It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dear Atheists: I will prove to you that there is a Creator to the universe. Come debate me.

page: 71
36
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: 5StarOracle

WTF??????

I have no idea what you watched and I do not really care to know, but what I can say confidently is that if you google what I told you then there are things you can read.



Me either. I Googled what you said.

Took me to a page that explained what it meant. No video.




posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
A few ATS members think that, your bias, so in your mind it's destroyed, but I will continue to mention it to those that are developing their own thoughts. You don't get to gate keep this topic, and there is no desperation, only your frustration that you can't end this discussion 100% in your favor.


I can't end a discussion that never started. This thread was meant to be a debate about evidence for god, but nobody has presented anything aside from conjecture. I am trying to START the discussion by asking for proof, not end it. It seems like you are the one who is upset that you can't use this thread as your own pulpit to promote your faith.

Your argument is destroyed because it fails to even demonstrate a basic understanding of science.

Here's your quote:


Not only that every evolving animal had to undergo gender evolution from asexual to sexual, in perfect synchronization, so it's species wouldn't die out.


This claim holds no merit. What on earth makes you think that every single animal went through gender evolution at the same exact time? That is completely false and others have already said why. If this is truly your claim, please back it up and show me the science.


And then one day they just copulate, something they had never done before, they had no instinct to do it, but did it anyway.


Your next sentence, once again completely wrong and pulled out of your backside. Gender evolution didn't just happen over night and it wasn't in perfect sync.


And what happened while the sex organs were evolving over thousands of years ?


Organisms started asexual, eventually some of them developed different ways to share their genes. Here's a hint. They weren't male and female at first. Male and female developed down the line around this ability. The organisms that transitioned from asexual to sexual experienced a transitional period where they reproduced BOTH ways. Sexual reproduction leads to greater genetic diversity, which leads to better long term survival so it won out in the long term. Now obviously scientists don't know everything about sexual evolution but to pigeonhole it and generalize as you have above really holds no merit, especially not in this thread. This isn't me being biased, it's me seeing flaws in your argument that you probably won't even address in your next response.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TheChrome

Not only that every evolving animal had to undergo gender evolution from asexual to sexual, in perfect synchronization, so it's species wouldn't die out. And then one day they just copulate, something they had never done before, they had no instinct to do it, but did it anyway. And what happened while the sex organs were evolving over thousands of years ?

Thanks for bringing some higher intelligence in for the other side of this discussion, why should the one side get a free for all pile on against creation.



No Kidding.

In Statistics, the number Ten to the 50th power (10 with 50 zeros after it) is considered a mathematical impossibility.


I never learned that in stats.

It looks like a very large number to me - or a very small one if het inverse - but it is finite.


The chance of a protein molecule forming by chance is 10 to 113, more than twice statistical impossibility. 2000 proteins are needed for a single living cell to function. The chance for achieving all 2000 proteins needed for life by chance is 10 to the 40,000th.


chemical reactions do not happen by chance - they happen according to the rules of chemistry and physics - so straight away your reliance on chance is false.


Let that sink in. Statistical impossibility= 10:50th


False.


All proteins needed for life forming by chance= 10:40,0000th
Then you have to overcome these odds 3 times, for three separate and distinct RNA patterns of life.

If I was someone who was fooled by the atheist community, I would be pissed!


Everyone is happy being fooled by someone - apparently you have found your happy place.

In reality we have no idea what the "chance" of life formin was - except that we know that it did, and so it must be 100%.

But if you had a situation with no life and some given starting parameters it is not hard to figure out that life might form very rapidly indeed -


However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10^112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 10^24 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 10^49 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 10^34) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 10^20 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 1015 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis


Yep - given some not unreasonable starting conditions, it might take as little as one year to form some building blocks!

And unlike you I am prepared to give a source



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Ok so I have read some things and if nobody here can prove God does not exist...

Well then they lose...

I would like for a threads like these one time actually be a logic discussion not necessarily a debate, this is the only way a better understanding can come about...
by discussion based in as much fact as you can possibly have...

when neither side is able to be proven, I assure you if this action was actually taken a logical conclusion could be formed...




You can look at the prophecy in the bible, and know that God exists and has predicted the outcome of the planet. The prophecy contained in the bible is accurate, and provable by history.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

so prove it.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

You can look at the prophecy in the bible, and know that God exists and has predicted the outcome of the planet. The prophecy contained in the bible is accurate, and provable by history.


Ok, I'll challenge that. List the Prophesies that you are talking about along with the Historical proof of them being completed. Also list the ones not complete. Please make the list in order too for simplicity.

I'll do the same and we can compare.

Agree????



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

So now it is fact that there was no creator or there is no God?

Use your facts...

what fact does an atheist use to prove this to themselves or anybody else for that matter?



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

annee didnt' actually say that tho - so perhaps you could use a little more of that stuff your god values.....honesty I think it was called.....



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: arimass101
People your avoiding from debating me from this question: "Either the universe had a creator or the universe had always existed. Which is more logical?" This is the root of the tree. Everything else are branches. You cant have branches if you dont have a root.


Or neither, and we don't fully understand the concept of time, space, beginning and end.

Your argument is full of dull assumptions. This thread was VERY disappointing.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Atheists use facts it was a straight forward claim...

I know it's a lie...



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome
In Statistics, the number Ten to the 50th power (10 with 50 zeros after it) is considered a mathematical impossibility. The chance of a protein molecule forming by chance is 10 to 113, more than twice statistical impossibility. 2000 proteins are needed for a single living cell to function. The chance for achieving all 2000 proteins needed for life by chance is 10 to the 40,000th.

Let that sink in. Statistical impossibility= 10:50th
All proteins needed for life forming by chance= 10:40,0000th
Then you have to overcome these odds 3 times, for three separate and distinct RNA patterns of life.


Can you please back that up with the the math that proves it? Impossible means 0% chance. Improbable is not impossible, and quite frankly nobody knows the odds of life emerging, you are just romanticizing numbers just like the Fibonacci sequence guy. What makes you think it was 2000 proteins suddenly coming together at once? Please link the science and math to back this (not a religious website please).



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

yes it was a straight forward claim - nothing was claimed about god.

however I am happy to state a straightforward fact about god: You have not proved his/her/its existence.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Annee

So now it is fact that there was no creator or there is no God?

Use your facts...

what fact does an atheist use to prove this to themselves or anybody else for that matter?



Who said that?

No one has said facts prove there is no Creator. Facts prove what they prove.

You must think you're in a thread that was started by an atheist claiming to prove there is no God/Creator.
edit on 10-8-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Atheists don't claim they can prove god doesn't exist. They aren't claiming atheism is a fact. They are claiming that there is no objective evidence in favor of god, and that is usually the reason for not believing. You are the one who is trying to prove something here, not the nonbelievers.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Actually some do - eg Dawkins - but you'd have to ask them (him).

In Dawkins case you can read all about it in "The God Delusion"

my own claim is that I see no evidence that god(s) exist, nor any need for them to exist, and hence I do not believe they do.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: Barcs

Actually some do - eg Dawkins - but you'd have to ask them (him).

In Dawkins case you can read all about it in "The God Delusion"

my own claim is that I see no evidence that god(s) exist, nor any need for them to exist, and hence I do not believe they do.



Here's Dawkin's point.



Dawkins’ point is this: if God produces such effects, whether he’s stopping the rotation of the Earth, giving visions at Fatima, hurling lightning bolts from Olympus, or showing up on cheese sandwiches, then he produces measurable physical effects that can be studied by basic observation and science. It is not a metaphysical question, as your get-out-of-jail-free friend wants to claim. Only the deist poses a metaphysical question, and the deist still suffers from problems of his own.

In short, Dawkins’ claim is that if god interacts with the world, we would be able to study it. Since all scientific study ever shows us a universe that looks exactly like a universe with no god, we can conclude that there probably is no god. There is, at the very least, absolutely no reason to believe in one.

www.asktheatheists.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

no you claimed Atheists use facts I asked you what facts you use to prove to yourself or to anyone else for that matter that God does not exist...

I thought atheists use facts though, are you admitting this is just what you have decided to believe and that it is not based in fact?

Or is it a fact that you don't actually use facts?

Or can you agree your statement is non factual?

And that atheists do not always use facts and or understand fully the information they introduced as fact...



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
And then . . .



The deist, on the other hand, and your “metaphysical” friend must ask himself a couple of different questions. Firstly, what reason does he have to believe that his “metaphysical” god exists at all? If the deity is “outside of the physical,” whatever that means, how can he justify his belief? The more fundamental question for him is whether or not it is even possible for such a being to exist; in short: is there even such a thing as the “metaphysical” at all? Most definitions of “metaphysical” define it neatly into unmeasurability, and if that is the case, we have no evidence, no reason to believe that there’s anything “metaphysical” or “supernatural” at all, much less an all-powerful being.

www.asktheatheists.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Annee

no you claimed Atheists use facts I asked you what facts you use to prove to yourself or to anyone else for that matter that God does not exist...



who claimed god did not exist??



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Annee

no you claimed Atheists use facts I asked you what facts you use to prove to yourself or to anyone else for that matter that God does not exist...

I thought atheists use facts though, are you admitting this is just what you have decided to believe and that it is not based in fact?

Or is it a fact that you don't actually use facts?

Or can you agree your statement is non factual?

And that atheists do not always use facts and or understand fully the information they introduced as fact...


Atheist - - lack of belief in a God/Deity/Creator

I'm not interested in your game of "reflection", "misinterpretation", and moving the "goal posts".

This thread is about Proving God/Creator. So prove it. Or, feel free to start a new thread.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join