This is my first day. I have enjoyed reading some of these posts. Unfortunately there seems to be irrationality in every single atheist argument, without exception.
That is unscientific and unintelligent.
Here is one example. Michael Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box.
He pointed out several examples of irreducible complexity, the simplest and most comprehensible of which was a mousetrap. Take away any part, and it does not function.
A clever atheist claimed that absent the latch or triggering mechanism, a faulty mousetrap COULD be used as a tie clip. (Smirk, snort)
Question: Can an atheist find one person in an office anywhere who has a non-functional mousetrap on his tie? (Without setting it up, of course.)
On to the creation of the universe. It has been suggested elsewhere that the universe is the product of evolution.
1. The explanation of abiogenesis is universally avoided by biological evolutionists as preceeding evolution and therefore not being explicable by evolution. This is simply wordplay because the very title of Darwin's seminal book is The Origin of Life. The first living cell constituted life. Explain its origin.
2. DNA requires proteins to produce it. Proteins require DNA for their synthesis.
Given that a polypeptide only 500 sequences in length has a space of 10^650th, and assuming that there are 10^10 different sequences which might function acceptably, please explain the statistical impossibility of selecting one of the functional sequences given the chances of 1 in 10^640.
3. Given that evolution requires a selective functional advantage, please provide a list of intermediaries evolved along the way from one simple amino acid to a protein of just 100 sequences, and the function of each intermediary.
Not for all proteins, just for one.
4. What is the statistical probability of random mutation elucidating all known polypeptide structures in the simplest known organism? Please use formulae and not the alphabetology of A>B>C>D. Alphabetology is the Flying Spaghetti Monster of science.
( I only bring up the FSM because it is a moniker on at least one atheists's profile. So if he can invoke it, then surely I can as well.)
Reason exceedeth folly as far as light exceedeth darkness. Let us reason together.
Evolution, as explanation of everything
Moderator: Moderators
Post #21
Yes. Do you see yourself in a role here similar to that of Jesus?Starman wrote:Thank you for your support, such as it is, and your advice. I will endeavor to pursue your wise counsel.Hamsaka wrote:
I'll speak for myself, your 'style' is unnecessarily provocative but I'm glad you are here to speak up for Christians. I just hope you won't get yourself put on probation or banned so the debates and dialogue can continue with a strong Christian advocate. I mean this sincerely.
If I am provocative, it is because I have witnessed infinitely more provocations than I could ever return in kind. Speaking for myself, and as a victim of bullying on many different fronts, I have had quite enough of atheist provocation and now fight back. Other Christians are welcome to simply turn the other cheek. Do so and atheists will slap that one too, and with a big smirk.
Tell me, was it "provocative" for Jesus to overturn the tables of the moneychangers?
Was it "provocative" for Jesus to lash these moneychangers?
Was it "provocative" for Jesus to call the Pharisees "hypocrites"?
Your personal history of being bullied provides a level of understanding to explain why you joined this forum gunz a'blazing.
I don't know if you'll find this ironic or not . . . but there's those of us who could match you with experiences of being bullied, cornered and harassed by Christians, simply for not being Christians. The way I see it, no one gets to justify bad behavior (name calling, blanket statements, negative generalizations) with the chip on their shoulder, either side.
Do you deny the long history of Christian persecution toward nonbelievers? I could tell you about mine. I don't think it entitles me to describe Christians as bigoted, superstitious sky-god worshippers no matter how persecuted I feel.
I have no idea what a fellow Bright is . . . or how they are folded elucidate, please.Were you to express the opposite conclusion, with all your same identical claims of education and background, you would be ridiculed by the left, and by atheists, as an ignoramus. You don't understand evolution" they would claim.In your OP, you imply that positive knowledge (acceptance) of the theory of evolution must be justified, in the individual, with at least a bachelor's degree in biochemistry. I only had to take basic chem/biochem to complete my bachelor level nursing degree. Yet I am quite comfortable with the theory of evolution explaining the development and proliferation of species, in spite of being unable to answer your questions.
