• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
leov said:
irreducible complexity youtube - Bing video
This needs to be explained, as Darwin said himself,
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't. You have failed to show I.C. is real. All creationists have failed that test.

I don't even need to look at whichever lying video you have dug up out of the pits of gross ignorance.

As for Darwin? Who gives a flying fig WHAT he may or may not have allegedly said?

DARWIN IS NO LONGER THE BEST EXPERT WITH RESPECT TO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. Not for over a century, in fact....
 
Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
Road Warrior said:
Yes, I’m familiar with the...ummm, belief.

Not inside the Natural Universe you can’t.
Click to expand...

BINGO! And since we have zero examples of anything-- any phenomena at all-- being "outside"? (if such an idea is even rational or makes sense)

We can dismiss all such phenomena as unlikely in the extreme.

It's akin to asking "what is North of the North Pole?"
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
leov said:
Formation of complex biological

care to refute it?
Click to expand...

It is the responsibility of the one making the claim either in science or logic. In science you do not refute things. If you consider something is valid in science it is up to you to propose a hypothesis, or in some cases a theory, and than falsify it with scientific methods.

Simply 'complex biological organs tissues and living organisms' exist. It is up to the claimants of Intelligent Design to propose hypothesis and with the objective verifiable evidence, and than falsify that they do not come about by natural processes.
 
Unguru

Unguru

I am a Sikh nice to meet you
Evangelicalhumanist said:
Wow! Has anybody ever seen such wisdom?

In respect of your awesome powers of argument, I think I need waste no more time on you...
Click to expand...

You are the person handing me phony arguments that fail themselves.

Now, on your dragon in the garage. You do understand that buying a fashion mag in a dairy requires very similar things as performing open heart surgery. Both require reaching for something, picking up something, grabbing something from another position, placing something somewhere, collecting something else from another person in the room, walking a small distance through the room. If I was an atheist, I'd think buying a fashion mag and performing open heart surgery are identical. And no, you don't get to call me out for these being false equivalence because this is identical to your dragon in the garage analogy, you just want to move the goal posts to keep your fallacious reasoning from being criticized.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Unguru said:
And we reject that position, nothing more or less.
Click to expand...
How can you reject what another person believes or does not believe? It appears that you are claiming to be a kind reader.

Let me reverse it. How would you react to a person telling you that you did not really believe in a God or gods?
 
leov

leov

Well-Known Member
ChristineM said:
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia

The Eye and Irreducible Complexity - Creationism Debunked :: DNA Learning Center

Irreducible complexity - RationalWiki

Of Mousetraps and Men: Behe on Biochemistry

Will they do for a start?
Click to expand...
Very simplistic no refutation just defense , nothing specific.. Developing complex structures may take thousands of years of purposeful mutation, many micro every step steps in between may last many generation and be an advantage to continue, that is not accidental process. All evolution was built in potential outcome based on conditions. What was Genetics of the first organism? Or it came with entity number 2? Evolution was built in through genetics with different potential outcome depending on conditions. Btw, that is what Nachmanides pointed, only thing was created ex nihilo was elementary part of matter with built in plan, blueprint of all what will ever appear.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Unguru said:
You are the person handing me phony arguments that fail themselves.

Now, on your dragon in the garage. You do understand that buying a fashion mag in a dairy requires very similar things as performing open heart surgery. Both require reaching for something, picking up something, grabbing something from another position, placing something somewhere, collecting something else from another person in the room, walking a small distance through the room. If I was an atheist, I'd think buying a fashion mag and performing open heart surgery are identical. And no, you don't get to call me out for these being false equivalence because this is identical to your dragon in the garage analogy, you just want to move the goal posts to keep your fallacious reasoning from being criticized.
Click to expand...
No, he gave you a very good analogy of what a religious belief is. It must have been a life-threatening to you since your response is totally off the rails.

It showed why no evidence is needed for a lack of belief in a god.

