Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator-Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

[TeddyKGB]

Twelve pages later and he's still not listening?

Dude has a long and sordid history of not listening everywhere he turns up. Google "Yomin Postelnik" and laugh heartily at the melodrama.

 

[ypostelnik]

Not a problem, the original topic is here:



And my last response before the thread was closed is here:



Sorry for the copy-and-pasting, but I think I covered most of the points you made both here and in the other thread. And I'd also like to emphasise what I said at the end of my linked post - the original article was not so much about debating evolution, and I think a debate on that article would be more fruitful than the evolution side of things.

Also, you might be interested to know there's currently an abiogenesis debate going on the Creation and Evolution subforum of this board, there's some really interesting scientific stuff being brought up by both sides, here's the link:



The only additional thing I would like clarification on is:



I take it when you say that you doubt Darwin would believe in evolution now, you mean that you doubt he would be convinced of the (not-explicitly-theistic) macroevolutionary origin of life as science currently claims it to be (I only ask because evolution (genetic variation etc) does still occur today). Am I correct?

Cabal,

Thank you for the links and everything.

Amino acids forming from chemicals are a good point, but they don't lead to RNA/DNA, and the combination of both was needed to form one cell. That means they'd have to come together at the same time. It's far different from the development of amino acids, which are much more closely related to the chemical compounds and their becoming DNA or RNA is not a natural progression, much less their becoming both and spontaneously joining together. Order coming from randomness, to that extent, isn't plausible.

You are right about Gould and I should have been more specific. The problem is that the few transitional fossils that are cited, like homo ergaster, don't have uniquely homo and uniquely australopithecus traits. The main argument is based on resemblance. But that's not the main problem.

The main problem with evolutionary theory is that while thousands of ape and human fossils have been found, no such numbers have been found of any transitional types, and the few and far between ones listed as “transitional” (none of which actually show transition, i.e. uniquely homo and austral. characteristics) are all highly inconclusive. This fact alone makes it more likely to presume that there were no intermediary species and makes logic dictate that these few decayed skeletons are ape fossils that have decayed rather than making an argument for transformation with the fossils of thousands of generations missing in between (while the "before and after," so to speak, are available in plenty). There are animal fossils you wouldn’t be able to differentiate from, such as a small mammal and a larger one with similar cranial characteristics, that no one claims are from the same evolutionary line. To present such an argument for an ape/human connection based on skeletal structure alone, in spite of the fact that intermediaries simply don’t exist and the math doesn’t add up (thousands of primary forms, according to evolutionists, thousands of human fossils, and an inconclusive skeleton or two in between to show intermediary steps that if existed, would be more plentiful than the primary apes, as they’d be their offspring), isn't anywhere near as probable as saying that the two aren't related (as in evolutionary lineage), other than made with the same physical matter.

You correctly interpreted what I meant about Darwin. Growth of cellular life and transition to factors are worked into the world's plan according to both sides (except atheists would take issue with the word plan, but we both agree that they're wrong and that the complexity of the universe points to that). But the coming about of cellular life (which even Darwin was forced to say may have come about from the Creator "calling it into being) is an area where modern day evolutionists present erroneous/illogical claims and the transition of one species type to another doesn't add up with the lack of clear transitional fossils documenting such change (their absence making the case that no such evolution occurred, for the reasons given above).

I'll be back on Mon. and will check a few days after if you haven't had time to respond. The thread is kind of crazy with the other guys adding nothing of substance and only attack. I can just invite you to debate on my blog, Myth Debunker (usually political, not science or religiously oriented) if you'd prefer or we can continue here and hopefully the one liner/ad hominem guys will go away.

To the one-liner guys - If I'm such an outrageous laughing stock then surely you'll let us debate in peace so that you can continue laughing. If not I'll just have to copy a debate I previously had (and I doubt you'll be laughing as I won) and walk away. I really would like to continue this good discussion on this forum and would ask you to let us debate/exchange ideas.

 

[ypostelnik]

Chordates,

I will respond once to you and then I'll continue with Cabal.

You keep running away from, or distorting the word "spontaneous." Don't you realize that the further you go into chemical breakdowns and the make up of life, or planets, or whatever, the more you are showing that each of these things came together in a 1:1,000,000,000,000 or more chance if you're saying there's no Designer at the helm? That's my point. If you tone the level of your posts I'd be happy to discuss more stuff in detail.

 

[Nitron]

HEPCATS EVIL COMIc!!!!

 

[TeddyKGB]

The main problem with evolutionary theory is that while thousands of ape and human fossils have been found, no such numbers have been found of any transitional types, and the few and far between ones listed as “transitional” (none of which actually show transition, i.e. uniquely homo and austral. characteristics) are all highly inconclusive. This fact alone makes it more likely to presume that there were no intermediary species and makes logic dictate that these few decayed skeletons are ape fossils that have decayed rather than making an argument for transformation with the fossils of thousands of generations missing in between (while the "before and after," so to speak, are available in plenty). There are animal fossils you wouldn’t be able to differentiate from, such as a small mammal and a larger one with similar cranial characteristics, that no one claims are from the same evolutionary line. To present such an argument for an ape/human connection based on skeletal structure alone, in spite of the fact that intermediaries simply don’t exist and the math doesn’t add up (thousands of primary forms, according to evolutionists, thousands of human fossils, and an inconclusive skeleton or two in between to show intermediary steps that if existed, would be more plentiful than the primary apes, as they’d be their offspring), isn't anywhere near as probable as saying that the two aren't related (as in evolutionary lineage), other than made with the same physical matter.

This is complete nonsense. And since it is also pure assertion, I shall merely contrarily assert the falsity of every claim.

If you want to discuss specifics, I'm sure we can accommodate.

You correctly interpreted what I meant about Darwin. Growth of cellular life and transition to factors are worked into the world's plan according to both sides (except atheists would take issue with the word plan, but we both agree that they're wrong and that the complexity of the universe points to that). But the coming about of cellular life (which even Darwin was forced to say may have come about from the Creator "calling it into being) is an area where modern day evolutionists present erroneous/illogical claims and the transition of one species type to another doesn't add up with the lack of clear transitional fossils documenting such change (their absence making the case that no such evolution occurred, for the reasons given above).

What's the matter with you? Transitional cellular fossils? Are you even trying to represent common descent fairly?

To the one-liner guys - If I'm such an outrageous laughing stock then surely you'll let us debate in peace so that you can continue laughing. If not I'll just have to copy a debate I previously had (and I doubt you'll be laughing as I won) and walk away. I really would like to continue this good discussion on this forum and would ask you to let us debate/exchange ideas.

I'll take you more seriously when you approach evolution honestly.

 

[TheNerd]

I've asked him to back off and instead he googles me several times a day and keeps following me around everywhere.

How would you know who's Google-ing you, without looking up their IP address? And if you DO know their IP address, why aren't you bringing this information to the police? Either they're stalking you and you have a legitimate case, or you're a pathetic whiner and need to go crawl back into the hole you came out of.

 

[Vene]

 

[Morcova]

LOL

Great graphic vene.

 

[pgp_protector]

This has the be the most amusing thread Ive ever read.......ever...lol

And I almost missed it

But due to a thread resurrection I got some enjoyment today

 

[Cabal]

This thread requires BRAAAAAINS.

And I really should find out what Yomin's been up to since this lulzy time.

 

[Cabal]

This thread requires BRAAAAAINS.

And I really should find out what Yomin's been up to since this lulzy time.

 

[Bombila]

See, Cabal? Posting in Zombie thread leads to the Curse of Double Posting.

oops.

 

[pgp_protector]

See, Cabal? Posting in Zombie thread leads to the Curse of Double Posting.

oops.

LOL

 

[pgp_protector]

See, Cabal? Posting in Zombie thread leads to the Curse of Double Posting.

oops.

LOL

 

[Cabal]

Teh zombehs are multiplying

BRAAAAAINS

 

[Vene]

Teh zombehs are multiplying

BRAAAAAINS

Look elsewhere.

 

[keith99]

Teh zombehs are multiplying

BRAAAAAINS

They will all die here, nothing to eat.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They will all die here, nothing to eat.

Only those zombies who evolve to eat the abundance of strawmen will survive.

 

[Isambard]

I wonder what ever happened to the OP. Did he ended up getting sued from the guy he wronged?

 

[Bombila]

Isambard, a quick search for his unique name indicates he was very quiet on line from June to September, but has very recently begun replying (on other sites) to rebuttals posted by others in June.

Awed by tha intarwebs still... took me all of two minutes to track the lad's trail of science denialism.