1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Sean1843, Nov 3, 2019.

  1. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,032
    Ratings:
    +4,431
    Religion:
    atheist
    I'm sorry that you feel my legitimate criticism of your stated views are "ad homs and vicious, rude attacks".

    Next. I would ask why you are changing your assertion from "scientific research into abiogenesis is near-empty" to implying that I ever said that scientists "agree on the specifics of abiogenesis".

    Of course, that is a rhetorical question. I know why you need to change your assertion from "scientific research into abiogenesis is near-empty" to implying that I ever said that scientists "agree on the specifics of abiogenesis". You made the ridiculous assertion that "scientific research into abiogenesis is near-empty".

    When I showed that research is indeed very robust as shown by 12,000 papers being written on the subject, you had to try to slip away and make another one of your strawman posts.

    Perhaps your continual use of such tactics may help explain why I am not always polite in my responses to you. I don't like dishonest people.
     
    #361 ecco, Nov 14, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  2. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,032
    Ratings:
    +4,431
    Religion:
    atheist
    You said that "scientific research into abiogenesis is near-empty" when you knew that "billions of dollars in multiple currencies spent on research".

    So, you knowingly made another untruthful statement.

    Shame on you.
     
    #362 ecco, Nov 14, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Wandering Monk

    Wandering Monk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2019
    Messages:
    1,278
    Ratings:
    +754
    Religion:
    agnostic
    So, are you suggesting solipsism?
     
  4. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Ratings:
    +656
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    I disagree with current lines of descent as you've presented, yes. The exact match of "kind" to family, clade or other level in biology is unneeded in my opinion.

    Yes, I agree with much of current evolutionary science while rejecting some of its conclusions/assumptions/uniformitarian assumptions/godless (literally, there was no creator/abiogenesis) assumptions). Fortunately for my position as a religious person, the science has many holes in it.

    I do NOT disavow other sciences with far less problematic positions, say, geography/geometrics, so to accuse me of being non-scientific is unfair.
     
  5. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Ratings:
    +656
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    No it is NOT my "theological interpretations of the Bible that makes me disagree with what the sciences show in fact to be true".

    Restated: "As a rationalist and also a biblical fundamentalist, I accept the scientific method while reserving the right to apply that method, e.g. I see proven hypotheses and unproven hypotheses in the available scientific literature, and know the difference."

    For an example of where you err with your assumption, "interpretations of the Bible makes me disagree with what the sciences show in fact to be true", abiogenesis is a textbook (pun not intended) example of where many scientists are taking a near-unfalsifiable hypothesis (God didn't prompt chemical "abiogenesis" in a sort of theological evolution) as true, and further, CLEARLY ASSUME at all times that abiogenesis was true without a) observing it inductively in nature and b) being utterly unable to reproduce it in a controlled environment.

    Correct my understanding of the scientific method if you like, but if you cannot see it now or reproduce it now, at least on a limited scale, it's an unproven hypothesis!
     
  6. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Ratings:
    +656
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    You are making a typical (deliberate?) error when responding to my posts. I said nothing about cells evolving over eons of time, rather I pointed to the absurdity of the unproven hypothesis that the cells got there in the first place without a designer, via abiogenesis.
     
  7. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Ratings:
    +656
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    You are accusing me of not being a Christian, another bitter person is accusing me of not being a Jew. I ask the mods to review your posts to me to see where you are consistently not replying to what I actually write, and further, defaming me by daring to suggest I don't follow the Lord Jesus Christ, whom you despise (or at least all His true followers). Please desist from your name calling. It is intolerant of my position as a devout Christian and incredibly rude.
     
  8. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Ratings:
    +656
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    I just returned from an academic conference where I co-chaired three panels, with 12 presenters. I was one of the presenters reading a paper and responding to our panel participants and the audience. I'm not ignorant of how academia works. It takes some backbone when other academicians disagree with one's theoretical positions, yes?

    You can show me 12,000 papers assuming how some parts of the unproven hypothesis known as abiogenesis may or may not have worked, but... even laypersons are WELL aware they cannot read ANYWHERE exactly how abiogenesis "happened".

    Scientific research into abiogenesis is NOT "near-empty", indeed, 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.
     
  9. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Ratings:
    +656
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    See my other reply to your (mud-slinging) objection.
     
  10. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Ratings:
    +656
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    No, because even a solipsist claims existence "is", a non-falsifiable position.

    Are you suggesting your standard of truth has to do with falsifiable positions only? You don't believe in love between spouses, for example?
     
  11. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,837
    Ratings:
    +2,326
    What was the subject matter?
    You have mentioned giving sermons and such, so obviously this was nothing relevant to science.

    Were you arguing that Darwin = Hitler?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,751
    Ratings:
    +16,888
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Oh my my. You cannot claim to be a rationalist and then reveal that you do not understand the scientific method just a few posts later.

    There is quite a bit of scientific evidence for abiogenesis. There is no scientific evidence at all nor any apparent need for a "designer". But at least you have admitted that evolution is a fact. When one moves the goal posts, as you did by bringing up abiogenesis, you have conceded the evolution argument. Nice job. Now if you could just learn what is and what is not evidence you might understand why the vast majority of scientists accept abiogenesis as well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Wandering Monk

    Wandering Monk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2019
    Messages:
    1,278
    Ratings:
    +754
    Religion:
    agnostic
    Reality is empirical. Everything else is chimerical.
     
    #373 Wandering Monk, Nov 18, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  14. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,032
    Ratings:
    +4,431
    Religion:
    atheist
    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**.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,032
    Ratings:
    +4,431
    Religion:
    atheist
    Was this an academic conference on BilliardsBall's Fundamentalist Reading of Scripture?
     
  16. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,032
    Ratings:
    +4,431
    Religion:
    atheist
    When I quote you or when I want to show one of my earlier posts, I use the Quote option so that you, and any interested parties, can easily look back and reference the actual comment.

    You just say: "See my other reply". What other reply? Do you expect me to look through pages and pages to try to figure out what "other reply" you are referring to?
     
  17. Windwalker

    Windwalker Integralist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    8,311
    Ratings:
    +4,246
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    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.
     
    #377 Windwalker, Nov 19, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 2
  18. Windwalker

    Windwalker Integralist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    8,311
    Ratings:
    +4,246
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Ratings:
    +656
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    One of my papers was "The mechanism of transference between atheist trolls at RF and Adolf Hitler, per transgender Darwinism."
     
  20. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,995
    Ratings:
    +656
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    A non-falsifiable hypothesis you've made above, after first accusing belief in God of the same issue!
     
Loading...