Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

I have a problem with the following part of the argument:

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life -- every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart... The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Click to expand...

This is pure speculation. And he doesn't show his work. We're just supposed to take it "on faith", which works just fine for his intended audience. It's just another version of the "irreducible complexity" argument.

Nor is it remarkable that SETI has failed to discover aliens, considering the vast distances involved and the limitations of the resolution power of our telescopes. If a civilization exactly like our own existed as close as 4 light years away, that would probably be too far away for SETI to detect it.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Evidence of evolution... you have none

and therefore evolution is junk science!!

Now go to the corner and weep!
Click to expand...

http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There you go. No weeping needed.

There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence for evolution, and the Theory of Evolution.

I predict you will not read, or accept any of these, because they don't say 'goddidit'.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Your argument is not science

Science requires a theory that can be tested

and you don't even have a theory

The article, viewable below demonstrates the probability of life forming and it is astronomically low.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
Click to expand...

Even if we take the article at face value, the universe is astronomically large. As any fule knoe, a tiny fraction of a very large number still results in a very large number, and this is the bit you don't seem to comprehend.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Where is the evidence for evolution?
Click to expand...

Well, it all started when curious people started finding the bones of animals that no longer seemed to be around. They kept looking and finding more bones and began to notice certain patterns. One pattern was that similar bones seemed to be buried in the same layers of earth.

Others pointed out that where something was buried (how deep and in relation to other layers) could act like a sort of clock, with deeper things generally older than things found closer to the surface.

But using this clock/calendar idea, we found that some types of bones were missing from earlier layers, then they showed up, and then they went away again. It was a great mystery. Another mystery was why some of the animals living now had no bones in deeper areas at all.

These two mysteries seemed to be telling us that different sorts of animals could arise (maybe out of the blue, maybe from earlier, different animals), live for awhile, and then all die out - or maybe change to another, more modern type of animal.

There is more to the story, but I think this will get you started.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Your argument is not science
Click to expand...

OK, first off, that was not an "argument", but a "question"; that is, an invitation for you to expand upon your own comment. You appear to have rejected both evolution and 'god' as explanations; given that, what is your personal idea of how stuff came about?

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Science requires a theory that can be tested

and you don't even have a theory
Click to expand...

Actually, there have been many successful, and probative, tests of the TOE.

Here is a Wikipeda article about the Lenski Experiment; with many useful resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Not a bad place to start.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The article, viewable below demonstrates the probability of life forming and it is astronomically low.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
Click to expand...

That is the same subscription-protected article you linked to before, Did you read the TaklOrigins bits about Creationist misuse of probability? Start with the CB: Biology section.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Evidence of evolution... you have none
Click to expand...

Missed the link to the Lanski experiment? The evidence does not go away because you close your eyes, cover your ears, and sing, "La,la,la,la,la."

Did you already read Coyne's book?

Did you even read the explanation I offered? Or the wealth of links Shalamar provided?

It's easier, and more comforting, to reject what you do not understand, innit?

There is no "Royal Road"; you're going to have to do some reading.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
and therefore evolution is junk science!!
Click to expand...

Your resultant has no antecedent; "and therefore" must be earned.

Your claim that there is no evidence for evolution, in an evolution-shaped world, does not buy you a "therefore".

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Now go to the corner and weep!
Click to expand...

I feel badly for you that NdGT's Newtonmass Post hurt your feels so deeply. Your hurt feels are not, however, justification for your unmannerly approach.
 
Last edited:
Slowvehicle said:
OK, first off, that was not an "argument", but a "question"; that is, an invitation for you to expand upon your own comment. You appear to have rejected both evolution and 'god' as explanations; given that, what is your personal idea of how stuff came about?



Actually, there have been many successful, and probative, tests of the TOE.

Here is a Wikipeda article about the Lenski Experiment; with many useful resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Not a bad place to start.



That is the same subscription-protected article you linked to before, Did you read the TaklOrigins bits about Creationist misuse of probability? Start with the CB: Biology section.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF
Click to expand...

I got my link from google news

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
 
Slowvehicle said:
OK, first off, that was not an "argument", but a "question"; that is, an invitation for you to expand upon your own comment. You appear to have rejected both evolution and 'god' as explanations; given that, what is your personal idea of how stuff came about?



Actually, there have been many successful, and probative, tests of the TOE.

Here is a Wikipeda article about the Lenski Experiment; with many useful resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Not a bad place to start.



That is the same subscription-protected article you linked to before, Did you read the TaklOrigins bits about Creationist misuse of probability? Start with the CB: Biology section.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF
Click to expand...

Wow this is an actual experiment attempting to mimic evolution I am impressed

But your argument is still very weak and needs more evidence IMO
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The article, viewable below demonstrates the probability of life forming and it is astronomically low.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how the words "To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Log In" demonstrate your point.

But if you did demonstrate that the probability of life forming was astronomically low, that has not the slightest bearing on whether or not it actually happened.

Even if, by some mysterious method, you actually did prove that life couldn't have arisen by known naturalistic means, that still wouldn't justify the conclusion that "God did it". It would only justify the conclusion "we don't know".
 
Last edited:
I didn't realise that the wall street journal was a peer reviewed, science journal.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
I got my link from google news

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
Click to expand...

First, you must not have followed the link yourself. That link takes one to a page with a teaser from the article, and the following menu box:

To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Log In
Click to expand...

I am not, nor do I choose to be, a subscriber to WSJ.

Second, you continue to ignore questions put to you. I submit that the issues of probability mis-managed in Metaxas' opinion piece (to say nothing of the "fine tuning" silliness) are addressed on TalkOrigins.

You might also consider reading this:
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/more-creationism-in-the-wall-street-journal/

Or this much briefer piece:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...or-gods-existence-in-the-wall-street-journal/

Or this:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8089

As a well-grounded starting place.

The do consider reading about the Lenski experiment.

Further, do consider actually responding to the questions you have been asked.
 
Last edited:
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Wow this is an actual experiment attempting to mimic evolution I am impressed
Click to expand...

What, specifically, did you find impressive?

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
But your argument is still very weak and needs more evidence IMO
Click to expand...

...you say that as if that one articel about thelenski experiement was the only pieceof evidence offered by anyone, in the entire thread.

Read Coyne's book yet?

Read the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims yet?

Looked in any decent Biology textbook yet?

(BTW, what background in science have you that qualifies you to dismiss the Lenski experiment as a "weak argument"?)
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
I can hear atheists silently weeping
Click to expand...

Why would atheists weep? We would find this a fascinating development. And we'd still be atheists because whatever it is would still not be considered a god in the religious sense, which has no meaning and can have no meaning.

I submit it is the religious that would be weeping silently...if not wailing loudly, pooping their pants, as the vast majority of religions, if not all, would in fact have just turned out to be wrong.
 
I don't understand his/her? obsession with thinking that atheists would weep/wail/cry/be upset with evidence of God.

We would, as Beerina states, be fascinated.
 
I gnash my teeth on learning that evolution never happened and that science proves this! Isn't gnashing suitably biblical?
 
Faydra said:
I don't understand his/her? obsession with thinking that atheists would weep/wail/cry/be upset with evidence of God.

We would, as Beerina states, be fascinated.
Click to expand...

Seems to be a theme, Sometimes stated more horrifically as "I'll be in heaven laughing as I watch you burn forever", Schadenfreude and all that.


Seems to boil down to the old "What are the odds" chestnut. Am I too boyishly hopeful 2015 will bring something new to the tired creationist rhetoric?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom