My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Subduction Zone]

but we still discuss the eye evolution (and flagellum) and we still dont have any evidence that it could evolve stepwise. so why do you think we can prove that other system can evolve?

No, we have more than enough evidence that the flagellum evolved. And the same applies to eyes.

Why do you make such obviously wrong claims? I have not posted this video for a while:

That video is based upon this paper:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

That paper is 14 years old which shows how out of date your argument is. And that paper is based upon and has links to over 200 peer reviewed articles from scientific journals. Excuse me if I don't link those

 

[pitabread]

but we still discuss the eye evolution (and flagellum) and we still dont have any evidence that it could evolve stepwise. so why do you think we can prove that other system can evolve?

Eye evolution:

The Evolution of Eyes
A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve
Eye evolution: common use and independent recruitment of genetic components
New Perspectives on Eye Development and the Evolution of Eyes and Photoreceptors | Journal of Heredity | Oxford Academic
Eye evolution and its functional basis | Visual Neuroscience | Cambridge Core
Metazoan opsin evolution reveals a simple route to animal vision
The evolution of early vertebrate photoreceptors
Part XIV: Evolution of Phototransduction, Vertebrate Photoreceptors and Retina by Trevor Lamb – Webvision
Evolution of opsins and phototransduction

Flagellum evolution:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum
Bacterial flagella and type III secretion systems | FEMS Microbiology Letters | Oxford Academic
The Evolution of Eukaryotic Cilia and Flagella as Motile and Sensory Organelles

Etc...

And there are loads of additional reference material from those papers/pages for you to research. I'm sure this will keep you busy for awhile.

 

[Heissonear]

again: you cant just mix parts in existing system and make a light detector. so no its impossible to made a light detector stepwise.

Hey Xia, the troops have collected in interpretive assumptions, in this case evolution of an eye.

Ones foundation to toss God the Creator aside to win a debate on assuptions that are interpretive does not cut it.

For example, in their Scientism foundation not one Higher Power miracle is recorded or presented. As if Higher Power does not esxist.

Yet they present natural environmental and biochemical processes form all changes we see in the fossil record.

Nope, high on Scientism and natural process but void of the Higher Life in our midst, even when we were Born Again through the Holy Spirit is a debaters dilemma they present to themselves and others reading their posts.

They are unaware of His Power and Presence, and interpretively assume grandoise claims.

They know not the newness of Life that is working within but have become the source for reality of this Creation. No eye ever evolved. Even the fossil record lacks this evidence they assume.

 

[pitabread]

For example, in their Scientism foundation not one Higher Power miracle is recorded or presented. As if Higher Power does not esxist.

We have observable and documentable mechanisms in nature for biological evolutionary change.

Meanwhile, we don't have any observable instances of supernatural forces changing or creating biological organisms.

So there is that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

i actually never said that i believe those creatures evolved. i claiming that any creature cant evolve into another one.

So, in your mind, algae is a robot?

 

[Aman777]

We have observable and documentable mechanisms in nature for biological evolutionary change.

Correction: You have documented mechanisms for descent with modification within kinds. Unbelievers changed the name to godless "evolution" hundreds of years ago, and said, Look what we've discovered.

*** Meanwhile, we don't have any observable instances of supernatural forces changing or creating biological organisms.

False, since God told us what today's Science just discovered last year. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things UNLESS you can tell us of a man who knew that all life came forth from water in total agreement with the following verse:

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,

*** So there is that.

Not so fast, until you tells us HOW a man who lived thousands of years BEFORE Science, got that one correct. I don't think ANYone here can. Amen?

 

[Dirk1540]

in their Scientism foundation not one Higher Power miracle is recorded or presented. As if Higher Power does not esxist.

Yet they present natural environmental and biochemical processes form all changes we see in the fossil record.

But as far as I see it the natural environmental and biochemical processes forming the changes is the philosophical part of naturalism. Meaning that to speculate on what exactly is the driving force behind the 'Forming' is off the pages of science.

The science part is to watch what happens, to observe repeated instances of what happens, to then be able to predict what happens time & time again...to even use our knowledge of what & when things happen to better our lives. So basically properly reading & predicting the 'Forming' of the changes is science. Knowing what the power is behind what is causing that forming is philosophy. Whether you call it 'God', 'Evolution', 'Mother Nature', or 'Random Chance' (and I'll go to my grave puzzled at how people can attribute randomness to explain this brilliant universe).

