bboyNeko is one of the pioneers of the online breaking community... sort of. Anyway, abandoning his cyber-niche as a breakdance tutorial writer, he has started an online journal in which he writes random thoughts. On one occasion, he "debated" a Christian girl on the issue of baby-killing in 1 Samuel 15. BboyNeko, unleashing some poignant ethos, claimed himself victor. Today he posted an anti-creationist graphic that prompted a response by myself over AIM. I had the privilege of debating him on the topics of evolution and 1 Samuel 15. Enjoy.

Conversation saved by r4zz3ndahcub3n on 11/27/03 4:46:38 PM. Format edited to increase coherency. Commentary in red by r4zz3nd4hcub3n.

r4zz3nd4hcub3n: do you know a lot about creation and evolution?

BboyNeko: i guess. why

ok, this one i dont get, what do you say to a creationist when they make the statement information cannot originate in matter. like new information cannot randomly appear in the genome through any natural process

ask them how did god happen. that'll shut them up. because then they either have to say: god has always been [...] or they have to say, god just happened. then you can say, ok then intelligent life dosent need a creator, since god dosent need a creator.

Placing God, a spirit being (John 4:24), on the same plane as genetic information, which exists in the form of chemicals---DNA, is absurd. Also, the debate is not over the creation of intelligent life, but the generation of new genetic information in a genome.

yeah, but that doesn't explain our problem with evolution :-\

there is no rpoblem with it. again, how did god get here

Again, how is that relevant to the fact that information cannot spontaneously appear?

ok but since we know that god doesnt exist why do we care about stumping them with the origins of God. we still need to explain the impossibility of new information in the genome

A wonderful way to show an atheist that their arguments do not stand up without using the God-hypothesis as a crutch is to ask them to explain their reasoning in the absence of a God. One would think that an atheist would do this anyway, since they are atheists, but it becomes clear that atheists rely more on attacking something they don't believe in rather than supporting what they do believe in.

no. if we have to explain it they have to also. because where did god come from

Point from my previous comment proven. BboyNeko relies on the existence of something he doesn't even believe in to make an argument.

true. but then we are just playing a little game that has nothing to do with science

no. they are saying: your theory of evolution is invalid because of the so-called impossiblity of new information. then you can say, so is yours, based on the so-called impossibility of new information, which is junk science anyway

BboyNeko continues the game---he cannot support his claims on his own ground. But ignoring the game he plays, God is not "new information." BboyNeko is setting up a straw man argument.

"ok then intelligent life dosent need a creator, since god dosent need a creator." thats just philosophy. i need some science to back up evolution. ok, then lets assume creationists do not exist. how do we explain to ourselves the problem of information theory

evolution has plenty of science. look at dogs.

you mean the different kinds of dogs?

yes look at how we have all these breeds from one animal---a wolf. also, the thing about no new information being introduced is a common creationist phalacy. http://www.pcts.org/journal/young2002a.html. go there. check out the info.

BboyNeko affirms that he is only referring to different kinds of dogs. He probably has no idea that Genesis 1:24 says, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." His argument supports the creation speciation model, not evolution.

At the web site, physicist Matt Young simply debunks out-dated analogies and arguments, such as the Boeing 747 and entropy argument. This is just fine because knowledgable creationists do not use those arguments, anyway. Also, Dr. Young gives an example of natural selection to prove... survival of the fittest. (For those who read the example, the coin machines can reproduce all they want but they will still only be coin machines, regardless of how fit they are.)

interesting... from one animal, the wolf. you just shot yourself in the foot. dont ever use that on a creationist. because its been proven that breeds do not have new genetic information. they are merely variations in the genome

not only that. humans are badly designed. our spines arent meant for bipedal locomotion

yeah i hate that one too

we have a quadraped spine. there is no good evidence of intelligent design. all the evidence points to random factors

No, humans do not have a quadruped spine. It is a myth spread by evolutionists. For an excellent response to the spine argument, read the AiG article "Standing Upright for Creation".

prehominid evolution has recently been proven false :-\. because it is a complete waste of energy to walk with the spine bent. our spines are very energy efficient. (at least that is what i read in science journals)

From the current issue of Creation magazine. I will get the exact reference ASAP.

anyway you arent a evolitonist. your a creationist. your bias is toward cretaionist. your repeating junk science from creationist websites

nah, i like to look at both sides. and play devil's advocate, you know?

yes but the arguments you use are junk science and cant be used

can't i play devil's advocate? what if i was really a creationist? how is a statement like "your repeating junk science from creationist websites" disproving anything i just wrote? anyway, sorry to bother you. i will research more, maybe i can find some scientific evidence somewhere

even if it was ever proven that life was created by a pre-existing self-awar super being of some sort, we dont know which one. maybe it was buddah. maybe it was satan. it wouldnt do much good. and it wouldnt answer. where life came from, because you then say: life was created by life. and we still dont know its ultimate origin if there is none

Realzing he is losing the battle of science, BboyNeko falls back on safe ground, resorting to more philosophical nonsense that relies on the existence of God. His poor debating skills aside, Satan and Buddha are two of the worst candidates for possible creators of the universe. The Bible clearly says that God created everything, which would include angels, therefore God created Satan (Colossians 1:16). The Bible gives no indication that Satan created anything. Buddha was a person, not a God, and lived around 500 BC, therefore he did not create anything.

buddha was a person not a god?

you get my point. saying life created life dosent solve anything. and saying life is so complex it must have been created by even more complex life puts us in a deeper hole than where we started

Talk about desperate. Trust me, this is atheistic logic at its worst. First he argues from the perspective that God exists, now he claims that the idea of a God creating life "doesn't solve anything." Vague, confusing, and weak all at once.

life creating itself is even harder to explain, i hope we find something soon

*shrugs* i see randomness. everywhere.

Everywhere I look I see art, order, and design. The universe we live in is extremely ordered, right down to elements that compose everything. I see purpose everywhere in nature. Scientists never discover something only to state, "this has no purpose."

no special protection granted to any person, no matter how much 'good' or 'bad' they do.

How would BboyNeko know if he is an atheist? As I will discuss later, atheists are incredibly simplistic in their expectations of what their idea of a god should do.

survival of the fittest. bi-pedal self-aware humans with devolving wisdom teeth, apendexes and tails. no evidence of a divine hand anywhere

Survival of the fittest is not random, nor does it disprove God in any way. Concerning wisdom teeth, BboyNeko unwittingly hurts Darwinism by correctly stating that wisdom teeth are devolving and not evolving. For a comprehensive analysis of wisdom teeth and devolution, read AiG's "Are Wisdom Teeth Vestiges of Human Evolution?" The Appendix, the staple "vestigial" organ in any evolutionist's toolbox, is used by the lymphatic system. And, finally, when evolutionist's continue, even today, to believe that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny ("human's have tails!"), I have to laugh. Ernst Haeckal's woodcuts were proven as frauds just months after publishing, over 100 years ago.

well look at say the biblegod, he claims omniscient and to the beginning and end, as in he is not bound by time, which is finite, whereas god is infinite, so we are in essence trying to contain a god through our logic that cannot be contained. what i think we should do is ignore creationists and just focus on finding an answer to evolution's serious probelms

well the god of the bible also ordered the slaughter of babies and pregnant women. in 1 samuel chapter 15. i dont think the bible is the best scientific source of information regarding a possible super-being that created all life

BboyNeko, intimidated by the truth of God's nature (since it effectively ruins the recurring argument he dwells on), completely changes the subject. Now he claims that because God ordered the slaughter of babies, the Bible cannot be trusted for scientific truth. Not a very clever escape, to say the least.

yeah. but that still doesnt solve our problem

and it says a donkey talked. and a snake talked. you just used the bible to define god. when the bible isnt a good source

How sad is this: I typed in "bible donkey talked" at Google and BboyNeko's web journal came up within the first ten matches. (He had mentioned the talking donkey only a month ago.) Apparently BboyNeko is one of the very few people in cyber-space that cares about the talking donkey.

A talking snake and donkey seem absurd when taken out of context. But the snake was Satan, as anyone would guess. God commanded the donkey's mouth open: "And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times" (Numbers 22:28)? Personally, I enjoy passages like Numbers 22:28 because they require faith.

The Bible is the source of our knowledge of God, because it is God's written word. Where on earth does BboyNeko think we are supposed to get our definition of God?

and it also says in 1 kings that pi = 3.00

I wrote this simply to remind BboyNeko that I have a critical mind, also. But, unlike BboyNeko, I actually do research instead of accepting supposed fallacies at face value. In the original Hebrew of 1 Kings 7:23, this word "line" (used to described the circumference of a bowl) included the appropriate digits to receive 3.1425 after proper calculations.

the best source is god himself. if he or she exists. and he or she hasnt said a peep to anyone. we have to tske the word of so-called holy books for it that he ever talked to people

Why do atheists expect God to suddenly appear in full splendor, igniting volcanoes and hurling lightning bolts, screaming "I AM GOD" in order to prove His own existence? Faith and free will is then meaningless. Atheism undoubtedly represents the apogee of intellectual laziness.

well, except prayer. and the apostles and prophets. something like that

God reveals himself through general revelation (creation) and special revelation (His word), which is very obvious except to stubborn God-haters.

so because you have a scientific fact mixed in with attrocities all of a sudden the entire book is truth? i can say 1+1= 2 and then say killing babies is ok. and because 1+1 =2 is true then killing babies is ok

I'm not sure what scientific fact he refers to at this point, but at least BboyNeko admits that the Bible contains scientific truth. His analogy is terrible---mathematics and morality are completely unrelated.

well not to be like the christian apologist but it is sort of silly when we take their bible out of context. because we all know that god didn't randomly kill the babies. they were enemies of Israel

do we? babies were? how do we know, the bible says god made the order and was very strict about that order---that babies in specific were killed. why is that not true but everything else true. we can only take the good things and ignore the bad

BboyNeko proves that he has done no research into 1 Samuel 15. Yes, we do know that God did not randomly kill babies. He ordered the utter destruction of the Amalekite tribe as a result of their offense against Israel (Exodus 17:8). The Abrahamic Covenant says, "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you" (Genesis 11:3). ("You" refers not only to Abraham but his descendants, since in the previous verse it is written, "I will make you a great nation," and obviously a great nation is not going to consist of only one individual.) Therefore, God was severe in dealing with those who harm Israel.

actually babies go to heaven (according to christians) so they "suffered" a better fate than the adults who blatantly hated israel. otherwise they would have grown into people who hated israel, and the fighting would have continued

Babies do go to Heaven, according to the Bible. James 4:17 states, "To one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin." Babies cannot sin because they do not know right from wrong. Also, in 2 Sam. 12:23, David says that he will one day see his dead baby in Heaven.

so by that logic i should go to a satan worshiping family and kill their babies, since they fare better in heaven than being raised by satanists

no satan worshipping families can be converted

Unlike enemies of Israel, Satanists are not subject to God's wrath through a special promise. The Amalekites were dealt with swiftly and harshly. The New Testament approach to nonbelievers is radically different from that of the Old Testament. In the NT, God says that he wishes none should perish (2 Peter 3:9). Also, Christians are told to preach the Gospel to everyone (Matthew 28:19).

its amazing the apologetic lenghts christians go to defend baby killing

in OT God gave people one chance, he said, "dont @#$% with Israel"

one of the most deplorable acts of evil that can be done on humanity. all of a sudden its good because god did it. babies dont have a chance

yeah. i guess i view it more as an issue of "those who curse israel get cursed and those who bless israel get blessed." its certainly interesting, the whole matter. kind of like potassium argon dating. but thats in the realm of science so we will stay away

At this point BboyNeko did not respond, probably intimidated by the mention of science. He did add a very select portion of this debate, concerning 1 Samuel 15, to his web journal, probably confident that his ignorance and appeal to emotion crowned him winner.

---r4zz3nd4hcub3n 11/29/03