Logical Proof of Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Please tell me where I have misrepresented the Bible.

Brian,
I said your allegations of plagiarism are foolish because I mentioned that all three arguments are well sourced. I didn't claim to come up with them, so quit spinning!The argument I cite was attributed to Plato well before Paley, Paley added details, btw. But that's bringing the discussion back on topic, something you'd prefer not to do. Sorry I won't engage in your malicious accusations.

But evolution’s not a fact. It’s a theory. And it’s one that mandates that life started from non-life, which is unattainable.How many PRATTs can a guy squeeze in to one discussion?

Please actually read my posts to you. Please stop playing games. It's extremely childish.

Ya, if you take everything out of context!
We were discussing the lack of transitional fossils and he cited the platypus genome. I replied that it was similar to other claims of tfs and not truly transitional. The laughter you offer should be directed at yourself for refusing to follow a conversation and your feeble attempts at spin.

Yes, the Torah makes those claims.However, evidence points to the Torah not being written by Moses, and written down much much later. There is also no archaeological evidence that the Exodus ever happened as described in the Torah. Since we have no external confirmation of the historical accuracy of Exodus, the allegorical nature of Bereshite, to use it as a source for your claims is circular logic.So far, in your 'essay' , you use the logical fallacy of personal incredibility, the logical fallacy of 'straw man', and the logical fallacy of 'special pleading'. All in all, not one solitary 'logical'
sound proof of a divine creator what so ever.

I am asking you simple questions, why are you avoiding answering them? Shouldn't you be happy then that someone is correcting you when you misrepresent the Bible? I'd happily chat about the Bible day and night if you wish, but you will need to be a bit more up to speed on it. This seems to contradict what I know about the Book of Exodus, which being an atheist I cannot have anywhere near the same knowledge of the Tanakh as you have.Here's where my problem is, you say that the people heard the commands spoken Divinely, not by Moses, yet the Bible states that:Exodus 20:18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die." I have looked and looked for what you claim, and cannot see it. Would you kindly give chapter and verse where God speaks directly to the Israelites? I have no problem with the 600,000 men, but you said 600,000 families, all I am after is conformation from you that you have made a mistake here, then we can move on.

There is no spin, and my laughter is directed at you.From your debate: hereNow, I repeat my request. Explain your statement. Unlike you, I had followed the argument well. Your opponent said that one of the things that most convinced him of "evolutionist explanation" was the distribution of genes in animal DNA, then mentions the sequencing of the platypus genome. He is talking about the genetic evidence here, not evidence from the phenotype.So, explain your nonsensical comment.

You are aware that every fossil is transitional, right? Like you're a transitional between your parents and your children.Are these transitional enough for you?http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpgSkulls B-N are organized by their age, with N being modern man. Skull A is a modern chimpanzee for comparison purposes. If you don't accept evolution, which skulls are apes and which are humans? They should be able to be neatly and easily divided.

Yomin, the problem I have with your argument is that you fundamentally returned to the same argument that many supporters of ID have defaulted to. Simply stated, "The universe is too complex, therefore there must be a creator". Unfortunately, this argument essentially says "we don't understand it, therefore it had to be supernatural".A lack of understanding does not imply the existence of anything, let alone the divine.Keep in mind, there was once a time where man thought lightning was thrown down from a guy on a mountain. There was a time when man thought the earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around us.As knowledge and awareness grow, the need for reliance on supernatural explanations declines.Furthermore, you seem to have a very distorted view about the Theory of Evolution. Contrary to your apparent assertion, the primordial soup did not suddenly stand up in the form of a human being. You've taken toughly 3 billion years of progression and over-simplified it into two steps.

quote:

---

BeagleBob,

​

You seem to have a profound misunderstanding of all the arguments you seek to counter.

​

All religions state that the Creator is not physical and transcends physicality. See the debate,

---

I used to teach philosophy. My criticisms weren't leveled at a specific, material entity. Rather, when I did go over your arguments I was critiquing the general format. In many instances your statements in the original article were essentially non sequiturs or were rife with internal contradictions.

quote:

---

on your second question - the entire point is that all of the details necessary for formation, on a scientific level, are intricate and rely on trillions of simultaneous happenings for life to form. Something that vast and intricate must have an intelligent Creator. So countering with "there's science behind it" is no counter, it's the very point the argument is making.

---

Like I said, this here is a teleological argument, very reminiscent of Paley's watchmaker argument. "It's intricate, therefore it must be designed."The thing is, there are two fundamental errors that this argument makes.1. Design is not detected by intricacy, but by contradistinction to nature. There are plenty of very complex, intricate structures in the universe, such as tornadoes or stars or fractals. However, we don't consider these to be "created" any more than simple rocks are. This is because natural forces can fully account for their formation. If natural forces can fully account for the formation of life, then there's no need to appeal to an outside agency.
2. Organisms can evolve and grow in complexity as time goes by, so at the end goal "complexity" isn't an issue. The only real question is how the first living prokaryote first developed, and we've got some good research underway. From what we see, prebiotic life can be remarkably simple.

quote:

---

As to evolutionary biology, I doubt Darwin would believe in it today given the lack of transitional fossils and being that non-life would have had to turn into living molecules, etc. millions of times, each separately, to effect the rich variety found in DNA/RNA.

​

So no, neither argument was refuted.

---

On the contrary, a wealth of transitional fossils have been found. One of the best examples is the transition of land animals into whales:The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent EvidenceHere's a whole bunch of them: Also, I don't think you quite understand the biochemistry behind abiogenesis. Current models of abiogenesis don't argue that a whole bunch of proteins mashed together at random to create the first cell. Rather, the first cell developed through stepwise stages, each of which is possible and many of which have been proven or are close to being proven through biochemistry and microbiology.

quote:

---

But evolution’s not a fact. It’s a theory. And it’s one that mandates that life started from non-life, which is unattainable.

---

Let us reduce the arguments to one or two simple items at a time. Start with the second sentence in the quote.Point 1Over and over and over, evolutionists and scientists have stated that evolution is not concerned with the transition from non-life to life. I must say it again, scientific documents are chock full of statements to this effect. There is no reputable scientist that claims evolution demonstrates or covers the beginning of life. With all this evidence, to espouse that last statement in the quote borders the realm of dishonesty. I ask you to accept the point that the theory of evolution does not address the very beginning of life.Point 2What is this evolution theory that you claim is false?Begin with the very basic definition of evolution. It is change over time. That is it. There is nothing more.Now apply the word evolution to biology. It means that inheritable characteristics change over time. That is it. There is nothing more. It does not say start with a pile of bacteria and 3 billion years later you have sentient being. It does not say that. If you disagree, find some “reputable” articles by scientists and academics and present them.Proof of biological evolution. In this world today there are more breeds of cats and dogs that there were, say ten or fifty years ago. The new animals have different characteristics. Some are larger, smaller, hairier, less hairy, longer snouts, shorter snouts, tight skin, baggy skin, etc etc. Their characteristics are inheritable and breed true. They do not just pop up in one generation.These cats and dogs have evolved to survive in their environment. They exemplify evolution. It is proven that species change characteristics.That is what evolution is. It is nothing more than that. It seen to happen before your very eyes.So, what have I said here that you believe to be incorrect? Go to the core of the discussion as I have with you.

This quotation alone shows the depth of your iganorance about that which you claim to have cast-iron arguments against! If you are going to argue against any scientific theory then it would help if you knew exactly what constitutes a theory in science.As has been pointed out at EvC countless times, the scientific use of the word theory is not equivalent to the layman's use of the term. In science an operating theory basically refers to a group of hypotheses that are both well supported with evidence and useful for making accurate predictions. All science is based on theories.Both electromagnetism and gravitation are theories and the phenomena that they seek to explain are a fact.Evolution is, therefore, both a theory and a fact - is has a hypothesis based on evidence and it can be observed in reality. This is not what evolution claims at all. Abiogenesis forms a separate, though clearly related, field.

And, yp does think that life from non-life is obtainable. He just thinks it is God that did it.

Good point!