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

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Where is the evidence for evolution?

What is the mechanism by which it occurs?

Its a very simple question.
Click to expand...
The answer is also simple. Whenever you have:
  • A variable population
  • Selection and
  • Reproduction with some mutations
You have evolution regardless of the substrate. Many computer aided design packages mimic evolution to fine tune designs that would not be possible by any other means.

You might argue that "survival of the fittest" is not an adequate selection mechanism (although that would only be your POV) but you can't deny that evolution exists.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Random does not exist when an experiment leads to a result that would be otherwise unlikely.

Example....

We have a vat filled with 100 balls numbered 1 to 100

I guess the number to the ball and then pick, surprise I am correct

I proceed to do this 100 times, the probability of this occuring is 1/100^100

Based on this experiment you conclude that I am not guessing when I predict the number of the ball. Because it is very unlikely .............
Click to expand...
Now you suddenly switch to a strawman argument where there is no evolution - just random placement of molecules (thus "proving" ID is necessary for life).

When creationists can't distinguish between a real and a strawman scientific argument then it encourages any reasonable person to ask, "If I can't trust him about scientific matters then why should I believe him about theological matters?"
 
Last edited:
devnull said:
Damn, science has proven God?

In that case, how does one convert to Judaism?
Click to expand...

I think I saw an app for that the other day, ...for some reason, the only way it does you any good is if you buy it for your mother??
 
psionl0 said:
The answer is also simple. Whenever you have:
  • A variable population
  • Selection and
  • Reproduction with some mutations
You have evolution regardless of the substrate. Many computer aided design packages mimic evolution to fine tune designs that would not be possible by any other means.

You might argue that "survival of the fittest" is not an adequate selection mechanism (although that would only be your POV) but you can't deny that evolution exists.


Now you suddenly switch to a strawman argument where there is no evolution - just random placement of molecules (thus "proving" ID is necessary for life).

When creationists can't distinguish between a real and a strawman scientific argument then it encourages any reasonable person to ask, "If I can't trust him about scientific matters then why should I believe him about theological matters?"
Click to expand...


Wins the thread! Wins every thread ever started by a Creationist ignoramus!

(I've nominated it!)

Along with Lying For Jesus, by misrepresenting science they hole their boat with their own false witness, showing themselves to be untrustworthy, and thus unholy by their own definition. This credibility gap creation by them is the only Creation they present evidence for (badaboom, ka-ching!) ;)
 
Giordano said:
Isn't there also a theological debate that if intelligent life exists on other planets, did a Christ also have to appear to them to save their souls? If so, did Chris do it as a simulcast with his time on Earth, or travel sequentially to each planet? Did Christ look like the prevailing creatures on each planet, and if so, can you crucify an octopus-like creature? Or perhaps this other intelligent life never needed to be saved in the first place (immortal and not guilty of original sin for example).
Click to expand...
C.S. Lewis uses this as the basis for his Space Trilogy. Amusing, but too preachy for my liking.
 
If it hasn't been posted already, a scientific counterpoint: Can science prove the existence of God?

Nay_Sayer said:
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?
Click to expand...


You might have to wait a while. The Christian universe is rather young compared to the actual universe; it still has a lot of growing up to do.
 
IanS said:
Though the previous archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, in conversation with Richard Dawkins (YouTube) says he thinks that is exactly what happened ... and apparently the Pope and millions of others also agree that it's what God decided to do. Doesn’t seem very likely to me, but then I’m not religious :D.
Click to expand...
Well said. It certainly is a great shame that As of C continue to promote belief ina myth. I really think it is time they caught up with current knowledge and evidence and gradually (it couldn't be done quickly I suppose!) began to educate people as to what is real and what is not.
 
psionl0 said:
The answer is also simple. Whenever you have:
  • A variable population
  • Selection and
  • Reproduction with some mutations
You have evolution regardless of the substrate. Many computer aided design packages mimic evolution to fine tune designs that would not be possible by any other means.

You might argue that "survival of the fittest" is not an adequate selection mechanism (although that would only be your POV) but you can't deny that evolution exists.


Now you suddenly switch to a strawman argument where there is no evolution - just random placement of molecules (thus "proving" ID is necessary for life).

When creationists can't distinguish between a real and a strawman scientific argument then it encourages any reasonable person to ask, "If I can't trust him about scientific matters then why should I believe him about theological matters?"
Click to expand...

This is a good answer, well worth the Language Award nomination; but EG3K won't comprehend it (assuming he even reads it) because he can't grasp, at the most basic level, what is literally the first thing he needs to about the TOE- that evolution is a non-normative process. When he asks for a "mechanism," he's looking for a single naturalistic equivalent to his "goddidit!"- one specific driver of the process with specific evolutionary outcomes in mind; he needs to see intent and goals where there aren't any. It's as if, with a tornado being the entirely natural outcome of weather processes that never "intended" the tornado or its path, someone demanded to know what specifically created the storm and aimed it at his house.

And this, BTW, is what makes the "odds" argument such nonsense. Before a tornado forms and knocks down any one particular house, what are the odds that it will? Pretty astronomical, I would think- I don't even know how you would calculate them. Afterwards? One in one- 100%. And, since the weather process that formed the storm didn't have the storm as an aim, and the storm, when formed, didn't have any particular house as a goal (any other house, or no house at all, would have done just as well), calculating the odds is just seeing in hindsight an aim where there was never one to begin with- it's imposing a normative framing on a non-normative process. If any outcome is as equally acceptable as any other, it's just silly to point to the one you have as a preferred one that was less likely than the others.
 
psionl0 said:
The answer is also simple. Whenever you have:
  • A variable population
  • Selection and
  • Reproduction with some mutations
You have evolution regardless of the substrate. Many computer aided design packages mimic evolution to fine tune designs that would not be possible by any other means.

You might argue that "survival of the fittest" is not an adequate selection mechanism (although that would only be your POV) but you can't deny that evolution exists.


Now you suddenly switch to a strawman argument where there is no evolution - just random placement of molecules (thus "proving" ID is necessary for life).

When creationists can't distinguish between a real and a strawman scientific argument then it encourages any reasonable person to ask, "If I can't trust him about scientific matters then why should I believe him about theological matters?"
Click to expand...

Nommed!
 
turingtest said:
This is a good answer, well worth the Language Award nomination; but EG3K won't comprehend it (assuming he even reads it) because he can't grasp, at the most basic level, what is literally the first thing he needs to about the TOE- that evolution is a non-normative process. When he asks for a "mechanism," he's looking for a single naturalistic equivalent to his "goddidit!"- one specific driver of the process with specific evolutionary outcomes in mind; he needs to see intent and goals where there aren't any. It's as if, with a tornado being the entirely natural outcome of weather processes that never "intended" the tornado or its path, someone demanded to know what specifically created the storm and aimed it at his house.

And this, BTW, is what makes the "odds" argument such nonsense. Before a tornado forms and knocks down any one particular house, what are the odds that it will? Pretty astronomical, I would think- I don't even know how you would calculate them. Afterwards? One in one- 100%. And, since the weather process that formed the storm didn't have the storm as an aim, and the storm, when formed, didn't have any particular house as a goal (any other house, or no house at all, would have done just as well), calculating the odds is just seeing in hindsight an aim where there was never one to begin with- it's imposing a normative framing on a non-normative process. If any outcome is as equally acceptable as any other, it's just silly to point to the one you have as a preferred one that was less likely than the others.
Click to expand...

Nommed!
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
No one found any planets with the ability to support life...
Click to expand...

And you think our inability to detect life on planets we can barely detect hundreds of light years away means it isn't out there? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's highly unlikely that we would have already detected it if it is, so the fact that we haven't carries no significance at all.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...
Click to expand...

So? We can't even tell for sure if there's other life in our solar system. Our exploration of space isn't even in it's infancy, what we've accomplished thus far is more akin to the doctor being able to see the head. Our ignorance of life elsewhere is to be expected.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The probability that the universe formed is low as well...
Click to expand...

There's a Nobel Prize in physics waiting for you if you can prove that's true.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly
Click to expand...

Evolution isn't random, and it seems to be abiogenesis is what you're talking about. And you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word 'prove'.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science
Click to expand...

Garbage in, garbage out. If you make bad assumptions you will get stupid results, and scientists aren't religious figures, no scientist speaks 'for science', the most they can do is report science accurately.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
1. #planets supporting life and
Click to expand...

Unknown.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.
Click to expand...

Also unknown.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly).
Click to expand...

Evolution is not random, the mechanism is well-understood and has been applied with great success in molecular design of pharmaceuticals.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear - a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears.
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis and evolution are not synonyms. Tautologies are trite, but if one part of a tautology is true, the repetitious part is also necessarily true. Biological life coming into existence from non-biological antecedents is what abiogenesis is.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".
Click to expand...

It could be random AND punctuated, but it's not random, so there's that.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
I can hear atheists silently weeping
Click to expand...

Remarkably, your claim to hear something silent is not the stupidest thing you said in your post.
 
Last edited:
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The straight forward question is this...

What is the probability that life randomly formed? According to the science in the article it is about 0.0000000000000001%.

and if evolution has not occured randomly, the question is

why do people believe that life was formed randomly. The empiracle evidence says it is not.

I think I can hear atheists quietly clenching their fists in anger.
Click to expand...

The highlighted part is impossible to calculate. It's fiction.

The red part is a lie (evolution is not random) and irrelevant to a discussion of abiogenesis anyway.

To answer the green question, we don't. Only Creationists think atheists believe life arose randomly. Scientists, on the other hand, have outlined several processes by which it could have arisen, none of which are random. Undirected, sure. Random, no.

If you genuinely want evidence for this, read "Rare Earth" and "Life Everywhere", two very good books written by scientists taking opposing sides in the debate about extraterrestrial life. Both do very well at outlining the experimental evidence for how life arose on Earth, that being the only datum we have thus far. Both are also useful for reference-mining.

Where is the evidence for evolution?

What is the mechanism by which it occurs?

Its a very simple question.
Click to expand...
psion10 answered this quite well. I will only add that this sort of thing has been experimentally demonstrated numerous times in actual living organisms, from primroses to fruit flies. Anyone who doesn't know the answer to this question is simply not scientifically literate, period.

psion10 said:
When creationists can't distinguish between a real and a strawman scientific argument then it encourages any reasonable person to ask, "If I can't trust him about scientific matters then why should I believe him about theological matters?"
Click to expand...
There are a number of Biblical quotes basically saying "If you screw up the little things, don't think God will trust you with the big ones." To any honest Catholic theologian (I think Jewish as well, but am not familiar enough with the non-Old Testament literature to say) this is not just a factual error--the sort of dishonest nonsense being posted in the OP is a sin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom