An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[FormerAtheist]

Evolution (the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations) is a fact, it has been observed many times in many different circumstances.

The Theory of Evolution, a framework that explains the fact of evolution, is not a fact, it's a theory. Theories are not factual, they are explanations for facts and they are supported by, or can be falsified by, facts.

Having said that, the principle on which the ToE is based is factual - given a population with heritable characteristics that vary between individuals, and where certain variations of those characteristics lead to more, or less, reproductive success, those characteristics, in the population as a whole, will change over successive generations.

This change has been observed in real populations (i.e. the fact of evolution, as above), and it is also a fact that biological populations do have heritable characteristics that vary between individuals, and that certain variations of those characteristics do lead to more, or less, reproductive success.

So the ToE does have a strong factual basis, but it also builds on that to explain the various ways that this process plays out and the mechanisms that underlie it.

Then why do so many scientists have serious problems with TOE? Why is the evidence coming out going completely against it? Why is the tree of life torn to shreds? Why is the genetic research showing a completely different picture. When we need things to line up they appear random when we don't need them to line up they line up. Nothing makes sense of the current data unless their is design.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Not sure what you mean.
Science is based on the idea that God does not interfere with the natural world, and as a result the physical aspects of matter can be counted on not to change due to supernatural influence.
Many Christians also believe this as well and support the scientific investigation of our world.

Well of course Christians are on board with science since they practically invented it. I agree that God designed the universe to not need his constant input to give free will to all. This does not mean that he didn't create it in the first place.

 

[FormerAtheist]

What have my credentials got to do with anything. Arguments are good or bad depending on the argument itself, not who says it.



You are still saying that science is not on the side of atheists, and never was. You are repeating your claim, when what I actually asked was for you to support your claim. Which you haven't done.



No, atheists (at least myself) do not think that we 'own' science. However, your claim that 'all modern science came from Christians is demonstrably wrong. There are many scientists that are not Christian. Either those who belong to other religions or who have no religion at all. E.g. Ibn al-Haytham.



Can we please stop with the posturing, and actually discuss real evidence. E.g. can you support your clais.



Yes, I agree on that. But, we didn't need to do that. You could simply start by justifying your claims and providing evidence.



Please support your claims.

Modern science came from Christians as well as others that believe in God. Also modern universities, hospitals, orphanages and the best governmental system humans have ever known. You are not asking me what specifically you want me show you. Ask and you shall receive.

 

[FormerAtheist]

If only Creationists could understand and accept this point, then around 99.5% of arguments on evolution versus creation could be eliminated. Of course, then I would have to take up lawn bowls to pass the time.

Well there are all those atheist evolutionary biologist scientists that are having a serious problem with TOE. The ship is sinking.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, that's not the case. Science is based on the assumption that there are observable patterns of behaviour in nature, and we may be able to explain how they're causally related.If God detectably interfered with the natural world, or if miracles could be shown to happen, scientists would collect those observations and attempt to explain them.

But that is not possible, because the scientific method requires repeatable observations.
You don't seem to understand Science. It does not allow for supernatural interventions.
They ARE NOT ALLOWed in scientific discovery. They are ruled out. Only natural,
repeatable, observations fit into the scientific method model.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then why do so many scientists have serious problems with TOE?

Which scientists? what do they say?

Why is the evidence coming out going completely against it? Why is the tree of life torn to shreds? Why is the genetic research showing a completely different picture.

It isn't. If that were true, biology would be turned upside down, and both the academic publications and popular science publications would be full of the story - but they're not.

When we need things to line up they appear random when we don't need them to line up they line up. Nothing makes sense of the current data unless their is design.

Design isn't necessary - perhaps you've heard a biased account of the situation.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well there are all those atheist evolutionary biologist scientists that are having a serious problem with TOE. The ship is sinking.

Go ahead. Name three, with citations to the papers wherein this serious problem is revealed. Heck, just name one, with an appropriate citation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But that is not possible, because the scientific method requires repeatable observations.
You don't seem to understand Science. It does not allow for supernatural interventions.
They ARE NOT ALLOWed in scientific discovery. They are ruled out. Only natural,
repeatable, observations fit into the scientific method model.

Hmm, well I had a career as a research scientist, and I have some familiarity with the philosophy of science, so I do understand how science works.

Science says nothing about the supernatural. It deals only with describing and explaining what can be observed - if it can be observed, science will address it. Of course, without repeatable observations, explanations are less likely to be found, or will have a lower confidence level; but the real point is that 'the supernatural' is not a useful hypothesis (it's untestable, makes no predictions, has no explanatory power or scope, is not parsimonious, and isn't consistent with existing knowledge [preferred]).

And, let's face it, you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable, so 'the supernatural' isn't an explanation. As science deals with explanations, it won't be invoking 'the supernatural'.

So, as I said, unexplained phenomena will remain unexplained until an explanation is found. The supernatural isn't an explanation, so it simply won't be invoked by scientists.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hmm, well I had a career as a research scientist, and I have some familiarity with the philosophy of science, so I do understand how science works.

Science says nothing about the supernatural. It deals only with describing and explaining what can be observed - if it can be observed, science will address it. Of course, without repeatable observations, explanations are less likely to be found; but the real point is that 'the supernatural' is not a useful hypothesis (untestable, makes no predictions, has no explanatory power or scope, is not parsimonious, and isn't consistent with existing knowledge [preferred]).

And, let's face it, you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable, so 'the supernatural' isn't an explanation. As science deals with explanations, it won't be invoking 'the supernatural'.

