Science leads materialist atheist to reject atheism

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,547
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,281.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
You don't need the experts to figure this out. All you need to do is list all the multiple required simultaneous random miraculously lucky stages of mutations. And you will quickly realize 3 billion years would not be enough of a time if all these life on earth came up from evolution. Even forever would not be enough.

"Dont need no stinkin' badges" either. :D

Of course as no expert would ever agree with your
characterization.

They would though that quick "realization" is aka " facile".
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Your claim was that you knew about evolution.

I did claim that. But I did not claim I "believed" in it.

So for example -- in this post we see a leading atheist evolutionist declaring himself to be a "true believer" in evolution...

it is their own atheist evolutionist scientists making these claims...

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history. Patterson’s own beliefs are as he stated “. I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula.” So he meets in some sense the obligation put upon him by classic evolutionist orthodoxy.

So then -- speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
From: Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute

=========================

No "too surprising" then that we find a result such as we see in the OP of an atheist neurosurgeon finding that his observations in nature in the case of the complexity of the human brain - lead him to reject his atheist evolutionism and turn to the Christian God as a more well reasoned explanation for the source.

Like finding the laptop in the deep woods and finally admitting to the obvious "trees, rocks and dirt did not do this - and do not the ability to explain its presence here in the woods. That would be a dead end."

Note that Patterson makes this statement about his "belief" .. his "faith" in what appears to be competing doctrine on origins to what I find in the Bible

"That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
So while it is true I do know about evolution -- I am not a "believer" in it.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I did claim that. But I did not claim I "believed" in it.

So for example -- in this post we see a leading atheist evolutionist declaring himself to be a "true believer" in evolution...



Note that Patterson makes this statement about his "belief" .. his "faith" in what appears to be competing doctrine on origins to what I find in the Bible

"That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
So while it is true I do know about evolution -- I am not a "believer" in it.
It is always an error to use a lying site to try to support your beliefs. Those all appear to be quote mines and are worthless without a link to the original source. By posting them in this manner you as much as admitted that you do not have a clue about evolution.

You may not lie about evolution, but you do not seem averse to quoting people that do.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It is always an error to use a lying site .

It is always an error to falsely accuse others -- do you have a detail to address... yet??

Make an actual point if you think something is not true - quote it -- show us what you think even the atheist sites do not admit to.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It is always an error to falsely accuse others -- do you have a detail to address... yet??
Your site did not properly link the sources of their quotes. That tells us that they are lying. Why is that so hard to understand?

Find a valid site if you want to make a valid claim. Don't use sites that openly lie.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The scientific idea of biologic evolution starts with a population of living organisms. The compatibility of life with the cosmological constant is a given at that point.

It is the atheist evolutionist scientists themselves admitting to the problem.

We already saw that here...

Note that Patterson makes this statement about his "belief" .. his "faith" in what appears to be competing doctrine on origins to what I find in the Bible

"That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
So while it is true I do know about evolution -- I am not a "believer" in it.

There we find this

They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
https://origins.swau.edu/temp/classes/patterson.pdf
Edwards v. Aguillard, Amichs Brief, National Association of Evangelicals
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Your site did not properly link the sources of their quotes. That tells us that they are lying.

False.

It tells us you don't like the link they provide. Now back to "the details" of Patterson's actual statement - what is it you were not able to find even atheist sites admitting to ??
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
What "problem"?

Once again, find a valid site.

So then you have no claim--- no fact other than you cannot find a site with that quote other than the one I already gave you? Make a statement of fact please.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
False.

It tells us you don't like the link they provide. Now back to "the details" of Patterson's actual statement - what is it you were not able to find even atheist sites admitting to ??
Nope, it is true. Unless you are willing to admit that by your standards the Bible itself denies the existence of God.

Now the Bible does not do that. But if one plays the quote mine game it can be made to look as if it does. You used an invalid site. They do not have links to the sources of those quotes and there is no excuse for that today.

You used a lying site..
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So then you have no claim--- no fact other than you cannot find a site with that quote other than the one I already gave you? Make a statement of fact please.
Oh no, I have more than proved my claim. You simply do not understand evolution and cannot support your claim that you do.

What do you think is a problem? Find valid sources, not lying sites that quote out of context, of scientists saying that there is some sort of problem with the theory.

Has evolution answered all questions yet? No. But that is not a problem with a theory. You need to find an actual flaw in the theory. To date you have failed at that.
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,853
4,267
Pacific NW
✟242,386.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
It is the atheist evolutionist scientists themselves admitting to the problem.

We already saw that here...

Where there? You're not making sense. If you have a population of living organisms, they have to be compatible with the cosmological constant, otherwise they wouldn't be alive.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Where there? You're not making sense. If you have a population of living organisms, they have to be compatible with the cosmological constant, otherwise they wouldn't be alive.

All of my quotes are from atheist scientists aware that "they exist" (no matter what the cosmological constant says about that being more an act of God than random chance.)

It is the atheist evolutionist scientists themselves admitting to the problem.

They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
https://origins.swau.edu/temp/classes/patterson.pdf
Edwards v. Aguillard, Amichs Brief, National Association of Evangelicals
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

covid-19v1

Active Member
Dec 18, 2020
102
31
Louisiana
✟11,593.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
An example of a beneficial mutation right there. Evolution in action. Increased melanin levels help protect the skin in hotter climates.
Adaptation is driven by your body's reaction to a prolonged exposure to an environment. But it doesn't turn you into a different creature.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,853
4,267
Pacific NW
✟242,386.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
All of my quotes are from atheist scientists aware that "they exist" (no matter what the cosmological constant says about that being more an act of God than random chance.)

Yes, I know, you keep using it like it somehow answers anything and everything, when it has nothing to do with most of the things you're replying to.

We get it, you like the scientist who uses the argument from incredulity fallacy. I'm not sure what the fascination is, but it clearly fires your flame.
 
Upvote 0

covid-19v1

Active Member
Dec 18, 2020
102
31
Louisiana
✟11,593.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How many years does it take for this adaptation to occur ? Is it in 10s of generations, 100s ?
My estimate is just a few generations, depending on the environmental difference, and the resulting diet. Skin color is the first to show signs of change, you don't have to wait for the succeeding generations to see it.
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,853
4,267
Pacific NW
✟242,386.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Adaptation is driven by your body's reaction to a prolonged exposure to an environment. But it doesn't turn you into a different creature.

It also isn't passed on genetically. If it's a trait that's passed on to descendants and spreads around the population, it's genetic, and it's evolution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

covid-19v1

Active Member
Dec 18, 2020
102
31
Louisiana
✟11,593.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You made two huge errors. First it looks like you think that people as we know them now was the goal. Evolution does not have that sort of goal. Once we get rid of that strawman the rest is easy. There were no "miraculous mutations". There were only mutations.

You should look into the lottery analogy. The odds that one particular person would win the lottery can be hundreds of millions to one. The odds that someone would win is almost one. Your common sense fails because you do not understand evolution.
I didn't say human form is the goal. You are making a strawman argument. But if you work backwards through your Evolution Theory, you would immediately see the amount of simultaneous lucky mutations that needed to happen you would see 3 billion years would not be enough, unless Someone made it happen deliberately and intelligently.
 
Upvote 0