An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[Speedwell]

The building blocks of life is not life ... not even close. Its like saying sugar is getting close to life. Yes sugar is very very important but it is not life. Also having a few building blocks out of dozens would be too poor a start to be considered as an explanation hence the reason scientists have backed away from the MIller experiment.

How have they "backed away?"

 

[Gene2memE]

(1) the sudden appearance of Cambrian animal forms; (2) an absence of transitional intermediate fossils connecting the Cambrian animals to simpler Precambrian forms; (3) a startling array of completely novel animal forms with novel body plans; and (4) a pattern in which radical differences in form in the fossil record arise before more minor, small-scale diversification and variations. This pattern turns on its head the Darwinian expectation of small incremental change only gradually resulting in larger and larger differences in form

So, if you're not in the 'side' of creationists, why are you basically cutting and pasting texts from Christian apologistst and ID believers (which is creationism in a stolen labcoat)?

The above comes from 'Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique' by Moreland, Meyer, Shaw, Grudem and Gauger.

Two of those are ID-iots, two of those are theologians specalising in apologetics and one is a eye doctor.

Also, all they're doing is listing rapid diversification events (evolutionary radiations) - which are not an issue for evolutionary biology, provided you're not wedded to phyletic gradualism.

Also, all four of those points are rubbish, as this Nature article succinctly points out: What sparked the Cambrian explosion?

 

[FormerAtheist]

This reads like waffle. When I make a determined effort to extract meaning I get this from you:

That was a waffle because right after I typed it I remembered some work I had done on the number of scientists that are beginning to have serious doubts and leaving Atheism. I was distracted and did not erase or have time.

"I don't know. Things are all mixed up. Science is trying to tell us something. Yeah, maybe there is a God. I know lots of scientists feel this way."

It that is not approximately what you are trying to say then you need to work on your writing skills.
Meanwhile, your references to the thoughts of other scientists looks like projection to me.

Really. I believe I have a reasonable idea of what the scientists doing evolution research are doing. I did a quick check of my library data base and I see I have in excess of one hundred books related to evolution and a further 300+research papers on one or other aspect. In none of these do I see what you see.

I don't doubt you but you surely must have seen the problems with TOE that is going on right now. Its starting to reach something that may spill out mainstream soon.

Of course, there is debate that is the nature of science. Of course theories get modified. That is the nature of science. But evolutionary theory is being strengthed by the debate and the modificaitons. Tomorrow, some researcher may come up with rabbits in the Cambrian and we shall have a true Khunian paradigm shift, but not today. Not on the current evidence.

I know of one scientist that thinks we have seen most of what we will see that we have sampled the barrel as they put it. That we have an accurate sample of the fossil records to where we can begin to make our views. Then the problems come with the Genetic research going on. But the biggest problem for me is the problems with basic biology, micro biology and design problems. Simply put if you at least had real evidence that wasn't all over the place and in serious conflict then that would help but there is still the problem of the design problem. Converting some systems don't seem possible not by a long shot.

As to common descent, some researchers have looked to see if they could find evidence that life arose multiple times. The last time I looked the conclusion, based on gene analysis, was it had not, or if it had only one strain had survived. Around a decade ago another team concluded, I think using Bayesian analysis, that almost certainly life arose multiple times, but that only one strain survived. [I'd love to give you citations, but neither paper interested me enough to take a copy.]

I hear you on giving links I have the same problem. I read the papers sometimes even the links and move on. Lately I have been trying to save stuff for projects I'm working on but I can't access them fast so I get you. There are many Gene studies that are showing multiple life starts and that has some problems with the fundamentals but beyond that comes the problem of math. Then the math get compounded because we are saying as unlikely as it was once now we are saying it happened multiple times.

I share the view that we may well find, in some obscure environment, a lifeform that arose independently from all other life on Earth. That would have fascinating implications for anyone running the Drake equation, but it wouldn't do anything much to evolutionary theory.

The importance of hybridisation is, I think, being given more weight, but again that does nothing to the fundamentals. Oh, look! The Tree of Life is more like an intertwined, self-grafting bush than a tree. Quel surprise!

More math problems but put that aside and lets get back to the TOL. Its not just that is obviously no longer a tree but that in some cases ... well actually tons of cases where they TOL evidence is conflicting. What if the half the genes point to the left and the other half points to the right?

History only happened once. There can not be two or three or 40 different ways that history happened. There can only be one. If there are many things conflicting then we have to doubt one of two things:
A. The data
B. The theory

 

[FormerAtheist]

I take it Uhler= Urey.

