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

Subduction Zone said:

Sorry, but that is not exactly true. There are very few scientists in the field that have expressed these supposed concerns. The dishonest petitoin of the Discovery Toot has long since been shown to be worthless since they let almost any "scientist" sign it and when those in the field requested that their names were removed due to its dishonesty they refused to do so.


What reliable source do you have to support this claim?

Click to expand...

I wrote:

You start from false premises like "ALL scientists agree on X" when they do not, and thousands of scientists and educators, secular and religious have expressed their concerns regarding many points in evolutionary theory, paleontology, etc.

The fact that you change "many" to "one" shows you are either dishonest or not reading what I write. Both are contemptible, though I forgive you in Jesus's Name. Blessings!

Subduction Zone said:

I see that your cerationism has kicked in and it does not allow you to understand arguments.

Here is a hint, try to ask honest questions if you don't want more than a snarky repsonse. You were the one that made the false claim of "failed experiments".

Click to expand...

Okay--YOU explain "the common consensus regarding how abiogenesis occurred":

1)
2)
3)

BilliardsBall said:

I wrote:

You start from false premises like "ALL scientists agree on X" when they do not, and thousands of scientists and educators, secular and religious have expressed their concerns regarding many points in evolutionary theory, paleontology, etc.

The fact that you change "many" to "one" shows you are either dishonest or not reading what I write. Both are contemptible, though I forgive you in Jesus's Name. Blessings!

Click to expand...

Where did they say "one"? They said "very few".

Did you seriously just accuse someone of being dishonest about what you wrote while simultaneously being dishonest about what they wrote?

ecco said:

Yes, it is wonderful. It also shows that your assertion "that scientific research into abiogenesis is near-empty" is Male Bovine Excrement. It also shows that your use of the word "--accurately--" is more Male Bovine Excrement.



It is not my job to educate you. It is not my job to even try to educate someone who has shown, over seven years of posts, that he has no interest in overcoming his indoctrinated fundamentalist religious beliefs.




No, you don't. All you want to do is continue to proselytize.



What does that mean - emphasizing the same consensus? How do you know what the results show? You haven't looked at them.



Gee. You've picked up some really interesting sciencey sounding words from AIG. Too bad you don't understand any of them. But maybe I'm wrong. Tell us the how and why of "entropy" affecting abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

When you're done with your ad homs and vicious, rude attacks, feel free to explain how those 12,000 papers "agree on the specifics of abiogenesis".

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Sure. Chemical evolution. Simple organic molecules recombined under the blind forces of nature to form the building blocks of life. Is that short enough for you?

The rest is up to you. Your education is your responsibility - not that of other RF participants. Buy a book, or enroll in a university course on the subject. At the very least, search the Internet for sources and review them. If you'll make that minimal effort, I and others here will be glad to discuss with you whatever it is you are studying and have specific questions about.

In my experience, bringing data to creationists demanding it and pretending to care about it is always a waste of time. They don't even look at it because they simply don't care.

Click to expand...

And you are blithely unaware, of course, that the chemical recipe--a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what is required--hasn't been reverse engineered despite billions of dollars in multiple currencies spent on research.

It's a unproven hypothesis, to put it mildly.

In my experience, bringing data to atheists who blithely ignore problems of entropy, erosion and chirality, to name just a few issues, is always a waste of time. They don't even look at it because they simply don't care about themselves, eternal life or other people's concepts.

BilliardsBall said:

I wrote:

You start from false premises like "ALL scientists agree on X" when they do not, and thousands of scientists and educators, secular and religious have expressed their concerns regarding many points in evolutionary theory, paleontology, etc.

The fact that you change "many" to "one" shows you are either dishonest or not reading what I write. Both are contemptible, though I forgive you in Jesus's Name. Blessings!

Click to expand...

