• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Argument for God's existence.

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by gradyll, Apr 4, 2019.

  1. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I asked you a question, twice, and you deflected, twice. What rules of science make it so relativity proves the universe had a beginning?

    Micro evolution is evolution, but we’ve been over this already. Just answer my above question.
     
  2. HitchSlap

    HitchSlap Burn the torch!

    +5,000
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    What, no Crocoducks?!
     
  3. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    only you can ask questions? You made an observation. And I asked for evidence, then you deflected and asked me for evidence. So what rule states that only you get to ask for evidence. I repeat, what laws prove macro evolution? I have shown sufficient evidence via peer review that macro evolution is not micro evolution. I have no problem answering your questions, they are not hard at all. But I don't like it when I ask a question and then you accuse me of deflecting, when your post was the one deflecting/
     
  4. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    ok, now prove that crocoducks are a transition between two different types of animals. I only ask for this because evolution literally declares that we change from one type into another type, so logically there would be an intermediate stage. So if this is in fact an intermediate stage, it must have solid evidence it is related to two different animals. And you can't do that. Well at least I haven't in fifteen years seen it done. But you can try.
     
  5. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    326
    +262
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Yep. It's not observable, and not provable.

    Back when the creationist definition of macroevolution included simple speciation, it was observable, but since you've changed the definition, it's not observable any more.

    Nope. That's not how the scientific method works. You don't get to change it to your way.
     
  6. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    You’re the one claiming you can prove God’s existence. Did you not expect to be questioned? Just answer the questions. If you answer the questions, we can look at whatever scientific rules you’re saying prove the universe had a beginning and the laws by which evolution operates and then we can assess how consistent you’re being with what you’re willing to accept from science.
     
  7. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +342
    Atheist
    CB901: No Macroevolution

    Claim CB901:
    No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
    Source:
    Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
    Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
    Response:
    1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

    2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

    3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

    4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large changeand because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

    5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
    References:
    1. Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. Jónsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723. See also: Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.
    2. Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
     
  8. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I will post a peer review of the definition of macro evolution (simply for the purposes of giving evidence for the definition), the article is pro evolution of course, and that part I would reject, but since you are forced to accept peer review, you must also accept the definition they give for macro evolution:


    A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

    Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

    Article found online here:
    Error - Cookies Turned Off


    Sir that is exactly how the scientific method works.


    Even evolutionary Biology which is a hard science, is actually not science when you think about it this way:

    • until it is observed (evolution between genus or higher), it cannot be hypothesized about,
    • until it has a hypothesis,
    • it can't be tested
    • until it is tested it cannot be a scientific theory,


    “A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observed phenomenon.”

    States a miami college of arts and sciences:

    The Scientific Method

    again:

    If a hypothesis does not generate any observational tests, there is nothing that a scientist can do with it.- Batesville Community School Hypotheses

    basically if a hypothesis is not testable through observations, then it cannot be considered a hypothesis as it breaks the first rules: testability.

    So if Chemical and Macro Evolution lacks observation then it lacks the ability to be tested. If it lacks the ability to be tested, then it cannot be a hypothesis and resultantly cannot be a theory scientifically speaking. If it is not either a hypothesis nor a theory, then it’s not science.
     
  9. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    so the gist of the article is this: "we don't have evidence of macro evolution" but don't forget there is "micro evolution" and that we have evidence for. And by the way macro evolution does not need observation as evolution has lots of other evidence (of micro evolution). So if you cannot see the flaws in logic here, I can't help you. Basically macro evolution (the ability for apes to evolve into humans for example) is unobserved. So you can resort to macro evolution for all of your proofs, but you would not get any disagreement from us on that. As all that is fine because animals do adapt and change, but they don't apparently adapt and change into other animals, as this is unobserved. So the article does not really add any new information and is easily dismissed as arbitrary.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
  10. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    like I said I can and will answer all questions, but not until you answer mine. Sorry sir you cannot bully your way out of answering this. If you wish to end the debate here, I get it. But you will answer the question before proceeding. Then I will prove to you God's existence yet again if that is what you want as it is very easy to do.

    Eze 3:7
    But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel areimpudent and hardhearted.
    Eze 3:8
    Behold, I have made thy face strong against their faces, and thy forehead strong against their foreheads.
    Eze 3:9
    As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.


    you think you are hard headed, God has made me harder headed to deal with you. LOL ( I am hard headed, but it is my gift from God, so if you don't like it, complain to Him, but don't fight God, cause you'll lose every time)

    Ezekiel 3:7-9 nkjv

    Ezekiel went up to a king that was living in sin in Israel, and told him a prophecy that he would get sick and he would not recover. The captains of the armies over heard him and they sent for ezekiel to question him regarding the bad omen. They sent 50 soldiers to talk to him. Ezekiel said "if I am a man of God, let fire come down and consume you and your men." Well it did, and all 50 soldiers died. So they sent 50 more, and ezekiel said again "if I am a man of God, let fire come down and consume you and your men." And it did, then they sent another 50 men, and the captain begged him, "please don't kill us, just come with us to the king." And God said, "you can go with them."
    2 Kings chapter 1

    point is "don't fight against God."
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
  11. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I’m not bullying you, I’m just holding you accountable for the claims you make. This will go much more smoothly if you suppress that victim complex and just answer the questions.

    Evolution is driven by the law of natural selection. Evidence for common descent by evolution is seen in the genetic record, the fossil record, biogeography, and Homology. Now, whether you accept these lines of evidence or not, my point is that this is the scientific consensus.

    What “rules of science” are you referring to when you say general relativity proves there must have been a beginning to the universe, and that proves God?
     
  12. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    you specifically said rules of science prove macro evolution. Natural selection proves micro evolution, speciation and common decent are not the same as universal common decent that macro evolution entails. Unless you don't believe the animals evolve into different animals, then this would not be the case. So I don't see a complete answer to the question.

    I didn't say what you just said. I said general relativity ties time to mass. Because time needs something to accelerate. If there is no mass, then time has nothing to accelerate. Because God does not have mass, as per the definition of omnipresent (being everywhere at once, which would be impossible if you had mass). So according to general relativity God would be outside of time, and would not have a beginning or any time related event. Does this answer the question you pose? So the rule of science I attest to is general relativity which is tied to the law of gravity. See this article: What Is a Law in Science?
     
  13. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I wasn’t clear on what you meant by “rules of science” so I used the word “rules” in a similarly ambiguous fashion, in this case meaning natural selection and the general practice of following evidence where it leads. I’m not trying to convince you of evolution right now, I’m trying to show you how inconsistent you are when it comes to accepting the consensus of scientists. But it’s become apparent that what you’re doing has little to do with evidence or the scientific consensus and more to do with your own ideas about God, omnipresence, and relativity, so this approach isn’t going to land with you.

    This is what you said:
    So I’m still not clear on what you think you’ve established about the universe with your above explanation.
     
  14. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +398
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Since I would really like a simply yes/no answer to my one question, for curiosity-sake, please reiterate any questions you feel I have not already addressed.
     
  15. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +342
    Atheist
    No, not at all.
    The gist of the article is that 1+1=2, and that 1+1+1+1+1=5. And here you are saying "A million? How can a million exist? I've never seen anyone count that high!"
    Saying that small changes add up to big changes is very simple logic.

    You mean you can't help yourself. We tried to introduce you to science, but you want nothing to do with it. We did our best.

    Anything can be easily dismissed, just so long as you ignore what it says. Basically, gradyll, we don't really need you to admit that you're wrong. Your reply, saying that you've won while demonstrating you didn't understand the article at all, will do just fine.
    I do hope that, some time in the future, you will be able to see the truth, for your own sake. It's a hard thing to go through the world not seeing it.

    I'd rather be open-minded than hard-headed.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
  16. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +841
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    There are many transitional forms in the fossil record. Anyone who knows how to use a search engine, or go to a library or a museum, can figure that out pretty easily.

    And again, if there were no fossils at all, the evidence from genetics alone would be more than enough.

    Evolution is still a fact, so their is nothing to 'ad hoc' here. Punctuated equilibrium, assuming one holds to it as the prevailing model, has exactly the same mechanisms as gradualism, and they're not mutually exclusive.

    The 'they laughed at X' argument is not an argument. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown, and we laugh at Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort etc., for the same reasons. The lone difference being, Bozo knew he was a clown.

    You don't know, and have no possible means of knowing, what lifeforms could have evolved under conditions you are not even capable of imagining, let alone gleaning. All you have is an extremely narrow understanding of what constitutes 'life' - carbon based, water subsistent, etc. - based on your infinitesimally limited experience. Which you've arbitrarily selected out of trillions of features within the universe, because it happens to be important to your religious views. It is absolutely based on ignorance. And arbitrariness. And a complete lack of imagination.

    Professionals in astronomy and astrophysics roll their eyes at the line of reasoning you are using, when they're not tearing their hair out in frustration at hearing the same crappy arguments over and over again. I'm married to one, so I know.

    Nope. You are putting the point forward, so you defend it. You are playing bait-and-switch, whether you realize it or not.

    Once again, the Big Bang describes the earliest known conditions, expansion, and early evolution of the universe. That is the only consensus, and that is all scientists mean when they speak of a 'beginning' to the universe.

    What it does not mean is that the universe constitutes the totality of existence, and that it began with an ex nihilo creation event. That is what you are tasked with demonstrating. And I don't care how many scientists you can find being uncareful with their words in popular publications, you will never find a 'consensus' on that, because it doesn't exist. No one knows either of those things, because there is as yet nothing to know about them, and there is no such thing as a consensus or non-existent information.

    I shouldn't have to explain this to someone who claims to be a professional scientist, but here we are.
     
  17. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +841
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    I could be wrong, but I feel like not long ago at all, most creationists denied both biology and astronomy. That was the 'old guard' - Duane Gish, Kent Hovind, and other assorted blithering morons. I have a hard time wrapping my head around this class of creationists who accept the Big Bang, but still deny evolution.

    I blame William Lane Craig. By resurrecting Kalam, he showed that you can misconstrue Big Bang cosmology to apologetic ends.

    What does it feel like to have to pick and choose which cornerstone scientific theories you're going to accept? I'm glad I don't know.
     
  18. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    326
    +262
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    I think you've just been hanging out with the wrong crowd. I don't know any Christians outside the internet who have a problem with big bang. I didn't run into young Earthers until I started reading internet forums. Meanwhile, I do know Christians outside the internet who can't accept the theory of evolution. The young Earthers make up a small percentage of Christians, but they're very vocal about it.
     
  19. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    It's been awhile, but basically the whole reply you gave to the OP was unsatisfactory. You basically said "how to you know the universe was made?" Because I said, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. Then I said, most scientists believe that it was created and finite. But that technically is a bandwagon fallacy. So I reposted that because the universe has mass, according to a scientific law of general relativity it had a beginning. Because time is related to mass. If there is no mass (as in God's case), there is no beginning. So I guess I simply wanted a satisfactory reply to that.
     
  20. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I don't understand how the Big Bang created comets. As comets are ice, and billions of years ago means they would have melted. Astronomers attest to two sources for these comets the unobserved oort cloud, and the kuiper belt, but this is unsatisfactory because the size of the comets coming from the kuiper belt don't line up. So this is probably the best argument for a young universe that I have seen. As there is no source for long term comets. That means if we have a comet, there had to be a source for it. Ice is frozen water. So that is significant too. As water is hard to find in space.
     
Loading...