An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[Skreeper]

I'm pretty sure that violates some kind of site rule here.

I'm pretty sure that I've broken plenty of site rules here. But I'm a true rebel, I like to live dangerous.

 

[tas8831]

This is a very common misconception for many. There are two types of science. There is the operational sciences which can be subjected to the processes you refer to. Then there are the historical which is what we are looking at. In the historical we are looking for causes of past events. That requires a different method.

What method is employed to study acts of creation from dust by a tribal deity?

 

[tas8831]

Has anyone desputed anything I have said? Is anyone fighting me on the math?

Well, I have only recently looked at this thread, and just from the first couple of pages, I found a lot wrong.

"Random selection", for example.

Regarding your math, all I see are numbers thrown out with the expectation that all are merely to accept them at face value.

I do not. I have asked for clarification on your math, and we will see if you ever are able to answer my questions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Abiotic production of sugar phosphates and uridine ribonucleoside in aqueous microdroplets:

Here, we show that sugar phosphates and a ribonucleoside form spontaneously in microdroplets, without enzymes or an external energy source. Sugar phosphorylation in microdroplets has a lower entropic cost than in bulk solution. Therefore, thermodynamic obstacles of prebiotic condensation reactions can be circumvented in microdroplets.​

Yes, spatially constrained chemistry opens new vistas of possibility - the surface and interstitial chemistry of clays is also a (relatively) novel and interesting area of organic chemistry.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To me if you can prove that no intelligent outside agent is necessary then you have won.

A word to the wise - we see this negative proof fallacy quite a lot on these forums. It's popularly known as 'Russell's Teapot'.

Also, given that these are the Physical & Life sciences forum, what counts is not winning or losing, but getting a better understanding of the subject and - sometimes - learning enough to change or refine our opinions.

 

[Ophiolite]

Dupicate Post

Apologies to all fellow members. The forum did not appear to be accepting my post, but just went into a never-ending loop. Apparently it was - hence all these duplicates. Cheers.

 

[Nithavela]

What's going on? I'm scared.

 

[Ophiolite]

That was a waffle because right after I typed it I remembered some work I had done on the number of scientists that are beginning to have serious doubts and leaving Atheism. I was distracted and did not erase or have time.

When we discuss science there is an agreed approach. This approach is rigorous in peer reviewed journals, but even informal conversations benefit from the application of some simple rules. You seem unaware of them. Here are some:

• Aim for clarity, concision and comprehensiveness
• Edit your work
• Do not ramble
• Do not introduce extraneous comments
• Remember you are not in a pub, drug den or mental hospital.

These guidelines are not pretentious affectations, but means towards improved communication. I do hope you'll pay them some heed, or our dialogue will be reduced to a monologue.

Ok point well taken but just remember that the experiment was done a long time ago. I only know of two experiments of serious consequence since then trying to establish the viability of Abiogenesis.

There is no need to apologise. Your ignorance on this subject has been evident from your early posts, as is your consequent consistent logical error of Argument from Ignorance. There are two key points to be made here:

1. I am not aware of any experiment that has sought to establish the viability of abiogenesis by actually creating life. Given our current level of ignorance that would be presumptuous and probably fruitless. The experiments explore prebiotic synthesis, a prerequisite for abiogenesis. I am not certain that you understand that. If you didn't, I trust you do now.

2. There have been numerous abiogeneis experiments made. I am not going to do your literature search for you, but I shall make this contribution to removing your ignorance on this specific issue. It is a review paper, published in 1965, ten years after publication of the Miller-Urey experiment. It details over fifty such experiments. Fifty experiments in ten years and that is more than fifty years ago. It's up to you to search the literature for what's been done in that half century. I suspect it's considerably more than you imagined.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

We had some glitches that should be fixed now. The duplicates were removed.

 

[Nithavela]

sadly I just got off the phone with my main guy in forming part of my website and he told me we probably wont be ready till this afternoon. I was wrong to say a few hours I will not show you until we are ready. And that is out of my control. I am not happy about this but I must do work myself for the next several hours. I don't like some of these replies on this thread going unanswered but I have listened to him and know what I have to do.

So I have stay off this forum for several hours and do the work.

Even when I give you the link know this ... .......... we will never be done. This is a life long work at this point unless you can prove to me your case which seems spectacularly doubtful given your fruits.

The fruits of Atheism is despair. It shows me why I must fight it.
And then there is the overwhelming problem it will always have science.

But it is the fruits of it that intrigue me and force me to fight and give all that I can in the fight.

This is my fight ... no matter what I will fight it. Unless you can prove me wrong,.

 

[Nithavela]

I'm just going to go ahead and make the prediction that we won't see that guy again.

 

[driewerf]

Except there are not 23 amino acids If I am correct .. just going by memory here.

Just for the record: there are thousands, if not millions of possible amino acids. Only "the 20 canonical" AA's are used in building proteins and that's wheree a lot of people get confused, but there are many more.

 

[Skreeper]

I'm just going to go ahead and make the prediction that we won't see that guy again.

And I was so excited to see yet another terrible creationist blog that "destroys evilution and atheism". Sad.

 

[DogmaHunter]

what do you think of the Giraffs neck?

Or the appendix, tonsils, tail bone for human and other useless things?
Could you design better?

An all-powerfull, all-intelligent entity most certainly would do a better job.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok I mean two for this debate ...there is either an intelligent outside agent or there isn't.

To me if you can prove that no intelligent outside agent is necessary then you have won.

Its a simple as that.

Blatant shifting of the burden of proof.

You make the claim - you support your claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But you can't design a single cell lol.
Do you even understand what is involved with a single cell?
If you did you would understand my position and why it is based on math and science.
That is why I bated you lol.
You weren't even the one I was bating lol.

If your argument is that "it has to be some god because we puny humans can't do it", then you have very low standards of evidence.

We might not be able to create life from scratch (yet?), but that doesn't stop us from being able to recognise "bad" or "inefficient" design.

I'm not an electronics engineer for example. I wouldn't even know where to start to design for example a hand-held ultra high definition videocamera. But I can absolutely point out design flaws in such camera's!

If the designer of the camera with such design flaws is then said to be an "all-intelligent, all-powerfull" entity... then i'm just going to point at the flaws as evidence, that that can not be true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok now I will talk to you slowly
Real slowly

Do you have any idea how complicated a cell is?

I mean really?

Complexity is not an argument for design.

A hurricane is complex as well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because that is what the world needs...Another creationist/ID website riddled with bad arguments.

Well... I must say, I don't have much of a problem of them spending thousands on a website in some dark corner of the interwebs.

I certainly prefer that over them coming to my doorstep waving a bible and bringing me "the good news".

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it. I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact

Evolution is a fact.

or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.

Of course it's not true--because science has nothing to say one way or the other on the topic of God/gods.

Science is not on the side of Atheism and that is why I turned away from it. I can not do theology or bible debates as I am not a Christian buy I can do science because the science is easy. It leads ti God.

Science doesn't have sides. Science is a methodology of understanding the observable universe. Full stop. That's it. Science can neither support nor denounce atheism or theism; because science deals exclusively with the observable universe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[driewerf]

I know that this thread has grown over 15 pages, yet I want t react to the OP.
The OP reads in full as reposted here:

I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it. I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.

Science is not on the side of Atheism and that is why I turned away from it. I can not do theology or bible debates as I am not a Christian buy I can do science because the science is easy. It leads ti God.

I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it.

There is no "science of the creation". All creationists try to sound "sciency", but are either frauds or fail miserably. Mark Kennedy Here might be a lonely exception. But all "professional" creationists, like Ken Ham, Jason Lisle are one of both. Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind and Eric Hovind being both.

I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact

All science is tentative. Indeed one single fact can destroy a beautiful theory. But the ToE is as evidenced as a theory can be evidenced, and one will come with very strong arguments before it will be abandoned. It is still possible though.

or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.

Then you are hearing wrong. In all the years that I follow this debate science minded people, from all religious and philosophical opinions have insisted that science is neutral about the existence of God, a god or many gods. I'm quite confident that in the 15 pages that this thread has grown there will already be many examples of this.

Science is not on the side of Atheism and that is why I turned away from it.

Hurray! the first part of this quote is right. Science is indeed not on the side of atheism. Science is neutral on the existence of God, a god or many gods. But if that made you turn away from science, then 1) you made a wrong decission (though feel free to do it) and 2) you did it for the wrong reason. But thanks anyway for admitting that you turned away from science. At least you don't claim like the Hovinds to "love science" after which they butcher it.

I can not do theology or bible debates as I am not a Christian buy I can do science because the science is easy. It leads ti God.

Science leads to god and you turned away from it? Okay, so you are an atheist then?

 

[driewerf]

Atheism includes a lot of presuppositions that end up at a wild amount of deadends.

Can you name a few? Because being an atheist, I don't now any of these.

 

[driewerf]

Science was never on the side of evolution lol.
Honestly its bad on the evolution side ... its really bad.
And I hate that part because I spend so many hundreds of hours on the side of evolution and to have to turn away from it is not something I like.

Oh really?
That's why Sciencedaily.com has 162000 results for "evolution"
ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news

That's why Goolge Scholar has 5190000 results for evolution
https://scholar.google.be/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=evolution&btnG=

That's why the university of Cambridge has 28556 results for evolution
https://search.cam.ac.uk/web?query=evolution


That's why nature.com has 93114 results for evolution
evolution : nature.com search

"Science was never on the side of evolution lol."
Let me LOL