Yes, and no one claimed that all scientists agreed with reality. You used a strawman argument. And "thousands" is a stretch to say the least. And I did not change many to one. Look at yourself quote of me. Since I did not do what you falsely accused me of your post was a lie and an insult. Add your false holier than thou attitude would result in a real Christian apologizing.

Rudeness and ignorance leave you without the ability to reasonably make a demand. Try again.

BilliardsBall said:

I do NOT dispute the fact that evolution makes one species evolve into another, so please stop throwing straw men in my face.

Click to expand...

You accept that African apes and human beings share a common ancestor, and that both species evolved from a shared ancestor? Why did you post this then, which essentially denies descent from common ancestors?


Please understand my confusion then, especially in light of the fact that you then in the following multiple posts went on to say that scientists debate that evolution is what is claimed? I shared the tree of life graphic, and asked if you accept that, and your answer was that scientists debate it (not true). Did you mean instead to say, "Yes, I accept it"?

I could point to each of these to show how you were defending not believing in speciation as described by the theory of evolution. So are you saying now that you accept that tree of life I showed you? You didn't sound like it from what you said then, and following.

BilliardsBall said:

Your hatred and intolerance for my religious views goes against the love and tolerance you normally preach. Your double standard tires me greatly.

Click to expand...

Wow. That's an incredibly offensive attack and a distortion and misrepresentation of my actual thoughts and feelings. I do not have hatred for your religious beliefs.

That said however, I do not appreciate dishonesty in religious faith. All along I have been asking you to explain how that other Christians don't have a problem with it, while it appears you do, etc. Why didn't you just answer there is no difference in your faith with theirs? Instead, you kept trying to skirt this question in each post, which is why I kept asking the same question in each post. How is it you imagine I am being rude in expecting a direct and honest answer from you?

So now you are saying, "Yes, I accept that evolution of the human species occurs as the theory of evolution states, without special qualification. Yes, I accept that graphic which shows the tree of life is most likely how the creation of humans occurred"?

BilliardsBall said:

What would help you, no doubt, is to be respectful enough to ask what I believe, rather than accuse me of things like disbelieving evolution. Your rhetorical questions are off-point, rude and tiresome.

Click to expand...

I have asked you, and I don't believe you have been answering that question truthfully, based upon your making evolution other than what the science actually shows. Each of your posts continued to evade that core question I asked, rather than answer it directly.

My insistence for an honest answer, is not being "rude", but rather is an invitation for you to discuss with honesty and integrity your difference with other Christians in this regard. That's not a rude question. It's an honest question, that I was hoping you would answer honestly, so we could have an honest discussion about the differences. So now you're saying you have no difference of opinion about the theory of evolution than me?

BilliardsBall said:

And you are blithely unaware, of course, that the chemical recipe--a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what is required--hasn't been reverse engineered despite billions of dollars in multiple currencies spent on research.

It's a unproven hypothesis, to put it mildly.

In my experience, bringing data to atheists who blithely ignore problems of entropy, erosion and chirality, to name just a few issues, is always a waste of time. They don't even look at it because they simply don't care about themselves, eternal life or other people's concepts.

Click to expand...

So, by default, God is a better explanation? He is not falsifiable. Neither is Zeus or Brahma.

BilliardsBall said:

And you are blithely unaware, of course, that the chemical recipe--a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what is required--hasn't been reverse engineered despite billions of dollars in multiple currencies spent on research.

Click to expand...

I am aware that the program to connect the dots from the simplest organic molecules to living replicators is fairly far along. You are not because you've never bothered to look. As I said, bringing scientific ignorance to a discussion about science with those more well-versed in the sciences disqualifies your opinions about science. When you demonstrate knowledge and proficiency in the multiple areas in which progress has been made, then you will be taken seriously.

But that's never going to happen, is it, which I why I have long ago quit bringing data to creationists. I notice that you haven't bothered to go find any on the Internet and bring it back here to discuss. You don't care about the science. You just care about denigrating it and lying about it.

BilliardsBall said:

It's a unproven hypothesis, to put it mildly.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you've already said that, and been told that that is irrelevant. You've been told about the fallacy of the argument from ignorance, but that was apparently pointless. You've been told about the role of proof in science, but that didn't stick, either, and I'm pretty certain that it never will. However, you have switched from theory to hypothesis, but I expect you to revert back pretty soon.

BilliardsBall said:

In my experience, bringing data to atheists who blithely ignore problems of entropy, erosion and chirality, to name just a few issues, is always a waste of time.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you know virtually nothing about entropy, erosion, or chirality. Trust the creationist to ham-handedly refer to the science he thinks can counter the science that contradicts his Bible. You do understand, do you not, that it all uses the same method of empirical testing? The scientific method is valid in whatever empirical area of study it is applied. We have useful theories in cosmology, relativity, quantum physics, biological evolution, plate tectonics, and more. They work, which is how we know that they're as correct as can

BilliardsBall said:

They don't even look at it because they simply don't care about themselves, eternal life or other people's concepts.

Click to expand...

You are correct that I don't care about your beliefs beyond disagreeing with the ones you post. You might have noticed that I never ask you about them. I'm simply not interested in the output of a thought process that introduces ideas believed by faith and draws conclusions assuming that those premises are factual. It exactly that that has gotten you so far off course railing about abiogenesis and falsely claiming that this scientific endeavor hasn't made great strides.

You're simply wrong and unable to become right because of your willingness to believe in creationism by faith. If you had adopted a more reliable epistemology, you might be on the other side of this discussion, sharing your impressive knowledge of abiogenesis research to date with faith-based thinkers stuck in antiquity..

And also, that I was once where you are now, but have long since left Christianity. So why would I want to hear what you believe? It''s not doing you much good. You're at war with pretty much all of what's left of this thread.

And if you were better at seeing and evaluating evidence like that, you would understand that your approach is counterproductive to your apparent purpose, and that the isolated and combative role you are forced to play because of your faith-based beliefs is appealing to nobody.

PruePhillip said:

Essentially it was the Jewish people who crucified Jesus. They just threatened to make trouble
for Pilot if he didn't concede.

Click to expand...

So, the Jews didn't kill Jesus, they just roused a little rabble. I think you need to carefully asses your accusations before making them.

PruePhillip said:

I don't know how much antisemitism there will be. But it's now fashionable for the Left and Right
to target the Jews.

Click to expand...

Who, on the left, is targeting Jews?

PruePhillip said:

Many blame the Jews for the Palestinians, but that's a fig leaf as many blamed
the Jews for WWII.

Click to expand...

Who balmed the Jews for WWII?

PruePhillip said:

The "scientific test" here is that antisemitism will rise to the point for many/most that they emigrate
to Israel. Antisemitism in Australia rose 80% last year.

Click to expand...

Source?

It Aint Necessarily So said:

I am aware that the program to connect the dots from the simplest organic molecules to living replicators is fairly far along. You are not because you've never bothered to look. As I said, bringing scientific ignorance to a discussion about science with those more well-versed in the sciences disqualifies your opinions about science. When you demonstrate knowledge and proficiency in the multiple areas in which progress has been made, then you will be taken seriously.

But that's never going to happen, is it, which I why I have long ago quit bringing data to creationists. I notice that you haven't bothered to go find any on the Internet and bring it back here to discuss. You don't care about the science. You just care about denigrating it and lying about it.



Yeah, you've already said that, and been told that that is irrelevant. You've been told about the fallacy of the argument from ignorance, but that was apparently pointless. You've been told about the role of proof in science, but that didn't stick, either, and I'm pretty certain that it never will. However, you have switched from theory to hypothesis, but I expect you to revert back pretty soon.



I'm guessing that you know virtually nothing about entropy, erosion, or chirality. Trust the creationist to ham-handedly refer to the science he thinks can counter the science that contradicts his Bible. You do understand, do you not, that it all uses the same method of empirical testing? The scientific method is valid in whatever empirical area of study it is applied. We have useful theories in cosmology, relativity, quantum physics, biological evolution, plate tectonics, and more. They work, which is how we know that they're as correct as can



You are correct that I don't care about your beliefs beyond disagreeing with the ones you post. You might have noticed that I never ask you about them. I'm simply not interested in the output of a thought process that introduces ideas believed by faith and draws conclusions assuming that those premises are factual. It exactly that that has gotten you so far off course railing about abiogenesis and falsely claiming that this scientific endeavor hasn't made great strides.

You're simply wrong and unable to become right because of your willingness to believe in creationism by faith. If you had adopted a more reliable epistemology, you might be on the other side of this discussion, sharing your impressive knowledge of abiogenesis research to date with faith-based thinkers stuck in antiquity..

And also, that I was once where you are now, but have long since left Christianity. So why would I want to hear what you believe? It''s not doing you much good. You're at war with pretty much all of what's left of this thread.

And if you were better at seeing and evaluating evidence like that, you would understand that your approach is counterproductive to your apparent purpose, and that the isolated and combative role you are forced to play because of your faith-based beliefs is appealing to nobody.

Click to expand...

The research isn't "fairly far along" from the simplest organic molecules to living replicators. Cells are complex on orders of magnitude beyond what has been lab-made to date by intelligent designers with focus. Design is pervasive and a pile of finished materials plus blueprints plus equipment still cannot make a skyscraper without trained workers.

I've always retained a skeptic's rationalist mindset regarding my faith, the Bible and its extraordinary claims. You are distancing yourself from me and other intelligent creationists to enlarge your comfort zone.

Subduction Zone said:

Yes, and no one claimed that all scientists agreed with reality. You used a strawman argument. And "thousands" is a stretch to say the least. And I did not change many to one. Look at yourself quote of me. Since I did not do what you falsely accused me of your post was a lie and an insult. Add your false holier than thou attitude would result in a real Christian apologizing.

Click to expand...

I will not apologize (though I will forgive!) the dozens of times you've trimmed my remarks and restated them, lying.

Windwalker said:

You accept that African apes and human beings share a common ancestor, and that both species evolved from a shared ancestor? Why did you post this then, which essentially denies descent from common ancestors?

​

Please understand my confusion then, especially in light of the fact that you then in the following multiple posts went on to say that scientists debate that evolution is what is claimed? I shared the tree of life graphic, and asked if you accept that, and your answer was that scientists debate it (not true). Did you mean instead to say, "Yes, I accept it"?

I could point to each of these to show how you were defending not believing in speciation as described by the theory of evolution. So are you saying now that you accept that tree of life I showed you? You didn't sound like it from what you said then, and following.


Wow. That's an incredibly offensive attack and a distortion and misrepresentation of my actual thoughts and feelings. I do not have hatred for your religious beliefs.

That said however, I do not appreciate dishonesty in religious faith. All along I have been asking you to explain how that other Christians don't have a problem with it, while it appears you do, etc. Why didn't you just answer there is no difference in your faith with theirs? Instead, you kept trying to skirt this question in each post, which is why I kept asking the same question in each post. How is it you imagine I am being rude in expecting a direct and honest answer from you?

So now you are saying, "Yes, I accept that evolution of the human species occurs as the theory of evolution states, without special qualification. Yes, I accept that graphic which shows the tree of life is most likely how the creation of humans occurred"?


I have asked you, and I don't believe you have been answering that question truthfully, based upon your making evolution other than what the science actually shows. Each of your posts continued to evade that core question I asked, rather than answer it directly.

My insistence for an honest answer, is not being "rude", but rather is an invitation for you to discuss with honesty and integrity your difference with other Christians in this regard. That's not a rude question. It's an honest question, that I was hoping you would answer honestly, so we could have an honest discussion about the differences. So now you're saying you have no difference of opinion about the theory of evolution than me?

Click to expand...

I know evolution creates new species. You claimed I disagree with that, and I tired of hearing that charge from you multiple times.

Yet to change over, for example, between clades, requires the addition of much new information. Typical mutations result in loss of information or recombination of existing information more so than new information. A child can understand this is similar to the Bible term "kinds" as in "bear after their kind only".

I disagree with some, not all Christians, regarding the ability of evolution to move species between kinds (a still unproven hypothesis, never being observed in nature by people) as I'm a biblical fundamentalist.

Wandering Monk said:

So, by default, God is a better explanation? He is not falsifiable. Neither is Zeus or Brahma.

Click to expand...

Is existence falsifiable? It isn't! That's your standard for truth?

BilliardsBall said:

Is existence falsifiable? It isn't!

Click to expand...

Is this a joke? Are you really, seriously making a comparison with your particular god?

BilliardsBall said:

I know evolution creates new species. You claimed I disagree with that, and I tired of hearing that charge from you multiple times.
...

I disagree with some, not all Christians, regarding the ability of evolution to move species between kinds (a still unproven hypothesis, never being observed in nature by people) as I'm a biblical fundamentalist.

Click to expand...

And you wonder why I hear you denying the science? This is false what you are saying. And "kinds" is not a science term. It is not part of the classification systems that science uses as creationists attempt to inject into it using that vague biblical term. Species, Kinds, and Evolution | National Center for Science Education

Again, can you help me understand your actual position here? Do you accept that this illustration below reflects the position of scientists regarding the theory of evolution? Do you believe that it is supported by the data, as scientists conclude? And lastly, do you accept or deny it? A straightforward answer will prevent further frustrations for both yourself, and the rest of us here.

BilliardsBall said:

I disagree with some, not all Christians, regarding the ability of evolution to move species between kinds (a still unproven hypothesis, never being observed in nature by people) as I'm a biblical fundamentalist.

Click to expand...

So you are saying then, it is in fact your theological interpretations of the Bible that makes you disagree with what the sciences show in fact to be true, denying what has been proven true in fact, by falsely claiming it hasn't been? That's what I am clearly hearing you say. You don't agree with Christians who believe what the sciences teach, because you are a fundamentalist. Correct?

Since science says this is true, and you are choosing to doubt and question this, it is not because you do science yourself, but because your religious beliefs in your mind require you to not accept it. Does it threaten your faith? Why not accept it, as other believers do?

You claim that you accept evolution is true, but then you turn around and dispute or deny what it says. Yes, a fish, through evolution, eventually became human through many stages of evolution. It in fact evolves from one "kind" (using that biblical term) to another "kind". A fish, becomes a land animal, becomes a mammal, becomes a human. That is what the sciences show.

Do you accept what it says, without modifying it to suit your theology, or not? It's a straightforward question. My expectation in your answer is honesty. You do not get to say you accept evolution, and then modify or deny its basic findings to suit your theology. An honest answer would be, "No, I don't believe it, because I believe my reading of the Bible over the sciences". That would be an honest answer.

BilliardsBall said:

The research isn't "fairly far along" from the simplest organic molecules to living replicators. Cells are complex on orders of magnitude beyond what has been lab-made to date by intelligent designers with focus. Design is pervasive and a pile of finished materials plus blueprints plus equipment still cannot make a skyscraper without trained workers.

I've always retained a skeptic's rationalist mindset regarding my faith, the Bible and its extraordinary claims. You are distancing yourself from me and other intelligent creationists to enlarge your comfort zone.

Click to expand...

You are making a common creationist error. You are looking at modern cells that have around four billion years of evolution to get to their present state

BilliardsBall said:

I will not apologize (though I will forgive!) the dozens of times you've trimmed my remarks and restated them, lying.

Click to expand...

When have I done that? I have pointed out the ignorant absurdity of your remarks countless times, but it is rather telling that when you are caught in a lie that you will not acknowledge your error, take back your statement and apologize. A follower of Jesus would have done so.