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

And the entire nation, saw, heard the voice.That's in the chapter you bring. It's rehashed again in other places.

I don't know if you're a liar or a fool but my point was that the platypus shows no transitional features, as outlined and neither do the other so-called transitional fossils. My point, and his spin, were clear to everyone who can read (unless you both can't).

See post belowa)Darwin himself recognized that the theory evolution necessitates that life formed from non-life. Besides, one cannot consider ever-existing physical life with no beginning to be rational.andc) and this is the big one - I can't see how you fail to see that if evolution, even if its premise is to be accepted, without a Creator, would boil down to one spontaneous happening after another. If DNA and RNA merged would be chalked up to coincidence (and I don't see how they could have randomly "merged" in any case, as outlined in the column). If molecules developed into living organisms, without a Creator, they did so in the 1:1,000,000,000 way that would have worked. Likewise reptile turning to mammal, formation of human life, each step is a huge coincidence. How evolutionary atheists side step the obvious, that without a conscious Creator each step is the definition of chaos, equivalent to winning a lottery with 1:1,000,000,000 odds repeatedly each and every time is folly on a grandiose scale.Edited by ypostelnik, : No reason given.

a)Darwin himself recognized that the theory evolution necessitates that life formed from non-life. Besides, one cannot consider ever-existing physical life with no beginning to be rational.b) the fossils that you call transitional show no clear gradual transition as evolution would necessitate. The fact that we've found a preponderance of human and of ape fossils but none that document the gradual transition that would have had to occur in equal number is telling.c) and this is the big one - I can't see how you fail to see that if evolution, even if its premise is to be accepted, without a Creator, would boil down to one spontaneous happening after another. If DNA and RNA merged would be chalked up to coincidence (and I don't see how they could have randomly "merged" in any case, as outlined in the column). If molecules developed into living organisms, without a Creator, they did so in the 1:1,000,000,000 way that would have worked. Likewise reptile turning to mammal, formation of human life, each step is a huge coincidence. How evolutionary atheists side step the obvious, that without a conscious Creator each step is the definition of chaos, equivalent to winning a lottery with 1:1,000,000,000 odds repeatedly each and every time is folly on a grandiose scale.They let someone teach philosophy who calls referencing historical arguments "plagiarism?" You wouldn't show the feebleness of your arguments if you didn't pepper them with malicious accusations.

Actually it shows your total ignorance. Scientific theory is based on observation but is often in no way definitive. In this case I can send you hundreds of scientists who do not subscribe to the theory for very valid grounds. When evoltnsts/creationsts debate the creation usually wins, hence the lack of such debates. Just look at the tactics of some posters here to stifle clear debate (twisting, etc.).

Here's some follow up that should be useful for some
Follow Up to Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound | Canada Free PressAlso, if possible, I would like to have a friendly mutual exchange. If you guys keep the insinuations, etc. up I'll keep responding in kind, but there's no need for that nor does it further the issue.Edited by ypostelnik, : No reason given.

ypostelnik, you clearly have no idea what the theory of evolution is. It's no wonder it's so hard to grasp if you have no idea what it actually says.Why dont you try reading a few books about evolution and biology in general?

ok friendly mutual exchange ... no, a theroy is much much more than observation ...and an important part of science is it realizes that it may not have a definitive answer and so is always questioning its own findings ...science asks questions , then questions the answers . well in fact all fossils are transitional .. as they are each a phase in the evolutionary path ...if you want simple answers to why we lack some fossils .. well not all ground is suitable for fossil formation , we have not dug up the whole planet ,some former land areas are now underwater so we cant dig there , and there is a limited number of people digging . ok i think your odds are a bit of a guess , they are also meaningless .. if it happen it happened ... however molecular chemistry , biochemistry , molecular biology and other scientific fields can all show you very good reasons why such interactions are likely to occur at a level of the simplist compounds .however if you want to talk odds .. what are the odds of a creator creating a race of divine servents .. some of whom then rebel ?.. of creating a mundanre race that cant keep its hands of one tree ?.. what are the odds of a reed basket set adrift on a busy river , full of crocodiles , being found with its contents intact , and those said contents being desired by a princess ?. What are the odds of a creator exsisting outside of time , with no beguining or end ?as to the link you provided .. now shall we count the ways in which this is incorrect .....

What you did, actually, was compare a genome with a fossil. Anyway, you seem to disagree with the geneticists who unravelled the platypus genome. Which sequences do you think they've analysed incorrectly?

Been documented? By whom? Do you want to learn some science, yposteltwit? Here are some links for you. Watch the two easy to understand videos first, then try reading some real science here: Read and learn about hominids HEREHERVSChromosome 2Now, if you still think that we didn't evolve from common ancestry with living apes, then you're incapable of understanding biology and shouldn't be talking about it.

Hi ypostelnik,Bluegenes has brought up the issue of human chromosome 2 and its similarities to ape chromosomes. I would be very interested to hear how creationists can explain (away) this evidence, since it stands out as being one of the most convincing pieces of evidence for shared human/ape ancestry.Of course, it would be off-topic to go into a full discussion of that on this thread, but, what joy! There is a thread open on this very topic. I would love to hear what you make of this.The thread is here; ID/Creationism - Comparison of Human and Chimp GenomesThe last page has a nice diagram comparing the chromosomes in question.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program (hopefully).

---

Mutate and Survive

Rather than trade insults let's just cut to the chase, tell me the hypotheses that exist for the following:-1. Who did the design?
2. What are the processes involved in this type of design?
3. What hard physical evidence demonstrates this design process? (I'm not talking about an argument from incredulity that talks vaguely about odds and randomness, rather, I want to know where I can observe the creator's fingerprints.)Now, when I say "evidence" I do not mean criticism of the Theory of Evolution. By "evidence" I mean original observations that underpin a design hypothesis that does not rely on the ToE.I await your reply.

Ypostelnik,
I respectfully state that you are not knowledgeable in the theory of evolution. Your statement about spontaneous happenings, coincidence, and reptiles converting to mammal are just flat out incorrect. I do not state this in a derogatory manner. But it is clear to all.Evolution deals with changing characteristics of living things. Biogenesis is concerned with the beginnings of life. These are separate fields of study. It does not matter that Darwin or any particular person combined them. They are now separate. Darwin started the investigation into evolution (though there were others at the same time) in the mid 1800s. There were so many things he could not have possibly known. We cannot demand that every word he wrote be absolutely correct.When we are faced with complex problems or questions, a primary path to understanding them is to break the problems into smaller pieces. Then each piece has fewer unknowns to deal with. Then we can start working on those unknowns and see what we come up with. Evolution and biogenesis are separate fields.I presented this point in the post to which you responded. Are you saying you cannot accept the separation of evolution from biogenesis?Then I provided an explanation of what the theory of evolution really is, and evidence that you can see it right before your very eyes.You ignored my questions and continue on with your outright incorrect statements about evolution.This is one of the biggest problems in the discussion between religious beliefs and other. Those supporting the religions beliefs hear and see the arguments, fail to respond to them, and continue spouting opinions that have been shown to be incorrect. They, and you, simply ignore the facts, offer no valid support for your position, yet demand that the remainder of the world live by your beliefs.I request that you return to my previous post and address the two points I made. I further request that you address them simply, concisely without adding anything in that is not specifically in each point. If you want to broaden or redirect the scope, you can always make another post.Before closing, I’ll throw in a bit of psychology, directed to all posters. No one can make you angry but yourself. When someone sends you a flame, you decide if you want to get angry or not. It is your decision. Respond to flames and insults rationally by noting that it is a flame and optionally addressing the points. Or simply ignore it. Again, that is your choice.

Are you still around? I note that you never responded to my post back on the first page, and I also see that you're still spouting the very same arguments from incredulity and ignorance as before, mixed with outright falsehoods. It does no such thing. Evolution is a process observed in populations of living things. It has nothing to do with how life arose. Evolution fits with abiogenesis, but it also fits with a "divinely created" initial population (though not the Biblical version), or seeding from aliens, or anything else you can imagine for the origin of life itself.Saying "Darwin himself said such and such" is irrelevant. While I doubt he actually said any such thing, this is an appeal to authority, and as such is logically fallacious. Statements are not true because of the identity of the person making them. This statement is blatantly false. That's amusing - your position is the one postulating an ever-existing life form with no beginning: your deity. Though you're correct, of course - only Theists seriously suggest such a thing. Technically speaking, all chemical reactions involve "one spontaneous thing happening after another." Again, personal incredulity is irrelevant. You don't seem to understand what DNA and RNA are. In fact, I'd bet you'd need to look up what they stand for, if you even realize that they are acronyms.DNA and RNA are, in the simplest sense, nothing more than very long chains of nucleotides. Nucleotides do spontaneously form given the right conditions. The environment of the early Earth seems from all evidence to have been rich in the necessary organic compounds necessary for such spontaneous reactions. While we have not yet observed an RNA or DNA molecule spontaneously forming, we have directly observed most of the necessary preceding reactions spontaneously occurring in the lab. It's a foolish position indeed to say that something is "impossible" or even unlikely given those facts. Yet more evidence that you, frankly, have no idea what you're talking about. Scientists have trouble even dividing "molecules" and "living things." There really isn't any difference between a water molecule in your body and a water molecule in Lake Michigan. One is part of a living thing, and the other is not, but given both molecules without any other evidence, it would be impossible to determine which was which. Viruses are very simple, and straddle the barrier between "living" and "not living." They can't reproduce on their own, but they do reproduce by utilizing infected cells. They don't move, they don't react, they simply infect chemically compatible cells. Prions are even more simple. They aren't alive, being nothing more than proteins, but they "spontaneously" convert certain other proteins into more prions (which is rather disastrous for the living organisms they infect, as the basic building blocks of their cells suddenly and spontaneously undergo chemical reactions - see Mad Cow Disease).But the real flaw in your argument is not even the fact that you don't have any real understanding of biochemistry. The real flaw is in your use of probability - you don't know what the odds are. You pulled your "1:1,000,000,000" ratio from thin air. That's not an argument. That's a thought process deserving of mockery. It's really not. You do realize that no reptile ever laid an egg and hatched a mammal, right? Evolution doesn't suggest any such thing, but that seems to be what you're implying it does.And as I said in my initial response to you, a "coincidence" implies a "goal." A "goal" implies intelligence. Your argument thus becomes circular: "Because the deity's goal is creation of human life, the coincidences required of evolution to produce humanity are too great to be explained by anything other than the deity." Your conclusion is included in your premise. This is not a logical thought process.Evolution has no "goal." Individual life forms have the goals of survival and reproduction, but that's about it. Hell, the vast majority of living things don't even have those goals - they "spontaneously" do each. Bacteria "spontaneously" divide due to the chemical processes of their cellular structure, with no guiding intelligence.But the real issue here is your misunderstanding of a mutation - so let's go over it just a bit, shall we?There are four base pairs in a DNA molecule: A, C, G, and T (they do stand for chemical names, but it's really easy to write this way). Let's say we have the following sequence:AAGTCCNow, the DNA replication cycle is imperfect. Copying errors happen. So, when this organism reproduces, we could wind up with something like:AGTCCAll that happened is that an "A" was missed, but this has consequences for the entire sequence, and changes the gene. It's a small change - typically nothing worthy of note. But what happens over the next 10 generations? Let's say that this sequence is changed each time - that's not what happens in real life, but various segments are changed in every generation, so it works well to illustrate the cumulative effect:AGTTCC
AGTTCG
AGGTTCG
CGGTTCG
CGGATCG
CGGATCGA
CGATCGA
CCGATCGA
CCTATCGA
GCTATCGAThe final generation doesn't look anything like the original, does it. It's not the same length, and all of the letters are mixed up - it's like playing "telephone" with kids who don't speak the same language.You have between 50 and a few hundred mutations yourself. Every human being does. We're just a little bit different from out parents - and the effect is cumulative.Is this coincidental? No - there's no goal in this process. It's just the way DNA replication works - it doesn't make perfect copies.Now it's true that mutations can be directly harmful - but organisms carrying such mutations tend not to reproduce, so those mutations don't tend to increase in frequency. The occasional beneficial mutation however, does tend to reproduce and so make its frequency in the population increase.This is especially true in the case of a changing environment - famine, extinction of one particular food source, climate changes, predators, etc. A very simple example (and one directly observed many times) involves antibiotic resistance in bacteria.We start with a single bacterium - they divide to reproduce, so no "new" genetic material is possible unless the DNA replication process is inherently imperfect and causes genetic variety all on its own.Once we let the bacteria reproduce until we have a significant population size, we introduce an antibiotic, and watch as they all die......except a lucky few who had a slightly different protein composition in their cell membrane, and so were unaffected by the antibiotic. These few continue to reproduce.In a very short time, nearly the entire population consists of antibiotic-resistant bacteria due to a mutation.Is this a "coincidence?" No. The imperfection of DNA replication makes it inevitable that mutations will happen, and that eventually a resistant strain will appear.So what happens when the climate changes and temperatures start to drop? Do animals with fur tend to survive better than, say, cold-blooded reptiles? Even within a given species, would individuals with more fur tend to survive better in a colder environment than individuals with less fur? The answers are obvious - and the result is that the population begins to have more fur as a whole.But what if this population had branched off from its ancestors, and the original population is still living in a warmer area? Fur in a war environment can be detrimental - so the second population can tend to have less fur than their cousins. Over a few generations, the two populations become more and more different from each other, until we call them different species.Evolution is not a "directed" process - it's a chaotic balance between all of the extant living things in the environment, coupled with the laws of chemistry. Evolution is not a "series of coincidences," but rather the inevitable process of change in populations over time given limited resources and an imperfect replication process. Actually, pulling odds from thin air is folly on a grandiose scale. Observing that evolution does happen cannot be folly - it's happening right now. We've been watching it happen for years.Your problem is that you inherently assume that there is a "goal" in all of your arguments - human life. But human existence is not a goal - we are certainly not the most successful creatures on the planet.Given an imperfect replication process, a change is going to happen over several iteration. It's inevitable, not coincidental. What we see in the living things on Earth today, including ourselves, is the result of that inevitable process of change. We didn't have to exist, but something did, and it turns out we're it.Your arguments only make sense if you assume as an axiom that a creator exists, and as such your conclusion is contained in your premise. Your argument is circular, and therefor has no merit. Your personal incredulity and ignorance surrounding biology, physics, probability, and logic are all irrelevant - the fact is that you have absolutely no proof of the existence of a deity beyond your own subjective belief.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

First I want to say I appreciate your posts on these forums as well constucted and instuctive, but ...I'm sorry, Rahvin, a major quibble. Nucleotides on a sugar backbone ... not proteins.