An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But the big one is you are suggesting life coming from non-life. From rocks to frogs.
Sounds outlandish. You have the burden of proof.

Ah, I see... I apologise, I thought we were discussing evolution, but you seem to be talking about abiogenesis.

No matter; let's examine the available information to see who most likely has the burden of proof for the origin of life:

For abiogenesis - we see no signs of life in the earliest rocks, and a point where the first signs of extremely simple life appear. From this point on, there is a progression in diversity and complexity of the life forms we see preserved in the rocks. This suggests that life began very simply and became progressively more complex and diverse.

This progression is consistent with what we know about how populations of contemporary life forms change over time (i.e. evolution), and the theory that explains it. We also know that some time prior to the earliest signs of life, the Earth was too inhospitable for any form of life as we know it.

So the evidence suggests that life started in a very simple form when conditions on Earth became suitable to support it. We also know that life is dynamic organic chemistry, and that all the components necessary for life were present in the environment. We also know that, under the right conditions, many of the chemical components for life will self-assemble into structures similar to those found in the simplest cells, and many of the reaction cycles found in living cells also occur. Evidence also suggests that there were a number of environments that seem well-suited to providing those conditions.

The claim of abiogenesis is that, if it is possible for a simple replicator to emerge from the chemical interactions of these 'building blocks' of life under suitable conditions, then given the potential number of suitable environments across the whole planet, and a time period of thousands of millions of years, or more, in which it might happen, even if any one such event was unlikely, it would be almost certain to happen at some time and place.

So what about the ID argument for life? As far as I'm aware, we have no evidence of any intelligent entities being involved at any point, no reasonable idea of what such an entity might be, or how it might produce life. It's purely speculative (feel free to jump in with plausible suggestions).

Given the choice between the possibility of a plausible naturalistic explanation, and invoking a speculative unexplained intelligence for which we have no evidence, it seems clear to me that the burden of proof is with the latter - and I think Occam would agree. YMMV.

 

[bhsmte]

I would believe a "believer" over an atheist though any day. And so do most people. Most people including atheists do not trust atheists. Odd isn't it?

Well, when many Christians have to work so hard to protect their personal faith belief, anyone who disagrees with them is going to present some fear.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hey I'm just going on what I originally told you and your response. You can not get natural selection unless you have something to select from.

I was just pointing out that your comment, as posted, was fallacious; i.e. not having a naturalistic explanation for something doesn't mean there isn't one.

Disappointing; I was expecting better.

 

[FormerAtheist]

And many Christians do understand the science and realize that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and belief in God. Many atheists know it as well, and by equating the ToE with atheism you just make faith in God sound stupid to them anc eliminate any hope of conversion.

I'm not equating but I don't see the proof on a macro level all I see are conflicts and theories. And busted ones at that.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Well, when many Christians have to work so hard to protect their personal faith belief, anyone who disagrees with them is going to present some fear.

Remember I mentioned atheists as well. Remember its also atheists that do not trust atheists and for good reason. If your morals are relative then well ... lets just say I'll side with the atheists that don't trust atheists lol.

 

[Jimmy D]

This sort of data led biochemist W. Ford Doolittle to explain that “Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.”[103] New Scientist put it this way: “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life … But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.”[104]

Many evolutionists sometimes reply that these problems arise only when studying microorganisms like bacteria—organisms which can swap genes through a process called “horizontal gene transfer,” thereby muddying the signal of evolutionary relationships. But this objection isn’t quite true, since the tree of life is challenged even among higher organisms where such gene-swapping is not prevalent. Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, explains:

Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.[105]

Likewise, the New Scientist article notes that “research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either.”[106] The article explains what happened when microbiologist Michael Syvanen tried to create a tree showing evolutionary relationships using 2000 genes from a diverse group of animals:

He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. … the genes were sending mixed signals. … Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another.[107]

The data were so difficult to resolve into a tree that Syvanen lamented, “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life.”[108] Many other papers in the technical literature recognize similar problems.

Just plagiarizing from Creationist sites now? There are rules against that you know.

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_6_molec/

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not equating but I don't see the proof on a macro level all I see are conflicts and theories. And busted ones at that.

That you don't "see" it doesn't mean it isn't there. Have you never considered the possibility that you don't understand the science?

 

[bhsmte]

Remember I mentioned atheists as well. Remember its also atheists that do not trust atheists and for good reason. If your morals are relative then well ... lets just say I'll side with the atheists that don't trust atheists lol.

Please provide evidence, that atheists don't trust fellow atheists.

 

[Jimmy D]

Please provide evidence, that atheists don't trust fellow atheists.

Obvious isn't it? We're all evil.

 

[FormerAtheist]

So the evidence suggests that life started in a very simple form when conditions on Earth became suitable to support it. We also know that life is dynamic organic chemistry, and that all the components necessary for life were present in the environment. We also know that, under the right conditions, many of the chemical components for life will self-assemble into structures similar to those found in the simplest cells, and many of the reaction cycles found in living cells also occur. Evidence also suggests that there were a number of environments that seem well-suited to providing those conditions.

Actually the closest anyone has come to seriously building anything that can come close is a synthesized RNA molecule. I say synthesized because that is not what is found in nature. We would have no way to know that molecule could have ever arisen since we have never seen it. This would be the same as altering DNA and then claiming that altered DNA could have happened. As far as the RNA that was synthesized it can only perform a few functions that would be necessary and no where close and even then there would be many problems beyond it. As far as well-suited conditions I don't really think that is the case because in the formation of lets say an RNA world scenario your going to be looking for something pretty precise in order to get the Ribose to form while getting the nucleotides to bond. And the life span of some of the nucleotides is very short especially in the most likely scenarios and they will all have to be around or form at the time of the shortest span.

The claim of abiogenesis is that, if it is possible for a simple replicator to emerge from the chemical interactions of these 'building blocks' of life under suitable conditions, then given the potential number of suitable environments across the whole planet, and a time period of thousands of millions of years, or more, in which it might happen, even if any one such event was unlikely, it would be almost certain to happen at some time and place.

Yeah but your going to need far more then a simple replicator that is only the first problem and you will need multiple "building blocks" forming at the same time or in a certain window. Simply put these things don't last forever. The problem is that you don't have "thousands of millions of year" you have maybe 700 million years so its not an unlimited time. But that is what you would need to search through the combinatorial space of a single protein. You would need the whole universe and all the time in it to search through a single one. And the type of first life that your looking at is going to be more complex then a single protein. It would have to be far more complicated then the synthesis RNA molecule. Which by the way that was done under the best conditions with the best minds and serious intelligence. And they were working off existing blueprints and methodology they witnessed in nature. your talking about a blind process with no blueprints. Nothing to work with. Nothing to go on. There will have to be a lot of random in that process. And then it would have to go through the combinatorial space of something prohibitive.

So what about the ID argument for life? As far as I'm aware, we have no evidence of any intelligent entities being involved at any point, no reasonable idea of what such an entity might be, or how it might produce life. It's purely speculative (feel free to jump in with plausible suggestions).

I think life tells you what you need to know. We don't seem to get it from non-life. We don't get a body plan out of no where. We don't get plans for that matter out of no where. Are you looking for a photo, youtube video maybe there is an inscription on the back of Mars "Made by God". What if God made the universe for free will so you could if you chose to find that stuff out for yourself. Maybe he wants it to be a journey and one you can opt out on. You can simply say "there is no God" and even though I see design everywhere there is no designer. That's fine and maybe that is the point of free will so you can do just that.

Given the choice between the possibility of a plausible naturalistic explanation, and invoking a speculative unexplained intelligence for which we have no evidence, it seems clear to me that the burden of proof is with the latter - and I think Occam would agree. YMMV.

The problem is that it is not plausible. To you the idea of a God is outlandish. I get it. As a former atheist I really do get it. But if there is no other explanation then the outlandish is the one your left with. Or you could just keep waiting another 160 years for the tried and true "We havn't figured it out yet" and my personal fav "we have a new theory" or the old stand by "trust in the natural explanation because everything else is outlandish".

Meanwhile the evidence is burning the Tree of Life to shreds.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Please provide evidence, that atheists don't trust fellow atheists.

Almost everyone thinks atheists are the worst: study

 

[FormerAtheist]

Obvious isn't it? We're all evil.

Almost everyone thinks atheists are the worst: study

Didn't say that ... hey don't blame me for what your fellow atheists think of you hahaha.

 

[bhsmte]

Almost everyone thinks atheists are the worst: study

Yea well, perceptions are not reality, as taken from the article:

The authors call it "extreme" prejudice against atheists, while the New York Times reports that mass killers are a "rogue's gallery of mostly male, aggrieved actors who are sometimes believers, sometimes not, and who half the time do not qualify for any specific psychiatric diagnosis."

Also, why is it then, that the countries with the lowest beliefs in a God, like the Scandinavian countries, have such low crime rates, low poverty, better healthcare and an overall higher standard of living, if all those non believers don't care about other people? You would think, the more non believers in a country, would increase crime and empathy towards others, but we see the opposite.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I was just pointing out that your comment, as posted, was fallacious; i.e. not having a naturalistic explanation for something doesn't mean there isn't one.

Disappointing; I was expecting better.

Unless there isn't one.
But you know what is un-natural about a God. A living thing giving life? That is natural. It is in fact the most natural thing in the universe. It is what we see everyday. Its the only thing we have ever seen. To suggest otherwise is the "un-natural" thing. Yes I know there is a difference between super-natural and naturalistic but that's precisely what I am getting at. What is super-natural about life giving birth to all life in the universe? To me super-natural would be some chemicals randomly creating (cell) a Rick & Morty Mini-Verse battery in the middle of a swamp somewhere while Summer is waiting around somewhere. That would be amazing. It would be like sitting next to a swamp and lightning strikes and a giant domed city with a million portals in the dome pops up. The city is complete with a train system with intelligent tracks that can decide to stop being tracks because the train isn't using them often enough. It has a governmental control system and a library of hundreds of books of code.

Do you know how super-natural that sounds? How Sci-Fi?

The creation is an amazing thing. Becoming aware that there is a creator has only deepened my appreciation for science and for life for that matter.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Just plagiarizing from Creationist sites now? There are rules against that you know.

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_6_molec/

Actually I got it from a different site. Let me find the site:
Part 2: What's the matter with evolution? - Science & Tech - WORLD

 

[FormerAtheist]

Yea well, perceptions are not reality, as taken from the article:

The authors call it "extreme" prejudice against atheists, while the New York Times reports that mass killers are a "rogue's gallery of mostly male, aggrieved actors who are sometimes believers, sometimes not, and who half the time do not qualify for any specific psychiatric diagnosis."

Also, why is it then, that the countries with the lowest beliefs in a God, like the Scandinavian countries, have such low crime rates, low poverty, better healthcare and an overall higher standard of living, if all those non believers don't care about other people? You would think, the more non believers in a country, would increase crime and empathy towards others, but we see the opposite.

Scandinavian countries are on their way out. Its part of belonging to a death cult like atheism. Works like this:
You believe the history of your country is trash
your family is trash
humans are trash
there is no meaning
no purpose
So you stop having babies and then expect someone else to do it for you. So you open the borders and before long its no longer Scandinavia and no longer atheist because the replacements for the Scandinavians are not atheist and they never will be. Besides Scandinavia is showing serious signs of wear and tear. No-go Zones, parents ok with their 8 year old's having 30 year old boyfriends kicking out the natives to make way for the newcomers and on and on. Its insanity on full display. In fact they are too busy going insane to get into too much crime. But that will come.

 

[bhsmte]

Scandinavian countries are on their way out. Its part of belonging to a death cult like atheism. Works like this:
You believe the history of your country is trash
your family is trash
humans are trash
there is no meaning
no purpose
So you stop having babies and then expect someone else to do it for you. So you open the borders and before long its no longer Scandinavia and no longer atheist because the replacements for the Scandinavians are not atheist and they never will be. Besides Scandinavia is showing serious signs of wear and tear. No-go Zones, parents ok with their 8 year old's having 30 year old boyfriends kicking out the natives to make way for the newcomers and on and on. Its insanity on full display. In fact they are too busy going insane to get into too much crime. But that will come.

LOL!

Lower beliefs in a God = less crime, better education, better healthcare and less poverty. All things, a caring society strives for.

Sorry, to break reality to you.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Well, when many Christians have to work so hard to protect their personal faith belief, anyone who disagrees with them is going to present some fear.

That reminded me of this quote so I thought I would grab it.
People ask why others fear atheism ... well :
Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal Soviet Communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:

“ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'[46]

 

[bhsmte]

That reminded me of this quote so I thought I would grab it.
People ask why others fear atheism ... well :
Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal Soviet Communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:

“ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'[46]

Folks who are likely a bit insecure about a faith belief, have the most fear and will attack those who disagree with them. They have to exert a lot of energy to engage their defense mechanisms, to protect their belief, at all costs.

It is really, quite entertaining to watch in action.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Folks who are likely a bit insecure about a faith belief, have the most fear and will attack those who disagree with them. They have to exert a lot of energy to engage their defense mechanisms, to protect their belief, at all costs.

It is really, quite entertaining to watch in action.

I'm actually in a very good mood. No fear brother no fear. And all I am doing is quoting you from what atheists and former atheists have said about atheists. That's all. Trying my best to stay out of it. I'll let them say it lol.