1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk: We are only arguing for the existence of God so far. I have at least five (perhaps more depending on the discussion.) classical arguments which I will present which tell us a few things about God. What God is like is a later question we will get to, all answering the question raised in the topic.
1. Is there a God?
2. Which God?
3. Can we know God?

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 October 2013 - 02:14 AM.

[sthira]

1. Is there a God?

Perhaps and perhaps not. We don't know. If we're honest, we know we don't know. We admit our ignorance in the same manner that we admit our ignorance that we don't know yet how to develop, eg, a CR mimetic to lengthen human life and decrease human suffering (off topic). If we accept god by faith, we may think we know but we have no direct evidence to support our faith as knowledge. We may have evidence to support why we have faith, but we have none (yet) to support that we know that god exists.

3. Can we know God?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm optimistic myself. But I don't yet accept any of the arguments as presented for God's existence. The burden is upon science to unravel the mysteries of the universe. What science discovers in the future may or may not buttress the current idea of god.

[N.T.M.]

1. Is there a God?

Perhaps and perhaps not. We don't know. If we're honest, we know we don't know. We admit our ignorance in the same manner that we admit our ignorance that we don't know yet how to develop, eg, a CR mimetic to lengthen human life and decrease human suffering (off topic). If we accept god by faith, we may think we know but we have no direct evidence to support our faith as knowledge. We may have evidence to support why we have faith, but we have none (yet) to support that we know that god exists.

3. Can we know God?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm optimistic myself. But I don't yet accept any of the arguments as presented for God's existence. The burden is upon science to unravel the mysteries of the universe. What science discovers in the future may or may not buttress the current idea of god.

Any honest person would have to preface their position with, "I can't no for sure." In this sense I'm an agnostic. My point is only about likelihood.

[johnross47]

Johnross47: Desire is based on all sorts of things,some of which might count as 'real' in the sense used by some logicians, but not in the sense implied by the rest of the sentence. This is another piece of conjuring.

Indeed desire is based on all kinds of real things. Scientists have acknowledged this and some proposed a God gene to explain belief in God. Evolution has to explain everything you know. What caused a God gene to evolve? I have heard many answers. Here I used it as an argument for God’s existence.

By the way, my arguments are not new and have been around for many years. On the classic arguments for God’s existence I highly recommend “THE REDISCOVERY OF WISDOM,” by Boston University professor David Conway. Greatly influenced by Conway is the great ex atheist Antony Flew whose book “There is a God,” I also recommend. I have spent many years in study, reading other peoples ideas. If you don’t like something because it is not original to me, I suggest you look elsewhere. You are not so original yourself in offering this logical fallacy. But, then this is off topic. Back to the subject.

I notice you are still posting mainly cut and paste. Mainly from your old pet source W.C. Craig. (If anyone here is unfamiliar with Shadowhawk's methods just try googling the first couple of lines of any of his long screeds. They are all unattributed cut and paste.)
I a not impressed by your reference to a God gene. That is tabloid press overinterpretation of shoddy research, the same as the silly idea that there is a special centre in the brain that works for religion.

[shadowhawk]

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Premise 3

Premise 3 is undeniable for any sincere seeker after truth. Obviously the universe exists! You can Google it!

[johnross47]

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Premise 3

Premise 3 is undeniable for any sincere seeker after truth. Obviously the universe exists! You can Google it!

I struggle to cope with the idea that anyone could take such peurile nonsense seriously. Can you find anyone else on the planet who can't see the hilarious silliness is proposition 2? The cause of the universe is an unsolved question. I could say it was caused by the fairies at the bottom of my garden with as much justification and grip on reality.

[shadowhawk]

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Premise 3

Premise 3 is undeniable for any sincere seeker after truth. Obviously the universe exists! You can Google it!

I struggle to cope with the idea that anyone could take such peurile nonsense seriously. Can you find anyone else on the planet who can't see the hilarious silliness is proposition 2? The cause of the universe is an unsolved question. I could say it was caused by the fairies at the bottom of my garden with as much justification and grip on reality.

Answer here: http://www.longecity...es/#entry619839

HERE is also the discussion of Premise 2 which you seem to have missed entirely.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619676

[sthira]

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Then what is the explanation of God? You've still not addressed the problem of an infinite regress. Furthermore, if god is outside of "everything that exists" then God is not part of anything. Are you saying that God is nothing?

[johnross47]

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Premise 3

Premise 3 is undeniable for any sincere seeker after truth. Obviously the universe exists! You can Google it!

I struggle to cope with the idea that anyone could take such peurile nonsense seriously. Can you find anyone else on the planet who can't see the hilarious silliness is proposition 2? The cause of the universe is an unsolved question. I could say it was caused by the fairies at the bottom of my garden with as much justification and grip on reality.

Answer here: http://www.longecity...es/#entry619839

HERE is also the discussion of Premise 2 which you seem to have missed entirely.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619676

I've looked at the linked argument but it's not a qualitative improvement. It suffers from the same major flaw as Craig's undeserved debating victories....at the conclusion it depends on a leap of faith, not on a final logical step. It cannot do to say just that it seem better or more sensible, or even more logical (when it isn't) if, in fact it does not follow logically from the formal argument. At no point is the claim that god is the cause ever emerge as a logical consequence of coherent valid premises. It doesn't matter how clever the structure is; if the premises are junk, so is the conclusion.

Also....please.....answer in your own words for once.

[Sciencyst]

Clearly peanut butter proves Christianity without a doubt. If evolutionary atheists were correct, than you would find humans growing in peanut butter jars every so often.

LOL. If anyone knows the video I'm referencing, I applaud you.

[N.T.M.]

Clearly peanut butter proves Christianity without a doubt. If evolutionary atheists were correct, than you would find humans growing in peanut butter jars every so often.

LOL. If anyone knows the video I'm referencing, I applaud you.

I actually am familiar with the video, but you don't subscribe to that nonsense do you? And an evolutionary atheist? That's like saying an atheistic scientist, a candy lollipop, or an imaginary tooth fairy.

[johnross47]

Thank you for a couple of amusingly wasted minutes. I just watched the video......almost as funny as the moron proposing that the convenient features of bananas prove intelligent design. I remember somebody suggested giving him a pineapple next.

[shadowhawk]

Sthira:
Then what is the explanation of God? You've still not addressed the problem of an infinite regress. Furthermore, if god is outside of "everything that exists" then God is not part of anything. Are you saying that God is nothing?

Anything that has the characteristic of a cause and effect regress cannot escape the problems of an infinite regress. A cause and effect regress cannot explain itself. God is of necessity not caused. Therefore, only God is capable of explaining the cosmos. PREMISES 1, 2, 3, 4.

God is not outside of everything, everything is within God. God is everywhere but the cosmos is not everywhere and is limited. God is omnipresent the opposite of nothing.. One is cause and effect, the other is cause. Without God you cannot explain things that are caused.

Johbross47
I've looked at the linked argument but it's not a qualitative improvement. It suffers from the same major flaw as Craig's undeserved debating victories....at the conclusion it depends on a leap of faith, not on a final logical step. It cannot do to say just that it seem better or more sensible, or even more logical (when it isn't) if, in fact it does not follow logically from the formal argument. At no point is the claim that god is the cause ever emerge as a logical consequence of coherent valid premises. It doesn't matter how clever the structure is; if the premises are junk, so is the conclusion

1. I have clearly stated that these arguments are far older than Craig and your ad hominem attacks against him. The reader can evaluate your statements against him as he debates some of the leading Atheists in the world. If interested, watch real debates. http://www.longecity...nd/#entry480983

2. All this ends up is your typical fallacious argument of name calling. If the PREMISES are “junk,” you have not shown them to be so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

[N.T.M.]

It still seems to me that Krauss' model circumvents the problem of infinite regression without postulating a deity.

[shadowhawk]

It still seems to me that Krauss' model circumvents the problem of infinite regression without postulating a deity.

He doesn't deal with it.

Here it is stated again. Read the arguments again found in the posts above starting at
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063
S
Skip the attempts to disrupt the argument.

The Cosmological Argument from Contingency

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

4, 5. Conclusion

From the first three premises it follows that God exists. Now if God exists, the explanation of God’s existence lies in the necessity of his own nature, since, as even the atheist recognizes, it’s impossible for God to have a cause. So if this argument is successful, it proves the existence of a necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe.

[N.T.M.]

It still seems to me that Krauss' model circumvents the problem of infinite regression without postulating a deity.

