How can i answer this question to an atheist??

[cmotdibbler]

The classic "tornado in a junkyard" (Hoyle) is a strawman argument that fails on several levels. A better to think of it is if pages or words were sticky and the proper "fits" retained, then you blew it up again and kept the now larger collection of "fits" repeat lots of time. And yes, you will have lots of time *and* you can do this not at only one location but almost limitless explosions all occurring very fast. The good fits can also be incorporated by neighboring explosions. You also only have to make the dictionary once. There are computer simulations that demonstrate this. No biologist thinks that full-blown modern cells appear like magic. Maybe early cells were more like virus', maybe phospholipid micelles that trapped some early version of RNA, we can't know for sure without time travel (and that is unlikely).

The single change in the chicken embryo probably involves a homeobox gene that regulates basic body patterns. Experimentally, this is where you get the flies with legs growing out of their head. Student experiments now, but Nobel stuff a few years back.

Your hoaxes (from the early 1900s) were debunked by scientists, that is how it works.

Mutations in DNA occur (mostly) randomly, if they confer some advantage prior to replication, then natural selection will incorporate the mutation into next generation (this is simple statistics). Other mechanism exist as well, gene drift, founder effects, geographical isolation, sexual selection, human intervention read about them in a intro level bio book. Google and read about the myostatin mutations that result in superior strength and muscular development in several mammals, including humans. Google and read about the Finnish Olympic medalist with a mutant form of hemoglobin that gave him better oxygen carrying capacity.

I've had four different pastors trying to get to me for 15 years, none have succeeded.
I'll give you a clue, *everyone* wants to be right, atheists (by definition as far as I know) don't believe in "souls".

 

[KWCrazy]

Newton's "Law" of Gravity is accurate describing the mechanics of macro-sized objects,

This could have something to do with the fact that gravity is the result of mass and that subatomic particles, lacking mass, lack gravitational attraction. However, planets, stars and other heavenly bodies DO have mass, and therefore the law of gravity applies. Quantum theory may give the atheist a glimmer of hope ONLY if he lacks the comprehension that those quantum particles are not magically appearing and disapperaring; but that routine bonding and unbonding can make them at times undetectable. Did they teach you THAT at evo school?

As far as the "unsound" theory of evolution, please provide a list of references.

What did they teach you in debate class about proving a negative?
1. Show me evidence of abiogenesis. Newton proved that life came only from life. Where is the evidence of life coming from non-life? There is none, because it cannot happen.
2. Proteins, carefully created under perfect conditions that do not exist in nature, can be either left handed or right handed and are about 50/50. Since only left handed proteins can support life and the simplest life form requires 200 proteins, the premise of random causation is a statistical absurdity.
3. There is no process in nature for the acquisition of genetic information that did not previously exist. Adaptation is a conservative process which leaves the subsequent generations with the same or less genetic information. Random mutations cannot advance a species, which experiments have demonstrated (radioactive fruit flies, anyone?)
4. Physical characteristics are encoded in genes. Animals with extremely similar physical characteristics will have extremely similar genomes. This does not prove ancestry. It proves a commonality of design only.
5. Any biological argument for common ancestry could be better made for a common designer. To think that living creatures created in the same place at the same time using the same blueprint for life and the same genetic material by the same Creator would NOT have commonalities is a fallacy of logic.
6. Show me evidence to prove that evolution CAN happen before you try and convince me that it DID happen.

I'm a molecular biologist

Congratulations. You have a degree in studying what we know about how life is, and in studying wild guesses about how we think that life may have come about. Adam never took a college course. He knew more about there he came from than you ever will.

...do not know of a single professional biologist (and I've met hundreds) who doesn't accept as fact that gene allele frequencies change over time

No kidding? What was your first clue? Everyone knows this. It's called adaptation. As I've stated before, every evo is fundametally a liar and this definition proves it. You see, they say that "Evolution is merely the process by which gene allele frequencies change over time" and then talk nonsense about a single common original progenitor. If your thesis is that all dog species came from a single canine pair, I might buy that. In fact, I'm reasonably sure that that's what Noah had on the ark and that from these creatures life diversified. Now if you want to put forth the propsition that chickens came from dinosaurs because they LOOK the same, then I'm going to give your education the same respect as if you had studied alchemy.
To paraphrase Jery McQuire, SHOW ME THE PROCESS!!!

 

[cmotdibbler]

You seem to be hung up on the words "law" and "theory" thinking that the former outranks the latter. These are terms generally used in the popular press to convey a simple message that is true under general macro conditions. And yes, I've had (and mostly forgotten) quantum and statistical mechanics.