Now the word 'Miracle' is to hypothesize (philosophical) that that unknown 'Forming' force that's responsible for forming these natural environmental and biochemical processes in the universe, can decide to switch gears against the default settings at times. 'Miracle' means for the unknown underlying force to switch gears from the default laws of nature. So I would never accuse a naturalist of believing in miracles, but I would accuse them of trying to fuse their philosophy and their science into one. Their theory on WHAT the 'Forming Power' is, is separate than their ability to observe, predict, and to even master that forming power's output.

So the argument boils down to this, is the unknown power that does the forming stuck in auto mode, or does it have a manual mode (miracles)? This is why these debates will always hit a brick wall. You can only argue auto mode so far with a naturalist until they wind up laughing at you for believing that a manual mode exists.

I agree with the naturalist that the Intelligent Design theory is philosophy and not science. But I still believe ID is a great study, it's a philosophical argument for the existence of a manual mode behind the 'Forming Power.' The forming power that nobody can address scientifically because it's not a science question (it's philosophy).

 

[pitabread]

You have documented mechanisms for descent with modification within kinds.

"Within kinds" isn't a thing.

False, since God told us what today's Science just discovered last year. Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things UNLESS you can tell us of a man who knew that all life came forth from water in total agreement with the following verse:

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,

I'm talking about actual, observable instances of supernatural intervention in modifying or otherwise creating new living things. Not a broad-based interpretation about a particular translated religious text from a couple thousand years ago.

All the latter demonstrates is confirmation bias.

 

[Aman777]

"Within kinds" isn't a thing.

Sure it is. Descent with modification within His (Jesus) kinds and Their (Trinity) kinds produced the 7.4 Billion living Humans (descendants of Adam) alive on planet Earth today. Without this interaction between Humans and prehistoric people, we would still be running through the woods tonight looking for a hole to sleep in.

*** I'm talking about actual, observable instances of supernatural intervention in modifying or otherwise creating new living things. Not a broad-based interpretation about a particular translated religious text from a couple thousand years ago.

All the latter demonstrates is confirmation bias.

God told us more than 3k years ago that He created and brought forth "every living creature that moveth" Gen 1:21 from WATER. Science confirmed this Scientific Truth on July 25, 2016. It's empirical (testable) proof of God UNLESS you can explain HOW ancient men could have possibly written this. Amen?

 

[pitabread]

Sure it is.

No, no it isn't.

God told us more than 3k years ago that He created and brought forth "every living creature that moveth"Gen 1:21 from WATER. Science confirmed this Scientific Truth on July 25, 2016. It's empirical (testable) proof of God UNLESS you can explain HOW ancient men could have possibly written this. Amen?

It's stretching an interpretation of a translation of an ancient creation story. Not terribly impressive, that. It's neither empirical nor testable proof of anything, other than literary license.

Now, if you found some ancient religious text that, say, transcribed the entire genome of the very first human, that would be a little more impressive.

But you don't.

 

[quatona]

actually is my main objection to evolution. so here is my question again: are you agree or disagree that evolution can evolve a self replicating robot\watch?

It already has.

 

[Kylie]

actually is my main objection to evolution. so here is my question again: are you agree or disagree that evolution can evolve a self replicating robot\watch?

No, you are muddying the waters.

The only thing that is important is that reproduction in a way that introduces some small differences will lead to a population of individuals where some of the individuals are able to reproduce better than others.

yes. but it's different from detecting light direction. it's actually about cold and heat detection.

Woah, dude, don't jump ahead here. So yes, you can feel it.

Now, let's say we made a kind of bowl shaped indentation in your skin. If sunlight comes in at an angle, say from the left, it will only warm up the side of the bowl on the right, yes?

 

[xianghua]

No, we have more than enough evidence that the flagellum evolved. And the same applies to eyes.

Why do you make such obviously wrong claims? I have not posted this video for a while:

That video is based upon this paper:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

That paper is 14 years old which shows how out of date your argument is. And that paper is based upon and has links to over 200 peer reviewed articles from scientific journals. Excuse me if I don't link those

i can show you the same with camera evolution here:

evolution of camera‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

but it doesnt mean that there is a stepwise way from one kind into another. so this video actually prove nothing. he even admit that it's only a theory and not something that we can prove.

 

[xianghua]

Eye evolution:

ok. lets start with the second paper. they even admit that they start with a light sensitive patch. so their first step is again too complex to begin with. it's actually prove my point that some steps need at least several parts at once. otherwise they were able to show how the first light detector evolved. but they cant. 1-0 to the id model.

they also admit (in section 2) that their model is base upon several assumptions. so they even admit that it's base upon assumption and cant be prove.


the same for the flagellum paper: they claiming that the flagellum shared several similar proteins with the tts system. but it doesnt mean that they can evolve from each other. we can also find shared parts between a video camera and a film one. but it doesnt prove that there is a stepwise way from one kind of camera into another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i can show you the same with camera evolution here:

evolution of camera‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

but it doesnt mean that there is a stepwise way from one kind into another. so this video actually prove nothing. he even admit that it's only a theory and not something that we can prove.

As long as you keep using the same dishonest and refuted arguments you lose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok. lets start with the second paper. they even admit that they start with a light sensitive patch. so their first step is again too complex to begin with. it's actually prove my point that some steps need at least several parts at once. otherwise they were able to show how the first light detector evolved. but they cant. 1-0 to the id model.

This is an example of dishonesty on your part. You assume your answer instead of trying to reason, but then you know that you are wrong. You just don't want to be wrong.

they also admit (in section 2) that their model is base upon several assumptions. so they even admit that it's base upon assumption and cant be prove.

Nope, they are using that word differently than you are. Again, this is a dishonest argument. You are using an equivocation argument. In the sciences when someone says "assume" in a paper like that it almost always meands "assuming that this concept supported in another paper is correct". Scientists do not have to reinvent the wheel in every paper. They will quite often "assume" that earlier work is correct. This is not how you are using the word.

the same for the flagellum paper: they claiming that the flagellum shared several similar proteins with the tts system. but it doesnt mean that they can evolve from each other. we can also find shared parts between a video camera and a film one. but it doesnt prove that there is a stepwise way from one kind of camera into another.

Now you are just grasping at straws. Instead of spewing a bunch of ignorance the correct method is to bring up one claim at a time.

 

[xianghua]

So, in your mind, algae is a robot?

it's not a walking robot but a kind of a complex system. i more refer to something like a penguin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it's not a walking robot but a kind of a complex system. i more refer to something like a penguin.

Right, penguins are robots, not algae.

Got it.

 

[pitabread]

ok. lets start with the second paper. they even admit that they start with a light sensitive patch. so their first step is again too complex to begin with. it's actually prove my point that some steps need at least several parts at once. otherwise they were able to show how the first light detector evolved. but they cant.

The fact they opted to start with a light sensitive patch (which makes since given that they are modeling the evolution of more complex eyes) in no way 'proves' that light sensitive patches are too complex to evolve naturally. In fact, if that's your entire objection to the paper, then it's pretty weak sauce. You're continually falling back on an argument from incredulity, which is a pretty terrible argument to begin with.

If you want to demonstrate that something is impossible to evolve, you need to demonstrate some sort of physical barriers. You still haven't done that.

Furthermore, I linked over a half dozen papers, some of which do touch on pathways for the evolution of the first photoreceptors. I suggest spending more time researching this topic.

1-0 to the id model.

First, there is no "id model". Second, even if there was an ID model, it's not the null hypothesis in this case. Third, claiming 'victory points' in these discussions is incredibly tacky and reeks of desperation.

they also admit (in section 2) that their model is base upon several assumptions. so they even admit that it's base upon assumption and cant be prove.

Of course there are assumptions. That's how formulating hypotheses or building scientific models works. Invariably we're dealing with incomplete information and that is where assumptions are required. If we had 100% complete information about reality, there would be no need for scientific modeling in the first place.

Do you understand how science works? Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the scientific method before trying to read any more scientific literature: Scientific method - Wikipedia

the same for the flagellum paper: they claiming that the flagellum shared several similar proteins with the tts system. but it doesnt mean that they can evolve from each other.

It also doesn't mean they can't. And given what we do know about evolutionary change, functional shifts and so on, you would need to demonstrate the existence of a physical barrier preventing such evolution to be able to properly object to it. Thus far, you haven't shown anything of that kind.

Your entire objections are summed up with hand-waving dismissals and arguments from incredulity.

 

[Skreeper]

it's not a walking robot but a kind of a complex system. i more refer to something like a penguin.

Do you also call dogs robots?
When you buy your child a dog do you say to him/her: "Hey honey, I got you a nice and cute robot for your birthday. Please be gentle with him since robots tend to break quite easily."