Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)

[Polymath257]

Cannot be "always was" due to conservation of matter/energy.

Please be more specific about what you see as the violation of the conservation of energy. Exactly what do you think the conservation law actually says?

Cannot be "just is" due to " ".

???

You surprise me with your lack of logic here, seriously!

I might suggest that I understand the relevant physics better than you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The universe didn't "come into existence." The big bang is the beginning of the universe, not the beginning of matter and time and space. Those things always existed. They are eternal. If they weren't, it would violate that law. But if your saying that the universe can't be eternal, what makes it okay for god to be?

I'm not saying "the universe can't be eternal," the Law of Conservation says it.

And you thus answered your own question, God isn't mere matter or energy but a higher form that sculpted those material things.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, for one scientist. But when you are claiming hundreds of thousands of genuine scientists have misinterpreted data you make yourself look silly. Especially when the opposition cannot muster any scientific evidence for their beliefs.

Hundreds of thousands of genuine scientists are unwilling to admit that nearly a century of abiogenesis experiments are utter failures, for one of many such examples.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ever hear of Einstein? Hmmm....

No, who is "Einstein"? The bagel brothers guys? Do you even logic? Science? Respect any believers? Respect the people who are fellow members of the forum you troll at?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I see an interesting account of creation in Psalm 104. It described God working in many aspects of creation and ends with 'sinners will be destroyed'

It seems there is a moral tie with seeing God as creator.

Don't misrepresent what it's saying, please. It's the person who wrote it/sing it saying they wish that would happen, not God saying it will happen. It's like that other verse from Psalm about dashing babies against rocks. It's not God saying to do it, it's the writer/singer of the Psalm lamenting the Israelites being attacked and laid to ruin, and wishing ruin on their enemies. I swear, you fundies make the Bible and God look just as bad as the anti-theists do by taking verses out of context and misrepresenting them.

"33 I will sing to the Lord all my life;
I will sing praise to my God as long as I live.
34 May my meditation be pleasing to him,
as I rejoice in the Lord.
35 But may sinners vanish from the earth
and the wicked be no more.

Praise the Lord, my soul.

Praise the Lord."

- Psalm 104:33-35

 

[exchemist]

So you are unaware of the "glaring, fundamental problems" with say, abiogenesis as an unproven, un-duplicated, untested theory?

Indeed. There are none, so far as I am aware, not least because there is no "theory of abiogenesis", tested or otherwise. As I feel sure has been explained to you many times already, all we have to date are bits and piece of an enormous jigsaw puzzle. Those bits and pieces, however, are based on testing out the biochemistry and biophysics involved, in accordance with normal scientific practice.

Again, if there really were glaring fundamental problems, the science community would be red-hot with debate about it and it would be in the newspapers. So if you think there is a glaring fundamental problem with the science, you must also believe there is a huge worldwide conspiracy theory to suppress The Truth. Is that what you really think?

 

[exchemist]

Ever hear of Einstein? Hmmm....

To be fair, there is such a "law" but, as you imply, it only applies in classical mechanics.

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm not saying "the universe can't be eternal," the Law of Conservation says it.

Firstly, what conservation law says it?

Secondly, do you think current science knows everything there is to know about the universe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hundreds of thousands of genuine scientists are unwilling to admit that nearly a century of abiogenesis experiments are utter failures, for one of many such examples.

What makes you think that they were failures? Many, if not most, were successful

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be fair, there is such a "law" but, as you imply, it only applies in classical mechanics.

I was purposefully mimicking an incorrect post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, who is "Einstein"? The bagel brothers guys? Do you even logic? Science? Respect any believers? Respect the people who are fellow members of the forum you troll at?

LOL!! You still don't get it. When you write a rude and incredibly ignorant post you are in no position to complain at all when your rudeness is turned back at you in exactly the same way.

You must know how you were wrong by now.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not saying "the universe can't be eternal," the Law of Conservation says it.

Really? Which conservation law says that? Exactly what does that conservation law say (I bet you get it wrong in detail)?

And you thus answered your own question, God isn't mere matter or energy but a higher form that sculpted those material things.

And thereby violated the conservation law?

 

[Windwalker]

I accept the theory of evolution as you've defined it, I've seen in my lifetime new species of dogs arise, for example. Next, try asking the forum geniuses here whether dogs can give birth to cats, and they'll give you double-speak about well defined clades that are "good" and "unlikely" to change, meaning, they agree, dogs can become new species of dogs but NEVER cats or birds or fish... just like the Bible says. The Bible is compatible with modern science.

Do you believe that humans and african apes share a common ancestor together, which existed prior to humans or african apes? Do you believe that all animal life that exists on the planet evolved from simpler life forms which originally lived in the ocean? Do you believe that all animals are related to each other, and they all share a common ancestor at some point in history? Do you accept the following diagram of how evolution looks, which shows how we are all related to each other, that primates which includes us, shared a common ancestor?



If you answer no, that you disagree that apes and humans share a common ancestor, then you are not accepting the science for non-scientific reasons. You are distorting what the science shows in order to pay lip service that you are not "rejecting evolution", while you are in fact denying and rejecting it.

BTW, the theory of evolution absolutely does not suggest that cats give birth to dogs, or that humans came from monkeys. That is not possible. That is not what the evidence shows. But it does show that at some point, way back, those branches of evolution were connected. Cats and dogs, humans and monkeys, at some point all shared a common ancestor, some small rodent creature that survived the dinosaur extinction.

Do you accept any of this? If not, then can you please answer my questions why you seem to feel a need to deny the science in order to believe in God, while other Christians do not? I fully accept the above, and I believe in God. Do you?

 

[exchemist]

I was purposefully mimicking an incorrect post.

Ah I should no doubt have read the foregoing correspondence more carefully.

 

[exchemist]

Hundreds of thousands of genuine scientists are unwilling to admit that nearly a century of abiogenesis experiments are utter failures, for one of many such examples.

The only "failed" experiment ( and I have done quite a few of those at university!) is one that, through faulty design or execution, is incapable of producing a result.

Which experiments do you have in mind that have been "utter failures"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah I should no doubt have read the foregoing correspondence more carefully.

My wording was almost word for word that of another poster's. His response to it broke my irony meter. He complained about my rudeness and implied that I did not use logic.


He may still not realize his error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only "failed" experiment ( and I have done quite a few of those at university!) is one that, through faulty design or execution, is incapable of producing a result.

Which experiments do you have in mind that have been "utter failures"?

I know what his response will be.

 

[exchemist]

It's the Law of Conservation of Mass? Hmmm....

Strictly, it is the law of conservation of mass-energy, yes. The Law of Conservation of Mass | Introduction to Chemistry

 

[exchemist]

I know what his response will be.

Maybe, but let me take him through it stepwise so the error can be identified when it comes.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So not the roman pantheon or the norse gods or scientology or mormonism or shamanism or ...

We believe that God has always sent Educators to humanity but over time traces of them have disappeared. Some have degenerated into myths and some are man made.

But truth is not confined to one place or religion. There is truth in science, in philosophy in indigenous religions and in some man made religions and all truth is accepted and valued.

As regards to Divine Revelation or truth revealed directly from God through a Messenger, Teacher or Prophet, we understand that in recorded history there to be only a very few spanning about 6,000 years of known history. Before that we have no records but believe there were Messengers before then. Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Zoroaster, Muhammad, the Bab and recently Baha’u’llah, we believe revealed Divine knowledge and truth for our benefit and development. We are free to use it or go our own way.