CreateDebate


AngryGenX's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of AngryGenX's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

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.

1 point

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?

2 points

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.

1 point

You are correct. The plastic models don't require large amounts of energy to create those structures. The actual molecules do. So the model should be easier to come across.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

But like you said, he has done it over and over again in the bible, so you should be able to learn from others' mistakes without ever experiencing his wrath.

1 point

The laws of physics and chemistry also don't support the formation of complex organic molecules without the preexisting condition of a functioning living cell.

1 point

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.

1 point

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.

1 point

By the way, I am a senior electrical engineering student. I know a little more about probability, chemistry, physics, and even biology than the average person.

HA! which reminds me. Silicon is one of the most common elements on our planet... have you ever walked along the beach and stumbled across a naturally formed microprocessor?

AngryGenX(463) Clarified
1 point

Evolution is not random no, I understand that. The events that cause mutation are, but the propagation of those mutations is based on its success in the environment.

Evolution though, comes after the beginning of life. First, you have to get a functional, living cell before any kind of evolution can take place.

1 point

As I mentioned somewhere else... yes, given enough time chances are somewhere at some time one of these could have formed... but one protein molecule is not life... you have to multiply it by, what, a hundred, a thousand. How many different proteins need to come together to form a basic living cell? I don't even know. So over a FINITE amount of time, there had to be a very small window of time, in an infinitesimally small space, hundreds of randomly assembled proteins had to come together to form ONE living cell.

In addition, that space had to be in an environment where the one living cell can obtain energy and live... we have not even gotten into the very rare events that formed our planet and kept it habitable for this long.

I think you are up to about 1 in a trillion trillion trillion chance of the most basic kind of life forming.

I say, either God exists, or the odds of our existence is so incredibly small it is completely rational to falsely assume there is a God.

1 point

No one knows for sure who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. In addition, no one really knows for sure what hell is really like. We only have bits and pieces of the picture. Reality is though, no one is really innocent, or at least very few are. You yourself, can you say you were not warned? I'm here warning you, if only to remind myself that I too am in danger. That is where the Christian phrase "good news" comes from. The good news is God can forgive you. You can take it or you can decline. You make the choice... but claiming to be innocent is not an option.

1 point

God desires an honest victory. If he were to strike you down, two things would happen. First of all, you would be doomed. You have to come to him in this life to be saved. Secondly, you wouldn't believe in God through a matter of faith, you would essentially be forced to obey.

Freewill is an important aspect of humanity, because only a person with complete freewill can love completely.

You can simply beat a child until he obeys you, but when he obeys is he doing so out of love or out of fear? The more difficult and more rewarding path is to be a good example to the child, to earn his respect through patience and resolve. The latter approach of course, opens you up to pain and failure, but it is the only approach that can result in love.

1 point

Congrats CoolDude... but I would argue that if you want to get through to people who believe differently than you do, you have to communicate in a way they can believe in. Leave it to God to judge and condemn, the mission of the apologist is one of compassion.

1 point

I disagree, Christianity is more than capable of competing in the marketplace of ideas. We are actually obligated to share our point of view.

1 point

It is just that such a complex structure could not be put together randomly. I consider the complexity of life to be evidence of a higher power.

1 point

I agree with cartman here buddy. You can believe in the mechanism of evolution but still doubt it accounts for all life on earth. On Genesis, I believe it gives the hierarchy of creation. I think it was intended to explain everything you spiritually need to know about creation as well as very important messages about sin, family, and gender. It is not, however, a text book.

Genesis had to be understood, not only for computer age humans, but also needed to be understood by bronze age people. Do you think bronze age people could have understood the spiritual message if God started talking about biochemistry and particle physics? No.

There is still however, scientific nuggets of gold in Genesis... What scientist before the 20th century would have believed that in the beginning of the universe light did not exist!?! But now we know it is true! I don't think any man in any time could have actually guessed that! Or rather, if you were creating a false religion, why would you make such a claim, it would sound insane to most people!

AngryGenX(463) Clarified
2 points

I am sure he had his reasons. My theory is another method may leave behind too much evidence. If God were to make his existence too obvious, following him would cease to be a matter of faith and more a matter of submission and pragmatism.

I believe it is possible to sin in heaven. Even though heaven will be a place without needs or temptation it will still be possible. So for heaven to be without sin he needs to only allow certain people in. If someone makes the choice to come to Jesus on faith and repent everything you have done wrong, while that person may very well sin in this fallen world, he or she would probably not in heaven.

I don't know about you, but it makes sense to me.

1 point

I thought I had replied to this already... Here is a shorter response...

RNA or DNA is still information. To have a living cell you would need to almost simultaneously stumble across a lot of correct information to make all the proteins needed for a living cell.

Interesting read, but I would have one question for the author. If these predecessors to modern cells can just pop up out of nowhere, why don't we see any of them around us? Would new ones not always be coming into existence all the time?

2 points

Look, mankind though Gods made lightning, but that was only because we didn't understand electricity. We thought Gods made the sun rise, but we didn't understand gravity (well, really we still don't). But we understand a lot about chemistry but it fails to explain how life can begin from nothing. We understand genetics but it has a lot of difficulty accounting for biodiversity. Even physics is getting confounding (google the two slit experiment). I believe science has moved from being able to account for the gaps to a place where we are only discovering how big those gaps are.

2 points

Uncreative! Ha! He created every animal, every fish every bird from his imagination! I know you probably don't believe in him, but you have to admit that if someone or something created all the wonders of nature he is infinitely creative!

1 point

Oh but we need more than one to disprove god i would think at least a couple thousand. And they also have to be produced in a narrow time window.


1 of 25 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]