ATHEISTS THINK THIS IS LOGICAL ..... - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

ATHEISTS THINK THIS IS LOGICAL .....
in Religion

By GrafixGrafix 230 Pts edited February 26

 .... WHILE CHRISTIANS THINK THIS IS LOGICAL ....


......  SO, WHO IS THE MOST LOGICAL?  ATHEISTS OR CHRISTIANS?

SkepticalOneHowardChanceHowardChance1We_are_accountable
The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
«1345



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 26
    Here are some more examples of Atheism's logic ...


    Happy_KillbotAlofRIPlaffelvohfenRS_masterxlJ_dolphin_473DustinPfeiferWe_are_accountableJGXdebatePRO
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    Maybe you should address those Atheists that specifically say that? Your whole argument is deeply flawed on so many levels and the tragedy is you cannot comprehend why no matter how many time you’re corrected , let me help .......

    Rational Wiki ......

    Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for an argument to work, a proponent needs to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that the argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, proponents introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules. While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special.

    The fallacy is a conditional fallacy, because special cases do exist; in other cases, the fallacy is circular ad hoc.




    How is it “bashing religion “ asking someone to explain why they believe in god?

    Believers do not nor never have used “logic” to defend their position as it’s a faith based claim and is the complete opposite to logical claims 
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRIDustinPfeiferJGXdebatePRO
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    edited February 26
    @Grafix

    ****You say gods not real because you cannot see him

    Yeah sure , you say he is real but  cannot see him .....One of us is using rational processes ......It ain’t you


    We have mountains of evidence for Evolution and we are all still waiting on even one peer approved paper disputing such and as yet, Nada , ZIP , Zilch , Zero ....... 
    PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOne
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 26
    Hello Dee.  I see you are at it again, making multiple posts which could be posted as one.  Do you have an aversion to the "edit" feature?  Whatever.  I see too your vocabulary never alters.  Everything you dispute is always "deeply flawed", but you never state the flaws, let alone back these claimed flaws with evidence to show them, let alone prove they are flaws.  You think debating is simply saying, "No it isn't. End of story".

    I've read it's widely defined that atheists believe there is no creator of any single thing, that the universe, life and all on the earth began with a mighty big bang.  Science itself calls it the Big Bang theory, doesn't it?  They also try to tell us that everything began from that, including life, supposedly emanating from slime in a mud pool.  Right?  .. or do you have your own version?  Always puzzled me, how can you get a big bang in a vacuum of nothing?

    So now you trot out the most favored and frequently parroted line claiming some kind of "logical fallacy", etc. etc.  Don't atheists get tired of the same old, same old, all chanting the same refrain like good little indoctrinated foot soldiers, all marching to the same drum beat, but with nothing to back it up?  What is this "logical fallacy"  that's so damned "critical"  to atheists alone, and no-one else?  Then we get "conditional fallacy", then its "circular ad hoc", which are all really quite meaningless in the larger picture, aren't they?

    I've given a plethora of evidence in three other topics related to this subject, in the form of very ancient artefacts, scrolls, manuscripts, engraved stones, the Sumerian tablets with Adam's and the Patriarchs' signatures on them, the accounts of ancient historians, who were Roman pagans, not religious men, even the "Acta Pilati", (Acts of Pilate), Pontius Pilate's own letters to Tiberius, Emperor of Rome, all testifying to Christ's miracles and they all  pagans.  Where's your  evidence that denies all of this evidence, none of it from the Bible Texts, all of it outside.  But you just deny it.  How long can atheists keep up their denials in the face of factual, historical evidence?
    .
    SkepticalOneDeeAlofRIPlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountableJGXdebatePRO
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    edited February 26
    @Grafix

    Your continued postings of walls of meaningless text and appeals to creationist sites is typical all you previous “proofs “ have being thoroughly debunked 

    Your repetition of young earth creationist nonsense leaves you firmly in the loony camp and despite being asked for even one credible source for your gibberish or even one peer reviewed paper you cannot  do so.

    Your “supporting evidence “ continues to be pronouncements from the notorious con man Ron Wyatt a man mocked even by other Christians , you make Scientologists look like the epitome of rationality which you seem to do effortlessly in fairness 
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3208 Pts
    edited February 26
    I think that what scientific evidence suggests is logical, while what human fantasies suggest is not. Scientific evidence does not suggest that "at the beginning there was nothing", so I fail to see what your first picture has to do with anything. I also do not "believe" in what people say happened 4.5 billion years ago; I look at the evidence and see where it leads.

    I think people should, at least, spend a few minutes reading basic summary of what the science says, before trying to debunk one of the most solid theories in physics of all time with a couple of memes.
    PlaffelvohfenSkepticalOneAlofRIDustinPfeiferZeusAres42
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 480 Pts
    edited February 26
    @Grafix

    It is not atheists that believe "in the beginning, there was nothing". This seems like a call for attention...do you need a hug, bro?
    DeePlaffelvohfenAlofRIxlJ_dolphin_473DustinPfeiferpiloteer
  • RickeyDRickeyD 540 Pts
    edited February 26
    The atheist is Satan's emissary in Time and the Holy Spirit has confirmed through the written word that...

    1) Atheism is a lie! Atheism does not exist in reality and every avowed "atheist-unbeliever" is a liar; every man and woman having attained an age of reason intuitively knows that our Creator exists. The purported "unbeliever" may not know our Creator's Name and they may reject the Holy Scriptures as the ONLY authority on the subject, but the "unbeliever" does know that our supernatural universe requires design and therefore a Designer (Romans 1:18-20).

    2) Atheists are the "fools" of Time and Eternity (Romans 1:21-23).

    3) Atheists are "without excuse" when they stand in the Judgment of the Condemned (Romans 1:20).

    4) Atheism is a ruse - obfuscation for the man or woman living in sexual immorality; attempting to justify an abortion or advocacy for same; living a deathstyle contrary to what they know is honorable, sustainable, moral, possessing integrity and decency (Romans 1:24-31).

    5) Modern-day atheism is the natural resultant of Darwinism - evolutionary theory and those sufficiently naive to have been deceived by the works of demonic Evolution and its idiocy (Colossians 2:8).

    6) Atheism is an untenable psychosis - a rejection/denial of reality and God's natural law for the abortionist-homosexual-lesbian-transsexual-pedophile-socialist-communist-murderer-thief-blasphemous-adulterer-fornicator  -- living a life of debauchery, defilement, hopelessness. There is no need to argue this subject, this is the Truth from God the Holy Spirit and man's arguments cannot stand in the Court of our God who will judge the heart and intent-motives of every man and woman and the God who knows our thoughts with intimacy.

    The ONLY Hope for the lies of atheism and the deceived "atheist" is a relationship with God the Father by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord for the forgiveness of sin and receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit as the Seal/Guarantor of relationship (John 3:16; Ephesians 1:13). 



    AlofRISkepticalOneGrafixDustinPfeiferxlJ_dolphin_473
  • @Grafix

    Did you know that anyone can observe evolution?

    In fact, if you have eaten any of these plants, then you can not deny that evolution is true:


    The difference between selective breeding and evolution is that one is done by humans, the other is done by nature.

    Is what the Muslims say about Muhammad true then? It's in a fancy old book too.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRIDustinPfeiferxlJ_dolphin_473We_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • "IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS" …. this "god" … and nothing else. Apparently no space for it to exist in, no shape for it, no …. nothing??

    Then it decided it needed a shape like a man?? Just what was a man shaped like?? It then decided to make something it named "stone"? And it needed a place for that stone to exist ,,, so it decided to create "space" for it? Then grind it into "dirt" so it could make something … anything it wanted to "invent" … GROW on it? Whatever "growing" was.

    Hmmm, which scenario is the most unbelievable …. something came from nothing ….. GO SCIENCE! :tongue:
    xlJ_dolphin_473We_are_accountable
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 27
    @Dee - Your claims that my previous proofs having been debunked are just inventions inside athesits' heads, like yours.  They haven't been debunked at all.  All atheists do is band together, then throw up a whole bunch of schooled linguistic artifices, which are supposed to be somehow highly intellectual arguments, but they avoid arguing the point.  The just weave webs around it, trying to trick their opponents into word games which are meaningless and completely irrelevant to the point.  Let me give you some examples ....

    1.  One meme above illustrates how atheists pretend that it is possible for an explosion of rocks and gases to occur in a vacuum of nothing, given they believe everything came from nothing, but science knows that is simply not possible.  Where's your argument to defend that?  There isn't one.  That's a debunking of my proofs?  Really?

    2.  One meme above illustrates how atheists pretend that it is they who are the logical ones, always attacking Christians and sneering at their belief system with many a famous atheist making a career of it, like Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and others.  That's tolerance of other's right to a different concept of life?  Where's your argument to defend that?  There isn't one.  That's a debunking of my proofs?  Really?

    3.  One meme above illustrates how atheists pretend that it is they who have the high moral ground regarding rationale, always attacking Christians for an absence of it for believing in myths, belittling their "myths" with names like The Flying Spaghetti Monster &c., while what atheists believe is the greater myth with absolutely no proof at all, just extrapolations peddled by dishonest science to give it some kind of fake authenticity.  Where's your argument to defend that?  There isn't one.  That's a debunking of my proofs?  Really?

    I could go on and on in this vein and show you how atheists are EXACTLY everything and more of what they accuse Christians of being.  Their arrogance and self-righteousness knows no bounds.
    .
    Plaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    @Grafix

    Zzzzzzzzzzzz.     Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 26
    @MayCaesar - You wrote ...
    I think that what scientific evidence suggests is logical, while what human fantasies suggest is not. Scientific evidence does not suggest that "at the beginning there was nothing", so I fail to see what your first picture has to do with anything.
    OK.  Well as you do not believe in a Creator of any kind, then explain where all the "stuff" came from, the rocks and gases, which caused the Big Bang?  Then you say ...
    I also do not "believe" in what people say happened 4.5 billion years ago; I look at the evidence and see where it leads.
    OK.  So what evidence of abiogenesis are you looking at?  I am not aware of any evidence of abiogenesis created by nature.  The top leading molecular scientist in the world, Dr. James Tour is not either.  I am aware of mere scientific extrapolations led in with words like it "may", or it "could, or "it's possible", or "perhaps" as the scientific logic of how life began, but there is no evidence of anything concerning abiogenesis, yet you claim you "look" at this non-existent "evidence" to "see where it leads"?  Isn't that a dishonest argument?  Then you in all the glory of atheist arrogance proclaim ....
    I think people should, at least, spend a few minutes reading basic summary of what the science says, before trying to debunk one of the most solid theories in physics of all time with a couple of memes.
    There it is, right there, the ridiculing of the memes I've used in this post.  Sure, I agree with no argument at all, that some memes are so reductionist that they are abjectly deceitful, unworthy of debate, but then again we have the very wise axiom that a picture tells a thousand words.  So do good memes very effectively imparting so much, much more than a thousand words.  But yet you happily demonstrate the archetypal smugness of the atheist, its flagship, by sneering at extremely accurate memes and pointing out that everyone else is irrational, uneducated, uninformed, complete dumbos, except atheists - according to atheists. 

    I have just shown you how your arguments are powder puffs, based on nothing, based on falsely claimed evidence, which does not even exist, all made up from extrapolations, then morphed into fake "facts".  It is the biggest scandal in the history of mankind.  Why does the insecure and hopelessly inculcated establishment science still insist that Evolution is a viable theory?  It's been disproved.
    .
    PlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountable
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix Atheists is my answer because your top picture is flawed:
    a) not all atheists believe in the big bang
    b)The big bang theory or how I interpret it goes like this... Nothing did not explode but there was a very bit of dense matter(denser and heavier than a dozen black-holes)and then it exploded and there was so much energy that some converted to mass(2nd law of thermodynamics and e = mc squared). As well as that the tiny object which exploded (because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics) got less dense because it was growing larger hence big bang was not from nothing!
    I proved your picture wrong.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 26
    @Happy_Killbot - LOL?  Your illustration demonstrates Darwin's theory?  Really?  We all understand and know of small intra-species evolutionary changes, but there is no evidence of magnitudinal evolution jumping from one species into another.  None anywhere.  It is not even a viable Theory anymore.  At best it can be classed as an hypothesis, as Dr. James Tour has shown.  Although he says there is no evidence that a differently explained evolution from species to other species  couldn't happen, science shows us that what Darwin has espoused could not, because of the dependency of every part of the whole on the whole.  He shows us that a cell cannot develop changes over time, that in every instance any changes must be instant because the whole is dependent upon the minutiae and the minutiae is dependent upon the whole in any natural structure of nature.  He says therefore that Darwin's evolution theory, based on the science of today, is impossible.

    Listen to what he has to say on it and keep in mind his stunning credentials.  None can better his credentials.  They are impeccable.  Here is what he says in the briefest of terms ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvcycPnBwZc  

    This is the what you are calling science ....




    PlaffelvohfenHappy_KillbotWe_are_accountable
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 26
    @AlofRI - You wrote ...
    "IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS" …. this "god" … and nothing else. Apparently no space for it to exist in, no shape for it, no …. nothing??
    The problem Atheists have with this risible counter-argument is that their beginning is also "nothing" in so far as science can confirm, with nothing to explain how anything could come from nothing, yet they try to pretend that science has explanations for this beginning from "nothing" without a Creator, even claim that their claims are backed by evidence, but where is this evidence?  So as the memes show, their beliefs are based on even B I G G E R myths than what they claim are myths in Christianity. 



    The odd thing is that Christians DO  have material  evidence of their "myth" - that Christ is not a myth.  He is a properly accredited historical figure and even provided evidence of his own divinity via miracles, via His resurrection, via His ascension into a bunch of clouds amidst a blinding white light - He did say he was "the light".  Worse - for atheists -  this is all attested to by eye-witnesses and recorded by people who were either there or spoke to those who were there, outside of the Biblical texts, famous historians and famous political characters - Tacitus and Josephus and Piliate in his Acta Pilati, (Pilot's Acts), letters sent to Tiberius, the Emperor of Rome, stating and confirming Christ's miracles, his crucifixion, his resurrection, his empty tomb, the bribing of the soldiers by the Sanhedrin, the Jewish High Priests, to lie about Christ's resurrection. 

    Why would you pay a bunch of soldiers, who guarded Christ's tomb, to lie about the resurrection?  One only does that if the truth threatens one's power base.  The Jewish officials and High Priests all denied the divinity of Christ, because He persistently rebuked them for their hypocrisy, their lies, their bad laws.  Suddenly, they had a problem.  Their Rebuker proved He was who He said He was, unable to be dismissed any longer as a fake, as a speaker of heresies and instead a speaker of truths, appearing to a crowd of 500 who witnessed His wounds after His resurrection.  They had  to bump Him off.  No choice.   It's all on the public record.  I reckon that's a lot more to go on than a bunch of mythical rocks and gases exploding in a vacuum where there was nothing.  Where did the rocks and gases come from, if there were no Creator?

    So what's your explanation for all of the following ....
    Then it decided it needed a shape like a man?? Just what was a man shaped like?? It then decided to make something it named "stone"? And it needed a place for that stone to exist ,,, so it decided to create "space" for it? Then grind it into "dirt" so it could make something … anything it wanted to "invent" … GROW on it? Whatever "growing" was.
    Oh that's right.  Your explanation is Evolution, which has already been disproved definitively by Dr. James Tour, but even if we don't accept his science, you've still got the problem of the mythical rocks and gases out of nothing and zero to explain abiogenesis. This man makes a great deal of sense out of the myths of atheists ....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSqb5Q8zjx4

    .
    AlofRIWe_are_accountable
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix ;Dr. James Tour is a nano-technician not an evolutionary biologist. I will trust what biologists say about biology, and technicians what they say about nanotechnology. 

    Besides, the graphic shows how a species can differentiate over time, Kale looks nothing like broccoli. If that isn't proof enough of concept, nothing is.

    And to answer the supposed problem in the meme, the answer is simple: We don't have millions of primate ancestor fossils. Humans didn't evolve from chimps, but rather chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, the same way you and your cousins share grandparents. There is no problem here, just a misunderstanding of how evolution works.
    PlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Grafix said:
    @Happy_Killbot - LOL?  Your illustration demonstrates Darwin's theory?  Really?  We all understand and know of small intra-species evolutionary changes, but there is no evidence of magnitudinal evolution jumping from one species into another.  None anywhere.  It is not even a viable Theory anymore.  At best it can be classed as an hypothesis, as Dr. James Tour has shown.  Although he says there is no evidence that a differently explained evolution from species to other species  couldn't happen, science shows us that what Darwin has espoused could not, because of the dependency of every part of the whole on the whole.  He shows us that a cell cannot develop changes over time, that in every instance any changes must be instant because the whole is dependent upon the minutiae and the minutiae is dependent upon the whole in any natural structure of nature.  He says therefore that Darwin's evolution theory, based on the science of today, is impossible.

    Listen to what he has to say on it and keep in mind his stunning credentials.  None can better his credentials.  They are impeccable.  Here is what he says in the briefest of terms ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvcycPnBwZc  

    This is the what you are calling science ....




    We are not sure yet but the evidence describes either the monkey or the man fed them to the saber tooth tiger, alligators, and shark.

    CAn you have them turn to the front, please?


    Grafix
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 26
    @SkepticalOne - You wrote ...
    It is not atheists that believe "in the beginning, there was nothing". This seems like a call for attention...do you need a hug, bro?
    That's a defence?  My logic tells me that atheists must  believe that something came from nothing, given that they don't believe there was a Creator.  If I have gotten that wrong, by all means set me straight.

    I guess you could call it a "call to attention", a call to pay attention to the "logical fallacy"  of atheism.  LOL!

    SkepticalOne
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix No, most atheists believe exactly the opposite or nothing in particular.

    Consider that there may have been an infinite past, or that the topography of time space loops back on itself to become it's own cause.

    The only thing you have to accept is that we don't know everything, and anyone who tells you the world was created by a magic man in the sky is most likely trying to sell you something.
    SkepticalOnePlaffelvohfenDeeAlofRIWe_are_accountable
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne - You wrote ...
    It is not atheists that believe "in the beginning, there was nothing". This seems like a call for attention...do you need a hug, bro?
    That's a defence?  My logic tells me that atheists must  believe that something came from nothing, given that they don't believe there was a Creator.  If I have gotten that wrong, by all means set me straight.

    I guess you could call it a "call to attention", a call to pay attention to the "logical fallacy"  of atheism.  LOL!

    Your reasoning is faulty. Even science doesn't support something from nothing. It seems you've pulled this notion out of... thin air (pun intended).
    PlaffelvohfenDeeAlofRI
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 26
    @Happy_Killbot - You wrote ....
    Dr. James Tour is a nano-technician not an evolutionary biologist. I will trust what biologists say about biology, and technicians what they say about nanotechnology. 
    Dear me, Killjoy, don't you ever  tire of your half-truths?  Dr. Tour is much more than a nano-technological scientist, (hardly a lowly technician), another half truth.  I have posted his full list of credentials below.  He is also part of a Nobel Prize award, joined with others.  A Nano-technologist MAKES  molecules, knows exactly how a cell is formed, yet although he knows this, he still cannot imitate God's work, because he needs DNA to complete the cell and there is no place to buy DNA from.  That's the all-time stopper for evolutionary science and will remain so, because he has proved that nature cannot make DNA.  If it could he could go and buy it too.  Less than 10 people in the world know how to make molecules and you knock him as qualified to discuss abiogenesis and biology?  Really?   

    However, even then, as Dr. Tour explains, even he still  must cheat, which God could not do, God having nowhere to buy "stuff" from.  Dr. Tour must first purchase the four basic substances which are necessary for the beginning of all forms of life - amino acids, carbohydrates, lipids and nucleic acids, from which protein chains are built, so where did these basic chemicals come from?  Your mud pond and slime?  So where did they  come from?  The Big Bang, an explosion of rocks and gases?  So where did they  come from?  Just so you don't make the same erroneous claim again, here are Dr. Tour's unbeatable credentials ...

    Then you lamely claim ...
    Besides, the graphic shows how a species can differentiate over time, Kale looks nothing like broccoli. If that isn't proof enough of concept, nothing is.
    Huh?  Proof enough of what concept?  That cellular changes can occur within the same species, no matter how different are their features?  Sure, no-one is even tossing that one in for debate.  It's agreed.  We are talking about Darwin's theory that evolution explains the origin of  ALL species from a common ancestor.  That requires a great jumping-off from one species into another species.  Your image doesn't address that.  
     
    Then you run to the fall-back fallacy, as some kind of refuge of last resort and last retort, with this ...
    And to answer the supposed problem in the meme, the answer is simple: We don't have millions of primate ancestor fossils. Humans didn't evolve from chimps, but rather chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, the same way you and your cousins share grandparents. There is no problem here, just a misunderstanding of how evolution works.
    But ... but .... aren't you still claiming the same thing - simply expressing it differently?   The problem still exists, whether we go back to an amoeba or march right up to the ape in the chain of events - it matters not where - every new species which appears, must come from a species which was not of its own new species, yet there is no evidence of that having ever occurred.  It is only and has always only ever been a scientific extrapolation, in other words a myth.  As Dr. Tour says, we were lied to.  Worse, (for the dippy daft atheist mythology), Dr.Tour has even proved that is impossible.  What part of that don't you understand?
    .
    Happy_Killbot
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix Notice what isn't on that list.

    The point I make still stands, asking him about evolutionary biology would be like asking a lawyer about theology.

    So if you agree that one species can diverge into several others, then isn't it reasonable that that organism came from others, so on and so forth until there must be a first organism. Hardly a leap in logic there.

    There is tons of evidence of evolution having occurred, it's called fossils. If you look at the layers of rock where fossils are buried, you notice the deeper you go the more the organisms seem to change, until they are totally different.

    We witness evolution happening all the time, we see plants, animals and microorganisms changing all the time. It is actually kind of sad how long it took anyone to take notice. This isn't complicated at all.

    Wonder what Dr. Tour has to say about Tholins, which are everywhere in the solar system, except earth. 
    https://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2015/0722-what-in-the-worlds-are-tholins.html
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 26
    @RS_master - You wrote ....
    Atheists is my answer because your top picture is flawed:
    a) not all atheists believe in the big bang
    OK.  That's progress, but they must be few and far between, because most subscribe to the theory that there is no Creator,  so how do they explain the universe without the Big Bang Theory?  It is claimed to be so even by the dippy daft establishment science sector, where atheists worship.  Are you saying they, like Christians, are prepared to denounce the God, Science?   
    b)The big bang theory or how I interpret it goes like this... Nothing did not explode but there was a very bit of dense matter(denser and heavier than a dozen black-holes)and then it exploded and there was so much energy that some converted to mass(2nd law of thermodynamics and e = mc squared). As well as that the tiny object which exploded (because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics) got less dense because it was growing larger hence big bang was not from nothing!
    OK, so you have given us your theory, but how does that change anything?  Aren't you just replacing one myth with another myth?  Although your chemistry and physics are far from mythical, the big bang is still a myth.  It is a bigger myth than God.  As my other meme says, you are prepared to believe in a myth that is over 4 billion years old, with no evidence, while you are not prepared to believe in God, whom Christ proved He was, only 2,000 years ago.  That Christ was real is well-documented, recorded as an historical figure and not contested by a single historian, scientist, professor or any academic scholarship. 

    We have even further material evidence, that of Christ's Divinity, attested to in writings, scrolls, manuscripts, miracles, town names, historical events, his empty tomb, the Roman record, Jewish antiquities, eye-witness accounts, ancient tablets signed by Adam and the Patriarchs in clay, all attesting to the Son of God or prophesying His appearance on earth, many millennia before He even made that appearance.  Adam should know, his account written and signed by him in Sumerian clay tablets.  We also have Christ's resurrection with eye-witness accounts, including a crowd of 500 as eye witnesses and a plethora of archaeological evidence too, which all support the fact of Christ's divinity.  This is ALL material evidence.  i think it is a lot more to go on than some mythical Big Bang, claimed to have occurred over 4 billion years ago, with no evidence in support.  A huge whacking myth with no sceince behind it, just extrapolations by science and a complete absence of material evidence.  So I don't see how you proved anything.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 26
    @SkepticalOne - LOL!  I like your "thin air" pun, that could lead us right into the Climate Change fiasco, but we'll leave that alone under this topic.  LOL!  So far, this is where we are at ....



