Argument for God's existence.

[InterestedAtheist]

if you have an alternative theory let me know.

most people don't believe the universe had a beginning, and that it spontaneously generated out of nothing. But I could be wrong. I don't have evidence of most scientists believing in a multiverse, I assumed that. But there could be some that believe like I said that the universe exploded from nothing. Which is equally laughable as spontanious generation has been disproven for a hundred years. Nor is it possible for fully formed proteins or DNA to spontaniously generate in a primordial soup. So that takes chemical evolution out as well as stellar evolution in one fatal swoop.

You really shouldn't get all your information from creationist sources. They simply don't know what they're talking about. And right now, you don't know enough about evolution to debate it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So again, usin logic here, I don't want a biased deinition from some liberal site or book.

No one asked you to cite a 'liberal' source. You are attempting to address a scientific concept, so you are tasked with citing a scientific source.

Which you can't, because not a single one will substantiate your fake, cartoon version of abiogenesis.

You are just in denial.

No, I am in possession of a layman's understanding of the subject. Which is all it takes to see you have no clue what you're talking about.

Which you're about to demonstrate, once again, right here,

Ok, so an earth is created with no life. there is water on the earth to support life, but no life exists. Then all of a sudden in a pond a lightening strike hits the water and life is formed. That is spontanious generation. Because you are taking non life and creating life. That is the exact definition of spontanious generation.

No. That is neither 'the exact definition of spontaneous generation', nor is it abiogenesis, as anyone with even the most basic understanding of the subject can see.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You really shouldn't get all your information from creationist sources. They simply don't know what they're talking about. And right now, you don't know enough about evolution to debate it.

I've had exchanges like this probably a thousand times by now, both online and in 'real life'. I've encountered exactly two creationists who could even tell me what the ToE is, let alone what a valid criticism would look like. Same goes for abiogenesis, and Big Bang cosmology.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I've had exchanges like this probably a thousand times by now, both online and in 'real life'. I've encountered exactly two creationists who could even tell me what the ToE is, let alone what a valid criticism would look like. Same goes for abiogenesis, and Big Bang cosmology.

Good point.
@gradyll , may I ask you a question? Could you briefly summarise for us what you think the scientific community believes evolution to be?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I've had exchanges like this probably a thousand times by now, both online and in 'real life'. I've encountered exactly two creationists who could even tell me what the ToE is, let alone what a valid criticism would look like. Same goes for abiogenesis, and Big Bang cosmology.

I’m waiting for “If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?” rebuttal...

 

[Moral Orel]

No not that every alternative was impossible just the one's presented. My argument is that when you see at piece of art that is proof there is an artist. When you a creation you know for a fact there was a creator. You say there are alternative hypothesis, but they have been demonstrated wrong.

Sure, and I'm saying that the laws of physics might have created our universe. That's the "creator".

actually you do need to prove it valid at least, or stop saying it.

I agreed that I need to show it's possible. Do you mean something else by "valid at least"?

He has them as per the definition of God, totally logical.

This doesn't answer either of my questions. I'm not going to attempt to prove that God is illogical. It'll save us a lot of time and confusion if you don't try to guess what my argument is going to be and answer questions in an attempt to deflect an argument that hasn't been made.

How did God gain His creative abilities? He gained them by being defined as having them?

Why would a rain cloud create a puddle it will never have any contact with? The definition of God has nothing to do with that question.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I’m waiting for “If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?” rebuttal...

Like many creationist arguments, it sounds superficially interesting, but collapses as soon as you look in to it.

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

I've had exchanges like this probably a thousand times by now, both online and in 'real life'. I've encountered exactly two creationists who could even tell me what the ToE is, let alone what a valid criticism would look like. Same goes for abiogenesis, and Big Bang cosmology.

Good point.
@gradyll , may I ask you a question? Could you briefly summarise for us what you think the scientific community believes evolution to be?

my posts were repeatedly deleted, sorry for the technical glitch.

but the common definition of evolution "change over time in the content of the gene pool" is misleading.

most intelligent design advocates admit that a species adapts and changes in it's gene pool over time. but they are still of the same animal group. Never has these small changes added up to a huge change over time, especially outside of its normal ring of species.

so the proper definition is that of macro evolution, that is the point of contention. So lets define macro evolution:


the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"


also indiana university:


http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf


also some institutes of Biological Sciences:


An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


national evolution sythesis center:


NESCent: NABT: Macroevolution: Evolution Above the Species Level


2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM

This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

Douglas Futuyma defines it: “the origin and diversification of higher taxa.”

Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, glossary (Sinaeur, 1998).


“Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…” (Campbell’s, Biology, 4th ed.)



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:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x/full

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia


change over time in the content of the gene pool. I know the proper definition of evolution. But the problem is that the implications of evolution don't match the definition of evolution. That is why I define it by macro evolution (as does UC berkley). Evolution's generic definition we all agree on. Yes there is change in the gene pool over time. That's micro evolution, but those changes don't add up to one type of animal becoming another type of animal:
Lets look at the definition of Macro evolution:

the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"
also indiana university:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf


also some institutes of Biological Sciences:
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


national evolution sythesis center:
NESCent: NABT: Macroevolution: Evolution Above the Species Level


2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM
This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"
3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium
Douglas Futuyma defines it: “the origin and diversification of higher taxa.”

Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, glossary (Sinaeur, 1998).


“Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…” (Campbell’s, Biology, 4th ed.)



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:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x/full

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

 

[createdtoworship]

You really shouldn't get all your information from creationist sources. They simply don't know what they're talking about. And right now, you don't know enough about evolution to debate it.

I have all sorts of citations, but it is not needed.

evolution has no observational data, cannot be repeated under observation, and has no data set for that observation.

without observation, it cannot be labelled valid, or science even.

(macro evolution that is)

 

[createdtoworship]

I've had exchanges like this probably a thousand times by now, both online and in 'real life'. I've encountered exactly two creationists who could even tell me what the ToE is, let alone what a valid criticism would look like. Same goes for abiogenesis, and Big Bang cosmology.

I adressed this in my last few posts, but abiogenesis can be defeated in a few sentences, as well as macro evolution.

it's not even debate worthy.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

change over time in the content of the gene pool. I know the proper definition of evolution. But the problem is that the implications of evolution don't match the definition of evolution. That is why I define it by macro evolution (as does UC berkley). Evolution's generic definition we all agree on. Yes there is change in the gene pool over time. That's micro evolution, but those changes don't add up to one type of animal becoming another type of animal:
Lets look at the definition of Macro evolution:

That's nice and all, but it's not what I asked for.

Would you please, in your own words, explain what you think scientists think evolution is?

I have all sorts of citations, but it is not needed.
evolution has no observational data, cannot be repeated under observation, and has no data set for that observation.
without observation, it cannot be labelled valid, or science even.
(macro evolution that is)

To answer that, see this article:
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

"Evolution has never been observed."
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm going to instead let this 9 minute video explain. And just as a precursor, I'm not asserting this particular scientist HAS the answer; because he never claims to. But again, what YOU are attempting to defend, and what I am, at least presenting, are apples and oranges.

Very weak argument.
there was nothing. Nothing exploded into something. Spontaneous generation was disprove 100 years ago. The alternative that makes sense, is that nothing did not explode into something. But that God who is outside of time and has no beginning. Created it.

 

[createdtoworship]

I’m waiting for “If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?” rebuttal...

I am still waiting for a missing link between monkeys and man. Lucy is ape like, neanderthal was human like. None of those even remotely work.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm going to instead let this 9 minute video explain. And just as a precursor, I'm not asserting this particular scientist HAS the answer; because he never claims to. But again, what YOU are attempting to defend, and what I am, at least presenting, are apples and oranges.

I’d be surprised if any cosmologist says they’re sure they have the answer.

No one asked you to cite a 'liberal' source. You are attempting to address a scientific concept, so you are tasked with citing a scientific source.

Which you can't, because not a single one will substantiate your fake, cartoon version of abiogenesis.



No, I am in possession of a layman's understanding of the subject. Which is all it takes to see you have no clue what you're talking about.

Which you're about to demonstrate, once again, right here,



No. That is neither 'the exact definition of spontaneous generation', nor is it abiogenesis, as anyone with even the most basic understanding of the subject can see.

Good point.
@gradyll , may I ask you a question? Could you briefly summarise for us what you think the scientific community believes evolution to be?

I’m waiting for “If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?” rebuttal...

I am adding this to OP, but let's get back to topic, evolution is already refuted in a few sentences so I won't be addressing that anymore. Create a thread where we can talk about it. Right now I wish to dispelled the most popular viewpoint among athiests, a multiverse created the universe:
How could a collection of rocks floating in a multiverse gain the ability to create an entire universe from absolutely nothing? I await your reply. Secondly, say a miracle happened and a multiverse allowed asteroids floating in a multiverse ability to wave a magic wand and create an entirely separate universe from nothing (ex nihilo). Why would a multiverse create another completely separate universe that it had no working relationship with? Just to be nice? So we not only have miraculous meteors, but we have benevolent meteors. Not only that but these meteors are timeless and have no beginning, even though they have mass, and are susceptible to time via general relitivity. This is sounding more and more like mythology. It takes more faith to believe that. Than It Does to believe, God who n is self existent and self defining (per the definition of God), creating the universe in order to ultimately save, love, and glorify his creation, and to spend eternity, exploring how he in fact created, and to spend time with His creation, in loving fellowship.

 

[Moral Orel]

God who n is self existent and self defining (per the definition of God)

Explaining this might help answer one of my questions to you that you haven't responded to yet. What does it mean? The definition of God is that He is self-defining? Don't forget about post #786, but explaining this might be necessary to answer one of those questions.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Very weak argument.
there was nothing. Nothing exploded into something. Spontaneous generation was disprove 100 years ago. The alternative that makes sense, is that nothing did not explode into something. But that God who is outside of time and has no beginning. Created it.

You continually show you have zero understanding of any of this. I mean come on, my child knew that the Big Bang doesn’t describe an “explosion” when he was in the fourth grade.

But by all means, keep it up. I’m in discussion with another Christian, and your posts are doing wonders for my argument...

 

[createdtoworship]

Explaining this might help answer one of my questions to you that you haven't responded to yet. What does it mean? The definition of God is that He is self-defining? Don't forget about post #786, but explaining this might be necessary to answer one of those questions.

self.defining per the definitin of God is that He is omnipresent Omniscient and Omnipotent. All powerful, everywhere at once, and knows everthing. That is what makes God, God, per definition.

 

[createdtoworship]

You continually show you have zero understanding of any of this. I mean come on, my child knew that the Big Bang doesn’t describe an “explosion” when he was in the fourth grade.

But by all means, keep it up. I’m in discussion with another Christian, and your posts are doing wonders for my argument...

I will try one last time to debate wit you in a civil manner. You should be more humble than you are, especially since most of what you have been taught is in error. Citation: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=big+bang+explosion&btnG=

I n have been shrugging off your insults as per God's word. But it sets a bad example, so I will give you a last warning, then I will block you again.

Fools have short fuses and explode all too quickly; the prudent quietly shrug off insults’ (proverbs 12:16, MSG).