XnForums

A debate on God’s Existence based on these parameters:



We would ask that ONLY the individual debaters post in this thread. You are more than welcome to add comments in The Peanut Gallery.

Romans 1:19-20
because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them. For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

The above scripture points to the fact that there is a God, and that He may be clearly seen in His creation. He also states in this scripture that because He can be seen and known to be God through His creation, man will have no excuse. But how is it that man can see God in His creation? We cannot prove physically that there is a God. Nobody has family photos of God and Son up in heaven. So it cannot be proven by normal means that God does exist, or can it? I will prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God does exist. I won't do so with scripture or anything else that could be perceived as refutable. I will prove the existence of God with irrefutable evidence. I will use Science and Mathematics. Many Atheists say that Christians avoid science in this discussion. I won't do that. In fact that is what I will use to prove His existence.

Since this debate is not like a normal debate where we would be discussing this subject live, I am going to have to assume that you take the positions that a majority of atheists take. Here is a list of the common beliefs of atheists.

1. God does not exist (No brainier since you are an atheist)
2. The Big Bang (This is how the universe was created)
3. Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter)
4. Evolution (How man and everything else came into being in their current state)
5. Closed System (The universe and everything in it is a closed system i.e. There is no outside influence (Namely God)

Proof Number One: The Physical World (Creation)

The first proof of God's existence is the universe and everything in it. The question to the Atheist is: Where did everything come from? Lets look at that. The Atheist says that the universe came into existence through "The Big Bang". They further state that life evolved from that event. I say, that "Theory" is not backed up by scientific law or logic. Lets look closer at this.

The first law of Thermodynamics.
"Energy or matter can neither be created (out of nothing) nor destroyed. It can only change forms." This law states that matter or substance cannot be created out of nothing. Keep in mind that this is a scientific law, it cannot be broken. ( Just like the law of gravity cannot be broken) You cannot make something out of nothing. So, where did the universe come from? The atheist cannot deny that there is matter and energy, after all if there were not, he would not exist. So how is it that we have a universe without a creator? That violates the first law of thermodynamics. Our very existence apart from a creator violates that scientific law. So, explain to me how do you have a violation of the first law of thermodynamics by the creation of matter and energy in a closed system? That is scientifically impossible! So in conclusion, the first law of thermodynamics does not allow something to be made out of nothing.

So then how did the universe and everything in it come into being apart from a creator. The Atheist and many scientists would have us believe that 15 billion years ago there was a tiny little speck that exploded and out of that explosion the universe was formed. They would have us believe that the whole universe was compacted into a tiny little speck. My question is, where did the speck come from? And, if the whole universe was inside that tiny little speck, was it not still the universe that we see? I can take 10 nerf balls and compact them down into golf ball size, but I still have 10 nerf balls. The big bang does not answer point one, how do we have a violation of the first law of thermodynamics?

Another argument by atheist and scientist is that the universe always existed. That is, it goes back and forth from expansion and contraction. That someday the universe will stop expanding and start contracting in on itself until it is a tiny little speck again and then explode and expand. This theory is very interesting, but it is not scientific! Why? Because if that were true, then that would violate the second law of thermodynamics. That is the law of equilibrium and chaos. Example: If you take a cup of coffee and a cup of ice water and put them into a room by themselves, they will eventually become the same temperature. So, if the universe always existed like some atheists say, then you would not have stars of fire and comets of ice still existing in the same closed system. And yet that is what we have. We have fireballs called stars, and ice balls known as comets still in this same system, thus violating the second law of thermodynamics and also pointing to this universe not being a closed system.

The second law of thermodynamics is also a law concerning chaos. It states that order and design do not go from chaos to order but rather order to disorder. This is called entropy and it is part of the second law of thermodynamics. An example of entropy would be how your house goes from clean and neat, to messy and dirty. This is true even if left alone, not just if slobs live there. Your house will not clean itself up without outside influence. It will not clean itself. If it did, that would violate the second law of thermodynamics. That would be nice, but it is not possible.

So my question to you is, how did we get a universe that has increased in complexity and design out of Chaos (The Big Bang)? That is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. It is not logical or scientific to think that we could have this universe that all works together and is so complex come out of chaos. Chaos does not turn into order, order turns into chaos. That is the second law. Explain to me how we can have another violation of scientific law. How can we have the big bang and then eventually the universe developed into complexity and design? We cant in a closed system!

Proof Number Two (Life, living things)

Atheist and many scientists believe in Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter) also known as spontaneous generation. I will focus the next part of my debate on this subject.


[url="http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp"]http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp[/url]

So now that we have an idea what Abiogenesis is, lets take a look at it scientifically.

[url="http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html"]http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html[/url]

The way that scientists come up with answers to scientific questions is through:
1. Observation
2. Testing
3. Prediction

1. Observation: Has anyone ever observed life coming into existence from none life? The answer? No! Life coming into existence from non-life has never been observed anywhere or anytime in any setting. Strike one!
2. Testing: Is there any test that can be done that will produce life from non-life? Answer? No! There is no test that can produce life from non-life and there never will be! Strike two!
3. Predictions: Are there an predictions that will produce life from non-life? Answer? No! There is no prediction that will ever produce life from non-life, and there never will be! Strike three!

Scientifically and logically one has to assume that Abiogenesis is not a sound theory. Life just springing forth on its own is not only illogical, but unscientific.

I would like to address the issue of logic as it pertains to life. I have a question for you ham. I am sure you have seen pictures of the shinx in egypt.

Ham, are you open to the possibility that the Sphinx was not made by man, but rather that the wind blowing sand around over time created what we see in this picture? If not, why not?

I am assuming that your answer will be no. I think that you are probably are a logical person. I think that you could easily see that the complexity of that wonder of the world could not have just happened because of erosion or wind and sand being blown around. So if that is the case, what would you consider more complex, that Sphinx or the human body? Logically you would probably have to say the human body. So how is it that you cannot believe that the sphinx which is less complex could not be created through happenstance, but the human body which is more complex was created through happenstance? Is that logical?

Let me give you an example how life could not have come into existence on its own. Lets take a wrist watch. We take the working wrist watch apart very carefully so that it will go back together and work properly. We take all the pieces of the wristwatch and put it in a coffee can. Keep in mind that we have all the pieces need to make a working wristwatch right there in the can. All the pieces were made to fit together to make a working wristwatch. So we put the lid on the can and begin to shake the can. How long will we have to shake that can before we open it up to find a working wristwatch? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? 1 million years? 100 millions years? 15 billions years? 100 billion years? Never? Yes, you could shake that can for eternity and you never will pull out a working wristwatch. In my example we had all the pieces need to make the wristwatch. Abiogenesis says we have an empty can that we eventually pull a wristwatch out of. Is that logical? No!

(Note: For this example, we will be generous and give the atheist 30 billion years)
Mathematically life could not have come into being on its own. This is one of the most conclusive proofs that there is. Lets look at the human body for this. The human body has 206 bones in it. There are 639 muscles. It takes 300 muscles just to take a step. Lets break this down to something even more simple. The simplest protein molecule has over 400 linked amino acids that are arranged in a specific order. Lets take a look and see mathematically if the simplest protein molecule can form on its own in 30 billion years. We are not talking muscles and everything else in the human body, we are talking just a simple protein molecule. But instead of the over 400 amino acids that are arranged in a specific order in this protein molecule, we will say that there is only 100 amino acids. Lets look and see if 15 billions years is enough for to form on its own. So, for our example we have 100 amino acids that must come together in the right sequence in order to form the protein molecule. So, if you can solve this puzzle, you can create the molecule. How do we figure out how many combinations there are to this puzzle? Think of this as a combination that unlocks the protein molecule and makes it exist. How will we find the mathematical info we need to come up with the solution. We will use a factorial. Example: in a three digit combination there is 6 possible combinations of numbers 1-2-3, 1-3-2, 2-1-3, 2-3-1, 3-1-2, 3-2-1 there are six combinations for three digits. So how many combinations are there to 100 digits? 10 to the 158th power! So do we have enough time in 30 billion years to come up with the combination? NO WAY! Do you know how many seconds there are in 30 billion years? 10 to the 18th power! Thats right, that is how many seconds there are in 30 billion years. Do the math, if you take 10 to the 18th power from 10 to the 158th power is 10 to the 140th power. What that means is, you would have to come up with 10 to the 140th power of combinations every second on the second for 30 billion years to mathematically be able to come up with the right combination to create the simplest protein molecule, that is if the simplest protein molecule only had 100 amino acids instead of over 400 like it does. :ffaint: Sooooooooo, mathematically could life just spring forth from non-life? NO WAY!

I realize that I have only posted half of the 5000 words that I am able to post for my first part. But I will let these stand and respond to your post with my next installment. So, I will continue with my defense as well as answer you in my next posts.

Thanks to both forums for hosting this debate, and Woffie for his desire to support the question, “Does God Exist?” Most of all, thank you to the readers investing your time in reviewing the material.

Over the next five posts, I will be following this outline:

1) Narrowing the discussion as to what we are attempting to prove;
2) Address inherent weakness in arguments for God; and
3) Present my own reasons to claim there is no God.

I know there is never a “winner” in these debates; perhaps we can foster some understanding of the other person. And we may learn something on the way!

Introduction to the Question

Before inquiring “Does something exist?” we need to understand what that ”something” is to rationally comprehend what we are looking for. If asked “Does Leechaai exist?” you may need the Navajo language to realize you are looking for a dog. “Do unicorns exist?” requires the knowledge of unicorns to exclude horses and centaurs from consideration. The first order of business is to recognize what it is we are looking for when we use the term “God.”

Unfortunately, “God” has meant many different things to many different cultures. An Egyptian would explain we are looking for a pantheon of Gods, each with specific areas of influence. Recognition and worship of the Gods being necessary for life to run smoothly. An Aztec would agree with polytheism, focusing primarily on the sun God, and the blood sacrifice requirement to sustain the God for his nightly battle against the dark; allowing the sun to continue on its course. A first millennium BCE Canaanite would understand a God to be the entity blessing the nation when it follows its dictates, and punishing the nation by war or natural disasters when it does not.

Each society has its particular characteristic spin on the God it determines to exist. Regardless how the theist’s God looks; the vast majority of people who have lived reject the notion of that particular God’s existence. There may be agreement on the existence of a God, but not the God being specifically discussed.

Think of it this way. What if I launched into a description of how, in a storm, friction between water vapor forms a negative charge on the surface of a bottom of a cloud, whereas the same friction forms a positive charge on the ground surface, and ionized air in-between becomes a conduit, creating a current hotter than the surface of the sun.

You would probably exclaim, “What does this have to do with anything?”

I reply, “Why…I am busy proving how Thor does not exist, and lightning strikes are not the throws of his hammer!”

Most people would respond, “But we don’t believe such a God exists, either! You need to address our God.” Yet at one time, in one place, this is exactly what would be necessary to the discussion of the God’s existence.

Because of this vast variety, coupled with vast disagreement, the non-theist must always be one step behind in the conversation. We must first learn “What God?” in order to determine the parameters of our discussion. The theist has a preconceived notion of what “God” is. When they hear “God says…” or “God does…” they do not think of it as any God, but rather their particular nuanced God who is saying or doing. A Christian is not considering Allah as answering her prayer. A Muslim is not relying upon the Hindu pantheon for what happens after this life. To respond to the question of whether that God exists, we non-theists must first know the characteristics of the claimed God. Is it a Deistic God? Polytheistic? Pantheistic? Personal?

Quite frankly, the question “Does God exist?” is an agreed upon “NO!” for a resounding number of theistic characters and villains. The real root question is “Does my God exist?” While we may touch on a few peculiarities of a God, all Gods have more meat to their entirety. It is not enough to claim “The universe needs a God” and then proclaim “therefore it must be my God.” We must review the viability of the total package. Otherwise we are proving Chemosh as equally as we are proving Shiva.

We must also be careful, in our proofs toward a deity, to stay consistent. Cannot have one proof contradict another, thereby creating a contradictory God.

My opponent’s first task is to explain what characteristics are in “God” and why those individualistic and specific characteristics are necessary for a being to qualify as “God.”

Once we know what we are looking for, we then must determine where to look for it. What do we review when looking for a God? Cultures often placed Gods in inaccessible or remote regions. The Greek Gods lived on the tallest mountain of Greece—Mt. Olympus. The Norse Gods could only be reached by a rainbow bridge. In Michigan, the Native Indians considered Mackinaw Island as the sacred home of the Creator Spirit.

As time progressed, we climbed mountains, reached islands, and realized rainbows were not bridges but directions for pots of gold. Gods became more remote. More inaccessible. Now we understand time, space and matter better; God has been removed from the natural world entirely! God exists on a super-natural, unobservable, indeterminate “other” plane. With an occasional venture into the natural world. The cross-over is equally unobservable, and never explained by the theist.

Placing God in an unobservable location is a readily apparent advantage. Anything claimed about God cannot be disproven. Does He prefer chocolate or vanilla? Either proposition has equal weight, since neither can be observed. Any difficulty encountered, such as how does time begin, is removed with a hand wave—“over in that plane, it is timeless.”

Woffie’s second question to address is: How do we make any consistent determination about an unobservable place? Like discussing the color of sound, or the flavor of sight. By making it unverifiable this provides opportunity to speculate on…well…anything really! What we are looking for is “what actually is;” not “what actually possibly could be.”

Although this unobservable location provides the opportunity to speculate; it equally undercuts any ability to actually prove what happens there. This dilemma will be addressed momentarily.

Within the discussion of “what actually is”—the only items we can observe and record are within the physical, observable universe. The natural world. Even if there was a supernatural world, the only connection we have with it—the only information we glean from it comes by its connection into our natural world.

Look where the end results of claimed supernatural actions are. In our observable universe. If a God wants it to rain—the results are physical water droplets falling on a physical earth. If a supernatural being desires divine writings—the product of the desire is a human writing, on natural material, with human language. Even supernatural tales of other planes exist by a human (natural) mouth telling a human (natural) ear.

Therefore, the singular way in which we can determine supernaturalism is to extrapolate it from naturalism. We are forced to start with our physical world and attempt to derive some conclusions about the supernatural world. This raises two problems, the first worse than the second.

First—how does this world reflect the supernatural? Remember I mentioned the verification problem through inability to observe on the “other” plane? Since we have no knowledge, we have no way to compare how similar the natural world is, to the supernatural world. Without that comparison, how accurate is the extrapolation?

Some examples often seen in theistic debate: “Because there is design in the natural world—there must be a designer in the supernatural world.” All right. The natural world has it; so does the supernatural. “We have time; the supernatural world does not have the same concept of time.” Wait…now it changed to “we have it so they don’t have it”?

We have the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Yet the supernatural plane must not. We have morals; the supernatural plane must have it as well. But we have moral choice that many theistic beliefs hold does not exist on the supernatural plane. We require materials to make choices; the supernatural world does not. We have light; the supernatural plane…does? Does not?

If we are to extrapolate supernatural from natural, we must come up with some ability to correlate the two. Are they similar, dissimilar, exact, or totally different? We begin to see a bias develop. When it is helpful to the theist’s cause to claim similarity (design, morals); a similarity is claimed. When helpful to remove a problem (time, material, energy); a dissimilarity is claimed. Yet throughout these claims—no method is ever provided as to how to determine the correspondence between the natural, observable world and the supernatural, unobservable plane.

This translates over to a God as well. Because we humans love; it is presumed God must love as well. Because we have the concept of justice; so does God. Yet the wheels start to fall off the bus, as “God’s Justice” is declared to be different than our justice. How do we know that? If God’s love is similar; why is God’s justice not? Or we discuss human ability to do immoral acts. Many theists declare just because we can does not mean God can. Now there is complete dissimilarity! Items are chosen or discarded based solely on the convenience of the theist making the claim.

The second problem regarding the results being in the natural world is deriving a method of differentiating between “natural” and “natural + supernatural.” If the theist claims God intervenes in the natural world—how do we tell the difference between those interventions and non-interventions?

The easiest examples are claims of divine writings. Some claim a God intervened in the natural world to fashion a certain set of writings as compared to all other writings ever written. Yet the writings look the same! Same language, same material, same transcription. The authors wrote what any person of their time, place and locale could have written. What method is provided to allow us to determine what is “natural writing” as compared to “natural + supernatural writing”?

Or take a sunny day. Happens all the time. Yet if the theist offers a sacrifice to their God for such a day, it becomes a “supernatural sunny day.” Or if the pastor prayers for a lovely Sunday School picnic, it becomes a “supernatural sunny day.” Again, how does one differentiate?

Too often, in these debates, I see the individuals jump into “proofs for God.” The unstated underlying assumption is that there IS a God to provide proofs for. Rather than assume it for the philosophical debate’s sake, I suggest we peal back one layer and not assume anything. Not assume we all know what “God” means. Not assume humans are or are not reflective of a God. Let’s prove those basic, foundational steps first, before hopping into Kalam’s Cosmological Argument.

To lay this groundwork, I have four questions for my opponent:

1) What method do you propose whereby we can determine what attributes of the natural world are reflective of the supernatural, what attributes are similar, and what attributes are not at all like the supernatural?

2) If the supernatural is unobservable, what method do you propose whereby we can determine any claim about the supernatural is accurate, partly accurate or not accurate at all?

3) What characteristics MUST be in a God, what characteristics MAY be in a God, and what characteristics MUST NOT be in a God? What are we looking for, here?

4) And, if God intervenes in the natural world; what method do you propose whereby we can determine God intervened in an event, or God did not? Does God intervene in some events more than others?

Response to Argument

While I congratulate Woffie on his intention to “use Science and Mathematics” to “prove beyond a shadow of a doubt God does exist,” his use of science in the first post is…puzzling…to say the least, for two reasons:

1) He appears to disagree with Big Bang Theory. Yet this is the vastly, overwhelmingly predominate theory of how our universe began. If he disagrees with science—why is he using science to prove God? Is he using what he claims is a flawed method and conclusion? Or is he demonstrating science is self-contradicting; which again raises the perplexity of why use something he believes is self-contradictory to prove God? As if he is claiming:

“I am going to use science to prove God.
“And science is wrong.

2) He fails to fully inform what science says. Like proving how mathematics doesn’t work when you divide by zero; yet never informing the reader mathematics prohibits dividing by zero.

His entire first argument is no more than “God-of-the-Gaps.”

We don’t know everything. There are “gaps” in our knowledge. Realizing something must have happened within those “gaps”—people posit that “something” is a God. In fact, if we peel back the layers of most arguments for God, we will find a “God-of-the-Gaps” at the core.

Remember those standardized tests? The multiple choice questions; filling in the oval with a No. 2 pencil? The person monitoring time for each section, giving us the requisite one minute warning before uttering the damning decree, “Pencils Down!”

What happened when we heard, “One minute!”? Those who were not finished would start filling in one letter on the answer sheet: “C,” “C,” “C.” Why? Because we knew “no answer” would always be wrong, so the hope was at least one or two of the remaining answers would be “C” and we would “guess” one or two more correct points. Better than no points for no answer.

This is exactly how God-of-the-gaps works. We have limited time, only living 70, 80 years. As Woffie points out, we have questions unanswered. Rather than dare leave those questions unanswered; rather than say, “I don’t know”—many people prefer to fill in with the same letter: “C,” “C,” “C,”…“God,”….“God,”……“God.”

Life is not a standardized test.

The first concern regarding God-of-the-gaps is that it is based on lack of knowledge; not gaining knowledge. It only works because observation, analysis, and discussion have all failed to provide an answer and only then does this God step in and claim, “God must have done it.” This God never provides new information; it waits until all others have done all the work, and when the information is exhausted due to limitations, it steps forward and says, “I did it.”

When science reaches a point of exclaiming, “We can look no further,” the God who has quietly sat in the corner pipes up, “Then put me in as the reason.” Yet even this declaration gives us no new information. Nothing about how a God could do it. Nothing about what a God did. Nothing about the when, the where, the why. Nothing about which God. Only the small pretense “if humans don’t know—then it must be ‘God.’” Whatever that means.

It plays second fiddle to science; it is subservient to scientific discoveries. Until technology improves, it reigns supreme within its gaps. Upon developments such as microscopes or telescopes, it forthwith concedes its mastery of the gap and retreats to another unknown. Waiting for technology to usurp it from its new unknown at a later date.

Bringing us to the second impediment of God-of-the-gaps. It has been historically wrong. All those other times of putting “C,” “C,” “C,”—turns out “C” was the wrong answer! If the method has been demonstrated as incorrect in the past; why would we have any assurance it would be correct in the future?

At one time the sun was thought to be God, making a daily journey across a solid dome sky. Since no one could figure how the sun moved—“God” filled in that gap. We later discovered this to be wrong. Then humans determined the sun was an astronomical object. It was unknown how it moved—“God” filled the gap. We later discovered this to be wrong.

Humans figured out the earth orbited the sun; no one could figure out how—“God” must do it. Wrong. Once elliptical orbits were determined, Sir Isaac Newton questioned how the orbits could stay on the same plane, rather than be random (planets spinning on a plate, rather than circling the sun like the classic picture of an atom). No one could figure it out—“God” must do it. Again, wrong. (Humorously, Isaac Newton was criticized for his theory because many theists thought it relegated God from operating and holding all the planets in His power, to a being that set the planets in motion and occasionally intervened. God, it was thought, went from a divine watchmaker to a lousy watchmaker needing to do occasional watch repairs.)

As more discoveries were made, the Theory of Relativity developed, and cosmology determined the formation of suns/planets—the historical “God-of-the-gaps” was shown to have been wrong over and over and over again. What was once seen as an impossible answer so “C” (“God”) was filled in, has subsequently been resolved.

We see this regarding seasons and lightning and thunder and earthquakes and disease and genetics and volcanoes. How what was once a gap filled with “God” has disappeared.

If this method has proven wrong so many times before; why would it be correct now?

The third problem is the tension this creates between God and science. As discoveries are made, the theist is placed in a predicament—do they modify their view of God, or reject what science has determined?

For example, using the Christian view of creationism—Newton thought the earth was formed in 4000 BCE. Subsequent dating methods, specifically radioactive dating, place the Earth at 4.5 billion years old. Because the “God-of-the-gaps” has not provided us any answers, and can only fill in this blank—once the blank is filled by another answer, what does one do with the God?

Some Christians modify, becoming Old Earth Creationists; others reject the science maintaining Young Earth Creationism. Let’s follow the Old Earthers. We then discover evolution; changes in populations forming new species. Again, what does one do with this God? It is silent on the issue. Some modify the God, becoming theistic evolutionists; others reject the science, maintaining Old Earth Creationism.

See, the problem with the God-of-the-gaps is that it is untestable. It doesn’t provide us any information within the “gap.” When new information comes along, it must either bend to that information, or the theist must reject the information. Yet we have no consistent method as to when each must bend!

The very reason I asked those four (4) important questions earlier. How can we tell when a God is within this gap?

Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics

The First law states: This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. The First law deals with the observable universe. Not what happened in the Big Bang.

Our universe began to exist at the Big Bang—initiating time, space and energy. This is important to understand. There wasn’t something “hanging out”, waiting to start the universe—there was no “space” for it to hang out in. Or, another way to look at it: Our universe is expanding—have you ever thought what it is expanding in to? It isn’t expanding “in to” anything at all—space itself is expanding!

A second notion (and equally hard to wrap one’s mind about) is that time began to exist at the Big Bang. Prior to that…wait…see, we can’t really say “Prior to that” because “prior” implies the notion of time, and there was no time to be “prior” to. In the same way the phrase, “Before the Big Bang,…” is equally inaccurate, since “before” is a measure of time. There was no “before” the Big Bang.

We are only able to observe (due to these limitations in time and space), back to one Planck time after the Big Bang. This is 1/10 to the 43rd power of a second. An extremely short, short period of time. What happened within that 1/10 to the 43rd power of second, or what existed prior to that Planck time is unknown.

We don’t know what existed at the instant of the Big Bang. Worse, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does not explain what could happen in that second, and becomes incompatible with quantum mechanics. Our laws of physics—what we understand to happen—are not applicable within this short, short time.

We cannot observe what happened during this time, and by our own understandings, any laws we would usually implement simply won’t work.

Science does not apply the First law of thermodynamics to the Big Bang—because the law was not in effect! The laws apply to our observable, closed system. Not to an unobservable indeterminate. There is no violation—there was no law. We don’t know if a “speck” existed—so questions as to its consistency are outside the realm of science at this time.

The argument appears to be, “Since we can’t see it—it must be God.” Classic God-of-the-gaps.

Second Law of Thermodynamics



We haven’t. This statement increases my puzzlement at Woffie’s use of “science.” (in the loosest sense of the word.) The law states, and we observe, matter and energy are becoming less useful as time progress. The closest we have to “perfect order” was at the instant after the Big Bang when energy, matter and the forces of the universe were unified. Since then it has all been down-hill.

How can Woffie be using science when he is mis-stating it so?

Think of it like a computer program. We can use a program to create images and sounds and generate conclusions of awesome proportion. Seemingly violating the Second law by increasing the magnitude of order, right? Wrong—see implementing the program requires heat, material, and resources. While we think of heat (because of the sun) as a constant renewable source—it is not. Our sun is burning out. Sure, it will take billions of more years, but it is losing useful energy. Every program you run is contributing to a little (VERY little) part of the entropy of the entire universe! Even though to us, in this instant, it appears ordered.

We see stars form into spiral galaxies. Evidence of “order”—right? Nope, part of the process of the gravitational pull of black holes that is hurrying the stars on their cycle of life. Entropy will utilize whatever it can, including order.

There is a mistaken idea the “Big Bang” was an uncontrolled explosion, evident in Woffie’s use of the term “Chaos” after “Big Bang.” (“Big Bang” was actually a derogatory term given the theory by Fred Hoyle who held to the “steady-state” theory.) The Big Bang was not chaotic at all. (Surprised a theist would not want to argue this.) We know this for the very reason Woffie points out—the Second law of thermodynamics. If matter and energy are becoming less useful as time progress, if we look back they become more useful. In other words, there is less entropy the farther back we go, with the least amount being at the instant after the Big Bang!

Here, then is Woffie’s predicament. Does he utilize the second Law, eliminating a “chaotic” Big Bang or does he say the second law is being violated, thus no longer using science but rather wishful thinking?

Hopefully the reader will start to get a sense of my confusion of this use/non-use of science.

Abiogenesis

We all hold to some form of abiogenesis—life from non-life. Some claim it came about super-naturally; others say naturally.



I am baffled as to how this helps Woffie in the debate. Look, it is his contention this is how science works. And it is his contention to show “beyond a shadow of a doubt” God exists using science.

How can Woffie demonstrate supernatural abiogenesis using this science? This debate is “Does God Exist?” with the burden on the person making the affirmative. Woffie.

I presume he believes in supernatural abiogenesis—yet he just effectively argued it is impossible for him to prove it! Observe how we can substitute the same statements against proving a God did it:



The same limitation Woffie claims is upon science for natural abiogenesis exist for supernatural abiogenesis. How can he be using science when he just proved he can’t use science?

Further, we have a better chance of observing or testing natural abiogenesis. Because it is within our natural means. We crash on the same problem over and over—there is no test for supernatural!

Amino Acids and Mathematics

Presumably Woffie read [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html]this article[/i] in his scientific search for God. First it should be noted the process is NOT “chemicals-->400 amino acid protein bacteria” but includes a great many steps in-between, including polymers and replicating polymers.

Secondly, what is missing from this equation is that it is NOT a random number of amino acids jumbled in any way—as it is a chemical process there are a limited number of chemical results. Some combinations simply wouldn’t form.

Thirdly, it is not a necessary order of amino acids, as some amino acids can be substituted for other amino acids. From the article:



Finally, Woffie fails to account the number of amino acids potentially floating out there. On early earth, it may have had as many as 1 x 10 to the 50th power potential starting chains.

There are is another problem with these “huge number probabilities.” (A common tactic amongst creationists.)

Ask yourself this question. “Did God have eggs for breakfast today?”

This argument takes various amazing factors within our universe and starts to multiple them with the goal of getting to one really, REALLY big number. To take a certain number (100 amino acids) and demand they are in completely random unique forms (even though there are limited forms, and multiple possibilities) and claim it would be impossible for such a huge number of chances to ever come to fruition.

O.K., back to our question. What are the chances God had eggs for breakfast? Can we know?

What is never said in these arguments, is that this is an alternative to another possibility—namely a God did it. It is presumed the smaller the chance this could naturally occur; why—the greater the chance it must supernaturally occur. Right?

Yet in order to know that—we would need to know the chances of it supernaturally occurring.

Imagine two horses in a race: “Plodding-Along” and “Old-Paint.” Plodding-Along’s chances of winning are set at 1:10, whereas poor Old-Paint is at 1:10,000. What if Plodding-Along’s chances were decreased by a factor of 10 to 1:100, and Old-Paint increased by a factor of 10 to 1:1,000.

Now, simply because one horse decreased by 10 times, the other increased by 10 times; does that mean it is now more likely Old-Paint will win? No!—because Plodding-Along’s chance of 1:100 is still better than 1:1000.

Even assuming the natural world would require a 1 in 10 to the 5000th power “chance” of occurring; for this to be less likely we would need to know what the “chance” of a supernatural being doing it is—and we can’t even determine the chances it had eggs for breakfast; a far simpler fact.

No one ever talks about comparing the chances, because the God-chance is indeterminate. What is hoped; what is left unsaid is the idea that the larger the natural number, we make the leap (a huge leap) this must make the supernatural number smaller. Why is such a leap warranted?

Or look at it another way. What are the chances you will win tomorrow’s lottery? Extremely small. But what are the chances yesterday’s winner would win? Precisely 1:1. Because it happened. What are the chances humans would inhabit this particular planet? Precisely 1:1 (regardless of supernatural or natural causes.) Because it happened.

Making the “huge number” argument a great exercise in the wondrous study of the universe; useless for determining the existence of a creator.

First, I will respond to Ham's post and then present more evidence that God does exist. I will probably use much of the 5000 words I am allowed in this post.

Ham, naming God or finding out what version that I or anyone else believes in does not prove or disprove his existence. I would think that as a lawyer you would know that. I don't have to know my mailman's name in order to know he exists. I know he exists because everyday I go out to my mailbox and find that he has delivered my mail. That is simple cause and effect. I do not need to know his name or if he is married and has kids. I do not need to know if he is a really nice guy or beats his wife. I know mailman exists, because I can see that mail exists. I have already stated that I cannot prove by normal means that God exists. I cannot not prove that supernatural exists. Although I can show you a miracle!) I also cannot prove that wind exists. I cannot show you a picture of wind. I can show you the effects of wind. I know that when I see a bunch of leaves going down the road together that it is not some random act on the part of the leaves. Why? Cause and effect! When you are in court, you have to provide evidence that backs up your defense. So far I have seen no evidence that you have provided that proves God does not exist. I have brought forth 3 very key pieces of evidence, you have brought forth and defended "Theories". He states that I am using the God of the gaps approach in this debate. He states that I am saying that science proves there is a God but science is wrong. I guess we need to determine what science is then.

I have presented the first and second laws of thermodynamics as proof that there is a God. The first and second law of thermodynamics is hard science. It is laws just like the law of gravity. There is no dispute that these laws are scientific fact. So what science is it that I am saying is wrong?

Abiogenesis = Theory, not hard science, but a theory. Abiogenesis has never been proved to be true. It is a theory. Nobody has ever proved that life can come from non-life.

The Big Bang = Theory, not hard science, but theory. Nobody can prove that it ever happened. If you are putting it forward as evidence, prove it!

Evolution = Theory, not hard science, but theory. They never have been able to prove it, thus the missing link.

So, none of these things are hard provable science. Many scientist reject them all. So how is it that I am saying that I reject science in trying to prove God exists with science?

If you were in court and the opposing lawyer brought up a "witness" that did not see anything. But was just up there giving his opinion of what happened, what would you do? You would ask that the testimony be removed from the case. It is opinion not evidence! You want proof! The jury wants proof! The judge wants proof, not speculation! That is all these theories are. They are not proof, they are just speculation. If you are submitting them as evidence, prove it! You say I use God of the gaps to explain our existence. I say you use science of the gaps to do the same thing.

Abiogenesis is science of the gaps concerning life. We don't know how life came into being! Abiogenesis = Science of the gaps
The Big Bang is science of the gaps concerning the universe. We don't know how the universe came into being! The big bang = Science of the gaps
Evolution is science of the gaps concerning how man came into being in his current state. Evolution = Science of the gaps

The next thing I am going to focus on is evolution. Before I start, I need to run down what the atheists believe concerning the big bang which brought about the universe. The big bang and evolution rely on each other. One does not work without the other. So this is what the atheist would have us believe.

The atheist would have us believe that 15 billion years ago there was this big explosion called the big bang. After that during the 15 billion years that followed complexity and design started to build and develop on its own. And then life developed on its own and then that life started to evolve and gained in complexity and design over that time (all of which violates the first and second law of thermodynamics).

Evolutionists would have us believe that life evolved into the complexity that we have today from small beginnings. They say that an amoeba evolved into a tadpole and the tadpole evolved into a fish and the fish grew legs and started walking on land and then man came out of all that eventually. Not only is this illogical, but it is unscientific. Nothing gets more complex on its own. This is like saying that an unsolved Rubik's cube could be rolled down a mountain and it would solve itself. That is not going to happen. You could give a Rubik's cube to a blind person and they will never solve it by random movements of it or by chance. It takes someone smart enough to be able to figure out how to solve it. It takes logic and understanding to solve that puzzle. This is just a kids puzzle, that is far less complex than the human body. Imagine a Rubik's cube with 100 blocks per side. How difficult would that be to solve once it was all mixed up and random. The human body is even more complex.

Lets look at the complexity of design of the human body. Now I am not making this up. It is fact. He are some things that you may not know. The human body has 10 fingers, 10 toes, a nose, mouth, 2 eyes that each have 120 million photo receptors, 2 ears that each have 24,000 hair cells that convert sound vibrations into electrical impulses, a body with over 30 trillions cells, and 2 millions sweat glands that regulate your body temperature within a fraction of a degree. You have a brain with over 100 billion cells each one with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. You have a central nervous system, organs, blood flow, logic, a sense of self awareness and morality and more. I mentioned earlier that I could also show you a miracle. All I would have to do is take you down to a maternity ward and you could see many miracles. Now I don't mean that in an emotional way. We all know kids are a miracle. I mean that scientifically. The fact that a child will develop on its own with that complex of a body is a miracle. I would like to see a scientist do something like that. Everything develops and most children have a close resemblance to their parents. I have a question. Who programmed that to happen if not God? As much as scientist know about genetics and yet they still cannot make life from nothing. They never will either.

So you are going to tell me that all this came about by chance? That life developed complexity on its own? Again, that violates the second law of thermodynamics. I know, but you can't get away from it.

So, another thing to consider is this. Not only would the human being have to evolve, but everything inside the human would have to evolve. I have a question for you. How did the brain, lungs, heart, stomach, veins, blood, and everything else in the human body evolve in the first animal by small steps that would be required with things evolving and the animal live? Example, did the first animal have 10% of a developed heart and veins, then 20% and then eventually up to 100%? How did the heart get attached to the veins at the right spot at just the right time? How did the blood enter the system in the first place? Did you start out with 10% of a stomach and then that further developed? How did the acid get into the stomach that digests the food and how did the body get rid of the food without a developed internal system. How could such an animal survive? And, how could it procreate if it did not have a developed system? Of course the eyes would have had to be fully developed and the brain would have to be fully developed in order for this animal to be able to get food to eat to survive. Where did it get a fully developed brain and eyes? You see the problem now with evolution? In order for evolution to be true, everything inside the animal would have had to evolve over thousands of years in order for it to be really evolving. No, in order for the animal to survive, everything in its body would have had to be fully functional and developed in order for it to survive. How can that be in a system of evolution?

Scientist will admit that they don't know how a child develops. Yes, we can see that it does. We know what happens, and when it happens. We don't know how it happens. We don't know how the bones form, or how the heart forms and veins. I say, it is God. Where do the bones come from? They don't know. They cannot explain why or how it does it. It just does. You take a sperm and an egg and 9 months later you probably have a baby, and scientist cannot explain why. There is no scientific explanation for its occurrence. It just does what it does.

The next thing I would like to discuss concerning evolution is the fossil record. The fossil record itself proves that evolution is impossible. Evolution teaches that everything that exists today evolved from a common ancestor. They state that from there they branched out into different branches of evolution. If this did in fact take place that would mean that some animals evolved into other types of animals. So lets layout an example of this kind of evolution. Here is what the evolutionists would say. You have a lizard that has a baby lizard that is just a little different than a normal lizard. This lizard is born with some whiskers. That lizard has a baby that is even more different and it starts to develop fur. Over the next million or so years it then develops into a cat. So somewhere in the middle of all that you should have a part lizard, part cat in the fossil record right? But we don't find that. There is nothing in the fossil record that shows evolution, and yet the evolutionists ignore this. Instead we find in the fossil record fossils that backup creation. If evolution were true you would find some lizards and some cats, but mostly you would find fossils of the transition. That is not the case. In fact scientists have never been able to find any transitional fossils. So what does that say about evolution? Logic says that creation would have to be the only conclusion to the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record. I know some evolutionists that say they had found transitional fossils when in fact what they have found in nothing more than deformed animal fossils. We see deformed animals all the time. We see deformed humans. Deformed animal or human fossils does not prove evolution, it just proves that there are deformities in nature. We can look at animals today and find that there is a small percentage that are born deformed. We can look at the fossil record and see the same thing. That however does not prove evolution. Just because we find a 6 legged cow, does not mean that it evolved from a spider or vice versa.

The Coelacanth and the evolutionists. Evolutionists for many years said that the Coelacanth fish was one of the first fish that we were decended from. They believed that the Coelacanth went extinct about 70 millions years ago. This has been cited as proof of evolution. Unfortunatly in 1938 a fisherman caught a live coelacanth. Since then there have been several schools of coelacanth fish found around the world. It turns out that the coelacanth was not extinct after all. Yet, evolutionist belived that this fish was one of our long lost ancestors. They found fossils and came up with the idea that this was one of the first walking fish. There is another fish that they think is another of the first walking fish known as the [url="http://creationwiki.org/Tiktaalik"]Tiktaalik[/url]. Of course there is no proof that the Tiktaalik is a transitional animal.

OK, so why am I focusing in on evolution to prove that there is a God? It is simple. The burden of proof is on the atheist to prove there is not a God. By debunking Evolution, the Big Bang, and Abiogenesis, I am taking away tools that the atheist holds on to, to prove there is no God. Without these "Theories" the atheist has to prove how the universe came into being, how life came forth, and how life evolved into the complexity that it is today apart from a creator and in violation of scientific law. The bottom line is, what is the alternative to a creator? The answer for the atheist is "theories". If we were in court, these arguments would be rejected as speculation. Yet, I have shown how there is no way for us to have creation, without a creator. There has to be intelligent design behind such a complex universe. That is the only logical conclusion to the question, how do we exist.

Second Response

In the first response I asked four key questions to lay groundwork for this debate:



Not surprisingly, my opponent avoided these questions like the plague. Theists always do in these debates. For the very simple reason: They have no way of developing a method! Curiously, Woffie’s “use of Science and Mathematics” appears to be the claim “Science is wrong and therefore God must exist.” I remain unclear as to how this rises to the level of “irrefutable evidence.”

Woffie: I have already stated that I cannot prove by normal means that God exists. I cannot not prove that supernatural exists.

It is kind of my opponent to concede defeat so quickly; however I think the readers would actually like to learn something, so we shall continue. As the readers know, the burden of proof in a formal debate is on the person making the affirmative—Woffie here.

It seems Woffie believes the debate topic is “Does insufficient knowledge exist?” and by demonstrating it does, this leapfrogs in an unknown and unproven manner to “God must exist.” Again, as I laid out in the first response, this is classic “God-of-the-gaps” and should be dismissed as such. We are looking for actual, assertive proof, and the method behind it, in our quest to determine God’s existence. He has failed to even remotely demonstrate how “not knowing” means a God must exist.

Woffie claims science commits “science-of-the-gaps” as justification for the use of this argument. Perhaps a comparison of methodologies will illuminate the difference.

Science is a lot like those puzzles where we start off with five houses, each a different color, the owners have different nationalities, occupations, pets and favorite drinks. We are then given a series of clues:

“1. The Englishwoman lives in the red house.”

There are a great many solutions fitting this single clue. We receive more clues:

“2. The Spaniard owns a dog.
“3. Coffee is drunk in the green house.

While we still have many solutions--less fit all three clues. As we keep getting more clues, the solutions conforming to all the clues are continually reduced.

Science performs the same function. It gathers clues through observation, experimentation, and sharing of information; then arriving at a conclusion fitting all the clues available. As new clues are discovered, new conclusions may be made. The new conclusions MUST satisfy not only the clues the former conclusion satisfied, but the new clues as well.

The same way in the puzzle, the resolution fitting Clue 4, must also fit clues 1 –3.

Understand the key difference here: Science incorporates an ability to modify previously held concepts and even completely abandon them upon learning new information. History is replete with such examples.

As sound, light and other medium were transmitted through “substances,” it was once thought space must have such a substance—aether—through which light was transmitted. For their knowledge of the time, aether was a good hypothesis. Subsequent discovery caused the idea to be abandoned.

Or plate tectonics. People noticed for a long time the similarity of South America’s east coast with Africa’s west coast. In 1912, Alfred Wegener proposed all of the continents were once one big land mass and split apart by centrifugal force. Evidence did not support his thesis, however. As new evidence was discovered, and compared and discussed, the theory of Plate tectonics was refined and modified. Like our puzzle, more clues were discovered, providing better answers.

This is what Science does. This is incorporated into its methodology. It expects to change upon new information.

This is why I asked repeatedly for my opponents’ proposed method in making the same determinations about a God. Is there a method to modify (even to the point of elimination) the theory of God? How do we make such modifications? What do we use as our starting point? Science (even “science-of-the-gaps”) provides such a means—does theism? If so, we have not seen it proposed so far.

For example, let’s use Woffie’s “mailman.” We can propose a methodology to determine the existence of “mailmen.” We can read history, such as the Pony Express, make observations; research the existence of the Postal Service. Observe addresses, mailboxes, other postal carriers, post offices, zip codes, carrier routes, special vehicles, etc. While Woffie may not be interested in the marital status or personality of his mailman—we can still propose a method to determine those things! By investigation, questioning, observing, performing personality tests, even marital records. (And if we cannot access Woffie’s mailman, we can survey the population, and other postal carriers to give a percentage possibility of his marital status and personality.)

Where is such a method proposed for a God? What does the theist propose I observe? Who do I interview? What evidence do I observe? What independent records may I go to determine information about a God?

Humorously, Woffie’s belief of the existence of “mailmen” admirably demonstrates the historical failure of “God-of-the-gaps.” If one presumed “mailman’s existence” because of my receipt of mail—they would be completely wrong. My postal carrier is a woman. *grin*

Woffie: I also cannot prove that wind exists.

My opponent’s inadequacies to prove wind do not rise to the level of science’s inability to do so. We can “see” wind by lightweight elements within. Such as leaves, dust, or boards in a hurricane. We can uniformly measure wind. A wind that is 25 kph in America is measured 25 kph in Europe and Asia and China and East Peoria, etc. We can predict wind, based upon frontal movements. We can stop wind (stand behind a wall.) We can hear, taste, smell and feel wind. Wind can be proven to every person on earth.

Where is such uniformity in theism? Is it the same God in Texas as Romania? The same God from 125 CE as compared to 1925 CE? We come up (easily) with a method to determine wind—can we do the same with the proposal God exists?

If God was so true—why does the theist run from making a method to prove its truth?

Woffie: If you were in court and the opposing lawyer brought up a "witness" that did not see anything. But was just up there giving his opinion of what happened, what would you do? You would ask that the testimony be removed from the case. It is opinion not evidence!

Balderdash. We do this. All. The. Time. It is called “Expert Testimony.” All they do is testify as to their opinion based upon experience, qualifications and observation of data within the particular case.

This only highlights the error committed by Woffie. To become an expert, one has to be qualified by course of study, work experience, peer review, continuing education, and papers written. More importantly, the expert must be qualified in the field they will testify. An astronomer may be extremely qualified—but has no business testifying as a biology expert.

What we have in science are numerous, numerous experts who “testify” to the reality of Big Bang and evolution. Imagine if you sat as a juror and 9 experts testified as to one position, and 1 layperson testified completely contrary. Which is more believable? What if 49 experts testified one way and 1 testified against? Which would you more likely believe?

95% of scientist in America believe in evolution. Understand this is ALL scientists, including computer technicians and electrical engineers. In the life sciences, it is 99%. And this is America—the country with the most creationist scientists. If we took into account all the scientists in the world, this would be a much smaller percentage. Because Big Bang is universally held, I could not even find a survey asking the question of what percentages of scientists do not believe in Big Bang. Same way no survey asks, “Do you believe in a flat earth?”

My opponent commits three errors regarding Big Bang and evolution:

1) If he is using “science” to present “irrefutable evidence” “beyond a shadow of doubt” that God exists—why does he reject what the vast, overwhelming predominance of science says? As previously asked—why is he using a method he claims is so seriously flawed?

2) If he holds such a minority position—what proof can he present against these theories? Why should we listen to one (1) creationist as compared to the 1,000’s and 1,000’s and 1,000’s of scientists who disagree? What qualifications does Woffie hold warranting persuasion?

3) Even if Big Bang and evolution is wrong—we are left with the same question. What method do we use to prove God exists? All this does is make a slightly larger gap to use for “God-of-the-Gaps.” My opponent has failed to show (other than assertion) “If evolution is wrong, then God exists.”

Woffie seems unaware many theists hold to the Big Bang and evolution. People such as Dr. Kenneth Miller and Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Michael Behe holds to common descent. In fact, over 40% of scientists are both theists and evolutionists.

This debate has taken a horrible wrong turn. There is no reason to argue Big Bang or Evolution, because even if they are not accurately depicted, this does not further us one iota toward any proof of “Does God Exist?” Some theists believe in a Big Bang and evolution. Some theists believe in a Big Bang, but not evolution. Prior to either theory, there were atheists. My opponent appears to believe debunking either (or both) theories somehow makes the leap to “God Exists.” Yet my opponent has failed to provide a method to make this argument! WHY would the fact Big Bang or evolution is incorrect necessarily mean there is a God? He must actually argue this, rather than repeatedly assert it with no basis.

Even so, some discussion on the topics is illuminating.

Big Bang Theory

Prior to 1917, scientists believed the universe consisted of a “steady state”—a uniform existence. Studies began to emerge questioning this concept.

1) Einstein’s Theory of Relativity

Einstein’s theory not only conformed to Newton’s theories, but answers questions Newton could not—specifically how gravity worked through space.

Here.

The necessary result of the observations was that the universe was expanding, and the farthest parts (from us) were moving greater than the speed of light (since space itself was moving with it.) Because this was against conventional wisdom of the time—the Steady State theory—Einstein created “the cosmological constant.” He fudged a number. After Hubble’s discovery, Einstein realized the error and called this his “greatest blunder.” Had he stuck with the observation and numbers, he would have been credited with discovery of the expanding universe.

2) Red Shifting

Light is “stretched” as it moves through space, and moves toward the red end of the spectrum. (Remember ROYGBIV?) Edwin Hubble, in 1929, discovered all galaxies (except a few local ones) were “red-shifting” or moving away from us.

This is commonly compared to the “Doppler Effect.” Think of the sound a police siren makes as it approaches you (louder and higher in pitch) and then how it changes after it passes you (softer and lower in pitch.) In the same way, the galaxies are moving away from us, going “lower in pitch” or moving toward the red end of the spectrum.

This is best explained by the claim the galaxies are “flying away from us.”

3) Microwave Background Radiation

In 1964 Penzias and Wilson built an antenna to use for satellite communication and astronomy. Their antenna was picking up background “noise” or radiation of 3.5 Kelvin. Inadvertently, they discovered the left-over radiation from the Big Bang filling the universe.

Here.

The uniformity of this radiation in every direction eliminates the possibility of it coming from a localized source. There is no “bright” point or “hot spot” of greater radiation.

There are other, minor proofs, but these are the three cited most often. My opponent apparently disagrees with the Big Bang theory, leaving us with three questions:

1) If he does not agree with Big Bang—what theory does he propose as to how the universe started? Remember, like our puzzle with the houses, the theory must account for Einstein’s Theory, Red-shifting and Microwave Background Radiation. How would he account for the huge body of evidence in support of Big Bang?

2) What method does Woffie use to determine what science is correct or not? At this point, by disregarding the Big Bang, he apparently disagrees with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Einstein’s Theory of Gravity, Quantum Mechanics, Hubble’s observations of Red Shifting, the observation of Background radiation, and every astronomer in the past 30 years! Does Woffie believe in a heliocentric solar system? Why accept that science, but not a Big Bang? Does Woffie type on a computer? Why? The only reason they exist is because of quantum mechanics—something Woffie apparently disagrees with!

Why accept round-earth by observation but reject Big Bang by observation?

3) Because this is a discussion about God’s existence, it would behoove us to correlate the findings to a God. Can Woffie explain how a God fits in the data we see? Why, if Big Bang is incorrect, did God provide so much data pointing toward a Big Bang? Is Woffie’s God deceptive? Is the data being misinterpreted? What other mechanism is Woffie proposing his God did to create the universe to make it look like a Big Bang, but not be a Big Bang?

We are now 40% through our debate and my opponent has yet to give a single characteristic of the proposed God. Not a single thing of what this God is. Nor a single item of what this God does. All that has been discussed is what science doesn’t know. How does that prove God?

Evolution

Again, science is attempting to resolve the clues provided, like our house puzzle. The theory of evolution functions precisely in this manner. After observing current biological forms, and past biological forms (fossils), it was determined ”Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.”

Subsequently, more clues were discovered (in the form of fossils) and clues not even conceptualized were found (Genomes) all continuing to support evolution.

Let’s look at two of the clues: the fossil record and genomes.

To understand the fossil record, we need an extremely brief history. Earth formed about 4.6 billion years ago. It was a molten orb with no oxygen, no atmosphere, no solid land. Replicating molecules formed at about 4 Billion years, and at 3.5 Billion years, cells which could perform photosynthesis developed. The cells generated an oxygen-rich atmosphere.

At 3 Billion years, the cells form two distinct groups: bacteria and archaea. At 1.6 Billion years ago, the archaea develop into eukaryotes – cells with a nucleus. The eukaryotes divided into single-flagellum and multi-flagellum cells. Plants derived from multi-flagellum whereas animals and humans (and fungus) came from single flagellum.

Sponges were the first animals to have cells devoted for different tasks. Then sea anemones appeared with muscle and nerve cells allowing them to bend and flex. Jellyfish were probably the first animals to move using muscles. An ancient flat sea worm had nerves along the length of its body with a concentration in its head. The first brain. It could “see” light.

We then reach the Cambrian period--540 Mya (Million years ago) to 490 Mya seeing a great influx of creatures. What is commonly referred to as the “Cambrian Explosion” because of all the life we see form. Arthropods appear, later giving rise to craps, scorpions and insects.

About 530 MYA Chordates appear—a worm-like fish. 480 Mya fish finally develop jaws and teeth. At 450 Mya we see the first bones form. Tetrapods (four legged-creatures) appear at 365 Million years. Spiders and insects had been on land for 30 million years. 340 Mya the first amphibians appear.

Reptiles formed tough skins that did not need constant immersion in water (like amphibians) and hatched water-proof eggs. From reptiles we see dinosaurs, birds and mammals.

The first mammalian creature was a 220 Mya – syapsida. 125 mya marsupials and eutheria (placenta) divide. 90 Mya elephants, 85 mya horses dogs appear. 65 mya – we lose the dinosaurs. Lesser apes appear 25 Mya, 15 mya orangutans, and 7 mya our ancestors split from chimps.

The humanoid fossil record records ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 mya), australophithecus afarensis (3 mya), paranthrops robustus (1.8 mya), paranthropos boisei (1.5 mya), Australopithecus africanus (2.5 mya), homo habilis (1.8 mya), homo erectus 350,000 mya and homo sapiens 150,000 mya. (Note, DNA has determined homo neanderthalensis is not our direct descendent.)

What does all this mean? We can review the fossils as they appear from billions and millions of years ago and see a progression. We see how primitive life forms first appear, and subsequently more complex life forms appear. We see the changes in the body types. We see how species appear, exist for a period of time, and then go extinct. In fact, of every species that has ever existed on Earth, 99% have gone extinct!

We can look at many different fossil records to see the progression, giving us a geological time chart.

Remember our puzzle? With Englishwomen in red houses and dog-owning Spaniards? This is what each of these fossils is—one more clue to solve the puzzle of how life developed on Earth. And each fossil is one more confirmation of evolution. We never find vertebrate (back-boned) creatures in pre-Cambrian rocks. We don’t find bird fossils prior to dinosaur fossils. And no—no human foot tracks with dinosaur footprints.

Amazingly, even after evolution was an established theory, it has been independently demonstrated in advances of micro-biology. Namely the genome.

The genome is the complete genetic material of an organism. It is made up of the chromosomes in the cell nucleolus, which consists of strands of DNA and RNA. (There is also mitochondrial DNA—a discussion for another time.) Think of it this way—the Genome is “the entire library” consisting of “shelves” of chromosomes, containing “books” of DNA. Each cell in your body has the your entire DNA code. This is how the police are able to match a criminal by skin cells, spit, or other genetic material left at the crime scene.

There are many parts of the genome confirming evolution, but we will only look at one—endogenous retroviruses. These are viruses that “insert” their RNA in the form of DNA of the host cell. Using our library analogy, they “insert” their own book on the shelf.

If this insertion occurs in a germ cell of the sperm or egg, the new DNA is throughout the descendent. (Remember the same DNA in each cell.) And each descendent thereafter. By tracing back these retro-viruses, we can determine ancestors. Up to 8% of the human genome consists of these retro-viruses, with as many as 30,000 insertions.

How would this work practically? Imagine we have a human population, all of which has Virus A. But a river separates them into “Left-Side” and “Right-Side” humans. After a few generations, Retro-Virus B inserts in Left-side. What we would expect is that Left-side would have Virus A and Virus B, and Right-side would have only Virus A. Now imagine Left-sides split again to “Up-Left-Side” and “Down-Left-Side.” Retro-virus C inserts into “Up-Left-side.” We would not expect Virus B or C to be in the Right-Side. We would not expect C to be in the Down-Left-Side.

By tracing back the path of retro-viruses, we can create a “tree” of ancestors. And what do we find? Lo and behold—a tree conforming to the fossil record!

Dr. Francis Collins, Ph.D, M.D. (a Christian, by-the-way) who led the successful effort creating the Human Genome Project said:



Woffie raises three points against evolution: a 10% heart, “transitional fossils” and the Coelacanth.

1) 10% heart.

This is a complete misstatement of evolution’s claims; displaying extensive lack of knowledge. If one is going to discuss evolution—please read what scientists say. Not creationists.

The simplest hearts of the invertebrates consist of little more than tubes that squeeze rhythmically. One could argue it was only “10%” of the capability of a mammalian heart—yet it is quite sufficient for the creature’s use. No scientist has every claimed there was only 10% of a mammalian heart in a worm. In fact, the heart is a good example of evolution.

The hearts of fish consist of a single-circuit, two-chambered heart. Blood flows from a singular atrium to a singular ventricle. In an amphibian, the heart consists of a double-circuit, three-chambered heart. Blood flows from two atria to a singular ventricle. In reptiles, we see two atria to a partially divided ventricle. This results in some deoxygenated blood mixing with oxygenated blood. By mammals, the ventricle is completely divided into two, with two atria.

It is not that fish have “10%” and amphibians have “20%” and so on—rather we see the development of the mammalian heart through the lens of history by looking at previous creatures and how their hearts developed.

2) “Transitional fossils”

I put “transitional fossils” in quotes, because really ALL fossils are “transitional.” All creatures are evolving into the next species. It may take millions of years, but it is happening. It is true; we do not have fossils of every living creature that ever lived. What we do have, however, is a constant progression of fossils, dating back billions of years.

However, what is the use of discussing Tiktaalik or frogamander when my opponent dismisses such fossils as “no proof it is a transitional fossil” with nothing more than bare assertion?

What is often not recognized is how predictive evolution has been regarding fossils. Scientists predicted birds descended from reptiles long before the fossils were discovered. Pick up a book on evolution from before 1970, and then read one now and you would be amazed at the numerous “transitional fossils” we have found in just the past 30 years. We will never find all the species—let’s face it—there will always be “gaps.” Which will always leave room for this “God-of-the-gaps” to rear its head. (Thanks, Governor Palin.)

3) Coelacanth

First of all, it should be noted the coelacanth living today are not the same fish as those living 70 million years ago. But even if they were—does this disprove evolution? Evolution would claim species came into existence at certain times, lived for a period of time and then became extinct. Some had descendants evolving into other species; some did not. If it turns out one of those species lived longer than we thought—say 70 million years longer—how does this demonstrate evolution as false?

It would appear Woffie does not even have the simplest grasp of evolution. The key to disproving evolution would be to find a descendant species appearing before its ancestor. Find a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian rock. Find a vertebrate fossil before invertebrate. Find a bird fossil prior to dinosaur fossils. Finding a species continuing after it has descendants conforms to evolution!

Oh, and if this species did live 70 million years without leaving a fossil—this could explain why we have difficulty finding fossils of every species that ever lived, eh?

After this long diatribe on evolution, I am left with the same three questions we had regarding the Big Bang.

1) What theory does Woffie propose to conform to the fossil record and the genome record? Using the evidence we have—what is Woffie claiming happened, with or without a God?

2) What method does Woffie propose to determine what science we accept and what science we reject? Why must we reject evolution but accept…well…I guess I can’t say what alternative is being offered, because none was given!

3) Most importantly—how does this evidence conform to a God? What was God doing by using evolution to develop life on this Planet? Does Woffie suggest God occasionally did a “drive-by” and gave evolution a jump start? Or was there absolutely no speciation whatsoever, and God would occasionally introduce a species and occasionally kill off a species for billions of years? Like changing channels on a television station?

Why do our genomes so closely match other primates? Only a fused chromosome separates us from a chimp—is that what God did? A little “touch-up” surgery to create humans?

What is most disappointing about this debate so far is how little…how not-at-all…my opponent has used the evidence existing to attempt to fashion a God. This is not “using science.” This is not “irrefutable evidence.” This is merely demonstrating one’s own lack of knowledge and attempting to infer such lack on all others, hoping to manufacture a God within the gap of ignorance that is left.

Finally, Woffie focuses on “complexity.” There is nothing within the second law of thermodynamics preventing order or complexity. Nothing. The Law is limited to “closed systems.” The Earth itself is far from closed. (We have that sun beaming in extraordinary amounts of energy.) Yes, the universe as a whole is moving toward entropy. Yet within that process, extremely ordered events can occur.

Take the atoms Hydrogen and Oxygen. According to Woffie’s premise the Second Law of thermodynamics would prevent these atoms from combining and forming anything more “complex” than simple atoms. Yet these atoms combine to form H2O. Add the ions Sodium, Chloride, Magnesium, Potassium, Sulfate and Calcium—Saltwater.

Saltwater is NOT prohibited by the Second Law.

In a solid state, water molecules form a weak hydrogen bond, and when crystallized around dust, become “snowflakes.”
Are we honestly claiming scientists are baffled every time it snows as to how these crystals could possibly form—this tremendous violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Of course not!

Order occurs, naturally, all the time. There is no “law” requiring everything to constantly degrade all the time. This “use of science” is a “mis-use of science” when Woffie keeps saying things science doesn’t say!

I am hopeful in the next segment we will (finally) reach the point where a methodology is developed as to how we determine things about God—including possible existence. I hope Woffie will address the four questions I have repeated in this response.

I will close with a quote by St. Augustine illustrating this discussion:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds as certain from reason and experience.

“Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people reveal vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh that ignorance to scorn.”

As posted on Faith and Fellowship Forum

Woffie’s third statement is overdue. The debate parameters allow a one week extension to November 17th. He asked for the extension, which is fine.

I will again respond to Ham's previous post first then provide more proof that God does exist.

Mr. Ham asked me 4 questions in his first submission in this debate. My answer to his request is this. I agreed on the format of the debate before we began. I agreed to your terms. Now after we start the debate you are trying to also control how and what I am supposed debate you on? That is not how it works. I am presenting my side of the discussion and responding to yours. I will not allow you to control the direction of this debate as it concerns my side of it. That is not to say, that I will not answer your questions eventually. I know the direction that I want to take in presenting my side, you are not going to control that. Also, taking my points out of context will not win the debate for you. I said that " I have already stated that I cannot prove by normal means that God exists. I cannot not prove that supernatural exists.". Notice the words by normal means? I don't have photographs of God and Son that I can produce. You knew what I meant, I knew what I meant, but you tried to twist my meaning to mean something other than what I said. So, can we agree on this. Since neither of us were there when the universe came into being, by normal means neither of us can prove either evolution or creation. The only thing that we can do is look at all of the evidence and come up with the most plausible, scientific, and logical thing to believe.

So lets recap. In my first post I stated the following:

1. Tell me how it is we have a material world (the universe) that was made out of nothing (which is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics)
2. How do we have a universe of complexity and design that came out of chaos (the big bang) (which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics)

So far, you have not answered either of these.

As for science and the scientific community. It is true that many of todays scientist are evolutionists. After 12 years of school and then years of college where the "Theory" of evolution is taught as fact (even though it is just a theory) it is not surprising to find a large majority of PHD scientists believe in the "Theory" of evolution. However there are many reputable creationist scientist.




Here is a small sampling of some scientists that do believe in creation.
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy

How about some names that are more recognizable.
Francis Bacon
Galileo Galilei
Blaise Pascal
Isaac Newton
Cotton Mather
Jean Deluc
William Herschel
John Dalton
James Joule
Louis Pasteur
And don't forget this guy: Sir Fred Hoyle, he is the guy that coined the phrase "The Big Bang"! Of course he was an evolutionist until he got smart!
Of course there are many more, however I don't want to use up all my words parading those who are scientists that disagree with the status quo.

Now back to the debate.




Again, if there were transition from one species to another, it would show in the fossil record. It does not! To say that there are transitional fossils is not only unscientific, it is dishonest. It is wishful thinking on the part of the evolutionist. The reader needs to also know that it does not take millions of years for things to fossilize. I does not even take thousands or hundreds of years.

Ham talked also about Genomes. He stated that Genomes were a part of evolution.

Mutations in the genomes of organisms are typically nearly neutral, with little effect on the fitness of the organism. However, the accumulation of deleterious (harmful) mutations does occur and the accumulation of these mutations leads to genetic degeneration.

Mutations lead to the loss of genetic information and consequently the loss of genetic potential. This results in what is termed “genetic load” for a population of organisms. Genetic load is the amount of mutation in a kind of organism that affects its fitness for a particular environment. As genetic load increases, the fitness decreases and the organism progresses toward extinction as it is unable to compete with other organisms for resources such as food and living space. Ham stated that 99% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. This is why genomes could not be the reason that life would evolve into higher life. Instead we find the opposite, and the fact that 99% of all species went extinct instead of evolved into a more complex form of life just proves that the "Theory" of evolution is not very scientific. The Genomes argument would be more "Science of the gaps". We are expected to blindly believe that these mutations would be positive mutations? Is that the way things in nature go? Remember, 99% of all species went extinct. They did not get better or improve, they got worse. ( Ah, that silly second law of thermodynamics! :gaah: We can't seem to get away from that!

Carl Sagan said: "evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations"


Dr. Barney Maddox

So, I have a question for Mr. Ham. Is evolution happening now? Are things evolving now into more complex beings? If so can you provide some proof?
I am not talking microevolution but rather macroevolution. Anyone can make a different breed of dog by taking two different breeds and having them breed. No I am talking macroevolution. Like a cog or dat which is part dog and part cat. Is that happening, and if not, why not?

One of the leading researchers on the origins of life said: "And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means". Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that: "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.". This is one of the leading researchers in the origins of life admitting that.

I response to something you wrote about the second law of thermodynamics. You stated



I think you are very confused about the laws of thermodynamics. Your argument is not valid, it is covered in the first law of thermodynamics. The first law states that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, they do however change form. This happens all the time in nature. They are not becoming more or less complex, but merely changing form. They are not being destroyed, just changed.

As far as your snowflake argument. The snowflake is not a substance becoming more complex. It is water changing and exhibiting random patterns. There is nothing functionally that changes. Instead of liquid, the water is crystallized. When it hits the ground it either melts or accumulates depending on the temperature on earth. When it rains there is also dust mixed in with the water. So, I really don't understand where you were going with that.

The next area I want to cover concerning evolution is the old earth - young earth debate. Again, just so people understand why I am talking about evolution in the discussion about whether or not there is a God is because we got here somehow. There are only two alternatives, evolution or creation. If it is creation, there HAS to be a creator. That creator would of course be eternal and He would be God. Also keep in mind that the scientific laws that govern the material world are also eternal. In other words they always existed just as God always existed. The laws of science did not come into being where the universe came into being, they existed before time. Anyway, lets get into the young earth debate. Atheist and evolutionists have to rely of the earth being billions of years old for their "Theory" to be taken seriously. That is not why the young earth position came into being. Young earth was not something that was invented to override evolution. Young earth is logical.


The problem with the geological column is fossils are very often found in layers that do not match the era that they are supposed to be in. This chart is used to date bones found by scientists. However their dating method is really not based on science but presumption. Most people think that scientists are actually doing some kind of process in dating bones, but that is not the case. How are the age of fossils determined? By the age of the rocks that they are found in. How do they determine the age of the rocks? By the age of the fossils found in them. Circular reasonings! They are making it up as they go! I do realize that there are some scientists that are using radio metric dating on rocks. That however is only done on certain types of rocks. Too bad that radio metric dating is not accurate. Some creation scientist took some rock from the lava flow for Mt. St. Helens and it was dated 1.2 millions years old. Some was also sent from a lava flow in Hawaii and that was dated 1.4 billion years old. That was from the lava flow in 1801.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the geological columns are not reality. You do not find the levels out in the real world. If you go to the grand canyon you will see this plainly. The levels are not in the right order if you look at the levels. You can see this in mountains too that have been dug into.

I have a question. How was the ages in the geological chart or geological columns determined? Who came up with the years? For instance the Jurrasic period is supposed to be 65-140 millions years ago. How did they come up with that?

I have much more to cover in the young earth debate. However it is time for bed for me. Next weeks post I will be using all my words and I am not waiting until the last couple days. Thats it for now.

Third Response

The debate has taken a turn toward Evolution vs Creationism. While an interesting topic; certainly worthy of debate—it is not what this debate is about! This debate is “Does God exist?” In my first response I indicated concern regarding the debate’s propensity degrading to arguing back and forth about what must be in a God, without ever defining a method to make any determinations about a God in the first place. Whether it exists. How the natural plane reflects the supernatural plane. How to make any accurate statement about a non-observable, non-verifiable being.

Alas, we have fallen in the same routine and seem to be arguing over whether an evolution-using God exists, without first finding a method as to how we determine what a God would/would not do using this natural universe. I will address a few points, and leave the reader to their own research on errors such as Dr. Austin’s age of lava flow from Mt. St. Helens.

Woffie: There are only two alternatives, evolution or creation.

This dichotomous error demonstrates a continual inaccuracy. The only thing evolution (or any scientific claim, for that matter) will do is eliminate possible Gods. If evolution is true, then it is quite correct a non-evolution-using God would be a less possible choice. But not all Gods; not evolution-using Gods. Roman Catholics would be stunned to learn they do not believe in a God because they accept evolution.

What if I proved there are no pink unicorns? What would this prove about a God? At best; only that there are no pink-unicorn-producing Gods. Proving evolution did or did not happen merely provides an insight into possible means used by possible Gods. Not existence. We are still left with the facts on the ground; fossils in certain dated rocks and genomes.

Worse, the theist rarely attempts to use the overwhelming facts to make determinations about God. Rather they use a few anomalies in an attempt to make the facts fit their pre-determined God. Geologist use radiometric dating to determine ages of rocks.



Then the theist says the rocks aren’t billions of years old—rather God made them to look billions of years old, when they are only 1000’s of years old. What type of God, which of God’s characteristics causes it to pull this stunt? Fossilized forests show millions of years of accumulation—What is in God making It create fake evidence? Tree rings give an unbroken record of over 10,000 years. More additional fake evidence?

The Cliffs of Dover, coral reefs—all demonstrating millions of years. God? Playing funny tricks?

Our ability to see things light years away. Did God create them 6,000 years ago to “look” 13.7 billion years old? Or did God create everything 5 minutes ago with implanted memories of 1,000’s of years?

THIS is why I asked for methodology right away. To ask how we determine, using what we can observe, what correlates to a God. If our universe appearing 13.7 billion years old means a God who made it 6,000 years ago, then what other items appear to be true in our universe but are not? What we see is when the physical world correlates to what a person wants to claim about their God—they embrace it. When it does not—they ignore it. This is an inconsistent method.

I become more confused as to the means of my opponent’s proof. He now states:

Woffie: I have already stated that I cannot prove by normal means that God exists. I cannot not prove that supernatural exists. (emphasis in original)

Yet initially he claimed:

Woffie: So it cannot be proven by normal means that God does exist, or can it?

Apparently the answer to ”…or can it?” was to be “No, it really can’t.” Fair enough—we will not use “normal means.” So…er…what does my adversary propose we use?

How can Woffie say, “I will use Science and Mathematics” and then claim he must demonstrate God’s existence without “normal means.” Is science abnormal? Is mathematics para-normal? Look what has been discussed. Energy. Matter. Houses. Sphinxes. Wristwatches and coffee cans. Proteins. Mailmen. Lawyers, tadpoles, fish, eyes and fingers. Fossils. Trilobites. Genomes. Wind.

These are all “normal means.” When errors are pointed out, the defensive cry is made, “But I can’t prove this by normal means.”

Then why does Woffie keep using normal means, if they cannot be used to prove God’s existence? This is EXACTLY the problem I pointed out in my first response, and remains just as unresolved by the third statement—ALL we can use is the physical universe we have. All we have to work with, to derive facts and claims from, is “normal means.” How do we make the leap from “normal means” of obtaining information to these non-normal means Woffie won’t tell us he is using?

And when I dare ask for the method to make such a determination, I am chided for trying to control the debate! If Woffie is using a different means, other than normal, it is natural for us to wonder what it might be. And how to apply it to the world we observe. Apparently we are not allowed.

Woffie: The only thing that we can do is look at all of the evidence and come up with the most plausible, scientific, and logical thing to believe.

I quite agree. How “plausible” is 1%? Against 99%? Yet that is the number of life scientists who do not hold to evolution. How can we be looking at all the evidence, 99% come to one conclusion, 1% come to another, and it is the 1% that is “most plausible.” Does that make any sense?

How is it that over and over independent scientific tests demonstrate a 4.5 Billion year-old earth, and one creationist sends a sample to the wrong lab, getting an unsurprising wrong result, and it becomes “more plausible” to rely on this one sample in the face of 100’s of 1000’s of others?

The list of scientists Woffie mentions originated at Answers in Genesis here. Humorously, Answers in Genesis (a young-earth creationist site) lists arguments to NOT make, as they are discredited arguments. Many of these have been used by Woffie!
And mutations do add information. I see no reason to provide lengthy responses, when other creationists have done my work for me! Even they say, “Don’t use these arguments—there are scientifically inaccurate.”

Worse, even within our “normal means” my opponent makes statements completely contrary to science. For example:

Woffie; Also keep in mind that the scientific laws that govern the material world are also eternal. In other words they always existed just as God always existed. The laws of science did not come into being where the universe came into being, they existed before time.

Absolutely false. A law:
No scientist would EVER claim laws were “eternal, timeless or existed prior to the Big Bang.” It is simply not meant by the term “law.” Woffie appears to be making up “science” as we go along.

I will try this from a different tack.

Formal debates consist of arguments—framing evidence with logical claims to form proofs. Sometimes responding to the other person’s arguments; sometimes demonstrating one’s own. Very often this takes the form of:

P1: If A then B.
P2: A
C1: B

(“P” stands for “premise;” “C” for “conclusion.”) This simple argument states that when “A” happens, “B” must occur. We use this in life all the time:

Parent: “If you are good; then you will get ice cream.”
Child: “I was good.”

Be assured, the child will build an irrefutable logical argument:

P1: If Child is good; then Child will get ice cream.
P2: Child is good.
C1: Therefore Child gets ice cream.

But don’t get caught up in presuming an argument following the precise logical form is a good argument! Simply because it is “logical” does not make it a valid claim. Consider the following:

P1: If bananas are yellow; then left-handed people cannot play golf.
P2: Bananas are yellow.
C1: Therefore, left-handed people cannot play golf.

While this argument follows the logical form perfectly--examination reveals two problems.

First, the original premise is mere assertion without any basis. What is the relation between banana color and ability to play golf? And specifically the dominant-hand of the golfer? A further demonstration is necessary to understand why P1 should be assumed by the reader.

Second, bananas are not always yellow. They can be green, yellow with brown spots, dark brown, or even (if talking about the fruit itself) off-white. Our second premise is not correct either.

In our present situation, Woffie’s argument is depicted:

P1: If science is wrong about Big Bang, natural abiogenesis and evolution, then God exists.
P2: Science is wrong about Big Bang, natural abiogenesis and evolution.
C1: Therefore God exists.

The argument suffers from the same problems as the yellow banana/left-handed golfer example.

First, Woffie has failed to demonstrate the correlation between sciences being correct and God’s existence. Look at it this way. What if science was wrong about Big Bang? What if, tomorrow, we discover new evidence utterly and totally destroying the idea with a much better explanation of how our observable universe commenced? Would this eliminate God’s existence because of a better explanation OR would it prove God’s existence because the Big Bang theory was wrong? Remember—the claim is that if Big Bang fails—God must exist. Yet here we have a failure of a theory, and a whole different theory. Neither invoking a God at all! My opponent has failed to connect the dots. He has failed to provide the essential steps taking us from Big Bang being wrong to God must exist. He is attempting to claim God is a better explanation without first demonstrating God is an explanation!

We see this constant use of “God” as an explanation without explaining anything all the time:



This is the reason I continue to ask these four questions:



How does Woffie propose we go about “connecting the dots” between God’s existence and the Big Bang Theory? What method can we use to being to declare, “HERE is where God is involved, and THERE is where he is not”?

Or natural abiogenesis. One reason I asked these questions is to see if we can determine when God exerts influence in our universe.

Did God set the universe in motion and let it spin on its own? Did God set it in motion, with occasional interferences? Does God interfere with each and every single event? Think of atoms—with electrons spinning around the nucleus. Could a God set in motion certain natural laws allowing the atoms to spin within those laws and no further intervention is needed? Sure. Or could a God, at will, interfere with the natural motion of atoms? I don’t see why not. Or could a God be intimately and completely involved in moving every single electron in every single atom every single Planck at every single moment? Again—quite possible.

This is the reason I asked for a method—how do we know which, if any, describes what a God is doing? Or could a God be doing something else entirely?

If we don’t have a method to determine how a God is involved in the natural universe—any claim He is involved becomes a tenuous speculation. As unfounded as claiming banana color has something to do with playing golf. Could a God have set in place natural laws resulting in natural abiogenesis? My opponent has failed to make a single demonstration as to why or why not any God would or would not do so.

As typical in these debates--The theist blindly makes claims about what a God would look like without ever demonstrating how we determine what a God would look like, do, or not do. What is Woffie claiming about a God that would prevent it from both existing and using the mechanism of evolution?

This is the reason I asked these extremely relevant questions in the first response. Prior to jumping in and making claims about what a God must or must not do. How a God cannot both exist and evolution occur. What method is used for us to make determinations about a God so we can safely debate about what this universe would or would not look like if there was a God?

The second problem with this argument (the “Bananas are Yellow”) is that Woffie has failed to demonstrate science is wrong in this regard. How is science wrong regarding Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution? I previously listed three pieces of primary evidence for Big Bang: 1) Theory of Relativity, 2) Red-shifting and 3) Microwave Radiation. What is Woffie’s alternative to the Big Bang answering these evidences?

Woffie previously demonstrated how abiogenesis (both natural AND supernatural) is not observable and not predictable. Supernatural abiogenesis is not testable, whereas natural abiogenesis has yet to be duplicated (albeit possibly in the future.) Without any of these methods—how does Woffie propose to prove supernatural abiogenesis?

As to evolution, I provided fossil evidence and genome evidence. If Woffie is claiming evolution is incorrect—what is the alternative theory he proposes that answers all of these evidences?

The only response is that these are “Theory. Not hard science, but Theory.” However, Woffie is using the term “theory” incorrectly. When science uses the term, it does not mean speculation or guesses—it means a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.

Like gravity. Just because it is a “theory, not hard science”—try jumping off a chair and see if you go up! While Newton was mostly correct about gravity (100% correct about gravity on earth; just not between planetary objects), this did not mean gravity was not in effect until Einstein came along. Atoms are “just a theory.” Yet the atom bomb has proven the terrible effectiveness of this “theory.” Quantum mechanics are “just a theory.” Yet the computer Woffie types upon is based upon this “theory.”

Science, when faced with a question, does not throw up its hands and say, “We don’t know—must be God did it.” It rolls up its sleeves, gets to work, and looks for an answer to the question. Woffie is claiming to use science; I am holding him to his word. Do what science does. Look at the evidence, including what I have already listed, and provide an explanation. Provide a hypothesis that answers ALL the evidence we have. If that explanation is “God”—show us the method (just like science would) as to how God did it.

If he can’t—he isn’t using science to prove God.

To finish off this part of the discussion, Woffie asked a series of questions.

1. Tell me how it is we have a material world (the universe) that was made out of nothing (which is a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics)

I don’t know what initiated the Big Bang; we don’t know (due to inability to observe) if it was “nothing.” It was not a violation of the first law, since the first law did not exist. [Think about that for a second. For a “law” to exist, there must be something to observe. If there was something to observe “prior” to the Big Bang, there couldn’t be “nothing.” If the law always existed, there was always something observable, and this goes far toward the claim the natural world always existed. This would do more to prove the non-existence of God!]

2. How do we have a universe of complexity and design that came out of chaos (the big bang) (which is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics)

The Big Bang was not “chaotic” except in Woffie’s mind. Complexity and order in limited areas does NOT violate the entropy of the entire universe. See “Answers in Genesis” above.

Is evolution happening now? Are things evolving now into more complex beings? If so can you provide some proof?

Yes. Depends how one defines “complex.” Yes.

How was the ages in the geological chart or geological columns determined? Who came up with the years?

The International Commission on Stratigraphy.




I will now start presenting my own arguments against God’s existence. (Due to space limitation, only one is given.)

Arguments against God

Imagine a stadium—a huge complex with 100,000 people in the stands. Each person represents a different theistic belief. Some may be quite similar (Catholic and a Baptist), others less similar (Mormon and Jew) and some quite dissimilar (Aztec and Islam). We have religions from all over the world, and from various times. Babylonian and Christian Science. Norse and Mesoamerican. Roman and Chinese.

A trial is held where each person “pitches” their particular theistic belief. They describe their time and place, the necessary characteristics of their God, and what method they use to determine that God. Then each of the theistic beliefs—the other 99,999—cross-examine them, questioning the viability of the claim.

Then Theist #2. Then Theist #3. There would be some interesting cross-examinations! The Egyptian would be dismissive of the Mormon’s claim of “reformed” Egyptian Hieroglyphics. The Roman would be stunned at the Muslims’ claim the Sun was a burning nuclear reactor—not a person. The Greek who believed Earthquakes happened at important events would be shocked under the questioning by the Christian about tectonic plates. The Native American would be puzzled at the Catholic’s claim of angels and demons and saints.

We would start to see a four-part trend develop.

1. Each theist thinks they are right; the other 99,999 are wrong.

They may concede other theistic beliefs are close--the Christian may agree with the Jewish idea of YHWH—but none are as spot on as this particular theist about God. What does that mean? That “thinking you are right” is not enough proof of a God. Even the theist will agree with me, those other people are wrong (perhaps only slightly wrong) about God, despite personal conviction.

So “depth of conviction” does not make God true. Some theists would have testified of martyrs in their belief; of life-long believers; of people astoundingly converted to their way of thinking. Yet each and every theist would agree with me the other 99,999 theists were incorrect about God! That the other 99,999 deeply convicted people were deeply convinced of the wrong thing.

2. They all disagree.

It amazes how they fight and squabble. “No, THAT God is wrong.” “No, THIS God is right.” Wars have been fought, people killed and societies ruined on the notion someone had the wrong God. “This book is absolutely, positively, 100% divine in some way. THAT book, however is absolutely not.” We can substitute the Tanakh, Epistle of Barnabas, the Qur’an or any number of other writings in either of those sentences.

Unicorns. I say the word, “unicorn” and regardless of your nationality, race, color or creed, you envision a horse with a singular horn. Yet say the word “God” and even the number of such creatures is in dispute! Within our stadium of 100,000—everyone agrees “it” exists. But no one can agree on what “it” is.

3. They can’t convince each other.

Amazingly, after our huge trial, each theist will walk out with the same God they walked in. More importantly, though, look at how they attempt to convince each other. When another theist presents evidence, the cross-examiners demand proof. They show scientific evidence against the theist’s claim. They demand proof on miraculous claims. They question the evidentiary weight of “changed lives.” They are unconvinced of hearsay passed through generations.

In fact, 99,999 people just did my job for me. Admirably. They argued against the existence of each theist’s God. They brought the same proofs, claims, demonstrations and observations I would. The Christian proved the lack of inspiration of the Book of Mormon the same way I would. The Jew proved the lack of inspiration of the New Testament the same way I would.

In 99,999 cases the theist demanded evidence, and presented cross-examination based upon evidence, and only one (1) time, did they no longer look at the same evidence in the same light. When it was their turn to testify. Amazingly, theists attempt to argue other theists out of their belief by facts, logic and reasoning; yet will not be argued out of their own by the same tools.



I highlight the word “understand” to make a point. If a theist used the scrutiny scalpel on their own belief that they use on other theistic beliefs, they would understand why 99,999 people did not accept their own version of God. For the same rationales the theist was not persuaded 99,999 times.

This quote is often (correctly) condemned for minimizing the difference between one God and zero Gods. It is not like eating a package of French fries, going from 100 to 5 to 1 to none. However, the import of the second sentence is often overlooked and what I am emphasizing here. If a person used the same understanding, the same quantum of proof, the same skepticism they utilized to dismiss other Gods on their own—they would at least begin to comprehend why others are not…quite…convinced about their particular God.

4. The God is only as good as the human.

Notice as we roll back the time of these theistic claims, the God of the theist only knows as much as…well…the theist. The Legend of Icarus recounts the tale of how flying “too high” causes wax to melt due to the proximity of the sun. We can chuckle at this knowing how far away the sun is, as well as the temperature actually being colder higher in the air—yet this is exactly how Gods works.

We now know the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Yet the God of the New Testament only knows…well…science as good as science was in the First Century. Thinking the earth was only 1,000’s of years old. We now understand how diseases transfer through human communities. Theists who did not understand this--their God didn’t either.

I am not talking about teaching cavepeople quantum mechanics. Rather about the simple things to forward their progress. No God explained irrigation before humans figured it out. No God provided writing. It took humans to figure out decimal places and a figure for “zero.” If a God knew of such a thing, it sure kept it to itself for 1,000’s of years.

No God explained flight. No God explained Boats. No God provided information about atmosphere, or topography or mapping or geology or cosmology. Over and over humans found it out. Some humans may have attributed it to a God; but they figured it out first. The God-credit came second.

Think of our advances in the past 100 years. No God provided this information—we discovered it on our own. More importantly, imagine the possible advances in knowledge and technology in the next 100 years. Growing up, I listened to music on vinyl records. In just my short life span, I watched 8-tracks come and go. Records go. Cassettes come and go. CD’s come and are disappearing the way of the 8-track. Now entire music libraries in items the size of matchbooks. Our kids will only remember the VCR vaguely. Our grandkids will laugh at the size of our televisions and computers.

Yet no God is appearing today and telling us what will happen in the next 100 years. Just like no God appeared 100 years ago. Or 100 years before that. Only humans stretching their own understanding.

Not only in knowledge and development—but morally as well. In a time where women were thought as lesser creatures then men—so too did the God. When slavery was accepted—the God accepted it as well.

Think of our stadium and the shock the theists from the times of BCE through the 1500’s of CE as to how slavery is considered repugnant by the 21st Century theists. Their God didn’t have a problem with slavery. Or how causally some theists would accept their God’s willingness to give women as spoils of war. In cultures where polygamy was acceptable—the God found it equally acceptable.

We do not have to reach that far back in time. In America, in the past 50-60 years we have seen theistic change on such things as divorce, music, movies, alcohol, and mixed bathing. We see cultural changes reflected in a shifted perspective of what “God” thinks. Churches are splitting over God’s new attitude on homosexuality.

If one reviews the history of Gods, one sees the big picture of how Gods develop in knowledge, technology and morals in exact concord with humanity. As I listen to this stadium of theists, I am reminded of the old phrase, “If a fish could make a God; it would look like a fish.”

Exactly. The human’s God looks exactly like the human.

As posted on Faith and Fellowship Forum

Woffie has apparently abandoned the debate. His fourth statement was due November 26th, and under the parameters, he asked for his second extension to December 3rd. He has not posted in either debate thread since then. He has not responded to private correspondence.

I will therefore post my concluding remarks.

Conclusion

Again, I want to thank both forums for hosting this debate, Woffie for his participation and especially the readers for taking time to plow through the posts. I make no apologies for the lengths of my (some say “sleep-inducing”) posts. We covered topics such as cosmology, evolution, geology, big bang, abiogenesis, history of science and theology. Realizing the billions of words written on such expansive subjects found me at a lost to limit my responses.

Frankly, the biggest disappointment in the debate was my opponent’s failure to muster even 2500 words on these topics. Think of evolution—we have college courses, degrees, articles, debates, shelves and shelves of books, stacks and stacks of periodicals, and websites coming out of our ears, all providing information on this topic. Yet Woffie, in attempting to prove it wrong, could not put together 2500 words toward the effort? And even when he did, he raised such poor scientific arguments, other creationists proclaim, “Don’t use those! This is bad science—you will look foolish!”

For a comparison, imagine if we were discussing a historical Jesus. And I took the extreme minority position that Jesus was completely a myth. A made-up story of the latter First Century—equivalent to Paul Bunyan or Batman. Obviously there has been a great deal of material written about Jesus. What would a Christian think if I could only put together 2500 words in support of my position, in light of the countless documents in the majority opposition? They may be inclined to think I did not have a firm grasp on the depth of the topic!

Unfortunately, it has been my experience when discussing these topics; the vast majority of those who oppose Big Bang or evolution have done very little actual study on the subject. They may know one or two minor points--read in some creationist article--but do not comprehend the length and breadth of how much research supports the position. How much they are up against.

If one is certain they hold truth, there is no reason to avoid the topic. Read some books written by scientists, not just creationists. Read some books by other religions as to their myths and legends regarding the origin of the Earth. Woffie initiated this debate with a quote from Romans 1:19-20, indicating God is evident within nature. I find it supremely ironic those who quote these verses are the most likely to NOT actually study the topic! How many are aware of red-shift, or background microwave radiation, or genome sequencing, or chromosome matching? How many understand the determination of age of universe by light-years and radiometric dating, and gradual fossilization?

I have read and heard numerous debates on the topic of God’s existence. Both formal and informal. Roughly, they can be broken down into two categories: 1) Evidential (using evidence to prove a God and 2) Pre-suppositional (presuming a God exists, and then showing the lack of logic to the contrary.) This debate has been along evidential lines.

Typically these debates progress as follows:

The theist goes first saying, “We know this amazing fact and this amazing fact and this amazing fact, but we don’t know that amazing fact.”

The theist then proposes to fit “God” into “that amazing fact” like philosophical Duct Tape. You know—“when all else fails, use Duct Tape?” In the same way, when we come to “We don’t know” the theist proposes “God.” Without definition, without evidence as to how a God would do it, without any demonstration that a God did it—only because humans don’t know yet, the easy answer seems to be this God character.

Invariably, within the theist’s statements of “We know this amazing fact and this amazing fact…” they either make an inaccurate statement or an unfounded illogical leap or fail to provide some tidbit of information.

The non-theist can’t help it; they pounce. “No, that is not the facts. No, that does not follow. No, there is more to it than that.”

The theist, defending their honor, reply, “Yes it is; here are more facts.”

The non-theist, continuing the debate: “No it isn’t—here are more facts.” And we end up going back and forth discussing interpretation of facts far more than anything about a God. You can read any number of such debates in the archives of Internet Infidels, if interested.

Years ago, I discovered the Achilles heel in most theistic discussions—the methodology. Instead of jumping in on the facts, first we determine what method we will use to make conclusive statements regarding reality. What method will we use to determine when a God would or would not act? See, in the past, theists have made claims about God, using the “amazing facts we don’t know” method that turned out to be wrong. The God of geocentricism was wrong. The God of a young universe—wrong. The God holding the planets in a flat orbit—wrong.

If this method (commonly referred to as “God-of-the-Gaps”) has been wrong before; we should not continue to use it. We should attempt a better method.

Perhaps an illustration as to why methodology is so important, and why it can quickly cut to the heart of the issue. As a Christian, I became engaged in a debate on inerrancy. It, too, progressed in the traditional manner:

Skeptic: This is a contradiction.
Inerrantist: No, this is a resolution.
Skeptic: No, it’s not.
Inerrantist: Yes it is.
Skeptic: No
Inerrantist: Yes
Skeptic: Nu-uh
Inerrantist: Uh-huh.

How many (gadzillion) times has that conversation been repeated? With more pomp-and-circumstance, to be sure, but in the smallest common denominator--it does not rise much above a playground stand-off. I realized the error was that each participant was using a different method of determining contradictions. They would forever talk past each other.

Rather than jump into claims of what is a contradiction or resolution; first establish a method that determines a contradiction. Once the skeptic and inerrantist have agreed on the method then (and ONLY then) the conversation can actually progress forward by applying the facts to the method. If the method is established (whether it applies to the Bible, the Yellow Pages, or Grocery list) then we can rationally plug in the facts (the Bible, the Yellow Pages or Grocery list) and determine, using our method, a contradiction does or does not exist. The advantage is immediately obvious; once a method is determined if a set of facts qualifies within the method, the participants would have to agree. A skeptic may have to agree certain claimed contradictions aren’t. An inerrantist may have to agree certain contradictions do qualify under the terms of the method.

The method provides a person with a reasonably objective way to find out they could be wrong.

This is not unusual. We use methods for determining facts in every other area of our life: law, science, computers, mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, history, even car mechanics and picking out a movie at the rental place. Yet one of the grandest questions of all—“Does God exist?”—we cannot come up with a consistent method?

This is why, instead of the usual back-and-forth of interpretation of facts, I questioned our methodology immediately. Find out how we determine things about God before making unfounded assertions. Unfortunately, I never received a response on my four questions.

Remember--I pointed out in the first response how these debates gravitate, from the theistic perspective, from “Does God exist?” to “Does my God exist?” Woffie does not “believe in theistic evolution.” Therefore (naturally) to Woffie, his God cannot use evolution. This debate demonstrated Woffie’s God’s existence literally rises and falls on evolution! To him, if evolution is true, his God no longer exists.

This is why the debate hinged, from his perspective on “Does an evolution-using, natural-abiogenesis-causing, big-bang-initiating God exist?” And if any of those items are proven true, he loses his God. Unsurprisingly, this results in his concentration on the various facts and observations surrounding these scientific questions. He assumes this particular God exists, and earnestly searches out any iota of hopeful evidence to support such a God.

There are two things that need to be pointed out:

First, this is a somewhat scientific approach to a question. At least initially. Scientists DO make a hypothesis and look for observations, experimentations and factual support for the hypothesis. However--and here is the huge difference--science provides a method (in presentation, peer review, prediction ability and experimentation results) in which the hypothesis is:

1) rejected for failing to answer the facts;
2) accepted at the time for answering all the facts, pending new facts;
3) no determination is made, due to the lack of information.

Where is the similar method in theism? I have been asking and asking throughout this debate for the equivalent to the scientific method within theism. What is the method we use to make a hypothesis about God, and then test it? Does the method, like science, allow for the complete rejection of the particular God-hypothesis within the use of the method?

Simply put, within this debate parameters—what method is Woffie proposing that we can see he would be willing, by following the method, to agree with an evolution-using God? How would Woffie ever reject a particular belief about his God by staying consistent with this method? Instead a God is pre-determined, and then any facts supporting such a God are enthusiastically embraced with bias, and any facts contrary to such a God are rejected (ironically often with a claim the contrary-holding person is biased!)

The reason no method is ever provided by any theist is here. A method, if consistently followed might mean they lose a cherished belief about their God. Perhaps it is after-life, or justice or love or even…existence. By never providing a method, they need not face this terrible reality.

Secondly, Woffie cannot be faulted for this. We see this in all theists. God-believers who understand evolution have an evolution-using God. A non-evolution-using-God would mean their specific God would no longer exist. It would, at least, be modified. For many years Earth-orbits-around-sun theists revolted against a heliocentric solar system because they saw it eliminating their God’s existence. Catholics still protest against the Protestant God because it would mean their particular God would no longer exist. And so on…

For this reason some theists retreat to the least possible proof for their God. Perhaps it is merely, “God is possible” or “God can only be found within.” Yet even these minimal statements come with the exact same lack of method coupled with bias for one’s particular God. WHY is God limited to “only within”? WHY is God not able to be demonstrated by the universe?

Now, it would have been tempting to retreat to a debate about Woffie’s God. To discuss all of the proofs of Big Bang, Evolution and Old Universe. Frankly, the facts are deep and monstrous in my favor in such a discussion. No alternative (other than the extremely weak “God-of-the-Gaps”) is ever presented. If we are looking for “most plausible, scientific and logical” as my opponent suggested, the overwhelming evidence is far and away “most plausible” to Big Bang, and Evolution. Young-earth creationism has been relegated to a pocket of American Evangelicals and a smattering of scientists fleecing them.

I hoped we could do better than that. I hoped Woffie could do better than that. I hoped to clean the slate and remove these pre-determined, pre-prejudicial Gods. To look at our observable universe and make a method to determine, if possible, supernatural existence. Since we clearly cannot, then it is time to abandon the useless notion of debating this creature’s existence and relegate the conversation back to a philosophical hypothetical from whence it came.

Thank you.

As Posted on Faith and Fellowship Forum