Science leads materialist atheist to reject atheism

[Subduction Zone]

So, your definition of your Evolution now agrees that we have been humans all along since our start? Congratulations for learning the truth!

How did you get that from that post?

You made rather ignorant errors. I was correcting them. No creationist has ever shown there to be any problem with evolution. All that they have ever shown is that they either do not know what they are arguing about or they have openly lied.

Mankind was not a goal of evolution, that alone makes your odds argument fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Afraid to see how the Evolution Theory fails miserably under mathematical probability test?

It actually gets worse when you factor in the law that keeps an ecosystem going. Don't forget that the animal life group is interdependent with the plant life group to cycle carbon dioxide and oxygen back and forth.

This means the multiple simultaneous lucky precision mutations on the animal side would have needed a complementary activities on the plants side to keep the balance of life or everything goes back to square one.

Also, all these multiple lucky accidents of mutations would have needed a very controlled environment where those precious initial spark of lives don't get exposed to extreme heat of the summer or the freezing cold temperatures of the winter.

But it doesn't. You need to use a proper model of evolution to make that claim. You use a strawman version. Since your model is wrong your conclusion is wrong.

You appear to still be making the incorrect assumption that man was a goal and not a result.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No they aren't - they are merely "inconvenient" for those who suggest they should not "exist".

You point to no actual detail for "out of context" -- were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

But they are. Do you know how we know? Because your source was afraid to provide links so that context could be checked. The only reason that one does that in these days is because one has argued dishonestly.

Why didn't they provide proper links to their sources? Are you claiming that they are complete idiots and are totally unaware of the history of creationists and quote mining? If so why believe a source that consists of writings by total idiots?

You lose either way.

 

[covid-19v1]

We were talking about simultaneous lucky mutations. Spreading things out over three billion years is hardly simultaneous. So your entire reply has nothing to do with what I asked

Then, you don't understand how basic organs work. If you're going to rely on random lucky mutations to develop eyes for seeing, for example, randomly flipping values in the gene sequence does not give you all the needed elements to obtain a set of functioning eyes.

You need to encode in the DNA to instruct it to use specific chemicals to build the eyes (lens, ability to focus, keep itself clean), the optic nerves, the brain interface that interpret the images, the dimensions of materials, the order of interface, etc.

Simultaneous precision mutations also needed to happen to change reproduction method to sexual means. You can't do it partially or it would not work (which means literal dead end).

The first living organism that would have resulted from an accidental Primordial soup would have been an immediate dead end because it would have needed a DNA in the first place. And not just a DNA, it would have needed the encodings to tell it to try to eat and reproduce.

 

[covid-19v1]

None of that is how evolution works, just look at the Italian wall lizard to show how animals evolve to eat new food sources. It's not like suddenly plant A goes from toxic to edible, it's a progress.

Best examples are snakes that can eat salamanders that are extremely deadly. It's not like the salamander got this deadly poison that instantly kills everything but the snake. It got something deadly that could harm most animals, but the snake had a natural resistance, as the snakes resistance grew, so did the toxicity of the salamanders over time.

It's not the snake or the salamander trying to be more toxic or more resistant. It's that those salamanders that were more toxic, were better able to escape the snake, and the snakes that had mutations that mad them better able to survive the toxin, were better able to eat them and so on. Everything is evolving at all times, and within every population you will get a spectrum, of those more toxi, and those less toxic then the average. The mutations that are less get weeded out, while those that are more toxic on average are more likely to survive.

Did you even read the post which you replied to? You did not even try addressing any of the points.

 

[covid-19v1]

How did you get that from that post?

Because you claim the change in human skin color due to adaptation to the environment is Evolution. Adaptation is a basic defense of the body, just like developing immunity to certain viruses.

You made rather ignorant errors. I was correcting them. No creationist has ever shown there to be any problem with evolution. All that they have ever shown is that they either do not know what they are arguing about or they have openly lied.

Mankind was not a goal of evolution, that alone makes your odds argument fail.

You keep on throwing in straw man arguments. I never said mankind is the goal of the event that did not happen.

 

[covid-19v1]

But it doesn't. You need to use a proper model of evolution to make that claim. You use a strawman version. Since your model is wrong your conclusion is wrong.

You appear to still be making the incorrect assumption that man was a goal and not a result.

I've been presenting you arguments based on scientific facts. Do you want me to resort to clay models that is ignorant of DNA?

 

[Yttrium]

Then, you don't understand how basic organs work. If you're going to rely on random lucky mutations to develop eyes for seeing, for example, randomly flipping values in the gene sequence does not give you all the needed elements to obtain a set of functioning eyes.

Randomly flipping values and naturally SELECTING them incrementally over a great many generations could work just fine. Don't see why not.

You need to encode in the DNA to instruct it to use specific chemicals to build the eyes (lens, ability to focus, keep itself clean), the optic nerves, the brain interface that interpret the images, the dimensions of materials, the order of interface, etc.

If you take all the existing animals and arrange their eyes in order of increasing complexity, from simple light sensing spots to something like human eyes, it's not that hard to imagine an evolutionary path from simple to complex.

Simultaneous precision mutations also needed to happen to change reproduction method to sexual means. You can't do it partially or it would not work (which means literal dead end).

That's an empty assertion that continues to ignore natural selection. You don't need simultaneous precise mutations, you need incremental changes over a great many generations. Mutation and selection. If the change doesn't work, it gets selected out. If it does work, it stays in the population.

The first living organism that would have resulted from an accidental Primordial soup would have been an immediate dead end because it would have needed a DNA in the first place. And not just a DNA, it would have needed the encodings to tell it to try to eat and reproduce.

The theory of Evolution doesn't care how life got started. If God poofed the first life forms into existence, that's perfectly all right as far as evolution is concerned.

 

[Belk]

Afraid to see how the Evolution Theory fails miserably under mathematical probability test?

It actually gets worse when you factor in the law that keeps an ecosystem going. Don't forget that the animal life group is interdependent with the plant life group to cycle carbon dioxide and oxygen back and forth.

This means the multiple simultaneous lucky precision mutations on the animal side would have needed a complementary activities on the plants side to keep the balance of life or everything goes back to square one.

Also, all these multiple lucky accidents of mutations would have needed a very controlled environment where those precious initial spark of lives don't get exposed to extreme heat of the summer or the freezing cold temperatures of the winter.

So just out of curiosity, are the millions of biologists who have concluded evolution is the underpinning of biology over the past 150+ years really stupid, or is it a giant conspiracy?

 

[loveofourlord]

Then, you don't understand how basic organs work. If you're going to rely on random lucky mutations to develop eyes for seeing, for example, randomly flipping values in the gene sequence does not give you all the needed elements to obtain a set of functioning eyes.

You need to encode in the DNA to instruct it to use specific chemicals to build the eyes (lens, ability to focus, keep itself clean), the optic nerves, the brain interface that interpret the images, the dimensions of materials, the order of interface, etc.

Simultaneous precision mutations also needed to happen to change reproduction method to sexual means. You can't do it partially or it would not work (which means literal dead end).

The first living organism that would have resulted from an accidental Primordial soup would have been an immediate dead end because it would have needed a DNA in the first place. And not just a DNA, it would have needed the encodings to tell it to try to eat and reproduce.

Funny how we see the evolution of the eye in the animal kingdom, for something that an't be done, sure tons of evidence of it.

 

[loveofourlord]

Did you even read the post which you replied to? You did not even try addressing any of the points.

I did, you made fallacious statements that had nothing to do with evolution, and responded showing wh y your wrong. If you can't respond to the refutation then just admit it.

If we look at the salamander and snake example, you would think it's impossible for the snake and salamander to evolve to where they were because the snake would die before it was immune, but that's not how it works. You can't look at the finished product that requires perfect precision now and assume it couldn't have gotten there progressively because BOTh evolve at the same time. It's not the plant evolving to feed the animal, it's the animal evolving to feed on it.

Again as I refuted your very point with the Italian wall lizard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then, you don't understand how basic organs work. If you're going to rely on random lucky mutations to develop eyes for seeing, for example, randomly flipping values in the gene sequence does not give you all the needed elements to obtain a set of functioning eyes.

You need to encode in the DNA to instruct it to use specific chemicals to build the eyes (lens, ability to focus, keep itself clean), the optic nerves, the brain interface that interpret the images, the dimensions of materials, the order of interface, etc.

