An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[FormerAtheist]

Cool - 100 pages of paraphrased already-refuted YEC propaganda!

Actually it could and should be longer. I've been busy lately.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Spelling, it seems, is also hard.

Not trying to nitpick or be mean, but I am betting, having not read this thread yet, that your grasp of science is on par with your grasp of spelling.

Ah atheists. This reminds of a blog/article looking to write about pride. Let me give you the intro:

Pride comes before a fall.

One thing I find remarkable about atheists is their pride and arrogance. They revel in it. It is their downfall. And it can be seen many times. In fact it is their blanket. They are proud of their godlessness and look down those that seem so simple below them. This is the type of thing that leads a soceity over and over again over the cliff. Such an innocent message. So primitive “pride comes before the fall” and yet so true. So everlasting. Cuts to the core.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Better read the final study in that list. Here's a highlight:

Here, we report an experimental work, combined with state-of-the-art computational methods, in which both electric discharge and laser-driven plasma impact simulations were carried out in a reducing atmosphere containing NH3 + CO. We show that RNA nucleobases are synthesized in these experiments, strongly supporting the possibility of the emergence of biologically relevant molecules in a reducing atmosphere.
​

QUOTE]
A sugar molecule is also a biologically relevant molecule. Sorry but this isn't even close to what is needed.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Not sure I agree with that. We cannot repeat the eruption of Mt.Vesuvius that buried Pompeii, but we can, via (repeatable) examination of the evidence found there, confirm that Vesuvius did in fact cause the disaster at Pompeii. We cannot 'repeat' the speciation event that produced bonobos, but we can 'repeat' the analyses of DNA sequences that demonstrate a speciation event. And so on.

By the same token, I don't think that it would be necessary to repeat a miracle, but repeatable "observations" regarding the miracle in question could be sufficient.

By repeatable observations of a miracle, I do NOT mean several people claiming to have seen it. I am talking about repeatable 'empirical' accounts regarding the phenomenon - in the case of, say, a miraculously regenerated limb, there would need to be multiple verified, documented accounts by medical professionals (in the form of imaging verifying that the lim
b had been lost in the first place; similar documentation that the limb had reappeared; verification that this was not a trick such as via identical twins or whatever, etc.).

But we can not find any genetic evidence that backs up evolution in fact the genetic evidence points all over the place. In fact it sort of kind of looks like a creator used some parts to design everything. Maybe that's why people are instructed to do away with their "design intuition" and just go with the flow.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Better tell these scientists that the math doesn't support their experiments:

A possible prebiotic route for the formation of ribose: a natural formose type reaction | Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale

Prebiotic molecules such as numerous amino acids have been detected in the past few years in the organic residues left after the sublimation of the ices, and they have been recovered at room temperature under vacuum.

Very recently, two important molecules were detected in these residues: glycolaldehyde (with 2 carbon atoms), a precursor of the sugars, and, more significantly, glyceraldehyde (with 3 carbon atoms), the first sugar molecule belonging to the oses family. These results have allowed to seriously address the prebiotic significance of the simulations performed at IAS. Indeed, in the same simulation, the presence of amino acids, precursors of proteins (actors of metabolism) and the presence of two sugars implied in the formation of the aldopentose ribose (precursor of the genetic material) raises questions about the impact of these materials on the prebiotic chemistry on the surface of a telluric planet such as the Earth in its primitive epoch.​

Abiotic synthesis of purine and pyrimidine ribonucleosides in aqueous microdroplets:

We show a general synthetic path for ribonucleosides, both purine and pyrimidine bases, using an abiotic salvage pathway in a microdroplet environment with divalent magnesium ion (Mg2+) as a catalyst. Purine and pyrimidine ribonucleosides are formed simultaneously under the same conditions, which suggests a possible scenario for the spontaneous production of random ribonucleosides necessary to generate various types of primitive RNA​

Abiotic production of sugar phosphates and uridine ribonucleoside in aqueous microdroplets:

Here, we show that sugar phosphates and a ribonucleoside form spontaneously in microdroplets, without enzymes or an external energy source. Sugar phosphorylation in microdroplets has a lower entropic cost than in bulk solution. Therefore, thermodynamic obstacles of prebiotic condensation reactions can be circumvented in microdroplets.
​

As much, uh, fun as this is, it's time for bed here.

What would be the method for producing the nucleotide bases and the ribose sugar molecules at the same time? (You do see the problems in that right?) And then you have to get them to arrange themselves in an intelligent sequence. This problem is very complicated its not so easy as finding some chemicals or molecules here and there that you need. Its kind of like finding a human and some surgical instruments and thinking your ready for heart surgery.

 

[FormerAtheist]

You are not serious, are you?

