My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Aman777]

Y'know, I've often wondered what Biblical literalists think of Biblical scholarship.

When I first started researching the Bible, I naively used a lot of literalist material as sources. Then when I started looking at more academic material I quickly discovered that what a lot of literalists believe about their own Bible appears to be, well, wrong.

Of course it is, since ONLY the people of the "last days" with the "increased knowledge" we have today, can possibly understand Genesis chapter one. Dan 12:4 God hid the current scientific Truth in the FIRST chapter of the Bible.

 

[HitchSlap]

Of course it is, since ONLY the people of the "last days" with the "increased knowledge" we have today, can possibly understand Genesis chapter one. Dan 12:4 God hid the current scientific Truth in the FIRST chapter of the Bible.

Cool story bro.

 

[Aman777]

Cool story bro.

Amen, and one which AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History. God Bless you

 

[xianghua]

As I already said, a couple of the papers I linked touch on the evolution of photoreceptors and also include umpteen references to other papers. Heck, one of the papers I cited to you in the past dealt directly with the evolution of light sensitive proteins.

but that paper already start with a working photoreceptor. it doesnt show how it evolved from a non-photoreceptor. so we dont have even a single paper that deal with the first step in eye evolution or the amount of amino acids that we need to change to such evolution.

That's not "data". This is just an unsupported assertion. You have no contradictory data with respect to eye evolution.

it's not. here is another good example to show you why ic is real. if we will need to made a car in a stepwise way we cant do this, because car need at least wheels, engine and a chassi. so at least 3 main parts so make a minimal car.therefore if we will have a self replicating molecule it will never evolve into a car. do you agree or disagree?

 

[HitchSlap]

Amen, and one which AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History. God Bless you

Would your world be rocked if this was untrue?

 

[xianghua]

In general, anyone who makes a positive claim has a burden of proof.

if so anyone that claim that a robot can evolve naturally need to prove his claim.

I also think you're confusing semantics with ontology - it's likely that in common usage, the semantics of 'robot' don't involve natural evolution, i.e. things that evolve naturally are not robots.

so if something that looks like a robot evolved naturally it's not a robot by definition?

 

[lesliedellow]

Amen, and one which AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History. God Bless you

Ah, so the Bible talks about a 13.8 billion year old universe now. I must have missed that bit.

Whatever else the Bible is, it is not a scientific textbook, and it does not contain allusions to scientific discoveries which lay millenia into the future.

 

[xianghua]

If you define robot to mean "anything that moves", then yes, some moving things can undergo biological evolution.

according to you why a living thing cant be consider as a robot? because it's made from organic components, because it's have a self replicating system or because of both?

and by "evolved" i mean something that can evolve without any designer.

 

[xianghua]

No it doesn't.

yes it does. you can check it for yourself here:

Eyespot apparatus - Wikipedia

"Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins.["

so yes even a simple eyespot isnt simple at all and made from many parts. the guy in video is wrong. period.

 

[lesliedellow]

according to you why a living thing cant be consider as a robot? because it's made from organic components, because it's have a self replicating system or because of both?

and by "evolved" i mean something that can evolve without any designer.

Because meaning is determined by usage, and common usage for the word "robot" is as an appelation for some kind of semi autonomous electro mechanical system - not as a term for a biological organism.

 

[Aman777]

Would your world be rocked if this was untrue?

Impossible, since the Holy Spirit IS the Spirit of Truth and MUST tell the complete Truth, unlike all mortals who are all liars. Rom 3:4 Amen

 

[Aman777]

Ah, so the Bible talks about a 13.8 billion year old universe now. I must have missed that bit.

Whatever else the Bible is, it is not a scientific textbook, and it does not contain allusions to scientific discoveries which lay millenia into the future.

Since Adam was made before the big bang of the present Universe, which was 13.8 Billion years ago, in man's time, the first Human is older than the beginning of our Cosmos. The Bible is far above any "scientific textbook" which is subject to change, since God's Truth changes NOT. The Bible is TRUE to every scientific discovery of man, but NOT to the False ToE, which is NOT Science, but nothing more than a false assumption of godless man. God Bless you

 

[lesliedellow]

Since Adam was made before the big bang of the present Universe, which was 13.8 Billion years ago, in man's time, the first Human is older than the beginning of our Cosmos.

Pure fiction. That has neither a scientific, nor even the vaguest biblical basis. It is just you trying to make the Bible say what you want it to say.

The Bible should be read for what it is trying to say, which is God's absolute Lordship over all Creation - and especially over his human creatures.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

if so anyone that claim that a robot can evolve naturally need to prove his claim.

Pretty much - and a claim like that would require definition of the terms first. Robots are artificial, so you'd have a problem applying 'natural' to what they do.

so if something that looks like a robot evolved naturally it's not a robot by definition?

No, that doesn't follow. The definition of 'robot' doesn't refer to natural evolution; nevertheless, robots don't evolve naturally; and something that looks like a robot isn't necessarily a robot.

Are you just trolling, or are you really unable to think this through logically?

Maybe if you just made your argument (preferably in terms of a valid syllogism), we could skip all this nonsense and cut to the chase.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins.

The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells is the result of 3.4 billion years of evolution. The earliest eyespots would have been far simpler.

 

[pitabread]

but that paper already start with a working photoreceptor. it doesnt show how it evolved from a non-photoreceptor. so we dont have even a single paper that deal with the first step in eye evolution or the amount of amino acids that we need to change to such evolution.

I referred you to about 8 or 9 papers originally. Apparently you only bothered to look at one of them.

Like I said, I can't force-feed you scientific literature. But I would suggest doing a wee bit more research. At this point you are arguing from a position of ignorance, which isn't doing anyone any good.

it's not. here is another good example to show you why ic is real. if we will need to made a car in a stepwise way we cant do this, because car need at least wheels, engine and a chassi. so at least 3 main parts so make a minimal car.therefore if we will have a self replicating molecule it will never evolve into a car. do you agree or disagree?

Cars are not living things, therefore the analogy is irrelevant.

Look, you've been continually told you can't keep equating living things with artificial manufactured objects. Why do you keep doing it?

 

[pitabread]

Are you just trolling, or are you really unable to think this through logically?

I keep wondering if a language barrier is an issue and "robot" means something entirely different to him than it does to the rest of us.

Then again, he keeps referencing other non-living things like cars and watches, so maybe it is just a case of not being able to logically argue something...

 

[Speedwell]

Our friend is stuck with having to "prove" that functionality is unequivocal evidence of intelligent design. He's at least to be given credit for persisting in an impossible task that many former ID supporters have abandoned.

 

[Aman777]

Pure fiction. That has neither a scientific, nor even the vaguest biblical basis. It is just you trying to make the Bible say what you want it to say.

False. Genesis 1:8 shows that Adam's firmament/heaven was made on the 2nd Day, by God the Trinity. Genesis 2:4 shows that other heavens (plural) were made the 3rd Day. Adam was also made the 3rd Day by Lord God/YHWH/Jesus BEFORE the plants herbs and trees which were also made by Lord God/YHWH/Jesus. Gen 2:4-7 Can you count the number of heavens made? is it at least Three in the present Multiverse? Of course it is but God leaves room for many more.

*** The Bible should be read for what it is trying to say, which is God's absolute Lordship over all Creation - and especially over his human creatures.

That is exactly the cause of the more than 30k denominations. This is WHY I seek the AGREEMENT of Scripture, science and history. I live in the last days, with the increased knowledge made available by the internet. Dan 12:4 The people of the last days are the ONLY ones who can see EVIDENCE of the literal God in Genesis chapter one. Can you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I keep wondering if a language barrier is an issue and "robot" means something entirely different to him than it does to the rest of us.

Then again, he keeps referencing other non-living things like cars and watches, so maybe it is just a case of not being able to logically argue something...

I don't know, and I don't particularly care by now. He's made no effort to define his terms, and he hasn't presented an argument. It just looks like time-wasting.