An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[Shemjaza]

There are very serious differences between micro and macro. On the micro level the life form stays in its Phylum and does not change the mechanics in a serious way. For example we may need a new respiratory system or ability to drink sea water completely rework the eye design etc. There is no evidence of this because it can't be done. We can't even come up with a hypothetical design.

Totally untrue.

Birds have an interesting method of breathing that integrates with wing beats, but this is not necessary for flight nor is it totally necessary for birds breathing (see birds sleeping, flightless birds). This is a clear example of an adaption that could function in interim stages.

Also eyes. Fish have similar eyes to mammals, even the same unfortunate blindspot in the middle. Eyes are one of the classic issues I see with creationist commentary, a half an eye is actually useful, as they say: "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king".

New genetic information is almost often a bad thing. We did thousands of experiments on Fruit flies for example and not a single one survived long enough to reproduce which is obviously important from an evolutionary perspective. I'm glad you asked for a definition on information as this is very important. There are two types of information "Shanon" information which is just random information and there is specified information. Information that performs function. Because it is necessary for the design of which it is a part. We used to think that 98% of DNA was "Junk" or garbage. We then realized it was 10% useful and 90% junk. Then 50/50. Now we are at over 75% useful and many scientists think it will go to 100%. To get new information for a new Protein fold would require a serious mathematical hurdle to be over come. The process would require searching the combinational possibilities that would lead to the outcome at being less then 1 in 10 to 78power ... This is not reasonable to suggest its possible and that is for one new protein. With a new body plan there will need to be many new proteins and other macro molecules.

I see the mathematics, but I suspect they are built on a flawed axiom, DNA in particular and life in general isn't generated by purely random action, nor is the current make up the only possible structure and the only goal.

But the much bigger problem is "specified information". I have never been presented with a method of measuring and comparing specified information that wasn't a purely subjective hand wave of what the ID proponent thought was better or more useful. Often question begging in the whims of a mysterious and suspiciously unnamed 'designer'.

Actually there was a theory as outlandish as it sounds from one scientist. And that was that perhaps a bird hatched out of a reptile egg. Imagine the shock on the lizards face when one of his kids was a bird. That theory was discarded pretty rapidly.

That idea has far more in common with Young Earth Creationist post flood hyper-evolution then it does with any kind of evolution theory.

The problem with these intermediate transitional species is that we haven't been able to find any. There are some theories of some but there are problems even in those examples but just try to find the ancestor to the Arthropod, Trilopod, Brakeopod or any of the other 20 Phyla's from the Cambrian explosion.

There are very reasonable reasons why Precambrian fossils are rare. It's very long time ago and life didn't have much in the way of hard parts.

Do you consider Cambrian explosion to be a real event? Is modern life diversified from the phyla found in the Cambrian rock?

I think something more interesting is to begin to look at the problems of the theory from a scientific perspective. Did you know that there are many Evolutionary Scientists that are having serious problems with the theory itself. What they are finding is not lining up with what they are seeing within their research.
Issues and Problems with Evolution Theory
Debunking Evolution - Scientific evidence against evolution - Clash between theory and reality

You are mischaracterising the scale and nature of the disagreements about evolution.

Disagreements about specific lineages or the specific speed that certain speciation events occurred do not in any way demonstrate a growing doubt in evolutionary science.

The problem is you would need to go backwards for example to go from Reptile to Avian the bones will have to be hollowed out to allow for the invention of a brand new respiratory system. This has to happen while the reptile is still using the old system and in need of its bones just the way they are. It's like reworking the design of a jet plane while in flight. Not a good idea.

As I said earlier this is untrue. Lighter bones are an advantage for flyers, but not 100% necessary. No one with any real education in evolution is proposing that these changes happen all at once or in single generations.

In the creation of the universe there can only be two possibilities.
Option1. You have an intelligent outside agent that was responsible for life as we know it on some level.
Option2. There was no intelligent outside agent.

You have 3 problems for life as we know it and all 3 need to be correct for atheism works. For those that believe in a creator they only need 1 to be wrong.
1. Creation of the Universe.
2. Creation of life from non-life.
3. Creation of complex life in current forms.

That is exactly the false dichotomy I was talking about.

All our science being wrong doesn't suddenly make creationism right.

Here's a hypothetical: Evolution, Abiogenesis, Big Bang Cosmology, String Theory are all totally wrong:
The Creation of the Universe is a mystery
The Creation of life from non-life is a mystery
The Creation of complex life in current forms is a mystery

See?
No positive evidence for creationism or a creator.

You don't get to just say you are right because another option is wrong. There might be some other completely unknown natural explanation, or some completely different version of creationism or ID as an explanation.

 

[Strathos]

If you think those can't be demonstrated in physical reality, I suggest you go back to the books.

Dark matter has never been demonstrated in physical reality AFAIK. Quantum effects have though.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I have "bro". The last time Nature seriously published anything about major changes in the evolutionary paradigm was a pro/con discussion paper in 2014. Even then, all they were arguing for was an extension to the synthesis, adding elements from developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science.

With the exception of the last one of those, the modern synthesis already included that.




If you think those can't be demonstrated in physical reality, I suggest you go back to the books.

It is really sad seeing a former atheist. It's like you decided to throw out critical thinking and scepticism and replaced it with logical fallacies and wishful thinking.

No actually I just left your camp because your camp does not have anything to back it. You don't have science or math on your side. You have some Giffs and some memes and such but that's about it.

 

[Skreeper]

No actually I just left your camp because your camp does not have anything to back it. You don't have science or math on your side. You have some Giffs and some memes and such but that's about it.

What do we need to back up with math or science? We arent the ones claming there is a magical unexplainable being out there that created the universe.

 

[Shemjaza]

Dark matter has never been demonstrated in physical reality AFAIK. Quantum effects have though.

The effect on galaxies is certainly in the real and observable. The nature and identity is still mysterious, but its existence is demonstrated.

 

[FormerAtheist]

What do we need to back up with math or science? We arent the ones claming there is a magical unexplainable being out there that created the universe.

Are you sure about that?
Can you back up your beliefs on science?
There are only two belief categories in this debate:
1. Everything we see happened with no intelligence.
2. Something we see ... uhhhh anything happened with intelligence.
If I can prove that 1. is false I automatically prove 2 is correct.
You have to provide to most insane evidence ever. You have to show that for the first time in known history we could get life from non-life without any evidence. You have to prove we can get new protein folds without any known mechanism that overcome the random math problems that would be associated with that. You have to show me the missing Pre_Cambrian fossil ancestors to over 20 different Phyla's. You have ... oh none. You have to explain why the genetic information does not line up with anything at all its just ... well ... random.
You have to explain extra ... ordinary ... things.

Go

 

[FormerAtheist]

Dark matter has never been demonstrated in physical reality AFAIK. Quantum effects have though.

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".

 

[FormerAtheist]

The effect on galaxies is certainly in the real and observable. The nature and identity is still mysterious, but its existence is demonstrated.

Wait ... holy meerkat farts ... just go back a second and re read what you wrote.

Think about it for a second. You will see a serious problem ... as in your making the opposite side's point on that on.
Ehh just re think that one for a second just saying.

 

[Skreeper]

Are you sure about that?
Can you back up your beliefs on science?
There are only two belief categories in this debate:
1. Everything we see happened with no intelligence.
2. Something we see ... uhhhh anything happened with intelligence.
If I can prove that 1. is false I automatically prove 2 is correct.
You have to provide to most insane evidence ever. You have to show that for the first time in known history we could get life from non-life without any evidence. You have to prove we can get new protein folds without any known mechanism that overcome the random math problems that would be associated with that. You have to show me the missing Pre_Cambrian fossil ancestors to over 20 different Phyla's. You have ... oh none. You have to explain why the genetic information does not line up with anything at all its just ... well ... random.
You have to explain extra ... ordinary ... things.

Go

I can't and won't do any of those things because I am not a biologist.

So far the evidence that has been presented is explainable without an external intelligence behind it.

Also you missed a third option: We currently don't know, let's continue to investigate.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

No; the point is that nothing is ruled out - but only observable phenomena can be addressed; if there's nothing there to investigate, or no way to test it, it can't be tested. It goes on the 'pending' heap until that changes. If something cannot be observed or tested by definition, then it rules itself out.

Science can only rule out an explanation by testing it - if there's nothing to test, or no way of testing it, science has nothing to say about it. However, if some observable phenomenon is claimed to be of supernatural origin, it is often possible to find a natural explanation for it, in which case the natural explanation is preferred.

If the Ghostbusters or exorcists come up with ways to detect, measure, or otherwise interact with ghosts, spirits, or demons, science will enthusiastically get involved. But at that point a transition occurs - we see that what was an arbitrarily labelled unknown, is actually a novel aspect of the natural world - 'the supernatural' was just another way of saying 'the unknown'.

Supernatural forces are not repeatable, observable, or recordable. They are not an option.

If that's your definition of supernatural, then it has no effects in the world - if it has no observable effects, direct or indirect, then, for practical purposes, it doesn't exist; if it is defined such that it is inaccessible to scientific investigation, the definition itself rules it out - although my understanding was that people do claim that some phenomena are of supernatural origin. Miracles are definitely claimed to be observable and to have been observed, and considerable scientific study has been done on such claims.

The real process of science - Understanding Science

I see nothing about ruling out the supernatural, but see the page on that site that specifically addresses the supernatural: Natural.

Ghosts, for example, are supernatural entities without a basis in the physical universe and so are not subject to the laws of that universe. Hence, ghosts are outside the purview of science, and we cannot study their existence (or lack thereof) with the tools of science. If, however, we hypothesize ghosts to be natural entities, made up of matter and energy and bound by the laws of the universe, then we can study them with the tools of science — and must accept the outcome if the tests we perform suggest that ghosts do not exist as natural entities.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I just want to say something now after a few days because this is a good time to do this.

Has anyone desputed anything I have said? Is anyone fighting me on the math? Can anyone prove that I am so how a secret Romanian Plant that is trying to scam everyone?

Or what if what I am telling you is far deeper then what I said in the beginning. I told you I have debated scientists and you are seeing that now. No one can fight the actual science that is coming out now. Its a serious p

I can't and won't do any of those things because I am not a biologist.

So far the evidence that has been presented is explainable without an external intelligence behind it.

Also you missed a third option: We currently don't know, let's continue to investigate.

Third option sounds like faith. Besides I know the history its not compelling and was a part of the problem for me. It was part of the reason I left Atheism. The history of saying "we will figure it out" but uhhh don't believe in anything other then this. Well that doesn't work. That is not good enough.

No I want real answers to real questions unless the other side has no answers or science to back up their argument. And of course that is exactly what I thought about the "Pro_God" side or the kooks or the creationists or whatever you are labeling or I labeled people that do not think the same.

For the record I do not think that Creationists are kooks ... because their idea seems just as plausible as the evolutionist so whatever.

 

[Skreeper]

I just want to say something now after a few days because this is a good time to do this.

Has anyone desputed anything I have said? Is anyone fighting me on the math? Can anyone prove that I am so how a secret Romanian Plant that is trying to scam everyone?

Or what if what I am telling you is far deeper then what I said in the beginning. I told you I have debated scientists and you are seeing that now. No one can fight the actual science that is coming out now. Its a serious p

Third option sounds like faith. Besides I know the history its not compelling and was a part of the problem for me. It was part of the reason I left Atheism. The history of saying "we will figure it out" but uhhh don't believe in anything other then this. Well that doesn't work. That is not good enough.

No I want real answers to real questions unless the other side has no answers or science to back up their argument. And of course that is exactly what I thought about the "Pro_God" side or the kooks or the creationists or whatever you are labeling or I labeled people that do not think the same.

For the record I do not think that Creationists are kooks ... because their idea seems just as plausible as the evolutionist so whatever.

Are you a troll? Because so far you give the impression of being one. Or you're simply suffering from a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Plenty of people here already corrected or refuted your points.

 

[FormerAtheist]

No; the point is that nothing is ruled out - but the criteria for assessing hypotheses (explanations) mean that non-explanations like magic, the paranormal, the supernatural, etc., rank at the bottom - if there's nothing there to investigate, or no way to test it, it can't be tested.

Science can only rule out an explanation by testing it - if there's nothing to test, or no way of testing it, science has nothing to say about it. However, if some observable phenomenon is claimed to be of supernatural origin, it is often possible to find a natural explanation for it, in which case the natural explanation is preferred.

If the Ghostbusters or exorcists come up with ways to detect, measure, or otherwise interact with ghosts, spirits, or demons, science will enthusiastically get involved. But at that point a transition occurs - we see that what was an arbitrarily labelled unknown, is actually a novel aspect of the natural world - 'the supernatural' was just another way of saying 'the unknown'.

If that's your definition of supernatural, then it has no effects in the world - if it has no observable effects, direct or indirect, then, for practical purposes, it doesn't exist - although my understanding was that people do claim that some phenomena are of supernatural origin. Miracles are definitely claimed to be observable and to have been observed, and considerable scientific study has been done on such claims.


I see nothing about ruling out the supernatural, but see the page on that site that specifically addresses the supernatural: Natural.

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.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Are you a troll? Because so far you give the impression of being one. Or you're simply suffering from a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Plenty of people here already corrected or refuted your points.

Umm sounds like lame? That's what you have? I have something in my fridge from 4 days ago that sounds like better for tomorrows examination or even for tonight's examination. ... Dude just bring it or don't.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Are you a troll? Because so far you give the impression of being one. Or you're simply suffering from a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Plenty of people here already corrected or refuted your points.

You know what's funny is do the time line on my responses ... I gave props when it was due. In fact anyone can see the timeline .. I gave props to someone on your side ... you should get some pointers from that guy it would help hahaha.

 

[Skreeper]

Umm sounds like lame? That's what you have? I have something in my fridge from 4 days ago that sounds like better for tomorrows examination or even for tonight's examination. ... Dude just bring it or don't.

Whatever you say buddy. I've been here long enough to know your type.

I'll just sit back enjoy my popcorn until you can offer some empirical evidence for this intelligence that supposedly created everything.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Birds have an interesting method of breathing that integrates with wing beats, but this is not necessary for flight nor is it totally necessary for birds breathing (see birds sleeping, flightless birds). This is a clear example of an adaption that could function in interim stages.

I don't agree with this way of describing the reparatory system you are talking about an interesting feature rather then the mechanical plan. There is something that is fundamental to avian Phyla as opposed to Reptilian Phyla. In all the phylogenetic research done to date we have not seen something that can go from Reptile to avian I respects to respiratory. but Neither have we seen it on many other systems that would be necessary. There is a problem. We are not seeing the data are the evidence and we don't have the fossils. Personally I like fossils to back stuff up. I like my fossils in the morning with some bacon.


Also eyes. Fish have similar eyes to mammals, even the same unfortunate blindspot in the middle. Eyes are one of the classic issues I see with creationist commentary, a half an eye is actually useful, as they say: "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king".

Having worked with the blind I agree but the eye does need modification to become a sea creature.


I see the mathematics, but I suspect they are built on a flawed axiom, DNA in particular and life in general isn't generated by purely random action, nor is the current make up the only possible structure and the only goal.

