• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

Status
Not open for further replies.

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Lol, I only checked the creationist one out of interest... what a crock.

He prattles on about all the evidence against evolution, yet presents NONE. What a surprise!

That you find an opinion piece so compelling is not surprising.
are you sure you read all three articles in full because it would be Child's Play to dissect the two atheist articles put simply it is bad science bad logic and bad writing
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,394.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Very nice presentation and so how does this lineup with your interpretation of the Tree of Life and how does that lineup two molecular clock data and which molecule would you be using for the molecular clock?
It lines up just fine. I have no idea how it lines up with molecular clock data; all I know is that it means that what you previously said about GULO was wrong. As was what you said about there being no genetic evidence for evolution. As was what you said about my blog post being evidence against evolution.

Why do you keep doing this? Making a claim, seeing it refuted, ignoring the refutation, and then making a new claim? What's the point of making lots of false claims?
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
How would reading the "atheist" articles (note that I'm still not sure which articles you mean) make the creationist article any less confused about science?
Did you read the creationist article because that was solid writing and solid logic in the race between the three articles that one is a winner x 3
 
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
What are you talking about you showed similarity in genes from a variety of species but no connection on the tree of life and no connection to molecular clock data you still have a huge problem in fact the problem is still there nothing I said was false line that stuff up with the tree of life and molecular clock and get back to me
 
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
By the way whichever molecule you use for your molecular clock data I will find a different one that will paint a completely different picture which makes my point that genetic data conflicts completely.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,394.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm talking about biology. I have no idea what your incoherent run-on sentence is supposed to mean.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
are you sure you read all three articles in full because it would be Child's Play to dissect the two atheist articles put simply it is bad science bad logic and bad writing

Are you sure you read my post?

I don’t understand quantum physics so I didn’t bother. But I was interested in the “article” that you found so compelling and just a cursory glance was enough to see it for what it is - lies and PRATTS.

Unless you’re going to share this mysterious evidence against the TOE the article refers to but doesn’t actually mention, I’ll stand by my comments.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,394.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
By the way whichever molecule you use for your molecular clock data I will find a different one that will paint a completely different picture which makes my point that genetic data conflicts completely.
No, you really won't. What you'll do is change the subject again.

It's quite clear by this time that you are unable to deal with the genetic evidence for evolution.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
And while we are lining up that's guinea pigs and humans let's throw Whales into the mix and line up the Echolocation programming between bats and Whales that's when things get surreal.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I hear you brother quantum physics is spooky stuff but interesting and important none the less so do yourself a favor and look up quantum physics consciousness and Matter and then try to figure out how we get a universe without an outside consciousness
 
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
But where did the number of 3% come from?

from here:

Views on evolution among the public and scientists

(according to this survey its actually 2%)


lets see. your claim is that we can know that the difference between human and chimp is the result of mutations. first: how do you know how the original genome was look like? for instance: if we have T in human, how do we know that the original base was A?
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I' sorry I might have missed that but ummm wow did you catch this video ... ouch ... Richard Dawkins is in too lol
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private

Let's get real for minute. They went from tree to bush in 2 minutes flat ... faster than a Porsche and they nod their heads and laugh at the reality of multiple origin of life and forms. That was an assembly of the biggest names in atheism. If that NASA scientist had said anything about an outside intelligent agent he would have been labeed a kook by everyone including you. So we can go from tree pattern to bush to ... starfish pattern maybe? Who knows? Who cares as long as there is no designer in the mix. Nothing needs to make sense except this one thing .... no matter what there can be no designer.

Is that it?
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I'm talking about biology. I have no idea what your incoherent run-on sentence is supposed to mean.
I have to voice recognition technology on my tablet in order to debate sometimes because of circumstance and time.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
YEAH your right nuff said.
I won't let that one go not for a long shot. How dare you!!!
How dare I provide background information about someone you quoted as an authority? Easy.

This guy has real credentials but you will demonize him because he does not believe as you do so he doesn't agree with your belief system.
I'm not going to demonize him - anyone who's interested can read the link and/or do their own research [to save time, he says he's an ID believer and doesn't believe in common descent].

... So then as long as anyone does not believe in your side of the debate they are null?
Where did I say that?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
What evidence or science would do work for you and yet still allow humanity serious free will? If the evidence is in your face no one has free will. For me it was the uncomfortable reality there is no other way.
How do you define 'serious free will'? i.e. what, exactly, do you mean by that ?
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
By the way whichever molecule you use for your molecular clock data I will find a different one that will paint a completely different picture which makes my point that genetic data conflicts completely.
i think you refer to genes which contradict the phylogenetic tree. indeed we have many of them but evolutionists "solve" this problem by claiming for different selection pressure or convergent evolution. for instance: the gene prestin is closer between dolphins and some bats than between dolphins and baleen whales. it make no sense under evolution theory, so scientists solve this by convergent evolution. but this is just an ad hoc explanation rather than a scientific one.



(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...olocating-bats-and-cetaceans-A_fig3_237098425)
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
are you sure you read all three articles in full because it would be Child's Play to dissect the two atheist articles put simply it is bad science bad logic and bad writing
I read them, and I agree with sfs summary -

1. Exploration of a simplified mathematical model of evolution involving entangled quantum organisms. An exercise in the hypothetical.

2. Using the paradigm shift of QM as an example to point out the difference between scientific theories such as the ToE, and ID/creationism - i.e. that the ToE is open to such a paradigm shift and ID/creationism is not.

3. A collection of creationist assertions, including misrepresentations and errors about the science being criticised.

Perhaps you could point to the 'bad science' in the first two?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.