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

[Windwalker]

I NEVER said they "lack ANY evidence". I continue to protest I interpret data differently, starting with:

I didn't intend it to be taken that literally. It stands fine without the word "any". Let's try it this way. You believe they lack sufficient evidence to support their claims, therefore you feel you're just as entitled to your opinion as they are theirs to make evolution fit your idea of what it should look like according to your religious opinions. Is that any more accurate?

It still doesn't change the fact that you are not as entitled to your opinion as they are theirs, because they are experts and specialists (not perfect gods), and that makes their opinions far more considered and important and more valid than yours, not being an expert yourself. Expertise, knowledge, data, research, etc., matters when it comes to these things. They have infinitely more weight than yours as a non-expert.

* A lack of uniformitarian ASSUMPTIONS
* Recognition of what an unproven hypothesis is
* Seeing no inductive observation from the ancient past
* Seeing no reproducibility in controlled environments

All of these have been dealt with countless times by refuters of the apologist trope of pseudoscientific balderdash. The scientists who do the work, are well aware how to do science. You don't think they know how to do science, and need your correction?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Both creation and evolution are the same. Neither are necessary to God, but its alright.

 

[Windwalker]

Stop the rhetoric that I can't see past or around my Bible and deal with the science, man!

Are you a scientist? Have you had your findings peer reviewed in science journals? Are you qualified to dispute the scientists?

The answer to all three is presumably no. So therefore, you are not choosing to deny what it says because of scientific reasons. That leaves only one reason you would choose to go this path, rather than simply accepting the science as it is without you modifying it, or attempting to make it look shoddy somehow. That reason is religious bias.

So yes, it's hard for me to see justifiable reasons I should conclude you are going this path for scientific reasons. You're not a scientist, so you wouldn't know where to look unless someone gave you the ammo to debunk what you already chose ahead of time to not believe.

There is not a debate that evolution is what brought about speciation, that all life evolved into different forms from an original animal life form that became you and me, the cat, the dog, the horse, the cow, the elephant, the sea lion, the whale, and all of God's creatures under, on top of, and in the skies above the earth. That is not in dispute in the sciences. Yet, you say it should be?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't intend it to be taken that literally. It stands fine without the word "any". Let's try it this way. You believe they lack sufficient evidence to support their claims, therefore you feel you're just as entitled to your opinion as they are theirs to make evolution fit your idea of what it should look like according to your religious opinions. Is that any more accurate?

It still doesn't change the fact that you are not as entitled to your opinion as they are theirs, because they are experts and specialists (not perfect gods), and that makes their opinions far more considered and important and more valid than yours, not being an expert yourself. Expertise, knowledge, data, research, etc., matters when it comes to these things. They have infinitely more weight than yours as a non-expert.


All of these have been dealt with countless times by refuters of the apologist trope of pseudoscientific balderdash. The scientists who do the work, are well aware how to do science. You don't think they know how to do science, and need your correction?

I do not lack sufficient evidence to make valid claims regarding evolution. I do have sufficient evidence to tell you (IMHO) Jesus LOVES you!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you a scientist? Have you had your findings peer reviewed in science journals? Are you qualified to dispute the scientists?

The answer to all three is presumably no. So therefore, you are not choosing to deny what it says because of scientific reasons. That leaves only one reason you would choose to go this path, rather than simply accepting the science as it is without you modifying it, or attempting to make it look shoddy somehow. That reason is religious bias.

So yes, it's hard for me to see justifiable reasons I should conclude you are going this path for scientific reasons. You're not a scientist, so you wouldn't know where to look unless someone gave you the ammo to debunk what you already chose ahead of time to not believe.

There is not a debate that evolution is what brought about speciation, that all life evolved into different forms from an original animal life form that became you and me, the cat, the dog, the horse, the cow, the elephant, the sea lion, the whale, and all of God's creatures under, on top of, and in the skies above the earth. That is not in dispute in the sciences. Yet, you say it should be?

Do you consider it at all premature to "conclude" I have nothing to offer without peer review? I mean, I don't need peer review for the love of Christ, family or country!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not lack sufficient evidence to make valid claims regarding evolution. I do have sufficient evidence to tell you (IMHO) Jesus LOVES you!

