An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[FormerAtheist]

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.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

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.

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

 

[FormerAtheist]

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

We blind ourselves to the truth because we are weak.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

You seem to be implying a number of things that atheists rarely propose.

Personally, I don't think it is even possible to disprove God. An omnipotent entity can conceal itself or fabricate any evidence it chooses.

However, in your comment more on form for this forum, i absolutely think that evolution is true.
On the small scale we have life forms which pass on altered versions of their make up to their offspring. This inevitably leads to some being better adapted to their environment then others, and those liniages being more likely to prosper.

In addition, we have macro evolution and the common ancestry which obviously are difficult to observe directly, but are very well evidenced in fossils and the genetic make up of living and slightly less recent extinct species.

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

I'd very much like to hear of the presuppositions I'm using, I try to keep them to a minimum.


In addition, I'd like to make clear that like most atheists, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in God due to not being presented with convincing evidence. If there was evidence i would be happy to change my opinion, but until then i remain an unbeliever.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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.

Who claims that there is science 'proving no God'. There is science that indicates that there is no God who did or doees X and Y if we can show that X and Y didn't/don't happen or that they happen/happened for other reasons.

But, it is impossible to disprove the existence of a God who deliberately made a world/universe that looks exactly like one that arose and developed by completely natural means. It is impossible to disprove a God that set the Big Bang in action and left the universe to run. That doesn't mean that I believe that it's a rational belief to believe in God. But, it's important to note that science nor us (apart from Maths and Logic) do not deal with proof.

You say that 'science is not on the side of atheism.' As a first step, could you please show that you understand the science, and that you aren't rejecting a straw man version of science and/or scientific theories?

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

Which presupposition ends up in which dead end? Please give me an example.

 

[FormerAtheist]

You seem to be implying a number of things that atheists rarely propose.

Personally, I don't think it is even possible to disprove God. An omnipotent entity can conceal itself or fabricate any evidence it chooses.

However, in your comment more on form for this forum, i absolutely think that evolution is true.
On the small scale we have life forms which pass on altered versions of their make up to their offspring. This inevitably leads to some being better adapted to their environment then others, and those liniages being more likely to prosper.

In addition, we have macro evolution and the common ancestry which obviously are difficult to observe directly, but are very well evidenced in fossils and the genetic make up of living and slightly less recent extinct species.


I'd very much like to hear of the presuppositions I'm using, I try to keep them to a minimum.


In addition, I'd like to make clear that like most atheists, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in God due to not being presented with convincing evidence. If there was evidence i would be happy to change my opinion, but until then i remain an unbeliever.

I have no problems with Micro evolution and I know of no one that does. Its very simple we can see this in Darwin's finches or in dogs. Of course life evolves on a micro adapting level. This is self evidenced and can be proven.

Macro evolution is something very different. There are tons of problems as I'm sure you are aware of but just in short I would go with this:
GRN's not synching to the reality of transition methodology.
DNA would need new information.
New body plans.
The problem of having to go backwards at times to go forwards in biological efficiency. If you have to backwards to go forward this would indicate design.

The Math problems starting with a single protein fold is enourmous but it get far worse on every level above that and there are too many levels above that for example the GRN's and then we go beyone the GRN's in our current models and understanding to incorporate the epigenetic information.
Just like before we have a serious problem do I need to spell out the math or the history?
So now what everything is going against this idea of no design. The Scientists are trying to figure it out. What do you do when nothing lines up with your belief system?

You argue.
you debate.
You look for other possabilities.
What do you think they are doing right now?
They are argueing.
They are debating.
They have problems.

We have not gone into the serious stuff
I want to go into the serious stuff.
We have not gone into the math or the science yet.
But that is the fun part.
But I have other things ... so maybe later . ... but that's the fun part .
I love it because it is so clear. Its not like the science or the math is both or every way ... umm no its just one way.
All roads lead to a creator ... I'm sorry I know that is not sexy or something but that is how it works.

The fact is that science is on the side of God or on a creator.

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.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Who claims that there is science 'proving no God'. There is science that indicates that there is no God who did or doees X and Y if we can show that X and Y didn't/don't happen or that they happen/happened for other reasons.

But, it is impossible to disprove the existence of a God who deliberately made a world/universe that looks exactly like one that arose and developed by completely natural means. It is impossible to disprove a God that set the Big Bang in action and left the universe to run. That doesn't mean that I believe that it's a rational belief to believe in God. But, it's important to note that science nor us (apart from Maths and Logic) do not deal with proof.

You say that 'science is not on the side of atheism.' As a first step, could you please show that you understand the science, and that you aren't rejecting a straw man version of science and/or scientific theories?



Which presupposition ends up in which dead end? Please give me an example.

Ok I will make a guess that you are a scientist. Or someone of note ... someone with credentials. I get it and I will not lesson who and what you are. I will not lesson the scientific process. You are who you are and you have earned that and I respect that as I should.

Having said that the science is still not on your side. It never was. The Universe was never designed like that. Its a problem for the Atheist I know ... I was once one. I looked at the evidence and came to certain conclusions based on something that I could test... something I could check.

The Atheist thinks that he owns Science even though all modern science came from the Christians as I would later find out. Maybe there is something interesting in that fact.

But none of this means anything ... you will debate me and you will bring it I know it.

I expect nothing less.

So bring it.

Let us find the truth in what we can agree on.

So lets agree on a few things can?
I don't want to talk about this being as "God" that takes away from science. I don't wish to debate you on the bible I am no equipped for that. Proof should be subject to the scientific methods so that you or I can not smuggle our selves out of it. We are bound by the conventions of the debate and the ideals we set forth right now.

If you agree lets go.

 

[Shemjaza]

I have no problems with Micro evolution and I know of no one that does. Its very simple we can see this in Darwin's finches or in dogs. Of course life evolves on a micro adapting level. This is self evidenced and can be proven.

Macro evolution is something very different. There are tons of problems as I'm sure you are aware of but just in short I would go with this:
GRN's not synching to the reality of transition methodology.
DNA would need new information.
New body plans.
The problem of having to go backwards at times to go forwards in biological efficiency. If you have to backwards to go forward this would indicate design.

I've never seen a clear qualitative difference between the mechanisms of micro and macro evolution.

Now I don't have a professional biological background, so I'll leave the specifics of gene regulatory networks to an expert. (maybe @sfs has time to engage).

However, I do know enough to see flaws in your other points.

New information:
Given that genes can mutate and duplicate in the genome of a life form I see no barrier to completely new variations and traits entering a population. If this doesn't qualify as information, could you please describe what information actually is in your usage and how you objectively measure it.

New body plans:
While a frog hatching from a fishes egg or a chimp giving birth to a man would be preposterous I've never seen that kind of radical change proposed by evolutionary scientists. All the large shifts involve a whole lot of in-between structures, like arms that work for gliding or webbed legs that work as flippers.

The awesome thing about the diversity of body plans is that we don't need to wonder if the concept is sound, because there are analogous animals living today.

Going backwards:
I'm not 100% sure what you mean in this statement, could you please link to an example of the necessity of this in evolution?

There isn't an issue of a linage going back and forth between environments and different variations becoming more common. But no one I've ever seen has proposed that life can actually return to an earlier evolutionary form. For example, mammals are descended from ancient fish, but mammals who live full time in the ocean aren't fish, they are whales, with a great many mammal markers that show they are descended from land animals.

The Math problems starting with a single protein fold is enourmous but it get far worse on every level above that and there are too many levels above that for example the GRN's and then we go beyone the GRN's in our current models and understanding to incorporate the epigenetic information.
Just like before we have a serious problem do I need to spell out the math or the history?
So now what everything is going against this idea of no design. The Scientists are trying to figure it out. What do you do when nothing lines up with your belief system?

You argue.
you debate.
You look for other possabilities.
What do you think they are doing right now?
They are argueing.
They are debating.
They have problems.

We have not gone into the serious stuff
I want to go into the serious stuff.
We have not gone into the math or the science yet.
But that is the fun part.
But I have other things ... so maybe later . ... but that's the fun part .
I love it because it is so clear. Its not like the science or the math is both or every way ... umm no its just one way.
All roads lead to a creator ... I'm sorry I know that is not sexy or something but that is how it works.

The fact is that science is on the side of God or on a creator.

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.

I'm dubious about your claims that evolution is not supported by science, but it's also not positive evidence for a creator.

If the big bang and evolution both turn out to not work at such fundamental levels that need to be abandoned, that just leaves the diversity of life and development of the universe as mysterious.

I'd love to see actual scientific reasons to believe, not just a false dichotomy about creation being true because evolution is false.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Ok I will make a guess that you are a scientist. Or someone of note ... someone with credentials. I get it and I will not lesson who and what you are. I will not lesson the scientific process. You are who you are and you have earned that and I respect that as I should.

What have my credentials got to do with anything. Arguments are good or bad depending on the argument itself, not who says it.

Having said that the science is still not on your side. It never was. The Universe was never designed like that. Its a problem for the Atheist I know ... I was once one. I looked at the evidence and came to certain conclusions based on something that I could test... something I could check.

You are still saying that science is not on the side of atheists, and never was. You are repeating your claim, when what I actually asked was for you to support your claim. Which you haven't done.

The Atheist thinks that he owns Science even though all modern science came from the Christians as I would later find out. Maybe there is something interesting in that fact.

No, atheists (at least myself) do not think that we 'own' science. However, your claim that 'all modern science came from Christians is demonstrably wrong. There are many scientists that are not Christian. Either those who belong to other religions or who have no religion at all. E.g. Ibn al-Haytham.

But none of this means anything ... you will debate me and you will bring it I know it.

I expect nothing less.

So bring it.

Let us find the truth in what we can agree on.

Can we please stop with the posturing, and actually discuss real evidence. E.g. can you support your clais.

So lets agree on a few things can?
I don't want to talk about this being as "God" that takes away from science. I don't wish to debate you on the bible I am no equipped for that. Proof should be subject to the scientific methods so that you or I can not smuggle our selves out of it. We are bound by the conventions of the debate and the ideals we set forth right now.

Yes, I agree on that. But, we didn't need to do that. You could simply start by justifying your claims and providing evidence.

If you agree lets go.

Please support your claims.

 

[Sorn]

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in God due to not being presented with convincing evidence. If there was evidence i would be happy to change my opinion, but until then i remain an unbeliever.

Perhaps you should read some of the chapters in this book, plenty on biology in it.

In Six Days

The whole book is available online. Many of the non-biology topics also touch biology in good ways. I recommend Chapter 24 for one.
There are several very good ones

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Perhaps you should read some of the chapters in this book, plenty on biology in it.

In Six Days

The whole book is available online. Many of the non-biology topics also touch biology in good ways. I recommend Chapter 24 for one.
There are several very good ones

Can you please tell us which argument in that book you believe to be one of the very best arguments for creationism?

 

[Sorn]

Well the main argument in many of the chapters is that they present evidence of the complexity of the subject matter (mostly at the cellular level but not always) of the chapter and then go onto argue that such complexity could not have arisen by chance or, in many case, over the extended period and via the multiple steps that evolution would need.
The point being that for many of the systems discussed in the book, either the entire system is there from the start or nothing works, ie 50% of the system doesn't work, 70% doesn't either, nor does 90%, you need the system, 100%, fully assembled for it to do its job.
In other words, until the system was fully formed, the creature lugging it around would just be carrying around useless structures that provide no benefit but take effort to build.

 

[Nithavela]

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.

Cool.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

Not sure what you mean.
Science is based on the idea that God does not interfere with the natural world, and as a result the physical aspects of matter can be counted on not to change due to supernatural influence.
Many Christians also believe this as well and support the scientific investigation of our world.

 

[Sorn]

Science is based on the idea that God does not interfere with the natural world,

except for miracles of course which are few and far between

 

[SkyWriting]

except for miracles of course which are few and far between

Science is based on the assumption that miracles don't exist
and never happen.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't believe in God due to not being presented with convincing evidence. If there was evidence i would be happy to change my opinion, but until then i remain an unbeliever.

26 Eight days later, His disciples were once again inside with the doors locked, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
27 Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands.Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”

JFYI

 

[Shemjaza]

26 Eight days later, His disciples were once again inside with the doors locked, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
27 Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands.Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”

JFYI

A disciple who had seen miracles with his own eyes asked for evidence of the resurrection and he got it.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well the main argument in many of the chapters is that they present evidence of the complexity of the subject matter (mostly at the cellular level but not always) of the chapter and then go onto argue that such complexity could not have arisen by chance or, in many case, over the extended period and via the multiple steps that evolution would need.
The point being that for many of the systems discussed in the book, either the entire system is there from the start or nothing works, ie 50% of the system doesn't work, 70% doesn't either, nor does 90%, you need the system, 100%, fully assembled for it to do its job.
In other words, until the system was fully formed, the creature lugging it around would just be carrying around useless structures that provide no benefit but take effort to build.

That isn't the model proposed by evolutionary scientists. The typical structures presented by ID have had hypothetical models where a structure functions with a different purpose in different stages. That said, structures that are neutral to fitness or can hang around without any real issues.

 

[Sorn]

Science is based on the assumption that miracles don't exist
and never happen.

Yes, of course, but the assumption is mistaken because science does not know if miracles exist or not.
By definition a miracle is a rare event, hence may never be captured by science which needs repeatable events or consistent evidence to form hypothesis or laws etc.