An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[sfs]

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.

But where did the number of 3% come from?

 

[sfs]

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.

That's odd. My memory is that the last time we discussed evidence, it consisted of you posting quotes from a series of papers, papers that flatly contradicted the point you were trying to make. The time before that, you responded to that fact that genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look like accumulated mutations by arguing that the two species originally had very similar genomes. When I asked what we would see if we compared humans to more different species, like orangutans or monkeys, you disappeared.

So, since you have no problem discussing the evidence, what should we expect to see if we compare human DNA to baboon DNA? Did humans and baboons also have the same genome originally?

 

[FormerAtheist]

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.

That may be true but being an atheist requires you to believe in three things:
1. Universe from nothing or eternal universe ... magic stuff
2. Life from non-life ... magic green dragon stuff
3. Macro Evolution ... Lucky Charms stuff

I like all three in my sci-fy stuff or cerals or other things but not for a belief system.
I go with science.

 

[FormerAtheist]

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"?

yes I have seen the numbers its actually higher then that and growing but I don't have the links handy. Its a problem for me my notes are meant right now for a different purpose. For making a website so everyone can grab this info. Trust me when I say I am working hard on it every day.

 

[FormerAtheist]

That's odd. My memory is that the last time we discussed evidence, it consisted of you posting quotes from a series of papers, papers that flatly contradicted the point you were trying to make. The time before that, you responded to that fact that genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look like accumulated mutations by arguing that the two species originally had very similar genomes. When I asked what we would see if we compared humans to more different species, like orangutans or monkeys, you disappeared.

So, since you have no problem discussing the evidence, what should we expect to see if we compare human DNA to baboon DNA? Did humans and baboons also have the same genome originally?

Then what about the genes that don't fit with this particular tree like the GULU gene?

We have trees that work for this and trees that work for that but we have no tree that actually works lol.

 

[FormerAtheist]

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.

But the problem is on you ... you must accept 3 things without fail or ... there is a God:
1. Universe without intelligent interference
2. life from non-life with no guidance
3. Advanced life from basic life with no intelligent information.
Problems
Impossible.
Your problem is problematic times 3 the creationist or ID person is easy its just prove 1.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Seems

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.

Odd that the Atheists or should I say "new Atheist" or should I say "Dawkins Children" want to forment there fustrations around Christianity.

Let me ask you something brother?
How much time have you spent on the Islamic Forums?
I wonder.

 

[FormerAtheist]

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

We have all been seeing your nonsense for years now. Its been on DrudgeReport lol. dude

We all know you had paradise.
We all know your country is still probably the best on the planet.
No one would dispute that
but we all know is that its going to hell because you let it.
You had paradise and you let it go.
That was your choice.
Now we have to watch it as you fall by insanity.
And none of us wants to see it.

 

[FormerAtheist]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Well there is that problem with the over 900 scientists of which I am currently converting there info for my website so everyone can have access to there info. Furthermore I intend to break that down by discipline so people can see exactly how many of what field has serious problems with evolution.

Its all coming but sadly it has taken much more time then I would like. But to say that there are none. No I don't agree with that just looking at the list with my own mind I can see that is not true. We have over 900 scienctists that were willing to sign the website. And many are very accomplished but they are in different fields.

As to particular numbers we will have to see for each field after I am done doing the breakdown ... sadly I am compelled by many constraints including daily duties.

But that being said so what about the numbers I have lost count of how many times I have seen this argument put forth and it amazes me. When Darwin was one lone scientist that you now call a hero?

 

[FormerAtheist]

No offence, but you don't sound like a nice person.

Its the atheist in me ... its still fighting ... I can't help it.
People ask me all the time about that. Why havn't you converted. Why do you still sound like an atheist. Why?
Atheism dies slowly.
Its not easy.

there is still some atheist part of me that will fight the Christians even though I know its stupid. I will fight there spirit. There ethic. Their belief system.

Its stupid but atheism dies hard and it dies slowly.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Ah, yes - creationist Mr. Ed Peltzer, #315 in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.

'Nuff said.

YEAH your right nuff said.
I won't let that one go not for a long shot. How dare you!!!

Who are you ... and who am I?
answer ... nothing
This guy has real credentials but you will demonize him because he does not believe as you do so he doesn't agree with your belief system. And yet we are debating something where his belief system is important. So then as long as anyone does not believe in your side of the debate they are null?

That's how it works?
I will stack my amazing works and credentials up against him ... oh wait I have none. Ok now your turn!

 

[FormerAtheist]

You thought wrong.

It's about how biodiversity, species, got here.

Darwin's original work was called "On the origins of species".
It's about how life works, about a process that existing life is subject to.

Not about how life got here.
Very different subject.

But what if the problem is that in his original hypothesis it was a bottom up theory in that you had a tree that branched out from bottom up. Then what happens if we discover its top down in that we get the Phylum going down in the taxonomic structure in respect to the time of discovery. Whether we are looking at the phylogenetic inspection of genetics, anatomical or fossilized we have this same problem as well as many other problems. I like to call it Horizontal Cross Spontaneous Creations.

So there is that

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

That may be true but being an atheist requires you to believe in three things:
1. Universe from nothing or eternal universe ... magic stuff

No it doesn't

2. Life from non-life ... magic green dragon stuff

Nope!

3. Macro Evolution ... Lucky Charms stuff

aaaaaannnd No. I accept "Evolution" (because there's no difference between micro/macro besides time) to currently be the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

I like all three in my sci-fy stuff or cerals or other things but not for a belief system.
I go with science.

whatever it is you go with, you left science long, long ago.

 

[FormerAtheist]

The universe rarely conforms to the categorical boxes we make for it, so ambiguity as to whether or not something is a metabolism in a protocell is hardly unexpected or a problem. There is a selective exchange between molecules in the environment and within the protocell, it is just that it is a function of the properties of lipid bubbles rather than a process controlled by protocell mediated mechanisms, which is why I said it is debatable whether or not that counts as a metabolism. Most sources list that as a very basic metabolism.


Then set up an abiogenesis experiment. As a chemist, you have the resources available to you to accomplish it.


-_- protocells which have replicating genetic material and passively divide isn't much to you? Because that's a lot more than what people were expecting within such a short time period. Most people assumed that abiogenesis was a process that took an immense amount of time, but the fact that experimental results got that far may suggest otherwise. You should look into the work of Jack Szostak on this stuff, it's really amazing.


-_- what do you mean by synthetic reactions? Most molecules necessary for living cells form naturally in environments that allow for it. Heck, to this day there is an abundance of amino acids unrelated to living cells in the environment.


Abiogenesis experiments are designed as simulations of the ancient Earth environment. It would be pointless for us to use conditions unlikely to represent that of the ancient Earth because that wouldn't represent a likely path that abiogenesis could take on our planet. It'd also be extremely directionless, giving it a higher chance of failure.


Are you actually a chemist? If so, then tell me, is this molecule chiral?

-_- there is nothing "Darwinian" about abiogenesis. The closest he came to even being involved is a comment he made about a hypothetical scenario where life arises from water, but he never investigated or hypothesized anything to do with abiogenesis.


Is your argument seriously just stolen from this guy? You couldn't even be bothered to reword it? If you are just going to post the arguments of others, you might as well just post links to them. And no, I am not editing my response because of this; if you are willing to present this argument, you better be prepared to defend it. Including the chirality question; if you don't know anything about chemistry, how would you be able to tell if this guy's arguments are legitimate or not?

 

[FormerAtheist]

No it doesn't

Nope!

aaaaaannnd No.

whatever it is you go with, you left science long, long ago.

Really then show me a way around the magic 3!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Really then show me a way around the magic 3!

That'd be your forte, not mine.

 

[bhsmte]

That may be true but being an atheist requires you to believe in three things:
1. Universe from nothing or eternal universe ... magic stuff
2. Life from non-life ... magic green dragon stuff
3. Macro Evolution ... Lucky Charms stuff

I like all three in my sci-fy stuff or cerals or other things but not for a belief system.
I go with science.

I have yet to see any evidence, you go with science.

 

[pitabread]

there is still some atheist part of me that will fight the Christians even though I know its stupid. I will fight there spirit. There ethic. Their belief system.

Why do you feel the need to "fight" at all?

 

[FormerAtheist]

Why do you feel the need to "fight" at all?

Internal struggle. I know the math and the science but part of me still doesn' like it.

 

[FormerAtheist]

I have yet to see any evidence, you go with science.

What evidence or science would do work for you and yet still allow humanity serious free will? If the evidence is in your face no one has free will. For me it was the uncomfortable reality there is no other way.