An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

tas8831 said:

What is "intelligent information"?

If this is the sort of tripe that will grace your amazing website, I'm sure that it will be a punchline very soon after it goes live.

Click to expand...

Well why is it that athiests the world over say the very same thing about the molecular machines we unfortunately find in life?

They have information in them and they are machines.

Do you know of a machine that was not created by intelligence?

tas8831 said:

Why trust you when you are busily ignoring the fact that your copied quote from 1979 didn't mention that the3 reason these 'scientists' were leaving evolution was that they were never actually evolutionists to begin with?

Click to expand...

A common tactic by the cult of Atheism is to look for one mistake. For example in the Irreducibily Complex argument they will go after Behe for saying that all components are necessary. I will side with Atheists on this one as I have read it straight from Behe as best I can see that is exactly what he said.

So what?

Can you then after knocking out 3 functions out of 40 then go on and knock out another 30?

So maybe we don't have 40 functions that are necessary but we have 30 ... do you understand the math involved with 30 hahahaha.

tas8831 said:

So where is the science for:

1. Universe spoken into existence by the tribal deity of a tribe that did not exist at the time - magic dopey stuff
2. The process by which silicates are converted to biopolymers and assembled into an adult human male - magic breath stuff
3. The super-fast diversification post-flood via unknown genetic mechanisms - magic superevolution stuff


I can wait.

Click to expand...

Seriously what are you on about?

I am not religious I thought I made that clear many times.
I am just going on science and math and its not on your side and it was not on my side when I was an atheist ... the reason I am no longer an atheist.

tas8831 said:

Curious - did you even read your own reddit link?

From the opening post:

"I was astounded to read this "paper" by Jeffrey Tomkins (posted to Reddit from ARJ). At first I was astounded because I couldn't believe that GULO had lost 6 exons independently in Humans, Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutan. Then after checking up on the data I was astounded that this author would lie so blatantly (especially when the data is available to the public for verification)."

So, I guess it was sort of cool that you actually linked to a rather sound debunking and humiliation of your YEC hero Jeff Tompkins, whose anti-evolution claims were laid waste to, but I'm guessing you didn't realize that?


And later :

"If this paper's claims were true, this would be a major win for the case against common descent. Unfortunately they aren't and I think the author knows this since the BLASTN search he ran would have told him something very different to the claims he makes in this paper.

His primary concern here seems to be to convince creationists who aren't going to fact check his claims (since the ARJ is read almost exclusively by those looking for anything to confirm their religious beliefs regarding human origins)"

So - thanks for the heads up! Yet another source debunking a claim of Tompkins and showing how dishonest creationists can be!

Click to expand...

Honestly I am involved in too many things at the same time in scientific forums and I can only tell you this.

If I gave you the link it was solid lol.

I am betting that it was more then solid if I would go back and try and remember that link and go back into the thread.

The problem is I move on after reading and so you have me at a slight disadvantaged that could be corrected pretty quick.

PsychoSarah said:

-_- what do you mean "tanonomically restricted"? That would imply that only organisms along a specific lineage have the inactive pseudogene form, but this is not the case. Aside from humans, guinea pigs, some species of bats, and some species of birds have the inactive form. In these cases, it is considered to be caused by independent mutations that resulted in the loss. This is heavily evidenced by the fact that the mutations that render the gene inactive are not the same between these lineages, and various bat, primate, and bird species retain the active form.

It isn't the pseudogene itself that supports shared ancestry; it is the fact that all of these groups have sequences relating to the gene in the first place, despite the fact that it is a pseudogene and thus unnecessary for function in many of them. What creator would bother to put a broken sequence in so many different organisms?



-_- this again missed the point that it is the presence of GULO in the first place, not how it became broken in each lineage, that is considered evidence for shared ancestry. For you, a person that believes in a creator, it makes absolutely no sense for pseudogenes to exist in the first place.


-_- humans split off from chimpanzees 13 million years ago (and farther back for other apes), so of course there are some genes NOT shared between those lineages. I have no idea what sort of gene you think would in and of itself demonstrate that humans aren't closely related to chimps without implying close relationship with some other species.


-_- there will be some genetic similarity between humans and bats because both organisms are mammals. Humans are thus more genetically similar to bats than, say, snakes. What would defy our understanding of evolution would be a fish or something that humans were more genetically similar to than other mammals, etc.

Click to expand...

If this "entity" created the universe then why not allow for free will in all things? And why not subject it to destructive properties? In other words the creation will not retain indefinitely but will degrade.

Why would you want to live on this planet forever?

Speedwell said:

But clearly not the only reason.

Click to expand...

what do you mean? I am driven against atheism in a huge way I will never deny that. So what?

Speedwell said:

If you are no longer an atheist it is because you have come to believe in a god. Which god? How did you choose?

Click to expand...

I believe in the god of math.

there can be no other God.

Speedwell said:

If you are no longer an atheist it is because you have come to believe in a god. Which god? How did you choose?

Click to expand...

Honestly I like this question and I hate it.

The truth is that I do believe in the God of math. My god must live inside of math he must breathe it. If not then he is no God.

But such a creature should require I guess some type of response on my part. I should do something. I should make some type of choice. Am I obligated? I don't know. But I think so.

I am in torture. I am in limbo. I am strangled by my former beliefs that hinder me from going forward.

Now what?
I don't know.

But I don't have to know these things in order to debate anyone on whether there is a god. That part is easy its just math and science. If you want to get into logic and morality I don't think it helps your cause or mine.

Nothing helps me now but to work on the knowledge I now know.

Its no comfort

some more of my notes:

...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail -- no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process. pg8



...after all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end -- no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. Pg 214-215



…every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. pg209



...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science. pg210

[I. L. Cohen mathematician, researcher and author Darwin was Wrong -- A Study in Probabilities, 1984]



Antony Flew, a British philosopher, Oxford professor and leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century, said it best:



"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Well, at age 81, Flew honestly followed the evidence and renounced his atheism, concluding that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. He declared, "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."



I would say that was the same for me the more I looked the more it became obvious. If you want to look at pop science from Popular Science or Scientific American or any other mainstream established sources then it becomes a little more difficult to find the truth because the truth is often barried in their own pages. When you awake you become tuned to words like “appears” “looks like” “might be” “invisioned” and so on. When we look at hard data like lab work and math we see a different picture and that is what is making many of us former atheists leave the ship.



The late biologist Lynn Margulis, a well-respected member of the National Academy of Sciences until her death in 2011, once said "new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired."44 She further explained in a 2011 interview:

[N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.

Lynn Margulis quoted in "Lynn Margulis: Q + A," Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011).

Speedwell said:

You believe in an axiomatic formal system? A human construct?

Click to expand...

Honestly I should just data dump by notes hahahaaha

Oh man this is crazy.

you don't want the data dump lol

"it remains a mystery how the undirected process of mutation, combined with natural selection, has resulted in the creation of thousands of new proteins with extraordinarily diverse and well optimized functions. This problem is particularly acute for tightly integrated molecular systems that consist of many interacting parts…"
Wait what?
How is that I have so many scientists saying this over and over and over again?

We have a problem ladies and gentlemen.
We have a problem in what we are told and what scientists are actually saying.

Stop believing what you were told.

It is wrong.

VirOptimus said:

If you want to challange established science you write an article for peer-review.

If you cant then your views dont matter.

Click to expand...

Is that what you think? So then what happens when establishment takes control as it did before Darwin?

VirOptimus said:

If you want to challange established science you write an article for peer-review.

If you cant then your views dont matter.

Click to expand...

Wait I have to be a scientist in order to have an opinion?

But what if everyone of us is a scientist? What if everyone of us has a stake in this and we all are able to decipher the science that is before us? Why should we even be allowed to put forth a debate on a forum? What makes you think that you or myself is better then anyone else to make an argument? And what would make our arguments better then anyone elses? Who am I?

I am garbage.

I will admit it. I hate it but it is truth.

I am nothing and yet I do have a right to fight you in your ignorance.

And I will fight you in your ignorance.

Why shouldn't I? Am I I'm no garbage so low that I am not worthy of fighting you?

I would say no.

"there is no compelling empirical or theoretical evidence that complexity, modularity, redundancy or other features of genetic pathways are promoted by natural selection."

Michael Lynch, "The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes," Nature Reviews Genetics, 8:803-813 (October, 2007).

Notes on one section:
(Data Dump) lol

One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.

[George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954.]



What I find interesting is that from the start from origin of life to evolution what we are looking at is an alternative to an intelligent designer. In order to form a theory to replace the idea of an original intelligent designer you have to come up with something that sounds reasonable. But in the end it is a theory. And the theory changes over and over again because ultimately it is an attempt to find that alternative. For example now we are looking at thermal vents, clay, ponds that were dry then wet then dry, and on and on. But there never was any proof for any of this. But these theories must be created otherwise we have to deal with the dreaded “designer”. And no one really wants that.



Evidence for Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any mechanical machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer.



Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." By this authoritative definition, living systems are also recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level.



Back in the mid-1700's, David Hume successfully invalidated the "machine" analogy in biologic systems because we could only guess at what existed at the molecular level. However, the phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades have finally and unequivocally demonstrated that living systems are, in fact, machines - even to the deepest, molecular level!



The analogy between organisms and machines has at last become convincing… In every direction the biochemist gazes, as he journeys through the weird molecular labyrinth, he sees devices and appliances reminiscent of our world of advanced technology.



Because of the metaphysical implications of life resulting from "Intelligent Design", a surprisingly large number of us seek to reject the foregoing statements and find a mechanism by which complex biologic machines may arise naturally by unguided processes. https://www.allaboutthejourney.org (I believe this site was written by a former atheist like myself)



I would add that I myself had a serious problem leaving my own atheism upon seeing the information for myself. It was easy for me to just say “well we are here there is no God so some how it happened”. But this is shallow and won’t last and it didn’t. As I dug deeper I began to see the truth and the reason for this website.



When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!

[George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954.]



Notice how way back in the 50’s you can see even in the Scientific American that people were seeing the religion of evolution take shape. Now though the solidification and radicalization of this religion is near if not complete. Now it would be impossible to see something like this in Scientific American. Believe me I read SA all the time. Their unrestrained hatred and destain for those that don’t agree is on display pretty much every month. I will be doing my best to show you this. That will be able to be found in [[[[[[[Killing the Designer]]]]]]]



H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK), continues:

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.



They are bending and bending at that is why it is important to show it in their failed theories we have a section for that here [[[[[[failed theories]]]]]]





…an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.

[Charles B. Thaxton, PhD in Chemistry and Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University]



When we look at the math of this we can see it is impossible look for that here [[[[ID Math]]]]





In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 10^40,000.

[Mark Eastman, MD, Creation by Design, T.W.F.T. Publishers, 1996]



And then this fun gem:

Sir Fred Hoyle compared the probability of life arising by chance to lining up 1050 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik's Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment.



But for me this is of course beyond something reasonoble any reasonable person should consider but yet as a former atheist I held on tight. Until I realized you had to do something like millions of times in a row. That’s when I jumped off the ship into the cold ice waters of ID. Its cold because you said to be an idiot but its refreshing because the cold wakes you up.



So the atheists out there will say thats just arguing by incredulity and all you have is a bunch of big math equations and so on. Well then I am incredulase by the numbers that are only on the side of ID and not on the side of Atheism. The math is completely and horribly agaisnt Atheism. That alone should be enough but there are plenty of other things you will find on this and other websites. It is what it is. You may not like it but the math and the science is the math and the science. I won’t fight it.



The Miller-Urey experiments will brought up from time to time to explain the origin of life even though it has been completely abandoned by scientists. This is because there can be a lag and a forward leaning curve in academia regarding scientific theory. The reason is because in colleges and universities the religion is strongest. But science has left this theory in the dust:



UC Santa Cruz origin-of-life theorist David Deamer explains this in the journal Microbiology & Molecular Biology Reviews:

This optimistic picture began to change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers…



The problem is so great that now we have to look for alien seeding or multi-verse possabilities. That is where our number one atheist scientist is at now Richard Dawkins. He must go to the Sci-Fi realm because anything else would be “Designer” and well “Designer” is off the table no matter what so anything is fine as long as it still gives us hope. Consider this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=oO0QRUX4HGE



Does this sound like a man trying to find the truth or a man trying to find a lifeline to keep his belief?

These were exactly the types of things that made me abandon atheism. I knew there was something completely off.



Assume for a moment that there was some way to produce simple organic molecules on the early Earth. Perhaps they did form a "primordial soup," or perhaps these molecules arose near some hydrothermal vent. Either way, origin of life theorists must then explain how amino acids or other key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like proteins (or RNA).

Chemically speaking, however, the last place you'd want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the "primordial soup" or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored." In other words, water breaks protein chains back down into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.

Richard Van Noorden, "RNA world easier to make," Nature news (May 13, 2009), http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html



This is the problem but there are many other problems in order for the Ribose sugar to form it would be difficult for the nucletides to form and so on. So you would need a very crazy environment that would allow for the impossible to happen first before we get into the impossible math of it forming in the first place. So from the start we see an environment that is very difficulty to imagine or construct but even if it was perfect we would still be faced with the impossible math.



It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. … [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.

Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, 33: 335-338 (September, 1971).



The Origin of Life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. It begins to place life, and us, in the universe. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea.

George M. Whitesides, "Revolutions In Chemistry: Priestley Medalist George M. Whitesides' Address," Chemical and Engineering News, 85: 12-17 (March 26, 2007).











The problem when we look at real life is that is beyond simple explanations and can be better understood in the information we see inside of the Cell or the DNA or the GRN’s etc.



So we have to then ask the obvious:

But what if the instructions for building the first DVD player were only found encoded on a DVD? You could never play the DVD to learn how to build a DVD player. So how did the first disk and DVD player system arise? The answer is obvious: a goal directed process -- intelligent design -- is required to produce both the player and the disk at the same time.



Yes of course we have a problem of design. How do we explain design without explaining design? How can we formulate a process that could possibly do something intelligent without being intelligent?



These are the thoughts that seriously sparked my imagination. I was always interested in science but when this information became available to me I was seriously charged with something. Imagination. Questions. The ability to test my own beliefs. The ability to test anything coming before me. It was then that I knew I was hooked and that I wanted in. I wanted to know more. Could it be that there is some type of “detection” that is possible for the “designer”? Would something like that be possible? What if I simply started to think objectively and began testing everything? No one has a hold on me I owe nothing to anyone I will make my own way … type of thing. And no theory would be considered “true” until it can be proven. Sounds crazy but that's what I did.



"New approaches to investigating the origin of the genetic code are required. The constraints of historical science are such that the origin of life may never be understood."

J.T. Trevors and D.L. Abel, "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life," Cell Biology International, 28: 729-739 (2004).



No doubt we may never get to an understanding if our methodology is corrupt from the outset.

Its on!
I am fully motivated!
I am ...... all in!