But since you do accept evolution, you are welcome to the fold as a fellow Bright.
I did not realize I could be 'classified' as a certain kind of person for accepting a scientific consensus. Should a person who accepts String Theory be prepared for persecution from a Supersymmetrist?
Are Christians who accept the theory of evolution traitors? CINOs?
Which plausible concepts that have been discarded as pure folly are you referring to, I presume, in support of your statement about macroevolution? Have any of these discarded follies been touted as scientific truth by anyone here?I will grant that macroevolution is quite plausible. But many plausible concepts which were universally accepted as factual have since been discarded as pure folly.For lack of the specifics to answer your questions, my capacity to reason enables me to track, follow and concede basic acceptance of the theory of evolution as it is understood currently, when expressed in terms an educated layperson can relate to.
Plausibility is not proof.
Plausibility is pretty much a social construct, and yes, a poor guide for what is possible. And sometimes providing one's best 'proof' (or, sufficient evidence) just might get you voted off the island.
Ironically, I disagree about the plausibility of macroevolution; talk about having a very low plausibility score. Grasping the concept of hundreds of millions (hell, billions) of years is difficult for us short-lived humans. Yet, sufficient evidence has been shown to support this incredibly implausible idea, go figure.
The theory of evolution does not beg credulity (at least until basic biology is understood) with claims of supernatural beings or space, time and matter doing things against their own laws. It begs credulity because my human mind struggles to grasp the amount of time it takes for speciation to occur, much less primordial ooze giving rise to the life we see around us.
I tried to talk some sense into aggressive 'atheists' on a couple of YouTube channels, and on Sam Harris's chat forum when they sounded no different than the foaming Christian Fundamentalists they exchanged obscenities with.Again I say, atheists are consummately provocative. I will not shrink from atheist irrationality and Big Lies. What I consider to be exposing these things, you call "provocative." Perspective is everything.This is only your first attempt to initiate a debate. Fortunately, even in a poorly designed hypothesis, there is usually something to discuss, especially when it is worded in such a provocative manner
I do not wear jewelry demeaning the beliefs of atheists, as they so provocatively do ("FSM", giggle). Have you ever accused any atheist of being provocative?
If so, please provide the link as proof.
I have made similar statements here, at least once. I'd much rather play here! My sense is that polarization has occurred such that folks have forgotten they are talking to other folks, not frothing Christians with pitchforks against evil, "Darwinist" evolution-worshipping ayyytheists.
I would agree that you do not shrink from what your perceptual faculties tell you are irrational atheisms and Big Lies. Now it's up to you to provide sufficient evidence (via reason/logic or empiric data, which granted is not in great abundance) of that which self-appoints you as agente provocateur
So far you've made abundant claims . . . but have yet to dig into support your claims as requested. It is easier to throw out more claims to throw folks off your scent than to dig in and stand your ground.
Post #22
I almost asked the same question about YouTube. I sense most of the 'debaters' there aren't old enough to buy cigarettes yet.Haven wrote: [Replying to post 19 by Starman]
Why do you think all atheists are the same? Not all of us are condescending Dawkins types--most, I'd say, respect the people we disagree with. Some of us go a bit farther and respect the beliefs of the people with which we disagree. Why do you so judgmentally dismiss a group that includes millions of people?
Also, when have the atheists here done what you accuse them of doing?
Where have you been debating, YouTube?
I know this doesn't contribute to the debate (except indirectly as reinforcement) but this forum DOES indeed have a very respectful population of very intelligent persons of a variety of persuasions. Well behaved, too, which means we can get down to business!
- Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #23
Moderator WarningStarman wrote: Again I say, atheists are consummately provocative (vexing). I will not shrink from atheist irrationality and Big Lies.
....
attacked with full atheist condescension and utter disrespect, most likely because you are an atheist....
Please do not call others and complete groups liars. Do not impute motives and intention to others.
Please review our Rules.
