Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[SkepticThinker]

Would you agree that evolution and creation are the two main players in this debate?

I wouldn't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thats why Im asking you or anyone else to give me your starting point on how life began as you see it or believe it and what is your strongest foundation that you so firmly stand? Im guessing all of your answers would be close. Can you do that?

You should be asking abiogenesists that question, not evolutionists.

 

[1robin]

You should be asking abiogenesists that question, not evolutionists.

Is it not perfectly reasonable to establish that something that must have occurred to enable a theory to be valid actually occurred? I do not agree that evolution and abiogenesis are independent issues but what I said would be true even if they were. Chemical evolution as well as many more forms of evolution including things that occur in space are all part of evolution and abiogenesis is just a step within a proposed sequence. Biological evolution is only a type of evolution not evolution its self and is dependent on many things, the establishment of which is very relevant.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You say"I don't see what the point would be in providing you with evidence for how life began since we're talking about evolution, which doesn't speak to that. "What then, is the starting point for the evolution theory that you are so entrenched in?

The starting point is life.

Remember that a theory is something that has been extensively tested and is generally accepted. How has evolution been extensively tested? More importantly, what have been the results of the tests? Any examples?

As I said before, all data collected from practically every field of science in existence converges and leads to the same conclusion: evolution. Whether it’s geology, paleontology, biology, genetics, microbiology, astronomy, chemistry, ecology, physics or many others; they all point to evolution.

It could be argued that genetics alone is enough evidence to support evolutionary theory. But the fact of the matter it is but one piece of a much larger bulk of evidence.

Apparently you must have the empirical scientific evidence to which you so firmly stand, so, lets see it! Empirical evidence is a provable fact that shows unquestionable results. It is the observable proof that knowledge was gained by data, rather than hypothesis, theory or conjecture.

There is no proof in science, only in mathematics. Scientists use evidence to verify the veracity of a claim. Evolution is the best explanation for all the existing data, which is why it is the accepted explanation for the diversity of life on earth. All evidence discovered since Darwin (and others) first posited the theory has supported and reinforced it, and none has been able to falsify it. And it is a falsifiable theory. If there is overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, as you claim, how would you explain this?

You really need to read a textbook or some scientific papers. For starters, try looking up:

-the fossil record
-comparative genomics
-the geological column
-comparative anatomy
-biogeography
-antibiotic resistant bacteria
-phylogenetic reconstruction
-chromosome 2 in humans
-ring species

The Scientific Method you mentioned above is something Im excited for you to explain, especially its veracity to the theory.

Well, I just explained part of the process, in my last post.
“Theory” is the highest level a scientific claim can graduate to.

But to save some time and space, here’s a link that sums it up pretty well:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

You mentioned above that " You’re trying to tell me that thousands of scientists all over the world are making up evidence or something (and they’ve been doing this for over 150 years!) so that they simply don’t have to accept that your god exists?Do you know how silly that sounds?You do know that some of the top scientists in the field are leaning towards a designer even thought they are Christsians?

I know that Francis Collins believes strongly in a Christian god, but accepts evolutionary theory. I know Ken Miller (who identifies as Catholic) rejects creationism and intelligent design, accepts evolutionary theory, and doesn’t think science and religion are incompatible.

Who are the top scientists you are talking about, and what kind of work have they done?

Silly or not, can you name one, just one scientist that has gotten the Nobel Prize for proving beyond any doubt that evolution is true? Because if they were able to do this, not only would they get the Nobel Prize but every other prize that is available and I'd bet there would be a few more that would be made just for the occasion! And as far as I know, none has come forward, not one.

It’s silly, because there’s no way that kind of conspiracy garbage could be going on for over 150 years amongst tens of thousands of independent scientists working all over the world. There’s no reason they would be doing such a thing in the first place. People get into the scientific field because they’re interested in figuring out how things work.
Susumu Tonegawa won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1987 “for his discovery of the genetic principle for generation of antibody diversity.”


You don’t seem to know much about evolution or the scientific method despite your claim that it’s been “crammed down your throat.” So maybe you should take the time to educate yourself before continuing with this discussion because you’re making baseless claims all over the place.

What to me sounds silly? Is that you dont address whatever it is that started your evolutionary process in the first place! It's kind of important!

That can be easily addressed with a question to you: Where did your god come from?
Do we have to know where gravity came from in order to understand how it operates?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is it not perfectly reasonable to establish that something that must have occurred to enable a theory to be valid actually occurred?

It has been established that evolution has occurred.

I do not agree that evolution and abiogenesis are independent issues but what I said would be true even if they were. Chemical evolution as well as many more forms of evolution including things that occur in space are all part of evolution and abiogenesis is just a step within a proposed sequence. Biological evolution is only a type of evolution not evolution its self and is dependent on many things, the establishment of which is very relevant.

They are linked, but the theory of evolution isn't meant to explain everything that has ever happened. It only needs to explain the diversity of life.

 

[1robin]

It has been established that evolution has occurred.

I keep forgetting to make sure you understand my comments are made in a God + evolution versus evolution alone context. That may straighten out your contention. If evolution is used as an argument against the existence of God then abiogenesis is certainly an appropriate issue. If evolution is being posited without any reference to the existence of God then it is not a meaningful discussion to me anyway.

They are linked, but the theory of evolution isn't meant to explain everything that has ever happened. It only needs to explain the diversity of life.

I think my clarification above should resolve the issues you have mentioned here. Evolution in a context besides a theological debate is one of the most tedious, boring, and non-useful theories I know of and does not inspire interest from me in that context.

 

[1robin]

Excuse me, when have I ever done that??

Just so you know, another person on this thread suggested demonic possession is a fact.

Your statement was made immediately after one of mine and was addressed to no one. If I was mistaken it should have been seen as a reasonable mistake with obvious causes that were created by your post.

 

[adi2d]

Your statement was made immediately after one of mine and was addressed to no one. If I was mistaken it should have been seen as a reasonable mistake with obvious causes that were created by your post.

So even when you're wrong and you admit you're wrong its not your fault. How convenient for you

 

[1robin]

So even when you're wrong and you admit you're wrong its not your fault. How convenient for you

I did not say it was not my fault. I said the explanation is easily seen to be reasonable. What was the justification for posting what you did? What did you think was going to happen that merited what you typed?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it not perfectly reasonable to establish that something that must have occurred to enable a theory to be valid actually occurred?

You tell us:

- do you think that we can't examine whether Ohm's Law is correct without first establishing how electrons were formed?
- do you demand that anyone who studies nutrition must first become an expert in agriculture?
- do economists need to know the geology, mining, and metallurgy of metals used in currency before they can speak with authority on how the monetary supply works?

 

[adi2d]

I did not say it was not my fault. I said the explanation is easily seen to be reasonable. What was the justification for posting what you did? What did you think was going to happen that merited what you typed?

You did say that the mistake was caused by another.

I hope that eventually you would answer some of the questions addressed to you. Preferably without your favorite strawman. Abortion

 

[1robin]

You tell us:

- do you think that we can't examine whether Ohm's Law is correct without first establishing how electrons were formed?

Both I and you believe that evolution occurred. I do not care about it at all and find it tedious, not useful in anyway I care about, and boring. I however do care about it if it is used in an argument concerning God. I do not care about evolution unless it is used to claim God does not exist. If that is what is claimed then abiogenesis is a vital component of that argument. It is God not evolution that is meaningful here. If you used ohm's law of resistance (I use it every single hour at work) in an argument concerning God then I would have to evaluate it in that context. If considered in isolation it is not a reasonable equality or analogy of what evolution is used for and so is irrelevant. It is comical to see what an atheist will assume an argument is versus what it in actuality is. Your analogy has no relevance though its premise is true.

- do you demand that anyone who studies nutrition must first become an expert in agriculture?

When it is used to debate God I would have to examine what else might be relevant and when it is I will.

- do economists need to know the geology, mining, and metallurgy of metals used in currency before they can speak with authority on how the monetary supply works?

None of these analogies has any equivalence to evolution used in the context it has been. Did you even read my posts where I stated this in adequate detail? It is it's use that determines it's corollary requirements. You might want to re-read what I have already said again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Both I and you believe that evolution occurred.

Well, that's good. If you at least agree with common descent, at least we don't have to argue over all that "kinds" nonsense.

I do not care about it at all and find it tedious, not useful in anyway I care about, and boring. I however do care about it if it is used in an argument concerning God. I do not care about evolution unless it is used to claim God does not exist.

Then you have nothing to worry about. Evolution doesn't imply that God doesn't exist.

It's incompatible with certain claims about God (in the same way that any scientific theory that says "X occurred naturally" is incompatible with any claim that says "God made X happen with a miracle") but not with the existence of God.

 

[1robin]

You did say that the mistake was caused by another.

Mistakes often times were either caused by or contributed to by the mistakes or even correct actions of another. That is a fact and beyond contention. If you trip me and I crash into another person I would first say sorry to that person even though it was another's actions that forced what I took responsibility for. In this case another's actions contributed to an easily made mistake (if a mistake actually occurred) on my part. I did exactly what should have been done, admit the mistake and explain the circumstances. Only the objection to something so appropriate seems to be out of whack here. What are you doing here? What is the point? Is anyone that agues on the negative side of a God debate in need of defending and support in your mind?

I hope that eventually you would answer some of the questions addressed to you. Preferably without your favorite strawman. Abortion

The only part of this statement that was coherent (to me anyway) is that I have not answered some unnamed questions. Name them and I will, continue this bizarre line of discourse and I will not. I will not even continue this particularly strange and meaningless dialogue at all, much longer, if some productive course of action is not adopted.

 

[1robin]

Well, that's good. If you at least agree with common descent, at least we don't have to argue over all that "kinds" nonsense.

I do not know the boundaries of the label "common descent". I do believe the principles involved in common descent have certainly occurred. I am not sure that common descent alone is an explanation for biological reality as we know it. I doubt anyone knows either way to any meaningful degree of certainty and I certainly do not have the information available nor the expertise to fully evaluate that theory to a conclusion. I believe both God and natural law have contributed to biology but am unclear where the boundaries exist to any meaningful degree or the exact ratios involved. As far as kinds go the claim that they all descended from one celled organisms is composed to a large measure of faith. It may be true but is not known.

Then you have nothing to worry about. Evolution doesn't imply that God doesn't exist.

I agree but it often is used for that purpose and in that use my objections were completely valid and appropriate.

It's incompatible with certain claims about God (in the same way that any scientific theory that says "X occurred naturally" is incompatible with any claim that says "God made X happen with a miracle") but not with the existence of God.

I think I agree here as well. Evolution is possibly an argument against one or more interpretations of certain verses in the Bible but not others. Given all that I and you have said here do you not agree that abiogenesis would be vitally important if evolution is used as an argument against God's existence? If you agree, then everything I have said is valid and resolved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think I agree here as well. Evolution is possibly an argument against one or more interpretations of certain verses in the Bible but not others. Given all that I and you have said here do you not agree that abiogenesis would be vitally important if evolution is used as an argument against God's existence? If you agree, then everything I have said is valid and resolved.

I think that abiogenesis is as irrelevant to the question of God's existence as evolution is.

Unless you can actually demonstrate why some natural phenomenon must have required God (and I've never seen anyone getting even close to a logically coherent attempt at this, let alone one that's actually demonstrated), then the explanation suggested by Occam's Razor will always be the one that doesn't involve any gods, but the theists can still argue that any naturalistic mechanism that the scientists discover was just "the method God used", and even though the evidence might suggest that this is improbable, it can still be reconciled with some sort of theistic view.

 

[McBell]

Would you agree that evolution and creation are the two main players in this debate?

No.

Simply because Evolution is a theory and Creation is not even a hypothesis.

 

[McBell]

Thats why Im asking you or anyone else to give me your starting point on how life began as you see it or believe it and what is your strongest foundation that you so firmly stand? Im guessing all of your answers would be close. Can you do that?

Ah, so you flat out lied when you indicated you already presented some?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think that abiogenesis is as irrelevant to the question of God's existence as evolution is.

Unless you can actually demonstrate why some natural phenomenon must have required God (and I've never seen anyone getting even close to a logically coherent attempt at this, let alone one that's actually demonstrated), then the explanation suggested by Occam's Razor will always be the one that doesn't involve any gods, but the theists can still argue that any naturalistic mechanism that the scientists discover was just "the method God used", and even though the evidence might suggest that this is improbable, it can still be reconciled with some sort of theistic view.

^^^ This.
:clap

 

[1robin]

I think that abiogenesis is as irrelevant to the question of God's existence as evolution is.

Well what you think is not necessarily indicative of truth. Evolution being claimed to be an autonomous concept requires that a solution to life coming from non-life be found to be reasonable. It has not been and so any claim that this world is ticking along without any need of God is not demonstrated or even close to being so. We have life. At the present there is no natural explanation of how we got it. That leaves only non-natural explanations. That is perfectly consistent with God and so is inconsistent with what you claimed above. That same inadequacy of nature to explain reality exists in massive amounts of what we see in the universe. In fact the universe its self has no natural explanation for what brought it into existence. If you can't get past step 0 without appealing to the transcendent then arguments over step 4.5 billion are not that meaningful.

Unless you can actually demonstrate why some natural phenomenon must have required God (and I've never seen anyone getting even close to a logically coherent attempt at this, let alone one that's actually demonstrated), then the explanation suggested by Occam's Razor will always be the one that doesn't involve any gods, but the theists can still argue that any naturalistic mechanism that the scientists discover was just "the method God used", and even though the evidence might suggest that this is improbable, it can still be reconciled with some sort of theistic view.

I have never understood the reliance on Occam's Razor by either side. Occam's razor has nothing to with what is true. It has to do with the probability of truth of unknowns given certain parameters. I could say that given Occam's razor we should believe that it only requires on e person to create another person but we know that is wrong and it takes to. I could say that God is the simplest solution to what created the universe because any other explanation is composed of more than one entity or force and requires an explanation for its self. However I know Occam's Razor's intended use and that as well as what you said is not it and it would be wrong quite often even used as intended. I do not agree with your convenience equivocation but even if it was true it is incidental. Just because something is convenient does not indicate it is incorrect. The THEORY of evolution seems to shrink or expand to fit any thing its adherents desire it should include or exclude. It is a theory so ambiguous and so expansive it means virtually nothing. A word that means everything actually means nothing. However I have never even hinted that evolution did not occur because the theory based on it is too conveniently defined. Why did you? I see many assertions and opinions here but not one meaningful fact that is relevant to my position. Though compared to the posts I have seen the last few days this one is a masterpiece. How sad is that?