Take the Atheist Challenge!!!

The mere fact that I can read what you type means that a lot of this "man's second worst enemy" is in your head. I'd visit an exorcist as soon as possible if I were you.If you are true to your words, I expect you to:

• stop using your computer
• never sit in a car again
• refuse medical treatment the next time you fall ill
• etc.
• etc.

After all, all of that is the result of Knowledge, remember?

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

You can't tell me that science hasn't revised its stance on every subject that has come from it, at least 2 or 3 times.

---

You act like that's a bad thing. Are you saying that it is better to maintain a slavish devotion to an incorrect answer than to admit that you're wrong and correct yourself, even if you have to do it over and over again?One of the things you seem to misunderstand is that while the theories of science may be altered over time, the foundational observations don't.For example, take the shift from Newtonian to Einsteinian mechanics. While Newtonian mechanics is wrong, we can understand why it was wrong. Einsteinian mechanics explains why we came to the conclusions that we did. The observations weren't wrong, but we didn't have enough observations to be as accurate as we could be.That is, Newtonian physics is based upon a linear model of the universe. That is, if I am on a train moving at 20 miles an hour and I throw a ball in the direction of travel such that, with respect to the train, it would be moving 20 miles an hour, then the ball would be moving 40 miles an hour with respect to the ground.But Einsteinian mechanics is a relativistic model. Instead of moving at 40 mph with respect the ground, it's actually moving slightly slower. Specifically, if A is moving with velocity V₁ with respect to C and B is moving with velocity V₂ with respect to A (where both V₁ and V₂ are expressed as fractions of the speed of light), the observed velocity of B with respect to C is given by:V = (V₁ + V₂)/(1 + V₁V₂)In our case, the ball would be moving at about 5 ten-millionths of a mile slower than 40 mph.You'd never detect that with 17th-century equipment and even today you'd need extremely sensitive equipment to detect it.Notice what we've done: Even though we've switched to a relativistic model of kinematics, that new theory explains everything we saw before. When we shifted from a geocentric model of the solar system to a heliocentric model, that new model had to explain everything we saw before. It has to explain why it looks like, from the perspective of the earth, that the sun moves around the earth.Evolutionary theory explains everything we have seen before. It has to or it wouldn't be of any use. What is the point of using a theory that we know cannot explain things we know to be true?

quote:

---

The Bible tells me that after Jesus died, and rose to heaven, that God wrote his laws on the minds and hearts of everyone after that.

---

And yet, the mere existence of atheists and every other non-Christian religion proves that claim wrong.

quote:

---

When you follow his word, you then can recieve the Holy Spirit(the bible says).

---

And yet, the typical experience of atheists raised in Christian environments shows that claim to be wrong. They followed the word but they didn't receive the Holy Spirit.Now are you willing to accept that those who don't believe in Jesus are just as sincere as you are?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I'm beginning to think that you don't know jack about science. Either that, or you've had some very bad teachers.For one thing, creationism had spent 2,000 years on the top. It is science's turn.Again, you are pointing out one of the strongest points of science as if it is the weakest. That is probably the only reason why I have dedicated myself to science. If something turn out to be wrong, it's wrong. Better than being dogmatic about it. This is the statement that really convinced me that you don't know jack about science. I have news for you. Science doesn't care why you are here. Stop trying to make yourself important... unless you feel the need to be important. I think you meant to put a question mark at the end there. Anyway, science tries to explain how we got here by collecting data and propose theories. It is the human curiosity that keeps us wondering how we got here.However, I know that many people such as yourself are satisfied with "goddunit" answer for everything, so I'll leave you be if you stop trying to preach your faith here. Wanna back this statement up with some evidence that we haven't seen before? You've just lost me. You need to write your thoughts more clearly! You'd be surprised to how big a book can get regarding the simplest life on Earth.I know that I am wasting my time with you... Anyway, it's only a matter of time before an admin gets involved and probably kick my arse.This message has been edited by Lam, 05-10-2004 04:31 AM

---

The Laminator

​

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

You have no clue at all about me.

---

And you dare to think that you have a clue about me?You're the one calling the other "defensive."You can see why I say that you have no respect. You certainly don't show it. You are so intent on preaching your own version of how the world works that you cannot consider reversing the process.

quote:

---

You are only saying the things you are saying to try and get to me and my beliefs.

---

And you're not doing the same thing?I think you're finally figuring it out: If you find it in poor taste when I do it to you, haven't you considered the possibility that maybe it's in poor taste for you to do it to me?How many times do I have to say it before you hear it? If you expect others to respect your experience, then you have to return that respect to others...especially when they contradict you.

quote:

---

Live without God for a month? Ha, I lived without him for 38 years, got you on that one.

---

So what's one month gonna do? Kill you? You're so quick to dare me to follow your religion, but you're so hesitant to turn around and give up yours.Why should anybody do what you're unwilling to?

quote:

---

T4 phage? I am not a biologist.

---

Does it matter? Even if I called the floognikkels and climpertics, the point would be the same:The colony is descended from a single ancestor. Therefore, if there is no such thing as evolution, they should all behave in the exact same manner. If one is susceptible to the infective agent, then they should all be susceptible. If one dies, they all die.The fact that not all die, the fact that a few survive indicates that evolution does happen.

quote:

---

I read that whole statement in another thread from you, and investegated it already. I investegated many "forced evolutionary changes in bacteria in a lab" papers.

---

Where is the forcing? You don't provide any selective pressure at all until the time you infect the lawn.And since the lawn is all descended from a single ancestor, they should all behave the same way.The fact that they don't indicates that it has to be evolution.That said, you are behaving as if "forced" evolution is somehow not legitimately evolution. What difference does it make?

quote:

---

Too me the bacteria are only doing what they are designed to do.

---

But the experiment clearly and in no uncertain terms contradicts you.If they were "designed" to do that, then they should all do the exact same thing. They're all descended from a single ancestor and thus if one is susceptible, then all are susceptible.The fact that some are not susceptible means that it was not a question of "design" but a result of evolution. There is no other conclusion possible.

quote:

---

They use the tools that are in them already to survive thier surroundings

---

But if one could do it, why couldn't all the rest? They're all descended from a single ancestor. With no evolution, they're all identical and have the exact same abilities.If one could live, why didn't all of them do so? Are you saying the vast majority of the lawn was suicidal? Bacteria have a conscious will to die?There's no other conclusion except that some of the bacteria evolved. And, in fact, if you do a genetic analysis of the bacteria that survived and compare it to the original genome, you will find discrepancies.

quote:

---

Call me when one of your bacteria walks out of the dish and kisses you on the cheek, and makes you breakfast.

---

But that would actually disprove evolution. There's no way for a single, prokaryotic cell to evolve into a multi-cellular, eukaryotic organism with the requisite consciousness and intelligence to interact with me in my own lifetime. Evolution doesn't happen that fast.

quote:

---

Listen, if you fall in Love with a chick, and she Loves you back forever, isn't that felt in your heart?

---

So why is it the vast majority of the world's population is incapable of seeing this "chick" that you love?Who are you to tell them that they were "miss guided" [sic]?

quote:

---

I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic.

---

But I have. The topic is for you to have the courage of your convictions and to do what you are daring others to do.Why do you hesitate? I'll read your book and do your rituals if you give up your god.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me...I think...he didn't use the correct Reply button so we don't know (hint: It's the red one in the post to which you are responding, not the Reply button at the bottom of the page):

quote:

---

And yes, if you put your faith in TOE, then it is your religion.

---

But I don't have any faith in evolution. I accept it because it is something that can be physically demonstrated by any person on earth. I've given you an example of an experiment that you can do yourself that shows evolution happening right before your eyes. So if you and I both do the same thing, even though we have completely different agendas, and we come up with the same result, by what criteria can we claim it didn't happen?

quote:

---

You believe in it by faith, and preach it by faith. Tell me the difference?

---

Um, the difference is that I don't believe in it by faith nor do I preach by anything.Instead, I accept it by evidence and I demonstrate it by experiments that don't depend upon my being there.Don't take my word for it...run the experiment for yourself and see what happens.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to Lam:

quote:

---

The fact that science is constantly changing, and many facets of it are always being proved wrong, then why preach it in schools to little children like it was fact.

---

Because you are confusing observation with theory.Evolution is a fact. It is also a theory. One cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon.Take gravity. If I take a ball and let it go, it falls to the ground. We call the force that pulls it to the ground "gravity." That's an observed fact. Thus, gravity is a fact.Gravitational "theory," on the other hand, seeks to explain why we see the gravitational "fact." Is gravity a warpage of space-time? Is it carried on quantum particles? Maybe it's a bunch of tiny, invisible rubber bands. Or maybe it's angels pushing things around. No matter what gravitational theory says, it needs to explain the gravitational fact:When I drop a ball, it falls to the ground.Evolution is identical. When we observe organisms over time, they change. We call this change "evolution." That's an observed fact. Thus, evolution is a fact.Evolutionary theory seeks to explain why we see the evolutionary fact. Is evolution a response to direct environmental stimuli (Lamarckian evolution) or the result of random changes acted upon by natural selection (Darwinian evolution)? No matter what evolutionary theory says, it needs to explain the evolutionary fact:When we observe organisms over time, they change.And here's the thing: Evolution is more solidly grounded than gravity. We still have no idea what gravity actually is. We can see its effects, measure it across the universe, but we have no idea what it is or what is causing it.Evolution, on the other hand, has a mechanism: Mutation and selection. We have found the chromosome. We can directly observe it as it mutates. We can see the selective forces at work. We can directly manipulate them.So why are you behaving as if evolution is somehow in question when it's one of the most heavily backed aspects of science that exists?

quote:

---

Thats how it was presented to me. God never had a chance.

---

That's because evolution doesn't depend upon god just as it doesn't depend upon you. You may recall that you weren't taught that you had a hand in causing mutations.Does that mean you don't exist?Did I have anything to do with what you had for breakfast? Did I plant the food? Raise it? Harvest it? Transport it? Process it? Package it? Ship it? Advertise it? Market it? Select it? Purchase it? Prepare it? Serve it? Feed it?No?Does that mean I don't exist?You seem to be of the opinion that if evolution is true, then god doesn't exist. Whence does this come from? Even the Pope agrees that evolution is the only scientific explanation we have for the diversity of life on this planet. Are you calling the Pope an atheist?

quote:

---

Creation never had a chance.

---

Since it isn't science, why should it?As I have asked you straight out multiple times, are you seriously suggesting that we should lie to people simply because some people would get upset that their pet fantasy wasn't addressed?

quote:

---

They been trying to prove TOE for 135 years. Don't you think you should start looking for another explaination?

---

But evolution wouldn't be a theory unless it had evidence to back it up. That's what a theory is: An analysis of a set of facts.Why should we look for "another explanation" when the explanation we have works so well? As Dobzhansky put it, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.Why on earth would you want us to discard the most powerful and effective paradigm we have for explaining what is going on?

quote:

---

At least explore the possibilitys?

---

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.Do you have any evidence that there is something wrong? Be specific.

quote:

---

Instead of just getting mad a "religious" people?

---

Who is mad?You seem to have this silly notion that if someone tells you that you're wrong, he has some sort of emotional vendetta against you.I don't know you from Adam. How could I possibly have any emotional attachment to you?

quote:

---

Science will never explain why we are here?

---

Define "why we are here."If one means "the process by which humans came into existence," that question has already been answered:We evolved.If one means "the philosophical purpose for the existence of humans," then you're right: Science will never answer that.But then again, science doesn't try to answer that question. That's a philosophical question and science is not philosophy.Science can tell you quite a lot about an acoustical waveform such as its frequency, amplitude, power, how far it would travel in various media, etc.What it cannot do is tell you if it is music and nothing in science even attempts such a thing. That's a subjective, philosophical question and science is not philosophy.

quote:

---

Theres no way it happened all by chance

---

Why not? Everything about the world we live in points to it being exactly that.Think about it. You exist precisely because your parents met and had a specific sperm match with a specific ovum. Your parents exist because their parents had the exact same thing happen. The number of specific events that had to happen in the great chain of geneology that led to you is astronomical.And yet, it wasn't planned. It was all chance.So if your existence was a random event, why deny that to the rest of existence?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

It's Rrhaining again! And it never Rrhains but it Pphoors. If anybody can drown a deluded creationist in a steady downpoor of calm, composed and rational argument, it has to be Rrhain.Welcome back!

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

You totally missed my point, so go back and read my stance on science.

The fact that science is constantly changing is a good thing, but you also totally missed my point. I only take science for whats its worth. a useful tool sometimes, when it comes to things that are proven.
I will not put my faith in it period.
I will study it, and use it it, but thats it.

quote:

---

And yet, the mere existence of atheists and every other non-Christian religion proves that claim wrong.

---

No it doesn't, I won't even tell you what I really think of that statement. It doesn't prove sqaut.

quote:

---

And yet, the typical experience of atheists raised in Christian environments shows that claim to be wrong. They followed the word but they didn't receive the Holy Spirit.

​

Now are you willing to accept that those who don't believe in Jesus are just as sincere as you are?

---

I cannot accept any of that either, as then I would be judging people. I cannot see whats in a persons heart. All I can do , and did do was state what happened to me. If you would like to use my own experience anyway you want, then thats up to you.
If God came down and smacked you in the face, would you then believe?
Faith brought me to the point of "meeting" God, now I just have to keep believing, and its not faith anymore.
If you haven't "meet" God yet, then I can't tell what you need to do, because I don't pretend to know you, its all between you and God.

Hello, Zac!
I actually came across this thread, and without boring you with the events that led up to it, last Tuesday, I did something I have not done in years; I prayed.
Not to Jesus, though. Just to god. It seemed that my prayer was answered, though I can say it also could have been a coincidence.
The point is, I did in fact 'feel' something and have been trying to reconcile it in
this thread.
I inadvertently took your challenge, but did not find Jesus; I think it may be god, in one way or another, but not as the bible defines him/her/it.

quote:

---

I'm beginning to think that you don't know jack about science. Either that, or you've had some very bad teachers.

​

For one thing, creationism had spent 2,000 years on the top. It is science's turn.

​

Again, you are pointing out one of the strongest points of science as if it is the weakest. That is probably the only reason why I have dedicated myself to science. If something turn out to be wrong, it's wrong. Better than being dogmatic about it.

---

Creationism, was never taught as a science, so it was never on top.
Yes the teachers were bad, probably don't believe in God. But thats for another discussion. Again I don't want to judge them, but they never taught it ot us like the TOE was just that, a theory. There were alot of things that were taught to us like fact, but they weren't.The strongest points of science, are the things that have been proven. Even then, it could all change with new discoverys. Is this a bad thing? Nope. But its not where I put my faith.

quote:

---

This is the statement that really convinced me that you don't know jack about science.

---

Everytime you feel like you know it all, go check yourself.
Please tell me the story of the bacterial flagellum.And yes I am important, so are you.
Don't tell me that science isn't dying to find out why we are here. That statement shows that you are not being a true scientist. Science would love to learn everything about everything. as it should.I don't need a goddunit answer, since I already meet with him on a regular bases. People who know God, don't really look at science the same way you do. But that doesn't make science unneccsary.

quote:

---

You'd be surprised to how big a book can get regarding the simplest life on Earth.

---

Thats my point. Thanks for pointing it out.

I did this and I couldn't find the deeper meaning of your statement about knowledge in it. Please explain.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

quote:

---

And you dare to think that you have a clue about me?

---

No, and I guess you will never tell us what your true convictions are, cause then what would happen?I keep telling you, I can only speak for myself, can you accept that?
You wrote in a defensive stance, leading me to believe your are getting defensive. You seem to have anger towards the subject, but its hard to tell in a forum, and is irrelevant anyway.I am not preaching at all, just telling you what happened to me. I used to believe in the TOE for my whole life, now I don't. Is that some sort of problem for you?I feel as though your the one preaching in here. You use science and all its unproven formulas as reasons not to believe in God. Am I correct?

quote:

---

I think you're finally figuring it out: If you find it in poor taste when I do it to you, haven't you considered the possibility that maybe it's in poor taste for you to do it to me?

---

Please tell me how quoting scripture, and sharing my own experiences with you is preaching, and not respecting, and offensive to you. And why you feel the need to do something back to me.It was a challenge, a challenge directly from the Bible, not me. If you don't want to take it, then don't. I will still pray for you.

quote:

---

So what's one month gonna do? Kill you? You're so quick to dare me to follow your religion, but you're so hesitant to turn around and give up yours.

​

Why should anybody do what you're unwilling to?

---

I searched for God for 13 years before I found him. I went on faith for many years, now recently he has shown himself to me. How could I possible give up God? That wouldn't make him go away. I already know what it feels like to doubt the presense of God. I don't need to try your experiment. I was forced into that experiment by society, so I already know the answer.If your unwilling to do something then don't do it, thats pretty simple isn't it. No one is forcing you to do anything in here. I am sorry if you feel that way.

quote:

---

The colony is descended from a single ancestor. Therefore, if there is no such thing as evolution, they should all behave in the exact same manner. If one is susceptible to the infective agent, then they should all be susceptible. If one dies, they all die.

​

The fact that not all die, the fact that a few survive indicates that evolution does happen.

---

Obviously bacteria is way more complicated than you ever imagined, so you science dudes should go study it more. Darwin never knew about the flagellum did he? But it was there. Sorry I don't find the fact that some bacteria can be immune to a plauge proof of evolution. How do we know it wasn't already designed to act that way? Can you prove that?Why should they all behave the same way? What law or theory proves that?Forced microbiological experiments are of a different subject but still try to prove evolution in a lab, and fail to do so IMO.
Sorry I mentioned it.

quote:

---

If they were "designed" to do that, then they should all do the exact same thing. They're all descended from a single ancestor and thus if one is susceptible, then all are susceptible.

---

Did you actually extract DNA from each one of those bacteria, to see if they were exactly the same? Me my brother and sister all came from my mother, but we act different.
Did you actually find the reason why some of the bacteria wasn't affected? What did the bacteria do to protect themselves? What did the others not do?
Why would it be that only some would evolve. What determines that?

quote:

---

There's no other conclusion except that some of the bacteria evolved. And, in fact, if you do a genetic analysis of the bacteria that survived and compare it to the original genome, you will find discrepancies.

---

Was this done before and after the infection?
Do bacteria comunicate with each other? I wonder. They are pretty complicated.Is each sibbling an exact clone of the parent? down to the last DNA?

quote:

---

So why is it the vast majority of the world's population is incapable of seeing this "chick" that you love?

​

Who are you to tell them that they were "miss guided"

---

Because the Bible tells us this will happen. Its of no surprise to me.
I am not telling anyone that they are misguided (I merely wonder if). (sorry for the spelling error, Math is my stronger subject) Blue collar workers such as myself don't have to rely on writing too much, but that doesn't mean that I am not as smart as the next guy.
If you discuss this with me in laymen terms, I can keep up with your vocabulary.

quote:

---

Because you are confusing observation with theory.

---

I haven't confused anything, only unconfused myself. I now understand science and what it is for.How is evolution fact? That would make it proven, no?Yes gravity is fact, if a piano fell on your head, you would feel it.
Gravity and magnetism are my favorite subject, I wish I knew more about it.Comparing gravity to evolution is as absurd as me comparing bacteria to something getting out of dish and kissing you on the cheek.Evolution has never been observed, if it has that is news to me.
You call it evolution, what happened in your little experiment?Wow, I mean you put so many words into my mouth, I think you need to stop that. Why is it that evolution is the only theory, and why isn't creation a science?Lets cut to the chase here, and I wonder if you could answer a few questions,Is evolution proven, yes or no?
Is creation disproven, if so, how?
Do you believe in life after death?
Do you have kids?
How does evolution explain Love?
Are you angry at religion?Lets start there, oh and BTW, the Pope is just another man to me. I could care less what the entire catholic religion has to say about God
or anything else for that matter. But that doesn't mean that I do not like catholics.Who is mad?
Anyone who uses name calling to describe stuff. Then their emotions are getting involved.

There is nothing calm about his arguements or rational, and I could spend the rest of my life debating it, but I have said what counts already. A true scientist would remain open to all possibilities, and not be one-sided.You could never argue the fact that I feel God, out of me.
Nor will science ever explain it. < my opinion.