An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[Skreeper]

Is that what you think lol?

Of course that is what I think. We humans for example have terrible eyesight, we can't run very fast or are particularly strong. Bacteria and viruses are way more efficient and without our intelligence we probably would be already extinct.

Whatever this intelligence had in mind it certainly was not efficiency or good design.

 

[FormerAtheist]

It would be pretty shocking when it turns out that there is a designer considering how terribly designed most things are. We should revoke this guys designing license.

so far that one is argument#11 Category7

And its not that strong there are serious problems with that argument ... you would be better with some other ones.

 

[Skreeper]

so far that one is argument#11 Category7

And its not that strong there are serious problems with that argument ... you would be better with some other ones.

How about giving some counter-arguments instead of dismissing everything without giving us a good reason why.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok I just wanted to put this out there on this thread even though I know that no one will actually see this. I just had an amazing debate with someone of a serious scientific mind on quantum physics, consciousness and the memory functionality of the human mind. We began to go through the memory capacity of the human mind and I think I had a break through. Here is the problem as I see it. We have a certain capacity that we know of at this time which is 2000 hours of video and audio on a 4k level that I know of. But we are able to manipulate that data elastically at least as best as I can tell. So you have memories that can be effected or zipped and accessed later based on need. Our memories will may be accessed based on their importance. So there is a higher function inside of our consciousness that enables and governs what happens to our memories. The importance is obvious.

So why is it that we can learn something so easier the second time even after many years or some things get buried if not for design. Maybe we can rewrite over memory by importance or function?

Are our memories themselves a process of design?

I need to think about this bigger and talk to other serious people but it seems to me I think I may have hit on something.

Sounds like you have some neuroscience reading to do, particularly on memory. I don't know where you got a memory capacity of '2000 hours of video and audio on a 4k level', but it looks like a wildly low guess, and obviously it would be information content equivalent - memories are not stored remotely like video or audio. What you mean by 'memories that can be effected or zipped and accessed later' is not clear to me - a memory is, by definition, something that can be accessed later. Also, very little, if any (depends what you mean by 'management'), memory management is under conscious control.

This site gives a useful overview: The Human Memory (although some parts need updating).

Here are some interesting links on the unreliability of memory:
How Much of Your Memory is True?
Memory Distortion & Invention
False Autobiographical Memories
Seven Sins of Memory
The Memory Doctor
How accurate are Memories of 9/11?

 

[FormerAtheist]

A lot better. You can still go one step further. Use the "reply" button, as you normally would. That brings up the whole quoted post, complete with poster reference, in your text box. Leave the top [ quote ] line alone. The additional infos identify who you quoted, and notifies the poster that they were responded to.

Now if you reached the end of a text-block you want to quote, end it with [/ quote ]. Type your response, and before the next quoted block, start a new quote with a simple [ quote ]

I found that this is the best way of dealing with longer posts.

Thank you finally now I get how everyone else was doing this lol.

The problem is quite simple, and still you don't seem to understand it: you are using an unevidenced and untestable assertion as the basis for your position.


And that is the gist of this problem. You did find NO OTHER possibility... so you assert a possibility that you still cannot find, but assume as inevitable.

You simply assert a solution for your problem, without giving any evidence that it is or is not real.

oK then walk me through it.

Lets do this.
There are only two explanations do you agree?

 

[FormerAtheist]

Sounds like you have some neuroscience reading to do, particularly on memory. I don't know where you got a memory capacity of '2000 hours of video and audio on a 4k level', but it looks like a wildly low guess, and obviously it would be information content equivalent - memories are not stored remotely like video or audio. What you mean by 'memories that can be effected or zipped and accessed later' is not clear to me - a memory is, by definition, something that can be accessed later. Also, very little, if any (depends what you mean by 'management'), memory management is under conscious control.

This site gives a useful overview: The Human Memory (although some parts need updating).

Here are some interesting links on the unreliability of memory:
How Much of Your Memory is True?
Memory Distortion & Invention
False Autobiographical Memories
Seven Sins of Memory
The Memory Doctor
How accurate are Memories of 9/11?

You might be right as that would only be about 80,000 gigs ... seems a bit small but still the theory about what goes beyond that likely has legs. There is a control process involved and the ability I think to lesson a memory or partially erase and the to access and build off it later based on its relevance to the life form.

 

[Freodin]

Thank you finally now I get how everyone else was doing this lol.

Always glad to help.

oK then walk me through it.

Lets do this.
There are only two explanations do you agree?

No, not quite. There are a lot of explanations, and depending on how you categorize them, you might get this down to "two".
But this number only come from your deciding on categories. If you do it in a slightly different way, you might even reduce it to "one explanation". That would be... unsatisfactory, wouldn't it.

So, no, there are not only two explanations.

And just in case you missed this post: please read post #213
You promised that you would answer the repeated request.

 

[FormerAtheist]

It would be pretty shocking when it turns out that there is a designer considering how terribly designed most things are. We should revoke this guys designing license.

what do you think of the Giraffs neck?
Or the appendix, tonsils, tail bone for human and other useless things?
Could you design better?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is a control process involved and the ability I think to lesson a memory or partially erase and the to access and build off it later based on its relevance to the life form.

Yes, there is a control process, coordinated by the hypothalamus. Memories encoded during strong emotional responses are likely to be stronger and richer, due to enhanced levels of arousal; memories of these experiences are likely to be particularly important or relevant to the organism.

 

[Gene2memE]

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?

Not 3 amino acids, but 23 amino acids - as well as 4 amines, including 7 organosulfur compounds.

From the second study I linked (Eric T. Parker, et al. Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment, 2011):

Archived samples from a previously unreported 1958 Stanley Miller electric discharge experiment containing hydrogen sulfide (H2S) were recently discovered and analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry. We report here the detection and quantification of primary amine-containing compounds in the original sample residues, which were produced via spark discharge using a gaseous mixture of H2S, CH4, NH3, and CO2. A total of 23 amino acids and 4 amines, including 7 organosulfur compounds, were detected in these samples.
​

But, that easy to shred, right?

 

[Skreeper]

what do you think of the Giraffs neck?
Or the appendix, tonsils, tail bone for human and other useless things?
Could you design better?

All things I could have done better. Just give me the tools he used and I'll gladly do it better.

Especially the laryngeal nerve, I bet even you could design that better so that it doesn't take a hilariously big detour.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Always glad to help.


No, not quite. There are a lot of explanations, and depending on how you categorize them, you might get this down to "two".
But this number only come from your deciding on categories. If you do it in a slightly different way, you might even reduce it to "one explanation". That would be... unsatisfactory, wouldn't it.

So, no, there are not only two explanations.

And just in case you missed this post: please read post #213
You promised that you would answer the repeated request.

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.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Not 3 amino acids, but 23 amino acids - as well as 4 amines, including 7 organosulfur compounds.

From the second study I linked (Eric T. Parker, et al. Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment, 2011):

Archived samples from a previously unreported 1958 Stanley Miller electric discharge experiment containing hydrogen sulfide (H2S) were recently discovered and analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry. We report here the detection and quantification of primary amine-containing compounds in the original sample residues, which were produced via spark discharge using a gaseous mixture of H2S, CH4, NH3, and CO2. A total of 23 amino acids and 4 amines, including 7 organosulfur compounds, were detected in these samples.
​

But, that easy to shred, right?

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

 

[Skreeper]

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.

You do know about the null-hypothesis, correct?

The default position is x=does not exist until x has been demonstrated to exist.

 

[Freodin]

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.

Sadly, it isn't. And it isn't about me "winning"... it is about you failing at science.

Let's take it slowly, and on your terms.

There either is an intelligent agent responsible for even X, or there isn't.
So now in order to "win", you need to prove that there is no non-intelligent cause for event X. Not that every known non-intelligent cause doesn't apply, but NO non-intelligent cause at all.

That is the first hurdle.

Now you have to show that your intelligent outside agent is a potential solution for the question. You cannot simply assert that it is... you have to provide evidence.

This is the second hurdle.

Only if you can do both, only then have you "won".

If you cannot do that, you have to get back to my level, to the level of science when confronted with unsolvable questions. To confess: "I don't know, based on the available evidence".

And then, doing science, which deals with provisional truths, you would have to admit that a solution based on patchy evidence is still better than a solution based on no evidence.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Not 3 amino acids, but 23 amino acids - as well as 4 amines, including 7 organosulfur compounds.

From the second study I linked (Eric T. Parker, et al. Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment, 2011):

Archived samples from a previously unreported 1958 Stanley Miller electric discharge experiment containing hydrogen sulfide (H2S) were recently discovered and analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry. We report here the detection and quantification of primary amine-containing compounds in the original sample residues, which were produced via spark discharge using a gaseous mixture of H2S, CH4, NH3, and CO2. A total of 23 amino acids and 4 amines, including 7 organosulfur compounds, were detected in these samples.
​

But, that easy to shred, right?

Not going to hide .. or shy away ... you have me flat footed and on the wrong foot.
I will admit it I was going on memory on that one and you got me.
I will do my best not to make that mistake again.
It is a remarkable achievement and to say anything the less is not right.
So for building amino acids you do have something. I at this point don't even want get in to the gasses and all of that I want to look beyond that to what happens next.

So I am going to give you amino acids.

So science was able 60 years ago to prove that we can make molecules out of molecules with the right conditions. I accept it ... its science fine.

Now what?

By the way didn't we know that we could make molecules out molecules? With random processes?

Going from Amino to RNA? mmmm that is where it gets fun.

 

[FormerAtheist]

You do know about the null-hypothesis, correct?

The default position is x=does not exist until x has been demonstrated to exist.

That does not help you.

Then pre Cambrian explosion ancestors ... and so on? That actually makes your position weaker.

 

[FormerAtheist]

All things I could have done better. Just give me the tools he used and I'll gladly do it better.

Especially the laryngeal nerve, I bet even you could design that better so that it doesn't take a hilariously big detour.

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.

 

[Skreeper]

That does not help you.

Then pre Cambrian explosion ancestors ... and so on? That actually makes your position weaker.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Skreeper]

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 you are just a troll, just say so. I have not enough patience for this kind of nonsense.

I'll repeat the important part: Give me the tools and method the designer used to create a cell and I'll do it better.