Here is a simple yes/no question:

Do you believe in his dragon?
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
leov said:
Very simplistic no refutation just defense , nothing specific.. Developing complex structures may take thousands of years of purposeful mutation, many micro every step steps in between may last many generation and be an advantage to continue, that is not accidental process. All evolution was built in potential outcome based on conditions. What was Genetics of the first organism? Or it came with entity number 2? Evolution was built in through genetics with different potential outcome depending on conditions.
Click to expand...

Not a good analogy, and no there are no accidental processes, random happenings, nor accidental cause and effect events. They all are subject to the Laws of Nature. There are accident humans have driving cars and such, but nature is not accidental nor random causes.

Actually evolution has taken place over billions of years to go from the simplist organisms we find in the Precambrian rocks, through many steps of increasing complexity until there was a diverse world of life forms in fungi, viruses, plants, and animals.
 
Unguru

Unguru

I am a Sikh nice to meet you
Subduction Zone said:
Here is a simple yes/no question:

Do you believe in his dragon?
Click to expand...

You're doing it wrong and deliberately avoiding the point.
Here is a simple yes/no question:

Do you believe putting a bracelet on your daughter's arm is the same thing as massacring 50 people?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
leov said:
Very simplistic no refutation just defense , nothing specific.. Developing complex structures may take thousands of years of purposeful mutation, many micro every step steps in between may last many generation and be an advantage to continue, that is not accidental process. All evolution was built in potential outcome based on conditions. What was Genetics of the first organism? Or it came with entity number 2? Evolution was built in through genetics with different potential outcome depending on conditions.
Click to expand...
No "purposeful mutaion" are needed. Why do you think that is the case?

Two big keys to evolution are variation and natural selection. Small positive changes are up, negative ones are discarded.

it appears at the end that you attempted to move the goal posts to abiogenesis. Let's concentrate on evolution for now.
 
leov

leov

Well-Known Member
Milton Platt said:
It was a trial in which the judge ruled that Creationism (repackaged as ID) was not based in science and was a religious concept.
Science does not owe anyone a refutation of an idea which does not even present a scientific theory to be tested against the evidence.

Maybe this will help you understand:

Browse the Talk.Origins Archive
Click to expand...
I understood that it was a refutation but I did not really found, science also said that kerosene melts steel...
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Unguru said:
You're doing it wrong and deliberately avoiding the point.
Here is a simple yes/no question:

Do you believe putting a bracelet on your daughter's arm is the same thing as massacring 50 people?
Click to expand...
Wrong, a nonsensical question is merely a dodge. An indicator that you feel that you are wrong at the very least.
Do you believe in his dragon or not?
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
leov said:
I understood that it was a refutation but I did not really found, science also said that kerosene melts steel...
Click to expand...

, , , kerosene melting steel? Sound like the beginning of a very bad joke

Very confusing, needs clarification. The Creationists failed at Dover, because they failed to present objective verifiable evidence and hypothesis that may be falsified to support Intelligent Design.
 
Unguru

Unguru

I am a Sikh nice to meet you
Subduction Zone said:
Wrong, a nonsensical question is merely a dodge.
Click to expand...

I am thrilled you realize this about your dragon in the garage question, now you've admitted to it. Now you can go on with your day knowing how terribly incomparable your dragon in the garage is to the concept of God. These only equate in the sense that putting a bracelet on your daughter's arm is the same thing as massacring 50 people or buying a fashion mag is the same as performing open heart surgery.
I'm glad you've admitted and are willing to learn.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Unguru said:
I am thrilled you realize this about your dragon in the garage question, now you've admitted to it. Now you can go on with your day knowing how terribly incomparable your dragon in the garage is to the concept of God. These only equate in the sense that putting a bracelet on your daughter's arm is the same thing as massacring 50 people or buying a fashion mag is the same as performing open heart surgery.
I'm glad you've admitted and are willing to learn.
Click to expand...
that was not my argument, nor was it a dodge.

if you cannot understand analogies, and your failed one indicates that is the case, then you should just say so.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
leov said:
Lol, and some 3000 professional architects and structural engineers (including myself).
Click to expand...
That claim is extremely dubious. Start your own thread.

I can't speak for architects, but from my experience their scientific education is lacking, but structural engineers tend to know the difference between steel and aluminum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top