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

Subduction Zone · Nov 19, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Nonsense! Abiogenesis is an unproven hypothesis, neither inductively observed nor reproduced in a controlled environment. You are lying (again). Stop twisting every single post and get obsessed with someone else's posts, please.

If you disagree that abiogenesis is an unproven hypothesis, you are a LIAR.

PS. Jesus loves you.

Once again you demonstrate your company near complete scientific illiteracy in your first sentence. Nor was I lying. Everything in that post was correct. I know you can't find an error.

And how can a dead person love anyone?

Subduction Zone · Nov 19, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
A non-falsifiable hypothesis you've made above, after first accusing belief in God of the same issue!

i don't think you know what a non-falsifiable hypothesis is.

We'll just add that to the list

Wandering Monk · Nov 19, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
A non-falsifiable hypothesis you've made above, after first accusing belief in God of the same issue!

By definition, God is outside the material, therefore he is not falsifiable.

Anything material is at least potentially falsifiable given the tools. The existence of the atom was a prediction for 2500 years before we actually had the tools to see them.

BilliardsBall · Nov 19, 2019

ecco said:
Oh goody. You do understand that research into abiogenesis is a work in process. You do understand that science does not know with absolute certainty how gravity works. You do understand that science does not know with absolute certainty how magnetism works.

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.

Yet, you asserted that it 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**.

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

BilliardsBall · Nov 19, 2019

Windwalker said:
How is it you are in a position to disagree with the science? Have you other science of your own that challenges all the research out there? Have you shared it with other scientists, and what do they have to say about it? In other words, what scientific veracity does it have in order to go against the accepted findings of current science?

You do realize that if anyone has something that actually can stand against it, that would be huge, revelatory news in the world of science and that would make that person world famous? If that data is there, any scientistic would love to be the one to discover it. Their name would be remembered by history, like Charles Darwin. That would be considered a hugely beneficial thing to science to find fatal flaws to current theory. You understand that, don't you?

First off, science does not conclude there was no creator. That is 100% false. Science makes no claims about God either way. They are not interested in theological questions, beyond the actual science which only examines the material data found on the ground. If "science" were to make such a proclamation, they are no longer doing science, but instead doing religion.

What science does is simply show you what they found when investigating the evidences, and how they fit together. The data does show natural causes all the way through the various processes which lead to the evolution of all animal life forms from a single animal life form through various branches of evolution. That is just what the data shows, and can be verified, again and again and again from multiple fields of the sciences. It makes no statements or claims about God and how the data affects that for people. That part is outside of science, and is up to us.

Our job is not to challenge the science, as you or I are not qualified in the sciences in order to actually do that. If you want to challenge the science, "disagree with", etc., you must do it scientifically, not religiously. What our job then as people interested in where our religious perspectives fit in, is to take the facts as presented to us, and then figure out how we fit our beliefs in with the facts.

At that point, we have two basic choices. One, we take that data and see how that fits in with what we currently believe, and if there is a conflict, then our job is to reexamine our beliefs, not deny the science as we are not qualified for that, at least I'm not, and I'll hazard a guess you are not either. The second choice is to dig in with our beliefs and refuse to consider them the weak link in the chain, and instead attack science, attempt to discredit it, state unqualified scientific opinions of our own in order to create an illusion that we have just as much right to an opinion about these matters as the experts in their fields, etc.

When we take the first position, then it becomes easier for faith to grow and us along with it. The conflict between our religious beliefs and science goes away. "I guess I need to walk around another way" becomes the natural, relatively easier response as opposed to, "Help me get rid of this boulder on the path with an explosive force so I don't have to be creative and walk around it." The latter response takes far more effort, and ultimately becomes an exercise in futility when that boulder in the path is actually an entire mountain range. What comes to mind is a quote from Acts, "It is harder for thee to kick against the pricks".

My challenge to you, is to consider that what you are doing in denying the science, which you are in fact doing and have stated so multiple times including this post (this is not a strawman at all), is actually harmful to faith. It's a refusal to listen to what wonders we can know about this world that others previously never had the gift of the sciences to expose for them like this. This does not diminish faith at all. It makes it more glorious and wonderful than simply interpreting a creation story which speaks theologically, as if it were intended to be scientific. There is NO indication theologically it should be read that way, and it certainly creates a conflict with the facts when read that way.

A refusal to examines one's beliefs as the area that needs to be examined far more than the science does, harms one's faith, IMHO based upon personal experience. The science doesn't need your challenge. Your theological belief structures do. And there are other Christians you can turn to help you understand how they deal with it, without needing to "kick against the pricks".

A thought just occurred to me now while typing this, that the science-denialism of fundamentalists, is a psychological projection. It is saying, the science needs to be re-examined, while what is really going on is an internal voice saying "it's my beliefs that need to be re-examined". By externalizing this, by making science the one who must be wrong, it avoids self-reflection. We do this with everything about ourselves we don't like, and project the guilt of ourselves upon others to avoid facing our own internal war. I believe what I just said has merit.

But it doesn't. It's your beliefs that you need to re-examine that has the holes in it.

I did not say you reject all the sciences. So long as they don't present a possible challenge to your beliefs you don't want to re-examine, you seem to be fine with that. But that indicates a lack of integrity to do so. It is the very definition of cherry picking, which is a form of intellectual dishonesty. Hence, why I say, this all harms faith, rather than protect it as we might like to assume, deceiving ourselves. "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard to kick against the pricks". It is hard to deny the science.

I'm in a position to disagree with scientists, even experts in their field, because their biases are showing. I work at a University and I hear from others that nothing has changed since I was a student and that axes are ground.

BilliardsBall · Nov 19, 2019

Windwalker said:
The term rationalist cannot be used in the same context as biblical fundamentalist. This is not to say a fundamentalist does not use rationality or logic. Of course they do. But the term rationalist means you are operating primarily in the sphere of post-enlightenment modernity.

Fundamentalism is premodernity. Fundamentalism is anti-modernity. That is why is is called fundamentalism. It was born in an reactionary response to the rise of modernity in religion, drawing a line in the sand and saying "No! We must return to the "fundamentals" of the faith". In other words, its a return to an ideal religious faith in a pre-enlightenment, pre-rationaist, pre-modernist reality.

A rationalist by contrast is, "a person who bases their opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response." Fundamentalism by definition challenges that.

Furthermore, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. That means it has moved far beyond mere hypothesis. If anyone were to state that the theory of evolution is an unproven hypothesis, then they are ignorant of the sciences. It's considered a scientific theory, which means in effect it would take a shift of heaven and earth to unseat it scientifically. Scientific theories, are not opinions. They are models based on facts. They are not "guesses".

Why are you introducing abiogenesis here? We are talking about the Theory of Evolution, not volcanism, plate tectonics, abiogenesis, or cosmology, social theory, or music theory. Each of those are separate areas, and has no bearing on whether what can be said of the ToE has merit or not.

But lets say for argument sake that scientists discover a natural cause for abiogenesis at some point, which I suspect will happen because so far supernaturalism has never been witnessed as causal factor. Does this deny God to you? It would not deny God to me. Yet it does to you. What accounts for that difference? That to me is the real question.

Why is it that a lack of seeing "magic", something that defies all reason and natural causes, translates in your mind to denying God? Why? Can you explain that to me to help me understand?

You are saying that the scientific theory of evolution, is an unproven hypothesis? Do any scientists agree with this? Are they mistaken calling it a scientific theory, when it hasn't even left the hypothesis arena yet?

I'm aware of the origins of fundamentalism, yet the word describes "fundamentals" like "God created".

Regardless, how narrow-minded of you to assume ALL of us are reactionary a-scientific prigs. I think mostly in scientific terms when combating rampant abiogenesis myths!

Jose Fly · Nov 19, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I'm in a position to disagree with scientists, even experts in their field, because their biases are showing.

