when saying (via various character assassinations and ad hominem attack that my sources lose, you should probably spell "lose" correctly. It makes your argument go a little further.
But those sources are scientists who have journalled many peer reviews and are very good at what they do. But your google search never said that did it? That is because you don't know that the "teach the controversy" curriculum has passed in 8 states, and is currently being taught in thousands of high schools.
That is not intelligent design, in fact if you ask stephen meyer if he believes intelligent design should be taught, he says no. Because teachers are not trained to teach it. And they would do more damage than help. No doubt this was the problem of the scopes trial. People that didn't know that creationism and intelligent design were different.
yes, sir I have read the trial. And numerous recent trials into this. So by all means please quote what you don't agree with. In fact none of what was said, was actually said in the Dover trial, but you can equivocate us with them all you want. After all that is what they do in public school curriculum, not to mention the internet scholar's number one site, wikipedia.
natual and supernatural causes are not mutually exclusive. God for example can use natural laws to do miracles. Simply a being that is in a higher plane of existence can do miracles in a totally logical fashion for a being of higher dimensionality (please see Dr. quantum flat lander on you tube).
most of the scientists I know realize the universe is expanding and that there was an explosion of some sort in the past (big bang), and that this was the cause of the universe. Again, so when you say "we are not sure the universe is finite or eternal." you are meaning you, and if that is the case. I would try to google search evidence for the big bang. Because most of science is geered on the fact the universe was created. Secondly, a universe, the biggest cause. Not having a cause at all (is eternal), violates basic scientific laws of cause and effect. At that point, all cause and effect can ultimately be compromised. If the biggest effect can be uncaused, then why does anything have to be caused at all?
God who is massless, does not need to take up space. Mass takes up space.
I have completely and sufficiently replied to all of your accusations above, now please answer my quotations of specified complexity.
the eye for example has several systems that would have to evolve one by one, but they are all codependant and would not function as a whole without all the systems. How does that evolve? This is what is meant by specified complexity
You are correct. Your above argument does not present the argument from ignorance; but instead violates reasoning in another fallacious manor. You are now committing the fallacy of equivocation. I'm honestly surprised, that in this readily available age of instant information, you would not attempt to cross check your assertions? In this case, in reference to 'DNA requiring a mind.'
Please also see, just for rudimentary starters:
The Bible is not a science textbook but when it does touch on aspects of nature and science it is correct.cv: Please go back to the top of my response.
Furthermore, is there an 'ignore the misses and accept the hits' metric one might follow, when using the Bible as an instruction guide to the universe?
No, your videos are non sequiturs. My argument did not use the argument that DNA is a language. I said it is a linguistic CODE. Which is basically what your video refers to as programming language or programming code. Also, I am not using DNA as my primary argument for the Christian God. It is just one of a multi-pronged argument for the Christian God using scientific evidence, historical evidence and philosophical evidence. And even your video did not provide an empirical example of non-mind producing programming language. And your second video did not provide an example of natural selection or a natural process producing information, he just assumed it did, because it exists in DNA which he assumes was produced by natural selection, but he is just assuming what we are trying to prove. He needs to provide an empirical example of a natural process producing information.
The Bible is not a science textbook but when it does touch on aspects of nature and science it is correct.
Your "scientific" argument, not scientists'.It is just one of a multi-pronged argument for the Christian God using scientific evidence, historical evidence and philosophical evidence.
So you are saying you dont believe in free will? If so, then you just destroyed the very possibility of science.Ed1wolf said: ↑
The difference is that there is strong evidence that God exists but no evidence you can fly without artifical means, so your analogy fails.
cv: I think you are taking my response the wrong way. One of my points is that you cannot control what you believe.
See my previous post.cv: And to address your response prior, there is no 'consensus' between finite vs eternal, via the 'universe'. As I provided prior, links which demonstrate as such. There still exists a handful of hypothesis'. Again, the conclusion is that there currently is no conclusion; not now, maybe not ten years from now, or maybe even ever? With 'macroevolution', scientists across the board seem to state the conclusion is overwhelming. Except for a very small handful. And it seems to suggest that many of the ones whom oppose this conclusion in macroevolution may primarily be doing so because it conflicts with their theistic conclusions/presuppositions....?.?.? Just a hunch, yes
See above.Ed1wolf said: ↑
I have demonstrated the scientific evidence that He exists (BB theory and law of causality), but there is also philosophical evidence and historical evidence.
cv: Again, I provided links which seem to suggest against your assertion(s). If the universe is eternal, then this may suggest no room or necessity for a creator.
No, according to Wikipedia pixies are small physical beings that are believed to live in Irish and Scottish moorlands. Since according the law of causality the cause cannot be part of the effect, and since the effect is all of physical reality, pixies are part of that. Therefore, since God is not a physical entity, He is more likely to be the Cause of this universe since He is not part of it. Therefore, pixies can be eliminated as the cause of this universe.Ed1wolf said: ↑
But there is no evidence for the existence of those pixies.
cv: Sure, I can no better tangibly demonstrate the existence of my asserted pixies, as you cannot produce tangible evidence for your asserted God. Great.
Books and assertions are a dime a dozen. That's exactly my point. Evidence needs to point directly to your specific assertion(s). And thus far, nothing you have provided does. Hence, my 'pixies' are still in the running.
Evidence that we can empirically see the origin of living things in real time, like we can the BB?Ed1wolf said: ↑
As I demonstrated earlier we have more empircial knowledge that the universe had a beginning than we do about the theory of evolution. We can actually see very early in its formation we cannot see the early formation of living things.
cv: As I demonstrated, with links, I can demonstrate to the contrary. As of now, differing ideas. And...?
I never claimed it was proven. Only that it is the consensus opinion of scientists today.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, only the Christian bible teaches that the unvierse had a definite beginning out of nothing detectable which is what the BB theory has pretty much confirmed.
cv: Please see above. You now appear to be ignoring my point. Why is that? It is divided because scientists admit there is still work to be done, and may or may not ever be completely done. It is not deemed 'proven', like many other topics of 'concluded' scientific theory/endeavor.
There are no misses.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Read Genesis 1:1 for the definite beginning.
cv: Do we really want to go here? As I asked you before... Are you ready to potentially accept the 'hits', and ignore the 'misses' from the Bible?
No, that is why there is consensus because the evidence for the universe being finite is pretty close to overwhelming.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the number of followers do have relevance, just as you argue that the number of scientists that believe in macroevolution has relevance.
cv: I think this may be where we might be speaking past one another. It's not the number, or even the percentage....
My point is that scientists seem to claim that the evidence is overwhelming, in support of macroevolution. (Where-as) the concept of the universe, being finite vs eternal, is theoretical, with differing models and ideas.
The universe and its characteristics plus the fact that most of the best things about Western Civilization are due to Christians and Christianity.Ed1wolf said: ↑
There is strong evidence that the Christian God HAS revealed His presence.
cv: Where is this 'strong evidence' that God has revealed His presence? From the OT and the Gospels? Other?
Most likely God since some of the most widespread and "evolutionarily successful" organisms on the planet have no such instincts so natural selection would have no reason to select for it.Ed1wolf said: ↑
It would not take long, because we are all created in His image and so are created to desire a relationship with Him.
cv: My point being, is that it appears possible that humans may apply intentional agency, draw conclusions, and connect dots. Meaning, humans seem to infer that 'someone' is either looking out for them, and/or is against them. The question is... Is this inherited from passed down survival instincts - (evolution/other)? Or, Is God the supplier of such? Many questions, maybe even another topic altogether.
Of course, you are free to do so.Ed1wolf said: ↑
I have presented a small amount but very powerful evidence for Him above.
cv: Beg to differ.
So you are saying you dont believe in free will? If so, then you just destroyed the very possibility of science.
See my previous post.
See above.
No, according to Wikipedia pixies are small physical beings that are believed to live in Irish and Scottish moorlands. Since according the law of causality the cause cannot be part of the effect, and since the effect is all of physical reality, pixies are part of that. Therefore, since God is not a physical entity, He is more likely to be the Cause of this universe since He is not part of it. Therefore, pixies can be eliminated as the cause of this universe.
Evidence that we can empirically see the origin of living things in real time, like we can the BB?
I never claimed it was proven. Only that it is the consensus opinion of scientists today.
There are no misses.
No, that is why there is consensus because the evidence for the universe being finite is pretty close to overwhelming.
The universe and its characteristics plus the fact that most of the best things about Western Civilization are due to Christians and Christianity.
Most likely God since some of the most widespread and "evolutionarily successful" organisms on the planet have no such instincts so natural selection would have no reason to select for it.
Well, obviously, the pixies created the universe, and then afterwards moved to live in Ireland and Scotland.No, according to Wikipedia pixies are small physical beings that are believed to live in Irish and Scottish moorlands. Since according the law of causality the cause cannot be part of the effect, and since the effect is all of physical reality, pixies are part of that. Therefore, since God is not a physical entity, He is more likely to be the Cause of this universe since He is not part of it. Therefore, pixies can be eliminated as the cause of this universe.
If you asked any Christian prior to, the eighteenth century how old Creation is, they would have said something like six thousand years. That seems like quite a miss, wouldn't you say?There are no misses.
The Cosmological Argument is invalid, and "most of the best things about Western Civilisation" wouldn't mean anything even if it were true (which is highly debatable).The universe and its characteristics plus the fact that most of the best things about Western Civilization are due to Christians and Christianity.
"Most likely" God? But of course it was God! What else could it possibly be?Most likely God since some of the most widespread and "evolutionarily successful" organisms on the planet have no such instincts so natural selection would have no reason to select for it.
Per the Grady Debate Rule (TM): You lose
His different arguments for God’s existence literally contradict one another
Early Buddhism is built upon these observable, foundational principles, none of which I need to take on faith:
Unobservable (mainstream) Christian allegations which Christians must take on faith:
- Causes produces their relevant effects = Kamma-Vipaka aka "Karma"
- Illness is inevitable
- Old age is inevitable
- Death is inevitable
- Change in life is inevitable
- One way or another, I am heir to my actions
- All volitional actions in life are done to alleviate perceived discontentment
- Etc.
- There is an omniscient, omnipotent God named Jehovah (or Yahweh, etc.)
- Jesus is his son
- Jesus died on the cross
- His death and sacrifice effected salvation for those who have faith
- Rejection of his sacrifice effects eternal damnation/separation from God to others
- Eternal life
- Etc.
The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord ; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished.It is a fairly huge statement, to say that you have been wrong about virtually everything in this thread. But not particularly difficult to verify. All you have to do is read the seventy-plus pages of this thread, and see your arguments being refuted, again and again.
Now you, I'm sure, would say that every single thing you said was correct. But would you at least agree that people have disagreed with more or less everything you said on this thread? And that you have rarely, or perhaps not at all, admitted you were wrong about anything?
So it seems pretty clear that either you're wrong about everything on this thread, or we are.
Of course, anyone who takes the trouble to read a few pages of this thread can see that you would be well advised to spend time reviewing your knowledge of science, reasoning and logical fallacies, rather than trying to correct others on them. Because (and I hope you don't take this the wrong way) it's clearly obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.
Uh-huh. Who told you that's what we believe?
What scientists believe, as I understand it, is that the universe began, about fourteen billion years ago, as a speck that exploded, for causes presently unknown; and that life most likely began due to chemical reactions that led to self-replicating organisms evolving. They don't state these as facts, because in science you follow where the evidence leads, always being ready to revise your views if it is warranted.
So saying "scientists believe that the universe spontaneously combusted from nothing" is false; they do not know why the Big Bang happened, or what cause it, if anything (can "causes" exist without the presence of time?") The intellectually honest thing to do, then, is to say you don't know, and that you are awaiting further evidence. Which is, of course, exactly what scientists do.
Hmmm. Okay. But let's tweak those rules a bit. Let's say that you have to find a dozen examples of non-Christians mocking Christianity, Christians or faith that were not in response to mockery from Christians.
How about this thread? There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM
This will come as news to scientists, historians and philosophers. In point of fact, Ed, you're quite incorrect. Not even most Christians would agree with you, even on the claim about philosophy.
When all reason fails, threaten. (I use the word reason advisedly.)The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord ; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished.
Proverbs 16:4-5 NKJV
When all reason fails, threaten. (I use the word reason advisedly.)
Well then, good job!when all reason fails mock.
see, I can do it too.
don't forget, I have evidence that there is at least on agnostic here that thinks mocking is ok
gaara mocking
what is to say that others don't disagree?
In fact I haven't seen anyone correct him that is athiest or agnostic, so I assume they agree with it.
when reason fails, mock.
But to answer your allegation of threatening when reason fails.
I would ask for you to point to a post number where my logic has failed, and if you cannot, then I assume that you are just mocking like gaara.
which proves my point.
Calling a threat a threat is not mocking.when all reason fails mock.
I stand by my defense of mockery’s place in general discourse. That doesn’t mean we’re all just a bunch of mockers, nor that the response you quoted was itself mockery, nor that the presence of mockery indicates a failure of reason. Crying about mockery is a convenient way for you to claim victimhood, but it doesn’t get you to high ground. Stick to the subject matter.when all reason fails mock.
see, I can do it too.
don't forget, I have evidence that there is at least on agnostic here that thinks mocking is ok
gaara mocking
what is to say that others don't disagree?
In fact I haven't seen anyone correct him that is athiest or agnostic, so I assume they agree with it.
when reason fails, mock.
But to answer your allegation of threatening when reason fails.
I would ask for you to point to a post number where my logic has failed, and if you cannot, then I assume that you are just mocking like gaara.
which proves my point.
Again I don't see a refutation here. Scientists only accept stellar evolution becausee federal grants require them to. Many scientists belive in God. I believe the current estimate is 51%.@gradyll
Aside from post #1582, which you have yet to address, I wanted to also reiterate your points:
1. You mention the 'eye'.
2. You also mention that scientific consensus concludes a 'Big Bang'.
Well, then you must also reconcile that scientific consensus adopts evolutionary theory; just like the Big Bang. In a nutshell, this theory states changes in allele frequencies; along with 'simple' to 'more complex' organisms. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I just wanted to point out some of the basics of the assertions made by this field....
Thus, evolutionary theory, which again we would need to also adhere to, if you wish to remain consistent above, seems to have an answer to the evolutionary path of the eye.
Your move
Calling a threat a threat is not mocking.
Identifying hollow claims of victory as hollow is not mocking.
I stand by my defense of mockery’s place in general discourse. That doesn’t mean we’re all just a bunch of mockers, nor that the response you quoted was itself mockery, nor that the presence of mockery indicates a failure of reason. Crying about mockery is a convenient way for you to claim victimhood, but it doesn’t get you to high ground. Stick to the subject matter.
You’re right, that’s not the point. The point is it doesn’t matter if we’re mocking you or not, you’re still wrong.Questioning your mocking is a start. Keep it up. I could prove that it was mocking but that is not the point.
Again I don't see a refutation here. Scientists only accept stellar evolution becausee federal grants require them to.
Many scientists belive in God. I believe the current estimate is 51%.