I never took debate class, seems like they are good for producing debaters not scientists.
Abiogenesis: Newton was perhaps the greatest scientist; the "law" of gravity, optics, calculus before getting involved in alchemy. Unfortunately, Newton was *not* a biologist of any account, you are confusing him with Pasteur. We don't know what the conditions were like on earth 4.5 billion years ago, probably very different and single cells don't fossilize too well.

2. Chirality and protein, McCarthey et al Science 1998. Stacking statistical probabilities is simply wrong.

3. There are several mechanisms to produce novel information in a genome. Errors in DNA replication, insertion/excision of transposable elements, site specific recombination, homologous recombination. Frameshifts.
4. Dolphins and sharks have similar shapes other than tails, their genomes are quite different.
5. Imposing the ridiculous constraint of an "entity" designing humans with built-in deficiencies that other mammals do not have is the sign of an insane or malicious "designer".

I have a PhD degree and *do* the molecular genetics every day for the past 20 years. Tell me what are your credentials? Have you touched a brain, performed animal surgery, held a neandertal skull in your hands, dissected human tissue, extracted DNA, RNA, protein, what genes have you cloned and did you express them in bacterial or eukaryotic vectors, with or without flourescent tags? Have you ever used an electron microscope, transmission or scanning, Have you ever done PCR? Have you ever sequenced a gene, using fluorescent tags or heat? Have you ever done Northern blots, Southern blots, western blots? Have you ever raised antibody in an animal using peptide based on information from a related species - did it work? How about toxins, ever work with radioactive black widow venom? Did you ever "process" 100 rats for tissue in a single day? Did you ever interview a family with a genetic condition and have to give them probabilities on the chances their kid will be deformed? We don't sit around making "wild guesses" sonny, there is real work involved, some of it is dangerous and distasteful for not much pay and I'll not have some dolt run on about how we scientists are "fundamentally liars" and "talk nonsense".

Gene allele frequencies are what you can measure in the field. There is quite a bit of evidence that birds are related to dinosaurs based on protein similarites. This was a hypothesis back in 1970s, modern methods of protein sequencing have bolstered the idea. It looks like you've drunk deeply from the Discovery Institute Kool-aid. Your negative tone and anti-science agenda represents everything I despise about FoxNews-watching christians. Scientific advances helped make this country great and people like you are trying to drag it back to colonial days. An anti-science stance is the same as being unAmerican. Go ahead and believe in your Noahs Ark and the barking mad idiots at the Discovery "Institute". Nobody is trying to take away your right to believe in these fantasies, just do it at church.

 

[KWCrazy]

..Your negative tone and anti-science agenda represents everything I despise about FoxNews-watching christians..

I was going to respond until read this and realized I was simply not conversing with an intelligent life form. Have a nice day.

 

[cmotdibbler]

Have a nice day. Remember Matt. 5:22

 

[KWCrazy]

Psalms 53: 1-3.

 

[cmotdibbler]

I was hoping you would come back with that verse.
So are you taking the position that no atheist has ever done "good" or ...
Are you going to re-interpret your holy book to redefine "good".

3Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Please explain Genesis 30:37-39 and describe the genetic mechanism in which sticks placed in front of mating animals changes the coloration.

 

[KWCrazy]

So are you taking the position that no atheist has ever done "good" or ...

Not at all. Many people who have done great and wonderful things for others and for humanity will be lost because works alone can not get you to heaven. it doesn't meant the deed are not in themselves good.

3Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

If you doubt that there are groups in which not one single person does good, take a look at the DNC.

Please explain Genesis 30:37-39 and describe the genetic mechanism in which sticks placed in front of mating animals changes the coloration.

There is no such genetic mechanism. God works through faith, and pays scant attention to the laws of physics. That's why He makes ax heads float and Christ walked on water. That's why a fleece can be dry through a thunderstorm and soaked when there is no rain or dew. Things which have a logical explanation are simply coincidence. Things which do not are called miracles. God still does miracles, but not to convince the unbeliever of His existence.

 

[cmotdibbler]

Then how do you reconcile your statements about good things done by atheists with what the verse says:
"they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

At least your implication that no one from the Democratic party has done good fits nicely with my guess that you were a fan of FoxNews.

The idea that the creator of the universe required striped sticks to quietly, and over at least a few years, change the coloration of sheep so that Jacob could (justly or not) "skim" from his employer (Laban). Why, just for Jacob to be able to buy the woman he *really* wanted? This is absurd.

