INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

Some of the ancient Greeks accepted common descent, but my main interest is that millions of conservative Christians living today reject common descent.

You missed the point here. My point was that long before Christians were trying to make Genesis line up with Darwin they included interpretations that allow for at least some common descent and especially a very old universe. They did not do so because they were trying to jive with modern science because there was no modern science. So despite what you think (and I imagine you are wrong in many cases) the Bible has always had interpretations that allowed for common descent and an old universe. Your confusing iron fisted Catholic dogma with scripture, and the imprint it left on Protestantism with what that Bible actually says.

As far as common descent is concerned, my main interests are:

1. In the U.S., 99% of experts accept common descent.

2. You do not know enough about biology to question common descent.

3. Most creationists do not know enough about biology to question common descent, and to adequately judge debates by experts.

4. Even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, most experts would still disagree with you, and most laymen would not be able to adequately judge your arguments about common descent.

5. I am only interested in Christians living today who oppose common descent.

My position is that there is nothing KNOWN about evolution that challenges faith.

According to even the majority of Christian experts, common descent successfully challenges, and adequately refutes the story of Adam and Eve as believed by millions of American Christians. It is obviously not necessary for Christians to interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally, but as you know, many Christians, mostly conservative Christians believe that the story is literally true, and that some of them would give up Christianity, or become liberal Christians if they one day believed that the story of Adam and Eve was not literally true. I once had some discussions with a Christian inerrantist who said that if he one day believed that the Bible is not inerrant, he would give up Christianity. There are a lot of biblical literalists, and they believe that biblical literalism is very important.

You sometimes questioned common descent from an entirely scientific perspective. My position is that you do not know enough about biology to make such a claim based upon your own personal knowledge, and that also goes for most creationists who reject common descent.

The holes I mention in some kind of totality theory called common descent are 95% from scholars in those areas. I did not invent them.

That is deceptive since one study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences, and all leading biological sciences organizations accept it.

By questioning common descent, you will chase away some prospective Christians who consider objecting to common descent to be utterly absurd. As I told you, evangelical Christian geologist Davis Young said something similar about Christians who promote the global flood theory chasing away some prospective Christians who believe that claiming that a global flood occurred is utterly absurd. By questioning common descent, many prospective Christians will conclude that since you know very little about biology, you must know very little about some other issues.

Conservative Christian opponents of common descent often quote mine experts who accept common descent, but question some aspects of it. Some experts who accept common descent question some aspects of it, but most experts who accept common descent, including the majority of Christian experts, believe that there is overwhelming evidence that supports common descent, and in cases where they question some aspects of common descent, they have other scientific evidence that supports their acceptance of it.

For example the burgess shale that proved what I stated above was found by one of the most prominent Paleontologist named Walcott. He found 60,000 fossils that proved all major body types exploded on the geological scene. He sent them to the Smithsonian. That is where I got that. However it gets even more interesting. The president of the Smithsonian believed in gradual evolution. Made one announcement and promptly buried all 60,000 of the most important fossils ever found in backrooms and closets. They were only rediscovered by a student many years later. So much for scientific integrity. That story gets even weirder and Steven Gould gets involved and makes the treachery even worse. I can tell you the whole thing sometime if you want.

Another point I did not make up is that the original tree model for evolution that was very consistent with common descent was eradicated by the bush of evolution which was supplanted by the forest model of evolution by evolutionists, not by me.

That is an old, deceptive, and dishonest trick that conservative Christian amateurs sometimes try to get away with when they know that their audience are also amateurs. You know that I do not know a lot about biology, and that there are not any skeptics in the thread who have advanced knowledge about biology. You know very well that what you said is amateurish, and misleading, and that you would be demolished if you used those same arguments in debates with experts. Your refusal to critique Dr. Douglas Theobald's article on common descent at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/, and to even discuss some brief comments that I quoted from Michael Behe in my post 3666 prove that you are just bluffing.

I wonder how many more days, weeks, or months you will want to discuss common descent since so far you have wasted a lot of your time discussing it, and have not accomplished useful for the purpose of helping to convert skeptics to Christians, or helping to strengthen the faith of Christians. For a busy person, you frequently waste a lot of your time..

One of my purposes is to dispel the myths the media feeds about how omniscient science is for the new Christian that may be troubled by an issue.

You have not dispelled anything about the fact that 99.86% of American experts, including the majority of Christian experts, accept common descent.

I was initially confused by many things and found professional debates resolved most of my questions. I am hoping to do the same in an informal setting and judging by your over optimism about your "victories" I am undeterred in that quest.

Your inability to adequately discuss lots of scientific literature that supports common descent shows that you do not have the ability to adequately judge debates by experts, and certainly most creationists do not know enough about biology to question common descent from an entirely scientific perspective.

I really wish you would read that book I suggested you would be far wiser for having done so.

Been there, done that in my post 3678.

I am happy to keep discussing common descent with you since it provides me with more opportunities to show people that you do not know nearly enough about biology to question common descent.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is a growing amount of evidence for the Exodus so I think a literal interpretation is reasonable.

What evidence? What evidence do you have that the Ten Plagues occurred? If they occurred, they would easily have been the biggest news stories by far for hundreds or thousands of miles, but other than the Ipuwer Papyrus, what nonbiblical evidence says that they occurred? Many if not most experts do not believe that the Ipuwer Papyrus reasonably proves that the Ten Plagues occurred. On 3/28/14, I started a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/161101-did-exodus-occur.html that was titled "Did the Exodus occur?" As far as I recall, no one offered reasonable evidence that a large Exodus occurred. Would you like to make some posts in that thread?

 

[1robin]

You are still very confused even though I have told you many times, and I will tell you again that "my main interest is that millions of conservative Christians living today reject common descent."

This is not a forum for what concerns you. It is a forum for discussing theologically relevant ideas. That means the bible is debated in the light of discovery and that is what should be the topic. You should not be concerned anyway because their faith (whether misplaced or not) will never cost them anything. Evolution is one of the least personally important issues ever.

Quite obviously, "today" has nothing whatsoever to with "long before Christians were trying to make Genesis line up with Darwin......."

However that is what is relevant to the debate. Maybe not your irrelevant concern but the debate the forum was set up for. I am concerned about Obama but I am not bringing him up in a theological debate.

Regarding "they included interpretations that allow for at least some common descent and especially a very old universe," yet again, I am only interested in Christians who oppose common descent, so quite obviously, Christians of the past, and present who allow for common descent are not relevant to these discussions.

This is the third time you have said the same thing. I am interested in the bible in light of discovery. If you want to debate general ignorance I am not your guy.

According to even the majority of Christian experts, common descent successfully challenges, and adequately refutes the story of Adam and Eve as believed by millions of American Christians. It is obviously not necessary for Christians to interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally, but as you know, many Christians, mostly conservative Christians believe that the story is literally true, and that some of them would give up Christianity, or become liberal Christians if they one day believed that the story of Adam and Eve was not literally true. I once had some discussions with a Christian inerrantist who said that if he one day believed that the Bible is not inerrant, he would give up Christianity. There are a lot of biblical literalists, and they believe that biblical literalism is very important.

It only challenges (even being generous) one of several very prominent interpretation of Genesis. That is all. No game changer here. You probably were not talking to a born again Christian. There are two types of faith. 1. An intellectual agreement to a historical proposition. 2. Faith based on the former but with the added and all important born again experience in the presence of the Holy Spirit. As Christ explained in John the former has no roots and is easily blown away with he wind and cannot save. The latter is firmly rooted and not even the gates of Hell will prevail against it. Huge difference. BTW most of the other major faiths only offer the former to the masses and supposedly offer the latter to only a very select few which are so scarce I can never find one.

It is the difference between reading Caesar's Gallic wars and fighting Vercingetorix with Caesar in person. In one case you may think you know, in the other you would know what happened at Alicia.

There are good reasons to question all Old Testament supernatural claims, such as the flood. How do you interpret the flood story? Did a floor occur? If so, was it global, or localized? In your opinion, did the Exodus, and the Ten Plagues occur?

I have no firm position on the flood. I imagine it is based on some fact and some analogy. My faith is unaffected because my faith is rooted in Christ.

Yes.

I think I meant to say and the bible. Also common descent can come in all kinds of flavors so you must qualify what you mean by it.

Yet again, my main interest is Christians living today who oppose common descent.

I got that the first four times and it is not a relevant issue. BTW why are you so concerned about this one issue of possible ignorance when there are far more dangerous instances of ignorance or willful stupidity in the government.

No we aren't since the odds are astronomical that the God of the Bible does not exist.

That sentence is not grammatically correct but pretending it is by all means since I have had 3 classes in probability and statistics please lay the permutations and combinatorial equations that led to this earth shattering conclusions. I don't want intuition. I want science and properly justifiable math.

Common descent does not depend upon whether or not any God exists. If you wish to discuss the existence of any God, or the existence of the God of the Bible, there would not be any need for us to discuss common descent since there are thousands of other issues that would be more pertinent to such discussions than common descent.

That is exactly why I have been trying to wind up that line of reasoning for so long now without success. If it is no threat to the bible's claims then I am not interested in it unless you resurrect it again.

In this thread, you have made some entirely scientific arguments that question common descent. It is those arguments that I am most interested in. You know that, but you are trying to divert attention to theological issues since you know that I am right that you do not know enough about biology to question common descent from an entirely scientific perspective.

No I am not.

1. I use scientific arguments to establish probable reality.
Since this whole forum is theological
2. I use those scientific arguments to make theological points.

That is a deceptive percentage since one study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences, and all leading biological sciences organizations support it.

You did not miss the boat, you missed the ocean. I said 95% OF MY CLAIMS come from experts in the field. That does not mean they don't accept the theory as a whole but it does mean they do so in part on faith because no a-z data exists. In that analogy maybe p, x, y and Q don't exist and another ten steps are assumptions. Yet they feel justified in adopting the whole alphabet. When grant money, tenure ship, publications, etc... are on the line I expect just that sort of thing.

Conservative Christian opponents of common descent often quote mine experts who accept common descent, but question some aspects of it. Well of course some experts who accept common descent question some aspects of it, but all experts who accept common descent, including the majority of Christian experts, believe that there is overwhelming evidence that supports common descent.

I am not defending some group of unnamed apologists but the bible, God, data, and reason.

That is an old, deceptive, and dishonest trick that conservative Christian amateurs sometimes try to get away with when they know that their audience are also amateurs. You know that I do not know a lot about biology, and that there are not any skeptics in the thread who have advanced knowledge about biology. You know very well that what you said is amateurish, and misleading, and that you would be demolished if you used those same arguments in debates with experts. How can you expect me to comment on what you say when you refused to critique Dr. Douglas Theobald's article on common descent at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, and you even refused to discuss some brief comments that I quoted from Michael Behe in my post 3666.

What I said can be found in dozens of published works by scientists in these fields and is a well know historical fact. Behe and Theobald had nothing to do with the specific example of the specific gaping hole in common descent I mentioned. If I did not comment on them else where it probably had to do with time issues. There is not trick. No games. That was a simple statement of fact. I can even give you books and page numbers where you can find it. There is even a whole book on that subject alone by Gould (no Christian by any means). STOP ASSUMING MOTIVES you have no access to.





You have not dispelled anything about the fact that 99.86% of American experts, including the majority of Christian experts, accept common descent.



Your inability to adequately discuss lots of scientific literature that supports common descent shows that you do not have the ability to adequately judge debates by experts, and certainly most creationists do not know enough about biology to question common descent from an entirely scientific perspective.



Been there, done that in my post 3678.[/QUOTE]

 

[1robin]

Wikipedia says:

Oh no I fear a semantic technicality is coming.

What does any of that have to do with the flood story, and with today's Christians?

The story of the flood is to indicate that man left to it's own devices tends to evil but God will always preserve the good. It is also an analogy of Christ saving the Godly from the ungodly. It is also a representation that in the end times man will be as evil as it was at that time even if it considers that evil normal and just like then judgment will take place and only a remnant will be saved. Do you ever read commentaries or even children's bible stories that expand on the themes these stories represent?
Literal or analogy this story seems to be accurate as to the lesson it contains and is readily seen that in 5000 years of recorded history there have been 300 of peace and we are now killing the most innocent lives on earth on an industrial scale and calling it moral progress. Wrong is right, right is wrong, and Jesus will be straightening things out not to long from now. If you want to discuss end time eschatology I can show you things that will terrify you. No one knows the day but the time is growing short based on the hundreds of signs that precede the end. It's fascinating, whether you agree or not and I am sick of common descent.

What evidence, and what evidence do you have that the Ten Plagues occurred? If they occurred, they would easily have been the biggest news stories by far for hundreds or thousands of miles, but other than the Ipuwer Papyrus, what nonbiblical evidence says that they occurred? Many if not most experts do not believe that the Ipuwer Papyrus reasonably proves that the Ten Plagues occurred. On 3/28/14, I started a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/161101-did-exodus-occur.html that was titled "Did the Exodus occur?" As far as I recall, no one offered reasonable evidence that a large Exodus occurred. Would you like to make some posts in that thread?

This is a repeat. I have never investigated the plagues but there have been grave stones and place names that record the Hebrews presence and over work. They were more like forced labor than slaves. I barely have time for this not for other threads. I will just say there is evidence for the exodus but I don't know about the plagues.

 

[1robin]

This is not accurate, and has been pointed out to you several times.

That is correct according to dozens of book by experts in the field. Gould wrote on just on that find alone. Coughing up some ambiguous and completely unknowable guesses and calling it an answer does not make it one. The leader of the Smithsonian certainly thought it violated the gradual evolution popular at the time. It also explains why the tree of evolution it's self has evolved into the jungle of evolution at present. No telling what form will represent it in a dozen years from now. Looking back what you bolded is the most certain of the claims I made. It is the current model for that period.

 

[The Adept]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

The universe has allways existed.

This statement is a contradiction;
'Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything'
Passing the buck.

There was therefore no before.

 

[1robin]

The universe has allways existed.

This statement is a contradiction;
'Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything'
Passing the buck.

There was therefore no before.

Nothing natural has always existed. It is a philosophical, logical, and mathematical impossibility. Not to mention it is the exact opposite from the two most accepted cosmological models.

There was no space time before the big bang, but there easily could have been time related to something else supernatural. Time is relative to something else. If something non-natural existed then time could be related to it and would not be comprehensible to us.

BTW what is a hotodor religion?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: My position is that you do not know enough about common descent to question it, and that most creationists do not know enough about common descent to question it. If you would like to question it, please critique the following:

1. 29+ evidences for common descent by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., biology

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The article is a pretty thorough defense of common descent, and no one who cannot adequately refute it is in a position to question common descent. Surely you do not adequately understand much of it.

2. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism - Michael J. Behe - Google Books

When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of another, within a copy of the same words. That sort of evidence is seen in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. For example, both humans and chimps have a copy of a broken gene that in other mammals makes vitamin C. As a result, neither humans nor chimps can make their own vitamin C. If an ancestor of the two species originally sustained the mutation and then passed it to both descendant species, that would neatly explain the situation. More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin - not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene too.

How do you explain that, and the rest of page 71, and pages 72-74? Why don't you buy the book and critique all of it, and show where you are right, and where Behe is wrong?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Do you wish to discuss the Exodus in the thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/161101-did-exodus-occur.html that is devoted just to that subject?

 

[Agnostic75]

The holes I mention in some kind of totality theory called common descent are 95% from scholars in those areas. I did not invent them.

In the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. In addition, the National Academy of Sciences, and all leading biological sciences organizations accept it. That means that whatever evidence you are referring to is not enough to seriously question common descent in the opinions of most experts, including the majority of Christian experts.

You do not personally know enough about common descent to question it. If you believed that you did, you would be willing to discuss it with some experts, or with some knowledgeable amateurs. Both of those groups of people are easy to find at the Internet, and I have told you where to find some of them before.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Do you wish to discuss the Exodus in the thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/161101-did-exodus-occur.html that is devoted just to that subject?

I just got through typing my answer to that five minutes ago in the post you mentioned it in. Are you sure you not a computer? I need to give you a Turing test.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: My position is that you do not know enough about common descent to question it, and that most creationists do not know enough about common descent to question it. If you would like to question it, please critique the following:

1. 29+ evidences for common descent by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., biology

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

The article is a pretty thorough defense of common descent, and no one who cannot adequately refute it is in a position to question common descent. Surely you do not adequately understand much of it.

2. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism - Michael J. Behe - Google Books



How do you explain that, and the rest of page 71, and pages 72-74? Why don't you buy the book and critique all of it, and show where you are right, and where Behe is wrong?

I can't take it anymore. No matter how many articles you give you will never supply even a majority of the puzzle nor fill in the holes I pointed out. I am bored to death. What about eschatology?

 

[Agnostic75]

According to even the majority of Christian experts, common descent successfully challenges, and adequately refutes the story of Adam and Eve as believed by millions of American Christians. It is obviously not necessary for Christians to interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally, but as you know, many Christians, mostly conservative Christians believe that the story is literally true, and that some of them would give up Christianity, or become liberal Christians if they one day believed that the story of Adam and Eve was not literally true. I once had some discussions with a Christian inerrantist who said that if he one day believed that the Bible is not inerrant, he would give up Christianity. There are a lot of biblical literalists, and they believe that biblical literalism is very important.

It only challenges (even being generous) one of several very prominent interpretation of Genesis. That is all.

Millions of American Christians reject common descent. Those are the Christians who I am discussing. Christians who accept theistic evolution are irrelevant since I, and you have no problems with their acceptance of common descent.

 

[The Adept]

Nothing natural has always existed. It is a philosophical, logical, and mathematical impossibility. Not to mention it is the exact opposite from the two most accepted cosmological models. ..

BTW what is a hotodor religion?

As Matter cannot be created or destroyed it has allways been; the eternal atoms.
And the void of space has allways been long before the gods.

Hodotor;
Book of the Adept.docx - Speedy Share - upload your files here
Might explain something of the idea.

 

[Agnostic75]

I barely have time for this not for other threads. I will just say there is evidence for the Exodus but I don't know about the plagues.

You had time to mention the Exodus in a thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum. You bragged about William F. Albright. Wikipedia says that Albright "claimed that archaeology had proved the essential historicity of the Book of Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan as described in the book of Joshua and the book of Judges." According to many experts, Albright did no such thing.

 

[Agnostic75]

No matter how many articles you give you will never supply even a majority of the puzzle nor fill in the holes I pointed out.

I cannot supply the explanations since I do not know very much about biology, nor can you supply explanations for Douglas Theobald's article about common descent, nor about the comments that I quoted from Michael Behe. I think that it is reasonable for amateurs to accept the opinions of 99.86% of American experts who accept common descent, including the National Academy of Sciences, all leading biological sciences organizations, and the majority of Christian experts.

It is common knowledge that common descent has some problems, but it is also common knowledge that in the opinions of the vast majority of experts, there is far more scientific evidence that supports common descent than evidence that rejects it. Wikipedia says

You would not be willing to discuss your puzzle with experts since you know that you would embarrass yourself.

 

[1robin]

I cannot supply the explanations since I do not know very much about biology, nor can you supply explanations for Douglas Theobald's article about common descent, nor for the comments that I quoted from Michael Behe. I think that it is reasonable for amateurs to accept the opinions of 99.86% of American experts who accept common descent, including the National Academy of Sciences, all leading biological sciences organizations, and the majority of Christian experts.

You would not be willing to discuss your puzzle with experts since you know that you would embarrass yourself.

It is reasonable depending on the know ability of what they agree to. If 99% of people who have been to Cairo say there are 3 pyramids there I can easily agree. If 98% of people who have never ever seen abiogenesis occur say it has I cannot agree. BTW you at one time made very strong and very many arguments about numbers and authority used as evidence or persuasiveness. It seems you have defected but I am through with biology. It is freaking boring, even worse than chemistry IMO. If I was to have went with popular opinion just 60-70 years ago I would be stuck believing he universe had always been here in this state. I believe groups based on the know ability of what they agree to. I am even more skeptical in modern times where tenure, grants, being published, and even employed at all depends on towing the line about evolution. Don't know what to believe with that dynamic firmly entrenched. IF I had realized when I began you concluded with another of your guess at my motivations and challenges to debate other people I would not have responded at all.

 

[1robin]

As Matter cannot be created or destroyed it has allways been; the eternal atoms.
And the void of space has allways been long before the gods.

Hodotor;
Book of the Adept.docx - Speedy Share - upload your files here
Might explain something of the idea.

That only applies to natural law. What little part of it we actually understand. Space time is related to space and matter. If we have space and matter we have time. Now imagine your indestructible atom sitting in some space for an infinite amount of seconds. How did we cross that infinite amount of seconds to arrive at this one, since to cross an infinite is impossible. In quantum physics atoms appear all the time. They arrive out of fluctuations of energy fields, so apparently they can be created if energy exists. I have a degree in math and infinity usually causes math to explode or produce nonsense. It is almost always a boundary condition not a natural reality.


Since you seem unfamiliar with the latest cosmology let me add it in here.

Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” This is from the famous and bullet proof Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem.



In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Professor S.W.Hawking


Science cannot even resolve it's self. It gives us both a universe full of stuff that began to exist then tells us that it nature can not create nor destroy matter or energy. It is a schizophrenic condition for which theology is the cure. A supernatural being could have created the universe and the laws which govern it with out any unresolvable paradoxes.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[The Adept]

...
Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” ...

What evidence?

WMD in Iraq?