CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:137
Arguments:123
Total Votes:151
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (95)

Debate Creator

Saintnow(3684) pic



Questions for Atheists, Evolutionists, and Evolutionary Biologists

Please give scientific answers for the following questions, please do not answer with statements of belief but rather with observable facts.

 1)...All mutations observed in nature are mostly detrimental to the organism while a few remain neutral like when a horse is crossed with a donkey to produce a mule which cannot reproduce. Can you show me any of the advances in complexity of organisms you say happened, can you actually show me one thing changing into another animal by mutation? Sets of bones of different animals are not animals changing into other animals, they are piles of bones. Expecting me to believe the animals changed into other kinds of animals is not science. I want you to show me, not tell me I should believe you. Show me.

2)...A living cell is composed of millions of parts all working together and is considered more complex than any man-made machine. Then, since the process of evolution has no blueprints (cannot plan for the future) for building something, since over time things tend to deteriorate unless there is a mechanism in place to sustain them, since virtually all known mutations decrease genetic information (or are neutral), since natural selection would not be operating until the first cell formed, how could the process of evolution ever assemble something as complex as a living cell with all its information content?

3)...DNA, RNA, and proteins all need each other as an integrated unit. Even if only one of them existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle and wait for the other parts to evolve because they would dissolve or deteriorate. Is there any compelling (observable) evidence for how all these components evolved at the same time or separately over time?

4)....Have scientists ever created DNA or RNA in a laboratory through random and unguided naturalistic processes? Have they ever seen it happen in nature in ways that can be documented without asking us to believe it happened?

5)...Since information in DNA is millions of times more dense and complex than in any computer which anybody in the world has ever designed. How could evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence?

6)The National Academy of Sciences defines a theory as “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence” and science as “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena." Does this mean scientists can reproduce how life originated or test any step of the process for how life evolved? If not, then how can evolution qualify as a theory?

7)....While some molecules do combine to form larger structures such as amino acids, it has been shown that this always results in something not suitable ...questions 7 and 8 are completed below in the discussion

Add New Argument
10 points

Do you really ban people and then reply to their comments, giving them no opportunity to respond to your claim? You realize it's not "last person to comment wins," right?

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

If I ban you, then you lose the privilege of commenting here and I win relief of whatever it was which I decided I don't want in the discussion. Then I can respond to the comments all I want to.

I was tempted to ban you before I answered your comment, but I did spend a lot of time answering your somewhat demanding request when you didn't appreciate the bluntness of wit's brevity in my first response. I hope you will read that long reply when you were insisting on getting an extensive answer on Pascal's Wager and other things you were asking.

In this discussion, I posted around six questions at the start before anybody showed up. I also posted in the OP that I want scientific answers for my questions of science, that being answers which I can actually see and show in repeatable tests. I asked that statements of belief not be given as scientific answers. People here know I have a very low tolerance, if any, for profanity in my discussions. If people are going to be disrespectful of my requests and post things which are disruptive by ignoring the discussion and encouraging others to similar childishness, they will get banned and I will make whatever statements I feel like making in response to their posts. I may not win the argument to get them to admit they were wrong, but they lose the opportunity to show their clown faces and they don't get to bother me here anymore.

They can ban me from their discussion, I can ban them from mine. Suits me just fine. They had more opportunity than they deserve, as most of these people have been extremely rude, vile, and obnoxious toward me repeatedly. Sometimes I pre-ban them immediately when I start the debate to prevent them from doing what I know they will do, come make the biggest stink they can because the Bible says if we are not saved from Hell, we are condemned to it and people generally hate me for saying what the Bible says........and that is their problem, not mine.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

How did you manage to sit there so long unnoticed by me after you made this punky comment which has nothing to do with the OP? If it's a contest to see who gets to be in this discussion, you lose, and I win, because you are gone and I'm still here and the discussion is still open to people who have the maturity to show me some respect.

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

Let me clarify for your rude big mouth. If you don't want to respectfully participate to discuss the OP, you should not be here so I don't have to kick you out. Do you get the point?

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

Let me put it a different way: If you only want to come here and nitpick on my personality, how can you expect me to not ban you and not be irritated with you, and not try to show what a bad example you are in being disruptive and rude and punky like an idiot who enjoys doing things which result in getting him thrown out on his hiney?

I don't understand what is happening here. Cartman has been giving good answers yet, you ban him. Why ?

AlofRI(2778) Clarified Banned
3 points

LadyLinkstar:

I think it's that NO answers that disagree with scripture are considered "good answers".

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

I explained why I banned him and his answers were not good, they had nothing of science which I can observe and study without being asked to believe things that cannot be shown. His answers all violated my request in the OP for science and not beliefs as the basis of discussion, and any one of them was grounds for me to ban him for being disruptive by ignoring the OP. I tolerated him only because I found it funny how all he could do is state his beliefs, and I enjoyed pointing it out......but then he insulted me by saying something like "you don't know what a symbiotic relationship is".....very stupid of him to say something like that, insulting........in this discussion, I'm not going to tolerate much in the area of insults. I want scientific facts answering the questions I have presented. If you don't have any, you probably don't have much to talk about here.

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

Here's the insult Carpman posted when I saw he was starting to go ballistic in frustration and knew he would resort to increasing numbers of profanities and absurd statements.......which he did and I read those after I banned him too late to stop the garbage...........

You can't even grasp the concept of symbiotic organisms

I thought it was actually a pretty good discussion of symbiotic organisms, and found it funny how Carnyman tried to explain them, but he was falling into his bad old habits of profanity, absurdly stupid short statements, and insults.....and again, he never answered any of my questions of science with scientific facts I can see for myself.

Darkyear(345) Banned
2 points

Why do you have MASSIVELY higher standards for believing in evolution than you do the Bible? You say you would have to see evolution happening right before your very eyes, even though that isn't something that evolution claimed would happen.

But do you demand to see God before your eyes? Heaven or Hell? Angels? A person coming back from the dead? You take the Bible as true without any verification, yet evolution, one of the most studied and confirmed topics in the world? That's just all opinions.

People like you are dinosaurs. Catch up with the modern age. Its actually pretty nice here.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

So you believe in evolution with low standards of proof? Thanks for admitting that.

Now answer one of my opening questions of science with scientific responses and not statements of belief. The discussion here is about science, not about evolution or about God. You just want to fly off the handle because the questions point out exactly what you opened with in your post here......you accept low standards of evidence for belief in evolution. You lost this debate without even trying to put up an argument.

Darkyear(345) Disputed Banned
1 point

I didn't say evolution had low standards of proof. To the contrary, I said "yet evolution, one of the most studied and confirmed topics in the world?"

Nor did I say that your standards were necessarily too high, except that you seem to expect things that the theory of natural selection is not going to produce. You need to learn what evolution is all about first. Then, feel free to bring skepticism and questions. That is the fuel of scientific exploration. But you also have to accept when the evidence tells you that, yes, this thing definitely appears to happen.

But now, back to my question: why don't you hold your religious beliefs up to anything near the standards you have for evolution. You can't say "there is no solid evidence of evolution" and then say "I believe in God because the Bible tells me to". You are being hypocrite. A fool. You have no idea how brainwashed you are.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

evolution never claimed that evolution would happen but you want me to believe it happened?

Darkyear(345) Disputed Banned
1 point

No, it never claimed you would see it happen in one generation. The changes are incremental and happen throughout the span of millions of years. Many of the changes happen on a molecular scale, change in hormones and blood types, etc. And they don't happen to individuals, they happen to population. Actually identifying a new species can be quite complex. That said, it has been observed several times, in the field and in the lab in animals, plants and bacteria.

Here is a list:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

I should have banned you after your first post when you made it clear you are ignoring my questions of science and only want to promote your beliefs.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

I should have banned you after your first post when you made it clear you are ignoring my questions of science and only want to promote your beliefs.

1 point

While some molecules do combine to form larger structures such as amino acids, it has been shown that this always results in something not suitable for DNA; a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids that is not used in living organisms. Since this is true, is there some other explanation for how the molecules useful for living things might have formed?

AveSatanas(4415) Disputed Banned
1 point

Yes the process results in different types of amino acids. Some are suitable for forming DNA, some are not. Explaination: those that are suitable for DNA form DNA, those that are not drift around and do nothing. Not everything created by abiogenesis has to be used in forming life. Some are byproducts that dont affect the process one way or another.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

While some molecules do combine to form larger structures such as amino acids, it has been shown that this always results in something not suitable for DNA;

the molecules are not DNA suitable for use by living organisms. You are ignoring facts and not answering the question. You are only talking about your beliefs and giving me nothing I can observe as fact.

Atrag(5445) Banned
1 point

Youre right. We only have half the proof. We know that amino acids can form spontaneously but we dont know for certain how they formed dna. It needs to be studied more.

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

Why do you have to study how they formed when you can't form them?

Saying you have to study how they formed implies that they formed themselves...how could they form themselves? Do you believe they formed themselves?

Half the proof is no proof, it is hypothesis. If you don't have all the proof, you have beliefs and nothing more. That is not science.

You say you know that amino acids can form spontaneously....no amino acid suitable for life has ever been seen to form spontaneously or by purposefully intelligently designed laboratory experiments. The idea that amino acids suitable for life can form spontaneously is a hypothesis with no scientific evidence to support it. Believing it happened is not science. Trying to make it happy by applied science has repeatedly shown you cannot make it happen. Science tells us it cannot happen, until you can make it happen to show scientifically that it can happen....but even then it would be by design of your intelligence.

You're asking me to believe unscientific things.

Saintnow(3684) Clarified
1 point

How can you study how they formed when you can't form them?

1 point

How could life have started in the oceans, or in any water, when water breaks down the bonds between amino acids (hydrolysis)

AveSatanas(4415) Disputed Banned
2 points

Because the oceans billions of years ago were not mostly H2O. The oceans of today are not the oceans of billions of years ago.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Ok, in your billions of years ago belief, please tell me what the oceans were made of and show me how life came out of it. I want you to show me, not tell me your beliefs and expect me to believe them when you can't show me.

jerbear(118) Disputed Banned
1 point

Billions of years ....really ....prove that single statement with bullet proof science that's not flawed .....oh let me guess the same people who use like 9 computer graphics programs to generate one fuckin photo......I can make a photo with a Polaroid but your science tsars can't even snap a simple photo....yet you want us to blindly except their science as fact ....wow bottom feeders....

1 point

The National Academy of Sciences defines a theory as “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence” and science as “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena." Does this mean scientists can reproduce how life originated or test any step of the process for how life evolved? If not, then how can evolution qualify as a theory?

Cartman(18192) Disputed Banned
2 points

Abiogenesis is the origin of life. It is not a theory. The evolution of life after life is originated is testable and that's why evolution is a theory.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

You did not answer the question but rather inserted your opinion which you expect me to believe. I specifically requested in the OP that you answer scientifically and not with statements of belief which you cannot prove by science.

You want to get banned again, don't you?

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

A cow is the origin of cow's milk. It is not a theory, or a hypothesis, it is a fact which you can show me and I would be stupid to deny it is a reality. Abiogenesis, life emerging from non-living matter, is a hypothesis which cannot be tested, cannot be observed.....and I would be stupid to say it is reality when it exists only in our imagination and you can't make it happen or show it happening to me. If you want to believe it happened, that's your choice.

The evolution of life is a hypothesis you are telling me to believe as you can test it. So show me a test where I can watch a monkey turn into a man, or a cow turn into a whale, or watch two animals morph together into different animals in a start to finish symbiotic relationship which is the only way each of the two can live.

I understand you asked me to believe one of the animals in the symbiotic relation ship at some point in a distant past which nobody has ever seen lived happily independent of the other until the other developed and then the first could no longer live separately from the other. Please, do you really expect me to believe that when I can't see it happening and you can't make it happen?

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Many Frankenstein wannabees have tried to create life in labs and failed miserably. Even if they did cause a living cell to spring to life, it would have been by design of their intelligence......but they can't do it, will never do it, because it never happened in the first place and they can't make it happen.

there is no scientific refute for this statement. It is a scientific fact that abiogenesis has never been seen and never been caused by scientists

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
0 points

Correct, abiogenesis is not a theory because it cannot be observed, cannot be tested, and cannot be repeated.....it can only be believed, making it nothing more than a hypothesis which according to factual science should be discarded.

You cannot show one animal changing into another animal. All "transitional" fossils, even the fraudulent ones like that dinosaur which supposedly had feathers, are fully formed kinds of animals and they have never been seen morphing into different forms except in animated cartoons which is not science.

Evolution is a hypothesis, believing it happened does not make it a theory.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
0 points

Can you show me one conducted test in which I can observe a reptile changing into a bird so I don't have to believe it happened but I can watch it happen? If not, you are asking me to believe something you have no evidence of.

pirateelfdog(2655) Disputed Banned
2 points

Does this mean scientists can reproduce how life originated or test any step of the process for how life evolved? If not, then how can evolution qualify as a theory?

No, scientists do not have a concrete explanation right now of abiogenesis. But that doesn't mean one doesn't exist, just that if it does, we don't know it yet. Or rather, we don't have enough evidence of abiogenesis to have a scientific theory. As you quoted, it requires a 'vast body of evidence' which we do not currently have.

Evolution, however, can still qualify as a theory in spite of that because evolution has nothing to do with how life originated. And yes, we do have a vast body of evidence in support of evolution.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

show me one animal changing into a different animal. I have seen bones of animals before, I have never seen an animal change, for instance, from a cow to a whale or a monkey to a man. You are telling me I'm supposed to believe it because the bones of a monkey have similarities to a man. Well, the frame of a Ford has similarities to the frame of a Chevy. When a Ford morphs into a Chevy, then I'll believe in evolution...but of course, that would be detrimental to the community of automobiles because Ford is American and Chevy is Socialist. Now I was going to ban you automatically when I saw you appear, but you did make an honest effort so I'll give you one more chance to answer any of the other questions. You failed miserably in this one telling me I'm supposed to believe in evolution and believe things like monkeys morphing into people when you can't show me a monkey so I can watch it turn into a man. Because you can't show it happening, I can't test it to see if it is really happening, so I have no good reason to believe you when you say it happened. If you push the issue further on this subject, you will be banned. Your "evidence" cannot be tested to show that evolution happens, so it is not scientific to say it happens and your beliefs have no way of being shown as a true theory. Evolution remains a hypothesis. Why people get paid to say it's a theory seems dumb to me.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

6)The National Academy of Sciences defines a theory as “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence” and science as “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena." Does this mean scientists can reproduce how life originated or test any step of the process for how life evolved? If not, then how can evolution qualify as a theory?

Just answer the question, I'll give you a clue: The correct answer would be something like this "evolution can qualify as a theory because I believe it really happened even though science is unable to test it or prove it"

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
0 points

Science does not have a concrete explanation for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that does not mean one does not exist. Science observes no explanation for the origin of the universe, and it's composure indicates that God made it.....much to the chagrin of scientists who understand the reality of God means they must be prepared to be dealt with by Him.

1 point

Since information in DNA is millions of times more dense and complex than in any computer which anybody in the world has ever designed. How could evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence?

Cartman(18192) Disputed Banned
2 points

There is a difference between intelligence existing, and intelligent design. Bacteria have intelligence. The process of life contains intelligence without the overall system being created by an intelligent design.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

You are not answering the question.

How could evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence?

Tell me how it happened without telling me I have to believe it happened when you cannot show me how it happened.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

one more time asking me to believe things without being able to show me and I'm going to ban you......well, maybe I'll give you more than one chance. It is kinda funny watching you use nothing but insistence that I believe you with no scientific evidence to show me the things you expect me to believe.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

I did ban you here, right? Just checking.................................

1 point

Have scientists ever created DNA or RNA in a laboratory through random and unguided naturalistic processes? Have they ever seen it happen in nature in ways that can be documented without asking us to believe it happened?

1 point

DNA, RNA, and proteins all need each other as an integrated unit. Even if only one of them existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle and wait for the other parts to evolve because they would dissolve or deteriorate. Is there any compelling (observable) evidence for how all these components evolved at the same time or separately over time?

3 points

There are many examples of traits that coevolved. We also have symbiotic organisms that evolve along with the host at the same time.

The bacteria in your gut can't survive outside of the gut, and we wouldn't be able to digest add much food without these bacteria. We evolved together.

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Really? Symbiotic organisms evolved at the same time, so that explains how a termite cannot live without the specialized bacteria in it's intestines to break down wood fibers, and those specialized bacteria cannot live without the termite?

So you are saying a termite was actually a bacteria at one point in time, stuck on the specific bacteria it needed to become a termite, so the bacteria which was morphing into a termite evolved while the bacteria which it needed to be a termite went along for the ride? Please answer the questions, and don't ask me to believe things you cannot show in observable and repeatable tests.

Please show me how termites and their symbiotic specialized bacteria evolved together. I would like to see a cartoon animation of this supposed event which supposedly took some billions of years to happen, but don't expect me to believe it happened.

1 point

A living cell is composed of millions of parts all working together and is considered more complex than any man-made machine. Then, since the process of evolution has no blueprints (cannot plan for the future) for building something, since over time things tend to deteriorate unless there is a mechanism in place to sustain them, since virtually all known mutations decrease genetic information (or are neutral), since natural selection would not be operating until the first cell formed, how could the process of evolution ever assemble something as complex as a living cell with all its information content?

3 points

The currently living cells have evolved over billions of years. You are looking at a billion years of increased complexity. The earliest cells would not have had to be anywhere near as complex. The complexity difference between eukaryotes and prokaryotes is so huge, just imagine the complexity difference a billion years can bring.

Supporting Evidence: Eukaryotes and prokaryotes (www.cod.edu)
Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

Show me one living cell which emerged from non-living things, then show me one cell evolving into a multi-celled animal so I can see it happening rather than believing it happened because you insist I should believe it. I think you know you cannot show me anything happening over a span of billions of years because you will probably be burning in Hell before you get enough time to even begin to show me something that takes a billion years to happen. Why do you keep expecting me to believe things happened when you can't show me how they happened?

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

I can imagine lots of things, but can you show me those things in a way that I can actually see them?

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

All mutations observed in nature are mostly detrimental to the organism while a few remain neutral like when a horse is crossed with a donkey to produce a mule which cannot reproduce. Can you show me any of the advances in complexity of organisms you say happened, can you actually show me one thing changing into another animal by mutation? Sets of bones of different animals are not animals changing into other animals, they are piles of bones. Expecting me to believe the animals changed into other kinds of animals is not science. I want you to show me, not tell me I should believe you. Show me.

1 point

What the hell is this shit all about you dumb smelly ass carcass? You have a problem

Saintnow(3684) Disputed
1 point

idiot. If you were in my house talking like that, you would be leaving fast and by force if not fast enough, and maybe I'd have to throw some of your teeth out after you before I shut the door.