An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

FormerAtheist · Apr 23, 2018

bhsmte said:
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.

Just remember half atheist for the moment. Only half. Just remember what I showed you in the other quote what happens when the other half looses their faith.

Let me just remind you how that quote started "This is what happens when people forget God".

Yeah that part.
Not a good track record. Not something to try again. Very time a society went full on atheist it was complete hell. Seems atheists need the "believers" but not sure if the beleivers need anyone. This is the thing I admire about Christians. Their belief system is self sufficient. They don't need us. They are happy.

Atheisim on the other hand is a parasite it must feed off a host. Because it is so empty it must attach to something. And so it buddies up with Marxism almost always. This is why you will see so many atheists that have a serious problem with Christianity ... it becomes their ideology. Their passion. Atheism by itself will not provide that. So it must be filled.
Like it or not all humans need purpose and when your belief system tells you there is none you must find it even if it means destroying purpose in others. YOU MUST FIND IT.
And so you here you are preaching to the most happy people on the planet hahahaha.

Speedwell · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist said:
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.

So you want to denounce atheism, and that's fine. I still don't see what it has to do with the theory of evolution, or why you bring it up here in this forum.

bhsmte · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist said:
Just remember half atheist for the moment. Only half. Just remember what I showed you in the other quote what happens when the other half looses their faith.

Let me just remind you how that quote started "This is what happens when people forget God".

Yeah that part.
Not a good track record. Not something to try again. Very time a society went full on atheist it was complete hell. Seems atheists need the "believers" but not sure if the beleivers need anyone. This is the thing I admire about Christians. Their belief system is self sufficient. They don't need us. They are happy.

Atheisim on the other hand is a parasite it must feed off a host. Because it is so empty it must attach to something. And so it buddies up with Marxism almost always. This is why you will see so many atheists that have a serious problem with Christianity ... it becomes their ideology. Their passion. Atheism by itself will not provide that. So it must be filled.
Like it or not all humans need purpose and when your belief system tells you there is none you must find it even if it means destroying purpose in others. YOU MUST FIND IT.
And so you here you are preaching to the most happy people on the planet hahahaha.

More personal opinion.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist said:
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.

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.

I didn't go into detail because it's not necessary - as I said, if it's possible for a simple replicator to emerge under the conditions described, that's sufficient.

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.

We have clear evidence that evolutionary processes can (albeit wastefully) generate improved solutions under selection pressure. We even use simplified computer versions of evolutionary processes to produce 'designs' more effective than those of human design.

As for life from non-life, that's the point in question - we're unlikely to see it in nature today because life itself has completely changed the environment - that's why we have to replicate early Earth conditions - and the results so far are far more promising than had been expected.

Are you looking for a photo, youtube video maybe there is an inscription on the back of Mars "Made by God".

Any evidence of an intelligent designer, god or otherwise, would be interesting.

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.

Exactly - or what if the tooth fairy wants you to believe that God created life? When you make up stories about magical entities, you can invent any old tosh you like to explain why there's no evidence for them, and why all the evidence we do have is consistent with a naturalistic explanation.

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.

Meh; I was rather (optimistically) hoping for a counter-argument.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist said:
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.

So remind me - when do we see invisible, inexplicable, immaterial entities produce life?

What criteria of life does your mythical entity satisfy, and how would you know?

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.

By all means get back to me when you have something more interesting than a juvenile argument from incredulity.

Speedwell · Apr 23, 2018

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
So remind me - when do we see invisible, inexplicable, immaterial entities produce life?

What criteria of life does your mythical entity satisfy, and how would you know?

By all means get back to me when you have something more interesting than a juvenile argument from incredulity.

Just be patient; sooner or later this is going to turn out to be about the Bible, not God.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist said:
There are no predecessors to the Cambrian explosion and the explosion was 6 million years.

Wrong. There are predecessors to the Cambrian explosion - the earliest life was around 3.48 billion years ago, and there were many multicellular forms in the Precambrian (e.g. the Ediacarans). Also, the Cambrian explosion was between 20 million years and 37 million years long.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Apr 23, 2018

Speedwell said:
Just be patient; sooner or later this is going to turn out to be about the Bible, not God.

Yeah; I'm probably showing a hint of disappointment that the initial posts, with their air of patronising superiority, promised something more than the usual ill-informed arguments from incredulity; but they've failed to deliver.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist said:
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.

Interesting that 45% of responders think it's 'Ridiculous'...

Herman Hedning · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist said:
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.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm in Scandinavia, you are not, and you should stop talking s**t about things that you know absolutely nothing about.

Project Panda · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist said:
Now your getting into religion. The which God did it. Does it matter which human invented the car to know that a human invented the car. Or better the plane. Had a debate with a friend the other day about who invented the airplane. Well it wasn't random. And it wasn't a squirrel. I'm thinking it was something very intelligent that created it. Because it has design.

No, it does matter who or what exactly created me and this universe. Especially when it comes down to my own fellow created being's telling me different thing's about the creator itself. Or thinking they hear what this creator thinks and knows what it wants from me (Usually money)
Anyway, how can I possibly know the designer of the whole cosmos, when I have to take point from a bunch of car sales people.

jardiniere · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist said:
Not really. There are no predecessors to the Cambrian explosion and the explosion was 6 million years. As one scientist put it "its as if we don't have survival of the fittest but rather the arrival of the fittest".
The earth did not have billions of years it had 3.5 and evolution by the standard theory takes a lot longer then you think based on population genetic mathematics.

The Cambrian explosion was 6 million years... what? 6 million years ago? 6 million years in length?

If that's what you need to base your argument on, you are going to fail to convince anyone who has just normal understanding of geologic history and radiometric dating. Life had billions of years to develop, so your arguments are not going to convince anyone if you need to stick to 6 millions years to support your argument.

VirOptimus · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist said:
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.

You know nothing about scandinavia. As a swede I can safely say that nothing you posted is true (although atheism us the norm here).

Also, you dont understand moral philosophy.

FormerAtheist · Apr 23, 2018

Herman Hedning said:
What the hell are you talking about? I'm in Scandinavia, you are not, and you should stop talking s**t about things that you know absolutely nothing about.

Liveleak.com - What happened in Sweden. 60 Minutes Story

bhsmte · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist · Apr 23, 2018

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Wrong. There are predecessors to the Cambrian explosion - the earliest life was around 3.48 billion years ago, and there were many multicellular forms in the Precambrian (e.g. the Ediacarans). Also, the Cambrian explosion was between 20 million years and 37 million years long.

[T]he initial (Manykaian) interval of slow diversification followed the ediacaran faunal epoch by no more than 20 million years (m.y.) and lasted approximately 14 m.y. In contrast, if we accept the age of 525 Ma for the Atdabanian-Botomian boundary, then the Tommotian-Atdabanian period of exponential increase of diversification lasted only 5 to 6 m.y. In any event it is unlikely to have exceeded 10 m.y. Numbers of phyla, classes, orders, families, and genera all reached or approached their Cambrian peaks during the short Tommotian-Atdabanian interval. For phyla and classes, most of the diversity known for the Phanerozoic [the eon of time since the Cambrian] as a whole differentiated by the end of the Atdabanian.

FormerAtheist · Apr 23, 2018

jardiniere said:
The Cambrian explosion was 6 million years... what? 6 million years ago? 6 million years in length?

If that's what you need to base your argument on, you are going to fail to convince anyone who has just normal understanding of geologic history and radiometric dating. Life had billions of years to develop, so your arguments are not going to convince anyone if you need to stick to 6 millions years to support your argument.

[T]he initial (Manykaian) interval of slow diversification followed the ediacaran faunal epoch by no more than 20 million years (m.y.) and lasted approximately 14 m.y. In contrast, if we accept the age of 525 Ma for the Atdabanian-Botomian boundary, then the Tommotian-Atdabanian period of exponential increase of diversification lasted only 5 to 6 m.y. In any event it is unlikely to have exceeded 10 m.y. Numbers of phyla, classes, orders, families, and genera all reached or approached their Cambrian peaks during the short Tommotian-Atdabanian interval. For phyla and classes, most of the diversity known for the Phanerozoic [the eon of time since the Cambrian] as a whole differentiated by the end of the Atdabanian.
Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution,” Science, Vol. 261 (September 3, 1993): 1293-1298.

pitabread · Apr 23, 2018

nevermind...

