Argument for God's existence.

Ken-1122 said:

There is no scientific theory that claims the singularity that lead to the Big Bang actually had a beginning. IOW nobody knows. Science only reports on what they know, so they cannot claim the Singularity was eternally existing, and they cannot claim it had a beginning because they do not know.

Click to expand...

why would the singularity just sit there then expand at sometime in infinity ?

dougangel said:

why would the singularity just sit there then expand at sometime in infinity ?

Click to expand...

Why would God just sit there and then make the universe sometime in infinity?

dougangel said:

The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang.


The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator(all knowing designer) that takes an interest in humanity.

Click to expand...

Why does God have the attributes that He does? We could have a God that values sadism instead of compassion. So why do we have a God that values good things instead of bad things? Are God's attributes just random chance?

Hey @Nihilist Virus , I'm stealing from you again! That was a great thread that I'm ripping this from, by the way.

dougangel said:

why would the singularity just sit there then expand at sometime in infinity ?

Click to expand...

Nobody is claiming it did that. Nobody knows what happened before the singularity expanded.

Moral Orel said:

Why does God have the attributes that He does? We could have a God that values sadism instead of compassion. So why do we have a God that values good things instead of bad things? Are God's attributes just random chance?

Hey @Nihilist Virus , I'm stealing from you again! That was a great thread that I'm ripping this from, by the way.

Click to expand...

Thanks. The main question I ask is whether God had any control over his own attributes. If he did not, then we are supposed to believe that God can exist for no reason, and with no cause, and yet a universe cannot. If God did have control over his own attributes, then why did he prefer attribute A over attribute B? Such a preference is itself an attribute, so we see that the issue is an infinite regress. Thus, infinite regress is OK if it's an explanation for God, but there can be no infinite regress of universes.

God explains nothing. It's just special pleading. It is a redundant premise. Instead of saying, "The universe exists because of God, and God is a mystery" it is more honest to simply say, "The universe is a mystery."

gaara4158 said:

No, you’re just assuming the steps couldn’t be functional. Evolution requires every step to be functional, so if the eye indeed evolved, as all evidence suggests, then it evolved from a long line of functional precursors. And you’re just factually incorrect about vestigial organs, I’m afraid your sources have failed you.

Click to expand...

You are just assuming that they ARE functional. Evidence that evolution requires every step to be functional? Of course, if what you say is true, it contradicts what you are saying about vestigial organs. Name a vestigial organ without a function.

Ed1wolf said:

You are just assuming that they ARE functional. Evidence that evolution requires every step to be functional? Of course, if what you say is true, it contradicts what you are saying about vestigial organs. Name a vestigial organ without a function.

Click to expand...

It might be better, Ed, if you did a bit of research on evolution before discussing it. A discussion forum is not really the place to learn about a subject. Once you have learned what scientists actually think about evolution, you'll be in a better position to debate it.

Oh, and by the way:
CB360: Function of vestigial organs.
"Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

dougangel said:

The Argument from Design


The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang.


The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator(all knowing designer) that takes an interest in humanity.


The Moral Argument


Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can’t exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally?


Why is there good and evil as these are abstract terms? Relative, subjective morality cannot be lived out.


Spiritual Nature.


Why does man have a worship nature ?​

Click to expand...

Can I recommend the Daylight Atheism website to your attention? I have rarely found an apologist's argument that wasn't answered in full there.

Unmoved Mover - Daylight Atheism
"The cosmological version of the fine-tuning argument is more sophisticated, but nevertheless is not difficult to defeat. The key is to recognize that every step of this argument relies on implicit assumptions, none of which are supported by any evidence at all, and without any of which the argument collapses.

For example: how do advocates of this argument know how many different sets of values for the physical constants could have led to life? Perhaps life as we know it would not exist if these values were different, but that does not prove that life of any form could not exist. It could be that most of the universes that would result from changing these constants would contain some sort of complex life, even if that life would in most cases be extremely different from what we are used to. Advocates of the fine-tuning argument implicitly assume that only one, or at most a few, sets of values could have led to conscious life of any form, but there is no possible way they can know this.

