My favorite argument for the existence of God

[TBDude65]

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?

Denying the evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence.

 

[Aman777]

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.

Not so, since anyone can read and understand that God told us of things which are just now being discovered by Science. This is important since He also told us that He was going to pour out His Spirit (The Spirit of Truth) upon "ALL flesh" in the last days of this Earth:

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh:

All flesh includes atheists, agnostics and scientists, which means that He will pour out His Truth through Science, since that is the only way unbelievers will accept His Truth. Are you ready for God's Truth? Or will you be "willingly ignorant" 2Pe 3:5 like the Scoffers of the last days? 2Pe 3:3

 

[Skreeper]

Not so, since anyone can read and understand that God told us of things which are just now being discovered by Science. This is important since He also told us that He was going to pour out His Spirit (The Spirit of Truth) upon "ALL flesh" in the last days of this Earth:

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh:

All flesh includes atheists, agnostics and scientists, which means that He will pour out His Truth through Science, since that is the only way unbelievers will accept His Truth. Are you ready for God's Truth? Or will you be "willingly ignorant" 2Pe 3:5 like the Scoffers of the last days? 2Pe 3:3

Nice.

 

[doubtingmerle]

why do you think that a living creature cant be consider as robot?

Question: If you call a dog's tail a leg, will the dog's tail have all the characteristics of a leg?
Answer: No. It does not matter what you call the tail, it is still a tail.

Question: If you call a living creature a robot, will that living creature have all the characteristics of a robot.
Answer: No. It does not matter what you call the creature. It is still a creature.

Understand?

 

[Aman777]

Nice.

Thank you very much. I love the idiot Trump video. God Bless you

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Let's say an animal gets a big survival advantage if it has mutations A, B, and C. Suppose A, B, & C are all neutral, but the combination is a big step forward. Ok, so some members of a species may get A, some B, and some C. Eventually, with intermarriages and gene combinations, one lucky individual will get A, B and C and have a huge advantage. Over time individuals with A, B, or C will become more common, because they can lead to advantaged descendents with A, B and C. Over time, all the surviving members of the species could have A, B, and C, and a new feature is added to the species.

That is the beauty of sex. It is not necessary for one lucky individual to get all 3 mutations at once.

And if it takes A, B, and C to gain a crude eyespot, it is possible to evolve a crude eyespot.

 

[dmmesdale]

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.

How is DNA supposed to point to an imaginary ancestor that did not exist in the first place? Molecular sequences are available mostly from present living organisms, not imaginary nonhuman creatures. It is as scientific as assuming DNA will point to the physical existence of goblins and unicorns. The Evos don't even know what the supposed ghost creature was in the first place. What exactly is the DNA sequence for a theoretical creature which was the supposed ancient ancestor between modern man and nonhuman ape? It is all about as scientific as reading tea leaves or conducting a seance. Get out of the fog.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is DNA supposed to point to an imaginary ancestor that did not exist in the first place? Molecular sequences are available mostly from present living organisms, not imaginary nonhuman creatures. It is as scientific as assuming DNA will point to the physical existence of goblins and unicorns. The Evos don't even know what the supposed ghost creature was in the first place. What exactly is the DNA sequence for a theoretical creature which was the supposed ancient ancestor between modern man and nonhuman ape? It is all about as scientific as reading tea leaves or conducting a seance. Get out of the fog.

Sorry, but your post makes no sense as written. You still are an ape. All men are apes. Perhaps you should be trying to find out why we know that we are evolved beings instead of posting rants that only demonstrate a lack of education.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Evos don't even know what the supposed ghost creature was in the first place. What exactly is the DNA sequence for a theoretical creature which was the supposed ancient ancestor between modern man and nonhuman ape?

We might not know all the ancestors of man, and might not have the DNA, but we do know from fossils what many of them were like. For instance:

 

[xianghua]

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?View attachment 204477

it may be possible. so?

 

[xianghua]

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.

so we dont have even one paper that could show us how the first eyespot evolved?

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.

but i said why we cant build a light detector stepwise. so for now lets agree that so far all the evidences we have support the claim that a light detector cant evolve stepwise. till we will have an explanation how it could evolve we need to go by the evidence we have so far and not by the evidence we dont have. this is how science work. agree?

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.

if so link me to a specific paper. but if it will not say how many amino acid we will need to change for the evolution of the first lgiht detector then the paper is actually meaningless.

 

[xianghua]

Question: If you call a dog's tail a leg, will the dog's tail have all the characteristics of a leg?
Answer: No. It does not matter what you call the tail, it is still a tail.

Question: If you call a living creature a robot, will that living creature have all the characteristics of a robot.
Answer: No. It does not matter what you call the creature. It is still a creature.

Understand?

so if i will made a robot that made from organic components it will not be a robot but organism?

 

[Speedwell]

so we dont have even one paper that could show us how the first eyespot evolved?




but i said why we cant build a light detector stepwise. so for now lets agree that so far all the evidences we have support the claim that a light detector cant evolve stepwise. till we will have an explanation how it could evolve we need to go by the evidence we have so far and not by the evidence we dont have. this is how science work. agree?




if so link me to a specific paper. but if it will not say how many amino acid we will need to change for the evolution of the first lgiht detector then the paper is actually meaningless.

I'm still in the dark about how you think changes in amino acid could cause the evolution of a light-sensitive spot.

 

[Speedwell]

so if i will made a robot that made from organic components it will not be a robot but organism?

Depends on how you made it, but it might be both.

 

[xianghua]

Depends on how you made it, but it might be both.

great. so you basically agree that a living thing can be consider as a robot under some situations.

 

[pitabread]

but i said why we cant build a light detector stepwise.

No you haven't. You've only asserted it repeatedly, but you've in no way demonstrated it.

so for now lets agree that so far all the evidences we have support the claim that a light detector cant evolve stepwise.

The evidence doesn't support that claim at all. All you are doing is resorting to an argument from ignorance/incredulity. It's a weak form of argument.

If you want to demonstrate that a light detector could not evolve, you need to demonstrate positive physical barriers preventing its evolution. You continue to fail to do so.

if so link me to a specific paper. but if it will not say how many amino acid we will need to change for the evolution of the first lgiht detector then the paper is actually meaningless.

I've noticed typical creationist tactics with your posts. When you're given scientific papers where there are hypotheses or assumptions (as is the case with almost everything in science), you dismiss it as speculative. Then you set up arbitrarily strict requirements of acceptance that borderlines on the absurd.

I originally linked to those papers as sampling of literature on eye evolution, since you originally claimed there was "no evidence" for such evolution. Your claim in this regard is obviously false as there is considerable literature and investigation into the topic backed up by studies into paleontological evidence as well as molecular evolution.

At this point, I can't force-feed you scientific literature, especially given your predilection for hand-waving dismissals.

All I can say is that if you really want to demonstrate the impossibility of the evolution of the eye or a light patch or whatever, you need to point to legitimate physical barriers preventing it. Simply pointing to gaps in scientific knowledge and setting absurd goalposts for said scientific knowledge is not bolstering your case.

If anything, it demonstrates how intellectually bankrupt the argument for a intelligent designer really is.

 

[Speedwell]

great. so you basically agree that a living thing can be consider as a robot under some situations.

So what? No one has ever made a robot which was a living creature as well, so your example is purely imaginary.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your arguments are getting dumber

I'm not sure that's possible...

 

[doubtingmerle]

so if i will made a robot that made from organic components it will not be a robot but organism?

I never said that. You can make a robot out of wood if you want. That would still be a robot.

But a penguin is not a robot.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not sure that's possible...

You may be surprised.