The deity seemed perfectly willing to make dramatic demonstrations of his power in the past but now the best we can get are images of Jesus and Mary on potato chips and toast.

 

[KWCrazy]

Then how do you reconcile your statements about good things done by atheists with what the verse says:
"they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Were you there? I believe that passage refers to a specific group of people at a specific time. Nonetheless, rejection of God is the evil that will damn you, not voting for Obama.

At least your implication that no one from the Democratic party has done good fits nicely with my guess that you were a fan of FoxNews.

The democreep party is the mortal enemy of free market capitalism and the US Constitution. What do they stand for? Gutting the military? TRhe wholesale slaughter of the unborn, even in other countries, paid for by funds taken under threat of prison from taxpayers? Showing weakness in the face of those who would destroy us? Voter fraud? Socialism?

I was raised in a democratic home. My grandfather was a staunch democrat, and frankly, he'd take a horsewhip to the socialists we have in office today.

The idea that the creator of the universe required striped sticks to quietly, and over at least a few years, change the coloration of sheep so that Jacob could (justly or not) "skim" from his employer (Laban). Why, just for Jacob to be able to buy the woman he *really* wanted? This is absurd.

If God tells you to carry red marbles in your left front pocket for a year, it has nothing to do with the marbles, but in your faith.

The deity seemed perfectly willing to make dramatic demonstrations of his power in the past but now the best we can get are images of Jesus and Mary on potato chips and toast.

Try READING the Bible. God does not prove hisself to man, because that removes the requirement of faith. Those who have already come to God in faith have a direct communication with God through the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit will not live in an unclean temple, so if you want to really experience the knowledge of God, you have to actually work at it.

 

[cmotdibbler]

The web choked on my first reply, I had to run to church. That's right, I've been going for 20 years and probably have missed less than most of the people here.

Oh please, I've read enough Ken Ham nonsense that my sphincter tightens every time I hear the the phrase "were you there?". You weren't there either, so you are just speculating. The verse is very clear that those who do not believe in god are "filthy" and cannot do "good". Do you really think the Psalmists would say something much different about Richard Dawkins or Chris Hitchens? Don't try to twist the text to give you wiggle room.

Where does it say anything in the Constitution about "capitalist free market society". The previous administration is responsible for overextending the military and putting us into dual-vietnam scenarios. I've got a cousin who is in Iraq and even now it is a hellhole. (I voted for Reagan twice and Bush HW, btw). Thanks to only providing funds for "abstinence only" birth control we have a booming increase in HIV overseas and substantial increase in the teen-pregnancies here in (where else) the bible belt. Now many teens will engage in oral and anal sex much more frequently which resulted in explosion of STDs. You can look these stats up.

which version of the Bible? NSRV, KJ, NIV? I've read those, a couple of times each. I was in BSF class for a few years, my wife is a teaching leader. Josh McDowell "evidence that..." and Lee Strobel "case for ...", yep. Max Lucado, yep. CS Lewis, yep. Ken Ham's silly newsletter, yep. Johathan Wells "Icons of Evoution", yep. I know Francis Collins professionally.

I watched firsthand what "faith" has done to my wife. She had a wonderfully perceptive mind that is now closed off to anything that doesn't fit her narrow band of what is "right". It is such an incredible waste of talent.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The deity seemed perfectly willing to make dramatic demonstrations of his power in the past but now the best we can get are images of Jesus and Mary on potato chips and toast.

"My son, if you receive my words,
and treasure my commands within you,
so that you include your ears to wisdom,
and apply your heart to understanding;
Yes, if you cry out for discernment,
and lift up your voice for understanding,
if you seek her as silver,
and search for her as for hidden treasures;
Then you will understand the fear of the LORD,
and find the knowledge of God."
Proverbs 2:1-5

I read that verse and I thought of you. If you continue searching for God, with your whole heart, He will find you.

God bless.

 

[cmotdibbler]

<sigh> I appreciate the thoughts ddg15, really.

 

[KWCrazy]

The verse is very clear that those who do not believe in god are "filthy" and cannot do "good". Do you really think the Psalmists would say something much different about Richard Dawkins or Chris Hitchens?

Good is a realtive term depending on context. Evil people can do things considered good by humanistic standards, but which are merely another abomination to God because the moitivations are selfish and evil. Dawkins and Hitchens are damned by their rejection of Christ, The can do "good" works for the next 50 years and not erase the fact that they are evil in the eye of God for their rejection of the Holy Spirit.

The previous administration is responsible for overextending the military and putting us into dual-vietnam scenarios.

Neither scenario remotely resembles Vietnam.
The terrorists attacked US. Any president who would not hunt them down and kill them is unworthy of the office.

I've got a cousin who is in Iraq and even now it is a hellhole.

It was far worse when the rape rooms and the torture chambers were open, and when Jussein was the world's leading sponsor of terrorism.

Thanks to only providing funds for "abstinence only" birth control we have a booming increase in HIV overseas and substantial increase in the teen-pregnancies here in (where else) the bible belt.

Also thanks to Bush, millions of people in Africa are alive. Bush's efforts to combat AIDS in Africa have prevented an estimated million deaths, more than any single person in the history of humanity. Look it up.

Now many teens will engage in oral and anal sex much more frequently which resulted in explosion of STDs. You can look these stats up.

That's not Bush's fault. Blaim THAT on the godless culture which proclaims there is no God and humans are merely mutated animals. If there is no God, then there is no morality since morality then stems from only a collective opinion of right and wrong with no ultimate authority.

 

[Smidlee]

I never thought Psalm 53 was dealing with just atheist but mankind as a whole. Even Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes even he played as a fool. In another words living as if there were no God. There were many examples of this in Ecclesiastes as if Solomon was speaking from a materialistic view point.

 

[Wyte_as_Sno]

Im a new believer, Im still learning so forgive me.

Jesus said for us to spread the Good News. Apostle Paul said that we're the planters and waters the plant but it is God who grows them.

For me, as a new believer, seeing this arguement between evo and christians is ridiculous. We as believers, shouldnt we just give them the Word? Shouldnt we not argue with them on who's right or whos wrong? I think these type of things are the things that turns a non-believer away from Christ permanently. The more you argue with them the more they are drawn away.
I have yet to see close friends that argues all the time and have a bond, but I have seen countless people seperate beacuse of arguements. Its the same here. If the evo guy doesnt like us, what makes us think that he would want to be like us?

Give him the word, teach him the Good News, let God do the rest. After all, we cannot haste God into doing what we want right? And if we must do something about it by changing a persons thoughts to become like us, then what is faith?

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[juvenissun]

Im a new believer, Im still learning so forgive me.

Jesus said for us to spread the Good News. Apostle Paul said that we're the planters and waters the plant but it is God who grows them.

For me, as a new believer, seeing this arguement between evo and christians is ridiculous. We as believers, shouldnt we just give them the Word? Shouldnt we not argue with them on who's right or whos wrong? I think these type of things are the things that turns a non-believer away from Christ permanently. The more you argue with them the more they are drawn away.
I have yet to see close friends that argues all the time and have a bond, but I have seen countless people seperate beacuse of arguements. Its the same here. If the evo guy doesnt like us, what makes us think that he would want to be like us?

Give him the word, teach him the Good News, let God do the rest. After all, we cannot haste God into doing what we want right? And if we must do something about it by changing a persons thoughts to become like us, then what is faith?

You are perfectly right.

However, some of us like to meet the challenge they GAVE to us. So goes the argument. We do not want to fight. But when one is trying to kill you, there are only two options: run, or fight.

 

[juvenissun]

I watched firsthand what "faith" has done to my wife. She had a wonderfully perceptive mind that is now closed off to anything that doesn't fit her narrow band of what is "right". It is such an incredible waste of talent.

A suggestion: Do not present alternatives to her as she will reject them without any consideration. But to challenge her on what she thinks is "right". If she is really right, then the challenge should fail. Otherwise, either the challenge is not good enough, or she is truly right. You keep an open mind too.

 

[peace4ever]

Here is what he first said:
Those are silly arguments. So you believe in a god because you don't have all of the answers? Not knowing how something works doesn't mean a mystical man created it. Missing link? You don't understand evolution. What, you want to see a human that walked slightly hunched over? It doesn't work that way. It's punctuated by smaller changes that group together for larger changes. That's basic science at this point. We've taken chicken embryos and made single gene changes in them that have had a HUGE impact on the physical features of the creature. They grow a tail, a beak is replaced by a mouth, lose feathers, etc, all with a single gene mutation. Just because YOU don't understand genetics, dna, biology, it doesn't mean there is a creator.

All you have to do is ask him to describe the common ancestor, how many there were, where and when they lived and it won't be hard at all to show that evolution is the imaginary belief, not God.

 

[alexross8]

I'm currently debating with an atheist in another forum and he has hit me with stuff on evolution that I just can't answer. I was hoping that somebody in here can please explain on how I can refute him.

