- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.
... Please explain, what non-living material behaves according to natural selection? Whatever precedes life is non-living. Non-living things do not function on a level where natural selection takes place.
Some simple proteins and aminos can be formed by pouring common naturally occurring elements on a cookie sheet, putting it in the oven and baking at a few hundred degrees for a few hours. You and I can literally make these things in our kitchens.
If you honestly think baking creates more complex molecules or takes matter closer to creating life you are not worth my time to talk to. Cooking something can only break down organic material into simpler and simpler molecules until you are left with ash.
Let me put it this way, I have a salt water fish tank. If I take a water sample, thoroughly sterilize it with UV light, and then put it in the oven and baked it... you think I will eventually create new life?
If your side is true, than God either lied to us or allowed to be massively deceived, in every major field of science, in every country that has contributed to genetic or fossil records, in our very ability to abstractly come upon the truth.
How do you figure?
If you are right, God gave us the tools needed to become atheists
He equally gave you the tools to be a follower. Are you upset you have a choice?
then let us burn in Hell for being better at those skills then his followers.
Maybe the real danger is arrogance.
Your version simplifies stuff that shouldn't be simplified. It gives up before answers can be gleaned. That is foolish.
I never said "This is the answer, so scientists everywhere can just give up." That would be foolish.
How? You do realize there are numerous people working who would have lost their jobs decades ago if they couldn't get results or properly account for the majority of skepticism.
Are you honestly trying to claim the academic community doesn't look out for its own?
It is clearly falsified by the evidence supporting natural selection.
What have I said that is falsified? Two people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions. A conflict doesn't necessarily indicate someone is lying.
Both honesty and scientific inquiry are missing from "creation science".
The scientific community is "all in" on the claim that there is no God. Any counter argument is not investigated, it is simply discarded in language similar to what you are using. The scientific community's unwritten prime directive is that anything that is supported by religion is de facto non-scientific.
I can't really choose wether or not I believe in God, for that I would have to be convinced.
But you know that if you do come to the point of believing in God it will be a matter of faith. To claim otherwise would be pretty controversial. At best, we have circumstantial evidence. To make the choice "i'm only going to believe in God if I see hard evidence," is still a choice. It is one with a known outcome.
With all the different interpretations of the Christians God, that really would be the deciding factor.
It is incredibly unfortunate the church is so fragmented. But if you look at churches that try to change God to suit pubic opinion, it looks to me like they are believing in nothing. God is either immutable or he doesn't exist, there is no middle ground to conform to progressive causes.
Also, what exactly happens to the people who haven't (and probably never will) hear of God?
Very good question, and something I don't claim to have the answer to. Im very cautious not to claim someone is going to hell because I don't know. The same rule applies to them. I do think it would be uncharacteristic of God to condemn people who never had a chance, but ultimately it is not a question I am supposed to ponder.
There is one exception, I am fairly confident muslims go to hell. There is one unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the holy spirit, and islamic doctrine makes some pretty wild claims about the holy spirit that I think are very likely to be wrong... Not to mention, islam was made to appeal to the darkest desires of men.
Fair point, if our side is correct it complicates the universe while simplifying this problem. However, language in the bible indicates God exists outside the universe. I am completely comfortable having no scientific knowledge of something outside of our reality.
My college biology teacher gave it a good try. He was totally your stereotypical biology professor. Day 1 was pretty much a pep talk of, "You all need to learn these things because the fucking Christians are too dumb to understand it." I played along, aced his class. He congratulated me in front of his 150 person class for getting 100% on one of his tests because "no one gets 100."
The subject of the test; genetics and evolution.
At the same time, I left the class with more faith than when I started, because, despite their very best efforts, their explanation for the beginning of life and the emergence of two species is completely inadequate. I enjoy discussing and researching the subject because time and time again, creationism endures the arguments against it.
I am not a biology major, no. I am sorry but I like the idea of graduating and making more than minimum wage. But I have had some formal education.
I don't totally agree with you, but I misunderstood what you meant in the body of the debate. I assumed by "depressed atheists" you were just calling all atheists depressed in some way, not an actual depressed person.
Yes, a typical atheist sees the world differently than a Christian, but Biblical advice is still valid in my opinion. Depression can be a chemical imbalance, but the Christian message properly communicated can be the most uplifting thing in the world.
That would depend a whole lot on circumstances. There are a lot of situations in life where the bible can offer some guidance, but that also depends on how spiritual the person is. On the other hand, I am neither a religious leader or a psychologist. If they are going through something I can't understand I would have to recommend they seek help elsewhere.
Interested to see where you are going with this.