    I guess logic is thin air, so is knowledge and understanding.  My logic based on the thin air of knowledge and understanding tells me that if we do not accept that there was a Creator who intelligently designed all that is, including nature, then we must believe, by logical deduction, that nature has the ability to create everything from nothing.  No matter what the source, there simply had to be nothing in the beginning, agreed?  So how do we prove that nature created it and not God?  Where is the evidence that nature is even capable of doing so?  There is none, yet we have a plethora of material  evidence which points to a God, which I've already enumerated in other posts on this page.  Where is the plethora of material evidence of the Big Bang, that nature created the necessary rocks and gases for it to even occur?  Where is the evidence that nature created abiogenesis?  There is none.  Not a whisker.

    There is even evidence that nature has absolutely no capacity  to create life of its own accord, because it needs DNA before it can create a single molecule and nature does not know how to make DNA, so who gave the first molecule its DNA?  Sure, I agree, once DNA was given, it is then copied and inherited, but who created the first DNA?  Also as each of us is an individual, then who gives us that unique DNA which makes us individuals?  No-one's DNA is absolutely identical, not even with our parent's DNA.  We can't inherit a DNA they don't have, which is our unique DNA, so where did it come from, given that nature cannot create the DNA which makes us unique? 
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 1249 Pts
    edited February 26
    @Grafix

    Tour is a synthetic organic chemist who specializes in nanotechnology and is on the faculty at Rice University. I would definitely consider his opinion in that fields and that's it...As he is not a geneticist,not an ecologist, not a biologist, or most importantly, not an evolutionary biologist and he's associated with the laughably named Discovery institute... 

    Tour starts his world view with the idea that the Bible is completely reliable, as a literal reading, read his personal statement...
    He believes in miracles. He believes Jesus is the Jewish messiah.

    So Tour has a few problems. He believes that he must believe in order to be saved. So if he is faced with evidence in the scientific world that might contradict his faith point of view, he will do almost anything to justify his faith point of view.

    Like many other people, scientists and nonscientists, he has the ability to compartmentalize knowledge and faith and believe contradictory things, even things that are blatantly incorrect.

    Happy_Killbot
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Grafix I did some research on the Dr. Tour guy, and his story is sort of sad. He would have been a bright addition to the scientific community, but instead he jumped on the discovery institute train and went straight off that cliff. Now he mostly just tries to avoid public criticism that would damage his public reputation. I tried to find debates with this guy on the subject of creationism, so I could see what experts had to say about the other's work, but it seems he mostly avoids them. I could only find one on transgenders. This is usually an indication that someone can't defend their ideas as well as they think they can.

    Then I found this video debunking him:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfSE8J_bj1Q

    Seems like most of what he does is to cherry pick articles and then tell everyone "they are lying to you, using your lack of knowledge to trick you into believing" when the reality is that he knows best what is and isn't true and isn't.

    He also doesn't have a problem with evolution for the most part, he does however have criticisms of abiogenesis, some of which may prove to be valid. These however, do not disprove abiogenesis entirely, just maybe means it doesn't happen how we originally thought.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 27
    @Plaffelvohfen - You wrote ...
    Tour is a synthetic organic chemist who specializes in nanotechnology and is on the faculty at Rice University. I would definitely consider his opinion in that fields and that's it...As he is not a geneticist,not an ecologist, not a biologist, or most importantly, not an evolutionary biologist and he's associated with the laughably named Discovery institute... 

    Mmmm ... reducing the height of intellectual endeavour to shooting the messenger?  Too afraid to discuss Tour's findings?  Why are you?  You even say his opinion - although it is not "opinion", it is science - is worthy of consideration, but yet you give it no consideration at all - at least not in this space. Isolating a lesser respected institution from the other many highly respected institutions which recognize his work with great acclaim, is plainly disingenuous. Then you claim ...

    Tour starts his world view with the idea that the Bible is completely reliable, as a literal reading, read his personal statement...
    He believes in miracles. He believes Jesus is the Jewish messiah.

    Yes, Dr. Tour is Jewish, and as the Jewish faith is based upon the rejection of Christ as their Messiah, (the very reason they crucified Christ for heresy, for claiming to be God and to be their Messiah), Dr, Tour like all other good Jews began his scientific career rejecting Christ's Divinity, rejecting Christ as the Son of God and rejecting the New Testament in its entirety - the four Gospels of Christ's life.  We have a video on YouTube made by him, where he finally professes a change in beliefs, that he came to the realization in his mid fifties, that Jesus is the Messiah and that he only came to that conclusion through his own scientific discoveries.  .So, where does that leave your debunking of Dr. Tour's motives, claiming his science and his reasoning are influenced by faith-based notions? ... Out on a limb with its bare bum swinging in the breeze. The reverse  occurred.

    In any event, it's pretty callow and downright cowardly to assault the reputation of a leading scientist in his field with the accusation that his science is fake, is not science, because it is "faith based", isn't it?  He had proved himself as a leader in his field, long before he came to this realization.  That is proof that his conclusions were not faith based at the time his science disproved the Evolution Theory.  Then you write ...

    So Tour has a few problems. He believes that he must believe in order to be saved. So if he is faced with evidence in the scientific world that might contradict his faith point of view, he will do almost anything to justify his faith point of view.

    Is it your contention that only true science can come from an atheist?  Is that it?   I had not marked you as one of the crowd, the usual group-think of atheists, marching to a common drum beat and invariably guilty of the usual, arrogant, pompous, self-opinionated hubris that every one else is a fool, unless an atheist.  Then you make this observation ....

    Like many other people, scientists and nonscientists, he has the ability to compartmentalize knowledge and faith and believe contradictory things, even things that are blatantly incorrect.

    Sure, we all are prone to that weakness, but  R E A L  science automatically rules that out, unequivocally - ruled out purely and simply by the factor of the burden of evidence, so unless you are prepared to go the distance and call Dr. Tour a quack, you really have no argument and then you would have the entire science community on your back in disagreement.  Has it occurred to you that Dr. Tour is one of the very few who can so successfully make these calls about the fakery of past science, proved by his own science, for this very reason, that he is so highly regarded, is untouchable, is way above the gutter-sniping you just engaged?  

    .

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 480 Pts
    edited February 27
    Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne - LOL!  I like your "thin air" pun, that could lead us right into the Climate Change fiasco, but we'll leave that alone under this topic.  LOL!  So far, this is where we are at ....



    I guess logic is thin air, so is knowledge and understanding.  My logic based on the thin air of knowledge and understanding tells me that if we do not accept that there was a Creator who intelligently designed all that is, including nature, then we must believe, by logical deduction, that nature has the ability to create everything from nothing.  No matter what the source, there simply had to be nothing in the beginning, agreed?  
    .
    No. Not agreed. The best we can do is imagine our universe in reverse time until we back ourselves up to a singularity. We don't know what existed before this singularity. To claim nothing existed before this is not supported by evidence. As I said, you're reasoning is faulty because it starts with a mystery and makes tremendous leaps from there. Mystery =/= God

    "Non sequitur: when a train of thought proceeds from A to B and back again to Q." - Bill Griffith
    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbot
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 27
    @SkepticalOne - LOL!  I like your bill Griffith quote, but it does not apply here for the simple reason we are not going back to "Q".  We are going back to ground zero.

    You still fail to answer where this singularity came from?  Out of the Big Bang?  What did that come out of?  The singularity?  What did it come from?  These are not solutions.  They are just kicking the can down the road.

    You still fail to answer Dr. Tour's evidence which disproves Evolution, i.e., that all of the different species did not have and could not possibly have had a common ancestor, by virtue of the sciences of molecular nano-cars and chemistry, yet, nevertheless the "singuarity argument" requires the notion of a common ancestor, although now proved to be an impossibility. 

    As that is the current position, then a singularity cannot be argued as a viable "beginning".  Even the question of abiogenesis is left out in the cold by the singularity argument, but even if we should ignore that and accept the singularity argument, it is still immediately disqualified by virtue of the very fact that no living cell can be created without DNA and nature cannot create DNA.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • I still want to know where "God" came from ….. nothing??
    Grafix
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited March 18
    @AlofRI -Yes,  I agree.  Just as science cannot and does not answer the question of what began everything, neither does religion, which is why I say what I say, that atheists have no footing to stand on when they laugh at religion with such derision and pompous superiority.  However, what religion does  have - the Christian religion that is - which science doesn't have, is actual material evidence of its God.  However, that evidence does not give us any understanding of where God came from or how.  That is precisely why such a religion is called a "faith".  Is precisely why we speak about TRUST in God, because that same God who speaks through his own text, the Biblical Books, assures us that we shall only be given that understanding and knowledge in the afterlife, which we will only be given if we remain faithful to Him without wavering, without disobedience, without sin.

