Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[thomas t]

I see you're still using blatant double standards. I could just list all the nasty, horrible, and ugly things in life and say they're evidence for an evil, or at least a capricious god.

then go ahead. Maybe there are two of them?

Of course it would be just a vacuous as your claims because none of the 'supernatural' stories make any predictions we can test and so are nothing but unfalsifiable just-so stories.

prediction 1: at least half of humanity finds certain landscapes that do not represent a good habitat... beautiful.
prediction 2: when people go out into nature, anywhere, and are asked to describe the scent after rain... at least half of them will say it smells gorgeous. (I suppose some of them will say neutral, so as a tendency people will evaluate it positively).

Exactly on the intellectual level of "Thor getting angry" was an explanation for thunder before we understood the actual, physical explanation.

there is a difference: you can observe thunder, I mean the lightning causing it. You can observe when lightning occurs. Hence the purely naturalistic explanation.
This does not work for the perception of beauty, I mean if you want to stay below the number of 4 for the assumptions needed for explaining this using evolution as a reference.

So, no double standard here.

 

[1213]

How do you treat the Bible? The obvious one if you read it at all literally is that there never was a worldwide flood. Or do you believe in a lying god?

God is not a liar. I believe there was the great flood as the Bible tells, because world is full of evidence for that.

1. Modern continents, the result of the great flood.
2. Oil and gas fields, the result of vast amount of drowned organic material.
3. Orogenic mountains, the result of collapsed continent and flooding water.
4. Marine fossils on high mountain areas, result of flood.
5. Great glaciers, result of flood and its cooling effect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

then go ahead. Maybe there are two of them?

prediction 1: at least half of humanity finds certain landscapes that do not represent a good habitat... beautiful.
prediction 2: when people go out into nature, anywhere, and are asked to describe the scent after rain... at least half of them will say it smells gorgeous. (I suppose some of them will say neutral, so as a tendency people will evaluate it positively).

there is a difference: you can observe thunder, I mean the lightning causing it. You can observe when lightning occurs. Hence the purely naturalistic explanation.
This does not work for the perception of beauty, I mean if you want to stay below the number of 4 for the assumptions needed for explaining this using evolution as a reference.

So, no double standard here.

The number of assumptions does not matter as much as how extreme some assumptions are. Your assumptions are far more extreme. Not only that you number of four for evolution appears to be exaggerated.

And last your test is crap because it cannot falsify your beliefs. A "test" that equally supports multiple beliefs is as worthless as internet "IQ tests".

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is not a liar. I believe there was the great flood as the Bible tells, because world is full of evidence for that.

1. Modern continents, the result of the great flood.
2. Oil and gas fields, the result of vast amount of drowned organic material.
3. Orogenic mountains, the result of collapsed continent and flooding water.
4. Marine fossils on high mountain areas, result of flood.
5. Great glaciers, result of flood and its cooling effect.

I am sorry, you cannot have it both ways. Either God is a liar or there was no flood.

None of your wild claims are supported by evidence at all. We know how the modern continents formed. You unfortunately want to cook Noah and family countless time over.

 

[Skywalker]

You need to study cladistics.

Macroevolution could never exist without there being changes beyond species, The fist DNA that existed would be like bacteria. It would be a different kingdom and domain than humans. Examples of Macroevolution Across Time and Species

 

[Subduction Zone]

Macroevolution could never exist without there being changes beyond species, The fist DNA that existed would be like bacteria. It would be a different kingdom and domain than humans. Examples of Macroevolution Across Time and Species

Incorrect. Do you think that bacteria have not evolved? Bacteria are very complex, they have had billions of years of evolution. Modern bacteria would bear very little semblance to the original single celled organisms.

 

[Skywalker]

Incorrect. Do you think that bacteria have not evolved? Bacteria are very complex, they have had billions of years of evolution. Modern bacteria would bear very little semblance to the original single celled organisms.

But they are still members of the same kingdom and domain, which is bacteria.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But they are still members of the same kingdom and domain, which is bacteria.

No, the base of evolutionary life is very complex. Kingdoms arose later:

There is a process called "horizontal gene transfer". It is almost always limited to unicellular life. It is a process that we can still see today where genes from one organism can be swapped with genes from another. It makes for a base of the tree that looks more like a bush.

 

[Skywalker]

No, the base of evolutionary life is very complex. Kingdoms arose later:

There is a process called "horizontal gene transfer". It is almost always limited to unicellular life. It is a process that we can still see today where genes from one organism can be swapped with genes from another. It makes for a base of the tree that looks more like a bush.

How can there be intermediates without changes of kinds? There had to be changes from ancestral community or primitive cells, to protists. Gene swapping doesn't make changes of kinds possible. Unicellular life swapping genes doesn't make its descendants have more cells or become different types of organisms, whether in sexual or asexual reproduction. Horizontal gene transfer is different from changes of kingdoms or domains or phylum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can there be intermediates without changes of kinds? There had to be changes from ancestral community or primitive cells, to protists. Gene swapping doesn't make changes of kinds possible. Unicellular life swapping genes doesn't make its descendants have more cells or become different types of organisms, whether in sexual or asexual reproduction. Horizontal gene transfer is different from changes of kingdoms or domains or phylum.

Because "change of kinds" is a nonsense phrase. There is no change of kind in evolution. You are still an ape, you are still a primate, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod. The list goes on. There are only developments of new traits.

"Kind" is a failed creationist classification. Creationists do not have a functional definition of "kind".

 

[Skywalker]

Because "change of kinds" is a nonsense phrase. There is no change of kind in evolution. You are still an ape, you are still a primate, you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod. The list goes on. There are only developments of new traits.

"Kind" is a failed creationist classification. Creationists do not have a functional definition of "kind".

Changes of kinds would need to happen for development of new traits to become different types of organisms. Kinds are different species, kingdoms, domains. How did tetrapods develop into mammals? Even if they didn't, primordial soup would have taken different paths to become tetrapods and mammals. How is that possible? Development of new traits would have to, in one way or another, lead to changes of kinds.

Kinds are any type of difference that is so different that anyone would say its a different type of being.

 

[Skywalker]

And you still haven't explained what stops the process at the transition level. You just keep reciting the same catechism.

The transition level doesn't involve kingdoms, domains, classes, phyla. order, and family.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Changes of kinds would need to happen for development of new traits to become different types of organisms. Kinds are different species, kingdoms, domains. How did tetrapods develop into mammals? Even if they didn't, primordial soup would have taken different paths to become tetrapods and mammals. How is that possible? Development of new traits would have to, in one way or another, lead to changes of kinds.

Kinds are any type of difference that is so different that anyone would say its a different type of being.

Sorry, you need to define your terminology properly. "A change of kinds" is just a a nonsense phrase. It has no meaning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The transition level doesn't involve kingdoms, domains, classes, phyla. order, and family.

The problem with those terms are that they are only human made place markers.

 

[Skywalker]

Sorry, you need to define your terminology properly. "A change of kinds" is just a a nonsense phrase. It has no meaning.

It means changes above the species level. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World | Learn Science at Scitable

I can give the benefit of the doubt to macro evolution occurring at the species level.

Macro evolution does involve a change of kinds, though. Even people who believe in evolution say it. Macroevolution

Occurs at the level of the species or above. Such changes often span long periods of time (but can also happen rapidly). Examples of macroevolution include: the origin of eukaryotic life forms; the origin of humans; the origin of eukaryotic cells; and extinction of the dinosaurs.

 

[Skywalker]

Sorry, you need to define your terminology properly. "A change of kinds" is just a a nonsense phrase. It has no meaning.

Bacteria becoming archae and Eukarya is a change of kinds.

 

[Skywalker]

The problem with those terms are that they are only human made place markers.

Kingdoms have an absolute definition. Humans and plants are different kingdoms of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It means changes above the species level. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World | Learn Science at Scitable

I can give the benefit of the doubt to macro evolution occurring at the species level.

Macro evolution does involve a change of kinds, though. Even people who believe in evolution say it. Macroevolution

If you go by that standard then "change of kind" has been observed and there is no doubt about it. The problem is that you are not using that defintion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kingdoms have an absolute definition. Humans and plants are different kingdoms of life.

No, not at their base they are not well defined. You are looking at life now, not life in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bacteria becoming archae and Eukarya is a change of kinds.

Bacteria did not "become archae and Eukarya. Look at the image I provided again.