Furthermore, how do advocates of this argument know that all possible values for these constants were equally likely, or even that they could have been different at all? Defenders of the fine-tuning argument implicitly assume that the current values were selected uniformly at random from an infinite or at least a very large range of possibilities, but there is no possible way they can know this. Indeed, for at least a limited subset of cases, we know that this is not true. Some physical constants are interrelated, such that a change to one would necessarily produce a change in the others. (For example, according to this Talk.Origins Post of the Month, the permittivity of free space, the permeability of free space, and the vacuum speed of light are related in such a way.) It is very likely that as physics advances, this process of unification will continue, and we will discover even more and deeper interrelations. A complete unified theory, the dream of physicists, might well show that things are this way because they could not possibly have been different.

Finally, how do advocates of this argument know that there was only one chance to get it right? On what grounds do they assume that the universe we can observe constitutes the totality of existence? Multiverse theories, which posit an enormous or even infinite number of parallel universes of which one is our own, are a common feature of theoretical astrophysics. Naturally, if there are thousands or millions of universes each with a slightly different set of values for the physical constants, it should be no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe where the values are conducive to our existence, rather than one where they are not. This is very similar to the rebuttal to the planetary fine-tuning argument discussed above.

As we have seen, there is no good reason to suspect the universe was fine-tuned. But consider this: even if there was fine-tuning, how do we know it was for humans’ sake? Human beings have a long history of considering themselves the centerpiece of creation, and an equally long history of being proven wrong on that point. On what grounds do we assume that we are the pinnacle of existence, or even that our existence was intentional? Perhaps the creator simply thought stars were beautiful and wanted a universe full of them, and hasn’t yet noticed that interesting things have begun to happen on some of the little bits of ash circling them. Or perhaps the creator did desire life to come into being but is not interested in human life. The evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what we could deduce about the personality of the creator by studying the creation, is said to have replied, “An inordinate fondness for beetles.”


The moral argument:
"A slightly different version of the moral argument, advanced by theists such as C.S. Lewis, states that there is a universal moral law, a standard of right and wrong which all human beings are innately aware of, even if some choose to violate it. The argument’s backers claim that such a moral awareness could only have been put into us by God.

The most significant problem with this argument is that human beings are not all aware of the same moral law, as even a cursory examination of human history would reveal. In various societies throughout history, behaviors such as polygamy, segregation, slavery and racism, physical abuse as a method of discipline, infanticide, incest, pedophilia, human sacrifice, ritual suicide, ritual murder, cannibalism, genital mutilation and genocide were widely accepted, even encouraged. None of the societies that did these things seemed to feel that there was anything wrong with them; many justified their actions by appealing to their god. Some societies have shunned violence of any kind, while others have encouraged war and militarism. Some have advocated free speech and individual rights, while others have mandated conformity and the superiority of the state. Even today, there are furious debates over the ethics of topics such as gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, sex education, drug legalization, contraceptive use and euthanasia, to name just a few. Claiming that God is responsible for humanity’s universal sense of right and wrong fails to explain why there is and has always been such widespread disagreement over morality.

On the other hand, atheism can accommodate both the existence of a moral law and the manifest fact that not every culture or individual is aware of it. The explanation is straightforward: morality is not something implanted in every person’s heart by a creator, but something derived from careful deliberation and a rational understanding of our place in the world and our relationships to each other. There is no reason why we should expect it to be immediately obvious to everyone, just as there is no reason why we should expect the laws of physics to be immediately obvious to everyone."

And finally, "Why does man have a worship nature". Well, who cares? Do you imagine that Apollo, or Odin, or Vishnu, or any of the non-Christian gods that people believed in and believe in actually exist, just because of their worshippers' belief? So why is the fact that many people are predisposed to be religious proof that they are correct?
I imagine that an evolutionary scientist would postulate that this is just an unintended side-effect of other features of our thinking. People are hard-wired to look for patterns. It serves them well when identifying a stalking predator creeping up on them, but poorly when they see a lightning bolt and imagine an invisible giant in the sky threw it, or that it must have been designed by some sort of celestial watchmaker.
In short: you can't get out of providing evidence. If you think God exists, give a good reason for it.

Ed1wolf said:

You are just assuming that they ARE functional. Evidence that evolution requires every step to be functional? Of course, if what you say is true, it contradicts what you are saying about vestigial organs. Name a vestigial organ without a function.

Click to expand...

