An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[FormerAtheist]

Sorry, but that is just a bunch of empty hot air.

You might have seen the Robert Ince clip about creationism. This is what your "science" is, all that it is: "Magic Man Done It!"
.

Lets just do a thought experiment for a second and replace one word with another:

This is what your "science" is, all that it is: "Magic time Done It!"

That is all your saying to me is that time did it. Does that work better for you? Does it flow better? What if time isn't enough? What if I showed you the math on the generations and population genetics that has already been done? What if I showed you what actual atheist scientists are having a problem with on that math right now would you believe like me? Probably not. The truth is you will still have questions as you should. It is hardwired into your DNA to not go against the flow of your own basic belief system. By design.

There was something in there at least on the vast majority of us at the least and its called "Design Bias" we fall back on this most times. For example 4 days ago I moved my room-mates car to hide it from him when he woke up. When he woke up he did not have to response I was hoping for. He was happy in that He didn't think he had to go to work. I had to tell him he had to ... but he never thought that his car randomly did something with no outside intelligence. He knew automatically even though he is a very high intelligence atheist that some other intelligence moved his car.

You say this is about manipulation but I say it is about acutely interpreting the data that is coming in every day. What we are seeing shows design more and more. For the past 160 years we have tried and failed to find another explanation. Instead it is all leading towards design but its worse then that ... there is already enough info and science to be conclusive its just that science keeps going there over and over and over again.

At some point you just have to trust the science. That's it.

That is where I am at.

I don't know anything else. I have no answers ... nothing to give ... only this ... the science and the math are what they are and we can't fight them ... I will go with them.

Where ever they lead ... the evidence is not even close ... its a slam dunk. There is a God.

There is no way around it.

 

[Skreeper]

Where ever they lead ... the evidence is not even close ... its a slam dunk. There is a God.

There is no way around it.

You can have your opinion just don't expect others to just agree with you.

I am not convinced by your slam dunk. I think what you consider a slam dunk is a combination of logical fallacies and wishful thinking.

 

[FormerAtheist]

You can have your opinion just don't expect others to just agree with you.

I am not convinced by your slam dunk. I think what you consider a slam dunk is a combination of logical fallacies and wishful thinking.

That's fair enough. For me to say otherwise would be to say what?
Your an idiot?

I don't think that way.
You can be very intelligent and not think the way I do ... I know this because I deal with plenty of intelligent people ... in fact many that are more intelligent then myself that think differently.

Don't have a problem with that.

Never did.

 

[Gene2memE]

You would discredit this amazing man and his work?
Who are you?

I'm me. I discredit Douglas D Axe because he writes theologically based garbage that he attempts to pass off as science, which damages the credibility of the actual research work he's done.

Let me put this to you personally since you go after him so personally. What is your background in life origin sciences that you can go against him?

None. But, I have read widely evolutionary biologists, biochemists, cell biologist, molecular biologists and mathematicians who dismiss what he's written as rubbish. Not to mention the occasional creationist professor of biochemistry, who has a similarly negative view of Axe.

Admittedly, I'm interested in this stuff. But, this sort of criticism is not difficult to find.

Do you see the problem?
You will say that no scientists disagree with evolution and then you demonize any that do not seeing why so many do not have the courage to do what AXE did.

Any scientists with the courage of their convictions and confidence in their data and findings wouldn't have retreated away from peer review to publishing in in-house vanity publications and apologetics books.

If a scientist disagrees with the consensus on evolution, then they're welcome to publish their findings - and have them ripped to shreds, just like any other scientist undergoing peer review.

I've done this. I've gone through the peer review process and been published in a (social sciences) journal (as a co-author only). Its difficult and scary and frustrating and difficult and anxiety creating, but its also the best tool we have of determining that findings are in concordance with reality.

But they are every week.
The tide is turning on the establishment. We want real science

We want the truth and everything else can take a back seat.

We don't need your ideology or your upbringing. We don't care about that.

We want the truth.

