An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[Skreeper]

I'm ok with that but I think what I was asking was how we are here now. You do not have to explain the big bang or anything before it you don't.

But you must explain how we got life from non life and how we got to complex life after that. The burden of proof is on you. You must do this. If you can not then there is a designer.

I don't know how we got life from non-life but all the evidence we have gathered so far point towards a natural cause.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it. I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.

As far as evolution goes, yes, the science definatly is settled on that topic.
As for the claim that science "proves no god"... where did you hear that?
I don't think I've ever encountered someone claiming to be able to disprove the unfalsifiable...

Science is not on the side of Atheism and that is why I turned away from it.

Science is neutral on the topic of (a)theism. Science only deals with empirical reality. The supernatural (which is the differentiating aspect between theism and atheism), is not part of the domain of science. Primarily because it is literally defined as outside of what science can evaluate.

I can not do theology or bible debates as I am not a Christian buy I can do science because the science is easy. It leads ti God.

It does not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheism includes a lot of presuppositions

Care to give a couple of examples?

 

[FormerAtheist]

I don't know how we got life from non-life but all the evidence we have gathered so far point towards a natural cause.

Really how so>?
Can you site an experiment that show us getting from non life to life in any way?
Are you going with Mueller?
Either way ... lets do this.

 

[FormerAtheist]

As far as evolution goes, yes, the science definatly is settled on that topic.
As for the claim that science "proves no god"... where did you hear that?
I don't think I've ever encountered someone claiming to be able to disprove the unfalsifiable...



Science is neutral on the topic of (a)theism. Science only deals with empirical reality. The supernatural (which is the differentiating aspect between theism and atheism), is not part of the domain of science. Primarily because it is literally defined as outside of what science can evaluate.



It does not.

Honestly I think you are confusing me with someone or some other debate lol.
I am pretty specific. As I have learned to do after many a debate. I will never run I can back everything up that I say and will not hide. I will show you respect. But ... then there is that but.

Where did I say that Science "proves no god".
That is not your problem. Your problem is far more serious then that. You have to prove that we can have the universe we have right now without a design.

Go.

 

[Skreeper]

Really how so>?
Can you site an experiment that show us getting from non life to life in any way?
Are you going with Mueller?
Either way ... lets do this.

I mainly refer to this one:
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

It didn't prove that life comes from non-life but this experiment and several others after that have shown that the building blocks of life can come about through natural processes.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I mainly refer to this one:
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia

It didn't prove that life comes from non-life but this experiment and several others after that have shown that the building blocks of life can come about through natural processes.

Ok I hear you I have seen that experiment in detail and I messed up when I said Mueller I meant Miller I get those two mixed up because of some other things. But there are some serious problems in that the reducing gasses that were present in the atmosphere of the beaker was not present at the time of supposed Abiogenesis. The beaker by way of design had some controls in place and even then what actually happened>?

The ID and creationist crowd will tell you that nothing happened. That is not true. Something did happen. We all know what happened there were some amino acids ... this was astounding. What an amazing level of science to be sure. They were able to create molecules out of random chemicals and a random process.

But how many amino acids? Remember we are going to need 20.

For a Protein molecule of normal length we are going to need what 300 or more? so that will be ... 1 in 10 to the 80 on average or way beyond.

Saying you got 3 amino acids out of 20 with the wrong atmosphere and then assuming they will combine the right way .... uhhhh so the space station randomly floated itself together?

 

[Skreeper]

Ok I hear you I have seen that experiment in detail and I messed up when I said Mueller I meant Miller I get those two mixed up because of some other things. But there are some serious problems in that the reducing gasses that were present in the atmosphere of the beaker was not present at the time of supposed Abiogenesis. The beaker by way of design had some controls in place and even then what actually happened>?

The ID and creationist crowd will tell you that nothing happened. That is not true. Something did happen. We all know what happened there were some amino acids ... this was astounding. What an amazing level of science to be sure. They were able to create molecules out of random chemicals and a random process.

But how many amino acids? Remember we are going to need 20.

For a Protein molecule of normal length we are going to need what 300 or more? so that will be ... 1 in 10 to the 80 on average or way beyond.

Saying you got 3 amino acids out of 20 with the wrong atmosphere and then assuming they will combine the right way .... uhhhh so the space station randomly floated itself together?

Your personal incredulity is not a valid argument against something.

I can only tell you what the experts say since I am not a scientist. If you have a problem with established science then please publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal and get famous!

But until that happens I'll stick with the experts, thanks.

 

[Freodin]

I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it. I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.

Science is not on the side of Atheism and that is why I turned away from it. I can not do theology or bible debates as I am not a Christian buy I can do science because the science is easy. It leads ti God.

That's the problem with your approach. The science does not lead to God. It cannot lead to God. It must not lead to God... not because of how "science" does it, but how "theology" does it.

What you propose is the ultimate black box. You disregard the mechanisms that are observed and the hypotheses that are extrapolated from that, because you disagree with them. In exchange, you propose a solution that is completely unobservered, completely unobservable, excluded from "natural means"... and is simply defined as "being able to do that, don't ask any further questions".

Sorry, but that is not science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was not explaining like that go back and look at what I said. I was talking about Quantum Physics in the natural way. In other words we have to look at things a bit ... well a ton different when we explain quantum physics that's just well obvious. Its not to the natural way of thinking ... it is not something that comes natural lol. Its "spooky stuff".

It turns out that quantum physics is entirely natural - we, and everything we experience around us, is quantum mechanical. Everyday experience is what quantum mechanics is like at a macro scale.

But at micro scales, quantum mechanics is counterintuitive, it doesn't behave in ways we're accustomed to. It doesn't feel natural because we're only familiar with natural phenomena in a very limited range of scales. But exactly the same applies to other aspects of the natural world that are beyond our everyday experience; e.g. relativistic phenomena, the scale of the universe, deep time, etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Honestly I think you are confusing me with someone or some other debate lol.

No. Instead, I'm replying to the specific things that you yourself have said. I quoted your post and responded to those specific quotes.

I am pretty specific. As I have learned to do after many a debate. I will never run I can back everything up that I say and will not hide. I will show you respect. But ... then there is that but.

Where did I say that Science "proves no god".

Here, note the bolded part:

I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it. I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.

You claimed that people are saying that to you in "debates".
So I asked you where you heared such, because I have personally never met anyone who claimed such....

That is not your problem. Your problem is far more serious then that. You have to prove that we can have the universe we have right now without a design.

Why would I have to prove claims that I'm not making?
I don't know how the universe came about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok I hear you I have seen that experiment in detail and I messed up when I said Mueller I meant Miller I get those two mixed up because of some other things. But there are some serious problems in that the reducing gasses that were present in the atmosphere of the beaker was not present at the time of supposed Abiogenesis. The beaker by way of design had some controls in place and even then what actually happened>?

The ID and creationist crowd will tell you that nothing happened. That is not true. Something did happen. We all know what happened there were some amino acids ... this was astounding. What an amazing level of science to be sure. They were able to create molecules out of random chemicals and a random process.

But how many amino acids? Remember we are going to need 20.

For a Protein molecule of normal length we are going to need what 300 or more? so that will be ... 1 in 10 to the 80 on average or way beyond.

Saying you got 3 amino acids out of 20 with the wrong atmosphere and then assuming they will combine the right way .... uhhhh so the space station randomly floated itself together?

Several things are wrong with your objections.

The most obvious being that you can not take present day life, which is the result of (at least) 3.8 billion years of evolution, and project such a developed and evolved cell as being what abiogenesis researches should be looking for.

Secondly, nobody is claiming that what happened in the Miller experiment is THE way by which the building blocks of life HAVE originated on this planet. Not at all.

The reason this experiment is important, is quite simply because it demonstrated that there ARE pathways by which such complex organic molecules CAN arise through natural processes....

It acts as a red flag for whenever someone wishes to claim that a certain thing is "too complex" to come about naturally.

The Miller experiment demonstrated one way on how such complex chemistry can occur naturally. And ONE such way, is enough to demonstrate that it's not only possible but also plausible.

All in all, your entire objection seems to center entirely around personal incredulity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I will give you props mostly because of the first paragraph but also because your arguments show intelligence. It is what it is. If you have a strong argument then we can all see it. Can be no denying it. I think Quantum Physics may have something a bit different on the argument you lay out but in the end I like your argument.

I was never a fan by the way of the super-natural argument on either side but I at the same time it just seems to me to have a problem that I can't quite word as good as you did on the rebuttal.

But Super Natural is never a thing to put your hat on. Its too ... elusive. Like the beginning of the beginning. I hate argueing that stuff ... its just theoretical.

but others like you have a better mind for that type of thing. I will submit for now.

Thanks for the positive comments. I will try not to feel patronised

The problem I see with concepts like the supernatural, the paranormal, and spirit worlds/realms, is that they are generally undefined, ill-defined, or incoherent.

The definitions (if provided) are vague and nebulous, or attempt to define them by what they are not. This gives plenty of wiggle room, but some problems are intractable, such as the problem of interaction, the idea that the non-physical or immaterial (again, an attempt to define something by what it isn't) can physically act on the physical world; this seems to want it both ways - to both be and not be part of the physical world. This kind of contradiction also seems characteristic of 'magical thinking', such as superstition.

We do seem to have an unfortunate tendency to reify our imaginings on the flimsiest of 'evidence'. I blame HAD (Hyperactive Agency Detection).

 

[Ophiolite]

Ok ok ... fine all nice points but do you remember the actual question?

Could I name one?

No. Gen2 remembered the question. You didn't. The question was not "Can you name one", the question, phrased as a challenge, was "Go ahead. Name three, with citations to the papers wherein this serious problem is revealed. Heck, just name one, with an appropriate citation."

After I prodded you, you did come up with what you considered to be an answer, but your first effort was either incompetent, or insulting, depending on whether you didn't understand what I was asking for, or thought you could get away with the nonsense list you posted. I understood you wanted a serious discussion. If so, get serious.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I don't know how you arrived at your former atheism, but your remarks to Gene2memE suggest it is not how most atheists and agnotics reach their worldview. Just for the record I was raised in a Christian environment, attended Church on a regular basis and made a regular study of the Bible. Family and friends, observing my behviour and interests presumed I would enter the ministry.

I recall giving an impassioned talk to fellow students about the importance of faith when I was 15, or 16. However, as I reflected on that position over the following years, it became less tenable. (I remarked to another member last week that I have no faith in faith.) I was not seduced away from Christianity by science, or by the "bright lights", but driven away by its inherent contradictions.

From what I have seen on this forum to date most of the atheists or agnostics have comparable stories, or simply never became influenced by theistic thinking.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... you must explain how we got life from non life and how we got to complex life after that. The burden of proof is on you. You must do this. If you can not then there is a designer.

False dichotomy; there is at least one other option, 'unknown'. The fact that we don't have a complete understanding of abiogenesis doesn't mean there is a designer; and if we do find a plausible natural explanation for abiogenesis, it doesn't mean it happened that way - nor does it exclude a designer.

You fallacy can be reversed: if you wish to claim a designer, the burden of proof is on you; if you can't, then life arose, and evolution proceeded, naturally - without a designer.

See how that works?

However, the natural hypothesis has a number of advantages over the designer hypothesis: it makes testable predictions, it has wider scope and explanatory power, it is more parsimonious (requiring no additional ontological entities), it is more conservative (cohering better with what we already know), and - importantly - it doesn't try to explain the unexplained with the unexplained or inexplicable (whether the designer is a natural entity or not, it requires an additional level of explanation).

So, all things being equal (i.e. if the evidence favours neither hypothesis, or both equally) the natural hypothesis is preferred over the designer hypothesis. As it happens, the evidence from abiogenesis research strongly suggests a natural origin is possible, and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming - although our explanations for the mechanisms involved are continually being refined.

The evidence for a designer? Meh...

 

[Ophiolite]

But you must explain how we got life from non life and how we got to complex life after that. The burden of proof is on you. You must do this. If you can not then there is a designer.

You need a course in logic.

1. Science does not prove things. Science has never proved things. Science never will prove things. It's not what science does. It's not what science is for.
2. What science does is to make observations, form hypotheses, collect evidence, test the hypotheses, amend, or abandon them, as appropriate and produce a (constantly moving) best explanation for the aforementioned observations.
3. Using the approach outlined in 2, science has produced an outstanding theory as to how the diversity of life arose. The fundamentals of this theory are as well established as any theory in science. (Remember, in science, nothing rates higher than a theory.) The origin of life is a work in process, but several plausible options are being actively investigated.
4. [Side note: if it emerged tomorrow that life originated through the actions of a deity it would not alter the theory of evolution by one jot.]
5. If we cannot demonstrate that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the diversity of life this could mean one of the following:
1. We are incompetent.
2. We just haven't got there yet.
3. There is an alien intelligence from a galaxy, far, far away that is behind it all.
4. There is a deity that is behind it all. The deities name is Thor.
5. Continue with variants of 4, substituting a deity of your choice.

Finally, it would make it easier to take you seriously if you dropped the faux sixties hippies persona and posted like a grown up. Thank you for giving that some consideration.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Your personal incredulity is not a valid argument against something.

I can only tell you what the experts say since I am not a scientist. If you have a problem with established science then please publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal and get famous!

But until that happens I'll stick with the experts, thanks.

Fine accepted and noted but also note this.
Miller already went back on the experiment with Uhler. The scientific community including the one of the original participants has actually moved on. Its ridiculous that this experiment is still talked about or mentioned in textbooks lol.

 

[Belk]

Well then lets talk about the DNA information processing system. We must have a dozen macromolecules that would each need to over come the combinatorial problems and then coordinate. So lets go with 70 times 12 or 1 in 10 to the 840th power. Remember we will need transcription, translation adapter molecules as well as multiple gene sequences. Honestly I can go deeper. WAY DEEPER. Lets talk about each gene sequence and its probability and then multiply it by thousands. By time your done you would need trillions of universes squared with all the time in each to form this one information processing system and we havn't even dealt with the epigenetic information as well as other systems that must coordinate. The math is not on the side of the no design argument. You will loose every time on that one and loose fast and hard. Most scientists know this and so are trying to find a way out of this problem. I can show you a video of Richard Dawkins getting caught by an atheist mentor scientist when he realizes that the math is not on his side.

It is over whelming. Did you think I said any of that lightly? Did you think I said it and couldn't back it up?

If you did you were wrong.
Seriously wrong.

The science and the math is not on the side of Atheism and that is why I left it.

Wow. Trillions of universes squared huh? That's almost as much as 70 times 12 or 1 in 10 to the 840th power. Yes, I can clearly see how that shows the science lingo to be impossible.

 

[Skreeper]

Fine accepted and noted but also note this.
Miller already went back on the experiment with Uhler. The scientific community including the one of the original participants has actually moved on. Its ridiculous that this experiment is still talked about or mentioned in textbooks lol.

At least we know that it is possible for the building blocks of life to come about through a natural process. It may not have been acurate when it comes to the conditions of the earth but that is not the point.

ID people and creationists kept claiming life and its compounds are too complex to come about naturally.

We'll it turns out they were wrong.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ok I hear you I have seen that experiment in detail and I messed up when I said Mueller I meant Miller I get those two mixed up because of some other things. But there are some serious problems in that the reducing gasses that were present in the atmosphere of the beaker was not present at the time of supposed Abiogenesis. The beaker by way of design had some controls in place and even then what actually happened>?

The ID and creationist crowd will tell you that nothing happened. That is not true. Something did happen. We all know what happened there were some amino acids ... this was astounding. What an amazing level of science to be sure. They were able to create molecules out of random chemicals and a random process.

But how many amino acids? Remember we are going to need 20.

For a Protein molecule of normal length we are going to need what 300 or more? so that will be ... 1 in 10 to the 80 on average or way beyond.

Saying you got 3 amino acids out of 20 with the wrong atmosphere and then assuming they will combine the right way .... uhhhh so the space station randomly floated itself together?

There has been a lot of research done, and there are several different kinds of abiogenesis hypotheses. Spontaneous RNA assembly has been demonstrated; spontaneous organization of key metabolic cycles has been demonstrated; self-assembly, growth, and division of vesicles (proto-cells) has been demonstrated, and much more. These promising developments have yet to be integrated to produce simple replicators, but the mood is optimistic among researchers. A major problem is devising suitable environments - thermally dynamic and chemically diverse. 'White smoker' oceanic thermal vents are promising candidates, but other environments (e.g. clays) are being actively researched.

Here's a readable, if dated, summary: The Secret of how Life on Earth began.