Ok fine then give me the mechanism that gets you beyond random and show me the testing and all the things that the atheist will ask of the person that says there is a God. Can you show in any way a test that can prove there is anything beyond random involved in evolution>?

But the much bigger problem is "specified information". I have never been presented with a method of measuring and comparing specified information that wasn't a purely subjective hand wave of what the ID proponent thought was better or more useful. Often question begging in the whims of a mysterious and suspiciously unnamed 'designer'.

Finally ... I love the math. The math is the fun part. Ok then lets just go with what is the Shannon info DNA vs the functional data. And then compare the two then we can go back and see what amount of combinatorial space the molecules would have to search in order to find their specific information.

Do you get it>? The math is enormous. In fact the math has already been done and is no longer in dispute. This is why we now have to new model that we no longer need random hahaha.


That idea has far more in common with Young Earth Creationist post flood hyper-evolution then it does with any kind of evolution theory.



There are very reasonable reasons why Precambrian fossils are rare. It's very long time ago and life didn't have much in the way of hard parts.

Do you consider Cambrian explosion to be a real event? Is modern life diversified from the phyla found in the Cambrian rock?


You are mischaracterising the scale and nature of the disagreements about evolution.

Disagreements about specific lineages or the specific speed that certain speciation events occurred do not in any way demonstrate a growing doubt in evolutionary science.



As I said earlier this is untrue. Lighter bones are an advantage for flyers, but not 100% necessary. No one with any real education in evolution is proposing that these changes happen all at once or in single generations.



That is exactly the false dichotomy I was talking about.

All our science being wrong doesn't suddenly make creationism right.

Here's a hypothetical: Evolution, Abiogenesis, Big Bang Cosmology, String Theory are all totally wrong:
The Creation of the Universe is a mystery
The Creation of life from non-life is a mystery
The Creation of complex life in current forms is a mystery

See?
No positive evidence for creationism or a creator.

You don't get to just say you are right because another option is wrong. There might be some other completely unknown natural explanation, or some completely different version of creationism or ID as an explanation.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Whatever you say buddy. I've been here long enough to know your type.

I'll just sit back enjoy my popcorn until you can offer some empirical evidence for this intelligence that supposedly created everything.

Meanwhile I'll get some hotdogs ... some snacks... lighter fluid and two ice chests ... one for the beer and the other for soft drinks ...

While you construct a way to show me the universe we are in now without a designer.

Show me the math ... I have plenty of time ... I am right now roasting some wings on the fire.

While you show me that amazing math or try to find it let me go back and find some other things to throw on the fire ... mmm

 

[FormerAtheist]

Whatever you say buddy. I've been here long enough to know your type.

I'll just sit back enjoy my popcorn until you can offer some empirical evidence for this intelligence that supposedly created everything.

Wait ... there are objections in the peanut gallery. See there are others watching this fire side chat. They just brought up a good point. Can you show me the fossils of Arthropod lol?

Oh wait ... I think it was soft and we cant find it but yet we can see soft bodied fossils from various points before and after ... too many honestly.

Let me tell you something personal about fossils.
They are sneaky
They don't show what you want them too.
I hate when fossils get that sneaky ... in fact they have always been sneaky

 

[Skreeper]

Meanwhile I'll get some hotdogs ... some snacks... lighter fluid and two ice chests ... one for the beer and the other for soft drinks ...

While you construct a way to show me the universe we are in now without a designer.

Show me the math ... I have plenty of time ... I am right now roasting some wings on the fire.

While you show me that amazing math or try to find it let me go back and find some other things to throw on the fire ... mmm

I don't need to show that the universe came to be without a designer.

My position is that we are currently unable to investigate what happened before the big bang and therefore the cause is unknown and may even be unknowable.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I don't need to show that the universe came to be without a designer.

My position is that we are currently unable to investigate what happened before the big bang and therefore the cause is unknown and may even be unknowable.

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.