What Argument Do You Use for God's Existence?

[Leyla]

9 hours ago, Michael37 said:

It takes GREAT FAITH to believe in evolution, as its current high priest aludes to with an oxymoronic turn of phrase:

So when exactly has evolution been observed...?

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html             Is a collection of observed speciation. We observe it with the gradual change in the fossil record. We observe it when we study our genetics. I think these observations are very strong. Richard Dawkins is a very accomplished and respected scientist and his working methods are based on facts and evidence and not on faith.

 

9 hours ago, Michael37 said:

Yeah! That's natural selection, NOT evolution.

Well its called evolution by natural selection. Evolution is the process and natural selection is what drives evolution. Im not good at playing with words so maybe I worded it wrong. Natural selection means that favourable traits are preserved and passed on, ( because they work) and it weeds out traits that are a handicap ( because they dont work), so I dont think that it was a wrong description. Things or traits that work simply work, those that do not will dissapear.

[Michael37]

8 hours ago, Leyla said:

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html             Is a collection of observed speciation. We observe it with the gradual change in the fossil record. We observe it when we study our genetics. I think these observations are very strong. Richard Dawkins is a very accomplished and respected scientist and his working methods are based on facts and evidence and not on faith.

Well its called evolution by natural selection. Evolution is the process and natural selection is what drives evolution. Im not good at playing with words so maybe I worded it wrong. Natural selection means that favourable traits are preserved and passed on, ( because they work) and it weeds out traits that are a handicap ( because they dont work), so I dont think that it was a wrong description. Things or traits that work simply work, those that do not will dissapear.

How are you doing, Leyla. My concern is that you are believing a lie which supresses the truth of our Creator and His Creation, and that if not corrected you will go to a horrible, hellish lost eternity rather than a glorious heavenly eternity with God. If you are seriously in pursuit of real scientific truth as opposed to unobservable speculation and unproven theory I suggest you make a point of sifting through the material available at the LINK below. I can't force you to but I hope you will give it some thought.

Natural Selection isn't evolution, despite what secular science claims. A reading of Darwin's book, "Origin Of Species" will only provide you with examples of natural selection leading to speciation. The Theory Of Evolution is the erroneous, unscientific, unproven speculation that because certain species adapt, thrive and survive and others don't it is possible for an organism to mutate into a new kind (as distinct from a new species).Eg. wolves that like swimming eventually mutate into sharks after millions of years. 

Here is some edifying material from a book by Roger Paterson in the "Evolution Exposed" category called "Evolution Exposed: Biology". ( LINK )

 This book helps teens to discern the chronic bias towards belief in evolution that permeates today's three most popular high school biology textbooks. Virtually every chapter in each of the secular textbooks contains implied or explicit references to evolutionary beliefs, which are misrepresented as irrefutable facts. However, in Evolution Exposed: Biology these misrepresentations are cross-referenced with online articles and publications that provide both scientific and biblical answers. Key terms are defined, articles are summarized and false ideas are refuted.

Natural Selection: the process by which individuals possessing a set of traits that confer a survival advantage in a given environment tend to leave more offspring on average that survive to reproduce in the next generation.

Speciation: the process of change in a population that produces distinct populations which rarely naturally interbreed due to geographic isolation or other factors.

Adaptation: a physical trait or behavior due to inherited characteristics that gives an organism the ability to survive in a given environment.

Evolution: all life on earth has come about through descent with modification from a single common ancestor (a hypothetical, primitive, single-celled organism).

There are three limits to accepting mutations as a mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution.

First, there are mathematical limits to the probability of evolution occurring. Mutations occur once in every 10 million duplications of DNA, so it is very likely that every cell in your body contains at least one mutation since you were born. The problem for evolution is that you need multiple, related mutations to cause a change in a structure. If mutations occur at a rate of one in 107, the odds of getting two related mutations is 1014. The likelihood of evolution quickly becomes unreasonable. In bacteria that are resistant to four different antibiotics, the probability would be 1 in 1028. It has been shown that the bacteria already had the information for resistance built into them—the trait was selected for, not created by mutations. Those bacteria that do become resistant by mutation are less fit and don’t survive outside relatively sterile environments. This is not evidence for evolution.

Second, mutations are moving in the wrong direction to support the advancement of complexity required by evolution. Almost every mutation we know of has been identified based on the disease it causes. Mutations explain the decline seen in genetic systems since the Fall of mankind in Adam. The time, chance, and random mutations simply serve to tear things apart. Shortly after creation, there would have been few genetic mistakes present in the human population, and marrying a close relative would not have been a problem. Today, the likelihood of a shared mutation causing a disease is too great a risk to allow close marriages.

The advantage of avoiding severe malaria symptoms by those with sickle-cell anemia is often given as evidence of beneficial mutations. The overall effect of the mutation is not beneficial to the human race, however, and will not lead to a more fit population.

Third, mutations can only act on genes that already exist. Natural selection cannot explain the origin of genes because there was no information for natural selection to act on. Mutation and natural selection simply produce variation within a kind—just as the biblical creation model suggests. No genetic mechanism can increase the amount of information that is needed to demonstrate evolution from particles to people. Mutations do not add information to an organism’s genome. Thousands of mutations would need to add information to change even “simple” cells into more complex cells. Even when genes mutate, they still pair up with similar alleles and are controlled by the same regulators. Mutations may affect the degree of a trait, but they do not cause new traits.

It is not the amount of time or the number of mutations, but the direction of change and the origin of information that are the biggest stumbling blocks for evolution. All of the evidence continues to point to the design and information originally provided by the Creator.

If you have further questions about Creation please ask.

[Leyla]

On 5/8/2019 at 2:07 AM, Michael37 said:

How are you doing, Leyla. My concern is that you are believing a lie which supresses the truth of our Creator and His Creation, and that if not corrected you will go to a horrible, hellish lost eternity rather than a glorious heavenly eternity with God. If you are seriously in pursuit of real scientific truth as opposed to unobservable speculation and unproven theory I suggest you make a point of sifting through the material available at the LINK below. I can't force you to but I hope you will give it some thought.

Hello Im fine, thanks and you? Hell is definitely a place I would like to avoid so Ill try my best at doing that.

On 5/8/2019 at 2:07 AM, Michael37 said:

 

Natural Selection isn't evolution, despite what secular science claims. A reading of Darwin's book, "Origin Of Species" will only provide you with examples of natural selection leading to speciation. The Theory Of Evolution is the erroneous, unscientific, unproven speculation that because certain species adapt, thrive and survive and others don't it is possible for an organism to mutate into a new kind (as distinct from a new species).Eg. wolves that like swimming eventually mutate into sharks after millions of years.

Natural selection is not evolution, yes. Evolution means change over time. Natural selection is a pressure, that drives evolution forward. I also doubt that a wolf ( a modern animal that exists now ) will turn into another (quite old but still modern animal that exists today) shark. If wolves evolved into sea creatures then it would be a completly new animal, and not one that exists today. I also disagree with evolution being unscientific and unproven, its the backbone of biology and noone was able to prove it wrong yet.

 

On 5/8/2019 at 2:07 AM, Michael37 said:

First, there are mathematical limits to the probability of evolution occurring. Mutations occur once in every 10 million duplications of DNA, so it is very likely that every cell in your body contains at least one mutation since you were born. The problem for evolution is that you need multiple, related mutations to cause a change in a structure. If mutations occur at a rate of one in 107, the odds of getting two related mutations is 1014. The likelihood of evolution quickly becomes unreasonable. In bacteria that are resistant to four different antibiotics, the probability would be 1 in 1028. It has been shown that the bacteria already had the information for resistance built into them—the trait was selected for, not created by mutations. Those bacteria that do become resistant by mutation are less fit and don’t survive outside relatively sterile environments. This is not evidence for evolution.

Link:  http://book.bionumbers.org/what-is-the-mutation-rate-during-genome-replication/                   "In humans, a mutation rate of about 10^-8 mutations/bp/generation (BNID 105813) was inferred from projects where both parents and their children were sequenced at high coverage. [....]  In humans it is estimated that there are about 20-30 genome replications between the fertilized egg and the female gametes (BNID 105585) and about ten times that for males, with large variation depending on age (BNID 105574). With ≈3×10⁹ bp in the human genome the mutation rate leads to about 10^-8 mutations/bp/generation x 3×10⁹ bp/genome ≈ 10-100 mutations per genome per generation (BNID 110293). Using an order of magnitude of 100 replications per generation, we arrive at 0.1-1 mutations per genome per replication.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Another Link (long version) nature.com/articles/ng.862                  Same but in short summary:  medicalxpress.com/news/2011-06-human-mutation-revealed-family-genetic.html                        " Each one of us receives approximately 60 new mutations in our genome from our parents. This striking value is reported in the first-ever direct measure of new mutations coming from mother and father in whole human genomes published today. "                  These numbers of mutations seem to fit in the whole idea of slow yet steady change over a very long time

 

On 5/8/2019 at 2:07 AM, Michael37 said:

Second, mutations are moving in the wrong direction to support the advancement of complexity required by evolution. Almost every mutation we know of has been identified based on the disease it causes. Mutations explain the decline seen in genetic systems since the Fall of mankind in Adam. The time, chance, and random mutations simply serve to tear things apart. Shortly after creation, there would have been few genetic mistakes present in the human population, and marrying a close relative would not have been a problem. Today, the likelihood of a shared mutation causing a disease is too great a risk to allow close marriages.

The advantage of avoiding severe malaria symptoms by those with sickle-cell anemia is often given as evidence of beneficial mutations. The overall effect of the mutation is not beneficial to the human race, however, and will not lead to a more fit population.

Most mutations cause disease or are lethal and they are mostly weeded out by natural selection. Here are some links to beneficial mutations, one that was approximately 5-10 million years ago and helps monkeys fight of viruses: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2279257/    (Author Summary) "The TRIM5 gene encodes TRIM5α, a protein that blocks infection of the cell by retroviruses. [...]  While it is difficult to prove positive selection for a non-coding change, the frequency of this mutation in two different species of Asian monkeys (Macaca sp) raised the possibility that the mutation was once evolutionarily advantageous. As it turns out, monkeys carrying this substitution also carry a nearby cyclophilin-A (CypA) pseudogene, and these individuals express chimeric mRNA encoding a fusion between the TRIM5 and CypA sequences. Thus, the mutation, which interferes with expression of the normal TRIM5α protein, instead contributes to expression of a novel protein.   Remarkably, this is the second example of the appearance of a TRIM5/CypA chimera during primate evolution, the other having occurred in a new world monkey lineage (Aotus sp). Cellular CypA binds to the capsid proteins of several lentiviruses, and we believe that TRIM5-CypA proteins were at one time selected for the ability to block infection by retroviral pathogens, possibly related to modern lentiviruses.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Here is a more recent mutation:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApoA-1_Milano     Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano (also ETC-216, now MDCO-216) is a naturally occurring mutated variant of the apolipoprotein A1 protein found in human HDL, the lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol from tissues to the liver and is associated with protection against cardiovascular disease. ApoA1 Milano was first identified by Dr. Cesare Sirtori in Milan, who also demonstrated that its presence significantly reduced cardiovascular disease, even though it caused a reduction in HDL levels and an increase in triglyceride levels.^[1]                   

On 5/8/2019 at 2:07 AM, Michael37 said:

Third, mutations can only act on genes that already exist. Natural selection cannot explain the origin of genes because there was no information for natural selection to act on. Mutation and natural selection simply produce variation within a kind—just as the biblical creation model suggests. No genetic mechanism can increase the amount of information that is needed to demonstrate evolution from particles to people. Mutations do not add information to an organism’s genome. Thousands of mutations would need to add information to change even “simple” cells into more complex cells. Even when genes mutate, they still pair up with similar alleles and are controlled by the same regulators. Mutations may affect the degree of a trait, but they do not cause new traits.

It is not the amount of time or the number of mutations, but the direction of change and the origin of information that are the biggest stumbling blocks for evolution. All of the evidence continues to point to the design and information originally provided by the Creator.

Natural selection or evolution doesnt attempt to answer the origin of genes, its a different field. Its like saying newtonian mechanics are bad because they dont explain relativity or an apple cake recipe is bad because it doesnt tell you how to make a cheese cake.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Leyla

[Guest]

It's a matter of faith.

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.  [NIV, Hebrews 11:6]
 

[Leyla]

• 8 minutes ago, Margo73 said:

  • no argument is needed to prove God's existence .. His Holy Spirit inspired Word and Truth proves His existence by His own words/actions/meanings .. no one who wishes to be Christian and to keep their faith intact instead of risking losing it over lies should bother with trying to prove God's existence .. He does exist and always has and always will and no one has been able to prove otherwise and no one ever will be able .. spend time getting to know God in His Holy Spirit inspired Word and Truth and build an ever growing ever maturing personal intimate relationship with Him so He can and will reveal Himself more and more to you and then you will KNOW He exists and is the Alpha and Omega aka the Beginning and the End (and all in between) .. stop playing atheist games and get to know God 

If no argument is needed then its implied that its something obvious. If its obvious, then why do so many people struggle with accepting God as real?

[Michael37]

2 hours ago, Margo73 said:

no argument is needed to prove God's existence .. His Holy Spirit inspired Word and Truth proves His existence by His own words/actions/meanings .. no one who wishes to be Christian and to keep their faith intact instead of risking losing it over lies should bother with trying to prove God's existence .. He does exist and always has and always will and no one has been able to prove otherwise and no one ever will be able .. spend time getting to know God in His Holy Spirit inspired Word and Truth and build an ever growing ever maturing personal intimate relationship with Him so He can and will reveal Himself more and more to you and then you will KNOW He exists and is the Alpha and Omega aka the Beginning and the End (and all in between) .. stop playing atheist games and get to know God 

Amen, Margo73. Your exhortation for all to be born-again Bible-believers is well said: 

Gen 2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

No evolution required.
 

[Omegaman 3.0]

2 minutes ago, Margo73 said:

God's existence is proven by God and any man who says otherwise is an arrogant idiot in my opinion 

Please tone down the name calling Margo, but if you must, then quote scripture:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. PSA 14:1

[Leyla]

1 hour ago, Michael37 said:

Amen, Margo73. Your exhortation for all to be born-again Bible-believers is well said: 

Gen 2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

No evolution required.

Do we have to ignore the evidence for evolution then? We cant have modern biology, genetics, medicine etc, if we view evolution as something that is not required and throw it away. Why is evolution generally such a strong, good, and predictive theory if its not required? [Edit] This thread started with how genomes, evolution etc are supposed to prove God, but so far it only did the opposite.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Leyla
edit

[Michael37]

1 hour ago, Leyla said:

Do we have to ignore the evidence for evolution then? We cant have modern biology, genetics, medicine etc, if we view evolution as something that is not required and throw it away. Why is evolution generally such a strong, good, and predictive theory if its not required? [Edit] This thread started with how genomes, evolution etc are supposed to prove God, but so far it only did the opposite.

The title of the thread is an open question on what is an evergreen subject, meaning it is always being raised. From time to time I will engage a poster who thinks natural selection is proof of evolution and that the science evolutionists use to argue their case is sound. Naturally evolutionists want to beat Creationism down and often they have not researched this side of the argument in any depth but in post after post repeat what evolutionists say as if it is infallible. The fact that there are inventors and scientists on record as Christians and Creationists is often ignored by atheists and evolutionists who post on Christian forums as if they have some new material to offer which will win their argument and defeat their opposition.

Ironically some atheists worship evolutionary theory, it is their god and they spend all their lives in its thrall, arguing against the existence of God, the verity of the Bible, and the science of Creationism whilst blindly ignoring the evidence for the Creator as the first cause, the prime mover, and the supreme designer of all things. 

2Co 4:3-6
(3)  But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
(4)  In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
(5)  For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
(6)  For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

[Leyla]

On 5/9/2019 at 8:06 AM, Michael37 said:

The title of the thread is an open question on what is an evergreen subject, meaning it is always being raised. From time to time I will engage a poster who thinks natural selection is proof of evolution and that the science evolutionists use to argue their case is sound.

Excuse me what do you mean with "use the argue their caise is sound"? Do you mean that "evolutionist" have little substance but are very loud?

 

On 5/9/2019 at 8:06 AM, Michael37 said:

Naturally evolutionists want to beat Creationism down and often they have not researched this side of the argument in any depth but in post after post repeat what evolutionists say as if it is infallible. The fact that there are inventors and scientists on record as Christians and Creationists is often ignored by atheists and evolutionists who post on Christian forums as if they have some new material to offer which will win their argument and defeat their opposition.

The exchange and scrutiny of ideas is  very harsh,  because everyone is trying to viciously rip apart  any ideas that are presented. I also dont think that anyone thinks that anything is infallible and if anyone has good points then most people will sit down and listen. There are christian scientists but they usually seperate their religion from work, during working hours. If anyone is able to proof my sources or what I say wrong then I will Edit my earlier posts in a different colour and write a big "EDIT: THIS WAS ALL PROVEN TO BE WRONG, AND HERE IS THE ONE THAT MANAGED TO DO THAT "INSERT USERNAME" ". The fact that we never got to this point shows the problem we have.

 

On 5/9/2019 at 8:06 AM, Michael37 said:

Ironically some atheists worship evolutionary theory, it is their god and they spend all their lives in its thrall, arguing against the existence of God, the verity of the Bible, and the science of Creationism whilst blindly ignoring the evidence for the Creator as the first cause, the prime mover, and the supreme designer of all things.

What do you mean with worshipping evolution? Darwin (peace be upon him) was the greatest prophet of science!  I doubt that anyone worshipps the evolutionary theory and I never met weirdos that do that. Its just the best theory we have and most people want something that is accurate and gives good result

Edited May 10, 2019 by Leyla