Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)

[Subduction Zone]

yes, It came from accretion of a nebular cloud where the earth shaped in an area where water was abundand.
Silver isotopes and Zircon crystals proved that the Earth was wet when it shaped.
And this sounds so much like Genesis 1 too!
Thanks for bringing the argument into the Creationist field again.

No, you are merely trying to fit a slightly rounded square peg into a round hole. Water being present does not mean "wet", at least not as in the Genesis myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

or the oceans and mountains were much more shallow than what we see now.
This will account for water able to cover the Earth with a flood, and as water originating from the inside of the earth.
With subduction and upheavels witht eh earths crust falling into itself, the mountains and seafloors became deeper resulting in what we have today.

Nope. Most mountains are older than mankind. There are some younger volcanic mountains, but they are the exception.

 

[tas8831]

And so often it is the engineers that are the creationists, or anti-relativists, or electric universe cranks. I've seen it so many times on science forums. I think it may be that they do not study nature.

That could be. The creationist/crank ones have that annoying tendency to be so arrogant and simultaneously under-informed, it drives me nuts.
On the other hand, there have been some engineers that made valuable contributions to evolution research - like the co-author of this paper, debunking 'Haldane's dilemma':
Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma
Robert Flake was an engineer.

 

[tas8831]

Engineer as well here. (4 degrees in engineering, over 25 patents and 42 years if technical experience in industry)

And not one class or 1 second of experience in evolutionary biology, that is crystal clear.

 

[tas8831]

Actually, it is consistent.

Love your enemies is a way partly to appeal to them to repent
because a terrible crisis of judgement is coming otherwise

No it isn't.

 

[tas8831]

Actually you can be as eccentric as you want but unless you know God it ain't gunna help.

The fallacy of begging the question.

 

[exchemist]

That could be. The creationist/crank ones have that annoying tendency to be so arrogant and simultaneously under-informed, it drives me nuts.
On the other hand, there have been some engineers that made valuable contributions to evolution research - like the co-author of this paper, debunking 'Haldane's dilemma':
Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma
Robert Flake was an engineer.

Oh sure I didn't intend to denigrate, as a whole, that noble profession - the profession of my grandfather and my uncle. But even that uncle went in for intelligent design for a while.......

ID is a pseudoscience that appeals to a fundie engineer I think, as it has a lot of the trappings of science, at least superficially, so it is not at first glance roaring idiocy with blue flashing lights, like YEC creationism. But if one has no background in the study of nature, and spends one's life making designs to control it, there can I suspect be a tendency to anthropomorphise natural processes and imbue them with purpose.

 

[SA Huguenot]

No, you are merely trying to fit a slightly rounded square peg into a round hole. Water being present does not mean "wet", at least not as in the Genesis myth.

What does the Genesis myth say in your opinion.
I have it that the Earth accreated from solids, liquids and gas.
Then the liquid covered the Earth surface before shifting of mass resulted in land to appear.
Now lets see...
in the 70's scientists believed the Earth shaped from a ball flung out of the Sun's disk, it was a red hot ball of melted solids. Then it cooled off and asteroids and comets deliveerd water on the Earth.
now since then scientists discovered that silver isotopes prove that the Earth was much wetter than originally thought, and zircon crystals formed in a wet environment.
Mmmm, who said this 3500 years ago?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Except you, conveniently? You're going to say "god is the one to account for your consciousness."

Good luck showing that with evidence.



No, but evolution and abiogenesis(or any other workable origin hypothesis, just pick one) can. Hell, even your... "Hypothesis" accounts for physical existence: By creating them out of dust with a command ala magic.

I've a feeling it's more of a case of "wishing it to be so, in order to have your strange world view, but without having any argumentative power to explain it convincingly."

Any multiple things can account for existence, some more convincing than others. Yours among the least convincing, with magic and supernatural abilities involved.

Okay--what is the consciousness... go!

Okay--explain the ALL that exists, before Planck time... go!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you think that is the case? I am betting that you do not understand those laws.

I made two cases, not one. COUNT.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That God is the source of being, is not a claim for the pseudoscience of Creationism and it's substandard theories being considered valid science. I believe all that is arises from God as the source of existence itself. But I don't need to deny everything that science shows us to be true about the universe, and the evolution of life on earth. There is no need to.

Do you find a need to deny science in order to have faith in God? If so, how come so many other Christians don't feel a need to like you do? Why would it be a problem for you, and not for other Christians, if you were to accept the consensus of all the sciences?

If everyone accepts all scientific consensus as 100% true today, then scientific progress will arise from... ?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Argument from ignorance fallacy.



There is no such thing as the "Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy" - "matter" isn't even a well defined scientific term. Even if we do conclude that we do not know (scientifically) why everything exists, theists have an exactly equivalent problem. Basically, a god who just happens to exist for no known reason, who creates a universe, is no less mysterious and unexplained than a universe by itself that just happens to exist for no known reason.

Thanks for clearing that up! Next time a bomb goes off, I will rebuke the matter that would dare to become energy, release potential energy...

And here I thought matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. WHAT A FOOL I'VE BEEN!

 

[SA Huguenot]

Nope. Most mountains are older than mankind. There are some younger volcanic mountains, but they are the exception.

Realy?
So if I take solid material that accreted, say billions of years ago, layer it up into a sphere as huge as the Earth, then crush this surface resultion in upheavel and subduction....
how old is this mountains' matter?
Is it not billions of years old?
look at the Drakens berg mountains, or magalies berg, or even the himilayas, I agree, they are billions of years old, but they were shaped when the earths crust collapsed 4500 years ago.
So tell me, how do you know the age of mountains?

 

[BilliardsBall]

And the law of fish and chips cannot account for egg fried rice. Which is just as irrelevant.

But another aspect of the laws of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy predicts life

Yes, you are right! Thanks to ENTROPY, I will never die, and neither shall you, for entropy is the life of a person or animal, not blood, as the Bible says.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not by itself it can't - only an idiot would think it could. But it is certainly consistent with his physical existence.

As also is the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the one about entropy).

Yes! Entropy is an eloquent explanation for why the universe has always existed, filled with energy light and dark (slaps forehead).

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, you are right! Thanks to ENTROPY, I will never die, and neither shall you, for entropy is the life of a person or animal, not blood, as the Bible says.

Oh wow, attempted sarcasm of the ignorant is really sad

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does the Genesis myth say in your opinion.
I have it that the Earth accreated from solids, liquids and gas.
Then the liquid covered the Earth surface before shifting of mass resulted in land to appear.
Now lets see...
in the 70's scientists believed the Earth shaped from a ball flung out of the Sun's disk, it was a red hot ball of melted solids. Then it cooled off and asteroids and comets deliveerd water on the Earth.
now since then scientists discovered that silver isotopes prove that the Earth was much wetter than originally thought, and zircon crystals formed in a wet environment.
Mmmm, who said this 3500 years ago?

You are trying to get Genesis to agree with reality. And no, scientists did not believe that in the 70's.

 

[Windwalker]

Wouldn't that then mean that this God isn't part of "existence"?
Things not part of existence, are called non-existant....

Just saying.

Talking about the "source of existence" seems inherently self-contradicting, since the source of existence would have to exist in order to be able to invoke it. So existence is its own source then.

Anytime anything is said about God or the Absolute, using dualistic language you will run into a contradiction. To even imagine God as "other" to anything else, is itself a contradiction. For instance, to say you believe God is Infinite, and then to imagine God as a "being" separate from your own being, denies God's infinite reality.

If taken literally, that God is outside creation, would make God's infiniteness more like a block of Swiss Cheese, with holes of "non-existence" in which you and I someone live "outside" of the Absolute. Even to use the word God at all, suggests its opposite of Not-God, which would make God a finite creature, instead of the Absolute.

So saying God is the Source of existence, should not be taken in strictly dualistic terms, even though we are using dualistic language, which is all we have available to us, frankly. God is nondual, and even if we using dualistic language, it is not truly being used or understood in dualistic terms. They are metaphors, not definitions when you are pointing to the Absolute.

That completely depends on how you wish to define this God.
In all cases though, one surely would have to leave behind scientific scepticism and rationale, because a belief in gods, or anything supernatural, is, as you surely know, scientifically unjustifyable..

I would not call it "unjustifiable" scientifically. Its nature is by definition, beyond what can be defined and examined through a scientific lens adequately. Science investigates rocks and planets and chemicals, and things like this. It doesn't delve into the interior spaces of human experience. It doesn't deal with the humanities. It doesn't deal with the whole of human life and experience. It is only one set of eyes, not the only set of eyes through which to see and understand reality. Science is not the measure of all that is real, and is not empowered to pass judgement on what is justifiable beyond its reaches.

Because some people just don't understand, or don't want to understand, that when your beliefs demonstrably don't agree with observable reality, it's not reality that is incorrect.

But why do they do this? Do they lack the faith necessary that allows their beliefs to be modified?

 

[exchemist]

Yes! Entropy is an eloquent explanation for why the universe has always existed, filled with energy light and dark (slaps forehead).

Yes, a cheap laugh can easily be obtained by deliberately misunderstanding somebody's words. Creationists so often do this kind of thing. Rhetoric for the stupid, at the expense of honesty. I love it!

Seriously though, the laws of thermodynamics are obviously consistent with the formation of living things. If they were not, the whole of physics would be up in arms against biology.

....unless of course one subscribes to a huge conspiracy theory, by the whole of science worldwide, to hide "The Truth".

 

[ratiocinator]

Thanks for clearing that up! Next time a bomb goes off, I will rebuke the matter that would dare to become energy, release potential energy...

And here I thought matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. WHAT A FOOL I'VE BEEN!

Being ill-informed isn't foolish, refusing to learn would be. As I said, matter isn't a well defined scientific term, it refers to some subset of particles but which depends on the context. Energy is well defined and conserved but it's wrong to think of it as some kind of "stuff" that could be created or destroyed.

Einstein's famous equation relates mass and energy, not matter and energy. Both mass and energy are properties of stuff, not stuff.

See: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

I notice you avoided the point about a universe created by a god that just happens to exist being every bit as mysterious and unexplained as just a universe that just happens to exist....