Atheist evolutionary scientist convinced by the evidence

[zolace]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

You are wrong about 3.   Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution.   This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator".   It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever.    ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator.  There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists.  There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient.

By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient.  He didn't learn anything new.

Ok, there is a difference between these two statements, correct?

3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

VS

Scientific research shows that there is a Creator God.

[zolace]

Frank has drawn a CONCLUSION, but has not presented any sound reasoning for drawing such a conclusion.

He is no different that you, who simply wishes to believe in a "creator" when there is  no evidence supporting his/your wishful thinking.

It the 800 pound gorilla in the room that you refuse to acknowledge....

Even if we all agree that he has not presented any such sound reasoning for drawing such a conclusion - you are agreeing then with statement #3.
3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.
And if someone says he sees no evidence for something, and has his hands over his eyes, should I care?

[sana8410]

Frank has drawn a CONCLUSION, but has not presented any sound reasoning for drawing such a conclusion.

He is no different that you, who simply wishes to believe in a "creator" when there is  no evidence supporting his/your wishful thinking.

It the 800 pound gorilla in the room that you refuse to acknowledge....

Even if we all agree that he has not presented any such sound reasoning for drawing such a conclusion - you are agreeing then with statement #3.
3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.
And if someone says he sees no evidence for something, and has his hands over his eyes, should I care?

Yes-
Refusing to acknowledge evidence should be a cause for concern, but that's beside the point.

In this case the point that has been made is there is no evidence. Admitting there is no evidence to see is not willful blindness.

[Rigon]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

You are wrong about 3.   Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution.   This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator".   It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever.    ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator.  There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists.  There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient.

By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient.  He didn't learn anything new.

Ok, there is a difference between these two statements, correct?

3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

VS

Scientific research shows that there is a Creator God.

No not really.  Only that in the first one he would have to be lying.  There is nothing in his research that provides evidence of god.  By saying his research has shown him god he is either delusional or dishonest or he merely hasn't presented the evidence of god form his research yet.  So he didn't in fact come to see there is a god through his research.   He came to BELIEVE there is a god like many before him who cannot understand something complicated and therefore attribute it to God.

[Rigon]

Frank has drawn a CONCLUSION, but has not presented any sound reasoning for drawing such a conclusion.

He is no different that you, who simply wishes to believe in a "creator" when there is  no evidence supporting his/your wishful thinking.

It the 800 pound gorilla in the room that you refuse to acknowledge....

Even if we all agree that he has not presented any such sound reasoning for drawing such a conclusion - you are agreeing then with statement #3.
3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.
And if someone says he sees no evidence for something, and has his hands over his eyes, should I care?

What evidence do you refer to you above zolace? When are you ever going to present any evidence of God you repeatedly suggest exists?  What was the evidence of god in this guy's studies and why didn't he present it?

[umair127]

Frank has drawn a CONCLUSION, but has not presented any sound reasoning for drawing such a conclusion.

He is no different that you, who simply wishes to believe in a "creator" when there is  no evidence supporting his/your wishful thinking.

It the 800 pound gorilla in the room that you refuse to acknowledge....

Even if we all agree that he has not presented any such sound reasoning for drawing such a conclusion - you are agreeing then with statement #3.
3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.
And if someone says he sees no evidence for something, and has his hands over his eyes, should I care?

Saying that something is just too complex or too amazing for evolution to be the answer IS NOT NOW and HAS NEVER BEEN evidence of a creator or creationism.  Do you know what it is evidence for?   Human ignorance as to how things work. 

[zolace]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

You are wrong about 3.   Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution.   This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator".   It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever.    ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator.  There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists.  There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient.

By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient.  He didn't learn anything new.

Ok, there is a difference between these two statements, correct?

3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

VS

Scientific research shows that there is a Creator God.

No not really.  Only that in the first one he would have to be lying.  There is nothing in his research that provides evidence of god.  By saying his research has shown him god he is either delusional or dishonest or he merely hasn't presented the evidence of god form his research yet.  So he didn't in fact come to see there is a god through his research.   He came to BELIEVE there is a god like many before him who cannot understand something complicated and therefore attribute it to God.

Or he sees something you (for various reasons) have not.But, regardless - its a fact that he notes this.  Are you saying he does not note this?

[umair127]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

You are wrong about 3.   Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution.   This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator".   It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever.    ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator.  There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists.  There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient.

By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient.  He didn't learn anything new.

Ok, there is a difference between these two statements, correct?

3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

VS

Scientific research shows that there is a Creator God.