    OK, I fully understand I am setting myself up for the obvious ridicule of,  "Well He would say that, wouldn't He?"  True, that is an argument, but the fact is that we do already  have evidence of Christ's Divinity in so many ways.  That serves to confirm that our faith is warranted as opposed to serve any denial, and guarantees we are on the right path, not the wrong one.  What must not be ignored is that God also gave us free will, the freedom to reject or accept Him, but He also gave us a book full of explanations of the consequences if we choose to reject Him or choose to accept Him. 

    The evidence of that is in the moral dilemmas we are faced with daily, which serve only to further prove God's existence in and of themselves.  It is an interesting dichotomy and demands inordinate study to begin to understand how God thinks and why all of these things happen, like disasters, illness, death, etc. and why space is infinite and time is eternal, etc., which are all existential proofs of God, in spite of the fact that none explain His existence at all.  That takes us right back to the beginning - faith.


    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix Religion is all about saying it knows things that it has no evidence for. No, there is almost no evidence that anything in the bible happened, you would have to be completely delusional to think it does.

    If you have to put faith in something, then maybe it isn't the best course of action. Why have faith in everything when you can have certainty in some things?

    It seems fairly obvious to me that deep down, everyone knows that every part of religion is BS, but some people lack the courage to accept it just in case. It is fear that drive religious belief.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 1249 Pts
    edited February 27
    @Grafix

    To your first objection, I was just adding precision regarding his credentials, an organic chemist is not a biologist... By analogy, a metropolitan orchestra musician is definitely skilled and understand music theory, but very rarely will a virtuoso trumpeter will also be a virtuoso saxophone player although both play in the very same section (Brass) of the orchestra...

    I listened to one of his lectures, he uses the usual irreducible complexity fallacy many time (him being an intelligent design proponent it was expected), but Dr Tour's science is correct, to keep with the orchestra analogy I would say that he knows music theory very well and he certainly plays of his specific instrument much better than I play it ... He's right that creating "life" in a lab (he really means a fully functioning cell straight from inorganic compounds) hasn't really been done, yet. But his fundamental mistake is in assuming that "Nature" must have had "life" as a goal to begin with...

    He talks of the synthesis and assembly problems, wrongly assuming that "life" had a plan in mind, he cannot conceive of nature without projecting intent to what he understands as "life"... Uses a lot of "almost always", "often impossible", "how does nature know that", "If you want to build something" and such, casually and constantly projecting intent... Nature doesn't have any intentions, he's arguing from design...  Of course if you want to replicate known molecules and compounds, or deduce how to manufacture theorized new ones from scratch (synthesis), you're going to have to work for it, it's hard, so many variables, time, temperature, etc... But it's fundamentally irrelevant to the question "how did life arose", it's arguing from design and irreducible complexity...

    He states at about 26:45 in the link I provided above, that "amino acids don't hook together by themselves", that nucleotides can't either, when in fact they actually do... To Dr Tour's defense, his lecture was in March 2019 and this finding was made in August 2019, I wonder if he adjusted his claims since?

    And even more interesting, we've solved another problem since he made that lecture, "how were the first enzymes made?" was a mystery, well not anymore , Dr Matthew Powner (UCL Chemistry) and his team have demonstrated that the precursors to amino acids, called aminonitriles, can be easily and selectively turned into peptides in water, taking advantage of their own built-in reactivity with the help of other molecules that were present in primordial environments. Many researchers have sought to understand how peptides first formed to help life develop, but almost all of the research has focused on amino acids, so the reactivity of their precursors was overlooked... 

    “This is the first time that peptides have been convincingly shown to form without using amino acids in water, using relatively gentle conditions likely to be available on the primitive Earth,” said the study lead author Dr Matthew Powner (UCL Chemistry). 

    God's living space in The Gap, is getting smaller every day... 
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 27
    @Happy_Killbot - The prolific poster.  You wrote -
    No, most atheists believe exactly the opposite or nothing in particular.
    OK.  I candidly admit that I used my own logic to make the deduction that atheists must believe in nothing before anything was created, because they don't believe in a Creator.  I just can't get past the logic of that somehow.  There is, to my way of thinking no other logic that is possible, but I'll accept your arguments only in order to debate them.  You say ...
    Consider that there may have been an infinite past, or that the topography of time space loops back on itself to become it's own cause.
    That's a circular ad hoc argument isn't it?  The very same thing atheists accuse Christians of doing, i.e., laugh at Christians who say it's true because the Bible says it's true.  I see the very weakness in that argument and why it is hardly going to convince anyone, because it is a circular argument.  The one you present here is the same type of scenario, in a way.  It is basically saying the process is like a circle, which has no beginning and no end, but the question still remains, who created the circular process, infinity and eternity in time and all that passes through infinity and the eternity of time?  It also fails to address the now proven fallacy of Evolution.  We now know that for a living cell to have life, it must have DNA and nature cannot make DNA, so who did?  DNA is information. Then you say ...
    The only thing you have to accept is that we don't know everything, and anyone who tells you the world was created by a magic man in the sky is most likely trying to sell you something.
    I agree, we most certainly don't know everything.  At the risk of a circular argument the Bible addresses this in its opening Chapter of Genesis, that our knowledge was taken away from us when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.  They also lost their right to eternity and eternal life, lost their right to enjoy the paradise of God's Kingdom on earth.  The Biblical texts also tell us how to regain it - just don't do what Adam and Eve did, don't disobey God, that we have to prove ourselves worthy of re-entry this next time around. 

    OK.  OK.  I agree that is a circular argument and would hold no weight at all, except for one important factor.  God has sent us a plethora of evidence of not only His existence through Christ's existence but also there is much material archaeological evidence now of many of the Patriarchs in the Biblical texts and also via those who recorded events in Christ's time, aside from the Apostles and their Gospels, aside from anything in the Bible.  They have given us OBJECTIVE proof of Christ's Divinity and it is interesting that it all comes from pagans, who had no reason to believe that Christ was who He said He was, let alone have any belief in his Divinity, yet it is unwittingly apparent in the record, as we have discussed at length in another topic.  Putting all of this stuff together builds a very undeniable support for the Biblical texts.  We can only deny this if we close our ears and eyes.

    I am not going to go over all of that detailed evidence for you again, from the Sumerian tablets to the lab tests of Christ's blood proving He was half humanity and half spirit, because you know already of these things which I have already put before you.  You are free to deny them, to ridicule them, debate them, which we've already done, but you are not free to claim you've disproved them when you have not, by simply making up rebuttals with fake info' and claiming you have therefore debunked them, even though I've shown you your rebuttals are fake powder puffs.  No-one owns the facts.  They stand alone.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix The topology of the universe possibly having a loop that causes it to create itself is a serious theory in physics, it isn't ad -hoc, it isn't circular reasoning, it is a real possibility.



    It actually could have been like that, we just don't know for sure.
    http://kiaa.pku.edu.cn/~lxl/professional/html/self_cre.html

    Evolution is still a very real observable phenomenon, to say otherwise is like declaring the earth flat.

    I agree, we most certainly don't know everything.  At the risk of a circular argument the Bible addresses this in its opening Chapter of Genesis, that our knowledge was taken away from us when Adam and Eve disobeyed God
    Dude, seriously? Go back and read what the fruit did, this is why I think I know more about your religion than you do.
    They also lost their right to eternity and eternal life, lost their right to enjoy the paradise of God's Kingdom on earth.  The Biblical texts also tell us how to regain it - just don't do what Adam and Eve did, don't disobey God, that we have to prove ourselves worthy of re-entry this next time around. 
    So you start off by saying you agree, and then 180 and prove my point. The bible is a source that tells you a magic man in the sky created something, and hey are trying to profit from you.
    OK.  OK.  I agree that is a circular argument and would hold no weight at all, except for one important factor.  God has sent us a plethora of evidence of not only His existence through Christ's existence but also there is much material archaeological evidence now of many of the Patriarchs in the Biblical texts and also via those who recorded events in Christ's time, aside from the Apostles and their Gospels, aside from anything in the Bible.  They have given us OBJECTIVE proof of Christ's Divinity and it is interesting that it all comes from pagans, who had no reason to believe that Christ was who He said He was, let alone have any belief in his Divinity, yet it is unwittingly apparent in the record, as we have discussed at length in another topic.  Putting all of this stuff together builds a very undeniable support for the Biblical texts.  We can only deny this if we close our ears and eyes.
    But there is also archaeological evidence that pre-dates all Hebrew artifacts, and just because there are artifacts that are in line with what is in the bible doesn't mean that what is in those artifacts is automatically true. Just being old doesn't make it right. You must understand if you study archaeology that the Hebrew faith used to be poly-theistic, for example there is a clay pot which shows Yahweh depicted as having a wife, or possibly changing genders.
    https://steveawiggins.com/tag/bes/
    I am not going to go over all of that detailed evidence for you again, from the Sumerian tablets to the lab tests of Christ's blood proving He was half humanity and half spirit, because you know already of these things which I have already put before you.  You are free to deny them, to ridicule them, debate them, which we've already done, but you are not free to claim you've disproved them when you have not, by simply making up rebuttals with fake info' and claiming you have therefore debunked them, even though I've shown you your rebuttals are fake powder puffs.  No-one owns the facts.  They stand alone.
     I don't need to put you in your place again, the tablets don't prove anything, and the blood story is a lie.

    You are free to deny reality because it doesn't fit your desired narrative, and then change basic scientific facts to get what you want, because you are clearly not capable of looking at evidence logically, and talking to you makes my day.

    There is just no way that anyone is actually gullible enough to believe what is in the bible is actual, literal truth, it was never supposed to be, it serves the same purpose that superhero comics serve today, to teach people how to be what we want them to be. That's all it is, stop pretending like any of it is actually literal truth. You are just lying to yourself and everyone else.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 27
     @Plaffelvohfen - You wrote ...
    To your first objection, I was just adding precision regarding his credentials, an organic chemist is not a biologist... By analogy, a metropolitan orchestra musician is definitely skilled and understand music theory, but very rarely will a virtuoso trumpeter will also be a virtuoso saxophone player although both play in the very same section (Brass) of the orchestra..
    I am surprised you still cling to the biology claim, regarding Evolution.  That was abandoned long ago, as a science adequate to solve the question of creation, in particular abiogenesis.  Even geneticists are on the outer, for their work does not need to understand the structure of a molecule.  Science has long accepted that the solution lies in molecular science and bio-chemistry, which are precisely the fields Dr. Tour excels in.
    .I listened to one of his lectures, he uses the usual irreducible complexity fallacy many time (him being an intelligent design proponent it was expected), but Dr Tour's science is correct, to keep with the orchestra analogy I would say that he knows music theory very well and he certainly plays of his specific instrument much better than I play it ... He's right that creating "life" in a lab (he really means a fully functioning cell straight from inorganic compounds) hasn't really been done, yet.
    I am not able to say of my own personal understanding that he is right.  All I know is that all others who understand his work say he is, so I accept that corroboration.  He is among a handful of scientists who understand, know and can do what he does with molecules and nano-cars, yet you still won't let go of the "his being an I.D. proponent, therefore it is expected", slur.  I disagree.  He goes where the evidence leads him and the evidence is what led him to understand that there must be intelligent design.  You persist in reversing the facts.  That is not honest debate.
    But his fundamental mistake is in assuming that "Nature" must have had "life" as a goal to begin with...He talks of the synthesis and assembly problems, wrongly assuming that "life" had a plan in mind, he cannot conceive of nature without projecting intent to what he understands as "life" ... Uses a lot of "almost always", "often impossible", "how does nature know that", "If you want to build something" and such, casually and constantly projecting intent... Nature doesn't have any intentions, he's arguing from design...  
    Correct, nature doesn't have any intent, because it has no intellect. That is PRECISELY the point and you missed it.  He is saying that molecules cannot of their own accord organise themselves into the correct order to build the structure of a living cell, let alone the cells then organise themselves into entities with major design characteristics that are faithfully repeated to construct leopards, fish, birds, humans, etc. because cells have no mind or intellect and need instructions, sometimes using himself as the "substitute organiser" in the lab who gives the molecules their direction.  As the world of living creatures wasn't created in a lab, where did their cells get their instructions from? From their DNA. Can nature's own cells create their own DNA?  No. Nature can't produce DNA because it is information and not a material construct.  It can only COPY It. 

    He then shows the amazing fact about this stage of development, that nature must first create the protein chains to house DNA, but as Dr. Tour points out, how does it even know that it must build these "houses", (protein chains) to store the DNA in the first place? ...  and then how does it know how to construct these before it has any DNA to tell it how to construct them correctly for each species, having no intellect to tell it what to do?

    These are the complexities he references, among many others.  Of course, the obvious glaring question is where does this DNA information come from in the first place, it the blueprint of each cell, directing it on what its job is - what to create and in what color, fibre, weight, shape, etc., be it hair, a nose, blue or brown eyes, skin, ears, hearts, lungs or lips or a big toe, a tusk, a trunk, a tail, a sabre tooth, spots, stripes, hooves, horns, etc.  Science does not know where this information comes from nor how it decides the order of the DNA code, unique to each living creature.  Science can only observe that it is arranged intelligently.
    He states ... that "amino acids don't hook together by themselves", that nucleotides can't either, when in fact they actually do.  ... We've solved another problem since he made that lecture, "how were the first enzymes made?"  ... Dr Matthew Powner (UCL Chemistry) and his team have demonstrated that the precursors to amino acids, called aminonitriles, can be easily and selectively turned into peptides in water, taking advantage of their own built-in reactivity with the help of other molecules that were present in primordial environments. 
    Sure, science advances, but these advances are not really advances in solving the ultimate question at all.  They are simply discoveries of new and observable particles with ever more powerful microscopes, and then observing the role of previously unobserved particles in the chain reaction of the building blocks of life.  Whether we start with the amoeba in the primordial soup, or go all the way down to peptides and nano-cars, the unsolved question remains - from whence did the peptides and nano-cars come in the first place, including the primordial soup for them to live in.  It's a chicken and egg thing.   Then  how did they even know to get together in the first place these amino acids, nucleotides, &C, then how did they know what specific order to arrange themselves in to create a molecule, let alone a cell, let alone each different species in the first place? 

    Finally where did they get their instructive blueprint, their DNA from to build each species?  Your claim is that amino acids hook up to themselves randomly, but whether randomly or by instruction proves nothing.  Of course they hook up.  Dr. Tour has never said they don't..  If they didn't, then life wouldn't be possible, but how do they know to hook up and in what order without an instruction book?  Then apply the same question all the way along the building block procedure to the final creature.  If we don't acknowledge the issue of intelligent order, then all we are going to get is a BLOB. That's the point that Dr. Tour is making.  
    “This is the first time that peptides have been convincingly shown to form without using amino acids in water, using relatively gentle conditions likely to be available on the primitive Earth,” said the study lead author Dr Matthew Powner (UCL Chemistry). 
    God's living space in The Gap, is getting smaller every day... .

    I don't see that the God Gap has been reduced at all.  Going smaller into nano, nano, nano can't solve it, because size is irrelevant to the questions of intelligent design and abiogenesis.

    .

    Plaffelvohfen
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Grafix said:
    @SkepticalOne - LOL!  I like your bill Griffith quote, but it does not apply here for the simple reason we are not going back to "Q".  We are going back to ground zero.

    You still fail to answer where this singularity came from?  Out of the Big Bang?  What did that come out of?  The singularity?  What did it come from?  These are not solutions.  They are just kicking the can down the road.

    You still fail to answer Dr. Tour's evidence which disproves Evolution, i.e., that all of the different species did not have and could not possibly have had a common ancestor, by virtue of the sciences of molecular nano-cars and chemistry, yet, nevertheless the "singuarity argument" requires the notion of a common ancestor, although now proved to be an impossibility. 

    As that is the current position, then a singularity cannot be argued as a viable "beginning".  Even the question of abiogenesis is left out in the cold by the singularity argument, but even if we should ignore that and accept the singularity argument, it is still immediately disqualified by virtue of the very fact that no living cell can be created without DNA and nature cannot create DNA.


    We do not know there was nothing before the BB. We do not know there was something before the BB. Hell, we don't even know that 'before the BB' is a coherent phrase since it seems time began with the BB. You are building your case on intuitions informed by observations from this universe and misapplying them to not-universe. Whatever conclusions you draw from this strategy will be without logical foundation.

    As for who, where, why, how the singularity, I don't know (and neither do you), but this isn't kicking the can down the road - its stepping on the can. 

    I didn't bother to respond to the evolution stuffs (speaking of non-sequitor) because the BBT says nothing of TOE and TOE says nothing of BBT. They are freestanding theories. Abiogenesis is not a part of either as well. The fact that your bring all this up regarding a meme about the origins of the universe establishes how little you understand the BBT, evolution, abiogenesis, and science in general. 


  • DeeDee 1707 Pts
    edited February 27
    @Grafix

    **** You are free to deny them, to ridicule them, debate them, which we've already done,

    Which any reasonable would do as you’ve taken the word of a notorious conman Ron Wyatt and called it truth even fellow Christians call him a liar and a conman , do you want the links again 

    ****but you are not free to claim you've disproved them when you have not,

    He has , there is zero evidence to support your claims not one credible academic does so 

    ***by simply making up rebuttals with fake info'

    Back to your old game of calling any counters to your B S “fake info” or maybe “alternate facts “ wonder where you get that from 

    ****and claiming you have therefore debunked them, even though I've shown you your rebuttals are fake powder puffs. 

    So Ron Wyatts claims have been accepted as fact ....ooooooookay 

     ****No-one owns the facts.  They stand alone.

    Maybe some day you will be the proud owner of at least one fact that can stand alone but I doubt it 
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 27
    @SkepticalOne - You wrote ....
    We do not know there was nothing before the BB. We do not know there was something before the BB. Hell, we don't even know that 'before the BB' is a coherent phrase since it seems time began with the BB. You are building your case on intuitions informed by observations from this universe and misapplying them to not-universe. Whatever conclusions you draw from this strategy will be without logical foundation.
    Let's get back to ground zero.  We don't even know if THE   Big Bang hypothesis even occurred. You ASSUME it did, because science ASSUMES it, yet you accuse me  of "intuitions informed by observation from this universe and mis-applying them to not-universe.".  You will have to be more specific on where there is any "mis-applying to not-universe"  false logic by me, but yet isn't that EXACTLY  what the BB hypothesis does?  Worse, it was not even observable, is merely an invention, so then "whatever conclusions you draw from this strategy will be without logical foundation".  I agree, building an entire narrative upon something which supposedly occurred with no empirical evidence or knowledge available to support that it did, and with no way of verifying that it did, is certain to risk drawing conclusions without factual or logical foundation.  So if anyone is guilty of that it is science, but you will need to specify where I have been guilty of your "observation from this universe and mis-applying them to not-universe.".  Mere word games..The logic is something had to already  exist to explode.
    As for who, where, why, how the singularity, I don't know (and neither do you), but this isn't kicking the can down the road - its stepping on the can. 
    Claiming a mere possibility of something that is never going to be testable by science i.e., everything began with a singularity, is not "stepping on" a solution at all.  It IS  kicking the can down the road by avoiding picking it up and dealing with it, instead putting a possible solution so far out of reach, that no-one can disprove it, nor argue it, nor provide evidence of its possibility, let alone define its actual probability.  That is not science.  It is dodging bullets, namely Dr. James Tours' bullets, who disproved Evolution and proved evidence of Intelligent Design.  These are related to the BBT, even though I know you will claim they are not.

    It's dishonest science, cowering behind a veil of myths because a bunch of bigoted atheists control the corridors of the science establishment, they unable to grow up, square their shoulders and countenance the possibility that they just may be wrong. If you watch Dr. Tours video on their answers when he asks them to explain evolution, it's clear they KNOW  they're wrong and can't admit it, all because of a deep-seated and out-of-control insidious bigotry, which has merely served to throw up obfuscations, impregnate school curricula with their fake science and de-educate the populace.  We owe them nothing and they owe us a debt of knowledge.
    I didn't bother to respond to the evolution stuffs (speaking of non-sequitor) because the BBT says nothing of TOE and TOE says nothing of BBT. They are freestanding theories. Abiogenesis is not a part of either as well. The fact that your bring all this up regarding a meme about the origins of the universe establishes how little you understand the BBT, evolution, abiogenesis, and science in general. 
    Such a disingenuous comment.  Why must our conversation be confined to one or the other?  It is illogical to think that you can separate abiogenesis from Darwin's TOE, given you cannot have the process of evolution without abiogenesis first occurring and to that extent they overlap. .Darwin after all authored "The Origin of Species", the very foundation of evolutionary biology, therefore to suggest that abiogenesis does not pertain to the word "origin" is just not plausible..Similar applies to claims that the Big Bang Theory must be isolated from abiogenesis. They overlap into the primordial soup discussion. ALL of these subjects are inextricable from how the world and/or life began and developed. Even though I acknowledge that each may be discussed separately, there is no reason to confine the topic to the Big Bang hypothesis.  The topic in general is about the logic of all three.  

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 480 Pts
    edited February 27
    @Grafix

    ***"Let's get back to ground zero.  We don't even know if THE   Big Bang hypothesis even occurred. "

    We have high certainty the BB occurred. We definitely don't know there was anything before the BB as them meme suggests.

    However, this charge by you undercuts your entire case (and worldview). You believe a god did something on less information than we have to extrapolate the BB. This would be a standard of evidence problem. The commom alternative to your view is "unsubstantiated' as far as you're concerned, yet you push your view on even less. That's disingenuous.

    As for the rest where the BBT, the TOE, abiogenesis, and "Origins: wolverine" are all related,... I could agree more. I don't know why I didn't make that logical connection as you did. All are about origins and should be discussed together to give plenty of room for moving the goalpost. 

    In all seriousness, I won't be playing that game. You picked the subject in the OP, stick to it.


  • Atheists think this is logical

    So when GOD is the numbers 400, 11, and 500 written using letters instead of numbers isn't everyone who doesn't believe algebra exists Atheist? 

    Who are the most logical atheists or Christians? Logically they are both atheists only Christians legally change the name of Jesus to God, no offense meant.
    RS_master
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 28
    @John_C_87 - Not sure, being not schooled in the discipline, but are you referencing the Hebraic Tetragrammaton, which looks like this ....



    The Jewish encyclopaedia defines this Tetragrammaton to mean Yahweh, which in turn translates to the phrase "I will be that I will be" or in English texts, "I am that I am". (Hebrew has no vowels, only consonants)

    Meaning and Etymology.

    "It thus becomes possible to determine with a fair degree of certainty the historical pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, the results agreeing with the statement of Ex. iii. 14, in which Yhwh terms Himself  "I will be," a phrase which is immediately preceded by the fuller term "I will be that I will be," or, as in the English versions, "I am" and "I am that I am." The name  is accordingly derived from the root  (= ), and is regarded as an imperfect. This passage is decisive for the pronunciation "Yahweh"; for the etymology was undoubtedly based on the known word. The oldest exegetes, such as Onḳelos, and the Targumim of Jerusalem and pseudo-Jonathan regard "Ehyeh" and "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" as the name of the Divinity, and accept the etymology of "hayah" = "to be" (comp. Samuel b. Meïr, commentary on Ex. iii. 14)".

    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 28
    @SkepticalOne ; - In reply to this remark by me ...
    Grafix to @SkepticalOne

    Let's get back to ground zero.  We don't even know if THE   Big Bang hypothesis even occurred.
    You then wrote:
    We have high certainty the BB occurred. We definitely don't know there was anything before the BB as them meme suggests.
    Not just certainty, but high  certainty? The kind which has no evidence at all, no eyewitnesses, no written accounts, no artefacts and no historical evidence or corroborated evidence either?  That kind?  Right.  Got it.   It's really funny how Christians are the only ones with any evidence in this argument and who put it out there in front of atheists, while the atheists keep citing their science, yet never show us their so-called "science" which requires evidence  before it can be called science, in particular regarding their BB theory.  Sure, you have extrapolations, but extrapolations are not evidence and that's your problem and you know it.  

    So, No, your claim that my statement above somehow  "undercuts [my] entire case (and worldview)"  is a nonsense claim and a psy op, textbook Alinsky reversal of the facts, given that Christians have substantive evidence of their God and it all substantiated by the sciences.  You just deny it, even though it is properly authenticated and accepted by scholarship.  Worse, you claim "it seems time began with the Big Bang", yet elsewhere you claim it could have begun with "a singularity"  before the BB.  Your very own statements demolish this "high certainty"  of how time and space and everything began. Then you claim, equally as falsely ....
    You believe a god did something on less information than we have to extrapolate the BB. This would be a standard of evidence problem. The commom alternative to your view is "unsubstantiated' as far as you're concerned, yet you push your view on even less. That's disingenuous.
    Extrapolations are equal to evidence?  As Dr. Tour says,and very definitively too, in the video you watched that they (scientists) have continually lied to us.  He says "lies, lies  It's a lie.  They lied to you"  and adds, "These are only theories" ...  and to pretend " ... that they are facts is a lie.  It's a lie".  He actually uses the word "theories" in that context.  The way MOST of us understand the word and not the way atheists try to redefine it.