I am rather certain that you do not even understand the concept of evidence in this context. But you could always show me to be wrong.

 

[Windwalker]

I do not lack sufficient evidence to make valid claims regarding evolution. I do have sufficient evidence to tell you (IMHO) Jesus LOVES you!

Yes, God is Love, and I know that. What we are talking about is that you believe that scientists lack sufficient evidence to support their theory of evolution. I wasn't talking about what you lacked, but that you believe scientists are not justified in claiming the things they do. Do you agree with that? Do you believe that they lack sufficient evidence to support the theory of evolution?

 

[Windwalker]

Do you consider it at all premature to "conclude" I have nothing to offer without peer review? I mean, I don't need peer review for the love of Christ, family or country!

We're not talking about theology. We are talking about science and the theory of evolution. When it comes to YOU saying science has got it wrong, are you qualified to say that using science? No, you are not. Neither am I. You do however have the right to say that you simply choose not to believe what the experts say because your religious beliefs run counter with it.

That's fine if you want to say that, and that is all I have been saying all along. That is the only legitimate reason for you to reject what they show. You cannot say it is scientifically invalid, without using valid acceptable science as a challenge to it. Without it, it is purely based upon a religious discomfort with it. I don't have that same discomfort you do, nor do a great many other Christians.

You trying to argue the science, is missing the real reason for your rejection, which is your interpretation of faith. That's what you should focus on instead. All the rest is you distracting yourself from that focus. Personally, I find it much simpler not to have to "kick against the pricks". In my world, God is Love, and evolution is true. Both are true. Evolution, is God creating.

What may help in this regard theologically for you, is to realize that creation is not a past act, at some historical point one time in the past. Rather it is continual, always unfolding into new shapes and forms, new understandings, new light, new revelation. While God is unmoving, creation is not.

I think Christians would benefit from realizing the dynamic nature of the divine in the world, rather than fixing it in the past and not seeing God in the present. Evolution explodes that radiant Life into multiplicity of form. Evolution is God creating in the world. "Thank God for evolution", in other words.

That's my two cents to offer you for consideration.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, God is Love, and I know that. What we are talking about is that you believe that scientists lack sufficient evidence to support their theory of evolution. I wasn't talking about what you lacked, but that you believe scientists are not justified in claiming the things they do. Do you agree with that? Do you believe that they lack sufficient evidence to support the theory of evolution?

It's like you write me without once reading what I've written!

I've already said multiple times, that using the scientific method, rigor, and the existing evidence, good lay people and good scientists can draw different inferences and conclusions about past events that cannot be observed today inductively.

Put differently, there IS evidence for, example, abiogenesis, and also evidence that God created.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We're not talking about theology. We are talking about science and the theory of evolution. When it comes to YOU saying science has got it wrong, are you qualified to say that using science? No, you are not. Neither am I. You do however have the right to say that you simply choose not to believe what the experts say because your religious beliefs run counter with it.

That's fine if you want to say that, and that is all I have been saying all along. That is the only legitimate reason for you to reject what they show. You cannot say it is scientifically invalid, without using valid acceptable science as a challenge to it. Without it, it is purely based upon a religious discomfort with it. I don't have that same discomfort you do, nor do a great many other Christians.

You trying to argue the science, is missing the real reason for your rejection, which is your interpretation of faith. That's what you should focus on instead. All the rest is you distracting yourself from that focus. Personally, I find it much simpler not to have to "kick against the pricks". In my world, God is Love, and evolution is true. Both are true. Evolution, is God creating.

What may help in this regard theologically for you, is to realize that creation is not a past act, at some historical point one time in the past. Rather it is continual, always unfolding into new shapes and forms, new understandings, new light, new revelation. While God is unmoving, creation is not.

I think Christians would benefit from realizing the dynamic nature of the divine in the world, rather than fixing it in the past and not seeing God in the present. Evolution explodes that radiant Life into multiplicity of form. Evolution is God creating in the world. "Thank God for evolution", in other words.

That's my two cents to offer you for consideration.

And? Although my law training is limited, I think sometimes juries and judges get it wrong. Sometimes I think physicists are wrong, sometimes, college professors. Please understand I am capable, as are you, of reading white papers or evolution papers, which are often written to use lay terms and not just for erudite scientific audiences, and draw conclusions and inferences.

Here's the danger I see in the way you think: "Scientists can not possibly be wrong but we should have Wild West subjective opinions about theology, and no one can possibly be right in Bible interpretation, particularly if they dare take the texts at face value."

 

[tas8831]

I do not lack sufficient evidence to make valid claims regarding evolution.

Your posting history says otherwise.

I do have sufficient evidence to tell you (IMHO) Jesus LOVES you!

No you don't.

 

[Wandering Monk]

also evidence that God created.

Nor possible. You are begging the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's like you write me without once reading what I've written!

I've already said multiple times, that using the scientific method, rigor, and the existing evidence, good lay people and good scientists can draw different inferences and conclusions about past events that cannot be observed today inductively.

Put differently, there IS evidence for, example, abiogenesis, and also evidence that God created.

What scientific evidence do you have that God created? I am betting that you draw a blank.

 

[tas8831]

Please understand I am capable, as are you, of reading white papers or evolution papers, which are often written to use lay terms and not just for erudite scientific audiences, and draw conclusions and inferences.

Ummmmm....

A simple case for intelligent design


I especially liked:

* The filter to store unneeded gut bacteria in the appendix until needed
* The filter to build the appendix as a rarefied storage unit
* The filter to have the enzymes and other catalysts to release the bacteria, etc. times about 30 other things we can think of from a medical/endocrine/biology perspective, raised to the 32nd power for 32 independent evolutionary changes​

Seems like yes, you can read science things, but the conclusions and inferences you draw are like those of someone with no knowledge of the material whatsoever.

Not sure I would boast about that.

 

[ecco]

Abiogenesis is not "a work in progress", it attempting to prove a yet unproven non-falsifiable hypothesis, that God isn't Creator!

Abiogenesis definitely is "a work in progress". Abiogenesis will not be "proven" any more than evolution is "proven". The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. At some point in the future, the evidence for the methodology of abiogenesis will also be overwhelming.

However, there are many things that demonstrate that the origins are not like what is described in your Bible as the work of your God. One of the most obvious of these is the absence of any evidence of a worldwide flood and overwhelming evidence that there never was a worldwide flood. The other is the overwhelming evidence that the age or the earth is in the billions of years, not in the thousands of years. This is evidence that your Bible, and therefore your God, are nothing more than myths just as the stories of Atlas and Jupiter are myths.

As I've told you many times, and as we all know, you accept science up to and only up to the point that it conflicts with your fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible.



However, keeping on the track that you have duck and dodged from, you previously asserted that research into abiogenesis was "near-empty". I guess I'll accept your comments above as an indication that your earlier assertion was just Something You Pulled From Your A**.

You do that a lot.

 

[ecco]

. I work at a University and I hear from others that nothing has changed since I was a student

If you work at a university and the way you get your information is hearing from others, it sounds like you have no knowledge and understanding of what is actually taught. Are you a maintenance worker or a safety officer?

I'm in a position to disagree with scientists, even experts in their field

That's laughable.

 

[ecco]

Stop the rhetoric that I can't see past or around my Bible and deal with the science, man!

You make comments like this and then you make comments like the following...

By definition, Jesus was of the material.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God

He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”)

...proving that you "can't see past or around {your} my Bible.

It's silly to accuse us of shortsightedness when you so clearly show your bias.

 

[ecco]

Both creation and evolution are the same.

I'd really like to see the rationale supporting that comment.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I'd really like to see the rationale supporting that comment.

In a singularity learning can be a curse.

 

[ecco]

Both creation and evolution are the same. Neither are necessary to God, but its alright.

I'd really like to see the rationale supporting that comment.

In a singularity learning can be a curse.

Why is it that so many creationists make nonsense comments and then, when asked to support or justify their comments, duck and dodge?