don't believe in their truth you're a lying idiot.

How does the so-called beneficial mutation occur again and again, many, many times in the proper place in the DNA so that the information contained in the code is increased to the point that the fitness of an animal is increased and enhanced such that something like the dolphins echo-location system is evolved?

There is not one evolutionist who can do that. You would think after Chucky D and the last 150 years or so of evo-science they would have an answer. They realize the odds are against evolutionism. The human DNA has like 3.5 Billion base pairs and so-called beneficial mutations are a small fraction of a percent. Sure, a so-called beneficial mutation may occur some where and change a trait....but the odds of a second, third, fourth fifth...so-called beneficial mutation occurring in the proper place of the DNA code allowing proteins to fold precisely, changing the trait for the better....is impossible.

So, come on my evo-friends....tell us how mutations add up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You'd have to define "refuted". According to you the entire bulk of Christendom has been refuted. You stated earlier that WLC has been refuted at every point. That is simply not true. (We're you lying? Ha ha)

Bring up some of his claims and I will show how he has been refuted. Quite a few of his arguments break down to being simply arguments from ignorance.

WLC, according to Sam Harris, is the "one Christian apologist who seems to strike fear into the hearts of atheists everywhere" because he argues with incredible grasp of every subject, impeccable logic, intuitive reasoning, and precise verbiage. Also he's just an affable, engaging personality.

I will agree that WLC is much better educated than the average creationist, but since people have seen through his arguments if you asked Sam Harris today he would probably put that in the past tense, if he said that at all. And when quoting others it is a good practice to link the quote. Supposed quotes without links are worthless in a discussion. Too many creationists have lied by quote mining to give that strategy any traction any more.

Have you heard of Steve Baughman? Friendly Banjo Atheist. De-converted from Christianity.

We've had some knock-down drag-outs over Ravi Zaccarias (among other things) who he has a bug for for some reason. I moderated a debate between he and another pretty well known atheist over moral ontology.

One supported objective morality based on intuitions same as Sam Harris; Banjo is non-cognitivist, which seems more like true Atheism to me. He goes with the idea that moral propositions are not "truth apt" and that saying anything is wrong or right is nonsense or meaningless. "Rightness" is redefined to being only that which is preferred.

So the title of the debate was something like "torturing babies for fun is always wrong" or something like that.

Anyway he has several YouTube videos of him playing the banjo. Very talented guy.

And the point of this?

 

[sfs]

For me what is funny....is how all the evos banter around these forums and still there isn't a single evolutionist who can explain how a so-called extremely rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.

The evolutionist are calling the creationist liars...yet they can't explain how evolutionism works. They pass it off as the truth while if you don't believe in their truth you're a lying idiot.

How does the so-called beneficial mutation occur again and again, many, many times in the proper place in the DNA so that the information contained in the code is increased to the point that the fitness of an animal is increased and enhanced such that something like the dolphins echo-location system is evolved?

There is not one evolutionist who can do that. You would think after Chucky D and the last 150 years or so of evo-science they would have an answer. They realize the odds are against evolutionism. The human DNA has like 3.5 Billion base pairs and so-called beneficial mutations are a small fraction of a percent. Sure, a so-called beneficial mutation may occur some where and change a trait....but the odds of a second, third, fourth fifth...so-called beneficial mutation occurring in the proper place of the DNA code allowing proteins to fold precisely, changing the trait for the better....is impossible.

So, come on my evo-friends....tell us how mutations add up.

You've been told repeatedly how mutations add up. Your response is to keep asking the question. It makes one suspect that you aren't interested in the answer.

 

[-57]

You've been told repeatedly how mutations add up. Your response is to keep asking the question. It makes one suspect that you aren't interested in the answer.

I'll tell you what sfs...if you can show me where you answered the question I'll never post here again. Keep in mind your coloring book description doesn't answer the question presented above. On the other hand, if you can't produce the post then it appears you are lying. So, sfs, balls in your court.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I will agree that WLC is much better educated than the average creationist, but since people have seen through his arguments if you asked Sam Harris today he would probably put that in the past tense, if he said that at all. And when quoting others it is a good practice to link the quote. Supposed quotes without links are worthless in a discussion. Too many creationists have lied by quote mining to give that strategy any traction any more.

And you think you are exempt? Saying "Sam Harris would probably put that in the past tense" is a ridiculous statement from every perspective. You have no idea what Sam Harris thinks, and he definitely wouldn't say that after the butt-kicking he got in the debate.

About minute 27 or 28 are the comments that I quoted. But watch the whole debate and come to your own conclusions.

Here is my challenge to you - you want me to bring up WLC's arguments so that you can refute them. I don't think you know what any of his arguments are. And yet you say that all his arguments are refuted and he has been left behind and his "schtick" in disrepute.

YOU bring up any of his arguments and refute it. Pick the weakest one, and cite the video or audio, and give us your refutation.

Otherwise your comments don't have any credibility.

 

[sfs]

I'll tell you what sf...if you can show me where you answered the question I'll never post here again. Keep in mind your coloring book description doesn't answer the question presented above. On the other hand, if you can't produce the post then it appears you are lying. So, sf, balls in your court.

Here's one. You of course dismissed it as "coloring book", which seems to be your term for any explanation you don't want to hear.

One more time, for good measure. . . This is how beneficial mutations add up. A mutation occurs that happens to change a trait. It spreads in the population over many generations because it is beneficial. Then another mutation occurs that happens to change the same trait (among the millions of mutations that are occurring), also in a beneficial way. It spreads in the population too. Then a third mutation occurs, and so on.

That's it. That's all there is to it. You dismiss this process, but you're unable to say why it doesn't happen. Which makes sense, because we observe it happening, and can easily see the results. We know that half a dozen different mutations led to Europeans' lighter skin pigmentation, for example. This is all detailed in the scientific literature, not in coloring books.

 

[digitalgoth]

For me what is funny....is how all the evos banter around these forums and still there isn't a single evolutionist who can explain how a so-called extremely rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.

The evolutionist are calling the creationist liars...yet they can't explain how evolutionism works. They pass it off as the truth while if you don't believe in their truth you're a lying idiot.

How does the so-called beneficial mutation occur again and again, many, many times in the proper place in the DNA so that the information contained in the code is increased to the point that the fitness of an animal is increased and enhanced such that something like the dolphins echo-location system is evolved?

There is not one evolutionist who can do that. You would think after Chucky D and the last 150 years or so of evo-science they would have an answer. They realize the odds are against evolutionism. The human DNA has like 3.5 Billion base pairs and so-called beneficial mutations are a small fraction of a percent. Sure, a so-called beneficial mutation may occur some where and change a trait....but the odds of a second, third, fourth fifth...so-called beneficial mutation occurring in the proper place of the DNA code allowing proteins to fold precisely, changing the trait for the better....is impossible.

So, come on my evo-friends....tell us how mutations add up.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time, as I'm sure this has been answered a dozen times and I doubt you care.

There's no such thing as a "beneficial" mutation in and of itself. A change occurs, that's all a mutation is. If it doesn't kill the organism or interfere with the reproductive success of the organism, it'll be passed on to the next generation along with other new mutations. If these don't kill it or interfere with its ability to breed, then they'll be passed on, in addition to other mutations, and so on.

Over time mutations (change) continues. Its a continual process, because God's organisms are imperfect in their replication process. Its why we can grow better and strong crops, why we can breed dogs into all manner of sizes and shapes, and how organisms can adapt to changes in the environment. Sometimes the changes don't help an organism reproduce or kills it, so that it doesn't pass on those traits. Sometimes changes allow it to be more adaptable to the environment it is in, so it will become more fixated in the population (increase in allele frequency) of organisms.

That's it. No magic beneficial mutations. Just ones that don't outright kill the organism when it reproduces, or causes it to survive better in its environment. Organisms constantly change when they reproduce, and environments constantly change as well. Evolution is just the mechanism that allows life not to die out when the environment changes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For me what is funny....is how all the evos banter around these forums and still there isn't a single evolutionist who can explain how a so-called extremely rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.

What makes you think that positive mutations are extremely rare? They don't seem to be all that rare when one investigates the matter. You might check out this article here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

The evolutionist are calling the creationist liars...yet they can't explain how evolutionism works. They pass it off as the truth while if you don't believe in their truth you're a lying idiot.

No, we can show that specific creationists are liars. And since there is no such thing as "evolutionism" of course no one can explain how it works. Perhaps if you asked questions using proper terminology would help you to get an answer that you could understand. It is rather clear that you could not follow what was stated. For example Kent Hovind can easily be shown to be a lying idiot. His dishonesty and idiocy put him in prison for close to ten years. Even his not so bright son Eric was smart enough to learn that you do not lie to the IRS.

How does the so-called beneficial mutation occur again and again, many, many times in the proper place in the DNA so that the information contained in the code is increased to the point that the fitness of an animal is increased and enhanced such that something like the dolphins echo-location system is evolved?

This shows that you have no clue as to how life evolves. Your post implies very strongly that you think that man and other animals were a goal in evolution. First off there is no "right place" for a mutation to be. Mutations are just changes in the genome. Most neutral, some negative, and even fewer positive. I could try to break this down for you, but would you listen? Can you listen honestly when people explain something to you?

There is not one evolutionist who can do that. You would think after Chucky D and the last 150 years or so of evo-science they would have an answer. They realize the odds are against evolutionism. The human DNA has like 3.5 Billion base pairs and so-called beneficial mutations are a small fraction of a percent. Sure, a so-called beneficial mutation may occur some where and change a trait....but the odds of a second, third, fourth fifth...so-called beneficial mutation occurring in the proper place of the DNA code allowing proteins to fold precisely, changing the trait for the better....is impossible.

Scientists have found many answers over the 150 years. Why do you think that they haven't? And once more you spew your nonsense that indicates that you think there was a goal for the life that evolved. By owning up to the fact that there have been positive mutations you already have shown that evolution is possible. It just does not work with the strawman version that you are trying to create.

So, come on my evo-friends....tell us how mutations add up.

Easy. Once again, you need to quit pretending that there is a goal in evolution. All that is required is that which you have already admits exist. All that is needed are positive mutations and time. And traits do not evolve all at once or one at a time. In a species many traits may be evolving at the same time and quite often are.

We could focus on the evolution of the eye if you like. We could go over it step by step. Of course you need to remember that the modern eye was never a goal, it was simply a result. Are you ready to learn?

 

[-57]

One more time, for good measure. . . This is how beneficial mutations add up. A mutation occurs that happens to change a trait. It spreads in the population over many generations because it is beneficial. Then another mutation occurs that happens to change the same trait (among the millions of mutations that are occurring), also in a beneficial way. It spreads in the population too. Then a third mutation occurs, and so on.

Here's your coloring book answer "Then another mutation occurs that happens to change the same trait"

...is your precious theory only that good? A mutation just happens along? If that's the best you have, I'll just have to accept how weak and void the T.O.E really is.