Yes. I’m inferring that every step of the eye’s evolution served some function because if they didn’t, there would be no selective pressure towards that step and the “step” wouldn’t come to exist in the first place. It would instead just be a mutation that showed up in some individuals. Any progress toward a “better” eye would not build off of that mutation, but rather the last existing functional structure. That’s how natural selection works.

Now, it is possible for biological structures to lose all or most of their function due to redundancy or obsolescence. This happens when other structures evolve to do that structure’s job or when that structure’s job is simply not used by the organism anymore. This is what is meant by vestigial organs. It’s not contradictory to the principle of natural selection, it’s a direct result of it.

I’m telling you this all from the top of my head. It’s very basic biology, so if you’re not familiar with this information I would suggest reading up on how evolution works on Google or even at your local library before you jump straight into arguing that evolution isn’t real because look at our eyes.

InterestedAtheist said:

"The cosmological version of the fine-tuning argument is more sophisticated, but nevertheless is not difficult to defeat. The key is to recognize that every step of this argument relies on implicit assumptions, none of which are supported by any evidence at all, and without any of which the argument collapses

Click to expand...

Your Argument isn't Rock solid as well. These are a few of the major problems with evolution.
Where there has needed to be a designer it is unexplained and the fact scientists can't explain the origin of the big bang.

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/

1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,” “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” “Opening Darwin’s Black Box,” or “Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins“);
2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see “Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record” or “Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology“);
3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.” (For details, see: “A Primer on the Tree of Life“);
4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;
5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see “Convergent Genetic Evolution: ‘Surprising’ Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design” and “Dolphins and Porpoises and…Bats? Oh My! Evolution’s Convergence Problem“);
6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see “The origin of life remains a mystery” or “Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life’“);
7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: “Evolving views of embryology,” “A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology,” “Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution“);
8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see “Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE’s Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution” or “Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism“);
9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA. (For details, ] see: “Intelligent Design and the Death of the ‘Junk-DNA’ Neo-Darwinian Paradigm,” “The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function,” or “Does Darrel Falk’s Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit ‘One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology’?);
10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

InterestedAtheist said:

The simplest answer to what you have said is that you are wrong. Quite simply incorrect. But in slightly more detail...
Ed1wolf said: ↑
They rarely saw the best theistic arguments. Also, prior the 1950's the evidence for God was not as strong. But after the 1950's the discovery of DNA and all the confirmation for the BB theory plus the anthropic principle were strong evidence for the existence of God.

ia: There is no "strong evidence for God". If there were, then apologists arguments would be impressive to people other than Christians. As it is, anyone who is not a Christian just shrugs off apologetic arguments as unimpressive.

Click to expand...

I have met several former atheists and agnostics that were converted by similar arguments for God and read about dozens more.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am primarily referring to His existence. This was the next step after you realize He exists, then you want to find out whether He is good, and since the bible is backed up by scientific and historical evidence it is more likely to be of divine origin than any other religious book.

ia: A Christian says that his holy book is the most impressive? How impressive.

Click to expand...

I don't just say it, it is a fact. In addition, Biblical principles have produced almost everything good about Western civilization.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The Koran is not backed up by science and history like the bible is. Much of it was borrowed from the bible except for the moral teaching is vastly inferior to the bible as it allows for beating your wife and killing infidels.

ia: I'm not even sure what to say when confronted with such dizzyingly unjustified self-confidence.
Perhaps it's best just to say, thank you for your contribution.

Click to expand...

It is not self confidence, but rather confidence in Gods word. And is nevertheless true.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am not saying they are brainwashed, just that the educators dont present the strongest evidence for the theistic position and denigrate students that are theists. See all my previous posts for strong evidence for the christian God.

ia: There is no strong evidence for the Christian God, which is in contrast to evolution, which has incredibly strong evidence.

Click to expand...

No, there is real time evidence for God, evolutionary events occurred in the distant past.

ia: If you think you have a good argument for God, feel free to post it clearly and succinctly. I will be happy to explain to you why it is incorrect

Click to expand...

Read my posts to cvanwey where I presented some of the strongest evidence for God.

dougangel said:

Your Argument isn't Rock solid as well. These are a few of the major problems with evolution.
Where there has needed to be a designer it is unexplained and the fact scientists can't explain the origin of the big bang.

