Atheism vs. Christian

ToddNotTodd · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
Belk,

re: Pidgeon chess

The problem for you is not that I do not understand evolution. Your problem is that I do understand it and realize it is bunkum.

The Cadet at this forum tried to say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution according to evolutionists. I clearly showed that this was not the case in a previous post by citing Myers, Matzke, Dawkins, University of Berkeley, textbooks, etc.

Do you have some sort of goal in mind, oh person that I still think is probably a troll...?

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

The Cadet,

re: abiogenesis and prominent evolutionists indication its part of the General theory of evolution

You said, " PZ Myers is very much in the minority here. But let's assume, for just a moment, that you're completely right."

We don't need to assume. You are using the fallacy of exclusion and leaving out what I demonstrated about Matzke, Dawkins, University at Berkeley website, etc. Furthermore, there are plenty of cases of evolutionists referring to abiogenesis as "chemical evolution".

Others may let you get away with leaving out very relevant information. But I certainly will not. You are not behaving in a responsible and candid way on this matter.

And what you are forgetting is that hardcore/fanatical evolutionists try to incorporate as much as they can under the evolutionary umbrella. They try to "evolutionize" many things. So the Myers, Matzke, Dawkins, etc. statements are not a remarkable.

The Cadet · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
The Cadet,

re: abiogenesis and prominent evolutionists indication its part of the General theory of evolution

You said, " But let's assume, for just a moment, that you're completely right."

We don't need to assume. You are using the fallacy of exclusion and leaving out what I demonstrated about Matzke, Dawkins, University at Berkeley website, etc. Furthermore, there are plenty of cases of evolutionists referring to abiogenesis as "chemical evolution".

Others may let you get away with leaving out very relevant information. But I certainly will not. You are not behaving in a responsible and candid way on this matter.

Okay, so now that you're done inflating yourself over semantics, care to address the actual argument?

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

The Cadet,

I don't think you were being forthright about the abiogenesis/evolution issue and I demonstrated why this is the case via Matzke, Dawkins, evolutionists referring to abiogenesis as "chemical evolution". etc. It takes two parties to have a discussion and you are not holding up your end.

Belk · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
Belk,

re: Pidgeon chess

The problem for you is not that I do not understand evolution. Your problem is that I do understand it and realize it is bunkum.

The Cadet at this forum tried to say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution according to evolutionists. I clearly showed that this was not the case in a previous post by citing Myers, Matzke, Dawkins, University of Berkeley, textbooks, etc.

I realize that "pidgeon chess" is a pat answer and it is easier to give pat answers than thoughtful replies. But you need to do better. Atheist talking points (pat answers) are not cutting the mustard.

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

I demonstrated that Matzke says abiogenesis is part of evolution. See: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html

And you are probably aware that Richard Dawkins is not a minor player in the evolutionist community. One could arguably call Dawkins the "high priest of evolutionism". Dawkins tries to deal with the origin of life in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, where he claims to ‘prove evolution’. See Sarfati, J., The Greatest Hoax on Earth? ch. 13, 2010, Creation Book Publishers.

To better show that Nick Matzke is not a minor player in the evolutionist community, here is a bio of him:

"Nicholas J. Matzke is the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and served an instrumental role in NCSE's preparation for the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.[1] One of his chief contributions was discovering drafts of Of Pandas and People which demonstrated that the term "intelligent design" was later substituted for "creationism". This became a key component of Barbara Forrest's testimony.[2][3] After the trial he co-authored a commentary in Nature Immunology,[4][5] was interviewed on Talk of the Nation,[6] and was profiled in Seed magazine as one of nine "revolutionary minds".[7]

Matzke has written many in-depth pieces and has made frequent posts online, including regularly blogging at The Panda's Thumb. He wrote a lengthy paper about the evolution of flagella[8] and has challenged intelligent design claims that flagella are irreducibly complex.[9][10][11] He co-authored a critique of Stephen C. Meyer's paper that became important in the Sternberg peer review controversy.[12][13] He also critiqued Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution[14] and contributed to NCSE's book Not in Our Classrooms.[15] Less seriously, he co-authored a research parody based on NCSE's Project Steve.[16] He first made a name for himself posting on talk.origins as "Nic Tamzek".[citation needed]

He is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis. He received Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at the University of California, Berkeley in 2013.[17]" source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Matzke

The Cadet · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
I don't think you were being candid and forthright about the abiogenesis/evolution issue and I demonstrated why this is the case. It takes two parties to have a discussion and you are not holding up your end.

And for some reason, this somehow excuses you from answering the question? It's a legitimate question. Let's just grant that abiogenesis is somehow part of the theory of evolution*, why does it matter that we don't yet have good answers to this question?

*The theory of evolution, as typically defined by, say, TalkOrigins or the NCSE or pretty much any paper dealing with the state of the science refers to a change in allele frequency in populations of organisms and the resulting change and diversification. Notice how the population already has to be there? But as I keep saying, it does not matter. You can fold abiogenesis up with evolution and it has no impact on the rest of the theory.

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

The Cadet,

Re: NCSE

You wrote: "The theory of evolution, as typically defined by, say, TalkOrigins or the NCSE or pretty much any paper dealing with the state of the science refers to a change in allele frequency in populations of organisms and the resulting change and diversification. Notice how the population already has to be there?"

