INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You have said that God is the leading explanation for the existence of the universe.

Good thing that isn't true! (this would be tantamount to saying we have no explanation at all!)

"God did it" tells us exactly no less and no more than "a wizard did it" or "magic did it"- it simply stipulates a cause in proportion to the effect, regardless of what that effect is. And that the existence of the universe requires an explanation in the sense intended here is far from certain (or intelligible) to begin with.

The bottom line is that theism is false, when it is intelligible at all. It consists in ad hoc and often incoherent metaphysical speculation which either explains nothing, or explains things which never occured. It fails at every possible bar we have- that of logical coherence, of parsimony, of evidentiary support, and of defeasibility. Theological backpeddling, aka the pouring of new wine into old skins, the art of equivocation, and of jamming a round peg into a square hole, only makes the matter worse.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I want to use the time I know I have to address a few things and then when I can I will go back and hit the rest. You are welcome to remind me if I don't. I believe what I posted was that child abuse rates increased by 50%. Is that not significant? On what basis is 1 a day low, much less 5.5?

50% Since when?

1 Per day is lower than 5.

I agree with that somewhat but I don't remember saying so. Actually I do not care if how it's done just as long as kids are disciplined appropriately. The method does not matter as long as it works and is just. The greatest injustice committed by parents is to not teach their children restraint and moral courage.

I agree to a certain extent, though I would qualify it by saying it is never okay to hit a child. It does far more harm than any good that could ever come out of it.

If that was what that statistic indicated then I withdraw it. I regard it as bad but it would be hard to label it as immoral.

Fair enough.

I was not arguing about these issues specifically. My point was an increase in families busting up is the wrong direction in general, but there are always exceptions. I said the Bible says we are faulty and have basically screwed up most of what we touch (every government we seem to create dies miserably) so he allows divorce but does not like it. Apparently our screwing up is getting worse because divorce is.

Well, these issues are relevant, don’t you think?

Maybe it’s not necessarily that we’re screwing up more, rather divorce has just become more acceptable. So people who were miserable in the 1950s in their marriage may not have divorced simply because it wasn’t socially acceptable whereas now it is.

I borrowed this from the latter post.
I absolutely refuse to be bound by the ever changing winds of what term we are allowed to use this week is. That term is how it is been professional labeled for years and years and I find it less potentially offensive than any other I can think of. Just out of curiosity what is the current permissible word and why?

Professional labeled? By whom? I don’t think that word has been used for decades.

Why is it even necessary, is what I want to know. It’s offensive because it’s an unnecessary word that carries a stigma with it. It’s a word used to demean a child who had no control whatsoever as to how they came into this world. It also demeans the parents.

The word I would use is simply “baby,” “child,” or “person.”

As for my portrayal of gay people you went way off the rails here.

I think I was right on target.

1. I have made no claim about any specific person. I actually really like every gay person I have ever met except one and she would have been a basket case no matter what her orientation.

So what? You tried to tell me that the majority of gay people are promiscuous and vile that they are the ones destroying unit cohesion in the military rather than the people who can’t handle being around a gay person.

It’s great that you like the gay people you’ve met, and that you’ve judged them on their merits rather than on their lifestyle but try to imagine how they would feel if you said to them half the stuff you have said about gay people on this forum.

2. Every claim I can remember making are simple obvious and conceded issues that can't be separated from the practice. a) It costs all of us billions. b) It causes diseases to be spread at a greater rate without any justifying gain. c) I and thousands of professional US officers (who actually presented a petition, they not me) claim it causes a lessening of cohesion in the military. Only the last one is even debatable and it is not offensive even if false.

Apparently they are obvious only to you.
a) So you claim but have never shown.
b) So you claim but haven’t shown.
c) I find this to be both childish AND offensive.

3. Those claims have no equality with the claims you made that I complained of on any level and make nothing even (not that that was the point anyway). You suggested I made some personal judgment about your niece which I did not, would not, and resent the tactic.

I suggested that you made a personal judgment against anyone born to parents who are not married. My niece just happens to be one of those people (even though her parents have been together for 15 years). It’s a word that carries stigma and judgment. Maybe this is why most people stopped using it decades ago.

I literally the hate the common liberal tactic of condemning anyone who does not agree with their terrible ideas with irrationally derived moral dysfunction. It is a despicable tactic. I however consider this an exception in your case and never make any official complaints no matter how absurd personal remarks get and you can consider the issue closed unless you will not allow it to be.

I don’t see what’s so despicable about pointing out what’s wrong with using a demeaning word to describe someone who had no control over the circumstances under which they were born. I wasn’t doing so just
because you disagree with me, if that’s what you think.

I also wanted to attempt to circumvent the statistics wars that are never resolvable with a simple claim if that is possible.

Okay, then maybe don’t post big long lists of random statistics.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1) Do you agree that popular television programs are a good indicator of cultural taste?
2) If so (If not why in the Sam Hill not?) then can you name a single moral category where current programming is more moral than 40’s and 50’s television programming was?

I thought of this last night and can’t conceive of why this would not settle the issue even as silly as it is.

Yes and no. They’re pretty good indicators of what kinds of things entertain people.

2) Is kind of a weird question.

I don’t watch a lot of popular television, but The Office is one of my favourites. Or how about Intervention, Hoarders, Mythbusters, Sesame Street, Handy Manny, Dora the Explorer, or Beyond Scared Straight?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why is everyone I debate inexhaustible? There is no way I can keep up with the volume you and the others generate. I will give a few but most would apply to all of evolution and remember these are only problems that I have not heard a sufficient explanation for not a basis for claiming evolution does not happen.

Sorry. I've seen you state this several times now and I was curious as to what you thought these problems were, that you keep mentioning.

1. The universe could have been anything as far as we know. The range of values that produce a universe that can even support the possibility for evolution is necessarily a vanishingly small range of an unquantifiable whole. How can you even even give nothing becoming everything a likely hood without some God like force?
2. Given we got that universe to start with I believe I have already given about 10,000 words concerning the layer after layer of contingent improbabilities that all have to occur to allow life to even begin. I am not currently interested in doing this over again. I also regard this as an absolute bulletproof impediment to evolution but I still believe it does occur. However I do not believe life occurred by natural means alone.

These two have nothing to do with evolution.

3. There seems to be a natural barrier between species (fertility barrier) which is inconsistent with evolutionary models Whether that be (bush, tree, or forest model). The theory evolves faster than life.

There is no barrier. All living things are related. Genetics demonstrate that.

4. Here is one another guy says better than I can but I am familiar with.
(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change
in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things
are the most complex functioning systems in the universe. Science has now
quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an
animal's genome is relentlessly fatal. The genetic difference between human and
his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a
gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random
changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.
Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 )

Barney Maddox is a young earth creationist and a urologist. And he’s wrong.

Most mutations are neutral. There is an equilibrium at work: As new harmful traits are introduced into the population, existing harmful traits are selected against. If Maddox thinks what he has said here is true, how does he explain bacteria? Bacteria mutates much faster than animals and plants do, and yet bacteria populations haven’t become less viable.

A random change of only 3 nucleotides is not necessarily fatal to an animal. Any random change in a complex system doesn’t necessarily wreck the system.

The whole thing is just a mess.

5. The (geologically) virtually instantaneous appearance of all major body types without any of the development that evolution says should be there in the Cambrian period.

This just isn’t true. My time today is limited, so please just read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

6. Here is a site that I have been reading I think gives many good arguments. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

The very first line is, “Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary,” and then goes on about “evolutionists think this and that .. blah, blah.” Sorry, but that site stinks.

7. I have a few questions for you. Do you think an insect species that is claimed to have evolved a resistance to a chemical is an example of evolution?

Yes. More specifically, it’s an example of natural selection.

At which micro evolutionary change is anything a new species? If we can breed dogs into every conceivable shape and form why have we not made a non-dog (or cow, horse, or even any new insect species) by now?

The point at which the “new” organism cannot breed with the “old” organism. A species is defined as a group of individuals that interbreed in nature and produce fertile offspring.

All dogs belong to the canine species. You’re talking about different breeds. In fact, dog breeding is pretty good proof for evolution.

Artificial selection tends to reduce genetic diversity in the gene pools of the domesticated animals. New mutations are weeded out so new alleles don’t end up being introduced into the population. Similar qualities are artificially selected for over and over again which results in a pretty uniform population of domesticated animals. So we have no reason to expect domesticated dogs to ever produce non-dogs.

8. A creature with no eye structure at all branching out into many different lines of evolution that all produced eyes by seperate paths is inconsistent with evolution.

Not at all. This is an old claim that has been thoroughly addressed and refuted as well.

Complex eyes have evolved somewhere between 50 to 100 times. Every known step in the evolution of the eye exists in living organisms to this day.

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

The problems you pointed out aren’t actually problems though.

 

[Agnostic75]

Here is a site that I have been reading I think gives many good arguments. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

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

The issue is macro evolution, not evolution since few if any creationists claim that no evolution has occurred at all. The article that you mentioned is contrary to what 99.86% of experts claim according to one study. That obviously includes the majority of Christian experts.

With your limited knowledge of biology, you are not in any position to judge that the article has many good arguments. Sure, the article has many arguments that laymen cannot adequately refute, but I could easily provide many arguments that you would not be able to adequately refute.

How much do you think that you know about macro evolution? You against an expert would be no contest. Apparently, you posted that article with the same motive that the author did, which was to try to appeal to an audience of laymen by using fancy scientific arguments that they do not understand, but which appeal to religious predispositionalism.

Most supporters of intelligent design reject macro evolution. The Dover trial was in 2004. The judge, John E. Jones III, is a Republican, and a Christian, and was appointed by a Republican president. Following is part of his ruling:

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.......an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching.......Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion.

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.......It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

If you really believed that you know a lot about biology, you would seek out advanced science forums at the Internet, but you would never do that because of your lack of knowledge about biology. Ken Miller, and any other reputable biologist, would demolish the article that you mentioned. Are you aware that at the Evolution Vs. Creationism forum, there is a practicing biologist who uses the name Painted Wolf? I am sure that she would be happy to have lots of discussions with you about macro evolution. Would you like to continue these discussions about macro evolution at that forum? Perhaps we could also get LegionOnomaMoi to join some discussions about macro evolution. He is not a biologist, but he has a diverse, and impressive educational background.

Anyone can post articles that are difficult for laymen to explain, such as when I posted an article by Ken Miller on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun that you could not explain. I know that I cannot adequately defend Miller's article. Do you know that you cannot adequately defend Fischer's article? Surely you know that most people at this forum are not able to adequately critique either article. So, what is going on here? What you trying to accomplish? You have said that all of macro evolution has problems, but the vast majority of experts believe that creationism has far more problems than macro evolution has. What sensible layman would take your word over the word of 99.86% of experts? The simple truth is that even if macro evolution is false, you do not know enough about it to win a public debate with expert who has a Ph.D. in biology, and accepts macro evolution. Surely you know next to nothing about many important aspects of macro evolution. Your main evidence is faith, not science. Faith is my main evidence too since I do not know a lot about biology. I have faith that the vast majority of experts are right. Please be honest and admit that your main evidence against macro evolution is based upon faith, not science.

Consider the following diagram from Miller's article:

Surely you do not understand the diagram well enough to discuss it in detail, but even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, since 99.86% of experts accept macro evolution, why should any layman accept the opinions of a relative handful of creationists experts, many if not the majority of whom also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory?

 

[Agnostic75]

I understand, but I do not expect you to reply to my post #652 in another thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/142807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-66.html#post3239455 since you know that I made some good arguments. You are way out of your expertise and abilities in that thread, and I have the vast majority of experts on my side.

You may have made a good argument somewhere but most of them were not simply impotent but just plain weird. I would not call what I do here as expertise but I will admit that that thread is not my normal arena. I however have not really attempted to resolve the issue with you. I have learned to determine very quickly if I am debating facts of emotions. I think in your case it is emotion or preference so I have not really supplied the amount of facts as I normally would. I think it would be time wasted, regardless when I get the chance I will really get into it with you.

The proof is in specific arguments, not in broad, non-specific assertions. Your lack of specificity, and frequent refusal to reply to my arguments shows that you are evasive, and not confident of your arguments.

Logically, no one is at fault for any action if there is not a viable solution. Your recommended solution for homosexuality is that all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life. You claimed that even monogamous homosexuals (which is about half of homosexuals) should practice abstinence for life since they could not guarantee that they would stay monogamous. That is a very weird, and nonsensical solution, and is not supported by any major medical organization in the U.S. You certainly do not have any documented research that says that monogamous homosexuals are much less likely to stay monogamous than monogamous heterosexuals are. Many homosexuals have been monogamous for decades. No rational person would claim that even they should practice abstinence for life.

Simple logic, and just plain old common sense indicate that if all monogamous homosexuals started to practice abstinence, that would do very little to influence homosexuals who practice unsafe sex to practice abstinence for life. Since homosexuals who practice unsafe sex are not even interested in having safe sex, they would quite naturally be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life. Therefore, there is no need for monogamous homosexuals to practice abstinence. Rather, what is needed is for all homosexuals, and all heterosexuals to practice safe sex. That is what all major medical associations recommend as the best way to deal with unsafe sex.

Some research has shown that lesbians are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are. Quite naturally, it would be absurd for anyone to recommend that monogamous lesbians should practice abstinence for life.

In that thread, you claimed that homosexuality is caused by environment, and that you would provide documentation if necessary. I asked you for the documentation, but you did not provide it. Please provide it. You have really missed the boat regarding that issue. The vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. How do you explain that? If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, that would not be the case. That is not complicated, and it is easy to understand.

When one adult identical twin is a homosexual, the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual. If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, more identical twins would both be homosexuals since it is well-known that identical twins generally have more similar environments than non-twin siblings do. That also is not complicated, and it is easy to understand.

Many experts have stated that it is reasonably possible that homosexuality is caused by a combination of genetics, and environment. I know that you believe that homosexuality would be wrong even if it is caused 100% by genetics, but if you used that argument, I would tell you that I would believe that it is right even if it is caused 100% by environment.

A good deal of your post #304 in that thread is false. In addition, regarding the health statistics in that post, if only monogamous homosexuals had been studied, surely the statistics would have been much lower. One claim in that post is that homosexuals have 20 times more domestic violence than heterosexuals do, but if necessary, I can provide you with a well-documented research study that shows that same-sex couples in the U.S. have less domestic violence than opposite-sex couples do.

Apparently, it is actually your case that is emotion or preference since abstinence for life for all homosexuals is most definitely not a viable solution for homosexuality. My comments in this post are logical, and sensible, and are surely supported by the vast majority of experts.

Some research has shown that same-sex couples in the U.S., Great Britain, and Denmark stay together longer than opposite-sex couples do. That is not the case in Sweden, and Norway, but it is in the countries that I mentioned.

In the U.S., Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do. Jesus said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery. Do you oppose divorce except in cases of adultery? You have said that you partly oppose homosexuality because it is harmful. Do you have any evidence that all divorce is harmful except in cases of adultery?

On June 4, 2013, I started a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...nence-life-all-homosexuals-good-solution.html?" I quoted some of what you said. You did not make any posts in that thread. Did you know about the thread? If you wish to discuss abstinence further, please make your comments in that thread since that would attract more readers than it would in this thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is nothing illogical and almost nothing unnecessary given by a claim that the universe is not eternal and there was a uncaused first cause. I would only claim God as the leading and most sufficient theory but that is far less than an indisputable theory. However there are only two choices a abstract concept as creator or a mind. Abstracts create nothing on their own and we are left with mind until some intrepid scientist invents a new fantasy.

As far as science is concerned, the majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, so they obviously disagree with your claim that God is the leading and most sufficient theory. As far as the National Academy of Sciences is concerned, since they are neutral on the existence of God, they obviously do not propose that God is, or is not the leading and most sufficient theory. As far as I know, your own sources Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, have never made such a claim. So, what are you primarily trying to accomplish in this thread as far as science is concerned? You must know that science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God. In other words, at this time, naturalism is at least plausible as far as science is concerned.

Even if a God exists, you have not reasonably proven that he is the God of the Bible. If one day the vast majority of leading physicists said that it is very probable that a God exists, I assume that the majority of atheists, and agnostics would not change their world view. The billions of non-Christian theists certainly wouldn't.

If you will go to this link you will find the explanation of what constitutes evidence and testimony reliability from one of histories greatest experts in those fields. [URL]http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html[/URL]

I already started a thread weeks ago about that at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/148389-simon-greenleaf.html, and I used the same link that you did. You are welcome to make a post in that thread if you wish. Greenleaf was a lawyer, and a jurist, not a professional theologian, or a professional Bible scholar. At any rate, let's discuss him in the thread that I mentioned. In that thread, please state some examples of what you like in the article. Much of the article is nonsense.

