Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

[magnifier661]

We have no idea what form the first self-replicating molecule took. None. You are assuming that it looked just like modern organisms, and therefore could never have formed randomly. This is like claiming that toddlers have no chance to ever get into college based on their exceptionally low SAT scores.

Sorry -- I know I said I'd get back to work. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak!

No because even if I used the latest evolved simplest mole; it would be 400 components. Way less than 100.

I am going with the latest theory on Abiogenesis; which is a 60 component mole. This isn't even 1 with the DNA programed to activate life either. That's an entirely different improbability.

But yeah get back to work buddy. I got things to do as well. Thanks for another great debate.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

No because even if I used the latest evolved simplest mole; it would be 400 components. Way less than 100.

I am going with the latest theory on Abiogenesis; which is a 60 component mole. This isn't even 1 with the DNA programed to activate life either. That's an entirely different improbability.

Just to play devil's advocate--the video mentioned the odds of XY as 50%, the odds of XYZ as 16%, etc. But what about the possibility of natural attraction increasing the odds?

For instance, what if components X & Y are naturally (randomly) predisposed to combine in an XY formation, such that the odds of that combination are 99% rather than 50%; and they the XY combination has a natural tendency to add component Z at the end, such that the odds of XYZ are 98% rather than 16%.

Is it possible that the combination probabilities are improved by chemical attractions which naturally lead to the combinations that lead to life?

 

[magnifier661]

Just to play devil's advocate--the video mentioned the odds of XY as 50%, the odds of XYZ as 16%, etc. But what about the possibility of natural attraction increasing the odds?

For instance, what if components X & Y are naturally (randomly) predisposed to combine in an XY formation, such that the odds of that combination are 99% rather than 50%; and they the XY combination has a natural tendency to add component Z at the end, such that the odds of XYZ are 98% rather than 16%.

Is it possible that the combination probabilities are improved by chemical attractions which naturally lead to the combinations that lead to life?

Absolutely, and you make a great point. But it also can increase the odds as well. For example: The chemical attraction to Hydrogen to Oxygen is great; but H2O is not a free radical; but OH is a free radical. H and O are free-radicals as well. So H2O, by itself isn't as random. But let's say you have 10 components of water (h2o) and some amazing thing happened and the molecules were separated. There would be literally thousands of different combinations; especially in the presence of energy and other atomic components.

 

[magnifier661]

Wanted to brign up another Nobel Prize winner of Chemistry - Richard Smalley

His exact quotes:

"Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it’s true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done.”

Following his death, the publishers of the Old Earth creationism book "Who Was Adam" issued a news release that offered this quote: "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading ‘Origins of Life’, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, ‘Who Was Adam?’, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.”

At the Tuskegee University's 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents' Recognition Program he made the following statement regarding the subject of evolution while urging his audience to take seriously their role as the higher species on this planet.

“The burden of proof is on those who don't believe that 'Genesis' was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved. We are the only species that can destroy the Earth or take care of it and nurture all that live on this very special planet. I'm urging you to look on these things. For whatever reason, this planet was built specifically for us. Working on this planet is an absolute moral code. ... Let's go out and do what we were put on Earth to do."

But hey; if you think Nobel Prize Winners are a joke; then be my guest...

 

[RR7]

But hey; if you think Nobel Prize Winners are a joke; then be my guest...

Another nice strawman there. If anyone disagrees with his position, they're in no way discrediting the work he did as a chemist, or saying as a chemist he is a joke, but you've created that odd strawman of if you disagree with creationism, then you think nobel prize winners are a joke.

 

[magnifier661]

Another nice strawman there. If anyone disagrees with his position, they're in no way discrediting the work he did as a chemist, or saying as a chemist he is a joke, but you've created that odd strawman of if you disagree with creationism, then you think nobel prize winners are a joke.

Naw, that isn't the point RR7. The fact that many in here believe that creationists; can't work in the field of science; or that people believing in God are delusional. Obviously there are many in this world that aren't delusional and believe in God.

And remember his quote about reading "Who is Adam?", then using his chemist background made him change his mind.

 

[RR7]

Nobody in here has said creationists can't work in the field of science. There have been many listed. Where do you come up with this? Nobody is saying you are delusional for your belief. Just that many of us have a different belief. And you're the one calling us delusional. If I run quotes from atheist nobel prize winners, does that mean you think they're a joke? You seem to evolve your argument around things you are making up. Yep, there are creationists that are scientists. Brilliant minds. Good for them.

 

[magnifier661]

Nobody in here has said creationists can't work in the field of science. There have been many listed. Where do you come up with this? Nobody is saying you are delusional for your belief. Just that many of us have a different belief. And you're the one calling us delusional. If I run quotes from atheist nobel prize winners, does that mean you think they're a joke? You seem to evolve your argument around things you are making up. Yep, there are creationists that are scientists. Brilliant minds. Good for them.

Would you like me to quote some that did? You can read through "philosophical question". You can see it there.

 

[crowTrobot]

But hey; if you think Nobel Prize Winners are a joke; then be my guest...

ask denny about al gore : )

smalley's comments are absolutely a joke. nobel prizes for chemistry are not awards for objective rational thinking about religious subjects.

 

[RR7]

sure, maybe I missed it. I don't feel that's been anyone's contention, but i guess i could have been wrong.

 

[crowTrobot]

Would you like me to quote some that did?

you'll only find comments about YEC's, which smalley is not, so don't waste your time.

 

[magnifier661]

you'll only find comments about YEC's, which smalley is not, so don't waste your time.

Wow u are aware that chemistry is used in almost everything in science. Mathematics as well.

 

[RR7]

Wow u are aware that chemistry is used in almost everything in science. Mathematics as well.

what does that have to do with what he said?

 

[magnifier661]

what does that have to do with what he said?

Seriously don't know?

 

[magnifier661]

sure, maybe I missed it. I don't feel that's been anyone's contention, but i guess i could have been wrong.

Well from the current response you will know one of the people.

 

[RR7]

no clue. he said Smalley wasn't a YEC (young earth creationist, I believe), and you mentioned chemistry and math being involved in science. I don't know how that relates at all.

 

[magnifier661]

no clue. he said Smalley wasn't a YEC (young earth creationist, I believe), and you mentioned chemistry and math being involved in science. I don't know how that relates at all.

Ah I see what YEC stands for. Unfortunately that wasn't why the comment was stated in philosophical question. Had nothing to do with YEC. That's why I was confused.

 

[Denny Crane]

ask denny about al gore : )

smalley's comments are absolutely a joke. nobel prizes for chemistry are not awards for objective rational thinking about religious subjects.

When science gets politicized, it's bad news. That's subject of many other threads tho.

 

[magnifier661]

I got it crow. So I wasn't aware of the acronym of YEC. So you believe that "creationists" are in modern science then? Just no "Young Earth Creationists"?

 

[magnifier661]

When science gets politicized, it's bad news. That's subject of many other threads tho.

Are we talking about his invention of the internet?

 

[Denny Crane]

Like I said, it's topic for another thread. Unless you want this one going way off topic.

Scientists do have agendas, and large groups of them can act in their best interests vs. practicing good science. They're human.

 

[magnifier661]

Like I said, it's topic for another thread. Unless you want this one going way off topic.

Scientists do have agendas, and large groups of them can act in their best interests vs. practicing good science. They're human.

Yeah probably not a good idea in here and I do agree with interest vs. practicing good science. That's why I also agree that it's good that there are creationist in science as well.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah probably not a good idea in here and I do agree with interest vs. practicing good science. That's why I also agree that it's good that there are creationist in science as well.

Science shouldn't discriminate against good minds who practice good science.

 

[crowTrobot]

Ah I see what YEC stands for. Unfortunately that wasn't why the comment was stated in philosophical question. Had nothing to do with YEC. That's why I was confused.

i was pointing out that you were about to contort my prior comments about scientists and the age of the earth into another "atheists claim no scientists believe in creation" straw man. just saving you the effort.

 

[crowTrobot]

I got it crow. So I wasn't aware of the acronym of YEC. So you believe that "creationists" are in modern science then? Just no "Young Earth Creationists"?

correct

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This thread is now as long as The Bodacious Blazer Babes of S2 thread.

That is just wrong. Very very wrong.

 

[noknobs]

Yet scientifically; even a "law of science" makes it perfectly clear that mass and energy cannot come into existence from nothing. And if that's true; then how can the universe be created unless a deity put it there?

If a deity created everything, who/what created the deity? Did the deity have no mass or energy? If the answer is yes, you've just contradicted yourself... If the answer is no, then you're saying there was always mass/energy and thus contradicting yourself.

oops

I'll make it easy for you... You're contradicting yourself. Maybe just admit you don't have a fucking clue?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If a deity created everything, who/what created the deity? Did the deity have no mass or energy? If the answer is yes, you've just contradicted yourself... If the answer is no, then you're saying there was always mass/energy and thus contradicting yourself.

oops

I'll make it easy for you... You're contradicting yourself. Maybe just admit you don't have a fucking clue?

You're assuming that the deity is bound by the laws of this dimension. If such a deity is omnipresent and outside of time constraints, then clearly said deity would be other-dimensional.

 

[noknobs]

You're assuming that the deity is bound by the laws of this dimension. If such a deity is omnipresent and outside of time constraints, then clearly said deity would be other-dimensional.

You’re saying that it’s possible for an other-dimensional omnipotent deity to create ‘something’ in this dimension out of ‘nothing’ in this dimension, and you don’t think that contradicts saying, “You can’t make matter/energy disappear from existence, nor can you make matter/energy from nothing”?

If you fundamentally believe the above is possible, then I’d think you’d be open to the idea that it could have occurred without a deity. How can you with a straight face claim one scenario is possible, and the other isn’t?

 

[magnifier661]

If a deity created everything, who/what created the deity? Did the deity have no mass or energy? If the answer is yes, you've just contradicted yourself... If the answer is no, then you're saying there was always mass/energy and thus contradicting yourself.

oops

I'll make it easy for you... You're contradicting yourself. Maybe just admit you don't have a fucking clue?

LOL! You do realize that someone that believes in a deity believes that anything is possible right? You are the one that believes there is none; therefor you are bound by the laws of science. Because you do not believe in the supernatural.

That was too easy. NEXT...