Simultaneous precision mutations also needed to happen to change reproduction method to sexual means. You can't do it partially or it would not work (which means literal dead end).

The first living organism that would have resulted from an accidental Primordial soup would have been an immediate dead end because it would have needed a DNA in the first place. And not just a DNA, it would have needed the encodings to tell it to try to eat and reproduce.

There you go demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of evolution.

Instead of making rather ignorant claims, you should be asking how did certain features evolved. When you say "lucky mutations" the odds are huge that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you claim the change in human skin color due to adaptation to the environment is Evolution. Adaptation is a basic defense of the body, just like developing immunity to certain viruses.

No, you are conflating the change in one individual with the change of a population. One person may tan. But what we will see in evolution that the DNA of the population changes We can observe that in real time.

You keep on throwing in straw man arguments. I never said mankind is the goal of the event that did not happen.

Wrong again, you did imply that. You did not have to say it. I do not think that you understand what a strawman argument is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been presenting you arguments based on scientific facts. Do you want me to resort to clay models that is ignorant of DNA?

No, you have been presenting arguments based upon your own ignorance and misunderstanding. They have been refuted. As I said earlier, asking questions is what you should be doing.

And forget about "gotcha questions". Can you ask proper questions? You should try it for once.

Just a friendly reminder, there is no scientific evidence for creationism and there is endless evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

"Science" has no problem at all explaining that an individual "can make something".

What the atheist neurosurgeon was ruling out is like the "computer in the woods" scenario where a story teller comes along and claims "trees and rocks did it by random chance climbing all the way up mount improbable".

And that is a claim that need to be supported by good evidence.

BTW, evolution is not random chance.

 

[NxNW]

Then, you don't understand how basic organs work. If you're going to rely on random lucky mutations to develop eyes for seeing, for example, randomly flipping values in the gene sequence does not give you all the needed elements to obtain a set of functioning eyes.

You need to encode in the DNA to instruct it to use specific chemicals to build the eyes (lens, ability to focus, keep itself clean), the optic nerves, the brain interface that interpret the images, the dimensions of materials, the order of interface, etc.

I guess you missed the fact that the eye has evolved dozens of times independently. It has been calculated that from a single light-sensitive cell, a functioning eyeball can develop in a few hundred thousand generations. In geological terms, that's a blink of an eye, so to speak.

 

[covid-19v1]

Praise be to God who is the author of all the good things and understanding of His creations! The more He shows me and make me understand these things is so humbling.

I don't think I'm better or deserving than any of you here. But bless Him for His sovereign grace! May the Lord give all of you the same grace and understanding that He has given to all He had chosen to.

I won't apologize, but I can't help but praise the greatest Engineer of the universe. I'll get back to all of you soon....Lord willing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Praise be to God who is the author of all the good things and understanding of His creations! The more He shows me and make me understand these things is so humbling.

I don't think I'm better or deserving than any of you here. But bless Him for His sovereign grace! May the Lord give all of you the same grace and understanding that He has given to all He had chosen to.

I won't apologize, but I can't help but praise the greatest Engineer of the universe. I'll get back to all of you soon....Lord willing.

Perhaps you should try to understand why if your God exists that he used evolution as his means of creation. Of course there is no scientific evidence for this, but at least you would not be force to try to defend incompetent design.

 

[BobRyan]

On another thread - Massive complexity of brain - apparently debunks the "rocks did it" suggestions? we see yet another example - adding to our examples of "science" observation to drive conclusions -- (not simply preference-against God) -- and further supports those that allow themselves to be "informed" by the example of atheists turning to God based on observations in nature as seen in the OP of this thread.

 

[Yttrium]

On another thread - Massive complexity of brain - apparently debunks the "rocks did it" suggestions? we see yet another example - adding to our examples of "science" observation to drive conclusions -- (not simply preference-against God) -- and further supports those that allow themselves to be "informed" by the example of atheists turning to God based on observations in nature as seen in the OP of this thread.

All you really have there is another Argument from Incredulity, which I doubt will persuade too many materialist atheists. But since I'm not a materialist atheist myself, I wouldn't know about that for sure.

Also, brains came along long after life first came about, so your quips about "rocks did it" don't apply.