What about the reliability of the Old Testament? Greenleaf was just referring to the New Testament. Please answer that question in the other thread.

Christians once dominated science and literally created many of the actual fields themselves but I was not discussing that.

But the ancient Greeks were easily the greatest scientists in history by far, not to mention their significant contributions to art, philosophy, and literature. That is especially true considering how long ago they lived. In another thread, you boasted that many early American Christians supported the abolition of slavery, and that some of them died because of that. However, those Christians were about 2,000 years too late since some Greek Stoics who lived before Christ strongly criticized slavery.

 

[Agnostic75]

Here is a site that I have been reading I think gives many good arguments. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I have a few questions for you [SkepticThinker]. Do you think an insect species that is claimed to have evolved a resistance to a chemical is an example of evolution? At which micro evolutionary change is anything a new species? If we can breed dogs into every conceivable shape and form why have we not made a non-dog (or cow, horse, or even any new insect species) by now?

A creature with no eye structure at all branching out into many different lines of evolution that all produced eyes by seperate paths is inconsistent with evolution.

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

The main issue is macro evolution, not evolution since few if any creationists claim that micro evolution does not occur.

Since much widely accepted science has issues that no current knowledge can resolve, what you said is nonsense. You know very well that any expert who accepts macro evolution will admit that there are some issues about it that no current knowledge can resolve. He would also obviously tell you that in spite of certain problems, the evidence for macro evolution is overwhelming.

In the opinions of the vast majority of experts, 99.86% of experts according to one source, creationism has far more problems than macro evolution has. What qualifies you to dispute their professional opinions?

Would you like to discuss the article with an expert? If not, why not? There is a biologist at the Evolution Vs. Creation forum that goes by the name of Painted Wolf. Would you like to discuss the article with her?

I suspect that your knowledge of biology is rudimentary at best, at that any expert would quickly show how little you know about advanced biology.

Who is John Michael Fischer, who is the author of the article? I could not find out anything about his academic background at the Internet.

At the end of the article, Fischer provides many scholarly sources. It appears that most of those scholarly sources accept macro evolution. If that is the case, then Fischer has done a good deal of quote mining, which many conservative Christians do.

Wikipedia says:

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.

Apparently, Fisher has misrepresented the opinions of the majority of his sources regarding macro evolution, and naturalism. That is wrong, and it is dishonest.

It is a given that most experts would protest the way that Fischer presented the article, and that you will refuse to debate the article with an expert since you know that you would lose the debate because of you lack of knowledge about biology. You obviously choose your opponents very carefully lest you come across any who are experts. You know that biology is not one of your strong suits, but you hope that you know just enough to convince some skeptic laymen that all of macroevolution has problems.

The first source at the end of the article is "Alberts, Bruce, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, Peter Walter. 2008. Molecular Biology of The Cell, 5th edition. Garland Science, New York."

Those authors almost certainly accept macroevolution, but Fischer misused their research to oppose things that his sources probably do not oppose.

Do you really think that Ken Miller would have any problems adequately dealing with any of your arguments against macro evolution? He would certainly agree with you that that macro evolution has some problems that no current knowledge can resolve, but he would be able to provide you with lots of evidence that you would not be able to adequately refute.

In case you are interested in critiquing some advanced articles about intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and macroevolution, here are a few of them:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...tion-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

http://ncse.com/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-arguments-william-dembski

http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/paper/ev/behe/

 

[camanintx]

1. The universe could have been anything as far as we know. The range of values that produce a universe that can even support the possibility for evolution is necessarily a vanishingly small range of an unquantifiable whole. How can you even even give nothing becoming everything a likely hood without some God like force?

Do you play the lotto much? Despite the incredibly small odds of any single person winning, someone still manages to win.

2. Given we got that universe to start with I believe I have already given about 10,000 words concerning the layer after layer of contingent improbabilities that all have to occur to allow life to even begin. I am not currently interested in doing this over again. I also regard this as an absolute bulletproof impediment to evolution but I still believe it does occur. However I do not believe life occurred by natural means alone.

Is the hole designed specifically for the puddle that fills it or does the puddle come to fill it through natural means?

3. There seems to be a natural barrier between species (fertility barrier) which is inconsistent with evolutionary models Whether that be (bush, tree, or forest model). The theory evolves faster than life.

The fertility barrier only prevents different species from breeding during the same generation. Evolution takes much longer than a single generation so there is no inconsistency.

4. Here is one another guy says better than I can but I am familiar with.

(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change
in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things
are the most complex functioning systems in the universe. Science has now
quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an
animal's genome is relentlessly fatal. The genetic difference between human and
his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a
gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random
changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.
Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 )

Considering that every individual human carries about 200 mutations in their 3 billion base pair genome, Barney's math appears a little faulty. And since Barney is actually a medical doctor, not a geneticist, I wouldn't consider him an expert in this field.

5. The (geologically) virtually instantaneous appearance of all major body types without any of the development that evolution says should be there in the Cambrian period.

The discovery of more and more pre-Cambrian life is showing us that changes during the Cambrian period aren't quite as drastic as creationists would like you to believe. The Cambrian appears to be more of a horizon beyond which fossils are less prevalent than a barrier to evolution.

6. Here is a site that I have been reading I think gives many good arguments. [URL="http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html"]http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html[/URL]

John Michael Fischer, http://www.newgeology.us

7. I have a few questions for you. Do you think an insect species that is claimed to have evolved a resistance to a chemical is an example of evolution?

Yes, it is an example of evolution creating new functions where they didn't exist before.

At which micro evolutionary change is anything a new species?

There is no single evolutionary change that separates one species from another which is why it takes so long.

If we can breed dogs into every conceivable shape and form why have we not made a non-dog (or cow, horse, or even any new insect species) by now?

Because it takes a very long time. It took 33,000 years to breed wolves into dogs and 9,000 years to domesticate cows. Why do you think new species can arise so quickly?

8. A creature with no eye structure at all branching out into many different lines of evolution that all produced eyes by seperate paths is inconsistent with evolution.[

/quote]
How?

 

[Agnostic75]

You may have made a good argument [about homosexuality] somewhere but most of them were not simply impotent but just plain weird. I would not call what I do here as expertise but I will admit that that thread is not my normal arena. I however have not really attempted to resolve the issue with you. I have learned to determine very quickly if I am debating facts of emotions. I think in your case it is emotion or preference so I have not really supplied the amount of facts as I normally would. I think it would be time wasted, regardless when I get the chance I will really get into it with you.

I replied to that in my post #1347, and a couple of weeks ago, I started a thread at
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...nence-life-all-homosexuals-good-solution.html about your utterly absurd abstinence for life for all homosexuals argument. It is no surprise that no one agreed with you, and of course, neither does any major medical organization in the U.S. Please make a post in that thread since the issue of homosexuality would be more on topic there.

I doubt that you will reply to my post #1347 in detail. If you do reply to it, I suspect that you will try to be tricky, and evasive. Over a number of years, I have seen conservative Christians use tricks like yours on many occasions when they know that their opponents have good arguments. Some of their typical arguments are "I am busy," or "your arguments do not make any sense," or "I do not have discussions with rude people," or "your arguments are just emotional arguments," or "I have already discussed that before."

For weeks, it has been very difficult to get you to have detailed, specific discussions about homosexuality. That is because you know that you are not adequately prepared to debate it, not because of any of your flimsy excuses. The chief argument now is your abstinence argument, and I predict that you will avoid discussing it in detail.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

... I don't know why I so eagerly open these posts in hopes of finding an original argument. If this "transcendent" being you speak of could be above space and time and have existed without creation, by the same logic could the exact same not be true of the universe itself?

 

[1robin]

... I don't know why I so eagerly open these posts in hopes of finding an original argument. If this "transcendent" being you speak of could be above space and time and have existed without creation, by the same logic could the exact same not be true of the universe itself?

No. The super natural and the natural are not bound by the same laws. The reasons that nature cannot be eternal have no application to the supernatural. God is not subject to the conservation of energy, his being infinite is not a logical absurdity as it is in nature. Time can't be eternal in the past. It is impossible to cross an infinite series of past events to arrive at this one. Does that apply to God? Your argument is far worse than saying that water freezes at 0C so fire must also. Things that govern and limit nature (natural law) have no application to the supernatural. Not to mention that the current dominant cosmological model posits a single finite universe. Why do you have ISLAM in your name and are an atheist?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

No. The super natural and the natural are not bound by the same laws. The reasons that nature cannot be eternal have no application to the supernatural. God is not subject to the conservation of energy, his being infinite is not a logical absurdity as it is in nature. Time can't be eternal in the past. It is impossible to cross an infinite series of past events to arrive at this one. Does that apply to God? Your argument is far worse than saying that water freezes at 0C so fire must also. Things that govern and limit nature (natural law) have no application to the supernatural. Not to mention that the current dominant cosmological model posits a single finite universe. Why do you have ISLAM in your name and are an atheist?

1) I said the universe, not nature. The universe meaning outer space and the burning balls of hot gas that created nature. My opinion is that "nothingness" never existed; the necessary ingredients to construct the earth as we know it could always have existed without being created by themselves.

2) conservation of energy supports this theory because it states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, meaning that all the energy that went into "creating" the earth would have to have always existed. I guess you could choose to label this energy a "god" but it is not at all necessary to do so.

3) For the millionth time, read my signature, it clearly states what my username stands for.

 

[1robin]

Um... Ok? That something is not directly observable does not entail that it cannot be nevertheless be justifiably inferred without faith (in any robust sense). This is a false dichotomy.

There is nothing false in my original statement: I agree. My argument was not that it has not been observed there for it can't be true. It was that it can't be observed so faith has some role in that claim that it is true even if it actually is.
That statement is logically sound. Faith is involved.

Only if we assign "faith" such a broad meaning as to essentially render the term useless...

I assign it with no broader meaning that it is traditionally used in. Somewhere between a certainty and a belief that has no evidence to support it.

Really? Like who? Or are you maybe confusing this, with the demonstrable fact that you cannot strictly "prove" anything in science, because proof pertains to the deductive method of mathematics and logic, not the inductive method of science.

I have argued vehemently that only some evolutionists claimed evolution was a fact and was opposed and assured that they only claim it a theory when it suited the evolutionists I was speaking with. Are you now claiming that most of them would claim macroevolution is a certain fact. If so I have won at least 50% of my arguments with evolutionists on that basis alone. Actually science can't be proven by science according to many scientists. Though I never really grasped what they meant, maybe it is based on Gödel’s incompleteness concept. Science requires reproducibility and or observability for certainty in general. Even historical claims are judged on probability and almost all never claimed to be certain. If historical claims with even eyewitness testimony are said to be matters of faith on what grounds are a series of bones, etc.... conclusive proof?

Well, but that's the point- scientific theories exist to explain a specific domain of phenomena. They do not purport to explain anything outside of that, and if they are insufficient for even their own domain, then they ought to be discarded. However, I'm aware of no such insufficiency with respect to evolutionary theory.

Try typing in "problems with evolutionary theory" and you will see 16 million claims of deficiency. Your claims rest on the proposition that all 16 million are invalid. Mine rest on the fact that at least one is valid. You see no deficiency in claiming that cows turned into whales (or is the other way around) without a single transition in that chain ever observed? Are you saying that there is no deficiency of in claiming Dinosaurs turned into birds even though not a single dinosaur was seen to turn into anything by a scientist? I can only say I disagree. I see an entire theory based on the assumption that life did what no life has been observed doing (coming from non-life) or that even biological precepts say can't even occur a problem, do you not?

Well, but now we've moved beyond the realm of scientific explanations of natural phenomena into the realm of metaphysics. But nevertheless, the hidden premise here is that the "material universe" as such requires some ultimate explanation- which is far from self-evident, and reeks of a compositional fallacy anyways.

I was saying that we can't even get to the point where evolution could even occur within natural processes alone. Not which of the non-natural theories is correct. You took it farther that I ever intended and into areas it was not given to comment upon.

 

[1robin]

But the ancient Greeks were easily the greatest scientists in history by far, not to mention their significant contributions to art, philosophy, and literature. That is true especially considering how long ago they lived.

The Greeks were terrible scientists. They are not noted for getting the right answers. They are noted for being the first to ask the correct questions. A middle school student can easily see that a vast amount of their conclusions were wrong and many were absurdly wrong even from their greatest scholars.

You have said that God is the leading explanation for the existence of the universe. Which leading physicists agree with you?

Physicists are restricted by the bounds of physics to explain the universe. If the theory exists in meta-physics or the supernatural they would 1. Be completely out of their depth. 2. Restricted in their official declarations from positing God as even a theoretical solution. Do you not understand this? I never even hinted God is the leading scientific explanation. That is the realm they operate in. If the nature is not infinite then no natural explanation is even possible. So the answer lies in a field they have no expertise in and no official capacity to examine or evaluate. Why would the opinions of a group of people that specialize in an area that does not apply outside of the natural be applicable concerning what has no natural cause known to even be theoretically possible. Newton made more contributions to physics than arguably anyone and every person within the group you mention stands on his shoulders and he wrote more on God than on physics. That is no more of an argument resolver than what you claim. Physicists only "officially" give physics based conclusions but in spite of that I can post countless claims by them that reveal their personal faith but even though that is more telling than what you claimed it is also not going to resolve the issue. Perhaps give me the natural explanation for what created nature and then you might be on the right track. We have already been over this same ground several times. I can't justify doing it many more times. What created the universe does not appear to be a physics question.

 

[1robin]

1) I said the universe, not nature. The universe meaning outer space and the burning balls of hot gas that created nature. My opinion is that "nothingness" never existed; the necessary ingredients to construct the earth as we know it could always have existed without being created by themselves.

As far as anyone can tell. The same laws and principles I gave apply to every thing in nature. Qualifying what you meant does not change anything I said.

2) conservation of energy supports this theory because it states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, meaning that all the energy that went into "creating" the earth would have to have always existed. I guess you could choose to label this energy a "god" but it is not at all necessary to do so.

That is an application of that theory that produces logical incoherence. It is also only applicable to the natural. A supernatural phenomena would be able to create energy, and the evidence it was created is consistent with observed reality in more than the following ways. If energy has always existed then the total fluctuations in the past history of that energy is infinite. How did time traverse an infinite past number of fluctuations to arrive at the one we currently are experiencing. It can't. I have a math degree and any actual infinite results in logical impossibilities. It only partially exists harmoniously as an abstract concept. That is not what the most dominant cosmological model of the universe says occurred. It says that any single universe on average expanding is not eternal nor is it cyclical. Also thermodynamics (called the most immutable laws in nature by Einstein) would have resulted in a universal and even deposit of energy and matter infinitely long ago. Even inventing a cyclical universe will not help. If the universe is infinitely old then why does it look very young? Are you familiar with all the physics that I am briefly mentioning? I need to know how much detail to get into. The theory that accounts for the most observable evidence is something beyond the natural created nature a finite time ago and it has functioned by law in general with a few exceptions since then.

3) For the millionth time, read my signature, it clearly states what my username stands for.

I have never seen a post from you before so calm down. I do not read every comment someone has applied to their posts as most are silly. It should be assumed that the conflict between your name and your "religion" would be an issue in a theological forum and allowed for by more than a few words at the bottom.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

A "supernatural" entity can do anything you say it does for the sake of your argument... There' a reason rational people don't believe in the supernatural...

 

[Agnostic75]

Perhaps give me the natural explanation for what created nature and then you might be on the right track. We have already been over this same ground several times. I can't justify doing it many more times. What created the universe does not appear to be a physics question.

Well of course it is not a physics question, but you have discussed lots of physics in this thread. In addition, the current lack of enough evidence for what created nature does not mean that no such evidence exists. A hundred years from now, or a thousand years from now, such evidence might exist. The search for truth does not have a time limit. We do not even fully know how the simplest cell functions, and how to cure the common cold.

Please post whatever kinds of evidence that you wish that you believe reasonably proves that a God inspired the Bible.

Please reply to my post #1347.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. The super natural and the natural are not bound by the same laws. The reasons that nature cannot be eternal have no application to the supernatural. God is not subject to the conservation of energy, his being infinite is not a logical absurdity as it is in nature. Time can't be eternal in the past. It is impossible to cross an infinite series of past events to arrive at this one. Does that apply to God? Your argument is far worse than saying that water freezes at 0C so fire must also. Things that govern and limit nature (natural law) have no application to the supernatural. Not to mention that the current dominant cosmological model posits a single finite universe. Why do you have ISLAM in your name and are an atheist?

This is all based on what? Your say-so?