You completely miss the point of the experiment:
1. It demonstrated, for the first time, that prebiotic chemicals could arise naturally. In the absence of such a demonstration abiogenesis would have been highly questionable.
2. It established, for the first time, that abiogenesis could be investigated experimentally, not just theoretically.

We still, rightly, talk about Galileo's experiment dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa. The Miller-Urey experiment has even more credentials in that it did actually occur.

Ok point well taken but just remember that the experiment was done a long time ago. I only know of two experiments of serious consequence since then trying to establish the viability of Abiogenesis. And those would be conducted by AXE who is someone that does believe in a GOD. So many atheists will discount him but no-one is discounting his experiments which were very important. He made it as easy as possible to see if it would be possible for a Protein molecule to adapt or evolve. The math was over whelming. Actually come to think of it I remember reading about an experiment done on bacteria that took bacteria back one rung on the evolutionary ladder to see if it could climb back up. It did not it basically led to extinction of the bacteria. They partially damaged or broke some code that would enable the bacteria to produce some chemicals that it needed and they gave the bacteria that chemical artificially to see if it might build what it needed but it did not. It passed everything on killing its line forever when the environment would no longer artificially provide this chemical.

 

[FormerAtheist]

You are still appealing to incredulity / ignorance.

Currently, we have no confirmed theory of how life came about.
We have several hypothesis, some of them quite promising. But nothing conclusive at this point.

You seem to be doing your very best to suggest that because we are somewhat ignorant about it at this time, that somehow validates the "creation" camp as being "just as valid" an opinion.

This is completely wrong.
When we don't know something, the rational stance is acknowledging we are ignorant.

It matters not what your (or anyone else's) particular religious lore has to say, when it comes to the science of it all.

Consider all the times throughout history when religions claimed to have answers to unanswered questions before science answered those questions. I dare say that just about every question the natural sciences have answered so far, were at some point attributed to some god or the other.

Tides, storms, lightning, biological reproduction, vulcano's, earth quaks, floods, tsunami's, meteorites, the moon, the sun, the seasons, the day/night cycle, desease, bio-diversity,...................

All of them were attributed to some god at some point in time, when humanity was still ignorant on the natural processes that produce all those things.

I know of NO instance where a phenomena of reality was tackled and solved by science, where the a priori "religious" attribution turned out to be correct. Not a single one.

Why would the origins of life be any different, I ask you?

I'm going to leave your quote intact and just start at the last question and then go back. Why would the origins of life be different? Because life is different. It always was different. Its monumentally different. It is something special and on a different plain. Like a different higher deminsion. It is not a just a bunch of molecules just like a car is not just a bunch of metal. There is something fundamentaly higher about the organization of the parts and what it represents.

So old beliefs fell way and that means there is no God? Except as we search deeper into science and the universe we are seeing the appearance of Design it looking ... well IT IS A DESIGN. We are not seeing the evidence point away but rather towards it. And this would be expected if we were at it for 160 years with no resolution in site.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Well I'm certainly glad that you have found a belief in God. But natural science is an investigation of natural phenomenon, God is self existing and self evidenced, science my well help you along the way but understanding who God is and what God is like has to come from God himself.

Those are deep things that I'm working through. I hear you but I am involved in certain projects that require my time. And the science is something that I need to work on.

For me coming to the knowledge that there is a God because of Science has been ... very incredible. Like amazing. Exciting to say the least. And has made very hungry for more. Debating scientists has only made it more interesting. So we are all on this journey in our own ways and I must at some point come to some type of higher belief system then there is just a God. Hopefully there is still time for me.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Science will never be able to prove nor disprove the existence of God. We can't even prove with 100% scientific certainty that a global flood occurred. Science is based on facts, and in my opinion, we will never have enough facts(much less agreeable facts) to arrive at an undeniable conclusion via scientific methods and such. Its all about faith.

I disagree. I think we can prove that the universe without a designer is impossible. I think we are either there already are moments away.

 

[FormerAtheist]

For what - a full model of abiogenesis? I don't know. A lot of progress has been made in recent years, but putting it all together may be the most difficult empirical part.

The only progress is going in the other way then what you think. The progress is leading towards a designer.

 

[Gene2memE]

Ok point well taken but just remember that the experiment was done a long time ago. I only know of two experiments of serious consequence since then trying to establish the viability of Abiogenesis. And those would be conducted by AXE who is someone that does believe in a GOD.

So many atheists will discount him....

