An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[DogmaHunter]

Scandinavian countries are on their way out. Its part of belonging to a death cult like atheism. Works like this:
You believe the history of your country is trash
your family is trash
humans are trash
there is no meaning
no purpose
So you stop having babies and then expect someone else to do it for you. So you open the borders and before long its no longer Scandinavia and no longer atheist because the replacements for the Scandinavians are not atheist and they never will be. Besides Scandinavia is showing serious signs of wear and tear. No-go Zones, parents ok with their 8 year old's having 30 year old boyfriends kicking out the natives to make way for the newcomers and on and on. Its insanity on full display. In fact they are too busy going insane to get into too much crime. But that will come.

Lol, ow my... you really do live in your own little universe don't you...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Just remember half atheist for the moment. Only half. Just remember what I showed you in the other quote what happens when the other half looses their faith.

Let me just remind you how that quote started "This is what happens when people forget God".

Yeah that part.
Not a good track record. Not something to try again. Very time a society went full on atheist it was complete hell. Seems atheists need the "believers" but not sure if the beleivers need anyone. This is the thing I admire about Christians. Their belief system is self sufficient. They don't need us. They are happy.

Atheisim on the other hand is a parasite it must feed off a host. Because it is so empty it must attach to something. And so it buddies up with Marxism almost always. This is why you will see so many atheists that have a serious problem with Christianity ... it becomes their ideology. Their passion. Atheism by itself will not provide that. So it must be filled.
Like it or not all humans need purpose and when your belief system tells you there is none you must find it even if it means destroying purpose in others. YOU MUST FIND IT.
And so you here you are preaching to the most happy people on the planet hahahaha.

You are delusional dude.

 

[Jimmy D]

Lol, ow my... you really do live in your own little universe don't you...

Also extremely ironic that in his haste to condemn atheists and "atheist countries" he's posting videos that allegedly to show the problems that occur when religious types (i.e muslims in this case, which worship the same god as him), are left to their own devices by a tolerant state.

 

[sfs]

Ok I checked out the article and I thought it was a good article for explaining things in a clear way. In fact much better then many other articles I have read in the past. But it doesn't explain the conflicts and contradictions and the serious problems with the TOL.

Did you see what you just did there? You had written, "But we can not find any genetic evidence that backs up evolution in fact the genetic evidence points all over the place." I pointed you to genetic evidence that backs up evolution, the existence of which flatly contradicts a claim you made. And in response, you . . . changed the subject. Doesn't it bother you when you make false statements?

But it doesn't explain the conflicts and contradictions and the serious problems with the TOL. That is basically been annihilated. Without a TOL I'm not sure what's left.

Without a TOL, what's left is evolution, which is the process by which life has changed over time. It's also supposedly what we were talking about. Nothing in the evidence I pointed you to depends on where life came from, or even where vertebrates came from.

Notice in the article that he says "most" scientists don't have a problem with common ancestry. That is a serious red flag. What does most mean? Is it 51% or is it 90%. Lets say its 90% then that leaves 10% that have a problem with common ancestry. That's a big problem.

Well, rather than just making up numbers, you could simply ask the author, since I'm the one who wrote it. By "most" I meant something like 99.9%. I've worked with, talked to, listened to, and read at least hundreds, probably thousands of geneticists in my professional life, and the number who expressed any uncertainty about common descent has been zero. I know there are geneticists who do doubt common descent, since there a handful who are aligned with creationist organizations, but as a fraction of the total they're pretty much nonexistent. Seriously -- if you think there is any doubt about common descent among working geneticists, you are utterly mistaken.

But back to common ancestry or the UR-Animal and so on ... no common ancestor to me game over. The math doesn't work and the evidence even in the article you gave is pointing towards that every day.

Um, huh? Please state specifically what in my article points to a lack of a common ancestor. Try dealing with the evidence for a change rather than changing the subject.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No I will not let atheists control the debate. That is a failed tactic that non-atheists have done for years. The burden is on you for you are the one suggesting something we have never seen before. Actually several. But the big one is you are suggesting life coming from non-life. From rocks to frogs.
Sounds outlandish. You have the burden of proof.

Sounds like you are very seriously confused concerning what atheism really is about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well back atcha. The atheist never bothers to think about all the good the believers have done.

What "good" thing can a believer do that couldn't be done by a non-believer?
What "good" thing HAS a believer done that no non-believer has ever done?

They never fail to be ungrateful for the life they have because of the believers

Believers never fail to be ungratefull for the life and freedom of religion they enjoy in the secular society they live in, thanks to both unbelievers as well as rational believers.

Imagine being a protestant in a non-secular and catholic theocracy.
Or vice versa.

I think you'ld rather live in a secular country (no matter what your religion is, or lack thereof) as opposed to in a theocracy while having "the wrong religion", right?

 

[xianghua]

By "most" I meant something like 99.9%. I've worked with, talked to, listened to, and read at least hundreds, probably thousands of geneticists in my professional life, and the number who expressed any uncertainty about common descent has been zero.

its also true for many past scientific claims that now are completely false, so this argument isnt scientific.

2) the number of scientists who dont believe in a common descent is more like 3% among scientists. this is a big number of scientists.

3) i have no problem to discuss with you about the evidence for evolution. the problem is that every time we start to discuss about those suppose evidence you suddenly disappeared.

 

[tas8831]

its also true for many past scientific claims that now are completely false, so this argument isnt scientific.

Allow me to borrow and twist a common creationist "argument"* - those past scientific claims that are now false - like a young earth, that the bible tells us about ocean currents, etc. - were all put forth by creationists. Therefore, it is creation scientists whose claims should not be taken seriously.

2) the number of scientists who dont believe in a common descent is more like 3% among scientists. this is a big number of scientists.

Yet not as big as 97%

Which is more parsimonious - that 97% of scientists are all engaged in a massive anti-Jesus conspiracy and have all been fooled by fake science, or that 3% of people with science degrees just will not abandon the tales they were force fed as children or have adopted due to psychological trauma?

And these 3% of creationist scientists - what fields of science are they in? Anything relevant to evolutionary biology/geology etc.?

When I was in graduate school, one of the department's lab techs was a YEC. She used to leave those Chick tracts that look like 10 dollar bills all over the place. Her 'witnessing' tale was that she used to be a drug addict, had a really bad experience, then became addicted to Christ. She did a great job washing glassware and setting up experiments. But I never gave her loony beliefs a second's consideration. Point is - if she were to sign on to one of these 'dissent' lists, why should anyone care?

3) i have no problem to discuss with you about the evidence for evolution. the problem is that every time we start to discuss about those suppose evidence you suddenly disappeared.

This is baloney. I've seen several people provide lots of evidence for you, and all you ever do is ignore it and try to spin it into some sort of creation-friendly materiel - almost always ending back at one of your silly robot/car things.




*the argument usually goes something like this - 'Science was invented by creationists! Here is a list of creationists that invented fields of science!...'

 

[Ophiolite]

Scandinavian countries are on their way out. Its part of belonging to a death cult like atheism. Works like this:
You believe the history of your country is trash
your family is trash
humans are trash
there is no meaning
no purpose
So you stop having babies and then expect someone else to do it for you. So you open the borders and before long its no longer Scandinavia and no longer atheist because the replacements for the Scandinavians are not atheist and they never will be. Besides Scandinavia is showing serious signs of wear and tear. No-go Zones, parents ok with their 8 year old's having 30 year old boyfriends kicking out the natives to make way for the newcomers and on and on. Its insanity on full display. In fact they are too busy going insane to get into too much crime. But that will come.

Produce evidence of sound quality that supports any and all of this seemingly putrid nonsense. Please.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its also true for many past scientific claims that now are completely false, so this argument isnt scientific.

That's absurd.
Seems like you are again trying to say that all of science can be ignored, because sometimes scientific hypothesis/theories turn out to be incorrect.

Absurd.

2) the number of scientists who dont believe in a common descent is more like 3% among scientists. this is a big number of scientists.

@sfs was talking specifically about geneticists. You know, scientists that actually come in contact with evolution theory.

$
3) i have no problem to discuss with you about the evidence for evolution. the problem is that every time we start to discuss about those suppose evidence you suddenly disappeared.

You realise you are talking to a geneticist, right? And not just any geneticist, I might add.

 

[tas8831]

Sounds like you are very seriously confused concerning what atheism really is about.

And isn't that odd for someone claiming to be a FORMER atheist?

Almost as if his 'history' is embellished or faked and is just a 'witnessing' tool...

 

[tas8831]

Produce evidence of sound quality that supports any and all of this seemingly putrid nonsense. Please.

And those claims are especially odd in light of what Jesus said:

Luke 14 25-26

25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Spelling, it seems, is also hard.

Not trying to nitpick or be mean, but I am betting, having not read this thread yet, that your grasp of science is on par with your grasp of spelling.

Wait a sec... Holy Cow! You must be a Prophet! How could you be so stunningly accurate if not for supernatural foresight!?!

 

[tas8831]

Wait a sec... Holy Cow! You must be a Prophet! How could you be so stunningly accurate if not for supernatural foresight!?!

Uncanny, isn't it???

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Glass houses and all that 'fruit'...

** stone fruit...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

If there is nothing there then why are they jumping ship?

No, Science Digest did NOT report that - what they did report was a Creationist by the name of Larry Hatfield representing an apologist organisation called "Educators against Darwin" made that claim.... and Science Digest reported that way back in 1979. I can't find any stats or figures anywhere to back up his or your "jumping ship" claim, I can't find his original claim either. What I can find is innumerable creationist propaganda sites gleefully repeating this unchecked PRATT everywhere, for which we can no doubt include your upcoming website among the ranks whenever (or if) you get that going...

 

[xianghua]

Yet not as big as 97%

if there are about 3 millions scientists in the world (i think there is more)this number give us about 100,000 who dont believe in evolution. just for comparison: how many scientists belieive in a flat earth? also remember that most biologists also belive in higher power. are you saying that most biologists also have "psychological trauma"?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

if there are about 3 millions scientists in the world (i think there is more)this number give us about 100,000 who dont believe in evolution. just for comparison: how many scientists belieive in a flat earth? also remember that most biologists also belive in higher power. are you saying that most biologists also have "psychological trauma"?

So, curious then - if there's legitimately 3% of working scientists in the field of genetics that don't accept common descent, then surely you can produce 3% of peer-reviewed scientific research in said field attesting as such?

I'll wait.

 

[bhsmte]

So, curious then - if there's legitimately 3% of working scientists in the field of genetics that don't accept common descent, then surely you can produce 3% of peer-reviewed scientific research in said field?

I'll wait.

Good luck.

 

[Speedwell]

if there are about 3 millions scientists in the world (i think there is more)this number give us about 100,000 who dont believe in evolution. just for comparison: how many scientists belieive in a flat earth? also remember that most biologists also belive in higher power. are you saying that most biologists also have "psychological trauma"?

Believing in a "higher power" does not require rejecting the theory of evolution or common descent, as many of the theists in this form have been trying to explain to you.