Oh the irony of a creationist grousing about "bias" among scientists. What's next? You going to accuse scientists of having a religious agenda?

Subduction Zone · Nov 19, 2019

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

Nope. God does not even enter into the question. There is no evidence of this God character so there is no need to deny him. Like some other creationists here you have the burden of proof backwards. No one is trying to disprove God. For the Christian scientists they are trying to find out how God did it. Your version of god was refuted over a hundred years ago. Luckily for you that does not mean all versions of god were refuted. Demonstrating that one version of God has been refuted (your s for example) does not mean that God has been refuted.

I have a feeling that you will not be able to understand this.

Subduction Zone · Nov 19, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I'm aware of the origins of fundamentalism, yet the word describes "fundamentals" like "God created".

Regardless, how narrow-minded of you to assume ALL of us are reactionary a-scientific prigs. I think mostly in scientific terms when combating rampant abiogenesis myths!

Nope, you do not. But go ahead. See if you can raise a scientific opposition to abiogenesis.

Windwalker · Nov 19, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I'm in a position to disagree with scientists, even experts in their field, because their biases are showing.

So you think that they lack any evidence and its all bias, so you should be on equal footing with your biases? You see, this seems disingenuous to me on many levels. It lacks truthfulness and integrity.

BilliardsBall said:
I work at a University and I hear from others that nothing has changed since I was a student and that axes are ground.

So, again, because you hear some biases coming though, this gives you permission to just say whatever biases you're fond of because it's all the same thing. There is no actual real science behind the ToE. It's just them guessing and sounding all authoritative when they're not. Correct? This is what you believe?

BilliardsBall said:
I'm aware of the origins of fundamentalism, yet the word describes "fundamentals" like "God created".

No actually, it's an idealized version of what they imagine the original Christians believed. It's not based upon actual research, but rather a romanticized version of themselves projected backwards into an imaginary history. Modernity exposes the truth of this quite clearly. The original Christians would not recognize what modern fundamentalists believe in.

BilliardsBall said:
Regardless, how narrow-minded of you to assume ALL of us are reactionary a-scientific prigs. I think mostly in scientific terms when combating rampant abiogenesis myths!

I'm far from a narrow-minded person. That's why I always challenge you to think beyond the box you have placed God and your faith into. I see a far larger picture, and am always trying to expand that picture.

You accused me of creating a strawman. Yet that is what you are doing here. I never said you are a-scientific. You are projecting something there. I said you are cherry picking what doesn't cause you to examine your own faith as "good science", while taking what everyone else considers as "good science" and arbitrarily, without justification as "bad science", or just opinion, or unproven hypothesis, etc., when it disagrees with how you believe about God. That's a lack of integrity. It's intellectually, and spiritually, dishonest. That's what I've actually said.

Windwalker · Nov 19, 2019

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

Why are you so afraid that is what this is about? Does science threaten you? I welcome what they find! It helps me understand God better. I celebrate it. I find it speaks of the glory and wonder of God. Why don't you?

Subduction Zone · Nov 19, 2019

Windwalker said:
Why are you so afraid that is what this is about? Does science threaten you? I welcome what they find! It helps me understand God better. I celebrate it. I find it speaks of the glory and wonder of God. Why don't you?

Many believers have your attitude and I find it to be a very healthful one. What I have a hard time understanding is people that insist that God had to make the world their way. It is more than a little blasphemous to do so.

Windwalker · Nov 19, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
Many believers have your attitude and I find it to be a very healthful one. What I have a hard time understanding is people that insist that God had to make the world their way. It is more than a little blasphemous to do so.

It truly is. I view all of life as miraculous, even the unpleasant parts we don't like. It's just from our self-interested perspective that we warp what we expect the world should look like, and project an image of God from ourselves that looks like what we would expect if we had things the way we desired them to be from a place of self-interest. The fundamentalist wants a world that is controlled by an externalized authority, who will right the wrongs they perceive, who will intervene on their behalf in a great war to liberate them from their fear of others and the world.

Sorry, for that somewhat poetic discourse there, but the more distance and perspective I gain on that whole affair, the more obvious it all becomes to me. It's all driven by fear. The fear is so great, it hides them from that miracle of the divine in all of creation right there before them the whole time. They become so ensnared by that fear, they project a God of vengeance and destruction to vindicate them and pay them back for all their losses, which they incurred for themselves through that fear.

The whole religious cycle is about affirmation of the Beautiful in us, which I call the Divine, and a retreat back into fear. This whole challenge of the ToE to faith, is in fact solely centered on a struggle of their faith in God. To view God as infinite possibility is a fearful prospect to those who wish curtains closed tightly to keep themselves from facing a world of infinite unknowns. Better the devil you know, than the one you don't know.

I find myself endlessly fascinating by the whole fundamentalist mindset. It is all centered in fear. I am utterly convinced.

tas8831 · Nov 20, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
..THAT is the problem, after billions in research, it remains never observed and never duplicated in a controlled environment, the two base requirements for proving any given hypothesis.

Can you show that "billions" have been spent on abiogenesis research?

BilliardsBall · Nov 20, 2019

Windwalker said:
So you think that they lack any evidence and its all bias, so you should be on equal footing with your biases? You see, this seems disingenuous to me on many levels. It lacks truthfulness and integrity.

So, again, because you hear some biases coming though, this gives you permission to just say whatever biases you're fond of because it's all the same thing. There is no actual real science behind the ToE. It's just them guessing and sounding all authoritative when they're not. Correct? This is what you believe?

No actually, it's an idealized version of what they imagine the original Christians believed. It's not based upon actual research, but rather a romanticized version of themselves projected backwards into an imaginary history. Modernity exposes the truth of this quite clearly. The original Christians would not recognize what modern fundamentalists believe in.

I'm far from a narrow-minded person. That's why I always challenge you to think beyond the box you have placed God and your faith into. I see a far larger picture, and am always trying to expand that picture.

You accused me of creating a strawman. Yet that is what you are doing here. I never said you are a-scientific. You are projecting something there. I said you are cherry picking what doesn't cause you to examine your own faith as "good science", while taking what everyone else considers as "good science" and arbitrarily, without justification as "bad science", or just opinion, or unproven hypothesis, etc., when it disagrees with how you believe about God. That's a lack of integrity. It's intellectually, and spiritually, dishonest. That's what I've actually said.

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

* 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

BilliardsBall · Nov 20, 2019

Windwalker said:
Why are you so afraid that is what this is about? Does science threaten you? I welcome what they find! It helps me understand God better. I celebrate it. I find it speaks of the glory and wonder of God. Why don't you?

Considering I keep posted my understanding of the hypothesis method, inductive observation, controlled experiments, issues with homochirality, abiogenesis, thermalization/entropy, logic, etc. to say "Does science threaten you?" is ludicrous! Science and the scientific method threatens classic understandings regarding evolution and other issues.

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

BilliardsBall · Nov 20, 2019

Wandering Monk said:
By definition, God is outside the material, therefore he is not falsifiable.

Anything material is at least potentially falsifiable given the tools. The existence of the atom was a prediction for 2500 years before we actually had the tools to see them.

By definition, Jesus was of the material.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. 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.’”)

tas8831 · Nov 20, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I'm in a position to disagree with scientists, even experts in their field, because their biases are showing. I work at a University and I hear from others that nothing has changed since I was a student and that axes are ground.

"I work at a university", therefore, I am an expert in things that I have no actual expertise in?

My gosh - you made dozens of posts declaring that the nervous system controls the release of 'good bacteria' from the appendix!

You are in NO POSITION to disagree with things that you clearly do not understand just because you don't like 'where it leads.'

Take some time off, dude, you are really making a fool of yourself.

tas8831 · Nov 20, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

What is your corroboration for this mere assertion?

tas8831 · Nov 20, 2019

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

That is, you misinterpret it.

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

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Fisker of men

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member