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/

1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,” “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” “Opening Darwin’s Black Box,” or “Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins“);
2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see “Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record” or “Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology“);
3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.” (For details, see: “A Primer on the Tree of Life“);
4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;
5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see “Convergent Genetic Evolution: ‘Surprising’ Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design” and “Dolphins and Porpoises and…Bats? Oh My! Evolution’s Convergence Problem“);
6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see “The origin of life remains a mystery” or “Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life’“);
7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: “Evolving views of embryology,” “A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology,” “Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution“);
8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see “Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE’s Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution” or “Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism“);
9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA. (For details, ] see: “Intelligent Design and the Death of the ‘Junk-DNA’ Neo-Darwinian Paradigm,” “The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function,” or “Does Darrel Falk’s Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit ‘One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology’?);
10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

Click to expand...

Biology is not my field so I cannot properly address all of your points. But there are some... shall we say... eyebrow raisers.

First, are you proposing that there is a worldwide, presumably Satanic, conspiracy to promote evolution?

Second, the site you're plugging publishes known liars. For instance, look through this article:

https://evolutionnews.org/2005/10/discovery_institute_s_wedge_document_how/

The author says,

"There were lots of ironies as this urban legend began to grow, but Darwinist true-believers didn’t seem capable of appreciating them:
—Discovery Institute, the supposed mastermind of this “religious” conspiracy, is in fact a secular organization that sponsored programs on a wide array of issues, including mass transit, technology policy, the environment, and national defense."

This is simply a lie. There is no way around it. The Discovery Institute is not a secular organization. Not now, not in 2005 when the article was written, not in 1998 when the leak happened, not ever. I don't know what their tax filing status is, and I don't care. Regardless of how they structure the organization, it is simply a lie to say that they are secular. So it would not be beyond your source to lie about evolution, particularly if it lines their pockets with cash from supporters.



Creationism is like this. Imagine I said,

"Breathing is fatal. You inhale O2 and you exhale CO2. As we are carbon-based life forms, this is "death by a thousand cuts" and is ultimately fatal when we are depleted of carbon. Further, every living creature that has breathed has died or is in the process of dying."

This is obviously wrong, but to explain why with intricate detail is difficult, and can be made impossible if the audience is unable (not enough education) or unwilling (too much religion) to listen to any explanations given.

Evolution is much more complicated than the chemistry of breathing, and involves processes with which we are unfamiliar. So it is easy to warp the facts, as in the manner above, to make something which is absurd to a biologist seem plausible to you and me.

Also... consider Africans and their hands. Why are their palms white? The same effect happens on those with lighter skin, but it is not as noticeable. Palms are white for the same reason that paws have no fur. It's a different kind of skin. Thicker and tougher. The reason you develop calluses on your hands is because they once were used for walking. The skin is tougher than in other places on your body. Feel the pad of a paw from a cat or dog. It's thick and tough. I'm not suggesting to shave your pet, but if you did, you would not find tougher skin anywhere. Your palms and fingernails are paws and claws.

If God designed our palms so we could grab things, then why discolor our palms? Doesn't that look a little weird if you're designing a human from scratch? Is it impossible to weave pigments into our palms?

Ed1wolf said:

I have met several former atheists and agnostics that were converted by similar arguments for God and read about dozens more.

Click to expand...

Really? I should be interested in seeing those. I've seen plenty of testimonies from people who became Christians, and almost all of them were based on emotional experiences.
You may find this article interesting: How Could an Atheist Convert to Christianity?
It's about how three atheists became Christians. One of them was going senile. The second made it clear he was not converting for intellectual reasons. And the third converted because she was surrounded by Catholics.
If there really were good arguments for Christianity, then plenty of atheists would convert. They would follow the evidence. But of course, there aren't.

Ed1wolf said:

I don't just say it, it is a fact. In addition, Biblical principles have produced almost everything good about Western civilization.

Click to expand...

The fact that you say something is a fact doesn't make it actually true. And was the Bible responsible for the Renaissance? Or the Enlightenment? Or the Industrial Revolution? Or democracy?
Christianity has been an integral part of western culture for many centuries, of course; and it certainly has been responsible for many good things. But let's be clear: it wasn't responsible for al of them, and it was responsible for plenty of bad things as well.
And furthermore, none of this is any kind of evidence for Christianity's truth.

Ed1wolf said:

It is not self confidence, but rather confidence in Gods word. And is nevertheless true.

Click to expand...

It's confidence in your own opinion of God's word. You realise that most Christians accept the theory of evolution? It's something of a repeating theme with you, Ed - just because you make a claim, that doesn't mean your claim is true.

Ed1wolf said:

No, there is real time evidence for God, evolutionary events occurred in the distant past.

Click to expand...

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand the theory of evolution.

Ed1wolf said:

Read my posts to cvanwey where I presented some of the strongest evidence for God.

Click to expand...

It's hilarious the way so many Christians come on here with their funny little "proofs" and imagine we've never seen these before. The Cosmological Argument, the Moral Argument, the Argument from Design...these have all been known for decades, if not centuries. Known, countered and exposed.
Here, take a look at this little essay:
Unmoved Mover - Daylight Atheism
Let me know if there are any of your best arguments that aren't on there already.

Nihilist Virus said:

Biology is not my field so I cannot properly address all of your points. But there are some... shall we say... eyebrow raisers.

First, are you proposing that there is a worldwide, presumably Satanic, conspiracy to promote evolution?

Second, the site you're plugging publishes known liars. For instance, look through this article:

https://evolutionnews.org/2005/10/discovery_institute_s_wedge_document_how/

The author says,

"There were lots of ironies as this urban legend began to grow, but Darwinist true-believers didn’t seem capable of appreciating them:
—Discovery Institute, the supposed mastermind of this “religious” conspiracy, is in fact a secular organization that sponsored programs on a wide array of issues, including mass transit, technology policy, the environment, and national defense."

This is simply a lie. There is no way around it. The Discovery Institute is not a secular organization. Not now, not in 2005 when the article was written, not in 1998 when the leak happened, not ever. I don't know what their tax filing status is, and I don't care. Regardless of how they structure the organization, it is simply a lie to say that they are secular. So it would not be beyond your source to lie about evolution, particularly if it lines their pockets with cash from supporters.



Creationism is like this. Imagine I said,

"Breathing is fatal. You inhale O2 and you exhale CO2. As we are carbon-based life forms, this is "death by a thousand cuts" and is ultimately fatal when we are depleted of carbon. Further, every living creature that has breathed has died or is in the process of dying."

This is obviously wrong, but to explain why with intricate detail is difficult, and can be made impossible if the audience is unable (not enough education) or unwilling (too much religion) to listen to any explanations given.

Evolution is much more complicated than the chemistry of breathing, and involves processes with which we are unfamiliar. So it is easy to warp the facts, as in the manner above, to make something which is absurd to a biologist seem plausible to you and me.

Also... consider Africans and their hands. Why are their palms white? The same effect happens on those with lighter skin, but it is not as noticeable. Palms are white for the same reason that paws have no fur. It's a different kind of skin. Thicker and tougher. The reason you develop calluses on your hands is because they once were used for walking. The skin is tougher than in other places on your body. Feel the pad of a paw from a cat or dog. It's thick and tough. I'm not suggesting to shave your pet, but if you did, you would not find tougher skin anywhere. Your palms and fingernails are paws and claws.

If God designed our palms so we could grab things, then why discolor our palms? Doesn't that look a little weird if you're designing a human from scratch? Is it impossible to weave pigments into our palms?

Click to expand...

Thank you, Nihilist Virus - you answered that much better than I could have.
@dougangel , if you really want to learn about evolution then you should stop reading Creationist websites and start reading scientific ones. Real science. As to your gish-gallop of articles to read (named after Duane Gish, a creationist debater famous for rattling off numerous false claims in debates) let me ask you: how many of them were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

I'd like to share this cartoon with ID proponents and other creationists who would like to set us straight on science:
Revolutionary
"What's more likely - that you have discovered fundamental flaws in one of the most solidly-evidenced theories of science, or that you need to read a little more?"

cvanwey said:

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I already did, the BB theory and law of causality. In addition, that the Bible is the only religious book that teaches the three main characteristics of the universe. That it has a definite beginning from nothing detectable, that it is expanding, and that the universe is energetically winding down.

cv: I again reiterate... Do you wish to 'accept the hits and ignore the misses'? Maybe we need to go down Genesis line by line? Furthermore, wasn't it you whom stated the Bible is not a science book? So which one is it? Does it have scientifically provable claims or not?.?.?.?

Click to expand...

I said it does have scientifically provable claims but it is not a science textbook because that is not its primary purpose.

cv: In the mean time, let's merely address the three you have stated:

(You) 'definite beginning' - (Me) Not if eternal inflation has anything to say about it...

Click to expand...

Yes, if it turns out the universe is eternal that would be strong evidence against Christianity but so far most of the evidence points to it not being eternal as I have demonstrated earlier. And there is more evidence coming in every week or so.

cv: (You) 'it is expanding' - (Me) Great, you may be able to find a vague nonspecific passage or two...

Click to expand...

No, not vague, the Hebrew in these verses means an ongoing stretching of the heavens/universe just like the theory says about the universe. Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isa. 40:22 and many others.

cv: (You) 'the universe is energetically winding down' - (Me) And the Bible mentions this where? Again, is the Bible a science book or not?

Click to expand...

When it touches on science it is correct. Romans 8:20-21.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because all people, not just scientists do not like the Christian God so they rationalize it away.

cv: Wow, just... Wow...

Ed1wolf said: ↑
People that naturally do not want to believe something are much more easily convinced that that something does not exist.

cv: By default, it might be a great idea to assume that no supernatural claimed agents necessarily exist, until proven otherwise - (ghosts, fairies, god(s), spirits, demons, etc...) Don't you agree?

Click to expand...

I agree and now all the evidence is coming in that there IS a supernatural agent that created the universe. This is an exciting time to be living in especially in cosmology.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, they ignore Him and try to explain things that can only be explained by a creator with just so stories. Ignoring Him implies that He is either non existent or irrelevant.

cv: How do you know? You assume everyone invokes the same seemingly fallacious conclusion as you? (i.e.) 'I can't think of a 'good reason', hence it 'must' be the God I've heard about.

Click to expand...

No, there is good reason to think it is God, specifically the Christian God as shown above. This conclusion is based on knowledge not lack of knowledge like god of the gaps.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but the characteristics of the god can determine whether they are the cause of this universe and only the Christian God fits best as the Creator of this universe. Others can be eliminated by looking at their characteristics. For example, Allah is a pure unity but the universe is a diversity within a unity which matches the characteristics of the Triune Christian God. Generally a creators incorporates aspects of themselves into their creation.

cv: You will need to first disprove evolution, i.e. that the majorative number of surviving humans passed down their survival traits, to invoke intentional agency - (both good and bad).

Click to expand...

Evolution is just the process of creation, it is not that important HOW He created but rather IF He Created and the evidence points to He did. God very well may have used evolution to create us, though I think the evidence is weak.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because all humans have a natural antipathy toward the Christian God, people including scientists some consciously and some unconsciously try to explain Him away. Scientists usually use the excuse that science must use methodological naturalism and therefore cannot even consider anything that is supernatural. But this limits scientific inquiry which is a mistake. Science should be open to any conclusion even if it is potentially unpleasant.

cv: So you feel that it is possibly a global conspiracy to suppress 'God', among both all religious groups and non-religious groups, across the entire globe?

Click to expand...

Yes, the evidence seems to point in that direction, but like it I said it is not always a conscious effort.

cv: Furthermore, your response might seem to suggest that you feel I 'know' there is a God, but am in denial?.?.? You must know me better than myself.

Click to expand...

Yes, in fact you provided some of the scientific evidence that that is probably true when you admitted that studies show that our minds naturally believe that there is some pattern and intentionality to the things that happen to us and things that we observe around us. That shows that we are programmed to believe in Him but then later as we become more "educated" and we start to see how we are going to be held accountable for everything we do, it becomes very unpleasant and so we tend to rationalize His existence away or replace Him with some kindly grandfather type god that winks at our shortcomings and mistakes.

InterestedAtheist said:

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I already did, the BB theory and law of causality. In addition, that the Bible is the only religious book that teaches the three main characteristics of the universe. That it has a definite beginning from nothing detectable, that it is expanding, and that the universe is energetically winding down.

ia: Nonsense. You're just seeing what you want to see. There is no way the Bible actually teaches any of these, and the obvious proof of this is that it was scientists who came up with these things, and no Christians said them until they had become established science.

Click to expand...

No, if you look at the original greek and Hebrew it actually does teach these things. Scientists didn't come up with these things, they discovered them as pre-existing and existing characteristics of the universe. Some of the scientists that came up with these discoveries were Christians and others didn't realize that the original languages pointed in these directions until relatively recently.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because all people, not just scientists do not like the Christian God so they rationalize it away.

ia: Things which are asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Click to expand...

There is evidence for this from my experience as being a human and my experience with other humans, ie it is human nature. Plus God has revealed this fact to us in His written revelation.

ia: And that's particularly true when they're patently ridiculous things. Nobody dislikes the Christian God. Most people are Christians, and so love Him, and everyone else - Jews, Muslims or atheists - think He doesn't exist, and so are indifferent to Him.

Click to expand...

No, most Christians are not orthodox Christians. In the western world most so-called Christians belong to the heretical liberal denominations that reject most of the 2000 year old teachings of orthodox Christianity. Then there are others that have the right beliefs but dont live according to Christ's teachings. IOW Christians in name only. Then there are others that just make up some grandfather god that winks at their indiscretions. Most people dont want to believe in the real Biblical God. He makes them uncomfortable and can not be controlled.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
People that naturally do not want to believe something are much more easily convinced that that something does not exist.
ia: Your response has nothing to do with what cvanwey asked you for - your best piece of evidence.

Click to expand...

This particular response to his claim that if the evidence was so strong why do so few people accept it.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but the characteristics of the god can determine whether they are the cause of this universe and only the Christian God fits best as the Creator of this universe. Others can be eliminated by looking at their characteristics. For example, Allah is a pure unity but the universe is a diversity within a unity which matches the characteristics of the Triune Christian God. Generally a creators incorporates aspects of themselves into their creation.

ia: Again, nonsense; all you're doing is reimagining God to fit him in with scientific understanding of the universe.

Click to expand...

No, Athanasius knew God was a diversity within a unity 1500 years before scientists realized it was also a characteristic of the universe.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because all humans have a natural antipathy toward the Christian God, people including scientists some consciously and some unconsciously try to explain Him away.

ia: Most people in the USA are Christians. Even most scientists are Christians - certainly in the USA and perhaps around the whole world.

Click to expand...

See above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Scientists usually use the excuse that science must use methodological naturalism and therefore cannot even consider anything that is supernatural. But this limits scientific inquiry which is a mistake. Science should be open to any conclusion even if it is potentially unpleasant.

ia: Clearly you do not understand the scientific method at all. It's not that scientists don't believe in God, it's that God can have no place in science. Because allowing the supernatural into science would make science meaningless. Why stop with God? Why not allow pixies, demons and ghosts? Imagine what the result would be; nothing could ever be proved or relied upon:

"Aha! This experiment clearly shows that this solution is acidic!"
"Not so fast! Maybe the fairies just wanted to turn the solution red because it's their sacred colour!"

Click to expand...

No, up until 150 years ago, perfectly good science was done even allowing for God to exist and on extremely rare occasions interact with the universe and nature. God as a cause of an event would be the absolute last resort and only with good evidence. Pixies, demons and ghosts can be eliminated as causes of the universe as I explained earlier. The Bible teaches that God uses natural law at least 99.9% of time and the universe operates according to natural law read Jeremiah 33:25. Actually without God, science would be impossible. In order to do science, the universe must operate according to regular laws and be orderly and intelligible, only an intelligent mind can make something intelligible and only a lawgiver can make laws including natural laws as Einstein said.

ia: You say that all you want is for scientists to have "an open mind", but what you actually mean is you just wish they would stop proving your Holy Book wrong.

Click to expand...

It has never been proven wrong, and is confirmed more every year.

Ed1wolf said:

No, if you look at the original greek and Hebrew it actually does teach these things. Scientists didn't come up with these things, they discovered them as pre-existing and existing characteristics of the universe. Some of the scientists that came up with these discoveries were Christians and others didn't realize that the original languages pointed in these directions until relatively recently.


There is evidence for this from my experience as being a human and my experience with other humans, ie it is human nature. Plus God has revealed this fact to us in His written revelation.


No, most Christians are not orthodox Christians. In the western world most so-called Christians belong to the heretical liberal denominations that reject most of the 2000 year old teachings of orthodox Christianity. Then there are others that have the right beliefs but dont live according to Christ's teachings. IOW Christians in name only. Then there are others that just make up some grandfather god that winks at their indiscretions. Most people dont want to believe in the real Biblical God. He makes them uncomfortable and can not be controlled.


This particular response to his claim that if the evidence was so strong why do so few people accept it.


No, Athanasius knew God was a diversity within a unity 1500 years before scientists realized it was also a characteristic of the universe.


See above.


No, up until 150 years ago, perfectly good science was done even allowing for God to exist and on extremely rare occasions interact with the universe and nature. God as a cause of an event would be the absolute last resort and only with good evidence. Pixies, demons and ghosts can be eliminated as causes of the universe as I explained earlier. The Bible teaches that God uses natural law at least 99.9% of time and the universe operates according to natural law read Jeremiah 33:25. Actually without God, science would be impossible. In order to do science, the universe must operate according to regular laws and be orderly and intelligible, only an intelligent mind can make something intelligible and only a lawgiver can make laws including natural laws as Einstein said.


It has never been proven wrong, and is confirmed more every year.

Click to expand...

Basically, Ed, it comes down to this: all you're doing is making this up. You don't provide any evidence, just things you heard in church or read on websites. But just because you say it's so, and want it to be so, that doesn't make it so. Your word is worth nothing here, we're not interested in what you think based on your personal experience
You ought to go and do some research on logical fallacies before posting on a debate forum. You could start with "No True Scotsman", and I think "Special Pleading" would also benefit you.

Ed1wolf said:

No, if you look at the original greek and Hebrew it actually does teach these things.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Ed1wolf said:

Scientists didn't come up with these things, they discovered them as pre-existing and existing characteristics of the universe. Some of the scientists that came up with these discoveries were Christians and others didn't realize that the original languages pointed in these directions until relatively recently.

Click to expand...

Okay. Let's have some peer-reviewed scientific papers saying "Science proves God is real!"

Ed1wolf said:

There is evidence for this from my experience as being a human and my experience with other humans, ie it is human nature. Plus God has revealed this fact to us in His written revelation.

Click to expand...

Evidence from your experience, Ed, means absolutely nothing at all.

Ed1wolf said:

No, most Christians are not orthodox Christians. In the western world most so-called Christians belong to the heretical liberal denominations that reject most of the 2000 year old teachings of orthodox Christianity. Then there are others that have the right beliefs but dont live according to Christ's teachings. IOW Christians in name only. Then there are others that just make up some grandfather god that winks at their indiscretions. Most people dont want to believe in the real Biblical God. He makes them uncomfortable and can not be controlled.

Click to expand...

No True Scotsman Fallacy. Learn it.

Ed1wolf said:

This particular response to his claim that if the evidence was so strong why do so few people accept it.

Click to expand...

Provide evidence that people do not want to believe in God. Because looking at the world, it seems pretty clear that most people do.

Ed1wolf said:

No, Athanasius knew God was a diversity within a unity 1500 years before scientists realized it was also a characteristic of the universe.

Click to expand...

Just your imagination.

Ed1wolf said:

No, up until 150 years ago, perfectly good science was done even allowing for God to exist and on extremely rare occasions interact with the universe and nature. God as a cause of an event would be the absolute last resort and only with good evidence. Pixies, demons and ghosts can be eliminated as causes of the universe as I explained earlier. The Bible teaches that God uses natural law at least 99.9% of time and the universe operates according to natural law read Jeremiah 33:25. Actually without God, science would be impossible. In order to do science, the universe must operate according to regular laws and be orderly and intelligible, only an intelligent mind can make something intelligible and only a lawgiver can make laws including natural laws as Einstein said.

Click to expand...

You're all over the place here, Ed. Where are you getting this all from? Josh McDowell?

Ed1wolf said:

It has never been proven wrong, and is confirmed more every year.

Click to expand...

If you think the Bible teaches us that evolution is false, then yes, it has been proved wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

Ed1wolf said:

No, if you look at the original greek and Hebrew it actually does teach these things. Scientists didn't come up with these things, they discovered them as pre-existing and existing characteristics of the universe. Some of the scientists that came up with these discoveries were Christians and others didn't realize that the original languages pointed in these directions until relatively recently.

Click to expand...

Do you have a source for this particular claim? I study Greek on and off, so I'm intrigued.