INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Monk Of Reason]

I have lost track of what it is you want my best crack at. Can you remind me?

1. I post arguments as requested.
2. When they are dismissed IMO without justification it would be futile to make more arguments to be dismissed.
3. The next logical point of reference is to insist that people trained to know what is dismissible do not agree with your dismissal.
4. They are dismissed.
5. You have dismissed every possible avenue of resolution.
6. I dismiss your dismissal.

We have argued several different things. I think the biggest one that we have hit heads on multiple times has been your "proof" of the Judeo Christian god. And typically it seems to come out to "Lots of people worship the Christian god so he is the right one".

If you would like to give your reasonings for why you think that the Christian God is the THE god rather than the Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Sikkim, Wiccan, Egyptian, Hellenistic or otherwise.

 

[Thief]

How about God as the Cause?.....

Something set the universe into motion.

Science would have you believe cause and effect.
A body at rest will remain at rest.

So....Dead things just all of a sudden....move?
Multiply into large amounts.....rapidly?......spontaneously?
The total sum of all that brought us into existence .....is dead.
Dead Universe .....bringing Man to life?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well that was certainly misleading. I went to that link and only saw more links. I am too busy today to follow layers of links.

Too busy to click on "survey results" link? That would've taken a whole 2 seconds, so yeah, I can understand that.

Are you saying your numbers exist in spite of the numbers I gave? I do not see how that is possible.

Since you've admitted that you can't even be troubled to view the actual results of the survey, you're in no position to dispute the numbers, which I've quoted several times now, and are publicly viewable from the link I provided. Furthermore, you included the text, in your quote, which explicitly says that those specific numbers were from philosophers of biology, not the total sample for the survey.

I know that but in what way would it not be generally representative.

Um... because, according to the data, they are way off from philosophers as a whole?

On what grounds are biologists that much more inclined to deny moral realism.

You'd have to ask them. The numbers simply say that they are.

That is bizarre. I think assumption would be a far better word for what you describe than fact. Facts must have explanations, assumptions do not. No explanation no fact, especially not in this case. Facts about results are not shoulds and so are not morals. They are is(s) and so a mere details. Extrapolating law from that is one terrible idea and probably why we are in such dire moral shape these days.

This isn't a relevant distinction here; for Dawkins, moral facts are just facts about what particular moral codes say- for instance, it is a fact that the Judeo-Christian ethical code says X, Y, or Z. Morals are conventions, so that killing is considered wrong is a fact in the same way that washing your hands is considered polite. These are both facts, not "assumptions". This distinction doesn't even make sense here.

That paragraph is an argument. It is a remarkably simple and obvious deduction. In what way is it deniable or even challengeable.

I already told you. The conclusion is pulled out of thin air, and does not follow from the preceding. If the conclusion is to be taken seriously, they need to give an argument for it. What you quoted here is not that. Did you omit part of the passage or not?

I see absolutely no parallel with this. God is a proposition where X's existence establishes Y to a certainty and necessity. Evolution alone is a proposition that given X removes any possibility of Y.

Oh dear, nevermind.

Hitler's claim was not that simple. His claim was that his actions would lead I the long run to human flourishing. Not that his claims if short term were all that refutable in themselves.

You are claiming that Hitlers actions can be justified by the ethical criteria I've mentioned, which is clearly and patently false, but if you honestly think so, then try it- pretend you're Hitler's lawyer, and tell me what that defense sounds like. Until then, I see no reason to think that Hitler could claim that he caused more happiness than pain, that his actions contributed to human flourishing, or that his actions were universally rational. This is just sort of a silly and desperate claim.

What is true of human flourishing or happiness is not the right question either. What has generally been considered right or wrong has often conflicted with both?

However, unless you're begging the question, if virtue ethics is correct then "what has generally been considered right and wrong" would be potentially mistaken.

Once God is eliminated morality becomes hopelessly arbitrary with respect to truth and an ambiguous mess that can be hijacked any number of ways and which only God could supply proper condemnation for. It is a goat of a theory even if you dress it in an Armani suit. Even the effort of doing so is immoral its self.

This is not a valid argument; for one thing, you're arguing from adverse consequences. What is correct or true is not necessarily what is pleasant or beneficial. Furthermore, it does not follow that objective morality cannot exist unless it is neat and tidy and clear. Indeed, any ethical system that portrays morality as black-and-white and clear-cut should be suspicious from the outset; genuine moral dilemmas are anything but clear-cut.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How about God as the Cause?.....

Something set the universe into motion.

Science would have you believe cause and effect.
A body at rest will remain at rest.

So....Dead things just all of a sudden....move?
Multiply into large amounts.....rapidly?......spontaneously?
The total sum of all that brought us into existence .....is dead.
Dead Universe .....bringing Man to life?

I would rather you try to not assume to know what science "says" until you have a basic grasp of what it actually says.

 

[Agnostic75]

.......the entire theory of evolution alone is not only completely dependent on life arising on it's own but a universe from nothing and a thousand other problems that impair its validity.

That is false, and virtually everyone in the world who has a degree in biology knows it. Consider the following:

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

The key word is "change." Nothing in the entire article says anything at all about how life began.

Millions of Christians accept evolution.

What you really meant is that naturalistic evolution depends upon life arising on its own.

In this thread, you have questioned naturalism, but you have also questioned macro evolution, and you quoted a Christian website that argues against one species changing into another species even though you do not know very much about biology, at least not enough to adequately refute macro evolution in debates with experts.

You have wasted a lot of your time in this thread quoting people like Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, all of whom are probably atheists, or agnostics.

If it is reasonably possible that a God has always existed, it is also reasonably possible that naturalistic energy has always existed. That argument obviously invites the fine tuning argument, but that is a philosophical, or a theological argument, not a scientific argument. If some philosophical, and theological arguments for the existence of God are valid, they would reasonably prove the existence of God without any need to discuss science. Since all roads eventually have to lead to philosophy, and theology, why didn't you save yourself a lot of time and start with them? In a thread on the Tyre prophecy, you said that a particular part of the prophecy was reasonably proven to have been inspired by God by implication because many other parts of the prophecy have been reasonably proven to have been inspired by God. If you are right, the same would be true regarding what I just said about you wasting a lot of your time debating science.

You are completely wrong about your claim that atheists have no use for God. Almost everyone knows that almost any atheist would be quite pleased if it turned out that after humans die, they are all provided with a comfortable eternal life by a God, or even by advanced aliens. Quite obviously, it is not just any God that atheists do not like, but only the Gods of all religious books since atheists do not believe that any of them exist.

If you one day get a comfortable eternal life, you would not care very much if it turned out that someone other than the God of the Bible provided it for you. You might initially be a little disappointed, but you would quickly start to enjoy your comfortable eternal life. Logically, eternal comfort is the desired goal regardless of who provides it.

 

[Agnostic75]

You are not going to get me to waste even more time [in the thread on homosexuality] but you can waste your time trying if you wish.

People who are interested can read my most recent post in that thread, which I made today, and decide for themselves whose arguments are better. There are not any doubts whatsoever that I won the debates because one of your primary arguments was that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. All major medical organizations disagree with that, and they should since it is an absurd claim. You cannot logically claim that it is not up to you to provide solutions since you proposed abstinence as a solution on at least several occasions. Logically, from a secular moral perspective, no action is wrong unless there are reasonable solutions. Quite obviously, abstinence for all homosexuals is not a reasonable solution.

Why in the world should all lesbians practice abstinence since their risks of getting STDs is less than gay men, and even less than heterosexual men and women? You most certainly never adequately answered that question.

Why should gay men who have been monogamous for at least five years, and especially for at least ten years, practice abstinence? You never adequately answered that question.

 

[1robin]

Too busy to click on "survey results" link? That would've taken a whole 2 seconds, so yeah, I can understand that.

Yes, I was doing 7 vector and 6 vector comparisons on a legacy digital word generator with more problems than a math book against the latest version that is having ratio problems interpreting Mach 1.5 Pitot inputs from a pressure simulator. Do you know how much time is required? I was lucky to have posted anything. I did click the link and only saw more links so I backed out.

Since you've admitted that you can't even be troubled to view the actual results of the survey, you're in no position to dispute the numbers, which I've quoted several times now, and are publicly viewable from the link I provided. Furthermore, you included the text, in your quote, which explicitly says that those specific numbers were from philosophers of biology, not the total sample for the survey.

Actually since it is not important let me clarify and if you can agree I will give you credit for being more right than me.

1. My claim was that in my experience with formal debate most non-theists do not claim morality is objective. I know that is true for my experience and I believe it true in general debate.
2. You have shown that my extrapolations for that were not accurate.
3. I still claim moral realism cannot be justified without God but I was incorrect about the ratio of those who believe it can.

Good enough. I hope so because what I really want to debate and what I just can't seem to get by any method is the justification for that belief. Can you supply a brief example.

Um... because, according to the data, they are way off from philosophers as a whole?

My point still stands but since I want nothing more than to discuss something meaningful let's move on.

You'd have to ask them. The numbers simply say that they are.

Never mind.

This isn't a relevant distinction here; for Dawkins, moral facts are just facts about what particular moral codes say- for instance, it is a fact that the Judeo-Christian ethical code says X, Y, or Z. Morals are conventions, so that killing is considered wrong is a fact in the same way that washing your hands is considered polite. These are both facts, not "assumptions". This distinction doesn't even make sense here.

What is truly irrelevant is Dawkins assumption of facts without justification of facts. I can't see how a unjustifiable brute assertion is relevant to anything. I also do not agree here (but this also is not what I want to discuss). Dawkins said that we cannot know if Hitler was right. If you actually have moral facts then why not? I have also heard him ask what grounded morality. Or to state it as if a question but he did add that he only knew it was not religion.

1. If a Christian says that murder is wrong and that is a fact there exists no other question than does God exist. It is a if X then y claims that once X is granted y follows necessarily.
2. If Dawkins says murder is wrong and a fact then there exits not even an if X then y justification.

Are you saying his morals are factual to him as in the exists factually or are you saying he believes they are objective facts but have no source. I have listened to him quite a bit and I have never heard him say anything I would draw the later conclusion from.

I already told you. The conclusion is pulled out of thin air, and does not follow from the preceding. If the conclusion is to be taken seriously, they need to give an argument for it. What you quoted here is not that. Did you omit part of the passage or not?

I can only say I can't possibly agree in the slightest. I cannot even simplify or clarify it further.

You are claiming that Hitlers actions can be justified by the ethical criteria I've mentioned, which is clearly and patently false, but if you honestly think so, then try it- pretend you're Hitler's lawyer, and tell me what that defense sounds like. Until then, I see no reason to think that Hitler could claim that he caused more happiness than pain, that his actions contributed to human flourishing, or that his actions were universally rational. This is just sort of a silly and desperate claim.

It is a fact since they are exactly what he did use. If a lawyer I would have to defend t eh legality of what he did not it's consistency with a world view. Which one do you want? Since I am only going to supply the latter let me make a defense in general.

If evolution is true then the fallowing are at least as justifiable as any other moral conclusion.

1. My tribe should eliminate all competition for resources from any creature that does not directly contribute to my tribes health.
2. Since only genetics are involved and have never produced two equal things ever. The idea that one race is far less fit to rule over it's self or others than mine might be is simply a fact. Using this I can justify slavery, racism, oppression, etc.....
3. Since humans have no intrinsic worth or value and are only biological anomalies depriving them of animation is not wrong. They may not like it, others may not like it, but if Stalin likes it no objective justification exists for him to resist doing so.

I have a great many more but I am hung up with a new Air-force complaint and have to e-mail my tail off for a bit.

However, unless you're begging the question, if virtue ethics is correct then "what has generally been considered right and wrong" would be potentially mistaken.

Without God the terms no longer have any meaning as they are classically used.

This is not a valid argument; for one thing, you're arguing from adverse consequences. What is correct or true is not necessarily what is pleasant or beneficial. Furthermore, it does not follow that objective morality cannot exist unless it is neat and tidy and clear. Indeed, any ethical system that portrays morality as black-and-white and clear-cut should be suspicious from the outset; genuine moral dilemmas are anything but clear-cut.

Since ambiguity is a cause of failure then it is evidence for failure. I was not using it to prove objective morality exists but that subjective morality is a failure compared to objective morality. If you redefine morality into basically meaning flourishing or happiness than the lack of flourishing or happiness and the fact many morals do not reflect either is relevant. I think your using my claims in ways not intended and claiming failure. I am in a hurry again and can't review to make sure.

 

[1robin]

I would rather you try to not assume to know what science "says" until you have a basic grasp of what it actually says.

I think science would back up all those basic claims with one exception. For some reasons some of them will claim the fact cause and effect exists every single place that is observed is not a good reason to believe it applies outside what is observable. I don't think science would have too many objections to most of that persons premises.

 

[1robin]

That is false, and virtually everyone in the world who has a degree in biology knows it. Consider the following:

Not only do I not agree with this, if it was true I could honestly say they were all idiots. Again I think you are misunderstanding. The theory as it exists in textbooks or think tanks is not reality itself and does not have to depend on much of anything. The reality the theory is supposed to represent must necessarily depend on many things. I also made it very clear I was speaking of non-theistic evolution. I was careful about my words. To no effect (as usual) it seems. You cannot have a theory about something if the necessary precursor did not occur. I cannot have a theory about what was found on the moon unless it is true we went here and that it exists.

The key word is "change." Nothing in the entire article says anything at all about how life began.

Millions of Christians accept evolution.

What you really meant is that naturalistic evolution depends upon life arising on its own.

In this thread, you have questioned naturalism, but you have also questioned macro evolution, and you quoted a Christian website that argues against one species changing into another species even though you do not know very much about biology, at least not enough to adequately refute macro evolution in debates with experts.

You have wasted a lot of your time in this thread quoting people like Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, all of whom are probably atheists, or agnostics.

If it is reasonably possible that a God has always existed, it is also reasonably possible that naturalistic energy has always existed. That argument obviously invites the fine tuning argument, but that is a philosophical, or a theological argument, not a scientific argument. If some philosophical, and theological arguments for the existence of God are valid, they would reasonably prove the existence of God without any need to discuss science. Since all roads eventually have to lead to philosophy, and theology, why didn't you save yourself a lot of time and start with them? In a thread on the Tyre prophecy, you said that a particular part of the prophecy was reasonably proven to have been inspired by God by implication because many other parts of the prophecy have been reasonably proven to have been inspired by God. If you are right, the same would be true regarding what I just said about you wasting a lot of your time debating science.

You are completely wrong about your claim that atheists have no use for God. Almost everyone knows that almost any atheist would be quite pleased if it turned out that after humans die, they are all provided with a comfortable eternal life by a God, or even by advanced aliens. Quite obviously, it is not just any God that atheists do not like, but only the Gods of all religious books since atheists do not believe that any of them exist.

If you one day get a comfortable eternal life, you would not care very much if it turned out that someone other than the God of the Bible provided it for you. You might initially be a little disappointed, but you would quickly start to enjoy your comfortable eternal life. Logically, eternal comfort is the desired goal regardless of who provides it.

I know what your saying. I knew what you were saying before you said it. That is why I said atheistic evolution, and distinguished between a textbook theory and the reality it represents. At least 60% of the time I know what objections my opposite will have and try hard to head them off. It never works.

I question naturalism and materialism as stand alone theories. Not all their individual claims.

You said Christians accept evolution. No kidding, so do I. They however do not accept evolution as an explanation of all genetic reality as I don't.

It is my time to waste and going in I know there are no words possible that would not be a waste against preference in general.

It is most certainly not reasonable to think energy has always existed, nor time, not matter, nor space, not one natural thing of any type has any god reason to think it eternal.

You quoted part of one sentence from me, and yet you claim I made about a dozen claims within it. I did not. I did not say atheists have no use for God. I don't even know what that means. It is any God atheists dismiss. That is what atheism means. In fact they ignore 99.9% of them and spend a lot of time rejecting old number one but it means a lack of belief in all God's.

I have no idea where the comments about my disappointment with another God come from.

 

[1robin]

People who are interested can read my most recent post in that thread, which I made today, and decide for themselves whose arguments are better. There are not any doubts whatsoever that I won the debates because one of your primary arguments was that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. All major medical organizations disagree with that, and they should since it is an absurd claim. You cannot logically claim that it is not up to you to provide solutions since you proposed abstinence as a solution on at least several occasions. Logically, from a secular moral perspective, no action is wrong unless there are reasonable solutions. Quite obviously, abstinence for all homosexuals is not a reasonable solution.

People can do so. Why are you telling me that? Of course they can. There are in fact absolute doubts you won the debate. Your claim is absolutely wrong. I am not debating the subject again, yet you may keep it up as long as you want.

Why in the world should all lesbians practice abstinence since their risks of getting STDs is less than gay men, and even less than heterosexual men and women? You most certainly never adequately answered that question.

I have answered every one of these in every form many times. Not doing so again.

Why should gay men who have been monogamous for at least five years, and especially for at least ten years, practice abstinence? You never adequately answered that question.

See the above.

Believe me I want to rip these apart because it is so easy to do. However that would be a tar baby mistake. Once in it is hard to get out and nothing new exists here. An argument I think utterly failed will not work the 20th time it is given. I honestly believe unlike your other posts your homosexual defense lacked any merit what so ever. It was not any aspect other than a lack of challenge (and so total futility) that led me to give up on your side on that issue. All the evidence supports my claim as to my motivation, I have the greatest possible access to my motivation, and my entire posting history suggests I do not shy away from a challenge and actually seek them out. That is why I am here and why I left that thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why in the world should all lesbians practice abstinence since their risks of getting STDs is less than gay men, and even less than heterosexual men and women? You most certainly never adequately answered that question.

I have answered every one of these in every form many times. Not doing so again.

That is absolutely false, and the thread on homosexuality proves it. I remember our discussions about lesbians very well. They were quite brief, and all that you did was claim that it was wrong for me to divide homosexuals into segments, but you never said why since you know that if you did, you would have embarrassed yourself. Quite obviously, as most medical experts know, it is reasonable to divide any group of people into segments if there are significant statistical differences between them. That way, prevention, and treatment become much more effective. You surely know that lesbians' anatomy is much different than the anatomy of gay men, and that that primarily accounts for the fact that lesbians have far lower risks than gay men do, and lower risks than heterosexual men and women do.

No major medical organization recommends abstinence for all homosexuals, and much less so for all lesbians, and that includes the CDC, but for some very strange reasons, you believe that you won the debate.

 

[Agnostic75]

The theory as it exists in textbooks or think tanks is not reality itself and does not have to depend on much of anything. The reality the theory is supposed to represent must necessarily depend on many things.

Better stated, since evolution is about life forms changing, not how life originated, the only thing that it depends on is one species changing into another species, which is a proposal that one study showed is accepted by 99.86% of experts in the U.S.

Evolution is reality in the opinions of 99.86% of experts in the U.S. who accept common descent.

I also made it very clear I was speaking of non-theistic evolution.

Not always. Months ago, you said that all of macro evolution has problems. Sometimes, you questioned the claim that species change into other species. That means that sometimes, you questioned theistic evolution.

Here is proof that you have questioned theistic evolution by questioning macro evolution.

Post #936

On to the next one that can hardly be referred to as modern (we’re going way back now, to 1702): the Brimstone butterflies. Carl Linnaeus did in fact think he had found a new species of butterfly, sent to him by a lumber merchant or something like that. When an entomologist studied it years later, he exposed it as a fake. So here again, scientific scrutiny prevailed. This might be your best example.

Actually I just got them from a random list. Since I see they will be contended let me augment this claim with a better one of the same type. BTW you said this one was a good one, Why? I submit a similar and better known one. The famous Pepper Moth:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-pepper-moth-biston-betularia.htm

The long article is full of attacks on macro evolution, and claims that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, which they didn't. The article also promotes the young earth theory, which is preposterous. Yes, there were some problems with the peppered moth theory, but not with macro evolution in general, as most experts know.

That website is run by creationists who support a relative handful of experts who support creationism. Consider the following from the article:

The observed data of melanics in moths is founded upon the false notion of selective bird predation as the primary force. The pepper moth theory corresponds to the Sun in the Ptolemy system and the theory fits the data easily. However in order to harmonize the vast majority other moths (other planets) that are also melanic where bird predation and industrial pollution are not a factor at all, Majerus and other evolutionists must invent new theories (epicycles) to explain the otherwise unexplainable. When even epicycles won't help, the magic wand of "mutations" is used to explain the rest. The result is a basic theory with so many modifications (epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle like Jupiter), that it is simply too complicated to be true. Is Majerus the echo spirit of Ptolemy?

The variation seen in the Pepper moth, is quite common in the natural world. For example white tail and mule deer are two breeds of the same species, and totally cross fertile. However they have slightly different coloration, quite different antlers and live in distinct habitats. Bird predation has about as much to do with the variation of melanics in Pepper moths, as it does in deer. Selective predation by birds upon the Pepper moth must be rejected along side of the false notion that the sun revolves around the earth. Evolutionists, like Ptolemy both took their theory down a dead end road, both are false. White Grizzlies (polar bears) life in the Arctic and dark Grizzlies live in the rocky mountains. Selective bird predation cannot explain moths, deer or bears etc. Evolutionists can no more explain the mechanism that produces the observed variation in bears and deer than they can the Pepper Moth. Creation, on the other hand, unlocks the key to understanding the pepper moth because God simply created moths, deer, dogs, cats, bears etc in the beginning with the genetic variation needed to produce what we are presently observing "against the stars". Like Ptolemy, Majerus' pepper moth theories do explain what we see, but both are wrong.

Obviously, you have opposed theistic evolution since you have opposed macro evolution.

In another post, you said that a skeptic who you were debating has more faith in evolution than you have faith in God since evolution happens too slow to be observed. That is absurd since the scientific method regarding the study of macro evolution is much difference than studying religion since religion largely deals with theology, and philosophy. As you know, most experts in biology have said that although macro evolution cannot be observed, it can reasonably be inferred for many good scientific reasons. As Dr. Ken Miller, many other Christians, and the National Academy of Sciences have correctly said, science cannot prove, or disprove the existence of God. If this universe had a beginning, its beginning might have because caused by another universe. Even if this is the only universe, and it had a beginning, it might have been caused by eternally existing naturalistic energy. That of course invites the fine tuning theory, but all biological life is programmed to die, not to live. That of course invites theology, but then science is no longer important. So if all roads have to eventually lead to theology, why didn't you just start with that? In a thread on the Tyre prophecy, you said that Ezekiel probably did not learn about the prophecy by ordinary means since divine inspiration can be inferred by the accuracy of some other parts of the prophecy that came true. Following that same line of reasoning, wouldn't Christian theology infer that a God exists? If so, why do you discuss science so much.

In your opinion, did animals kill each other before the fall of man?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I question naturalism and materialism as stand alone theories. Not all their individual claims.

I'll respond to your other post later, but this stuck out, just as an item for housekeeping: naturalism and materialism are not "stand alone theories" at all- naturalism is a methodological presupposition, and materialism is a metaphysical or meta-theoretical position. Neither one is a "theory", in any sense- this is just a category error.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Thief]

I would rather you try to not assume to know what science "says" until you have a basic grasp of what it actually says.

Actually.....really......I did quite well in science studies.
A nation wide comparison test in my youth ranked me as 'superior'.

That said.....I find my fellow man caught up in what he considers a 'basic grasp'.

I can't help but noticed.....once my fellowman thinks he has a handle on it...
he then can't let go.

Who then is in control?.....you?.....or the other guy that told you so?

Note my signature.

 

[Agnostic75]

The theory as it exists in textbooks or think tanks is not reality itself and does not have to depend on much of anything. The reality the theory is supposed to represent must necessarily depend on many things.

Better stated, since evolution is about life forms changing, not how life originated, the only thing that it depends on is one species changing into another species, which is a proposal that one study showed is accepted by 99.86% of experts in the U.S.

Evolution is reality in the opinions of 99.86% of experts in the U.S. who accept common descent.

I also made it very clear I was speaking of non-theistic evolution.

Not always. Months ago, you said that all of macro evolution has problems. Sometimes, you questioned the claim that species change into other species. That means that sometimes, you questioned theistic evolution.

Here is proof that you have questioned theistic evolution by questioning macro evolution.

Post #936

On to the next one that can hardly be referred to as modern (we’re going way back now, to 1702): the Brimstone butterflies. Carl Linnaeus did in fact think he had found a new species of butterfly, sent to him by a lumber merchant or something like that. When an entomologist studied it years later, he exposed it as a fake. So here again, scientific scrutiny prevailed. This might be your best example.

Actually I just got them from a random list. Since I see they will be contended let me augment this claim with a better one of the same type. BTW you said this one was a good one, Why? I submit a similar and better known one. The famous Pepper Moth:

TEXTBOOK FRAUD: Pepper Moth (biston betularia): "Piltdown Moth"

The long article is full of attacks on macro evolution, and claims that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, which they didn't. The article also promotes the young earth theory, which is preposterous. Yes, there were some problems with the peppered moth theory, but not with macro evolution in general, as most experts know.

That website is run by creationists who support a relative handful of experts who support creationism. Consider the following from the article:

The observed data of melanics in moths is founded upon the false notion of selective bird predation as the primary force. The pepper moth theory corresponds to the Sun in the Ptolemy system and the theory fits the data easily. However in order to harmonize the vast majority other moths (other planets) that are also melanic where bird predation and industrial pollution are not a factor at all, Majerus and other evolutionists must invent new theories (epicycles) to explain the otherwise unexplainable. When even epicycles won't help, the magic wand of "mutations" is used to explain the rest. The result is a basic theory with so many modifications (epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle like Jupiter), that it is simply too complicated to be true. Is Majerus the echo spirit of Ptolemy?

The variation seen in the Pepper moth, is quite common in the natural world. For example white tail and mule deer are two breeds of the same species, and totally cross fertile. However they have slightly different coloration, quite different antlers and live in distinct habitats. Bird predation has about as much to do with the variation of melanics in Pepper moths, as it does in deer. Selective predation by birds upon the Pepper moth must be rejected along side of the false notion that the sun revolves around the earth. Evolutionists, like Ptolemy both took their theory down a dead end road, both are false. White Grizzlies (polar bears) life in the Arctic and dark Grizzlies live in the rocky mountains. Selective bird predation cannot explain moths, deer or bears etc. Evolutionists can no more explain the mechanism that produces the observed variation in bears and deer than they can the Pepper Moth. Creation, on the other hand, unlocks the key to understanding the pepper moth because God simply created moths, deer, dogs, cats, bears etc in the beginning with the genetic variation needed to produce what we are presently observing "against the stars". Like Ptolemy, Majerus' pepper moth theories do explain what we see, but both are wrong.

Here is more proof:

Here is a site that I have been reading I think gives many good arguments.

Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution

I remind you of my two claims. I believe evolution occurs. I believe it has problems that no current knowledge can resolve.

The article claims that macro evolution does not occur. You agree with the article, and therefore, you oppose theistic evolution since theistic evolutionists accept macro evolution.

You said:

I also made it very clear I was speaking of non-theistic evolution.

Theistic evolutionists accept macro evolution. All that they question is its mechanisms. Michael Behe says:

For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives. The Edge of Evolution, pp. 71–72

.......it’s understandable that some people find the idea of common descent so astonishing that they look no further. Yet in a very strong sense the explanation of common descent is also trivial. Common descent tries to account only for the similarities between creatures. It says merely that certain shared features were there from the beginning – the ancestor had them...In contrast, Darwin’s hypothesized mechanism of evolution – the compound concept of random mutation paired with natural selection…tries to account for the differences between creatures. …What could cause such staggering transformations? …By far the most critical aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept. The Edge of Evolution, p. 2

Unlike Behe, and other theistic evolutionists, you, and those two creationist websites that you mentioned, not only question the mechanisms of macro evolution, but you also claim that is has not happened, or at least that there is not a preponderance of evidence that it has happened. You backed off of your position, and modified it only because I questioned your knowledge of biology. I have stated that you do not know enough about macro evolution to question it, and you don't, and that even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, it still wouldn't matter since about 99.86% of experts would disagree with you, and because most laymen do not know enough about biology to adequately judge debates among experts.

In your opinion, did animals kill each other before the fall of man?

 

[Agnostic75]

Any reputable philosopher knows that there is not a necessary correlation between the achievements of any person, or group of people, and the truth, so there was no reason for you to mention that some Christians were great scientists. Many obvious secular factors are involved with achievements in science, art, philosophy, and literature.

There is no argument even theoretically possible to counter one that having access to the true architect of the universe (God) would not affect positively the scientific knowledge of that group of people.

Do you mean that significant scientific achievements by Christians reasonably proves that a God inspired the Bible?

Are you implying that today, Christian physicists know more about physics than non-Christian physicists do because they are Christians?

The ancient Greeks made notable contributions to science, art, and philosophy. What contributions to those fields did their Hebrew contemporaries make?

The Roman Empire is sometimes called the Greco-Roman Empire because Greeks made substantial contributions to it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Christian scientists have made more important contributions to science than anyone else, if Christianity had not come along, some other group of scientists might have made the most important contributions, but it would not be logical to claim that their religious beliefs had anything to do with their scientific achievements.

Even if Christians were more moral than they generally are, that would still not necessarily mean that a God inspired the Bible.

I suggest that you read an article about Greek achievements at http://www3.northern.edu/marmorsa/greekachievements2007.htm. It was written by a college history professor. He says:

"But it's not just in literature the Greeks excelled. They produced some of the world's greatest art, the first true science, and some of the greatest athletes the world has ever seen. In fact, of all the ancient peoples, it was the Greeks who contributed the most to subsequent civilization in virtually every field of human endeavor."

"The Greeks give us the first true historical works, and it was a Greek (Herodotus) that first used the term "history" for what we call history today. Not only did the Greeks give us our first historical works, they also give us some of our greatest."

"Not only do the Greeks give us our first history, they give us also our first political science, the systematic study of human government. When one studies political science today, one constantly uses Greek terms (monarchy, democracy, etc.). Why? Because the Greeks were the first to study the various forms of human government and to identify the strengths and weakness of each."

"Math is another area in which the Greeks made important contributions. You are all familiar with the Pythagorean theorum, and the Greek reverence for numbers that starts with Pythagoras is certainly an important contribution of the Greeks. Even more important, the Greek geometer, Euclid. Euclid's Elements was the main geometry textbook of the west for hundreds of years, and it remained the basis for all good geometry texts right up through the 1970's. What Euclid did was to take five fundamental axioms. From these axioms, he devises a series of more an more complex proofs. Now what's important here is *not* the practical application of geometry. What's important is the systematic, rigorous thinking process one must go through in coming up with these proofs. The study of Euclid taught generation after generation to think clearly and logically: and it is a pity that the current geometry texts have drifted away from this."

"The Greeks also made important contributions to the sciences. Biology, Physics, Physiology, Zoology: all Greek names, because the Greeks were the first to systematically explore these areas. Thales, the first Greek philosopher, also is the father of physics, asking a fundamental question: what are all things made of? The Greeks explored the question, coming up with promising answers. Ultimately, Greeks like Aristotle believed that the world was made up of four fundamental elements. Other Greeks added the idea that these elements in their turn were made up of invisible, indivisable particles they called atoms. Now we have a lot more elements than the Greek four, and we believe the atom can be divided into evern more fundamental particles, but note that the Greeks are certainly on the right track."

 

[1robin]

That is absolutely false, and the thread on homosexuality proves it. I remember our discussions about lesbians very well. They were quite brief, and all that you did was claim that it was wrong for me to divide homosexuals into segments, but you never said why since you know that if you did, you would have embarrassed yourself. Quite obviously, as most medical experts know, it is reasonable to divide any group of people into segments if there are significant statistical differences between them. That way, prevention, and treatment become much more effective. You surely know that lesbians' anatomy is much different than the anatomy of gay men, and that that primarily accounts for the fact that lesbians have far lower risks than gay men do, and lower risks than heterosexual men and women do.

No major medical organization recommends abstinence for all homosexuals, and much less so for all lesbians, and that includes the CDC, but for some very strange reasons, you believe that you won the debate.

Not going there again. Did you think I was kidding?

 

[1robin]

Better stated, since evolution is about life forms changing, not how life originated, the only thing that it depends on is one species changing into another species, which is a proposal that one study showed is accepted by 99.86% of experts in the U.S.

There is a theory which does not seem to be in need of anything beyond a defeater and a reality that cannot possibly what the theory claims without abiogenesis.

Evolution is reality in the opinions of 99.86% of experts in the U.S. who accept common descent.

Fine, still dependent in entirety on what has never ever been shown to have occurred. They cannot even cheat and force it to occur in a lab.

Not always. Months ago, you said that all of macro evolution has problems. Sometimes, you questioned the claim that species change into other species. That means that sometimes, you questioned theistic evolution.

Of course I question evolution, even theistic. Am I supposed to believe what I am told without challenging it? All of evolution has what I see as devastating problems. Without God it has what I consider almost insurmountable problems. That does not mean every aspect of it does. Again I believe evolution occurred yet I do not believe by it's self it explains much of genetic reality.

Here is proof that you have questioned theistic evolution by questioning macro evolution.

Post #936

I do not remember ever denying having done so. However the questions change based on which theory we are talking about. I imagine your taking objections to evolution without God and applying to theistic evolution and I rejected that claim which you confused with saying I did not object to anything in theistic evolution.

The long article is full of attacks on macro evolution, and claims that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, which they didn't. The article also promotes the young earth theory, which is preposterous. Yes, there were some problems with the peppered moth theory, but not with macro evolution in general, as most experts know.

When I post a link I am saying I agree with what it claims that is relevant to what I am claiming. I am not required to believe in every single claim an article makes to use parts of it am I? I have even graver doubts about a less than 10,000 year old earth and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed than evolution so do not strap me with that burden.

That website is run by creationists who support a relative handful of experts who support creationism. Consider the following from the article:



Obviously, you have opposed theistic evolution since you have opposed macro evolution.

I do not oppose either. I do not think either are free from devastating problems, though theistic evolution has far fewer.

In another post, you said that a skeptic who you were debating has more faith in evolution than you have faith in God since evolution happens too slow to be observed. That is absurd since the scientific method regarding the study of macro evolution is much difference than studying religion since religion largely deals with theology, and philosophy. As you know, most experts in biology have said that although macro evolution cannot be observed, it can reasonably be inferred for many good scientific reasons. As Dr. Ken Miller, many other Christians, and the National Academy of Sciences have correctly said, science cannot prove, or disprove the existence of God. If this universe had a beginning, its beginning might have because caused by another universe. Even if this is the only universe, and it had a beginning, it might have been caused by eternally existing naturalistic energy. That of course invites the fine tuning theory, but all biological life is programmed to die, not to live. That of course invites theology, but then science is no longer important. So if all roads have to eventually lead to theology, why didn't you just start with that? In a thread on the Tyre prophecy, you said that Ezekiel probably did not learn about the prophecy by ordinary means since divine inspiration can be inferred by the accuracy of some other parts of the prophecy that came true. Following that same line of reasoning, wouldn't Christian theology infer that a God exists? If so, why do you discuss science so much.

You really really need to be more efficient. I do not claim it takes more faith that I have to believe in evolution but it does take more to believe in certain aspects of it. It is easily seen how a gene can mutate. It is impossible to see how slime became alive or non-intentional mutation seems to be so dang efficient, how divergent branches evolved identically in some respects. Please stop trying to modify my claims into something you think looks absurd. Macro evolution is reasonably inferred but it is not without very problematic areas. I do not deny it, I reserve judgment of it. I do deny any certainty exists for it.

There are at least a dozen very involved issues in one paragraph that require a post each. I have explained why there are no natural explanations for the universe known or even with good reasons to think possible and have always said science is the wrong tool for theology by necessity which shows your claims about the theological claims of physicists in the last century is meaningless.

Life is programmed to live. It seems to be under another law that forces it to die but I do not see the point. BTW there are certain life forms that could not die by aging. One sea creature grows until it reverts to the same form it began with. I forget the name.

Science cannot confirm or deny God's existence. It however can be evaluated to see if it is consistent with science. IOW eliminated as a means to deny.

In your opinion, did animals kill each other before the fall of man?

I have no firm position here. I know the trap you setting and I have already illustrated why it will not work. 90% of the bible occurred in historical times and can be compared to history and I will defend with specifics. Genesis is probably the least clear of all and the most ambiguous. Anyone that honestly wanted to gauge the accuracy of the bible would begin with it's most verifiable claims, not their opposite.