______________
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Post #24
I never said all atheists are the same. You did. I made generalizations which are generally correct. Dawkins sold millions of books, primarily to atheists who idolize him.Haven wrote:
Why do you think all atheists are the same? Not all of us are condescending Dawkins types--most, I'd say, respect the people we disagree with. Some of us go a bit farther and respect the beliefs of the people with which we disagree. Why do you so judgmentally dismiss a group that includes millions of people?
Why do atheists so judgmentally dismiss Christians, a group that includes billions of people? I resent hateful atheist tactics which here are extremely limited only by forum rules. Elsewhere atheists run rampant, as you should know.
I exchanged e-mails with Richard Dawkins, and wrote to Isaac Asimov's publisher. The ignorant old man wrote back to me on a postcard, which I sold on eBay.Also, when have the atheists here done what you accuse them of doing?
Where have you been debating, YouTube?
Ditto Carl Sagan, who replied with a letter. Their combined ignorance and irrationality are another, separate story(ies).
"Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p 338
More recently, as I said earlier, I wrote to Professor Atkins at Oxford. Like Sagan and Asimov, he had little by way of rebuttal.
I also sold Sagan's letter on eBay.
How many atheists have profited financially from their theological opposition?
And how?
- Haven
- Guru
- Posts: 1803
- Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
- Location: Tremonton, Utah
- Has thanked: 70 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
- Contact:
Post #25
Dawkins? Really? The most abrasive public anti-religious fanatic out there? Why do you think he speaks for most atheists?[color=darkred]Starman[/color] wrote: I exchanged e-mails with Richard Dawkins,
That's like saying "I've spoken with Pat Robertson, and so all Christians are bigots." I mean, really?
This is just a fallacious quote mine.[color=red]Starman[/color] wrote: "Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p 338
What does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread, which is evolution?
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm
Post #26
I don't have near the decorum or restraint as some of the other posters here. What you've just written is one of the most absurd and contradictory responses I've seen from you yet, and that's saying quite a bit.Starman wrote:
I never said all atheists are the same. You did. I made generalizations which are generally correct. Dawkins sold millions of books, primarily to atheists who idolize him.
Why do atheists so judgmentally dismiss Christians, a group that includes billions of people? I resent hateful atheist tactics which here are extremely limited only by forum rules. Elsewhere atheists run rampant, as you should know.
''I never said all atheists are the same.'' Followed IMMEDIATELY BY ''Why do atheists....?''
Every time you spew your brand of nonsense starting with ''Atheists say'' or ''Atheists think'' or ''Why do atheists...?'' you aren't differentiating in any way among the set represented by a simple lack of belief. You don't say ''some'' or ''most'' or ''often'' or ''many.'' You lump all atheists into this blanket, and usually incorrect, category of a single and hive-minded group.
You had a friend stab you in the back that was an atheist. Who cares? This is a debate forum, not a casual dinner conversation. Oh, you wrote a letter to Richard Dawkins? Who cares? You can either support your outrageous claims on here or you can't. And Asimov's publisher? You don't say! Who cares? You can either learn not to commit online debate suicide with your kindergarten creationist strategies or you can't.I exchanged e-mails with Richard Dawkins, and wrote to Isaac Asimov's publisher. The ignorant old man wrote back to me on a postcard, which I sold on eBay.
Ditto Carl Sagan, who replied with a letter. Their combined ignorance and irrationality are another, separate story(ies).
What does this have to do with evolution? Why can't you stay focused and instead insist on telling me about your background and your friend and the atheists you've written to?How many atheists have profited financially from their theological opposition?
And how?
For any wondering if the tone is uncivil, it is. Star, take any one of your god-worshiping assertions from the past week and PM me which one you want to debate in head-to-head. You've enjoyed an open microphone long enough.
- Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #27
Post after post you call atheists proponents of "Big Lies," never using the modifier, "some." Then you repeat it, claiming your generalizations are correct. You accuse others of profiting by their position, then you sell your personal correspondence. Every creationist website I've seen is in the book selling business. They preach their "woo" [that's what you've called it, right?] to the choir for book sales and profit. But you claim that those with genuine academic credentials should give away their labors. Josh McDowell has no academic qualifications, yet he expects to be paid for his amateur publications. Kent Hovind certainly got paid, and went to prison for lying to the United States about his taxes.Starman wrote: I never said all atheists are the same. You did. I made generalizations which are generally correct. Dawkins sold millions of books, primarily to atheists who idolize him.
Why do atheists so judgmentally dismiss Christians, a group that includes billions of people? I resent hateful atheist tactics which here are extremely limited only by forum rules. Elsewhere atheists run rampant, as you should know.
I exchanged e-mails with Richard Dawkins, and wrote to Isaac Asimov's publisher. The ignorant old man wrote back to me on a postcard, which I sold on eBay.
Ditto Carl Sagan, who replied with a letter. Their combined ignorance and irrationality are another, separate story(ies).
"Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p 338
More recently, as I said earlier, I wrote to Professor Atkins at Oxford. Like Sagan and Asimov, he had little by way of rebuttal.
I also sold Sagan's letter on eBay.
How many atheists have profited financially from their theological opposition?
And how?
If you're going to condemn people for working to make money, let's at least do it even handedly. After all, it's part of the free enterprise, capitalist economy you endorse. Or do you suggest we should go back to the first Christians who held all things in common?
Back to the topic, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution as the dominant theory to explain the diversity of life on this planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution
A few religious based fringe groups backed by 3d rate scientists writing outside their area of expertise disagree. Game over. In general creationists are lucky to find anyone who will even bother to discuss their silliness with them.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #28
From Post 24:
1st challenge.
1st challenge.
For this particular atheist, it's 'cause so many of 'em so judgmentally dismiss their fellow human beings, and, of course, their inability to show they know the mind of a god they can't show exists.Starman wrote: ...
Why do atheists so judgmentally dismiss Christians, a group that includes billions of people?
Just as I resent the hateful Christian tactic of denying rights, pizzas, and car fixing to folks they consider unworthy of rights and respect.Starman wrote: I resent hateful atheist tactics which here are extremely limited only by forum rules.
Don't it beat all, I can't rampantly run up and buy me some alcohol 'til the majority Christians in my district say I can.Starman wrote: Elsewhere atheists run rampant, as you should know.
I challenge you to show you speak truth.Starman wrote: I exchanged e-mails with Richard Dawkins, and wrote to Isaac Asimov's publisher. The ignorant old man wrote back to me on a postcard, which I sold on eBay.
Ditto Carl Sagan, who replied with a letter. Their combined ignorance and irrationality are another, separate story(ies).
1st challenge.
And don't it beat all, I'm the one that mastered it!Starman wrote: "Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p 338
I challenge you to show you speak truth.Starman wrote: More recently, as I said earlier, I wrote to Professor Atkins at Oxford. Like Sagan and Asimov, he had little by way of rebuttal.
I also sold Sagan's letter on eBay.
1st challenge.
Many atheists don't seek financial reward for telling the truth.Starman wrote: How many atheists have profited financially from their theological opposition?
And how?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Post #29
Once again, you attempt to put words in my mouth. I never said Dawkins "speaks for most atheists." You did. It is extremely noteworthy that Dawkins has grown so wealthy selling books extolling his hatred and condescension with contempt and certitude unbefitting a scholar he pretends to be.Haven wrote:Dawkins? Really? The most abrasive public anti-religious fanatic out there? Why do you think he speaks for most atheists?[color=darkred]Starman[/color] wrote: I exchanged e-mails with Richard Dawkins,
I did not read his hateful diatribes against God. I read his supposedly scientific books, checked out from the public library. I would never put a dime of my money into his evil pockets. I can provide you many of his ignorant and erroneous comments as well.
To take a page from the Atheist's Handbook, prove Pat Robertson is a bigot.That's like saying "I've spoken with Pat Robertson, and so all Christians are bigots." I mean, really?
[color=red]Starman[/color] wrote: "Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p 338
1. To take a page from the Atheist's Handbook, prove it is "fallacious"?This is just a fallacious quote mine.
I read the book cover to cover. I took nothing out of context. It is fraught with errors and nonsense of which I shall be more than happy to provide more than a few examples.
2. It is profoundly hypocritical of atheists to make the accusation of "quote mining" when that is precisely what atheists do every time they quote the Holy Bible. Every time. Atheist quote mining is just fine. Christians, not so much.
How many paragraphs must be included to avoid your charge of "quote mining"? Or do you need to have the whole book presented?
YOU said evolution is the topic. I created the topic, Evolution, as explanation of everything." This was in response to an atheist who claimed that evolution explains the origin of the universe. It was an absurd claim, which was not, and, in my opinion, cannot possibly be substantiated. I created this thread to emphasize that opinion of mine.What does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread, which is evolution?
Post #30
Danmark wrote:
How many atheists have profited financially from their theological opposition?
And how?
"Some" is implied. "All" was not used, was it?Post after post you call atheists proponents of "Big Lies," never using the modifier, "some." Then you repeat it, claiming your generalizations are correct. You accuse others of profiting by their position, then you sell your personal correspondence.
I do not have the reference for the following figures I saved a year or two. Therefore I cannot provide said reference. To the extent anyone believes these figures are substantially incorrect, please correct them with the responsible reference of your choice. If each figure were off by an order of magnitude, it is still a lot of money, clearly.
NOAA $437 million
NSF $480 million
NASA $438 million
DOE $627 million
DOI $171 million
EPA $169 million
USDA $159 million
I sold Sagan's letter and Asimov's postcard for a total of $200.
They were sold on the free market, to a willing buyer. Demands for tax dollars are nothing like the free market. Taxpayers have no choice. But many object to tax dollars spent for national defense, and only national defense.
For you to compare these profoundly disparate amounts, when they were obtained by entirely different means is the height of absurdity and hypocrisy. Absurdity and hypocrisy abound here, in the name of "debate."
I said nothing of the sort. Again you and yours in this forum put words in my mouth. That is not "debate." Those with genuine academic credentials include the Nobel Laureate in physics, who calls AGW a complete and utter fraud.Every creationist website I've seen is in the book selling business. They preach their "woo" [that's what you've called it, right?] to the choir for book sales and profit. But you claim that those with genuine academic credentials should give away their labors.
Moreover, your argument suffers from the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority.
Experts have been wrong countless times in history, and will continue to be wrong.
These with "genuine academic credentials" are victims of the same peer pressure that my friend experiences at the nearby University of California. He has to go along to keep his job. That is anti-scientific. Selling books to the general public is nothing like fleecing taxpayers. Whether or not you or I agree with books bought and sold willingly is quite immaterial. We are not debating books sold by "creationist websites," so why do you bring them up as strawmen?
Again and again, you put words in my mouth. I condemned NO ONE for "working to make money." This is how you "debate"? I can scarcely rebut another sentence from you.If you're going to condemn people for working to make money, let's at least do it even handedly. After all, it's part of the free enterprise, capitalist economy you endorse. Or do you suggest we should go back to the first Christians who held all things in common?
One should not lie to "make money." One should not falsify data, and graphs and make up stories, to "make money."
Argument From Authority. Invalid, and also immaterial. My point was that an atheist propounded the "evolution" of the universe. Address that topic, please.Back to the topic, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution as the dominant theory to explain the diversity of life on this planet.
And put no more words in my mouth.
Argument From Authority, yet again. I see your argument and raise you Lord Kelvin, "heavier than air flight is impossible," versus "3rd rate" non-scientists, Orville and Wilbur Wright. Game over. Discuss your silliness with someone else.A few religious based fringe groups backed by 3d rate scientists writing outside their area of expertise disagree. Game over. In general creationists are lucky to find anyone who will even bother to discuss their silliness with them.
Please don't reply to my posts again. I'll do likewise. The "game" is "over."
My eBay $200 versus billions of tax dollars? Really?