Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

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.

you said it was inconsistent when I didn't accept the majority of scientists, but why is it inconsistent for me to quote the majority of scientists to a crowd that accepts the majority of scientists. That is like saying you can't quote the Bible because you don't believe the Bible. You can quote it if you want. I don't care.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

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.

The way macro evolution works is this: many small changes add up to big changes.
That's basically all I need to say. If you think this is incorrect, I'd be interested in knowing why. If mutations occur (and we know they do) and if micro-evolution occurs (and we know that it does) then macro-evolution is inevitable. So what you need to do is explain what would prevent macro-evolution from occuring. What factor is there that would stop ape-like creatures, for example, from becoming a humans, over the course of time?

Perhaps you're familiar with Darwin's famous quote about the evolution of the eye, which is quite a good example?

Basically macro evolution (the ability for apes to evolve into humans for example) is unobserved.

Yes. But if you were able to observe it, it would be very strong evidence against evolution. So the fact that nobody has seen, say, a bear turn into a whale is just fine with me.

So the article does not really add any new information and is easily dismissed as arbitrary.

It doesn't really need to add "new information". This isn't particularly difficult science; indeed, it's something that any bright elementary school student could have told you. The question is, why are you in denial of basic scientific facts?

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

so your argument is that lots of micro evolution equals macro evolution. Well you would still need evidence for this, that you don't have. I have shown many times that there is typically a genus barrier to evolution. That means that taxonomy actually prohibits evolution after a certain point. If I lived in a subtropical climate, after hundreds or thousands of years my ancestors would probably have darker skin. But they are still human. So that is the barrier, that darker skin would carry forward because humans would mate with humans. You would not see humans mating with an animal for example, and producing fertile ofspring that have the same trait. So there is a barrier to micro evolution. To explain this further a peer review also sees that macro evolution is more than repeated rounds of micro evolution:

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

(now I don't agree with the article as I don't agree with macro evolution, but you do believe in it, so it would be an important source for you to study because it disagrees with what you were saying)

 

[createdtoworship]

The way macro evolution works is this: many small changes add up to big changes.
That's basically all I need to say. If you think this is incorrect, I'd be interested in knowing why. If mutations occur (and we know they do) and if micro-evolution occurs (and we know that it does) then macro-evolution is inevitable. So what you need to do is explain what would prevent macro-evolution from occuring. What factor is there that would stop ape-like creatures, for example, from becoming a humans, over the course of time?

Perhaps you're familiar with Darwin's famous quote about the evolution of the eye, which is quite a good example?


Yes. But if you were able to observe it, it would be very strong evidence against evolution. So the fact that nobody has seen, say, a bear turn into a whale is just fine with me.


It doesn't really need to add "new information". This isn't particularly difficult science; indeed, it's something that any bright elementary school student could have told you. The question is, why are you in denial of basic scientific facts?

I believe I adressed this in my last post, if not, please repost your question.

 

[gaara4158]

you said it was inconsistent when I didn't accept the majority of scientists, but why is it inconsistent for me to quote the majority of scientists to a crowd that accepts the majority of scientists. That is like saying you can't quote the Bible because you don't believe the Bible. You can quote it if you want. I don't care.

It’s just funny that you insist citing the scientific consensus is a bandwagon fallacy and yet you have no problem citing it when you need it for your argument. But it’s fine, you can quote the scientific consensus if you want. If you can give me a source saying the scientific consensus is aligned with your interpretation of relativity such that it requires the universe to have had a beginning, I will award you a victory. As far as I’ve seen the scientific community is split on whether there was a universe before the Big Bang, which you’re trying to say must have been the beginning.

 

[cvanwey]

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.

As I've been conveying to @Ed1wolf , there exists no conclusion, in regards to the universe being finite vs. eternal. Models exist, arguing both positions. But at this point, it would appear we do not yet have enough evidence to conclude either way; and maybe never.?.?. Furthermore, 'time' simply gives out at some point in the 'past'. It is immeasurable prior to this 'point.' If you have no way to measure prior to this 'point, it would be pretty presumptuous to just assert, that because something is no longer measurable, that the 'default fill-in answer is God.'

Thus, until we determine if the universe is finite or eternal, we are speculative. But EVEN IF the universe 'began' to exist, we could merely be measuring the 'beginning' of this universe; which in possible reality, is/was the ending of a former immeasurable preexisting 'universe.'

In conclusion, it would appear you will not get a 'satisfactory' answer in this regard, as it would appear there does not yet exist enough evidence to conclude one.

Moving forward, I would appreciate if you please answer this simple question below?

If macroevolution was demonstrated true, does this make Christianity false?

 

[createdtoworship]

It’s just funny that you insist citing the scientific consensus is a bandwagon fallacy and yet you have no problem citing it when you need it for your argument. But it’s fine, you can quote the scientific consensus if you want. If you can give me a source saying the scientific consensus is aligned with your interpretation of relativity such that it requires the universe to have had a beginning, I will award you a victory. As far as I’ve seen the scientific community is split on whether there was a universe before the Big Bang, which you’re trying to say must have been the beginning.

I never used the scientific consensus as my sole argument for validity. That would be you, and when I questioned you on it, you said it was not your sole evidence, but still took pages and pages of posts before finally posting some type of evidence other than the bandwagon fallacy as your primary evidence. And it was not evidence of macro evolution at all. And now you have completely stepped out of debating evolution. So I can tell this debate is having an effect on you. Hopefully it will cause some rethinking.

 

[createdtoworship]

As I've been conveying to @Ed1wolf , there exists no conclusion, in regards to the universe being finite vs. eternal. Models exist, arguing both positions. But at this point, it would appear we do not yet have enough evidence to conclude either way; and maybe never.?.?. Furthermore, 'time' simply gives out at some point in the 'past'. It is immeasurable prior to this 'point.' If you have no way to measure prior to this 'point, it would be pretty presumptuous to just assert, that because something is no longer measurable, that the 'default fill-in answer is God.'

Thus, until we determine if the universe is finite or eternal, we are speculative. But EVEN IF the universe 'began' to exist, we could merely be measuring the 'beginning' of this universe; which in possible reality, is/was the ending of a former immeasurable preexisting 'universe.'

In conclusion, it would appear you will not get a 'satisfactory' answer in this regard, as it would appear there does not yet exist enough evidence to conclude one.

Moving forward, I would appreciate if you please answer this simple question below?

If macroevolution was demonstrated true, does this make Christianity false?

I just gave a firm scientific law stating that the universe has to be finite. So I am sorry, but to me your complete argument is without evidence, and tossed out. Thanks for the debate.

 

[gaara4158]

I never used the scientific consensus as my sole argument for validity. That would be you, and when I questioned you on it, you said it was not your sole evidence, but still took pages and pages of posts before finally posting some type of evidence other than the bandwagon fallacy as your primary evidence. And it was not evidence of macro evolution at all. And now you have completely stepped out of debating evolution. So I can tell this debate is having an effect on you. Hopefully it will cause some rethinking.

I never employed the bandwagon fallacy, but it’s a little telling that I just told you exactly what I’d need from you to show that I’m wrong, and instead of just providing it you decided to allude to some past conversation where you weren’t satisfied with my responses. It’s probably because I’m not wrong.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

so your argument is that lots of micro evolution equals macro evolution.

Basically, yes.

Well you would still need evidence for this, that you don't have.

No, I wouldn't. You would need evidence that they do not. To put it another way, you are saying that a dollar bill is very little money, and another dollar bill is still very little money, and it will always be very little money even if repeated a million times. This is obviously incorrect, but is basically what you are arguing.

I have shown many times that there is typically a genus barrier to evolution. That means that taxonomy actually prohibits evolution after a certain point.

Interesting. I've never heard of such a barrier. Can you demonstrate that it exists and explain how it works?

If I lived in a subtropical climate, after hundreds or thousands of years my ancestors would probably have darker skin. But they are still human. So that is the barrier, that darker skin would carry forward because humans would mate with humans.

Sure it would. But if "getting darker skin" a mutation that results in the alteration of species? In what way does "some mutations do not cause change in species" imply that change in species is impossible?
On the other hand, if a population of humans was isolated in some way; and if, over hundreds of thousands of years, they evolved in such a way that they were no longer able to reproduce with other humans then yes, you could say they were a new species.

You would not see humans mating with an animal for example, and producing fertile offspring that have the same trait.

No, you wouldn't. And nobody who understands what evolution is would claim that you would see that.
gradyll, I need to ask you a question at this point. In a few short sentences, can you please explain what scientists think evolution is and how they think it works? Just a summary, please.

To explain this further a peer review also sees that macro evolution is more than repeated rounds of micro evolution

I'm afraid it isn't making the point you think it is making. To demonstrate this, please can you explain - again, in a few short, summarising sentences - what you think Douglas Erwin is saying here?

In summary, gradyll, you really don't have a case. Just about every rational person in the world accepts that evolution is a fact, and that the theory of evolution explains it. And just about the only people who don't accept this are those who have a strong personal bias against it, usually religious.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I just gave a firm scientific law stating that the universe has to be finite. So I am sorry, but to me your complete argument is without evidence, and tossed out. Thanks for the debate.

Generally, when Christian apologists state that there is "a firm scientific law" saying that they are correct, it's wise to get a second opinion from an actual scientist.

 

[cvanwey]

I just gave a firm scientific law stating that the universe has to be finite. So I am sorry, but to me your complete argument is without evidence, and tossed out. Thanks for the debate.

Oh, okay, then look up 'eternal inflation'. So I guess that means I 'win'

Please now answer the simple question:

If macroevolution was demonstrated true, does this make Christianity false?

 

[cvanwey]

@gradyll

I'm posting a new one, as a recap to refute your prior points about (your) 'argument for God's existence'....

- Eternal vs finite is not concluded. 'Eternal inflation' alone argues for an eternal universal state, which seems to eliminated the 'need' for a creator. Differing models are floating around, but none have become scientific theory, as a conclusion.

- Cause/effect has no relevancy in your argument. Why? Even IF our 'local universe' had a beginning, we are not able to measure what happened prior to the 'beginning' of our 'local universe' - (time, space, energy, matter).

- The Dover trial of 2005 seems to negate your 'eye' argument for 'irreducible complexity'

- It might seem the concept of 'macroevolution', if demonstrated a fact, seems to be a 'concern', and may compromise your Christian faith.?.?

Thus, I ask....

If macroevolution is correct in it's claims, is Christianity rendered false?

 

[Yttrium]

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

Thanks for the article! It's very interesting. Got it bookmarked now.

Sir that is exactly how the scientific method works.

Observation and testing are indeed essential parts of the scientific theory. What you're getting wrong is exactly how the observation and testing are applied. Keep reading up on it.

 

[createdtoworship]

I never employed the bandwagon fallacy, but it’s a little telling that I just told you exactly what I’d need from you to show that I’m wrong, and instead of just providing it you decided to allude to some past conversation where you weren’t satisfied with my responses. It’s probably because I’m not wrong.

I think people here know what a bandwagon fallacy is. And the fact they tried to use it on me, reveals they know. But you can make whatever rule you wish, but you must also apply it to yourself. I am sorry if you don't like being honest about your viewpoints. That is disappointing. So again, if you have further questions regarding God's evidence I would love to answer any and all honest questions, however I feel you are not open to obvious logic, and get slightly emotional over someone refuting much of what you say. I understand. But this is how learning takes place. You must destroy a faulty foundation before you can build a home.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh, okay, then look up 'eternal inflation'. So I guess that means I 'win'

Please now answer the simple question:

If macroevolution was demonstrated true, does this make Christianity false?

a quick google search said it was a hypothetical model. So how does a hypothetical model refute a basic law of science? I am finding it very difficult to debate with you without getting frustrated over your misuse of logic. I feel you are slightly being dishonest with how you are dealing with me. I won't block you right now. But I may in the future. Simply because I don't feel you are contributing honest replies. Some people I debate here I can feel are willing to learn, but you seem just bent on refuting christianity, and that is all fine. You technically can't do that here, but most likely they won't ban you for refuting christianity. But at least be honest with why you are here. Do yourself a favor. I think if you know your true purpose for being here, you may debate nicer and others will know too. I have much more respect for people who are simply here to refute christianity and use logic. But for someone to do the same thing and have contempt for logic, reveals that they are not truly being honest.

 

[createdtoworship]

Thanks for the article! It's very interesting. Got it bookmarked now.




Observation and testing are indeed essential parts of the scientific theory. What you're getting wrong is exactly how the observation and testing are applied. Keep reading up on it.

I have lots of websites I can give you to help you understand your own theory if you want, let me know. I don't mind sharing and am not intimidated by appeals to ignorance that I see in the scientific arena.

 

[createdtoworship]

@gradyll

I'm posting a new one, as a recap to refute your prior points about (your) 'argument for God's existence'....

- Eternal vs finite is not concluded. 'Eternal inflation' alone argues for an eternal universal state, which seems to eliminated the 'need' for a creator. Differing models are floating around, but none have become scientific theory, as a conclusion.

- Cause/effect has no relevancy in your argument. Why? Even IF our 'local universe' had a beginning, we are not able to measure what happened prior to the 'beginning' of our 'local universe' - (time, space, energy, matter).

- The Dover trial of 2005 seems to negate your 'eye' argument for 'irreducible complexity'

- It might seem the concept of 'macroevolution', if demonstrated a fact, seems to be a 'concern', and may compromise your Christian faith.?.?

Thus, I ask....

If macroevolution is correct in it's claims, is Christianity rendered false?

Just so you know, there are many theistic creationists out there. Evolution does not refute christianity. I think it refutes the Biblical account of creationism, but most christians don't even read the majority of the Bible to know of the contradiction, so they tend to believe in evolution and christianity.

I am sorry to disappoint you. I know that you are here to dismantle christianity and this seems to be a problem for you. You seemed awful excited to maybe have macro evolution disprove the Bible and God. But I don't think most christians view it that way.

If you want you can look up Hugh Ross he is probably the most high profile theistic creationist out there. He fully believes in an old universe, and that God used evolution and a gap theory in genesis early verses. The gap theory was popular about twenty years ago to somehow reconcile christianity with modern science. But creationists stray away from the gap theory now days and hold a more literal view of genesis, which to me is the more honest perspective. But even if macro evolution did in fact end up being proven (even while most other facts cannot be proven), this is a big if, then I guess I would have to come to a crisis of faith. I would have to doubt the Bible and what it actually said literally in genesis. The lineologies of genesis are only about 4000 B.C. So if you add up all the dates of the years of everyone's lives it puts the garden of eden about 4004 B.C according to James Usher.

 

[Moral Orel]

you said it was inconsistent when I didn't accept the majority of scientists, but why is it inconsistent for me to quote the majority of scientists to a crowd that accepts the majority of scientists. That is like saying you can't quote the Bible because you don't believe the Bible. You can quote it if you want. I don't care.

If we're convinced by your argument against evolution, then we have to throw out your argument for a beginning. If we're convinced by your argument for a beginning, then we have to throw out your argument against evolution.

 

[Moral Orel]

Just so you know, there are many theistic creationists out there.

You mean theistic evolutionist. Every creationist is theistic.