You will not hold this back. You can demonize or suppress all you want it wont last for long. Because it is getting easier for scientists to come forward because of the courage of the first. But the truth is that there are many beyond him ... many that are atheist. Many people that are just wanting the data one way or another. You can't fight that.

Its just like you thought all along that science will lead to truth its just that the truth its leading to is not what you wanted. Deal with it.

Blah, blah, blah. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Once you're done on that soapbox, let me know. I'm sure that someone will be able to put it to a more productive use.

 

[Gene2memE]

No one goes by the Miller experiment anymore that is only in text books ... the scientific community left that ... even Miller left that.

Except when they do:

Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment (2008)

Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment (2011)

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-040610-133457 (2013)

Miller experiments in atomistic computer simulations (2014)

Amino acids generated from hydrated Titan tholins: Comparison with Miller–Urey electric discharge products - ScienceDirect (2014)

Formation of nucleobases in a Miller–Urey reducing atmosphere (2017)

Google scholar is your friend.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I'm me. I discredit Douglas D Axe because he writes theologically based garbage that he attempts to pass off as science, which damages the credibility of the actual research work he's done.

So you discredit his "actual research" based on his beliefs?

None. But, I have read widely evolutionary biologists, biochemists, cell biologist, molecular biologists and mathematicians who dismiss what he's written as rubbish. Not to mention the occasional creationist professor of biochemistry, who has a similarly negative view of Axe.

I have looked at many of his critics to formulate my own beliefs about what he did but I found nothing that would discredit the math or anyone that would say he falsified any data. Do you propose that he was misleading any of it? It was all peer reviewed as well and as you know he did very ground breaking work. He formulated ideas and tested them on ideas that I can't imagine why were never done before or since.

Admittedly, I'm interested in this stuff. But, this sort of criticism is not difficult to find.

But any proof that he is wrong? He is only one ... there are many that are atheists that are having a serious problem with TOE. What about the guy from Berkley? I can't find his quotes at the moment but maybe you know of them: "we have demolished the tree of life". Something like that lol.

I don't doubt you are a scientist. And you have peer reviewed papers but so does he. But do we all need to have peer reviewed papers to be in awe of science? Do we need to be scientists to in order to understand science?

I don't think that way. I think that even though I respect you as a scientist (as I should) I don't have to be a scientist to understand some of the things that are most basic to us all ... :

Like the information process inside of us.




Any scientists with the courage of their convictions and confidence in their data and findings wouldn't have retreated away from peer review to publishing in in-house vanity publications and apologetics books.

Unless that is the only way to continue the science ... wouldn't be the first time a scientist had to retreat from the establishment. You are proving the problem by demonizing him. The scientists will converge and attack. Like any organism ... like evolution lol ... like society. This is human duh like scientists never make mistakes or are not human.
Trust me I have debated enough of you to know you are human ... very intelligent but human.

If a scientist disagrees with the consensus on evolution, then they're welcome to publish their findings - and have them ripped to shreds, just like any other scientist undergoing peer review.

Wait what?????
Can't believe you just said that ... what.
Are you serious? You do know you just throttled your own argument in a single sentence. I wont even explain it to anyone else. You just explained why your very own sentence doesn't work in the sentence hahaha.

You know what in all honesty that sentence was gold especially coming from a scientist and I will include that big time in the website I am making at the moment that debunks Atheism.

I've done this. I've gone through the peer review process and been published in a (social sciences) journal (as a co-author only). Its difficult and scary and frustrating and difficult and anxiety creating, but its also the best tool we have of determining that findings are in concordance with reality.

Ok thanks for proving your a scientist but I already knew that. I have done this many times. Your not the first lol.



Blah, blah, blah. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Once you're done on that soapbox, let me know. I'm sure that someone will be able to put it to a more productive use.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Except when they do:

Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment (2008)

Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment (2011)

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-040610-133457 (2013)

Miller experiments in atomistic computer simulations (2014)

Amino acids generated from hydrated Titan tholins: Comparison with Miller–Urey electric discharge products - ScienceDirect (2014)

Formation of nucleobases in a Miller–Urey reducing atmosphere (2017)

Google scholar is your friend.

Ok fine I can't go through it all ... don't have the time but I will go through the last one and I will do it live.
Why ... not afraid.
So lets do this.
Lets time it now ... you can see the time of this post and then my response.
No joke never seen your "formation 2017 article before ...only seen so many and many ...

Ok lets do this
and
GO

 

[FormerAtheist]

Ok fine I can't go through it all ... don't have the time but I will go through the last one and I will do it live.
Why ... not afraid.
So lets do this.
Lets time it now ... you can see the time of this post and then my response.
No joke never seen your "formation 2017 article before ...only seen so many and many ...

Ok lets do this
and
GO

oK First part is to explain how we can get the reducing atmosphere ... several problems ... hahaha

 

[FormerAtheist]

Except when they do:

Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment (2008)

Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment (2011)

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-040610-133457 (2013)

Miller experiments in atomistic computer simulations (2014)

Amino acids generated from hydrated Titan tholins: Comparison with Miller–Urey electric discharge products - ScienceDirect (2014)

Formation of nucleobases in a Miller–Urey reducing atmosphere (2017)

Google scholar is your friend.

wait did I miss something

We did not actually detect HCOOH in any of our experiments with the reducing mixture.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Except when they do:

Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment (2008)

Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment (2011)

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-040610-133457 (2013)

Miller experiments in atomistic computer simulations (2014)

Amino acids generated from hydrated Titan tholins: Comparison with Miller–Urey electric discharge products - ScienceDirect (2014)

Formation of nucleobases in a Miller–Urey reducing atmosphere (2017)

Google scholar is your friend.

by the way all of that is a way to try and explain the reduced gasses that would be necessary .. so if that theory is correct it only gets you to gasses ... but then you have the problem that you only get to what 3 amino acids If I am not mistaken ... Honestly doubt it. Out of 20? ... You do know how easy that is to shred right?

 

[FormerAtheist]

Except when they do:

Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment (2008)

Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment (2011)

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-040610-133457 (2013)

Miller experiments in atomistic computer simulations (2014)

Amino acids generated from hydrated Titan tholins: Comparison with Miller–Urey electric discharge products - ScienceDirect (2014)

Formation of nucleobases in a Miller–Urey reducing atmosphere (2017)

Google scholar is your friend.

do you want to go into the scientific problems of ... well we got to 3 out of 20 so the other .. might be done? What if the catalistic nature of the experiment doesn't work for the other 17 amino acids for example? I don't even want to start on the other problems that I can think of right off the bat.
There was a reason you didn't get 20 amino acids or a cell in that experiment or anything in the 60 years since.

60 years?????????
Nothing since????????????????????????????????

Silence??

Nothing?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[FormerAtheist]

Except when they do:

Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment (2008)

Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment (2011)

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-earth-040610-133457 (2013)

Miller experiments in atomistic computer simulations (2014)

Amino acids generated from hydrated Titan tholins: Comparison with Miller–Urey electric discharge products - ScienceDirect (2014)

Formation of nucleobases in a Miller–Urey reducing atmosphere (2017)

Google scholar is your friend.

Actually truth be told I was surprised anyone still was referencing this stuff ... not you whoever posted this because this is not your fault ... clearly.

I can't believe this is in modern science when the obvious flaws are in their faces to begin with. Honestly its a bit dumbfounding to me right now.

 

[Gene2memE]

If a scientist disagrees with the consensus on evolution, then they're welcome to publish their findings - and have them ripped to shreds, just like any other scientist undergoing peer review.

Wait what?????
Can't believe you just said that ... what.

Are you serious? You do know you just throttled your own argument in a single sentence. I wont even explain it to anyone else. You just explained why your very own sentence doesn't work in the sentence hahaha.

You've clearly never been involved in the peer review process. It's incredibly humbling and frustrating. Even 'friendly' peers can rip stuff apart - either pre publication or after publication. So, any set of findings can be ripped apart, whether it agrees with the prevailing paradigm or not.

I've sat on both sides of the table on this - as a co-author and also as an early editor ahead of a full submission for review. My work as an early editor was to be as adversarial as possible to the paper being prepared for publication. It was my job to check the facts and try and falsify the work I was reading, before more experienced and credentialed individuals spent their time on it.

You're really not that familiar with how discourse plays out in academic circles and journals, are you? The back and forth in the letters sections and the counter publishing in journals is generally polite, but usually very pointed, if not outright vicious.

You know what in all honesty that sentence was gold especially coming from a scientist and I will include that big time in the website I am making at the moment that debunks Atheism.

Atheism would need to make some claim before it could be "debunked"

To reiterate
Atheism is not dependent on the Theory of Evolution being correct
Atheism is not dependent on the Big Bang Theory being correct
Atheism is not dependent on any claims contained within the sciences.

Atheism is a response to the claims of theism, indicating that you do not believe their claims.

Atheists appear to generally accept the ToE and other scientific theories, primarily because they provide more than adequate refutations of claims of theists that clearly don't match observed reality.

 

[Skreeper]

Actually truth be told I was surprised anyone still was referencing this stuff ... not you whoever posted this because this is not your fault ... clearly.

I can't believe this is in modern science when the obvious flaws are in their faces to begin with. Honestly its a bit dumbfounding to me right now.

Could you maybe share with us your credentials? Do you work in any relevant field of bio sciences?

You come across like you are somehow the arbiter of what is good and bad research so I expect you to support your authority in the matter.

 

[FormerAtheist]

You've clearly never been involved in the peer review process. It's incredibly humbling and frustrating. Even 'friendly' peers can rip stuff apart - either pre publication or after publication. So, any set of findings can be ripped apart, whether it agrees with the prevailing paradigm or not.

I've sat on both sides of the table on this - as a co-author and also as an early editor ahead of a full submission for review. My work as an early editor was to be as adversarial as possible to the paper being prepared for publication. It was my job to check the facts and try and falsify the work I was reading, before more experienced and credentialed individuals spent their time on it.

Ok all that is fine but can I ask something humbly?
If you are going to be someone serious on this thread can you do us all a favor and give us an avatar?

I do not want you pic ... please ... just a squirell or a chess piece or a magic burrito I don't care but seriously please? For the love of the taco truck in Fresno California please give me something? As humans we need an identity to relate to it can be irrelevant or whatever ... don't care just don't go against the house rules because we are in their house.

Now after that I respect you as I should .. I love science and am in awe of scientists ... always. I have been that way from my inception ... ok inception of actual consciousness on a cognitive level.

So then that would be about the time I went to a gifted school?
Was talking about that earlier with my bro.

So maybe I know a few to say it lightly scientists.

I am not a scientist I did something different. I get you enough though because of enough interaction with people in the fields so we say?

But ... Axe has the same if not more?


You're really not that familiar with how discourse plays out in academic circles and journals, are you? The back and forth in the letters sections and the counter publishing in journals is generally polite, but usually very pointed, if not outright vicious.

Honestly seems like you are contradicting your position. Just saying.



Atheism would need to make some claim before it could be "debunked"

"there is no God" is a claim

And I will fight it with thousands of dollars and time and all of my being because I know its threat I know its poison.
I am not fooled.

To reiterate
Atheism is not dependent on the Theory of Evolution being correct
Atheism is not dependent on the Big Bang Theory being correct
Atheism is not dependent on any claims contained within the sciences.

Atheism is a response to the claims of theism, indicating that you do not believe their claims.

Atheists appear to generally accept the ToE and other scientific theories, primarily because they provide more than adequate refutations of claims of theists that clearly don't match observed reality.

Should have stuck to science you were doing much stronger ... I looked at you as a much stronger threat.
Now you went to philosophy and that is not even my strength or connection and yet now you ...

You should have stayed with science.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I do want to say that because I am busy and I travel that sometimes I am not able to respond to comment or something within 24 hours. Most times I can and will try. I just want everyone to know that if for some reason I don't respond right away it doesn't mean that I am not interested its just that I have other things I have to attend.

I apologize.
Having said that next couple of days should be good.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Could you maybe share with us your credentials? Do you work in any relevant field of bio sciences?

You come across like you are somehow the arbiter of what is good and bad research so I expect you to support your authority in the matter.

Nope got nothing but I don't try and judge nearly as hard on others.

So if I was wrong in any way then you may judge. There is nothing I can do about it. I have only gone after those that have demonized others based on their beliefs. Maybe that was wrong.

 

[Skreeper]

Nope got nothing but I don't try and judge nearly as hard on others.

So if I was wrong in any way then you may judge. There is nothing I can do about it. I have only gone after those that have demonized others based on their beliefs. Maybe that was wrong.

Just make sure that you provide some form of citation when you say stuff like "This is easily debunked and obviously wrong"

A simple link to the peer reviewed experiment or whatever that supports your assertion should be enough.

 

[Freodin]

Lets just do a thought experiment for a second and replace one word with another:

This is what your "science" is, all that it is: "Magic time Done It!"

That is all your saying to me is that time did it. Does that work better for you? Does it flow better? What if time isn't enough? What if I showed you the math on the generations and population genetics that has already been done? What if I showed you what actual atheist scientists are having a problem with on that math right now would you believe like me? Probably not. The truth is you will still have questions as you should. It is hardwired into your DNA to not go against the flow of your own basic belief system. By design.

There was something in there at least on the vast majority of us at the least and its called "Design Bias" we fall back on this most times. For example 4 days ago I moved my room-mates car to hide it from him when he woke up. When he woke up he did not have to response I was hoping for. He was happy in that He didn't think he had to go to work. I had to tell him he had to ... but he never thought that his car randomly did something with no outside intelligence. He knew automatically even though he is a very high intelligence atheist that some other intelligence moved his car.

You say this is about manipulation but I say it is about acutely interpreting the data that is coming in every day. What we are seeing shows design more and more. For the past 160 years we have tried and failed to find another explanation. Instead it is all leading towards design but its worse then that ... there is already enough info and science to be conclusive its just that science keeps going there over and over and over again.

At some point you just have to trust the science. That's it.

That is where I am at.

I don't know anything else. I have no answers ... nothing to give ... only this ... the science and the math are what they are and we can't fight them ... I will go with them.

Where ever they lead ... the evidence is not even close ... its a slam dunk. There is a God.

There is no way around it.

You don't get it, do you?

You can criticize the models of evolution as much as you want. You can cite studies that demonstrate flaws and problems as many as you want. If done right, this is science.

But as long as you cannot provide any "science" or "math" that shows your point, all you do is conjecture. Empty hot air.

And that is the problem, the huge flaw in your model: you don't have any math or science. You can claim that "we are seeing design more and more" until the cows come home to roost... but you have no way of backing up this claim.
And even in the highly unlikely occurance that you do... you still don't have any science. You still have your "magic man" in the center of it all... the "creator" and "designer" who has no attribute beyond "he designed it". It is a black box. Perpetually closed.

That is not science.

This has nothing to do with my DNA or inherent bias. If I wanted to provide an atheistic model for... existence..., and I wanted to do it in the same way as you did... I could, easily.

Let's do "science". The process of evolution, the origin of life and the origin of the universe is based on the process of quantum-derived extrapolatory transversaleponidration! This process can cause universes, life and diversity of life, and also gives the appearence of "design" for those who want to see it, without being designed.

q.e.d, slam dunk... there is no God.

I could do that. But it wouldn't be science.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Just make sure that you provide some form of citation when you say stuff like "This is easily debunked and obviously wrong"

A simple link to the peer reviewed experiment or whatever that supports your assertion should be enough.

Ok but I want to appolizise none the less.

It is wrong for me to go after those that go after AXE or others but yet I can't help it. I am conflicted.

The science is easy enough that we can all understand it and I don't think that someone should be disqualified based on their life experience. But when you go after someone just based on their beliefs even though they have obviously done something serious and note worthy it does present a problem for me. What should I do?
On the one hand I believe that all of us should have a voice on these important issues but on the other I feel that if you single out one guy for his beliefs ... I don't know it will make me respond.

I am conflicted on this.
Can you understand that?