No not really.  Only that in the first one he would have to be lying.  There is nothing in his research that provides evidence of god.  By saying his research has shown him god he is either delusional or dishonest or he merely hasn't presented the evidence of god form his research yet.  So he didn't in fact come to see there is a god through his research.   He came to BELIEVE there is a god like many before him who cannot understand something complicated and therefore attribute it to God.

Or he sees something you (for various reasons) have not.But, regardless - its a fact that he notes this.  Are you saying he does not note this?

He claimed, through his research, he saw there is a god.   This is a lie.  There is nothing in the research that says there is a god.  Don't you think ICR would have asked him how he came to see there is a god?  Why would he not present the evidence of god if he sees it in his research?

He would have been correct to say that he feels that what he sees is too complicated to have evolved and therefore chooses to believe in a creator, (for which there is far less evidence.)

[RodeoX]

I wonder what our believers would say if he claimed he saw god in his research and it was Ahura Mazda, the god of Zoroastrianism. Many doctors around the world believe in Hindu gods, are they wrong? And what about the overwhelming majority that see no evidence whatsoever of a god? Why is this one guy right?

[umair127]

Zolace says maybe he sees things that no one else sees or that he wont tell us.  That could be it though Zolace, he may see evidence of god and he just doesn't want to tell anyone about it or show them.
 
Even if there were any valid evidence against evolution, it has never been, and never will be, evidence for a Creator.  All he has done is to say he feels something is too complicated to have evolved.  This argument has failed numerous times before has it not??

[noviapriani]

If he "saw" something during his "research", then he should be able to follow the Scienefitc Method and demonstrate the data using such means.

Where is it?  If it's there, I would like to see it as well!  I have an open mind. If there is proof positive for your "creator", I want to see it.

[noviapriani]

It's been a couple of years since I've stated my position.

For the record....

I have no problem beleiving in something that is currently beyond my education when it come to a "god-like force" in the universe.

I have a big problem with religious/ superstious idiots who believe thier religious bullshit supercedes empiricle science.

[Wilikon]

Why is there a need for life to evolve? Is gravity the force that pushes the rock up that hill? The petabyte of data explore the how. If you knew why life evolve you could be able to stop it too. As far as I know that is impossible. Life ALWAYS finds a way . But why the need to find a way?

[zolace]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

You are wrong about 3.   Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution.   This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator".   It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever.    ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator.  There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists.  There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient.

By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient.  He didn't learn anything new.

Ok, there is a difference between these two statements, correct?

3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

VS

Scientific research shows that there is a Creator God.

No not really.  Only that in the first one he would have to be lying.  There is nothing in his research that provides evidence of god.  By saying his research has shown him god he is either delusional or dishonest or he merely hasn't presented the evidence of god form his research yet.  So he didn't in fact come to see there is a god through his research.   He came to BELIEVE there is a god like many before him who cannot understand something complicated and therefore attribute it to God.

Or he sees something you (for various reasons) have not.But, regardless - its a fact that he notes this.  Are you saying he does not note this?

He claimed, through his research, he saw there is a god.   This is a lie.  There is nothing in the research that says there is a god.  Don't you think ICR would have asked him how he came to see there is a god?  Why would he not present the evidence of god if he sees it in his research?

He would have been correct to say that he feels that what he sees is too complicated to have evolved and therefore chooses to believe in a creator, (for which there is far less evidence.)

For someone determined to live like an atheist, sure.  Nothing, but nothing, will count as evidence for the Creator.  Romans chapter 1.

[BombaUcigasa]

I wonder what our believers would say if he claimed he saw god in his research and it was Ahura Mazda, the god of Zoroastrianism. Many doctors around the world believe in Hindu gods, are they wrong? And what about the overwhelming majority that see no evidence whatsoever of a god? Why is this one guy right?

He's not, he's just retarded:

Simple bacteria can divide each 20 minutes and have some 2000 different proteins each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains of say 200 amino acids. To be evolved via beneficial variants by single nucleotide mutations it should take, not 3 x 10^9 years (the expected time life existed on Earth) but some 10^50 years. There is simply not enough time (Vyskočil 2011).

I bet he thinks that 9 women can deliver a baby in a month. Maybe there existed 10^41 bacteria in the past, did he think about that?

Another retarded argument from the stupidity website:

Scientists now know that unrepaired single nucleotide mutations (STMs) are far too rare to serve as a major mechanism for evolution and most are deleterious or near neutral anyway.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3639319/
The major replicative DNA polymerases have evolved mechanisms to strongly favor correct over incorrect dNTP incorporation. In addition, several DNA polymerases contain an associated 3′→5′ exonuclease activity that can excise incorrect bases from the growing DNA chain, allowing another attempt at correct synthesis. In the event that the polymerase makes an error that escapes this proofreading activity, post-replication DNA mismatch repair monitors the DNA for errors, excises the error in the newly synthesized strand and then re-synthesizes DNA. In total, these three discrimination steps result in an in vivo mutation rate estimated to be lower than 1 ×10^−9, i.e., less than one error for every billion (or more) bases pairs copied .

The human genome has 3 billion base pairs. That means on average 2-3 translation error during cell division that are undetected and functional. This is the highest fidelity genetic process in the body. Normal DNA strands are then acted upon by lots of mutagens including... WATER, this happens about once per second in each of our cells (most of which are repaired unless they create valid encoding patterns).

To start with an obvious lie, then admit that you don't understand simple mathematics, does not constitute proof of aliens creating and colonizing the earth!

[RodeoX]

Why is there a need for life to evolve? Is gravity the force that pushes the rock up that hill? The petabyte of data explore the how. If you knew why life evolve you could be able to stop it too. As far as I know that is impossible. Life ALWAYS finds a way . But why the need to find a way?

That is a central question! We know that life is some kind of a chemical/physical reaction that keeps itself going. But why? The most common interpretation is that once such a reaction happens by chance it is hard to stop. That could be right, but we really don't know because we really don't know what life is. It could be a normal outcome of the interaction of matter and energy. It could be a quantum phenomena that spans several dimensions. Perhaps we can't understand it because we can't see what is going on in those other dimensions?

Why indeed.  

[BombaUcigasa]

Why is there a need for life to evolve? Is gravity the force that pushes the rock up that hill? The petabyte of data explore the how. If you knew why life evolve you could be able to stop it too. As far as I know that is impossible. Life ALWAYS finds a way . But why the need to find a way?

That is a central question! We know that life is some kind of a chemical/physical reaction that keeps itself going. But why? The most common interpretation is that once such a reaction happens by chance it is hard to stop. That could be right, but we really don't know because we really don't know what life is. It could be a normal outcome of the interaction of matter and energy. It could be a quantum phenomena that spans several dimensions. Perhaps we can't understand it because we can't see what is going on in those other dimensions?

Why indeed.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_Universe

[RodeoX]

Why is there a need for life to evolve?...

That is a central question! ...

Why indeed.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_Universe

I am familiar with that and I do think it is important. I'm an evolutionary biologist.  

But I most interested in what is not known. That intersection of physics and biology is so fascinating.  My physicist friends all talk of "unifying" the small and large scale theories. For me you do not have a unified theory until you can explain the living state of matter. (or energy?).

My current pet theory rests in the work of steuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. They looked at quantum effects in the cytoskeleton of living cells. this has led to a slew of observations of quantum weirdness in living things, such as the discovery of ordered water in plants. It is not known what it means or if they are on to something, but it could lead to better questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

[Gimpeline]

The article sounds just wierd.
A scientist sees something in the microscope and instead of finding out what it really is he starts to beleave in ghost and goblins..
"blind chanse"? I have a hard time to beleave that this is a real article since he clearly dont know what evolution is

[umair127]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

You are wrong about 3.   Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution.   This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator".   It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever.    ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator.  There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists.  There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient.

By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient.  He didn't learn anything new.

Ok, there is a difference between these two statements, correct?

3.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

VS

Scientific research shows that there is a Creator God.

No not really.  Only that in the first one he would have to be lying.  There is nothing in his research that provides evidence of god.  By saying his research has shown him god he is either delusional or dishonest or he merely hasn't presented the evidence of god form his research yet.  So he didn't in fact come to see there is a god through his research.   He came to BELIEVE there is a god like many before him who cannot understand something complicated and therefore attribute it to God.

Or he sees something you (for various reasons) have not.But, regardless - its a fact that he notes this.  Are you saying he does not note this?

He claimed, through his research, he saw there is a god.   This is a lie.  There is nothing in the research that says there is a god.  Don't you think ICR would have asked him how he came to see there is a god?  Why would he not present the evidence of god if he sees it in his research?

He would have been correct to say that he feels that what he sees is too complicated to have evolved and therefore chooses to believe in a creator, (for which there is far less evidence.)

For someone determined to live like an atheist, sure.  Nothing, but nothing, will count as evidence for the Creator.  Romans chapter 1.

If I were to post ad nauseum/daily basis.... " The FSM is real! It answers my prayers! I talk to it, and it answers me! I'm going to FSM heaven because I place my total faith in it!"

Would it be out-of-line for someone outside the loop to reasonably and respectfully ask, "Where the proof this FSM exists?