"Random selection"?

I thought you said you knew all about science?

I make mistakes and am not afraid of them. Not afraid of the truth either. That's why I left atheism. It is not the truth. And science does not back it. You can find a fault or an error, spelling, punctuation and then cry "see we won". But the truth doesn't really work that way.

 

[VirOptimus]

I make mistakes and am not afraid of them. Not afraid of the truth either. That's why I left atheism. It is not the truth. And science does not back it. You can find a fault or an error, spelling, punctuation and then cry "see we won". But the truth doesn't really work that way.

Pitching science against religion is stupid.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Well, I have only recently looked at this thread, and just from the first couple of pages, I found a lot wrong.

"Random selection", for example.

Regarding your math, all I see are numbers thrown out with the expectation that all are merely to accept them at face value.

I do not. I have asked for clarification on your math, and we will see if you ever are able to answer my questions.

The math is absurdly simple. Do I really have to break it down for you? Is that going to help?

I doubt it but here goes.
Off the top of my head.
Average protein will have probably 300 amino acids and there are 20 so that would be (1/20)300 or 2.04 x 10 to the power of 390. But I like Axe's work on that where he goes with 1 in 10 to the 78. So yeah I'm going off his math which is far more accurate since he did the actual lab work.

Actually there is a video that does this better.

 

[FormerAtheist]

When we discuss science there is an agreed approach. This approach is rigorous in peer reviewed journals, but even informal conversations benefit from the application of some simple rules. You seem unaware of them. Here are some:

• Aim for clarity, concision and comprehensiveness
• Edit your work
• Do not ramble
• Do not introduce extraneous comments
• Remember you are not in a pub, drug den or mental hospital.

These guidelines are not pretentious affectations, but means towards improved communication. I do hope you'll pay them some heed, or our dialogue will be reduced to a monologue.

There is no need to apologise. Your ignorance on this subject has been evident from your early posts, as is your consequent consistent logical error of Argument from Ignorance. There are two key points to be made here:

1. I am not aware of any experiment that has sought to establish the viability of abiogenesis by actually creating life. Given our current level of ignorance that would be presumptuous and probably fruitless. The experiments explore prebiotic synthesis, a prerequisite for abiogenesis. I am not certain that you understand that. If you didn't, I trust you do now.

2. There have been numerous abiogeneis experiments made. I am not going to do your literature search for you, but I shall make this contribution to removing your ignorance on this specific issue. It is a review paper, published in 1965, ten years after publication of the Miller-Urey experiment. It details over fifty such experiments. Fifty experiments in ten years and that is more than fifty years ago. It's up to you to search the literature for what's been done in that half century. I suspect it's considerably more than you imagined.

Well thanks for arrogantly setting me straight. I feel like a child next to the emperor.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Having too many issues and some personal stuff so had to take of. I'm not rushing for anyone. In fact there is no time line as it will be done when it is done. And not before.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well thanks for arrogantly setting me straight. I feel like a child next to the emperor.

Polite communication was not working. You were not listening. At least you finally got one of my messages. Why don't you now address, in a proper manner, the scientific issues.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Complexity is not an argument for design.

A hurricane is complex as well.

A hurricane does not show the type of predefined information that has a purpose that we find in the information of DNA. Saying that a bunch of random phone numbers is complex is not the same as saying that hundreds of thousands of lines of code designed to build multiple factories is complex. Very different. Do you think a factory is random?

 

[Speedwell]

The math is absurdly simple. Do I really have to break it down for you? Is that going to help?

I doubt it but here goes.
Off the top of my head.
Average protein will have probably 300 amino acids and there are 20 so that would be (1/20)300 or 2.04 x 10 to the power of 390. But I like Axe's work on that where he goes with 1 in 10 to the 78. So yeah I'm going off his math which is far more accurate since he did the actual lab work.

Actually there is a video that does this better.

I hope so, because the math you posted is useless.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Polite communication was not working. You were not listening. At least you finally got one of my messages. Why don't you now address, in a proper manner, the scientific issues.

Honestly there are too many of you and one of me. Meanwhile I have serious things to do. I my mission is ... well its bigger then debating on one forum. I don't know how much time I can devote to this but I will try. But one thing I will not do is get too distracted that I get torn away that for me is far more important.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Polite communication was not working. You were not listening. At least you finally got one of my messages. Why don't you now address, in a proper manner, the scientific issues.

Honestly there are too many of you and one of me. Meanwhile I have serious things to do. I my mission is ... well its bigger then debating on one forum. I don't know how much time I can devote to this but I will try. But one thing I will not do is get too distracted that I get torn away that for me is far more important.

 

[pitabread]

The fruits of Atheism is despair. It shows me why I must fight it.

Even if that is true for you, why assume that is true for everyone else?

And what exactly is it you think you are "fighting"?

 

[FormerAtheist]

A word to the wise - we see this negative proof fallacy quite a lot on these forums. It's popularly known as 'Russell's Teapot'.

Also, given that these are the Physical & Life sciences forum, what counts is not winning or losing, but getting a better understanding of the subject and - sometimes - learning enough to change or refine our opinions.

Ok had never heard of it as "Russell's Teapot". The way I heard about it was the Lizard People. Lets say someone proclaims that lizard people or aliens are running the government. Well how would you disprove them?

Not the same.
If there can only be 2 possibilities for an accounting of an event then disproving one automatically proves the other. For example. Lets say two women are locked up in the same cell. There are cameras on the outside and we know neither of them left the cell and some guards did enter but no possible way a baby entered the cell. We know the baby did not grow out of the walls. We know one did had the baby. To figure out which one we simply need to prove one did not have the baby.

I am not proposing some magic green dragon that picked up a car when no one was looking. We are simply asking this question:
Can life as we know it have arisen without intelligent interaction?
Its either yes or no. There are no other possibilities. Do you have a third?
Either you can get around the impossible math and the impossible problems with conflicting evolutionary data or you can't. Either you can find a way for life to come from non-life for the first time or you can't.
We can't even design a transitional respiratory system for reptile to avian. We have no working theories for how life could overcome the odds. We can't account for the information.
Its impossible.
But you can play with your teapots in space and dwell on lizard people all you want. Most people just look at the information and realize that it is just mind games to deny the obvious.
If you left a chess game and came back and the pieces were put together like Kasparov's final checkmate move ... was it the wind?

Also there is something about the Russel Teapot argument. You are suggesting something ridiculous that happened and then comparing that to something we know happened. We don't know there is a teapot out there but the idea is ridiculous. But we do know the universe is here and we have two options. Science is making option (dumb luck) look dumber every day. So then some will say it wasn't dumb luck it was some process. Oh really what? Tell me.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Even if that is true for you, why assume that is true for everyone else?

And what exactly is it you think you are "fighting"?

Well there are the higher suicide rates and the fact that you don't have babies. No babies = no civilization. Or we have to open the borders to take up your slack? This is what happens when you think you have no meaning or purpose. Watch some Rick and Morty to get an idea of the atheist mindset and how they think of family and the importance of anything except your own selfish needs. A society like that will plow off the cliff.
Dangerous idea and sadly its been tried. The Soviet Union, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea. Truth is you need Christians more then you think.
I was reminded the other day of this magical island. Lets call it Kelly's Island. Lets say one half turned to God and the other turned to Satan. What half do you think would do better? (hint it wasn't Haiti) Or should it matter? Should it matter when nations turn their backs on God? I mean if there is no god then there should be no result but actually we see a trend. The best you can point to is Scandinavia which is seeing serious signs of cracks but even then it is only half atheist. Wait till they go the other half like the Soviet Union. It will be tragic. You think this is fun and games or hasn't been done before. It has. It does not end well.

This also reminds me of the atheist I forget who if you want I can look him up. He said it was ethical for other atheists to kill themselves as their lives are meaningless anyways. How do you think a society of people that feel that way will turn out? Do you think it ends well? Does this sound like a happy joyous people? The fruits of atheism are chaos and despair. Its a road to ruin. I do not think it is ethical for the atheist to kill themselves. I think they need to new out look if that is what some of them think.

 

[pitabread]

If there can only be 2 possibilities for an accounting of an event then disproving one automatically proves the other.

That's not really how things work in practice though since it's not possible to truly know if there are only two possibilities for something. Plus, there is always the default position which is "we don't know".

And in fact, in science given a particular hypothesis for "this is how something happened", the null hypothesis will be "it didn't happen that way". This is why all the efforts to disprove evolution doesn't validate ID/creationism. ID/creationism must be validated on its own merits.

 

[pitabread]

Well there are the higher suicide rates and the fact that you don't have babies. No babies = no civilization.

I would suggest caution about drawing conclusions based solely on single variables. There are often many variables which contribute to different behaviors.

Watch some Rick and Morty to get an idea of the atheist mindset and how they think of family and the importance of anything except your own selfish needs.

Rick and Morty is a cartoon. If you're trying to draw conclusions of human behavior based on a cartoon, then I suggest better source material.

Dangerous idea and sadly its been tried. The Soviet Union, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea. Truth is you need Christians more then you think.

Again, I would suggest caution about using a single variable to make sweeping generalizations about a country. Especially given that plenty of Christian nations in history have had their share of societal issues.