In a previous post, I said: "Nicholas J. Matzke is the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and served an instrumental role in NCSE's preparation for the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial." I also gave you a link to his bio in another previous post.

Once again, you are leaving out important evidence that I am presenting you. My suspicion that you are not acting forthrightly has been confirmed again.

The Cadet · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
To better show that Nick Matzke is not a minor player in the evolutionist community, here is a bio of him:

Nobody cares. It doesn't matter. You're playing a nonsensical semantic word game with the theory that has absolutely no bearing on the greater argument. You're one step up from pointing out spelling and grammar errors in the place of argument.

The Cadet · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
The Cadet,

Re: NCSE

In a previous post, I said: "Nicholas J. Matzke is the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and served an instrumental role in NCSE's preparation for the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial."

One again, your argument is failing.

Nobody cares, answer the question.

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

The Cadet,

re: Matzke/NCSE

I appended a previous post.

It now reads:

"Once again, you are leaving out important evidence that I am presenting you. My suspicion that you are not acting forthrightly has been confirmed again. "

The Cadet it does take two parties to have an actual discussion and you are still not holding up your end. I don't believe you intend to hold up your end. Please find a creationist who will allow you have a quasi-discussion because I certainly will not.

The Cadet · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
The Cadet,

re: Matzke/NCSE

I appended a previous post.

It now reads:

"Once again, you are leaving out important evidence that I am presenting you. My suspicion that you are not acting forthrightly has been confirmed again. "

Great. I don't care. Are you going to answer the question? You know, the one that actually matters to your argument and isn't completely pointless?

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

The Cadet,

I appended my previous post.

It now reads:

"The Cadet it does take two parties to have an actual discussion and you are still not holding up your end. I don't believe you intend to hold up your end. Please find a creationist who will allow you have a quasi-discussion because I certainly will not."

Davian · Apr 28, 2016

Belk said:
And the pigeon chess continues.

yup thats a pigeon

Davian
Mar 8, 2012

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Re: The Cadet's assertion about abiogenesis/origin of life

Since he has disqualified himself from having further discussion with me due his unsavory behavior as far as having a discussion, I will simply point out that abiogenesis is impossible.

Here is an excellent article showing why abiogenesis is impossible: http://creation.com/origin-of-life

The Cadet · Apr 28, 2016

PaulA135711 said:
The Cadet,

I appended my previous post.

It now reads:

"The Cadet it does take two parties to have an actual discussion and you are still not holding up your end. I don't believe you intend to hold up your end. Please find a creationist who will allow you have a quasi-discussion because I certainly will not."

Well thank you for honestly admitting that you have no intention of answering my question or in any kind of rational debate. Coulda done this like 5 posts ago.

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

The Cadet,

I think we cross posted (posted about the same time). Please see my previous post.

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

The post below is a general post and not to The Cadet in order to attempt to have a discussion with him. He clearly showed that this would be impossible.

The evolution/abiogenesis issue is a case of evolutionists being divided about a fundamental definition of evolution. And I clearly showed that very prominent evolutionists indicate that abiogenesis is part of evolution.

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)

Of course, we know that Morris is incorrect. Evolutionists cannot even agree if abiogenesis is part of evolution.

Evolutionism is a mess.

Jesus said a house divided cannot stand.

Christians agree on the fundamentals. Jesus was God. The trinity is a valid theological concept. Jesus died on the cross for our sins and paid the penalty for our sins. He was resurrected in three days. There is a heaven and sincere Christians will go there.

Atheists/evolutionists cannot even agree on a fundamental definition of what their ideology entails.

FireDragon76 · Apr 28, 2016

The fact that atheists are always portrayed as a force that must be opposed by Christians, as if Christianity and atheism are a complete antithesis, is something that bothers me and betrays intellectual immaturity. The quest for truth is not a game or a sport with winners and losers. Atheism and materialism have been significant influences on many 20th century theologians such as Paul Tillich and Jurgen Moltmann, among others. There are even Christian Atheists who believe that God either never existed, or that a transcendent God died at Calvary with Jesus death (leaving God only as an immanent reality- the idea is that God literally emptied himself into the world), and I think both are legitimate Christian perspectives.

PaulA135711 · Apr 28, 2016

Firedragon,

Jesus said love your enemies. I oppose the notion that atheism is valid. I certainly do not have any hatred of atheists. And I am not alone.

Furthermore, atheist Tom Krattenmaker was quoted in Time magazine as saying about American atheists, "Even though we’re despised in some parts of the country and discriminated against in some ways, we don’t really get bullied or picked on. That makes it harder to gain sympathy for our views." In the USA hate crimes against atheists are very small in number. According to 2013 FBI statistics, 6/10 of a percent of hate crimes were against atheists/agnostics.

On the other hand, atheists have a history of intolerance which I demonstrated with my atheism and mass murder statistics previously. In addition, see the article entitled "atheism and intolerance" at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_intolerance

Of course, love does not precluded showing atheists where they are in error. And is does not precluded one from assertively doing so when it is called for. And of course, if someone is being willfully unreasonable, it is better to end a discussion with them rather than wrangle with them.

Atheism vs. Christian

Iconoclast

Active Member

SO COOL

Active Member

Senior Member

Active Member

SO COOL

Active Member

SO COOL

SO COOL

Active Member

SO COOL

Active Member

fallible

Active Member

SO COOL

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency