What Argument Do You Use for God's Existence?

[BrandonRTyler]

5 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

Who? Please give me the name of just one microbiologist who has stated that opinion.

This is kind of funny... hehe I got a couple scientists here who will not accept God as designer, so they said our DNA was created by aliens.

Maxim A. Makukov of the Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute and Vladimir I. Shcherbak from the al-Farabi Kazakh National University spent 13 years working for the Human Genome Project – a mission that hoped to map out human DNA.

[Eman_3]

11 hours ago, Godismyloveforever said:

Might I remind you of what you said in your op in your welcome thread? You said this:

Greetings everyone, my goal in here is to learn in a respectful manner.

 

I apologize if you perceive my statement as indicating you fall into an unsavory class of people. I regret that you did no understand my point.

[Resurrection Priest]

STEPS to BELIEF:

1.  Study into creation science, or at least listen to videos and lectures by creation scientists.  Science of genetics, of geology, of radio carbon dating strongly point to a designer.

2.  Read in to archeology.  Finds of ancient sites and artifacts exactly where the Bible said they would be, support historical accuracy of the Bible. 

3.  Ancient Roman historical documents verify the crucifixion of Jesus, and verify the start of a sect that believed strongly in the resurrection of same.  They also verify a strong earthquake and a blood moon on Passover 33AD, the year many historians believe Jesus was crucified. 

4.  The harmony of the 66 Books, written over centuries.  The longer one studies the Bible, the stronger the impression that it was supernaturally inspired.

5.  Prophecy.  The odds of a single man fulfilling even 8 of the major prophecies of Messiah are something like 10 to the 17th power.  That many silver dollars would cover the state of Texas, a foot deep.  There are far more than just 8 prophecies of Messiah, already fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem. 

6.  Personal experience with miracles.   (Descriptions of miracles experienced by others count for some, but personal experience is most effective.) 

My own journey to faith began with a personal miracle experience.  But I still had to read and study to increase my understanding of just Who was behind that miracle.  I have experienced many miracles since that first one, over the last 40 years, but I do not depend on seeing more miracles for my faith.   I've read The Book.

[choir loft]

On 4/28/2019 at 8:17 AM, Leyla said:

1. DNA doesnt just write itself, there is an evolutionary pressure that favours favourable genetic mutations and weeds out bad ones. Over time this will make highly adapted life forms that can give of the impression of an instructor.  2. Point 1 basically  3. Not finding cell organells elsewhere doesnt proof that they are not natural, it only proofs that cell organells exist only in life forms. To proof that cell organells are not natural, we need to proof that life itself is not natural first  Just because something seems complex or seems to require a "hyper intellect". 

 

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html    for example is a good source for observed speciation. Other observation are for example our almost identical DNA with great apes and similiar DNA to other mammals, the fossil record etc. Genetics is an absolutely strong  and sophisticated field, and the proof in genetics cant be ignored.           

 

So far noone was able to provide proof that point to a God. How can there be a denial, to something that was not presented yet.

 

1. What is the form of this DNA 'pressure' you refer to?  Evolution is an unproven theory.   There are at least three theories of evolution each of which insists the other two theories don't exist.   Which one are you talking about?  

The basis of this entire argument is the word evolution, which has come to be used as a sort of intellectual caulk to fill in empty holes in logic that would otherwise prove itself ridiculous.  

Evolution has no meaning in and of itself, but has come to be understood as an unproven answer for every wild academic idea that opposes the nature of God.  

2.  What is point 2?   No point made here.  Did you forget something?

3. A cell organelle performs the simple function of an organ in a cell.   It works much like a complex organ in a more developed life form.  Your point isn't well stated here either.  What are you trying to say to us?  

4. Once again the similarity between human and ape is brought before the reader as if it was something of importance.   It isn't - genetically speaking.  

It should be noted that there are more genetic similarities between pigs and humans than between humans and apes.  Portions of pigs are regularly used by surgeons to replace defective human parts or to assist in developing artificial implants in humans.   To the best of my knowledge, no part of apes has been seriously considered or tested effective for that application.   The only active use of apes with regard to human interaction is to use them for medical experimentation.

Cornelius: [reading from the sacred scrolls of the apes] 'Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, for he is the harbinger of death.' - from THE PLANET OF THE APES

Science is worshipped as the secular god.  It's a poor substitute for the real thing.  Science has no conscience and no ability to direct human actions.  It cares not how it's used and provides no answer to the human question of purpose.

Science tells us how to do a thing.  Religion tells us whether we ought to do a thing or not.    

When the worship of science displaces that of God the normal result is cruelty thievery and murder.  Bereft of allegiance to a higher divine being man ALWAYS degenerates into something less than a beast.  Man becomes a demon in the flesh.  The nature of man is evil - to do wickedly at any opportunity.   This is why we have laws and religion.  There is nothing about man that is intrinsically good.

Animals do not kill one another for sport.  Man does.   Animals do not torture one another as mankind frequently does.  Animals don't murder one another for a percentage.  

The worship of science and the use of 'evolution' as its scripture flies in the face of human survival and the application of justice.  Darwin's principle of evolution denies the quality of justice.   If only the fittest survive where then is justice?   Justice alone is evidence of God and proof that Darwinian theory is the vomitus of a madman.

For man is evil from the first breath he takes until his last.   Only God can save him - because man does not wish to be saved at all.

"The fool has said in his heart there is no God."  - Psalm 14:1

Godless societies have always destroyed themselves and America is circling the drain of history because of it.  

Divine judgment takes two forms;  it may be the result of a trend or direction of society OR it may be a sudden devastating action.   In both cases the result is irreversible.  When God judges a person or nation there is no going back to the status quo.

America has turned its back upon God and has thus invited divine judgment upon the nation.   Our academic leaders have become fools and our political leaders have degenerated into a unique form of insanity.

It has been said that if one is going crazy, one should move to Washington, DC where it will not be noticed.

It is time to repent of our sins and wickedness and seek the face of God who alone can save us from ourselves.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited January 23, 2020 by choir loft

[one.opinion]

On 1/19/2020 at 4:04 PM, BrandonRTyler said:

Take a look at Dr. Georgia Purdom, Wonders of DNA

Dr. Purdom is definitely a follower of Christ, not a non-believer. Do you know of any non-believer microbiologists who have stated they must remind themselves that their research subjects are not designed?

 

[BrandonRTyler]

29 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Dr. Purdom is definitely a follower of Christ, not a non-believer. Do you know of any non-believer microbiologists who have stated they must remind themselves that their research subjects are not designed?

 

 

Sure, Richard Dawkins may be a good example.

Also below:

British philosopher, Dr. Antony Flew, was a leading spokesperson for atheism, actively involved in debate after debate. However, scientific discoveries within the last 30 years brought him to a conclusion he could not avoid. In a video interview in December 2004 he stated, "Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."¹ Prominent in his conclusion were the discoveries of DNA.

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, choir loft said:

What is the form of this DNA 'pressure' you refer to?

I’m guessing that Leyla was referring to natural selection.

4 hours ago, choir loft said:

Evolution is an unproven theory.

There is a lot of misunderstanding that results from people using different definitions for the word. In its simplest form, evolution is simply “heritable change in a population over time”, which is directly observed and verifiable. In other contexts, evolution is used to refer to some of the implications of basic evolution, like universal common ancestry, which obviously are not directly observed. In a very similar fashion to forensic scientists that can solve criminal cases through evidence that has been left behind, biologists use the available evidence (genetics, paleontology, etc) to make these conclusions. There is a large amount of evidence that supports those implications that cannot be directly observed.

4 hours ago, choir loft said:

There are at least three theories of evolution each of which insists the other two theories don't exist.

I’m curious about what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

[one.opinion]

16 minutes ago, BrandonRTyler said:

Sure, Richard Dawkins may be a good example.

Also below:

British philosopher, Dr. Antony Flew,

Oh, I thought you were referring to actual microbiologists earlier when you used that term.

[BrandonRTyler]

12 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Oh, I thought you were referring to actual microbiologists earlier when you used that term.

I figured evolutionary biologist was close enough.

Maybe I should just change the verbiage to "scientists" =)

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, BrandonRTyler said:

Maybe I should just change the verbiage to "scientists" =)

No problem. I was just interested to see the microbiologists!