Here is what he first said:
Those are silly arguments. So you believe in a god because you don't have all of the answers? Not knowing how something works doesn't mean a mystical man created it. Missing link? You don't understand evolution. What, you want to see a human that walked slightly hunched over? It doesn't work that way. It's punctuated by smaller changes that group together for larger changes. That's basic science at this point. We've taken chicken embryos and made single gene changes in them that have had a HUGE impact on the physical features of the creature. They grow a tail, a beak is replaced by a mouth, lose feathers, etc, all with a single gene mutation. Just because YOU don't understand genetics, dna, biology, it doesn't mean there is a creator.

Here is what I said:
Present to us a single transitional fossil and I will believe in this thing that you call evolution.

-From the mouth of Charles Darwin himself regarding transitional fossils. "The most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory..."

And here is his final reply to me:
Did you not read what I wrote, or are you just ignoring it? There is no need for transitional fossils as explained in detail in my above posts. You aren't going to have fish with half a leg and half a flipper. It wouldn't have what it needs to survive or become sexually successful at reproducing. beyond that, if you understand the process of fossilization, you would understand the EXTREME rarity of such a fossil being preserved. It's a one in a million shot that something dies and ends up in the exact circumstances required for fossilization. Beyond that, read my post above about the impact we have WITNESSED from SINGLE gene mutations.


Thanks!

if you understand the process of fossilization, you would understand the EXTREME rarity of such a fossil being preserved. It's a one in a million shot that something dies and ends up in the exact circumstances required for fossilization.

Fossilization happens , but how long would you expect a fossil to stay intact with it's self?

Consider this :
Millions upon millions of minerature Earthquakes are happening as we speak.
It just so happens that we have gone through some pretty heavy earthquakes throughout a span of 2,000 years.

Imagine putting a bone into an environment where it is trapped underneathe the ground.
This bone mineralizes and becomes a fossil.
The fossil itself is made up of whatever the ground is made up of , and is subject to whatever happens to the ground.

Say for example that Millions of small earthquakes were happening each second.
How would a million year old fossil survive in the ground if it goes through the same changes as the ground goes through?

The answer is that it wouldn't survive.

The only logical way a fossil could survive that long , is if it was encased in metal.
Even being encased in metal wouldn't insure a safe million years.

Paleontologists haven't accepted those factors , even though they are factual , because they go against what they believe.

Beyond that, read my post above about the impact we have WITNESSED from SINGLE gene mutations.

That proves what?

According to the bible , each day in Genesis is an addition or an extra to the previous day.

If we take this , and use it as a measure for prediction , we might come up with some interesting results.

On the fifth day , birds and fish were created.
And on the sixth day , land animals were created.

What does the tell us?
If each day is an addition to the previous day , then you would expect the lifeforms from the sixth day to be like the lifeforms on the fifth day.

Does every land animal share genes with fish and birds?
Yes they do.

Insects and Arachnids share fly dna and shellfish dna.

amphibians , mammals , and reptiles share bird and fish dna.

we don't just share 97% of our genes with chimps.
Chimps are made up of 89 percent other animal dna.
only about 10% of their dna is their own.
And only about 3 percent of our dna is our own.

What can you expect though?
All humans were made to be an addition to all beasts on sixth day , and all fish and birds on fifth day.

It's no wonder that we share animal dna.


As for your disbelief , it seems completely illogical and redundant.

How could you believe that there is no God?

The human population stems from 2100 BC , the same time that biblical Noah got off the ark.

Go look it up.
The human population records stop at the 1700s , and anything before 170s is a complete estimate.
People have completely distorted their estimates , by adding in a fantasy goal , or make-believe factor , which is supposed to give us an accurate population record estimate.
They set their fantasy goal as 70,000 BC , a goal that must comply with population records.


And if you look at the population record , you will see a constant rate of 50 years minus about 1/3 of the population.

This is what they did on wikipedia:

1800
1750
1700
1000
1

Did you see that?
The population records stop at 1700s .
But the people who set 70,000 BC as their goal , have completely skipped a whole millennium .

My fix of the chart doesn't go by a fantasy goal that I must fulfill.
I go by what the constant rate goes by.
Do you know what I ended up with?
I ended up with 2100BC as the date of human kind's beginning.

Do you know when 2100 BC happened?
It happened at almost the exact date that Noah's ark landed.
Isn't that amazing?



And thats what I would have said.
I would have added pictures to my post to prove it , but i need to have 50 posts or more.