The same Douglas Axe that writes ID apologetics books - like this? https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Biology-Confirms-Intuition-Designed/dp/0062349597

The same Douglas Axe that helped to author the infamous 'Wedge Document'? Which calls explicitly for the replacement of evolution with 'Christian compatible' (read biblical literalist) science?

The same Douglas Axe that runs the Biological Institute, which clams to be an ID organsiation, but curiously keeps running articles from theologians, apologists and PhDs from 'private Christian universities' (read diploma/PhD mills) that argue for reconciliation of Christian theology with science.

Yeah, he's credible source.

but no-one is discounting his experiments which were very important.

Which experiments? Google Scholar doesn't have anything from Axe in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal since 2004. Pretty much everything I can find since then has been published in the ID-iots in-house journals.

 

[mark kennedy]

Those are deep things that I'm working through. I hear you but I am involved in certain projects that require my time. And the science is something that I need to work on.

For me coming to the knowledge that there is a God because of Science has been ... very incredible. Like amazing. Exciting to say the least. And has made very hungry for more. Debating scientists has only made it more interesting. So we are all on this journey in our own ways and I must at some point come to some type of higher belief system then there is just a God. Hopefully there is still time for me.

Well I expect your study will lead you back to the Scientific Revolution, the birth of modern physics, and the development of tools mental and physical. The birth of genetics as a science is an interesting process:

The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same.

The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. (Initial Sequence of the Human Genome, Nature 2001)
​

I know I find the history and philosophy of natural science fascinating. I'll be interested in seeing where you go with this.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[pitabread]

I think we can prove that the universe without a designer is impossible.

If the universe is too complex/complicated/improbable/whatever that you necessitate a designer, then the question becomes: where did the designer come from?

And invariably that tends to lead to special pleading re: the nature of the designer.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Ok I just wanted to put this out there on this thread even though I know that no one will actually see this. I just had an amazing debate with someone of a serious scientific mind on quantum physics, consciousness and the memory functionality of the human mind. We began to go through the memory capacity of the human mind and I think I had a break through. Here is the problem as I see it. We have a certain capacity that we know of at this time which is 2000 hours of video and audio on a 4k level that I know of. But we are able to manipulate that data elastically at least as best as I can tell. So you have memories that can be effected or zipped and accessed later based on need. Our memories will may be accessed based on their importance. So there is a higher function inside of our consciousness that enables and governs what happens to our memories. The importance is obvious.

So why is it that we can learn something so easier the second time even after many years or some things get buried if not for design. Maybe we can rewrite over memory by importance or function?

Are our memories themselves a process of design?

I need to think about this bigger and talk to other serious people but it seems to me I think I may have hit on something.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Firstly, no we don't; secondly, what exactly do you mean by 'consciousness can have an effect on matter'.

In the dual slit in quantum physics we have a conscience outside intelligent agent that has an effect on matter and energy.

The best available evidence is that consciousness is a particular type of neurological process in the brain, and it's quite reasonable to suppose that such a process can cause, or influence, physical (body) activities. The double-slit experiment shows that the results you obtain depend on what you set up the experiment to detect (i.e. how it is configured), in unexpected ways.

So no cats or falling trees ... hey I'm kind of with you on that but it gets real deep after that. If you follow me on that but not sure you would like that.

That's one interpretation; there are others that explain quantum entanglement without 'spooky action at a distance' as Einstein called it.

Ok if there is something beyond quantum theory that give a difference to what we see in the macro as opposed to the quantum then it makes more sense I think for the atheist. Honestly I always had a problem with the quantum equating directly to macro anyways.

Quantum entanglement only involves the 'transfer' of quantum state information (depending on the interpretation you prefer - some don't involve any transfer or communication at all); no classical information is involved, and energy is conserved. So you can't use it to send an instantaneous signal, or energy.

Your close and your intellect is clearly high but you have missed something. For the entangled objects to transfer energy there must be a mechanism that can transfer across time and space to the other side of the universe. So to flip the polarity of one particle to the entangled we will need energy on a massive scale. Energy that is not accounted for. And then there is the info problem and time.

Unfortunately, there is no good classical analogy for entanglement (although there's a lot of examples quoted with red and white socks or balls, and knowing that if you have the white one, the other guy has the red one). It is what it is, and too involved to go into here.

But there are serious interesting experiments that we know of. That we know of. I'm sure we and others are well beyond what "we know of". We are probably well on to quantum computing.


Not so much.

Don't you find relativistic time dilation spooky, or the fact that two observers in relative motion will measure the speed of light as c regardless of their relative velocities, or that no matter how long or how hard you accelerate, you'll never reach light speed?

It's just the way we react to things that are far outside of everyday experience.

I'm thinking that consciousness can effect time and that it can be proven at some point if not already.

 

[FormerAtheist]

@FormerAtheist Thank you for the first of the papers you cited. A full citation and link follow.

Degnan and Rosenberg, “Gene Tree Discordance, Phylogenetic Inference and the Multispecies Coalescent" Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.24 No.6 March 2009. Download here.

This is an excellent review paper: clearly written, well structured and replete with references. I especially liked the fact that it demolished your claim that scientists are questioning the foundations of evolutionary theory. This is amply demonstrated by the authors' comments in the Conclusions section. (Emphasis is mine.)
Conflicts between gene trees estimated at different loci have sometimes been seen as obstacles for inferring phylogenies. However, we suggest that gene tree conflict provides an opportunity to obtain information regarding the processes that have shaped organismal genomes. Researchers have used conflicting gene genealogies to infer ancestral population parameters such as population size and divergence times, and to examine species divergence processes. It is only recently, however, that population-genetic and phylogenetic perspectives are being integrated in the effort to improve methods for inferring species trees.

With the increasing abundance of genomic data, it is important that phylogenetic methods take into account many loci and, therefore, many gene trees. Conflicting topologies are likely to become the norm, and the amount of gene tree discordance expected by chance under a simple neutral model can now be predicted analytically or by simulation. New ways of understanding gene trees will
assist in modeling multiple sources of gene tree conflict simultaneously, or in distinguishing sources ofconflict, such as in deciding whether discordance is due to hybridization or incomplete lineage sorting, and in judging whether discordance is more frequent than expected under a null model.

Long-standing issues about inferring species trees can now be reexamined in a new light, including problems with combining data sources, effects of taxon sampling and statistical consistency of phylogenetic estimators. Opportunities also exist for modeling, such as in relaxing the assumptions of the multispecies coalescent. The outstanding questions detailed in Box 4 could provide a useful framework for future research on gene tree discordance in phylogenetics. In many cases, the answers to the questions posed in Box 4 will depend on the species under consideration.

However, as the focus of molecular phylogenetics moves from gene tree inference to multilocus inference of species trees, it will be important to determine the features of underlying biological processes, experimental designs and computational methods that give rise to the best estimates of species phylogenies.

A dumbed-down, simplified overview of this reads:"As our techniques have improved, what were seen as challenges have metamorphosed into excellent opportunities to extract more meaningful information from the data and to generate improved phylogenies. More refinements will follow."

Perhaps you will now attempt to explain why you felt this paper supported your view and acknowledge that, in this instant you were mistaken.

Wait wait that's what you read after all of that? Are you serious?

Lets just go back to the last paragraph before your conclusion ... re-read that back please and explaine that lol. Because I can as I know you can. You clearly have a scientific mind duh. I will not doubt your scientific mind as you were able to cypher through it as I can. Now go back and re-read just that last paragraph. But we can go through every paragraph.

conflicts times ten.
And that was off of one thing I gave you.
You found one and spent serious time to find what you thought would ... do what?
What ever it was ... no there is design there is conflict and everything I am showing you over time and spending my time on is real.

Do you think that I am trying to subvert you?

Do you think I am hiding data from you?

Do you seriously think I am an idiot in any of my posts?

Do you think that I am uninformed?

lets keep going forward in this process ... we are not done.

Lets keep going forward or if you like we can stay on this or any point for awhile longer.

I will work with you on this.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Evolution has been observed - i.e. changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations have been observed many times. Those observations are the evidence of the fact of evolution.

That is not the same as saying the Theory of Evolution, that explains the fact of evolution, is itself factual. Such theories are explanations, not facts.

Ok I want to first help you in your debate form >>> do not give contradictory explanations in the same post someone will jump on you on that. I will not.

I believe that evolution is absolutely real and is evidenced on a daily basis. Science tells us this as well as visual data or any other data ... day to day data.

But that is micro ... not macro ... the difference is huge ... your are going from modifying a plane to transforming a plane into a battleship. Two different things.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Can you give an example of a certain truth, that people are blind to? Please demonstrate this truth.

No I can't and you caught me. This is my weakness. The truth is I will have a hard time following through on that one because philosophy is not my strength .. neither is religion. I am not a scholar. I do not put either of these down I have high respect.
I respect Christianity but I am not one. Neither am I a philosopher and so I should not have even done that I just had seen that quote just before the time I saw the post and it seemed to fit.

The truth is that I cannot respond to your question in any way that would be worthy of the question.

My limitations are something I am aware of.

 

[FormerAtheist]

If the universe is too complex/complicated/improbable/whatever that you necessitate a designer, then the question becomes: where did the designer come from?

And invariably that tends to lead to special pleading re: the nature of the designer.

Why would that be special pleading?
A computer programmer is outside of the loop of the program but is necessary for the program is He not? We need a conscious agent to be outside of the laws of that program or in a conscious agent on the level that brake through the loop of the program.

In our loop the universe and the laws within it are a part of it. Then we must have a programmer outside of the universe and its laws.

What if the universe was a simulation? Wouldn't you need a programmer that is outside of the simulation? But time itself is a product of our simulation/universe so then the programmer has to be outside of that code. There is only way ... the question you ask has the answer built in ... their must be a creator because the only way for there to be a creation is for their to be a creator and the only way for the creator to exist is if it is outside of creation.

 

[FormerAtheist]

How have they "backed away?"

No one goes by the Miller experiment anymore that is only in text books ... the scientific community left that ... even Miller left that.

 

[FormerAtheist]

So, if you're not in the 'side' of creationists, why are you basically cutting and pasting texts from Christian apologistst and ID believers (which is creationism in a stolen labcoat)?

The above comes from 'Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique' by Moreland, Meyer, Shaw, Grudem and Gauger.

Two of those are ID-iots, two of those are theologians specalising in apologetics and one is a eye doctor.

Also, all they're doing is listing rapid diversification events (evolutionary radiations) - which are not an issue for evolutionary biology, provided you're not wedded to phyletic gradualism.

Also, all four of those points are rubbish, as this Nature article succinctly points out: What sparked the Cambrian explosion?

I will cut and paste from anyone that has a background and can provide credible evidence on what we are talking about. Especially credible scientists.

The bigger question that I find very offensive and more every day is this willingness to discredit people of serious qualifications based on their beliefs. So then you are saying that because they do not believe as you do but even though they have probably done ten times more then you are me that they are worthless?

Lets put aside there accomplishments because I will get worked up on this one.

In fact I appoligize. I am sorry.

So let me calm down for a moment.
This reminds me of a debate I had on a forum ... oh wait it was this forum ... oh wait it was this thread you can look it up.
I gave props to someone I do think is probably a scientist because I have debated many and I know when it happens generaly. He said qualifications are not as important as the strength of the debate or something like that. You can look it up. I would agree except here you are dismissing the strength of the debate, the scientific data they are bringing up and their qualifications based on their beliefs. \

You are being intolerant of their science based on their beliefs. You are being intolerant based on your own beliefs.

yeah I fine you ... well that idea of being offensive ... just a bit.

 

[FormerAtheist]

The same Douglas Axe that writes ID apologetics books - like this? https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Biology-Confirms-Intuition-Designed/dp/0062349597

The same Douglas Axe that helped to author the infamous 'Wedge Document'? Which calls explicitly for the replacement of evolution with 'Christian compatible' (read biblical literalist) science?

The same Douglas Axe that runs the Biological Institute, which clams to be an ID organsiation, but curiously keeps running articles from theologians, apologists and PhDs from 'private Christian universities' (read diploma/PhD mills) that argue for reconciliation of Christian theology with science.

Yeah, he's credible source.



Which experiments? Google Scholar doesn't have anything from Axe in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal since 2004. Pretty much everything I can find since then has been published in the ID-iots in-house journals.

You would discredit this amazing man and his work?
Who are you?
Let me put this to you personally since you go after him so personally. What is your background in life origin sciences that you can go against him?

Because you don't agree with him you dismiss him and what he was able to do.

Do you see the problem?
You will say that no scientists disagree with evolution and then you demonize any that do not seeing why so many do not have the courage to do what AXE did.

But they are every week.
The tide is turning on the establishment. We want real science

We want the truth and everything else can take a back seat.

We don't need your ideology or your upbringing. We don't care about that.

We want the truth.

You will not hold this back. You can demonize or suppress all you want it wont last for long. Because it is getting easier for scientists to come forward because of the courage of the first. But the truth is that there are many beyond him ... many that are atheist. Many people that are just wanting the data one way or another. You can't fight that.

Its just like you thought all along that science will lead to truth its just that the truth its leading to is not what you wanted. Deal with it.