Thread: Atheist Experience (t.v. show Austin)

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Damn did you do a Piss poor job of explaining where DNA originated from.

I'm no Abiogenesis scientist so I could hardly give you the details.

However Ne-Yo's entire argument rest on "Well why isn't DNA made today", which I kindly obliterated with water as an example.

That and who can tell if the processes of Abiogenesis are not still at work down in deep sea vents?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

How so? Care to go into detail how we somehow did a piss poor job of explaining the origins of DNA?

Sure I don't mind getting in some of this action

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

I'm no Abiogenesis scientist so I could hardly give you the details.

However Ne-Yo's entire argument rest on "Well why isn't DNA made today", which I kindly obliterated with water as an example.

That and who can tell if the processes of Abiogenesis are not still at work down in deep sea vents?

Well now you have another problem, because Abiogenesis is flawed. It doesn't work and there really is no way that life could have blossom by this ridiculous method of Abiogenesis. Atheist definately needs to go back to the drawing board in regards to figuring out the origin of life.

Oh really?

Then explain to me how you have magically refuted an entire hypothesis that sits on evidences and proof.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Sure I don't mind getting in some of this action

So do it then rather than just saying you will.

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Well now you have another problem, because Abiogenesis is flawed. It doesn't work and there really is no way that life could have blossom by this ridiculous method of Abiogenesis. Atheist definately needs to go back to the drawing board in regards to figuring out the origin of life.

Please explain how abiogenesis is flawed. I would really like to be shown that the current hypotheses are flawed so we can formulate new ones that fit the evidence (although the current ones do).

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Oh really?

Then explain to me how you have magically refuted an entire hypothesis that sits on evidences and proof.

Abiogenesis refuted itself. There's not much to explain except that you cannot originate life out pribiotic RNA. That's it nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by -Tyler-

So do it then rather than just saying you will.

Who the Hell are you? Be Gone Troll!

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Who the Hell are you? Be Gone Troll!

Lol, the irony.. it hurts so much

Abiogenesis refuted itself. There's not much to explain except that you cannot originate life out pribiotic RNA. That's it nothing more, nothing less.

You need to read up on the Hypothesis then

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

Who the Hell are you? Be Gone Troll!

Who am I? Just a guy who's been watching this debate from the start and felt like commenting. You rudely inquire about my credentials and then call me a troll...Whatever happened to "Love thy neighbor"?

Originally Posted by -Tyler-

Who am I? Just a guy who's been watching this debate from the start and felt like commenting. You rudely inquire about my credentials and then call me a troll...Whatever happened to "Love thy neighbor"?

Apparently, the whole love thy neighbour applies to only christian neighbours. According the Bible, christians aren't even supposed to mingle with non-believers.

Originally Posted by -Tyler-

Who am I? Just a guy who's been watching this debate from the start and felt like commenting. You rudely inquire about my credentials and then call me a troll...Whatever happened to "Love thy neighbor"?

I'm just pulling your leg man. I wasn't serious.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Apparently, the whole love thy neighbour applies to only christian neighbours. According the Bible, christians aren't even supposed to mingle with non-believers.

Hey I got love for all. Even you Bluefinger

Originally Posted by ShadowNightWing

I'm just pulling your leg man. I wasn't serious.
Hey I got love for all. Even you Bluefinger

You flip-flop more than the shoe with the same name.

(10 geek points for the first person who can get that reference)

Originally Posted by bluefinger

You flip-flop more than the shoe with the same name.

(10 geek points for the first person who can get that reference)

That's funny I've noticed that also. Not ragging on you Shadow but sometimes it seems like you have a split personality.

The T.V. show just got new graphics =D.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That's funny I've noticed that also. Not ragging on you Shadow but sometimes it seems like you have a split personality.

Almost as split as Yahweh himself [/joke]

Anyone still hasn't got that reference of mine? ):

Well, I will say that Ne-yo has gone further in the intelligent design debate than anybody on the creationist side I have ever seen or heard on the issue. Nobody else has ever said anything after we get to the "God is outside of time and did not need an intelligent designer" part and I ask why it would have to be something conscious in that position. The only other person I had ever known to go past that point was Jeremysr on this site, and he said it has to be something conscious because one time he mowed a yard and got thirsty and prayed for some lemonade and his mother pulled up with some lemonade right after that. So Ne-yo at least gave it a major shot, unlike every other theist I have ever watched debate the intelligent design issue.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Well, I will say that Ne-yo has gone further in the intelligent design debate than anybody on the creationist side I have ever seen or heard on the issue. Nobody else has ever said anything after we get to the "God is outside of time and did not need an intelligent designer" part and I ask why it would have to be something conscious in that position. The only other person I had ever known to go past that point was Jeremysr on this site, and he said it has to be something conscious because one time he mowed a yard and got thirsty and prayed for some lemonade and his mother pulled up with some lemonade right after that. So Ne-yo at least gave it a major shot, unlike every other theist I have ever watched debate the intelligent design issue.

Ay, he did, but my critique on the discussion would be more along these lines:

• An actual case for Intelligent Design and not simply a case against Evolution. Even if Evolution was disproved, the proponents of ID would still be in a position where they would have to prove ID correct. The assumption of "If A is false then B must be true!" is a logical fallacy, and thus one has to come up with the goods to at least show that "Though A is false, I can at least show B to be true". Ne-yo did throw in a better attempt than anyone else I've seen, but even so, it lacks in certain areas. Remember, ID is supposed to be an 'alternative' to Evolution and so it is coming in against what is a scientifically accepted theory. Therefore, it is in a position where it must meet the burden of proof in order to be taken seriously. This means a solid hypothesises, detailed predictions on various phenomena regarding the diversification of species, and experimental/observational evidence to show that the predictions are true. The resulting thesis should then be peer-reviewed and then the experiments and observations repeated by third-parties in order to confirm the validity of the research. Of course, Ne-yo doesn't have to do this himself, but when building a case for ID, he needs to at least reference papers and journals which present such evidence.

I think that is my major point on the issue. All I've seen is attacks on evolution and never a real push to promote and explain the actual hypothesis of ID. No real evidence, only semantics and veiled 'Goddidits'. In essence, it's not even equivalent to string theory. At least string theory has mathematical explanations on what it tries to describe (I know it has no evidence going for it so far, but at least with string theory, one can make testable predications for both experiments and observations). In the end, one must be able to offer a solid argument for the side they trying to promote, not simply focus on attacking the opposite side.

That is my critique on the issue. Whether people take it into account, we'll see.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The only other person I had ever known to go past that point was Jeremysr on this site, and he said it has to be something conscious because one time he mowed a yard and got thirsty and prayed for some lemonade and his mother pulled up with some lemonade right after that.

I thought it was just that he prayed for some juice or something and then he got tired so he put his head down and it turned out there was like a coat or something draped over juice so he found a drink.

or maybe it was both.

Originally Posted by Sandform

I thought it was just that he prayed for some juice or something and then he got tired so he put his head down and it turned out there was like a coat or something draped over juice so he found a drink.

or maybe it was both.

He told me that his mother intelligently designed the drive over to him with the orange juice.

Thanks Universal Mind, however I don't think I really got into the bulk of my Intelligent Design argument, bluefinger was right I really didn't present much of a good argument for ID, I backtracked several times into Evolution and Abiogenesis and I shouldn't have. I didn't really get around to the basis of information, which I really feel it presents a great deal of strength for my argument. I think I'm going to start a new thread just on ID and information because I have a lot to explain.

I look forward to that thread, however, in the mean time, here's something that came up in the NewScientist recently is actually an amazing find:

Bacteria Make Major Evolutionary Shift in Laboratory

May be a bit technical, but considering the meticulous testing methods involved, I'd say it is pretty hard to refute. Whilst the exact changes in the bacteria genome are still being traced, they were able to isolate when the key changes to the genome occurred in the generations of bacteria cultures, and thus were able to replay the same evolutionary path in order to confirm their suspicions from frozen culture samples of certain generations. All for being able to metabolise citrate, one of the nutrients used in the culture mediums that E. Coli are known for not being able to metabolise.

haven't watched it yet but I liked the title. "Foolish Atheists"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...62743009947826