To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seattle said:
The real point here (evolution) is that it's a theory (in the scientific sense) that has been around for more than 100 years and has been extensively tested without fail. It's as close to a fact as you can get in science.

With that in mind, why engage in mental gymnastics to try to cast doubt solely for religious reasons? You're only problem with evolution is religious in nature. Otherwise you would find no fault given its thoroughly tested history.
Click to expand...

A) I'm not religious.
B) Not one mutation in nature has been beneficial therefore evolution needs to be dropped as it's time for scientists to think again.
C) The point of this is, considering nature cannot create diversity in species, then no, nature cannot do everything God can do, as in He can do anything by definition.
 
Annex

{quote]

From Pachomius Yesterday at 7:44 AM #569

Seattle, you say:

Pachomius. Let's be direct. You say that there must be a God because you believe that for there to be a universe something must have caused it and you believe that something is God.


My contention is that I know from thinking on facts and logic that God in concept exists as creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

What is your contention, put it in less than 30 words as I did with my contention.

To everyone, I have to abstain from answering to your posts unless you are also into my contention stated above, and you have another contention contrary to mine.

And if your contention is essentially that of Seattle, then I will just deal with Seattle.

{/quote]
 
davewhite04 said:
B) Not one mutation in nature has been beneficial therefore evolution needs to be dropped as it's time for scientists to think again.
Click to expand...
Beneficial from which point of view? Humans? Or whichever creature is trying to survive?
If the former, lactose tolerance is a mutation that has certainly benefited modern humans those with European descent.
If the latter, one merely needs to look at antibiotic resistance within bacteria: e.g. the way influenza has adapted and mutated to be resistant to many common strains of antibiotic, and due to this continual mutation it constantly evades us in any attempt to wipe it out.

There are many such examples of recent mutations that are beneficial from some perspective.
So, with all due respect, you're wrong.
C) The point of this is, considering nature cannot create diversity in species, then no, nature cannot do everything God can do, as in He can do anything by definition.
Click to expand...
Please prove (or at least support), since that is your contention, that "nature cannot create diversity in species".
Since it is evident that mutations occur all the time, with many examples of beneficial mutations (although not necessarily beneficial to humans), and that nature creates diversity over billions of years, you're going to have your work cut out to support it with anything other than your confidence or with some flawed reasoning.
But good luck.
 
Sarkus said:
Beneficial from which point of view? Humans? Or whichever creature is trying to survive?
If the former, lactose tolerance is a mutation that has certainly benefited modern humans those with European descent.
If the latter, one merely needs to look at antibiotic resistance within bacteria: e.g. the way influenza has adapted and mutated to be resistant to many common strains of antibiotic, and due to this continual mutation it constantly evades us in any attempt to wipe it out.
Click to expand...

I never said that mutations do not occur in viruses etc. My contention is they do not occur anywhere besides them. That does not in anyway shape or form explain the diversity of life on the planet, hence the answer I question, "everything can be explained by nature, there is no need for God".

There are many such examples of recent mutations that are beneficial from some perspective.
So, with all due respect, you're wrong.
Please prove (or at least support), since that is your contention, that "nature cannot create diversity in species".
Since it is evident that mutations occur all the time, with many examples of beneficial mutations (although not necessarily beneficial to humans), and that nature creates diversity over billions of years, you're going to have your work cut out to support it with anything other than your confidence or with some flawed reasoning.
But good luck.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is with the guy who I was talking to, and you. I don't think diversity of life is explained by science, look at your evidence, it's all viruses etc. tiny forms of evolution, so small that it wins the title "micro evolution". It deserves a new name, like viruses "adapt".

It might be worth tracking down the "fruit fly" experiments that went tits up.
 
You mean like the Galapagos island finches?
Or the peppered moth - where adaptation (through mutation) offered beneficial survival rates in industrialised areas?
Italian Wall Lizards - where a species introduced to an island has, over a period of 30 years or so, changed its diet and even its look, because such adaptation (through mutation) has been beneficial?
Blue Moon Butterfly - whereby a parasite wiped out 99% of the male population, but mutations that allowed some males to survive were passed on, and the species recovered.

Yes, these might be termed "adaptation" - but it is adaptation through mutation - such that the species beforehand and afterward are distinct.

Those who deny the power of evolution expect to see what they term "macro-evolution" in a lab, in the space of a few years when it has taken nature millions, if not billions of years to achieve what it has.

"Oh, you can't do it? But you have a lab, and have been working on it for at least 100 years!? And all you have to show for it is a few cases of questionable speciation and some definite examples of beneficial mutation that only lead to an adapting species that now differs from the original? Yeah, didn't think evolution was correct!"
 
My contention is that I know from thinking on facts and logic that God in concept exists as creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning
Click to expand...
As long as you don't try to actually specify any particular concept of a deity, you can say that. You gain invulnerability by avoiding specific assertion. The difficulties arise from the attempts to conceptualize a particular God - the Abrahamic one, for example, doesn't work.
 
Pachomius said:
Annex

{quote]

From Pachomius Yesterday at 7:44 AM #569

Seattle, you say:

Pachomius. Let's be direct. You say that there must be a God because you believe that for there to be a universe something must have caused it and you believe that something is God.


My contention is that I know from thinking on facts and logic that God in concept exists as creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.



{/quote]
Click to expand...

You don't read the responses after people give them. In 29 words here was my response:

My contention is that I don't know what created our universe and neither do you. Anything that "God" can do can be done by nature without involving a god.

If you need "nature" defined insert any word other than supernatural means.
 
{QUOTE="Seattle, post: 3258590, member: 271333"]

You don't read the responses after people give them. In 29 words here was my response:

My contention is that I don't know what created our universe and neither do you. Anything that "God" can do can be done by nature without involving a god.

If you need "nature" defined insert any word other than supernatural means.{/QUOTE]

I need you to tell me in your own words what is your concept of nature, remember you bring up that item, natural, and now nature.


Annex

{quote]#57 From Seattle, Yesterday at 8:10 AM

My contention is that I don't know what created our universe and neither do you. Anything that "God" can do can be done by natural without involving a god.


{/quote]
 
Pachomius said:
{QUOTE="Seattle, post: 3258590, member: 271333"]

You don't read the responses after people give them. In 29 words here was my response:

My contention is that I don't know what created our universe and neither do you. Anything that "God" can do can be done by nature without involving a god.

If you need "nature" defined insert any word other than supernatural means.{/QUOTE]

I need you to tell me in your own words what is your concept of nature, remember you bring up that item, natural, and now nature.


Annex

{quote]#57 From Seattle, Yesterday at 8:10 AM

My contention is that I don't know what created our universe and neither do you. Anything that "God" can do can be done by natural without involving a god.


{/quote]
Click to expand...
"Natural" was just a typo. By natural means I mean of this material world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top