FrumiousBandersnatch · Apr 23, 2018

FormerAtheist said:
[T]he initial (Manykaian) interval of slow diversification followed the ediacaran faunal epoch by no more than 20 million years (m.y.) and lasted approximately 14 m.y. In contrast, if we accept the age of 525 Ma for the Atdabanian-Botomian boundary, then the Tommotian-Atdabanian period of exponential increase of diversification lasted only 5 to 6 m.y. In any event it is unlikely to have exceeded 10 m.y. Numbers of phyla, classes, orders, families, and genera all reached or approached their Cambrian peaks during the short Tommotian-Atdabanian interval. For phyla and classes, most of the diversity known for the Phanerozoic [the eon of time since the Cambrian] as a whole differentiated by the end of the Atdabanian.

The exponential growth phase is the early part of the Cambrian explosion, which is generally taken to end in the Burgess shale, around 505 million years ago; although it's certainly true that not everyone delimits it the same way.

But, whatever... there were predecessors to the Cambrian explosion (your quote even mentions them), and the whole Cambrian explosion period is generally taken to last from ~542 Ma to ~ 505 Ma.

FormerAtheist · Apr 23, 2018

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I didn't go into detail because it's not necessary - as I said, if it's possible for a simple replicator to emerge under the conditions described, that's sufficient.

QUOTE]

Actually no it is not. It is mathematically impossible to create what you want in the 200 million years or so you have before bacteria. Many people think you have the entire timespan of the earth to work with but you don't. This is why its actually far harder for the atheist to work on the pre life problem. How do you first get to somewhere where you can have selection. Well its going to be hard its just going to be impossible. Its the combination space. Lets say 200 million years x the minutes in the days of those years. Lets do the math easy style ... 200ma x 365 x 24 x 60 will get you = 105,120,000,000,000 or 105 trillion or lets round down make it easy 10 to the power of 13. But you have a problem in that the best case I have ever seen was 1 chance in 10 to 78. But that's for a protein this thing your going to need whatever it is because we have never seen it. No proof of it. Well whatever it is will have to be much more complicated.

There is a reason that scientists gave up on life springing into cells because they realized it was way to far out. Then they went to DNA and most have pretty much gave up on that. There are now 20 theories that are mostly bad the best one is RNA and the Pre-RNA the one where "something" sort of "invented" RNA hahaha. Oh wait you don't believe me. You think oh I don't read the literature.
Ok:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/73781/prebiotic_chemistry_and_the_origin_of_the_rna_world/#PkAgGpkYJZXUyLLp.99
Let me just save you some time .. just read the first paragraph because it is long and only intended for geeks (sometimes I can be one) that are into this stuff which will mostly bore people to death. Eh let me just give you the last sentence:
Molecular Biologists' Dream. This in turn leads to a discussion of genetic systems simpler than RNA that might have "invented" RNA. Finally, we review studies of prebiotic membrane formation.

Yeah and they should dream on because of all the problems. But they get paid to dream and write long articles and talk about the imaginary pre-pre-cell thing ... something. Oh wait they have different names for these "things".
I have read there names and it makes me laugh. Because we don't have anything and we never did. But we do have a name.

I was once in a debate when someone brought up one of the names. I told him that I knew of the Ur-Animal and it had a name ... this was interesting to them until I showed them a red dragon I found on DeviantArt. Now I have an artist drawing, a name, a theory and I can write a 5000 word essay on this "thing".

Where did the information come from?
We havn't even talked about that yet. That is the fun part.
Want to make $5,000,000?
If you can show 3 scientists where the information for life came from you will win $5,000,000 ... the prize has been going on for years. No takers.

An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hiking is fun

Active Member

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Active Member

Newbie

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency