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

[night912]

How am I not able to do that? It's as easy as putting on a skeptical mindset when I read the scriptures, for example. "If X is true, then..." is how I advise ANYONE to read ANY nonfiction document or document claiming truth.

I never said that you can't do that. But it does confirm that you don't believe in the theory of evolution because of non scientific reasons.

 

[BilliardsBall]

NatureDidIt is at least potentially falsifiable. God will never be.

So if we falsify naturedidit for abiogenesis, we have just proven that God . . .

 

[BilliardsBall]

Me accuse you? Why would I need to? Your own posts have proven that you are unscientific and anti-science.

Your above comment about God being a pain in my butt also shows that you have no real understanding of human nature either.

There is no such thing as God or gods. A non-existent entity cannot be a pain in my butt. What annoys me is ignorance. There is no need for it, yet it runs rampant in these threads. You know who I am referring to, don't you?

The second half of your comment is perhaps also based on ignorance.
Perhaps you really don't know that famines are caused by nature, not because GodDidIt.
Perhaps you really don't know that earthquakes are caused by nature, not because GodDidIt.
Perhaps you really don't know that famines are caused by nature, not because GodDidIt.

There is no "fiat" involved, just acceptance of the accumulated of mankind.

Yes, I can see by your latest rhetoric above that you "don't hate god".

Yes, I can see by your RF activity that you spend your time productively, fighting the hardest, most ignorant people who exist--religionists. I don't spend a lot of time in asylums, to be frank.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not at all.


???





Uh huh.



Nonsense. Those predictions are nothing more than self-serving paranoia. Any person rationally analyzing them would see that.

I'm sure Jim Jones also told his flock that he was being persecuted. I'm sure the Church of Scientology tells its flock that the Church is being persecuted. I'm sure Joseph Smith told his followers that they would be persecuted.





Your acceptance of "irrational religious behavior is PREDICTED BY THE BIBLE" proves you are not at all skeptical when it comes to your scripture.

False analogies with cultists above. You are PRECISELY the pain in the tush that the Bible says you would be. I wish you'd behave maturely and argue from fact and not emotion, but the Bible says . . .

 

[BilliardsBall]

I never said that you can't do that. But it does confirm that you don't believe in the theory of evolution because of non scientific reasons.

How does that confirm this when you know nothing about my training, education, reading, mindset, experience...?

I BELIEVE evolution is REAL, I do not believe (as YOU likewise do not believe) that dogs will birth cats or that species can cross clades/families or KINDS, just as the scriptures say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if we falsify naturedidit for abiogenesis, we have just proven that God . . .

Nope. You don't appear to understand the burden of proof.

And so far all creationists have failed abysmally in their attempts to do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does that confirm this when you know nothing about my training, education, reading, mindset, experience...?

I BELIEVE evolution is REAL, I do not believe (as YOU likewise do not believe) that dogs will birth cats or that species can cross clades/families or KINDS, just as the scriptures say.

The scriptures do n not say that. That is merely your interpretation. But thanks for admitting that you are an ape.

 

[Wandering Monk]

So if we falsify naturedidit for abiogenesis, we have just proven that God . . .

No. We say 'we don't know' because there will never be a way to prove God's existence scientifically.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Abiogenesis is not "a work in progress",

Except that it is.

it attempting to prove a yet unproven non-falsifiable hypothesis

A "yet unproven non-falsifiable hypothesis". Wut?

That's kind of like an "engaged single bachelor widower that was never married"

Regardless, however, of the completely bonkers string of words you used there... even in that absurd string of english words, it is implied that it indeed is a work in progress. Since it is attempting to find answers to something. I'ld call that "a work in progress".

, that God isn't Creator!

Or krishna or visjnoe or the flying spaghetti monster or pokemon eggs. Or anything else your imagination can produce.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Hilarious.

I work at a University

As what? A toilet cleaner? And which university? Or is it one of those "universities" in 'murica?

and I hear from others that nothing has changed since I was a student and that axes are ground.

It seems like you hear a lot of things, little of which is accurate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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!

Maybe you think in scientific terms. I can't know that, since I'm not a mindreader.
But you're certainly not writing your posts in scientific terms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I think it's curious how you claim to be thinking "in scientific terms" about abiogenesis, yet I have observed you speak about "proving a hypothesis" several times now.


I bet you don't even realise why this is problematic and very telling.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science and the scientific method threatens classic understandings regarding evolution and other issues.

lol, ow boy....

Apparantly the entire scientific community missed this somehow.

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

When you stop with the creationist bluster, they'll stop with the "rhetoric" that you can't see past your bible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.’”)

So much for scientific objections.

This is just preaching.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is your corroboration for this mere assertion?

"da bible said it, i believe it, that settles it"

 

[Wandering Monk]

So much for scientific objections.

This is just preaching.

The last refuge of scoundrels. Kent Hovind was a master of this technique. When he got cornered in a debate, he would break out in a sermon.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

What objective evidence do you have for any god doing anything at all?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

...While certain interpretations of biblical origins are up for grabs (giving you straw man arguments above) what is not debatable is that "In the beginning, God created all..."

It's not debatable that this ancient book written by goat herders who didn't even realise the earth orbits the sun, wrote that down.

It's also not debatable that they didn't understand the world around them and that it's just a religious creation myth like any other.

There is no reason at all to care about what the book says - especially not in terms of finding scientific explanations for the phenomena of reality.

The unproven hypothesis of abiogenesis has some severe obstacles to overcome, still.

Ok, i'll bite.

EVERY SINGLE hypothesis OR theory is unproven.

Because in science, hypothesis and theories are NEVER proven. Only supported.
You've been making a fool of yourself and exposing your scientific illiteracy by using this "unproven" word post after post after post after post to describe the state of a hypothesis.

Atomic theory - "unproven"
Germ theory - "unproven"
Theory of relativity - "unproven"
Plate tectonics - "unproven"
Evolution theory - "unproven"
etc
etc
etc


Theories in science are never "proven".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As a religious believer, and as a rationalist, I'm excited the SCIENCE AGREES with the Bible and the parts that don't, have many SCIENTIFIC HOLES/GAPS/LACKS/INCONSISTENCIES.

Ha.

In other words:
If reality agrees with the bible; great
If reality disagrees with the bible, well then reality MUST be wrong.


Funny.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is grossly unfair to say that about "As a religious believer, and as a rationalist," -- my quote.

Why do you feel a person can change that fast? The Bible was subjected and is subjected to my rationalist mindset upon every reading. Fortunately, and here's part of how to prove God's Word as true, the Bible stands up to the applied method--hypothesize X and see the Bible produce X.

For example, your disdaining me above and presuming to read my mind, by the way, without an in-person clinical diagnosis of my "irrational religious behavior" is PREDICTED BY THE BIBLE.

I join other born agains in recognizing who is open-minded and who is a skeptic.

A religion that says that those who don't believe will call those who do irrational / fools / etc.

How truelly shocking and original.