An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[FormerAtheist]

Lol, I only checked the creationist one out of interest... what a crock.

He prattles on about all the evidence against evolution, yet presents NONE. What a surprise!

That you find an opinion piece so compelling is not surprising.

are you sure you read all three articles in full because it would be Child's Play to dissect the two atheist articles put simply it is bad science bad logic and bad writing

 

[sfs]

Very nice presentation and so how does this lineup with your interpretation of the Tree of Life and how does that lineup two molecular clock data and which molecule would you be using for the molecular clock?

It lines up just fine. I have no idea how it lines up with molecular clock data; all I know is that it means that what you previously said about GULO was wrong. As was what you said about there being no genetic evidence for evolution. As was what you said about my blog post being evidence against evolution.

Why do you keep doing this? Making a claim, seeing it refuted, ignoring the refutation, and then making a new claim? What's the point of making lots of false claims?

 

[FormerAtheist]

How would reading the "atheist" articles (note that I'm still not sure which articles you mean) make the creationist article any less confused about science?

Did you read the creationist article because that was solid writing and solid logic in the race between the three articles that one is a winner x 3

 

[FormerAtheist]

It lines up just fine. I have no idea how it lines up with molecular clock data; all I know is that it means that what you previously said about GULO was wrong. As was what you said about there being no genetic evidence for evolution. As was what you said about my blog post being evidence against evolution.

Why do you keep doing this? Making a claim, seeing it refuted, ignoring the refutation, and then making a new claim? What's the point of making lots of false claims?

What are you talking about you showed similarity in genes from a variety of species but no connection on the tree of life and no connection to molecular clock data you still have a huge problem in fact the problem is still there nothing I said was false line that stuff up with the tree of life and molecular clock and get back to me

 

[FormerAtheist]

It lines up just fine. I have no idea how it lines up with molecular clock data; all I know is that it means that what you previously said about GULO was wrong. As was what you said about there being no genetic evidence for evolution. As was what you said about my blog post being evidence against evolution.

Why do you keep doing this? Making a claim, seeing it refuted, ignoring the refutation, and then making a new claim? What's the point of making lots of false claims?

By the way whichever molecule you use for your molecular clock data I will find a different one that will paint a completely different picture which makes my point that genetic data conflicts completely.

 

[sfs]

What are you talking about you showed similarity in genes from a variety of species but no connection on the tree of life and no connection to molecular clock data you still have a huge problem in fact the problem is still there nothing I said was false line that stuff up with the tree of life and molecular clock and get back to me

I'm talking about biology. I have no idea what your incoherent run-on sentence is supposed to mean.

 

[Jimmy D]

are you sure you read all three articles in full because it would be Child's Play to dissect the two atheist articles put simply it is bad science bad logic and bad writing

Are you sure you read my post?

I don’t understand quantum physics so I didn’t bother. But I was interested in the “article” that you found so compelling and just a cursory glance was enough to see it for what it is - lies and PRATTS.

Unless you’re going to share this mysterious evidence against the TOE the article refers to but doesn’t actually mention, I’ll stand by my comments.

 

[sfs]

By the way whichever molecule you use for your molecular clock data I will find a different one that will paint a completely different picture which makes my point that genetic data conflicts completely.

No, you really won't. What you'll do is change the subject again.

It's quite clear by this time that you are unable to deal with the genetic evidence for evolution.

 

[FormerAtheist]

It lines up just fine. I have no idea how it lines up with molecular clock data; all I know is that it means that what you previously said about GULO was wrong. As was what you said about there being no genetic evidence for evolution. As was what you said about my blog post being evidence against evolution.

Why do you keep doing this? Making a claim, seeing it refuted, ignoring the refutation, and then making a new claim? What's the point of making lots of false claims?

And while we are lining up that's guinea pigs and humans let's throw Whales into the mix and line up the Echolocation programming between bats and Whales that's when things get surreal.

 

[Jimmy D]

The same gene is found in the guinea pig the bat and a species of bird how does that work?

So SFS has pointed out “how it works”, no comment?

 

[FormerAtheist]

Are you sure you read my post?

I don’t understand quantum physics so I didn’t bother. But I was interested in the “article” that you found so compelling and just a cursory glance was enough to see it for what it is - lies and PRATTS.

Unless you’re going to share this mysterious evidence against the TOE the article refers to but doesn’t actually mention, I’ll stand by my comments.

I hear you brother quantum physics is spooky stuff but interesting and important none the less so do yourself a favor and look up quantum physics consciousness and Matter and then try to figure out how we get a universe without an outside consciousness

 

[FormerAtheist]

So SFS has pointed out “how it works”, no comment?

No he did not he was not able to line that up with the tree of life and molecular clock data

 

[xianghua]

But where did the number of 3% come from?

from here:

Views on evolution among the public and scientists

(according to this survey its actually 2%)

That's odd. My memory is that the last time we discussed evidence, it consisted of you posting quotes from a series of papers, papers that flatly contradicted the point you were trying to make. The time before that, you responded to that fact that genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look like accumulated mutations by arguing that the two species originally had very similar genomes. When I asked what we would see if we compared humans to more different species, like orangutans or monkeys, you disappeared.

lets see. your claim is that we can know that the difference between human and chimp is the result of mutations. first: how do you know how the original genome was look like? for instance: if we have T in human, how do we know that the original base was A?

 

[FormerAtheist]

The NY Times piece seems quite sensible. The Nature article is a highly theoretical take on a highly abstract question. What do you find in it that doesn't sound credible? Also, how do you know the first two are written by atheists? The creation.com writer claims that the scientific method can't address events in the past, which is pretty clear evidence that he is deeply confused about science.

Anyway, I note that you continue to ignore the genetic evidence I showed you for common descent.

I' sorry I might have missed that but ummm wow did you catch this video ... ouch ... Richard Dawkins is in too lol

 

[FormerAtheist]

Let's get real for minute. They went from tree to bush in 2 minutes flat ... faster than a Porsche and they nod their heads and laugh at the reality of multiple origin of life and forms. That was an assembly of the biggest names in atheism. If that NASA scientist had said anything about an outside intelligent agent he would have been labeed a kook by everyone including you. So we can go from tree pattern to bush to ... starfish pattern maybe? Who knows? Who cares as long as there is no designer in the mix. Nothing needs to make sense except this one thing .... no matter what there can be no designer.

Is that it?

 

[FormerAtheist]

I'm talking about biology. I have no idea what your incoherent run-on sentence is supposed to mean.

I have to voice recognition technology on my tablet in order to debate sometimes because of circumstance and time.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

YEAH your right nuff said.
I won't let that one go not for a long shot. How dare you!!!

How dare I provide background information about someone you quoted as an authority? Easy.

This guy has real credentials but you will demonize him because he does not believe as you do so he doesn't agree with your belief system.

I'm not going to demonize him - anyone who's interested can read the link and/or do their own research [to save time, he says he's an ID believer and doesn't believe in common descent].

... So then as long as anyone does not believe in your side of the debate they are null?

Where did I say that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What evidence or science would do work for you and yet still allow humanity serious free will? If the evidence is in your face no one has free will. For me it was the uncomfortable reality there is no other way.

How do you define 'serious free will'? i.e. what, exactly, do you mean by that ?

 

[xianghua]

By the way whichever molecule you use for your molecular clock data I will find a different one that will paint a completely different picture which makes my point that genetic data conflicts completely.

i think you refer to genes which contradict the phylogenetic tree. indeed we have many of them but evolutionists "solve" this problem by claiming for different selection pressure or convergent evolution. for instance: the gene prestin is closer between dolphins and some bats than between dolphins and baleen whales. it make no sense under evolution theory, so scientists solve this by convergent evolution. but this is just an ad hoc explanation rather than a scientific one.

(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...olocating-bats-and-cetaceans-A_fig3_237098425)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

are you sure you read all three articles in full because it would be Child's Play to dissect the two atheist articles put simply it is bad science bad logic and bad writing

I read them, and I agree with sfs summary -

1. Exploration of a simplified mathematical model of evolution involving entangled quantum organisms. An exercise in the hypothetical.

2. Using the paradigm shift of QM as an example to point out the difference between scientific theories such as the ToE, and ID/creationism - i.e. that the ToE is open to such a paradigm shift and ID/creationism is not.

3. A collection of creationist assertions, including misrepresentations and errors about the science being criticised.

Perhaps you could point to the 'bad science' in the first two?