So, as I said, unexplained phenomena will remain unexplained until an explanation is found. The supernatural isn't an explanation, so it simply won't be invoked by scientists.

That's exactly my point. Supernatural explanations are not an option in science.
They must be ruled out in favor of repeatable observations. Those are the rules.
Supernatural forces are not repeatable, observable, or recordable. They are not an option.

The real process of science - Understanding Science

 

[FormerAtheist]

Nobody in evolution says that complexity just arose by chance. Hence, if that's your summary of the book, then the book is useless as it is not addressing the theory of evolution but something completely different that nobody claims to be true.

There are three principles of nessisity that have allways been apart of TOE.
1. Random Selection.
2. Survival of the fittest.
3. TIME
There were of course many that thought that random processes could do everything in combination with the other two until we began to look at the math involved. Then that had to abandoned. So now we have a theory of processes governed by predefined laws of order. For example this chemical would have a better chance at bonding with that chemical or this amino acid will bond better or instead of 20 amino acids we can divide them into 3 ... those that hate water and those that love water and then those where it is not much of an issue. But all experiments on these fronts have shown that instead of these theories helping they become a problem. There is now no known process that reduces the mathematical problems that have to be overcome to allow for evolution and Abiogenesis.

Your second bit is irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution at all as it can easily arise through evolution. In the irreducible complexity arguments from creationists, there is again the problem of a completely wrong assumption about how evolution works.

This is a common misconception that I see often. It assumes that an irreducibly complex system or organism can come together by having a need for its multiple parts. But what if none of the parts are necessary until they come together. What happen when developing any of the parts will kill the organism unless they are built to spec as designed, assembled in proper order and done with no mistakes? Such as blood clotting. Now you have a very serious problem.

 

[FormerAtheist]

But that is not possible, because the scientific method requires repeatable observations.
You don't seem to understand Science. It does not allow for supernatural interventions.
They ARE NOT ALLOWed in scientific discovery. They are ruled out. Only natural,
repeatable, observations fit into the scientific method model.

This is a very common misconception for many. There are two types of science. There is the operational sciences which can be subjected to the processes you refer to. Then there are the historical which is what we are looking at. In the historical we are looking for causes of past events. That requires a different method.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Go ahead. Name three, with citations to the papers wherein this serious problem is revealed. Heck, just name one, with an appropriate citation.

What if I named 500?

https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/

 

[Belk]

It takes belief to believe in nothing, as it takes belief to believe in something, unless you chose to live life in the moment only.

It would appear you have no idea what atheism entails. Atheists do not "believe in nothing".

 

[Belk]

Same thing, different wording.

I would disagree but as long was we both agree science simply does not deal with miracles it is all good.

 

[Gene2memE]

I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it.

'Science' and 'the creation of life as we know it' were irrelevant to my decision concerning belief in deities. Skepticism was the pivot on which my decision hinged.

To the best I can determine, there is no good evidence that supports the existence of deities, and there is plenty of good evidence against the supposition that some god exists.

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 never settled, it just reaches a point where it is so well established evidentially that attempting to overturn it is futile - evolution by natural selection has reached such a point.

Science is not on the side of Atheism

Science doesn't take sides on positions of belief. Science concerns itself solely with the natural world, and is methodologically excluded from considering questions of a supernatural nature.

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.

See, I don't believe you.

You don't read like someone who is familiar with the philosophical and methodological underpinnings of the sciences;
You don't read like someone who is familiar with basics of evolutionary biology;
You don't read like someone who is familiar with the history of the debate over evolutionary biology;
You do read like someone who is regurgitating basic creationist talking points, but doesn't actually understand them.

In short, I think you're either not being honest in how you represent yourself, or have overestimated your knowledge of the topic to such a degree that you've essentially deluded yourself about your expertise - see the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[Belk]

You say in here the multiple steps but its worse then that. We need coordinated steps coming together at the same time or in a specific sequence. In science lingo we need multiple evolutionary lines converging. This takes the math from impossible to impossible squared.

Very well, show us the math.

 

[Gene2memE]

What if I named 500?

https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/

Of the now ~880 names on the list, abut a third are not actually scientists.

Of the remaining names on the list, only about 2% are practicing biologists - that is, employed in either a practical, research or teaching position - and less than 25 names on the list are PhD biologists.

Of these, better than a dozen earned their doctorates in universities that are Evangelical Christian diploma mills - like Oral Roberts, Leadership University, Liberty University or Cedarville University - which require faculty to ascribe to positions of faith, some including young earth creationism.

So that leaves about 10 or so PhD biologists on the list. A little less than 0.1% of all PhD biologists in the US.

However, this list only states that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

This does not mean they have "serious problems" with The Theory of Evolutionary Biology. Rather that they are skeptical of claims - a position that does not entail automatic rejection. Also, getting one's name off the list appears to be a near impossibility. One scientist was horrified to find his name on the list and spent ~7 years trying to get it scrubbed.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is a very common misconception for many. There are two types of science. There is the operational sciences which can be subjected to the processes you refer to. Then there are the historical which is what we are looking at. In the historical we are looking for causes of past events. That requires a different method.

"History" is the documentation of the past in writing.

Please point to this alternate method you have in mind.
I'll get you started:
historical scientific method - Google Search

 

[FormerAtheist]

Very well, show us the math.

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.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

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.

My conclusion might have been basic but I was at Church yesterday for a creation seminar and the Big Bang was explained as nonsense but that we believe it because it's a logical conclusion when you reverse entropy for long enough.