He doesn't deal with it.

Here it is stated again. Read the arguments again found in the posts above starting at
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063
S
Skip the attempts to disrupt the argument.

The Cosmological Argument from Contingency

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

4, 5. Conclusion

From the first three premises it follows that God exists. Now if God exists, the explanation of God’s existence lies in the necessity of his own nature, since, as even the atheist recognizes, it’s impossible for God to have a cause. So if this argument is successful, it proves the existence of a necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe.

I'm quite familiar with the argument, but it seems like Krauss' model doesn't pose any conflict.

[sthira]

Anything that has the characteristic of a cause and effect regress cannot escape the problems of an infinite regress. A cause and effect regress cannot explain itself. God is of necessity not caused. Therefore, only God is capable of explaining the cosmos. PREMISES 1, 2, 3, 4.

God is of necessity, you write. But God seems more like an unnecessary add-on to a universe that already "explains itself" through its existence. God may or may not explain himself because God may or may not exist. We know the universe exists; we don't know if God exists. If God would tell us he exists then we'd be finished with the silly confusion and maybe, eg, stop fighting nasty religious wars over whose God is best. Do you think God, through his coy behavior, wants us in a state of confusion and violence?

God is not outside of everything, everything is within God. God is everywhere but the cosmos is not everywhere and is limited. God is omnipresent the opposite of nothing.. One is cause and effect, the other is cause. Without God you cannot explain things that are caused.

As to "everything is within God" I understand. You're a pantheist. Danger ahead for this view, however: more big problems which will require more suspension of logic and more extension of faith. One problem might be why is it that the Omnibenevolent God permits his own disease? God the omnipotent has cancer; he's able to stop his cancer and yet he does not. Is God masochistic?

[shadowhawk]

Anything that has the characteristic of a cause and effect regress cannot escape the problems of an infinite regress. A cause and effect regress cannot explain itself. God is of necessity not caused. Therefore, only God is capable of explaining the cosmos. PREMISES 1, 2, 3, 4.

God is of necessity, you write. But God seems more like an unnecessary add-on to a universe that already "explains itself" through its existence. God may or may not explain himself because God may or may not exist. We know the universe exists; we don't know if God exists. If God would tell us he exists then we'd be finished with the silly confusion and maybe, eg, stop fighting nasty religious wars over whose God is best. Do you think God, through his coy behavior, wants us in a state of confusion and violence?

God is not outside of everything, everything is within God. God is everywhere but the cosmos is not everywhere and is limited. God is omnipresent the opposite of nothing.. One is cause and effect, the other is cause. Without God you cannot explain things that are caused.

As to "everything is within God" I understand. You're a pantheist. Danger ahead for this view, however: more big problems which will require more suspension of logic and more extension of faith. One problem might be why is it that the Omnibenevolent God permits his own disease? God the omnipotent has cancer; he's able to stop his cancer and yet he does not. Is God masochistic?

The cause and effect universe is governed by two basic facts of science, the cosmos is expanding at an ever increasing rate of speed and entropy. The first has produced the big bang theory and the second, the second law of thermodynamics. The cosmos is incapable of explaining itself because of its fundamental nature. It cannot explain, why is there something of the nature of the physical world, rather than nothing, if nothing caused it. Why can’t the physical world explain itself? Because by its nature of cause and effect and entropy, it had to have a beginning. Therefore, PREMISES 1, 2, 3, 4.. The rest of your comment is off topic.

The statement, “everything is within God” is not the same as saying God and everything are the same thing. Your “pantheist,” logic is nonsense from this error. You don’t know what a pantheist is. And you were so animated by your error. To bad.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: I'm quite familiar with the argument, but it seems like Krauss' model doesn't pose any conflict.

The problem is Krauss’ model starts out with a nothing which isn’t nothing. Nothing can’t do anything but I don’t want to chase rabbits.

[DukeNukem]

Shadowhawk, the fundamental mistake you're making is the unsubstantiated assumption that true nothingness exists, and therefore a universe cannot arise from true nothingness. You have a child's viewpoint, one that 2500 years ago would have had you absolutely convinced that lightning cannot come from the emptiness of the sky, therefore lightning is best explained by gods above the clouds. A few people back then completely discounted the idea that lightning was caused by gods, but they didn't know the real cause.

We are at that stage now, knowing that gods didn't create the universe (completely ridiculous idea, suitable only for child-like minds), but unsure of the real creation of the universe. Although, we have few rabbit hole guesses we're exploring, like Krauss'. We are also at that stage with the creation of life. We've got evolution down as a full-blown theory, but we're still not sure about the trigger that started it all. But, we can be sure it wasn't gods.

With the Big Bang, why would a god bother??? Why not create a steady-state universe, rather than one with all of this big bang nonsense? And why would a god bother with evolution, instead of snapping a finger to make all life (as described in the Bible)? You do believe in evolution, I hope? If not, well, then truly you are not worth further humoring.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk, the fundamental mistake you're making is the unsubstantiated assumption that true nothingness exists, and therefore a universe cannot arise from true nothingness. You have a child's viewpoint, one that 2500 years ago would have had you absolutely convinced that lightning cannot come from the emptiness of the sky, therefore lightning is best explained by gods above the clouds. A few people back then completely discounted the idea that lightning was caused by gods, but they didn't know the real cause. SH Notice this has nothing to do with anything evidenced so far.

We are at that stage now, knowing that gods didn't create the universe (completely ridiculous idea, suitable only for child-like minds), but unsure of the real creation of the universe. Although, we have few rabbit hole guesses we're exploring, like Krauss'. We are also at that stage with the creation of life. We've got evolution down as a full-blown theory, but we're still not sure about the trigger that started it all. But, we can be sure it wasn't gods. SH Must be the adult mind.

With the Big Bang, why would a god bother??? Why not create a steady-state universe, rather than one with all of this big bang nonsense? And why would a god bother with evolution, instead of snapping a finger to make all life (as described in the Bible) SH Where? You do believe in evolution, I hope? If not, well, then truly you are not worth further humoring.

If assuming "nothingness," exists (and it by definition doesn’t) you have a contradiction in terms. Nothing does not exist. I am not assuming it does. Nothing can do nothing. What can’t exist is the cause and effect cosmos science observes, without a cause. I’ll pass on the ad hominem attacks and the cartoonish putdowns. Typical.

Where is the scientific evidence for your, “steady state” universe? Even Krauss does not believe in that defunct model. Humor me, tell me how current scientific cosmology supports the steady state universe?

Another amazing thing is you claim to know better than God why God may have used the Big Bang and in the same breath acknowledge you are ignorant. “Nonsense,” even! Are you sure?

Why would God bother with evolution? I don’t know but do you? You hope I believe in evolution or I am not worth further “humoring.” What overpowering evidence!. What ever perspective you take, I am sure impressed with the evidence that is there. Humor me, explain this. My next evidence will be Evolution, argument for the existence of God. Enjoy.

Edited by shadowhawk, 01 November 2013 - 07:50 PM.

[N.T.M.]

Where is the scientific evidence for your, “steady state” universe? Even Krauss does not believe in that defunct model. Humor me, tell me how current scientific cosmology supports the steady state universe?

His point was precisely the opposite: There isn't a steady-state universe; however, if God created the universe, you would expect it to be steady-state. Why would God use something--the big bang--that would lead people to impute something other than a designer?

[shadowhawk]

Where is the scientific evidence for your, “steady state” universe? Even Krauss does not believe in that defunct model. Humor me, tell me how current scientific cosmology supports the steady state universe?

His point was precisely the opposite: There isn't a steady-state universe; however, if God created the universe, you would expect it to be steady-state. Why would God use something--the big bang--that would lead people to impute something other than a designer?

Why not? You, being better than god know better? He, would have used a steady state universe, would you? Out of an explosion order and life comes. Must not be a God.

Edited by shadowhawk, 02 November 2013 - 01:08 AM.

[N.T.M.]

Why not? You, being better than god know better? He, would have used a steady state universe, would you? Out of an explosion order and life comes. Must not be a God.

That's not what I said, and you missed my point.

Why would God use something--the big bang--that would lead people to impute something other than a designer?

Edited by N.T.M., 02 November 2013 - 03:13 AM.

[DukeNukem]

Shadowhawk, you've either misread some of what I've written, or I've poorly worded my sentences. (Although, NTM read it the way I intended.)

My point is that the way the universe is constructed is not the way we would expect if the Biblical God is real. For example, the Biblical God says the universe was created in 6 days (and then, bless His heart, He was all pooped out and needed a rest on the 7th day). And yet, the universe was clearly created in a very different way, and over 13 billion years ago, of which humans have only been around 100,000 years, and the idea of Yahweh (who later got tagged as the Christian God) has only been around less than 4-5000 years! So, for a God in such need of worship (according to the Bible), why do all of this drawn-out Big Bang business that took billions of years to finally produce humans that He could have worship Him?

Not to mention, ALL Biblical stories happen within a very small geographic area in the Middle East, leaving out the vast population of the world. Again, if God is real, you'd think He'd have alerted the entire world, and not let all of these 2000+ other religions exist. Bad strategy all around!

Seriously, nothing about the way our universe appears suggests intelligent deign or omnipotent gods. Quite the opposite.

Attached Files

•  Actual reach of the bible.JPG   123.26KB   14 downloads

Edited by DukeNukem, 02 November 2013 - 08:03 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk, you've either misread some of what I've written, or I've poorly worded my sentences. (Although, NTM read it the way I intended.)

My point is that the way the universe is constructed is not the way we would expect if the Biblical God is real. For example, the Biblical God says the universe was created in 6 days (and then, bless His heart, He was all pooped out and needed a rest on the 7th day). And yet, the universe was clearly created in a very different way, and over 13 billion years ago, of which humans have only been around 100,000 years, and the idea of Yahweh (who later got tagged as the Christian God) has only been around less than 4-5000 years! So, for a God in such need of worship (according to the Bible), why do all of this drawn-out Big Bang business that took billions of years to finally produce humans that He could have worship Him?

Not to mention, ALL Biblical stories happen within a very small geographic area in the Middle East, leaving out the vast population of the world. Again, if God is real, you'd think He'd have alerted the entire world, and not let all of these 2000+ other religions exist. Bad strategy all around!

Seriously, nothing about the way our universe appears suggests intelligent deign or omnipotent gods. Quite the opposite.

My point is your expectations may be either good ones or nonsense. It is a logical fallacy to make expectations the determiner of truth. May I suggest your expectations are rather childish. Would we expect you to know better than God, how to create a cosmos?

We have had this discussion before, regarding Genesis but right now we are dealing with evidences for God, using evolution which you brought up. So I am going to focus on evolution now rather than chase rabbits.

Your geographic comment are another logical fallacy. Ones genetic or geographical background has nothing to do with the truth of anything. So? America invented the first atomic bomb. Must have been our geography using your logic..

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 November 2013 - 09:57 PM.

[shadowhawk]

1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/66118-is-there-evidence-for-christianity/#entry616422

2. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry617242

3. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY

The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. We examined the Kalaam above. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency offered as a further proof for God:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619676
3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063

4. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 November 2013 - 10:52 PM.

[shadowhawk]

4. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

A. THIS TOO SHALL PASS.
This principal points to a undisputed scientific observation, everything is changing and as far as we can tell, it is true of everything in the physical world. Remember the Kalam argument:

KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

EVERYTHING THAT BEGINS TO EXIST, CHANGES. It evolves within parameters.
To change involves movement from one form to another and that movement is from the simple to the complex. Belief in the evolutionary process itself constitutes a belief in the "unseen" because it allegedly took place over a period of millions of years and therefore the evolutionary process itself has not been observed by any scientist in a laboratory. The reason it has been accepted by many as a viable belief is because it is an available explanation which fits the observable phenomenon of nature (the ages of fossils discovered in various geological layers of the earth, etc); in other words the evolutionary process itself has not - and cannot in the lifetime of any individual - be observed, but *signs* of the evolutionary process have led many to believe in evolution as a viable doctrine.

The real issue between evolution and Theism lies in the source of coding in the DNA.
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

God has been called the prime mover. Movement implies limitation. If you do not have limitation, you can’t change or move. You cannot learn or develop. Evolution needs a prime mover and it needs source of information. See videos. http://www.longecity..._60#entry621010

[DukeNukem]

Shadowhawk, what do you think of Scientology, or Mormonism?

[N.T.M.]

The real issue between evolution and Theism lies in the source of coding in the DNA.
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

As I recall, there was a study with bacteria that demonstrated the acquisition of new genetic information, and not through the uptake of preformed DNA. Premise two, therefore, is false.