INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[McBell]

What on earth are you talking about? Catdogs??

This is the point where you know the person you are talking with does not know what evolution is about and is actually "arguing" a strawman version of evolution.

 

[Thief]

It takes adequate information to make a choice beyond a reasonable doubt. Many famous, intelligent people were agnostics, or are agnostics. Many of then are mentioned in a Wikipedia article at List of agnostics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Since many religious people claim many things about God, who is right?

Yep....lots of educated fence squatters......

But assumption is a useful tool....properly used.

Top of the line life form are we?.....not likely.
Spiritual life is pending?...seems that way to me.
Going to deal with Something Greater as we stand from the dust?.....I think so.

If not...dust we are....dust we shall be.

 

[Looncall]

Yes but the first thing was caused by something. Whatever that thing is, it transcends (not in religious context) the natural laws of the universe. That thing is called God. It could be a random event, and the cause of that random event is God. Not saying God is anything more than the cause of the first thing. I'm completely fine with people believing anything they want, and i believe in science but science will never be able to prove that the universe was created through science because the first thing created will never have a creator that obeys the laws of the universe and science. (btw by science I mean the laws of the universe etc.)

The term created is apt to be misleading. I find it more helpful to think of the universe as something that happened. That way, one is not sneaking gods in by a back door.

I do not think that your bare assertion that the start of the universe cannot be understood holds water at all.

 

[Zanuku]

Toward the original post, this is not even nearly indisputable.

 

[philbo]

Toward the original post, this is not even nearly indisputable.

It's not indisputable, it's not rational and it's certainly not proof that god exists. Quite impressive, isn't it

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: The vast majority of experts claim that common descent is very probably true. Do you agree, or disagree with that?

Do you believe that irreducible complexity is very probably true?

Why won't you debate an expert on the topic of common descent?

If you think that you have informed opinions about common descent, please critique an extensive article on common descent at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., biochemistry, Brandeis University. He accepts emails, and his email address is provided, but you probably will not send him any emails.

If you think that you have sufficiently informed opinions about the flagellum, intelligent, and irreducible complexity, please critique Ken Miller's article on those topics at The Flagellum Unspun.

Please make a post in my new thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/153419-evidence-other-universes.html, and in my past thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...52974-does-god-bible-give-everyone-least.html.

 

[metis]

In my anthropology course, I used this basic definition of "evolution": genetic changes in species whereas new species may emerge.

Then, from that, we went on from there. Notice that there's no mention of any theistic cause, nor is there any mention that there cannot be a theistic cause. What I have seen happen over and over again is that the minute one says or writes "evolution", so many attach different theorems, hypotheses, or just plain guesses are often attached, but they are not intrinsic within the basic concept itself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is the point where you know the person you are talking with does not know what evolution is about and is actually "arguing" a strawman version of evolution.

Wow. It sure is. :sarcastic

 

[Thief]

In my anthropology course, I used this basic definition of "evolution": genetic changes in species whereas new species may emerge.

Then, from that, we went on from there. Notice that there's no mention of any theistic cause, nor is there any mention that there cannot be a theistic cause. What I have seen happen over and over again is that the minute one says or writes "evolution", so many attach different theorems, hypotheses, or just plain guesses are often attached, but they are not intrinsic within the basic concept itself.

So now...go read Genesis.

 

[metis]

So now...go read Genesis.

I've read it many, many times, and I have been to and also taught seminars on this issue. Why are you assuming that somehow I'm unfamiliar with this?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I've read it many, many times, and I have been to and also taught seminars on this issue. Why are you assuming that somehow I'm unfamiliar with this?

I wouldn't bother you won't get much out of him.

 

[1robin]

What are you talking about?

You really have no idea what I am talking about?

What "information" are you referring to?

Good grief you actually don't what I am talking about do you? Bill Gates described DNA as code (but of a far more sophisticated kind). What builds things? Plans. Where did nature get plans? Behavior is programming? Have you ever seen a C++ disk self originate? Just instincts alone would make C++ look like a children's book. I work with a PhD specialist in information theory discuss these issues almost daily. How did trees formulate the Fibonacci sequence braches obey? How did the nautilus compute Fi? Or sunflowers an interrupted Fibonacci?

I’ve already responded to this and debunked it, and here you are repeating the claim again. The Cambrian explosion is thought to last somewhere between 10-40 millions years, so I don’t know how sudden that really is and we know evolution continued to occur within that timeframe.

That is a geological instant. I have never heard a geologists suggest otherwise. It is called the explosion because it was almost instantaneous not because it blew something up. It is not consistent with traditional evolutionary theories.

Instead of just repeating myself and explaining it all to you again, I’ll just give you a link. Please read so you can stop repeating your factually incorrect claim.

CC300: Cambrian Explosion

The first line was this: The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life.


I only saw additional points (mostly may haves and could haves) about things I never mentioned. I never said evolution among things did not occur at that time. I said the organisms that exploded on the scene do not have significant development record preceding them. How do slow and ponderous changes in genes almost instantly create massive changes in the very types of life forms? Every knows (including most evolutionists) that this is a anomaly traditional evolutionary theories does not explain.

Maybe you should read some textbooks or something then.

It is a big blur to everyone including you. I am just honest enough to admit it. It is another blur (but less blurry) until recorded history and is still hazy even in the 19th century. I am on two civil war round tables and know very well arguments abound about who was where during pickets charge, even with hundreds of battle reports, thousands of witnesses, and hundreds of studies on the physical debris of Gettysburg. Claiming to know exactly what happened a few hundred million years ago is offensively arrogant and damaging to credibility. For the love we can't predict the weather right more than 48 hours in advance most of the time.

Brain organization, not overall size, may be the key evolutionary difference between primate brains, and the key to what gives humans their smarts, new research suggests.

http://www.livescience.com/28209-brain-organization-key-to-intelligence.html
8 Humanlike Behaviors of Primates
[URL="http://www.livescience.com/15309-humanlike-behaviors-primates.html"]http://www.livescience.com/15309-humanlike-behaviors-primates.html[/URL]

I will read these when you explain what I said that they are countering. Common design explains what is in their titles just as well or better than evolution (which I never rejected anyway). I only reject evolution alone.

 

[1robin]

They are old canards that have been ripped to shreds several times over. That's why you don't see anyone bothering to counter them.

You bothered to type this opinion. Your opinion is not an argument.

 

[1robin]

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

Sam Harris is an idiot (in debates anyway). He is the only atheist debater I have ever seen that suggested objective morality exists. Craig backed him into a corner so tight he admitted he assumed they existed. After Craig rightly said you can't assume the premise to the debate topic, Harris defended it by listing many other atheist claims that are assumed (which is the worst justification I have ever heard). He basically said that he could guess at this because they have guessed at everything. I appreciate the information on atheist arbitrary rejection methods but you nor anyone has done the slightest thing to actually show that anything I said fits that contrived description.

 

[1robin]

What on earth are you talking about? Catdogs??

One last time. Slow gradual evolution should produce a bunch of catdogs of graduating ratios. Not a bunch of cats and a bunch of dogs that can't interbreed. This might be too complex for a forum. Many other things come into play like tectonics, local catastrophes, predation, etc... but the principle is sound in general.

 

[Thief]

I've read it many, many times, and I have been to and also taught seminars on this issue. Why are you assuming that somehow I'm unfamiliar with this?

Most people don't read it as I do.
Most people think Chapter Two is a rehash of Chapter One.

I see it clearly and otherwise.

Adam is not the first of man to walk this earth.
He was the first to walk with God.

Someone had to be first.

 

[metis]

Most people don't read it as I do.
Most people think Chapter Two is a rehash of Chapter One.

I see it clearly and otherwise.

Adam is not the first of man to walk this earth.
He was the first to walk with God.

Someone had to be first.

I do believe there's sufficient evidence to possibly conclude that what we see in these accounts are to be taken as allegory. With what we now know, a literalistic approach doesn't make much sense.

Because of a recent find in northern Israel that involves a Cuneiform text covering some of the main themes of Genesis 1-2 that predates the writing of Genesis, what appears to have happened is that the author(s) of these accounts took the Babylonian narrative and modified it to teach our values and beliefs. This is not at all unusual since all cultures do this, nor does it in any way invalidate the teachings found within these creation accounts.

Therefore, the most important issue really isn't whether these accounts are accurate renditions of history but is more on what is actually being taught here in the area of values and beliefs, which has a major effect on our morality.

 

[Cephus]

Not to be mean to athiests but every time i see an athiest rip on a religious person i just wanna slap them with this statement.

And seriously, they'd laugh at you. That's such an absurd argument, I don't even know where to begin. It is the epitome of the argument from ignorance.

 

[1robin]

And seriously, they'd laugh at you. That's such an absurd argument, I don't even know where to begin. It is the epitome of the argument from ignorance.

What an atheist would laugh at, deny, ignore, or dismiss without cause is not an argument for anything flattering to atheists.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Domestication has to do with the reason why wolves are ancestral to dogs! You think a wolf is a dog. Okay, go out into the wild and start petting a wolf and bring it home with you to fetch your newspaper for you. See what happens to you.

You can say the same thing about a stray pit bull.

The difference between wild wolves and dogs has to do with behavioral and physical differences (such things have been bred into dogs by human beings via artificial selection which would never work if evolution were not a reality). They are not the same thing just because they both have fur and four legs.

Behavioral and physical differences such as what?

It doesn’t matter one bit what you believe. Scientific facts are true whether you believe them or not. Evolution is a scientific fact. No presuppositions necessary - that’s your department.

The problem is the mixing of your presupposed interpretation with the observation. The observation is things change over time. The interpretation is that things change via macroevolution. But that interpretation is not a fact because no one has ever seen it. It is what you BELIEVE, but as you just told me, it doesn’t matter one bit what you believe (either). We’ve never seen macroevolution, but what we have seen microevolution, and there is a whole lot of microevolution going on.

I still don’t know what you think a “kind” is supposed to be. Are they just animals that look similar to each other? It’s not a term used in the scientific community, so it really has no bearing on evolution anyway.

Dog kind: wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos, domesticated dogs
Cat kind: lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, domesticated cats
Snake kind: pythons, boas, cobras, anacondas, rattlesnakes
Bear kind: Grizzlies, Brown, koala, polar
Throughout the history of mankind, no one has ever reported seeing an animal produce anything other than their kind. Never. So, if you believe such a thing, you are relying on the unseen, because you are sure as heck not relying on observational science.

The observation is all over the place. Try reading some scientific papers or a textbook or something.

The observation is of microevolution. I guarandamntee if every living creature on earth disappeared EXCEPT the “dog” kind, a million years later you will find a world populated with nothing but dogs. There may be different varieties of dogs, but they will all be DOGS. There is absolutely no reason to think that during these millions of years, some dogs will slowly lose their snouts and have a half-beak and half snout, and some will grow partial wings and feathers. None. This is evolution fairy tales. Voodoo science.

Your personal HYPOTHESIS explains nothing. How did the dog come from the wolf? What the hell is a “kind?” How do you demonstrate your HYPOTHESIS? When you’ve done some careful study and testing, published your paper in a scientific journal, had it reviewed by other scientists who actually study this stuff for a living and then have your hypothesis confirmed by further testing and scrutiny by independent groups of scientists, then get back to me.

Has anyone ever observed an animal producing a different kind of animal? I gave you the definition of kind above. In order for all living creatures to share a common ancestor, there had to be a lot of voodoo stuff going on. So you definitely believe it, the question is, where is the observation? I thought observation was a big part of science. I will ask any scientists in that field of study, where is the observational evidence?

Great, we know what your personal beliefs are. Demonstrate this please.

I could ask you to do the same thing about your personal beliefs.

Because animals will not always be of “that kind.” Remember the example (you didn’t even respond to it) I presented to you where scientists attempted to domesticate foxes and within a few generations ended up with not only tamer animals (behavioral changes) but the physical characteristics of the foxes had changed as well? Now imagine the changes that would take place over longer periods of time, with the addition of more allopatric evolution, genetic drift, etc. – thousands of years, tens of thousands of years, millions of years, etc. You’d end up with an animal very different from the one you started with. That’s how it works. This is not in dispute, and it is demonstrable or it would not be accepted science.

First of all, you wont get a different kind of animal based on domestication. Whoever told you that lied to you. There is no correlation between the changes in behavior and the changes in physical characteristics. None. There may be some temperament changes, but that is it. See, this is what I am talking about, pure speculation. You can tame just about any animal, but the animal will always be what it is.

What you mean is, that is your hypothesis. It means absolutely nothing without evidence.

Well, you told me yours, so I told you mines.

A different kind of animal is originating. Think about the fox.

More like a different variety of the same kind.

There’s no way you can accept microevolution without macroevolution unless you have a religious agenda. Microevolution inevitably leads macroevolution.

Based on what observation?

Why do you think scientists don’t make distinctions between the two like you’re trying to do? Ya know, the guys who study this stuff for a living and know what they’re talking about.

Because the phenomenon must meet their presupposition.

Scientists don’t distinguish between micro and macroevolution, because the former leads to the latter.

This is an unsupported assertion. No one has ever seen micro leading to macro. To believe this, you are leaving science and landing right in the realm of religion.

They are the same thing, with the only difference between them being the time periods involved.

I will tell you how long it takes to happen. It takes SO LONG TO HAPPEN…that it didn’t happen.

If you want to see it so badly, it’s out there for you to find, very easily. Have you tried looking?

Why bother because I know it won’t be what I am asking for. It will more than likely be an example of microevolution, a concept that I have granted because we have actually seen such a thing occur.

There is no contradiction at all here. I’ve explained this at least 3 or 4 different ways now. No single dog ever came from a single wolf; evolution works on populations, not on individuals.

Sure it does.

I am not saying now nor have I ever said that a non-dog will give birth to a dog.

Yet, all dogs are descendents of the wolf. If you don’t see the contradiction in what you are saying then perhaps you should carefully examine your own argument because it is as clear as day to me.

Yeah. I’ve explained it several times and several different ways now and I’ve provided links to help explain and illustrate further. I really don’t get what you’re not understanding. Please point it out.

Different varieties of the same kind of animal. Not a different animal altogether, such as the whale leaving the oceans after it mysteriously evolved into a land mammal.