    What's really, really, really odd is how atheists refuse to accept material  evidence properly and authoritatively authenticated by official sources and by the sciences, material evidence which we can all see with our own eyes in the form of manuscripts, scrolls, artefacts, eyewitness accounts, historians' accounts, accounts of officials of the time, monuments, stele, cunieform in clay tablets, etc, none of it more than several thousand years old and much of it less than 2,000 years old, but yet are happy to accept a fable that happened over four billion years ago, with zero material evidence to hand, zero corroborative evidence, zero circumstantial evidence, zero eye-witness evidence, nothing, nada, zilch based only on extrapolations.  It's truly extraordinary and completely illogical.

    it gets better though.  This BB explosion of rocks and gases, the altar at which atheists serve, was so big it created more than a billion galaxies.  WOW!  I think somehow an explosion of that magnitude would pretty much vaporize everything, like the Hiroshima bomb did, as opposed to a wee planet emerging out of this vaporized chaos which just happened to be exactly  the right size, with exactly  the right amount of gravitational pull and landed in exactly  the right spot to orbit a sun exactly  the right size, at exactly  the right distance, so that life on this wee planet could survive, with exactly  the right sized moon to govern it's tides and had exactly  the right atmospheric components for life when not a single other celestial body did.  We won't go into how it also had exactly  the right amount of H20 for rain cycles, how oceans of enormous magnitude came from a bunch of rocks and gasses, but anyway,  it has those too.  As for the question of abiogenesis springing from inanimate, cold stone dead cells???  Fine if you like fables.  What's gobsmacking, though, is atheists accuse Christians of accepting fables, although the Christians are the only ones with any evidence of their fable.  LOL!  We even have DNA, evidence of a higher intelligence, which accounts for all of this amazing order, but still they deny it.

    The rest of your post is just gibberish, trying to pretend that atheism's alternative account for how the universe and life began, is not relevant to Christianity's opposing account of how that all began.  Yeah right.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • Grafix said:
    @John_C_87 - Not sure, being not schooled in the discipline, but are you referencing the Hebraic Tetragrammaton, which looks like this ....



    The Jewish encyclopaedia defines this Tetragrammaton to mean Yahweh, which in turn translates to the phrase "I will be that I will be" or in English texts, "I am that I am". (Hebrew has no vowels, only consonants)

    Meaning and Etymology.

    "It thus becomes possible to determine with a fair degree of certainty the historical pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, the results agreeing with the statement of Ex. iii. 14, in which Yhwh terms Himself  "I will be," a phrase which is immediately preceded by the fuller term "I will be that I will be," or, as in the English versions, "I am" and "I am that I am." The name  is accordingly derived from the root  (= ), and is regarded as an imperfect. This passage is decisive for the pronunciation "Yahweh"; for the etymology was undoubtedly based on the known word. The oldest exegetes, such as Onḳelos, and the Targumim of Jerusalem and pseudo-Jonathan regard "Ehyeh" and "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" as the name of the Divinity, and accept the etymology of "hayah" = "to be" (comp. Samuel b. Meïr, commentary on Ex. iii. 14)".

    Nope. We know it as algebra letters are used to replace numbers. Take it one step even farther and the numerical value of the number and the order those values are placed dictates what math principle is to be applied to the series of numbers written as letters. A basic discipline would be roman numerals like those show how many super bowls there has been, or will be, (LIV).
  • @Grafix

    Hmmm, it seems your strategy is to down play evidence for BBT (even to say there is none) and distract to your view of a subject not related to BBT as a rebuttal.

    The CMB is evidence for the BB. You're mistaken.

    Are you not a creationist? Do you not believe there was a creation week? If so, then, why aren't you providing evidence for that to refute the BB? If not, then I apologise - but I don't know what you believe regarding the origin of the universe and what evidence you claim for that. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Grafix You say that if atheists do not believe in the big bang what will they believe in, they could believe in two forces, negative and positive. There are plenty of small theories.
    You also refer the big bang as a myth or a bigger myth than god. Why is this?The chance of the big bang is way more than god.
    PlaffelvohfenxlJ_dolphin_473
  • I agree with @RS_master that the chance of the Big Bang is way bigger than the chance of God. 
    It's this simple. There was nothing. Then, a quantum fluctuation caused a huge amount of positive and negative energy to be simultaneously generated. 10⁵⁰ + -10⁵⁰ makes zero. Zero is nothing. It makes so much sense.
  • GrafixGrafix 230 Pts
    edited February 29
    @SkepticalOne - You wrote ....
    @Grafix

    Hmmm, it seems your strategy is to down play evidence for BBT (even to say there is none) and distract to your view of a subject not related to BBT as a rebuttal.

    The CMB is evidence for the BB. You're mistaken.

    Are you not a creationist? Do you not believe there was a creation week? If so, then, why aren't you providing evidence for that to refute the BB? If not, then I apologise - but I don't know what you believe regarding the origin of the universe and what evidence you claim for that. 

    No.  I don't say there are no explosions in space.  I even say in one of my posts that exploding stars and gaseous planets are common.  I am targeting the claim that there was necessarily a singular Big Bang as the hypothesis proposes and even if there were - still to be backed with viable evidence - that, even then, it does not prove everything began with it, i.e. infinity, time, space and matter.  I am going so far as to assert that to even contemplate a Big Bang as is claimed, then time, space and matter had to already exist for it to be even a possibility, let alone probable. 

    In other topics I have given Einstein's view, that in his search for the ultimate explanation and equation to explain the universe, he came to the realization that a superior, higher intelligence and supernatural being had to exist of the order that was way beyond the understanding of man.  His own equation makes that perfectly clear, so my argument is that his own equation attests to the existence of a God, necessary in order to command a force of the magnitude which Einstein's equation reveals.  Sure, he didn't worship that force, or call it a God.  Instead he moved toward Pantheism, which is the acknowledgement of a god with a small "g".

    This is the first para on the page you link to ...

    "The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is an almost-uniform background of radio waves that fill the universe.  The CMB is, in effect, the leftover heat of the Big Bang itself - it was released when the universe became cool enough to become transparent to light and other electromagnetic radiation, 100,000 years after its birth.  At this time, the universe was filled with a hot, ionized gas.  This gas was almost completely uniform, but did have slight deviations - spots that were slightly (1 part in 100,000) more or less dense.  The slight changes in the intensity of the CMB across the sky (deviations of only than 1 part in 100,000) give us a map of the early universe.  The picture below such a map, measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), a space-based microwave telescope for studying the CMB. By studying this map, astrophysicists have learned an enormous amount about the evolution and composition of the universe."

    The very second sentence is conjecture, but stated as if it were a fact. This is precisely what Dr. Tour is bagging.  There is no evidence of THE  Big Bang, yet these so-called "facts" - as stated in the second sentence - rely on its occurrence.   Also when they start claiming figures like 100,000 years after its birth, we immediately know this is fake, because when  the BB occurred is also conjecture. Same goes for the claim to know that the gas at that time,  had "spots that were (1 part in 100,000) more or less dense" - another extrapolation or conjecture.  Where's the evidence of that?  So as Dr. Tour says, they make these extrapolations and conjectures and then claim them as facts and build a narrative, which is not supported by any evidence.  They are not facts.  They are conjecture. 

    I still hold that had an explosion large enough to generate billions of stars and planets occurred, it would have been so hot that it would have vaporized EVERYTHING, just as the Hiroshima bomb did.  This is the canary in the coal  mine. It was Einstein's very own equation which provided the understanding and knowledge of how to create the bombs which were dropped on Japan in WWII.
    .
    The further back we look, the greater forward insight we can have. History speaks.
  • @Grafix
    Yes, you can be an atheist and not 'bash' religion. That is fine. But, as I believe that religion is illogical, I choose to debate against theists. Not everyone does. But I choose to. That is also fine.
    RS_masterHowardChance1PiecemakerK.R.T
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch