Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Various issues » Debate with Aron Ra

Debate with Aron Ra

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

1Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:41 am

Otangelo


Admin
Debate with  Aron Ra 

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2892-debate-with-aron-ra


I debated with Aron Ra ( angelmou) at the comments section of this video about our different worldviews:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg&lc=z22mwvyjouilydcbb04t1aokg4nvflwz3ri1mkbnbkrork0h00410.1578408685630771

And, resumed, the positive arguments that supposedly sustain his worldview without a creator, are these:

The universe is the embodiment of NON-Creation
An embodiment of a beginning as very first not caused timeframe has no prior cause to it AT ALL. It is just the first time frame incarnate. WIthout any prior thing, event or state upfront of it. ;-)
Nonsense talk there was no literal nothing state - because the universe did not come from anywhere else
There is no fine tuning

Chance of random chemical reactions to setup amino-acid polypeptide chains to produce  functional proteins" are explained by lipid chemistry by chemical selection in lipid versicles
The gentic information stored in the first living cell emerged naturally
The acids chain by magnetic + and - charges
+ / - bounding and chaining is a basic physical observation
All what exists is naturally.
The cells you refer to were ALREADY a subset of already existing coacervates-
Chemistry works as it does.
There are chemical laws
glycine amino acids, pyrimidines,  DNA -   all those forms got selected in fat bubbles called cells to sustain.
interlocking of complexity in abiogenesis models.
Polypetides work in lipids and not outside.

interlocked codes into different directions.
interlocking of complexity mechanism
Interlocking of complexity is a PREDICTION of evolution

Complexity slowly accumulated
The development of organelles is by symbiosis, endosymbiosis not random
Evolution can of course interlock a system so that you can't take parts out of it without crashing the system
common ancestry is readable true in this code as well.
lifeforms are selected by darwinian evolution
endosymbiosis.
The mechanism itself are under natural selection they are not outside of it.
repurposement of former ancestral form.
Species speciate as variations of former forms and there is no creator.
humans are right now in this moment an ape species.

Personality needs a brain
Brains are minds

There is in my view so much wrong in all these claims.... They can be filtered and resumed as follows:

THE UNIVERSE
1. The universe HAD a beginning. The demand that it must have had therefore a cause, stands. Nothing has no causal powers, and claiming that the universe, or singularity just was, is not convincing.
2. The universe IS finely tuned for life - despite your denial. That demands an explanation.

ORIGIN OF LIFE

1. chance
2. chemical reactions
3. interlocked complexity

do  NOT explain the origin of life. These are all JUST SO, not supported claims by you. Anywhere did you acknowledge that DNA stores INSTRUCTIONAL COMPLEX information to make Cell factories. And THESE instructions need a compelling, plausible explanation.

BIODIVERSITY
common ancestry, accumulating complexity, endosymbiosis, interlocked systems through evolution,  selection by darwinian evolution,  speciation, are all common terms used in biology, which  share wide accepance, but are disputed by the foremost biologists in the field. Some like Gerd Mueller have come to acknowledge that, the make of complex organisms a view from systems biology, not a reduced toolkit provided solely by genetics.






"Being cannot come from non-being."  Yeah agreed.

"Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another."
Yeah but the term "always" can mean both:

a finite number of timeframes without any cause (including your god as such a cause you just want to deny God is also excluded)

OR

A endless chain of infinte timeframes without a cause (which is ALSO including your god as not any of such causes, where you just want to deny God is excluded, too)



"Since the universe had a beginning,"
Nanana. An infinite chain of timeframes never had a beginning.


And NEITHER did a first timeframe which is the oldest absolute beginning itself without any further beginning any side beginning, any meta beginning any supernatural beginning etc.


" a non-physical being must have existed"
Super-natural/meta-natural "entities" are only able to "metaexist" not to merely exist.
Regular natural existence would actually be some sort of an insult towards those hypothetical entities.

To use a clear "supernatural" language of terminology.
And no we do not assume any need for those, because it just adds an unnecessary layer to reality - where it also denies the embodiment of the uncausedness of either an infinite chain or a finite number of timeframes with adding just the supernatural on top of it.
No need for that nonsense.



" beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence."
There was no "causing" because reality  is just the embodiment of non-creation without even any need for thinking about anything above, beyond or metalayers on top of it.


"That being is God."
You mean just 1 single super-being/metabeing shall meta-exist/superexist (ignoring other god/s, angels, demons blahblah) and this meta/super entity shall cause regular existence - just because you wish it would meta-exist/super-exist, which was never needed - simply because our existence is just the embodiment of non-creation. Without any "meta-cause" at all.



"Syllogistic - Arguments of Gods existence based on positive evidence"
Clear your own language.

De facto do you not argue for an "existence" of the supernatural aka God ideas.
You argue for a meta/super existence of such God/s as meta-entitites/super entities in an additional layer put artifically onto our world.

But they were never needed, because a question of any of their possible "meta existence/super existence" remains always unnecessary.
At least till you are able to put any claimed meta-entity/super entity on a dissection table to dissect or "meta-dissect/supernatural" dissect them with proper tools/supernature-tools.


So when you have instead of a knife to put a meat body open to show organs you present us a "meta/supernatural knife" to literally rip a god open to show its meta-organs/supernature organs - you have no further argument.


You can me invite to your gallery when you catched the devil and ripped his supernatural/meta body apart with a super-natural tool, like a meta-knife or so to present me the meta/super nature organs of the devil in petri dishes or so. Then you would have an argument.



Last edited by Admin on Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:42 pm; edited 6 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

2Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:41 am

Otangelo


Admin
1.) I asked you to present me a supernatural entity like for example the devil on your dissection table with a knife or better a meta/supernatural knifelike-tool to rip this entity open and show me the devil's meta/supernatural entrails/superorgan equivalents to the natural organs. You did not do that.
2.)  You however copy and paste the same fallacies we talked about which was adressed right before with skipping the debunking of your errors (not being aware they broke your ideological neck) For example:
"Claiming that space-time could have emerged without any cause"
This is not the claim, because their was no "emerging".

You can't even understand that "not caused" does ALSO mean it did not emerged AT ALL.

You do not understand that causing and emerging is exchangable forbidden there or it would violate the absoluteness of the first timeframe.

When the first timeframe is just the oldest point it is absolute/ultimate oldest and not a secondary product of ANY process, any state,any cause, any emerge,any gods or any other things, terms etc.
you wish deeply to put in front of it, at all costs.
You are just annoyed that you can't squeeze deities by default upfront or above it as cause, as emerge giver/s, as idea etc. without any substance. Literally.
Because your whole feelings depends on that you jump around.

And try to reinvent terminology.
This is why you wrote and I quote you:
"God = the cause; action = the creation event."

Is redefining God to "the cause" you want to (meta)exist/supernaturally exist above/beyond what is actually real.

And the quoting of a random book which  refers to the regional pagan wind ghost/spirit Elelohim hovering above the ocean/waters of the abyss here how the bible makers imagined reality:
https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2012/11/Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe.png
With flood gates and corners of the disc/circle earth with the solid firmament as sky dome.
Is meaningless.



It is obvious that you do not want to talk about reality as it is.
You try to drown in meta-nature/super-natural super existence speculations and try meaninglessly to tie it to middle eastern text nonsense.

The rest is again sermon with "mah magic man in the sky" shall make talking donkeys real -  look into this random arbitrary book like the qur'an, mahabharata, bible, dianetics etc. and feel good with that stuff.
In which you conflate supernatural/meta nature entity speculations with random written folklore of the middle east without any meaning you've been indoctrinated with.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:33 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

3Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:42 am

Otangelo


Admin
"Therefore, this present moment in time can't represent an actual infinite number of events added one"
This is the Zeno's paradox fallacy here with the Arrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Arrow_paradox_(Fletcher's_paradox) illustrated.
I already explained you that. According to this philosophy you try to apply to the universe no event would reach any other event. You tried to wash this away with the idea that Causation shall be another term for God.Because everything that causes a problem is redirected by you to this no answer "goddidit" that is why you collect a long list of problems and jump right to: This is a problem - therfor Goddidit/godsolvesit! instead of solving the problem.
Mostrar menos

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

4Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:42 am

Otangelo


Admin
Part 3 Finally: I also remember now what we talked about below AronRa's video(!) I pointed out that pain is a bodyfunction. (some people alive can for example stay on fire without even noticing they burn alive) YOU however -  Because it is one of your personal greatest wishes that a very specific torture chambersshall be real NOT the muslim hell with the name Jahannam -
NOR the buddhistic hell called by the name naraka,

BUT a VERY specific christian one you have deeply fallen in love with shall be real at all costs (including  your sanity) - you denied the observation that pain is a body function and tried to make up all excuses you can come up with for your deeply (and arbitrarly) loved idea of the christian hellfire as your personally chosen torture chamber to be something that shall (meta/supernaturally) exist.
That is most likely also the reason why you got banned there, because your personal love for a randomly chosen sadist idea of any torture chambers is just not suitable for a valid comment section here on youtube.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:34 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

5Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:42 am

Otangelo


Admin
What you quote is that the expanding universe emerged from the big bang as the beginning of the expansion NOT and I underline that ten times NOT the BIG BANG SINGULARITY ITSELF or the question about if the timeframes are countable or not countable(!) where we do not use any current models, because of the lack of a theory of quantum gravity.

You make the very same mistake as William Lane Craig here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1c_GlAjvy4

To be owned by an actual Big Bang scientist about his persnal conflation of the Big Bang and the universe from the Big bang as emerged later state.
Those are also NOT exchangable.

That means you think when you can just claim that the universe had a beginning called by the name Big Bang that this would imply the Big Bang itself to have a beginning as well at all costs. This is your mistake where you then ON TOP of it try to squeeze in your supernatural/meta nature speculation of God/s before you also ON TOP of that put those speculations arbitrarly into a connection with a random book collection from the middle east called Qur...oh I mean bible. So many random text collections to choose from. ;-)



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:35 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

6Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:43 am

Otangelo


Admin
"And as such, you need to explain what was its cause."
When there is only a countable number of timeframes "always" is just the number of frames.
Example: When the world would exist since 2 days. All time there is is just 2 days. Always is in such a case just another term for "2 days."



"SOMETHING ( time ) cannot begin from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING."
No one said that it began. You just confused the beginning of the universe from the big bang with that the big bang or the first frame of time would also have a beginning.
When the world started with the first day.
The first day did not start from a former day for the first day. It just is.



We explain it did not begin and did not came from anywhere or any causation etc. when the timeframes are countable.
This is what you do not get.
You can't just say: Well countable numbers of days of nature are too unsatisfying for me -

THERFOR i just put  a made up God/heaven dimesion above/beyond the countable number and just claim timeframes are caused by a super-time/meta time in which meta-critters like angels meta/supernatural jump around in the meta-/super-nature time dimension with God/s causing subsets called the universe.
That is what you try to sell to yourself to be satisfied.



" And time HAD  a beginning. It cannot have existed from eternity."
It would have existed just from the first time frame free hanging just as it is.
Like you basically want to do with the phrase of God "I Am what I am" in the bible.
The correct term of God must actually be "I Meta/supernatural am what I meta/supernatural am," because existence is a property of nature not any supernatural entity you claim for a god.
The bible authors were just not educated enough in this metaphysics as they made up the stuff because they thought at the time they created the bible texts they did not distinguish nature and or speculative meta natures -. that is why in the bible psalms thunder is the roar of the LORD and not electrical discharge and charge incl. air sound waves.
That is why you read in the bible from humans speaking about their made up deity "Iam what Iam" instead of a supernatural entity God would correctly state "i meta/super am what i meta/super am" in a differentiation of super nature and nature you try to sell as idea and fail.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:37 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

7Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty First conversation with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:56 am

Otangelo


Admin
First conversation with Aron Ra

Good evening Intelligent Design Academy, "What are the REAL mechanisms of biodiversity, replacing macroevolution?" Macroevolution is the observation that when 1 species like Equus split into 2 breeding variations like donkeys and horses they are unable to come forth anymore together with successful offspring. That is how speciation works. That is for example why humans and chimps are 2 species of apes while human sperm for example is still ape sperm here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/409311
"Based on evidence seen in biochemistry on a molecular level, we can now say affirmatively and conclusively, that Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection in regards of first degree speciation & macroevolutionary level has been falsified." You did not present a falsification of observations.
"The real mechanisms that explain biodiversity and complex organismal architecture is preprogrammed"
Nope the architecture itself evolves that is how for example swimming architecture is repurposed to gliding throught eh air architecture with the wallace flying frog for example here a photo:
https://www.ourbreathingplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Wallaces-Flying-Frog.jpg

"instructional complex INFORMATION encoded in various genetic and epigenetic languages and communication by various signalling codes through various signalling networks"

Which all evolved into different directions. Also the term Information is not a magic term for "goddidit" it is a symbol for molecular mechanism.
"That brings us to the origin by an intelligent designer."
Nope for 3 reasons: The mechanism you refer to are evolved & are still evolving.
2.) It debunks design which could be readable if it would be there (it is not that the mechanism show a design from zero they show the repurposement like human sperm to be ape sperm
3.) Where does a designer come from? A designer is always under the foot of interlocking of complexity processes not upfront of it.



"Pinpointing what REALLY defines body architecture,"
Yeah the repurposement of former ancestral form.

" the orchestration of organism development,"
From the ancestral form not from Zero as we would await it from design.

"cell shape and body form"
Which change by the network like scales to feathers here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Shapiro17/publication/323074117/figure/fig5/AS:592197460176897@1518202285602/Model-describing-link-between-Pitx1-and-Tbx5-expression-levels-and-foot-epidermal.png
OR swimming feet to gliding feet
or ape sperm to human attachment etc.

"and the mechanisms of adaptation and primary speciation, and exposing the correct explanation of biochemical mechanisms of biodiversity is the holy grail of biological sciences."
The mechanism itself are under natural selection they are not outside of it.

" Preprogrammed codified information"
Inherited codes by ancestry and interlocked codes into different directions. Not preprogrammed.

"and signalling replaces Darwin's theory and its various subsequent adaptations, extensions, and new proposals like the modern extended synthesis or the so-called " third way "."
There was never a third way and you did not replace anything in reality by believes in non existing preprogramming.

"The true mechanism is " Biochemical systems programming and signalling","
Is part of evolution synthesis and is selected with the whole organism as well.

"and special creation of species and/or kinds by an intelligent powerful creator."
Kinds do not exist. Species speciate as variations of former forms and there is no creator.

"Long periods of time and gradual, evolutionary development is not possible,"
The gradual development is the repeatable observation you have to adress.

" face the fact that cells and organisms work like gigantic interlocked machines"
By the interlocking of complexity mechanism you ignore they exist and get selected.

"and factory complexes, where in any case, if one tiny part is missing, nothing goes."
Like the wallace flying frog - when you just put out 1 single web the frog crashes and nothing goes in the gliding through the air system.This current fuctionality not to be reducible without crashing it does not say anything about the evolutionary repurposement of the former form for swimming selected to the gliding functionality.

"Natural selection would not select for components of a complex system"
Interlocking of complexity is a PREDICTION of evolution - System where you can't take parts out of the running system without crashing the system is also a prediction of evolution (Müller 1918).
That is why irreducible complex system where you can't take parts out of the system are EVOLVED from former forms by repurposement of ancestral structures.

" that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system."
No the systems must only be neutral enough not to be selected out. There exist no special demand or special pleading at all.

"No glycine amino acids, no pyrimidines, no DNA - no life."
And all those forms got selected in fat bubbles called cells to sustain.

Your argument is like no hand - no humans. When human hands evolved with human bodies from the ape form as breeding variation as a whole and not as Lego bricks to stick flying hands on a disfigured body.

"No Watson Crick base pair fine-tuning, no DNA - no life. No ribosomal mechanism for amino acid amide bondage, no proteins, no life."
That is how chemistry works. Your argument here is: No chemistry no life. ´Chemistry works as it does.

"No nitrogenase enzymes to fix nitrogen in an energy demanding, triple bond breaking process, no ammonia, required to make amino acids - no nitrogen cycle - no advanced life."
The origin of cell chemistry is not the topic neither.

"No chlorophylls, no absorption of light to start photosynthesis, no starch and glucose - cells will have no food supply to sustain complex organisms - no advanced life on earth."
And that only happens by symbiosis of early cyanobacteria in endosymbiosis.

"No rubisco, no fix of CO2, no hydrocarbons - no advanced life. No counterion in retinal, and rhodopsin could not receive visible light - and there would be no vision on earth by any organism."
Yeah and no Earth - no life neither and we are on Earth.



"1. The Gene regulation network orchestrates gene expression"
And there are different regulation networks evolved showing that common ancestry is readable true. The Darwinian evolution of such networks is a topic.
"2. Various signalling pathways generate Cell types and patterns"
And the diversification like fat cells to liver organs is in the exact order when common ancestry is true and how it is to be selected is also a topic in evolution in general.
"3. At least 23 Epigenetic Codes are multidimensional and perform various tasks essential to cell structure and development"

And it depends what lifeforms are selected by darwinian evolution how it structure is in use of the breeding subvariation of the former form - like the markers of the Grandfather.
"4. Cell-Cell communication in various forms, especially important for animal development"
Is part of cell colony evolution of choanozoa cells as ancestors of animal cells - we can even observe today with the sistergroup.

"5. Chromatin dance in the nucleus through extensile motors affect transcription and gene regulation"
And the evolution of the nucleus in cells is also a separate topic. Slower processes exist but they do not dominate the cell colonies/organism.

"6. Post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs) of histones affect gene transcription"
Not all genes and lifeforms have such system selected positively.

"7. The DNA methylation code is like a barcode or marker, the methyl group indicates, for instance, which genes in the DNA are to be turned on."
And they show which ancestral heritage is still just silences like some ape code in us. That is why common ancestry is readable true in this code as well.

"8. Homeobox and Hox genes determine the shape of the body."
That is why common ancestry is the observation.The fish to landform deformation.
"9. Noncoding DNA  ( Junk DNA ) is transcribed into functional non-coding RNA molecules and switches protein-coding genes on or off."
Not all noncoding DNA is used that way. This is a lie.
"10.  Transposons and Retrotransposons regulate genes"
And they work exactly in the way we can see when common ancestry is true. LOL
"11. Centrosomes play a central role in development"
True. And?

"12. The precise arrangement of Cytoskeletal arrays provides critical structural information."
So that a treecell is a plantcell variation. Shocking.
"13. Membrane targets provide crucial information—spatial coordinates—for embryological development."
Yeah or embryonal growth would have not been selected but simple mitosis and merging would around only.
"14. Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields influence the form of a developing organism"
This is how physics works in reality.
"15. The Sugar Code forms information-rich structures which influence the arrangement of different cell types during embryological development."
That is how sugarchemistry works.
"16. Egg-polarity genes encode macromolecules deposited in the egg to organize the axes"
Yeah that is why common ancestry is true and alternative polarities result in other bodyforms which are possible but selected out.

"17. Hormones  are special chemical messengers for development2"
Yeah and hormones can have different effects, depending on the evolutionary history of an organism how it got repurposed in one breeding subset from another subset and so on.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:43 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

8Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:56 am

Otangelo


Admin
The user Intelligent Design Academy has a very long list of mechanism about what is going on in some organism and because it is complicated like sugar chemistry it shall automatically mean in his personal opinion it shall be preprogrammed or programmed etc.
So it is the old long debunked "complexity alone shall mean design"-fallacy. Like always nothing new.
That all mechanism independently point to common ancestry like homeobox literally shows common ancestry to be true by how the hierachy is the exact tree of common descent - is not even adressed but ignored by default. Observations shall not be real - they should just look good complicated to confuse people with rhetorics.

In between is also the "It can't be reduced without crashing" therfor design fallacy as well. Evolution can of course interlock a system so that you can't take parts out of it without crashing the system - so can't you take the heart out of a dog without killing the dog - that makes the dog still evolved from a wolf ancestor in the long run.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:47 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

9Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:58 am

Otangelo


Admin
There is so much false about all of your claims. For example we do not talk about spontaneous biogenesis - so linking its probability is offtopic for interlocking of complexity in abiogenesis models. (Which have also nothing to do with evolution to begin with).
We also do not talk about spermatogenesis to be like it is today as it would have been stucked like LEGO bricks together - this is not how interlocking of complexity works there NEITHER.

Furthermore is DNA a sugar backbone acid here a photo: https://media.sciencephoto.com/image/g2100644/800wm/G2100644-Sample_of_purified_DNA_in_a_test_tube.jpg   This will not automatically change into something miraculous, just because you copy and paste "code" and "info" etc. as those terms would be magical. You just try to selfhypnotize yourself.

Quoting the discovery institute (evolution news) was also never an argument, neither quoting your own selfwritten nonsense which is 90% of using definitions without referring to observations.

A long list of distraction tries (quoting definitions as they would be arguments against observations does not work) nor is anything an actual argument against Common ancestry at all.

It is just more: "Look how complicated this process is today - look how complicated that process is today...lets ignore all ancestry repurposement and all mechanism whatsoever and pretend it is manufactured with quoting meaninglessly a random book collection like:

"Isaiah 40:28 The Lord is the everlasting God
Daniel 4:2-3 His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and his dominion is from generation to generation.
Exodus 3:14God’s existence is underived; no one made him. He simply always was. The Lord revealed himself to Moses as the “I AM THAT I AM”. The “I AM”"
instead of any other random pieces of paper like the Qur'an or Scientologies Dianetics.


There is also nothing true about those statements:
"1. If nothing ever existed, then there would still be nothing."
Nothing can't have existence as its trait.
"2. Since we exist, something has always existed."
Finite time is a possibility you deny for no reason.
"3. Since the universe had a beginning, it was caused into existence by something else. "
Why did the universe has a beginning?
"4. That cause must be either personal or non-personal."
Personality needs a brain as thinking organ it does not work magical like you wish.
"5. A non-personal cause would be of physical substance, and so subject to change and time."
Personal causes are always physical substances as well. Without a thinking organ exist no thinking.

" That cause would also need to have a beginning, and be caused by something else, leading to infinite regress which is impossible."
Since when are infinite regresses impossible?
"6. The best explanation as cause of the universe is a personal creator,"
No a creator is not possible by reality because magical thinking is not given.

" independent, immaterial existing"
selfhypnotizing with big words means nothing

" in an eternal timeless dimension,"
So it had no time = timelessness to think ever a single chain of thoughts and was never at any moment a thing aka did not exist.

" triggering the Big bang and creating the universe "
The big bang is not triggered and the universe is the embodiment of non-creation.



Another quote:
"How does that paper support any of your claims ?"
Observations are not your thing - We all know this already that you live in a bubble. Even imaging people talk to you which are not there. (Maybe halluzinations?)

That is why you Spam distraction tries in a gish gallop instead of actually adressing observations.
"First degree of speciation - Macro - Evolutionary claims are  pseudo scientific" Quotemining people and redefining speciation - does not change that it is the observation like that humans are right now in this moment an ape species.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:50 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

10Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:59 am

Otangelo


Admin
I do not think the user pretends - when he writes something like quote: "Aron, why are you blocking me, Otangelo Grass" the user fantasized/hallucinates people are there which are not there. That is why he thinks by quoting definitions or cell mechanism or confusing spontaneous generation/biogenesis with the topic of evolution or abiogenesis research - he would actually bring up arguments. The user just seems to have big problems - I mean BIG problems beyond scientific topics he clearly doesn't understand.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

11Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:59 am

Otangelo


Admin
Why do you link a paper supporting the position of protein selection which we can both agree on anyway, when my statement was to underline you confused spontaneous biogenesis (where you linked a long text about probabilities) with the foreign topic of interlocking of complexity mechanism in abiogenesis models??? Because you linked your name I saw you phonecalled here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vYXETmSv_w and here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_l8-JNGJ5s



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:51 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

12Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:59 am

Otangelo


Admin
I found a blog in which it is pointed out that you did not adress the points made here: https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/02/trying-to-educate-creationist-otangelo.html
What is however interesting what you wrote in the comment section:
"If God can create a universe, and life, its peanuts for him to make a snake and a donkey talk." February 08.2017
How does donkey vocal chords or snake ones work mechanically to talk like people? ;-)



It is always the same nonsense with creationists. Posting a long list of excuses, off topic definitions, distractions, ignoring observations etc.
To make themselves feel chosen or meaningful -

And then you shall swallow talking snakes and talking donkeys of course.
It is like talking so much nonsense at once that you shall think at the end of the day you are a camel and be happy with traveling on all fours through a desert. This is the level of insanity you deal with...

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

13Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:00 am

Otangelo


Admin
So many false claims again, " This is a baseless claim, which i refuted in our last debate." No it is not. And all you links are again either quotemines, obvious descriptions without adressing the results or false summaries

"the mind is not a brain" does not refer to how painkillers work, how amnesia works, how alzheimer works, how dementia in general works etc. And no - near death experiences - there are several ones like out of body to light at the end of the tunnel are also brain hallucinations you can train like with lucid dream training.


When you write something like: "Cognitive  faculties including consciousness"

There are different types of consciousness like sleep consciousness and being wake etc. referring to different brain modi, ", perception," needs sensory input organs. "thinking , judgment, and memory,  the faculty of a human being's reasoning  and thoughts," are all brain functions that is why it is also able to be damaged by amnesia etc.
" holding the power of imagination " yeah you fantasize about talking donkeys and snakes for example.
"recognition , and appreciation , and is responsible for processing feelings  and emotions , resulting in attitudes  and actions" are all different brain mechanism of different brain areas.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

14Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:00 am

Otangelo


Admin
I said: "Since when are infinite regresses impossible? /// "
"you don't know this ?? Philosophical reasons why the universe nor quantum effect potentials cannot be past eternal " This is not an answer. And linking a blog with an Zeno's paradox fallacy is not an argument.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

15Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:00 am

Otangelo


Admin
"How could a mind exist in a timeless dimension, and trigger a transition from timelessness to time?"   The whole text is a special pleading that magic should allow chains of thoughts aka thinking processes not to be processes or chains of thoughts - aka the square circle shall be done by buzzword: magic, god, info etc. and other emptied terms. simultaneously is also not timeless neither. There you try to redefine terms like you wanted to redefine the term complexity to goddidit. Another no argument for another topic.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:53 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

16Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:01 am

Otangelo


Admin
My post: "The big bang is not triggered and the universe is the embodiment of non-creation. /// "
"This is the epitome of irrational non-seguitur. " <- nope because you hate emotionally a statement does not make it less relevant.
"Absolutely nothing has no causal power." Absolute nothing is not a thing or state so you do not get what I wrote.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

17Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:01 am

Otangelo


Admin
Even imaging people talk to you which are not there. (Maybe halluzinations?) " Was referring to you imaging aron and other people in the comment section. So you seem to see people.

What does the term God even mean beside it is a buzzword you use? I mean God does not even have chains of thoughts as thinking processes - as we see how you desperately tried to redefine "timelessness" before and failed. Like you failed with trying to redefine complexity into "goddidit" and many other nonsense. Where are the snake vocal chords to talk like people? ;-)

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

18Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:01 am

Otangelo


Admin
"humans are right now in this moment an ape species. ////" <- this is telling what real life is.
" Maybe your parents are." We all are including you regardless of all emotions and feelings you ever had against those observartions. They are meaningless. :-)
" Mine are straight from Adam and Eve." Fictions do not exist. Like talking snakes and donkeys do not exist. Regardless of your statement like quote you 8th feburary 2017:
"If God can create a universe, and life, its peanuts for him to make a snake and a donkey talk."



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:54 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

19Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:02 am

Otangelo


Admin
What mechanism did in your narrative make the interlocking of complexity ?  ....RANDOM , UNGUIDED CHEMICAL REACTIONS. "   There are chemical laws you have to adress (how molecules work) which need to be learned before you bury you head in complicated papers - where you do not even understand why they break your ideological neck like the rare cases, where you actually linked articles like the one by Szostak not a blogpost written by yourself as you would be a chosen person instead of an uneducated layman. You for example cherry pick all the actual true restrictions about different topics like that abiogenesis is not evolution in the post and therfor biological evolution does not apply to chemical laws only - while you immediately forget it when you post it here below a topic of evolution fully on purpose, anyway and in the abiogenesis post you do not get why you can't just ignore basics in organic chemistry.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:56 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

20Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:02 am

Otangelo


Admin
"1. The universe popped into existence out of literally nothing"
Nonsense talk there was no literal nothing state - because the universe did not come from anywhere else (nothingness is not a prior state towards the universe)

" and with no cause and for no reason. Thats magic."
And not believed.



"2. Our universe is the result of a multiverse, which exists without beginning. We cannot reach the present moment from eternity. Thats magic"
Is the Arrow's / Zeno's paradox fallacy. And not believed, anyway.



"3. The fine-tuning of the parameters of the universe was done by a multiverse. That would require 10^1500 universes to get a life-permitting universe. Thats magic."
There is no fine tuning. The nonsense you claim is not believed. We are not in a living ocean universe with 100% of the space filled with a lifeform soup. Nor are we in a designed world with implemented moral laws like computer games in which you can't target towncitizens.



"4. The first self-replicating Cell  was formed by  random events."
Is also a strawman. The cells you refer to were ALREADY a subset of already existing coacervates-

" The odds to get a minimal set of 560 proteins, averaging 400 amino acids, but unguided events, is 10^378000. Thats magic."
You confuse unguided (actually guided by laws of physics and chemistry) with meaningless processes because they have no endgoal so that you are not a chosen one.

What you say: cells from literally thin air - is not believed.



"5. The genetic code was  formed by random-chance. Thats magic."
T-DNA is a subset of U-DNA so random chance is again confused by you with meaninglessness. And it is also not believed what you stated. Because the code is automatically another term for the acid characteristics.



"6. The gentic information stored in the first living cell emerged naturally. Thats magic."
All what exists is naturally. The opposite is magically/supernaturally. To make a statement like you did to say naturally shall be magic is like saying circles are squares.
None of this nonsense is believed.



"7. The translation system from digital genetic information to the analog amino acid alphabet emerged randomly. Thats magic."
The acids chain by magnetic + and - charges. The term "digital genetic info" is also not another term for something magical or "goddidit" like you wish it would be. (false idea what those terms contain by your side)

What does your claim 7. even mean? You are the one wanting terms like info to be magic and now, because it does not exist beyond observable + / - chaining aka observed electromagnetism etc. shall not be the observation.,..but magic?



"8. The assembly of raw products, molecules, molecular machines, production lines, and self replicating Cell factories occured gradually, randomly, over a long period of time. Thats magic.  "
The development of organelles is by symbiosis, endosymbiosis not random LEgo brick collection to manufacture a cell machine - that brick from zero idea would be indeed magic but it is another strawman like basically all points you mentioned so far.



"9. The over 20 epigenetic codes and signalling languages  required to produce biocomplexity and diversity emerged naturally. Thats magic.  "
As subvariation of ancestral forms not naturally from zero that is just the 9th strawman.



"10. Atoms, matter and ultimatively, brains, producing minds, consciousness, self awareness, thoughts, intelligence, sensations and free will:  two essentially different properties. Thats magic."
Brains are minds. That is why you see brains of others in skulls but not their minds floating around their bodies like spectres in horror movies. LOL



"11. Atoms, matter and ultimatively, brains, producing moral awareness, ought to be's. Thats magic."
You have no moral or you would not claim one strawman after another. Moral is a subset of metaethics and of course you need a brain to debate about moral like if you built a stoppsign to reduce traffic casualties as one moral decision. Without a brain you would not have any thought in your head about what a street even is.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:59 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

21Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:03 am

Otangelo


Admin
Ok. The universe had a beginning. What caused that beginning ?"
An embodiment of a beginning as very first not caused timeframe has no prior cause to it AT ALL. It is just the first time frame incarnate. WIthout any prior thing, event or state upfront of it. ;-)



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:00 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

22Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:03 am

Otangelo


Admin
"WOW !!!! I can't believe you wrote this crap !!! " My statement is untouched by  your ad hominem tries and additional strawmen firework.

"This issue is one of the foremost evidence that buries your worldview without God."
God is a meaningless "I wish magic is real" buzzword without any depth to it. You confuse any meaningfulness feelings you have inside of your aka feelings of sense in your personal life revolving around nonsense terms with an acurate description of reality.

That is why you rely on dozens of Strawmen.



"Matt Dillahunty did handwave  this evidence away."
He did not buy your "complexity = info = design" redefinition & misunderstanding of reality.
Look what you wrote again:
"Chance of random chemical reactions to setup amino-acid polypeptide chains to produce  functional proteins"  As it would be outside of lipid chemistry free flying asround and not under a chemical selection in lipid versicles upfront of cells. So that cells in your argument example shall already as cell complex pop into being like in a lego brick set - to debunk there another strawman.

Like you also tried to maintain the strawmen that cells with organelles shall already be there without adressing any observable endosymbiosis processes and so on and so on. That is not how any of the different processes work you do not even adress their very existence as processes.
People do not look at complexity just sitting there without researching to understand how it slowly accumulated and come up with strawmen.
We are not you thinking about 1 strawman after another.
We do not look at a dog and imagine: Oh look a dog heart is so complicated it clearly can't be taken out without crashing the dogs life system.
You must believe in magic to think a dog randomly puzzled a heart together.
Without ever adressing whythe dog is a wolf breeding variation in reality over generations, but rely on putting strawmen sand in the eyes of yourself and other people.
And then starting after being exposed all over with "oh look at a dog brain is so complicated it clearly can't be taken out without crahsing the dogs life system!"

You must believe in magic to think a dog randomly puzzled a brain organ together!
And then being exposed there you start again with the liver, the lung, the gut etc.
As you never learn it, because you don't want to learn it.
Like with polypeptide chains - they are not disconnected flying around without lipids.
Or your nonsense with gluconeogenesis and glycolysis at three steps but where you just had the order reversed being exposed in the blog post I linked.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:02 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

23Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:04 am

Otangelo


Admin
"wordsalad" no when something is just the very first timeframe incarnate it is just the uncaused first timeframe, where you can't squeeze anything upfront - no god/s, no nothingness state no coming into being upfront you wish deeply you could without violating it to be the very first timeframe.
It just stands there untouched by any of your fallacies as first timeframe without any "creation" be able to put artifically there upfront regardless how you jump around and pray it would left you sapce. This is how finite and untouched this is.  

This is however only in context of a finite world you can't seem to comprehend why it does not let you put your god ideas upfront. The other infinite chain, which is also not caused in the context is where you make the Zenos paradox/Arrow fallacy you neither comprehend.

Jumping around and saying: Finite shall not count for fallacious reasons, infinte shall also not count for other fallacious reasons and therfor my "magic man in the  imagined heaven dimension" shall count was never an argument.
It was a foreign body to artificially put into the debate.

And to do so you tried to redefine the terms finite and infinite like you tried to redefine complexity to "goddidit".
It is not my fault you can't sell them.



Furthermore I'm not "aron" stop hallucinating people which are not here into the conversation. I hope you also won't hear voices in your head, neither. I start to doubt it.



"Beside the fact that you made just a bold claim, without giving a shred of evidence how that is possible."
Magic man' s  magic with talking snakes and donkeys are not possible.



"You are basically claiming that the universe is self-create"
No the universe is the embodiment of NON-Creation - creation does not even as consistent idea exist without praying "please i want a magic man"



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:03 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

24Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:04 am

Otangelo


Admin
That is the calculation for a genomic living system (your old strawman) of spontaneous biogenesis WE DID NOT TALK about when debunking your proteins of cell shall be there from the start without any investigation strawman. (the topic)
Like I mentioned 10x by now. You are collecting hundreds of actual true statements of the same type of claims.
Example:

A dog heart is super complicated it can't fall from the sky at random/pop into being out of thin air...that would be magic.
or
Look how cell organelles are super complicated  they can't just fall from the sky at random/pop into being out of thin air...that would be magic.
or
Look at current TODAY's gluconeogenesis within an organism (like a human) is super complicated it can't just fall from the sky at random/pop into being out of thin air...that would be magic

and repeat this stick with hundreds upon hundreds of similar statements. It is always the same pattern - and then the same strawmanning.
As dogs would not be wolf variations.
As cells would not have symbiotic processes with other cells.
As gluconeogenesis in an organism would not be a result from the CO2 Glycolysis in outside of cell colony survival etc.


The problem about all of your doing: Not one of those statement is ontopic- they are not false in the sense that they don't mention fact - but they don't adress any of the mechanical processes behind them EVER - No one ever claimed TODAY's dog organs or any observations like gluconeogenesis   TODAY would as it is today pop out of thin air/from zero/falling from sky completely by happenstances etc. EVER.
So that you can try to imagine ARTIFICIALLY a magic man LEGO bricked it together in a puzzle manufacture work from Zero/thin air.
Like you try creation to squeeze artificially upfront a first uncaused timeframe in a finite model of reality.


Nothing of all of the hundred examples you give are even on topic of any process or mechanism how biochemistry works how + / - bounding and chaining is a basic physical observation. You could also ask: Why are magnets a thing? It would be as pointless as some of your other questions.
How polypetides work in lipids and not outside. And no that is also not how peptides are caught there this is neither spontaneous. How symbiosis works instead of separation.
You are basically a one trick pony of I throw so many red hering statements out which are separated from the topic true for themselves but never even adress anything about processes.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:05 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

25Debate with  Aron Ra  Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:04 am

Otangelo


Admin
"What you have to substantiate, is, how absolutely nothing has causal powers. " Sooo the term God is just another term of causality by your own definition. Like pantheists define God as "nature". Granted. When causality is God God exists. Then it is not a magic man making talking snakes and donkeys.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum