Researchers are doing commendable work to try to eliminate disease and cancer. The BBC article below is an example of how Darwinism is assumed to be true in this context. There are innumerable living things on earth, and new ones are being discovered all the time. As the Bible says, “O LORD, what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you made them all. The earth is full of your creatures” (Psalm 104:24 NLT). Do living things gradually change from one species to another species over the course of millions of years, as Darwinism claims? Notice Merriam-Webster’s definition of Darwinism:
“Darwinism- 1: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors.”
Our Comments:
Darwinism asserts the gradual wholesale change from one species to another over long periods of time. But the Bible says that living things only reproduce “after their kind,” or “according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25 NASB; NIV). There is certainly “variety” within “kinds.” No one disputes this fact. But notice how variations within “kinds” are falsely attributed to Darwinism in the article below:
How Darwinism is changing medicine 6 September 2023By Sofia Quaglia, Features correspondent
Getty Images
The relatively new discipline of evolutionary medicine could offer new ways of treating diseases (Credit: Getty Images)
The relatively new discipline of evolutionary medicine is making strides in the fields of cancer treatment and antibacterial resistance.
At age 20, Randolph Nesse was puzzled about why we grow old. He couldn’t wrap his head around why natural selection had not eliminated ageing altogether. He spent months coming up with theories to explain it, but was unable to solve the riddle. Yet, this idling of his inquiring mind would lay the seeds for a whole new way of thinking about medicine.
Some years later, friends at a local natural history museum pointed Nesse towards the theory that ageing is simply a side effect of the evolutionary pressure that has selected certain genes over others. If a condition only manifests after an organism passes its reproductive peak, then there will be no selective pressure to prevent it from being passed on. As a physician, Nesse realised that while he understood how these forces could shape species, he had no clue how natural selection works inside the human body.
“I learned one half of biology. Nobody had ever talked about the relevance of evolutionary biology [in medicine],” says Nesse. “I immediately started wondering if there were similar explanations for genes that cause disease.”
Nesse is now credited as a founding father of evolutionary medicine, sometimes also known as Darwinian medicine – a relatively new and growing discipline that applies evolutionary theory to questions about human health and disease. While most modern medical research focuses on the physical and molecular causes of disease, evolutionary medicine tries to understand why we might have evolved to be susceptible to conditions in the first place, and how we can use evolution to fight them.
“What we’re dealing with here is a whole new basic science that has not been applied to medicine,” Nesse says. It’s a very large enterprise to completely upend what we think about what the human body is and how it works. Yet, a growing number of scientists are trying to apply evolutionary thinking to improve medicine. Their work is already starting to change our understanding of how cancers and autoimmune diseases develop. It is also revealing new strategies for tackling pernicious healthcare-related problems such as antimicrobial resistance.
“I’ve been amazed that there have been so many practical implications so quickly,” says Nesse.
Getty Images
Even the most powerful chemotherapy drugs are only effective for so long before cells develop resistance to them (Credit: Getty Images)
Cancers are themselves a demonstration of the evolutionary process in a microcosm. They are clusters of cells that are continually competing and cooperating with each other in ways that help the tumour grow and flourish. One recent study highlighted the almost “infinite” ability of cancer cells to evolve and survive. When a patient receives drug therapy, for example, it introduces a new selective pressure that weeds out the cells that are most vulnerable to the treatment. Those that are less vulnerable, or even immune from the effects of the treatment, survive to pass on their genetic traits to the cells that follow them. It is why even highly successful cancer therapies will eventually stop working in many patients – the cancer cells develop resistance to the treatment and then uncontrollably grow their populations.
“It is arguable that this is the proximate cause of death in most patients,” says Robert Gatenby, the co-director of the Center of Excellence for Evolutionary Therapy at Moffitt Cancer Center, in Florida, US. Through the lens of evolutionary thinking, Gatenby’s laboratory is developing two different strategies to tackle cancer: adaptive therapy, and extinction therapy.
Adaptive therapy aims to control cancer spread rather than try to eliminate it completely. The dogma for the last 50 years in cancer treatment has been that you apply the same drug, or combination of drugs, in cycles, until there is clear evidence of tumour progression (where the tumour begins growing uncontrollably) or excess toxicity, says Gatenby – which is usually well after the maximum response has been obtained. This is “futile”, he says, since the majority of the cells left are resistant to the drug and by continuing with the same therapy, the oncologist gives them the opportunity to proliferate so their population gets larger and more diverse. His theory of adaptive therapy, by contrast, aims to tweak the dosage of drugs for a tailored approach, just giving enough treatment to knock the tumour down, keeping it as small as possible, without eliminating the sensitive population completely. Then the therapy is withdrawn. This allows the cells sensitive to treatment to continue jostling for space within the tumour, preventing other drug-resistant cells from dominating due to an adaptive advantage.
“Since we can’t control the tumour cells that are resistant to therapy, we need to recruit the treatment-sensitive cells to do it for us,” says Gatenby, who has been developing the idea since first publishing on it in 1991. “You can just keep treating it in cycles and just keep knocking it down and letting it grow, knocking it down, letting it grow.” The hope, he says, is that doctors can keep patients alive for a long period of time, about half of which they don’t have to deal with the side-effects associated with the treatment.
His research group, which is arguably the most advanced in the field, have already shown this technique works in a small pilot trial involving patients with prostate cancer. Patients who underwent adaptive therapy received half the normal dose of a chemotherapy drug over the course of the trial, during which they spent 46% of the time receiving none at all. The time from starting the therapy to when the cancer stopped responding to treatment was 19 months longer in the group who received this adaptive therapy compared to those who underwent the standard course of chemotherapy. The patients who had adaptive therapy also had an overall survival that was 2.26 years greater than those on the standard treatment.
“As these patients only had about half the drug they would have received otherwise, the cost of their therapy was also $70,000 (£57,000) less per patient per year,” says Gatenby.
Our idea is maybe instead of an antibiotic being useful for 20 years, maybe it will become useful for 40 or 50 years – Anne Farewell
In extinction therapy, Gatenby wants to take it even a step further and use what we know from how animal species go extinct to design curative therapies that cause the extinction of cancer populations. The idea would be not to wait for the tumour to regrow after doctors apply the initial therapy, but rather, hitting the tumour with an altogether different therapy before it can recover – catching the tumour cells by surprise with a rapid cycle of a different drug at the peak of its response to that first-line treatment. So far though, only a mathematical model has been published to explore this idea, although Gatenby’s team has proposed clinical trials using extinction therapy against pancreatic cancer and breast cancer.
The elephant in the room, in fact, is still how research like this is going to go from clinical trials, if it is successful, to acceptance in the real world, according to Michael E Hochberg, distinguished research director at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique of the University of Montpellier, in France.
“The main part of the puzzle is turning this into medicine,” says Hochberg. “What is its realistic use, in terms of utility?”
Maybe evolutionary medicine really is the most likely scientific perspective on dealing with big questions like these, according to Hochberg, but doctors still have to treat patients every day by working with solutions they know, tried-and-tested best practices, and little room for hypotheses. “They have a duty to ‘first do no harm’,” he says, and right now, these findings are still too preliminary.
“I think that’s sort of the unspoken major critique of this,” says Hochberg. “Will this ever see the light of day?”
Getty Images
Tumours are actually communities of cells that compete and cooperate with each other (Credit: Getty Images)
Currently, doctors combat diseases caused by antimicrobial-resistant bacteria by switching to other medications in the hope they will get around the bacterial defences against other drugs. But this practice risks continuing the cycle of resistance rather than stopping it – in fact, bacteria are evolving to become more and more genetically resistant to medication.
Bacteria also develop resistance in a whole range of ways – from swapping genetic material to accumulating random mutations. As a result, evolutionary scientists are testing various different approaches to break down these pathways.
“If we want to solve this problem, we need to understand the evolution and then go after the weak points,” says Andrew Read, the director of the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences at Penn State University. Read’s team is developing “anti-antibiotic drugs” to help control the spread of antimicrobial resistance in places where the drugs can do more harm than good.
In hospitals, antimicrobial resistance usually happens because some of the strong antibiotics that patients get intravenously – about 5-10%, according to Read – make their way through to the patient’s digestive system. There, they meet an extensive community of microbes, causing harmful changes in the balance of that communityand leaving some that have acquired antibiotic resistance. This is what happens in the case of diseases like Clostridium difficile (C. diff), where a patient’s gut is ravaged by this bacteria after having been treated with antibiotics for something else. If patients could take anti-antibiotics that null the effect of the drugs once they reach the gut, it would reduce the likelihood of bacteria there developing resistance. The inactivation drugs themselves don’t do anything, clinically, but they stop the drug from acting in the gut.
“What I like about this approach is, it doesn’t matter at all about the resistance mechanism. It doesn’t matter if resistance is there,” says Read. “It doesn’t matter if and how it was acquired, it just stops the force that drives any resistance up in the population.”
Adaptive therapy approaches in cancer, for example, will require changing the way we think about these diseases – for instance, letting go of the war-like terminology, such as the “battle” and “fight” to “destroy” cancer
But this is a general solution that doesn’t inhibit resistance should bacteria and drugs meet.
One reason why bacterial resistance is so hard to tackle is that it doesn’t just happen through the typical, chance-driven evolutionary route – when a random mutation makes some bacteria stronger and able to resist medication. It also happens thanks to horizontal gene transfer, where loops of DNA called plasmids can be passed directly from one bacteria to another. This has been found to happen both within the same species of bacteria and between species. This process allows mutations that convey drug resistance to spread far more quickly.
Anne Farewell‘s research group at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, is trying to slow down one of the mechanisms that bacteria use to share DNA horizontally, known as “conjugation“. It’s a kind of bacterial sex, where cells come into direct contact, often via a tube that runs between them.
“I know we can’t beat them,” says Farewell, a senior lecturer in molecular biology. “But our idea is maybe instead of an antibiotic being useful for 20 years, maybe it will become useful for 40 or 50 years.”
“Understanding which molecules screw up conjugation could help develop effective ‘anti-conjugation drugs’, but research here is still preliminary, and there are still plenty of other ways DNA can be shared between bacteria that this approach won’t affect,” admits Farewell. Bacteria are incredibly savvy, she says. “I don’t think there’s going to be one solution. There will be many approaches.”
Getty Images
Interrupting the transfer of genes between bacteria through conjugation might help to combat the spread of antibiotic resistance (Credit: Getty Images)
While the fields of cancer research and bacterial resistance are the most advanced in the field of evolutionary medicine, there’s still a long way to go. Critics argue that despite understanding more about the theory of evolutionary medicine, it’s unclear to what extent this new knowledge can be used practically.
“The problem, in my personal opinion, is unbridled enthusiasm about this,” says Hochberg, who also recently penned a commentary piece on evolutionary medicinefor the journal Frontiers. “I’ve rarely seen talks that really focus on this on the problem of the logistics, the profits, and the so forth of the transfer from the bench to the clinic,” he says. “That’s a whole different can of worms.”
Plus, there’s intellectual friction too. While Darwinian academics might be over-enthusiastic, the receiving end of these new theories tends to be more skeptical. Evolutionary medicine alone cannot cure anybody – it’s a framework for thinking about problems in medicine.
“Medicine is practiced by people who do not have training typically in anything to do with evolutionary biology,” says Bernard Crespi, an evolutionary biologist at Simon Fraser University who also recently wrote about the limitations of evolutionary medicine. “The main challenge is bridging the gap between the academics, the training of physicians, and the mindset of the physician in the context of the whole medical establishment of big drug companies.”
Gatenby believes that adaptive therapy approaches in cancer, for example, will require changing the way we think about these diseases – for instance, letting go of much of the war-like terminology, such as the “battle” and “fight” to “destroy” cancer – and thinking about management instead. It will take a lot of convincing, says Gatenby.
How evolutionary medicine is going to find a way to collaborate with the pharmaceutical industry is also still a big question mark.
But Nesse – the man who kickstarted it all – says evolutionary medicine still has the power to provide new questions and new answers about disease. “You can tell I get a little passionate about this because it’s ridiculous. There’s this gulf between evolutionary biology and medicine, and it’s actually harming human health,” Nesse says. “It’s a slow process, but science always wins.”
Our Concluding Observations:
It is quite commendable that scientists are working hard to figure out and eliminate disease. No one should fault them for that! The article mentions how “evolutionary medicine” is seeking to find out how humans “evolved” to the point of being susceptible to disease. The Bible clearly points out that the problem is sin. “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12 NIV; also see Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-6; Ecclesiastes 7:29). Ignoring this important fact throws the search off track.
“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”—Romans 1:22 NIV
The article focuses mostly on bacteria and cancers, which do change through adaptation, but they do not become something entirely different, as Darwinism asserts. The cancers remain cancers and the bacteria remain bacteria. As the Bible long ago stated, all living things reproduce only “according to their kind”.
17 thoughts on “Darwinism Is Mistakenly Assumed To Occur”
BA: As the Bible says, “O LORD, what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you made them all. The earth is full of your creatures” (Psalm 104:24 NLT).
GW: This is false. God does not exist. We know this. It has been proven.
BA: Do living things gradually change from one species to another species over the course of millions of years, as Darwinism claims?
GW: Evolution is a fact. It has been proven. And it is no longer called “Darwinism.”
BA: Darwinism asserts the gradual wholesale change from one species to another over long periods of time.
GW: “Wholesale”? No. Some populations of one species X may gradually evolve over time and become a new species Y, but some populations of X may remain as X.
BA: But the Bible says that living things only reproduce “after their kind,” or “according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25 NASB; NIV).
GW: I think this assertion is correct. It’s the kinds which change over long periods of time. The immediately offspring of parents are still very much like their parents.
BA: There is certainly “variety” within “kinds.” No one disputes this fact.
GW: Yes, that’s correct. Some of these varieties will evolve into new species.
Something can’t come from nothing, friend. God’s existence is proven by the fact there is something rather than nothing (Genesis 1:1).
The very recent BBC article, which was used as a basis for the article you commented on, uses the term “Darwinism” as being quite current, and not outdated, as you assert. The BBC article mistakenly asserts that variations of bacteria are examples of Darwinism. They’re not new species, they’re still the same types of bacteria, just different varieties.
Darwinism depends on the origin of new species from existing species, which is called “speciation.” The problem for Darwinism is that speciation has never been observed, and fossils, embryos and molecules don’t demonstrate common ancestry.
Your Darwinistic assertion that, “some of these varieties will evolve into new species,” has no supporting evidence. As Richard Goldschmidt so aptly stated back in 1940, “Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographical races, are not incipient species.”
The “kinds” that God created and established (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25) are insurmountable barriers that cannot be crossed, even over many millions of years of time.
GW2: We’ve agreed on that point many times. So, God could not create something from nothing, if he did exist. Agree?
BA2: God’s existence is proven by the fact there is something rather than nothing (Genesis 1:1).
GW2: This is the error in thinking known as “non sequitur,” which means that your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise. There could be something without any God.
BA2: The very recent BBC article, which was used as a basis for the article you commented on, uses the term “Darwinism” as being quite current, and not outdated, as you assert.
GW2: The BBC article is using an outdated term. Most biologists today speak of “evolution,” not “Darwinism.” Why? Because, although Darwin may be viewed as the “discoverer” of evolution, the entire theory has been revised, improved, and strengthened since his time.
BA2: The BBC article mistakenly asserts that variations of bacteria are examples of Darwinism. They’re not new species, they’re still the same types of bacteria, just different varieties.
GW2: If you take a species of bacteria and you watch it over time and under changes in the environment, you will see changes in the species which are new varieties. This happens by the process of evolution. I think your mistake is thinking that evolution can only produce species to species changes. It does, but not only.
BA2: Darwinism depends on the origin of new species from existing species, which is called “speciation.”
GW2: No, this is another “non sequitur” error. Speciation does occur by evolution, but evolution also produces changes that are not new species.
BA2: The problem for Darwinism is that speciation has never been observed,…
GW2: It’s odd that you would make an argument like this since God has never been observed. Sometimes a thing or process can be rationally inferred to exist or occur from observations of abundant evidence. This is the case with speciation, but not with God.
BA2: and fossils, embryos and molecules don’t demonstrate common ancestry.
GW2: False. They do. Evolution is true. It has been proven. But the existence of God is false. This has been proven.
BA2: Your Darwinistic assertion that, “some of these varieties will evolve into new species,” has no supporting evidence.
GW2: False. In specific experiments varieties of bacteria have been observed to evolve into new varieties of bacteria. Also, varieties of dogs have been bred into new varieties of dogs by a process very similar to evolution.
BA2: As Richard Goldschmidt so aptly stated back in 1940, “Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographical races, are not incipient species.”
GW2: Goldschmidt was mistaken in 1940 and is now.
BA2: The “kinds” that God created and established (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25) are insurmountable barriers that cannot be crossed, even over many millions of years of time.
GW2: Genesis is a story which was fabricated as an explanation of the nature and origin of the world maybe 4000 years ago. The authors did the best they could with their limitations, but they were just wrong. Genesis does not mention things like evolution and the Big Bang. This is how we know it is mistaken and was not dictated or inspired by God.
GW2: Also, we know that God does not exist. Here is one of my improved arguments for your review:
Argument 4.
Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Absence of Universal Communication: By Gary Whittenberger, 3-18-2024, 6-19-2024, 7-11-2024, 7-20-2024
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, exclusive, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would possess all desirable traits to their highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship.
2. If God did exist, then he could and would regularly meet with ALL persons in the cosmos at the same time. These meetings would be objective, not merely subjective.
A. Nature of the Meetings
1) God would give advance notice of the locations, days, and times of his upcoming meetings.
2) God would “clone” himself to be in all convenient locations at the same time where persons or intelligent agents exist.
3) God would appear in the same general form as the persons to whom he would be communicating. (To human beings, he would look like a human being, a kind and gentle woman 34-41 years old, a motherly figure, in particular.) This would help persons to be comfortable in his presence.
4) God would speak, audibly and objectively, to everyone in their own language at the same time.
5) God would identify himself as God.
6) God would perform at least three miracles. Examples:
a. Create an entire human person from a handful of dirt.
b. Resurrect a human person who had been dead for at least a year from bones or ashes of that person.
c. Voluntarily withstand destruction from firearms, explosives, heat, cold, or radiation.
7) God would specify at least one morally justified reason why he allowed the Holocaust which would be understood and accepted by all present.
8) God would specify Correct Universal Ethics for Persons (CUE-P).
9) God would specify the consequences of enforcement of CUE-P.
10) God would show how he derived CUE-P from reason and compassion.
11) God would provide digital or printed copies of his lecture to all persons who wanted them.
12) God would have one of these meetings at least once every seven years in human time. (Age seven is considered the “age of reason” for human persons.)
B. Reasons for the Meetings
1) God would be motivated to present the four most important sets of facts [(A5), A8)-10)] to all persons so that this knowledge would benefit them.
2) God would be motivated to present moral rules for proper behavior to all persons so that they would have a clear understanding of how to behave and not behave.
3) God would be motivated to forewarn all persons of the rewards and punishments for compliance and noncompliance, respectively, with moral rules.
4) God would be motivated to establish a “level playing field” so that all persons would have the same basic knowledge of the universe and life with which to work. God would not show favoritism to some people over others in providing the basic knowledge.
5) God would be motivated to minimize punishment.
6) God would not take away free will (if it even exists) by clearly presenting himself and CUE-P, but would be providing good information to help all persons make better decisions in the exercise of their free will.
7) God would be motivated to preclude confusion, distortion, disagreement, and conflict about himself and CUE-P. He would want there to be just ONE authority and authoritative text – himself and his word.
8) God would not use messengers, assistants, offspring, prophets, angels, or any kind of intermediaries to do his communication for him. He’d do it himself.
a) A single consistent authenticated source is more credible to people than multiple inconsistent unauthenticated sources. God would know this and he would want high credibility for his communications with other persons.
b) Only deities who are weak, lazy, shy, or deceptive would use intermediaries, and God would be none of those things.
9) God would be the perfect teacher, judge, and enforcer.
10) God would know all facts about communication, including that it is better to communicate with an entire group rather than subgroups in terms of objectivity, comprehension, and efficiency.
11) God would be acting exactly according to his nature – maximally rational, knowing, powerful, loving, and moral.
3. This kind of meeting of God with all living persons at the same time has never occurred!
4. Therefore, God does not exist.
Nothing exists without a cause.God is something, and has an abundance of energy at his disposal to transfer into matter, E=MC2 (Isaiah 40:26-29). No one disputes Micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is the theory of speciation without any supporting facts. The current theory is still essentially Darwinism. The BBC article gives examples of Micro-evolution, and labels it Darwinism (Macro-evolution).
Yes, there is powerful, abundant evidence to infer God’s existence (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:20), but none for speciation or Darwinism.
You make the same error the BBC article makes. Your examples of varieties of bacteria and varieties of dogs are examples of Micro-evolution, not Macro-evolution, or Darwinism.
As Elihu sarcastically said to Job, “So teach us what to say to God. We are too ignorant make our own arguments”—Job 37:19 NLT
For years you have presumptuously declared that you know what God would or wouldn’t do (Proverbs 11:2). If you really knew so much, you wouldn’t have to keep revising and updating your arguments.
GW: Oh really? So if God did exist, he would have a cause? I don’t think you believe that. There are four good reasons to infer that the universe is eternal and did not have a cause. However, it appears that most things WITHIN the universe have a cause of their existence. Most things are combinations of smaller things. In a way, the smaller things and the forces of nature CAUSE the existence of the larger things. For example, the water molecule is a combination of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen.
BA: God is something, and has an abundance of energy at his disposal to transfer into matter, E=MC2 (Isaiah 40:26-29).
GW: If God did exist, he would be something. But your story is not clear. Do you believe that if God did exist, then he would have created this abundant energy out of nothing or out of pre-existing material? If so, what material?
BA: No one disputes Micro-evolution.
GW: False. There are small groups of religious people who do dispute it.
BA: Macro-evolution is the theory of speciation without any supporting facts.
GW: False. Macro-evolution is just plain old evolution over long time scales.
BA: The current fact is still essentially Darwinism.
GW: False. Most biologists today don’t even use the term “Darwinism.” See my reasons for why they don’t.
BA: The BBC article gives examples of Micro-evolution, and labels it Darwinism (Macro-evolution).
GW: The article is very poor. I have little trust in it. It is poor science education.
BA: Yes, there is powerful, abundant evidence to infer God’s existence (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:20), but none for speciation or Darwinism.
GW: False. There is no GOOD, UNEQUIVOCAL, OR CONCLUSIVE evidence for God’s existence. In fact, there are several proofs that he doesn’t exist. I gave you one last round. You have found no errors in any of my proofs, so far.
BA: You make the same error the BBC article makes. Your examples of varieties of bacteria and varieties of dogs are examples of Micro-evolution, not Macro-evolution, or Darwinism.
GW: I don’t talk anymore about Darwinism. I talk about evolution. My examples can be viewed as macro or micro evolution. It depends on the length of time we are considering for evolution to operate.
BA: As Elihu sarcastically said to Job, “So teach us what to say to God. We are too ignorant make our own arguments”—Job 37:19 NLT
GW: But God doesn’t exist! The authors of the Bible may not have known this, but for you in this 21st century there is no excuse. You have access to and you have read some of the proofs against God’s existence.
BA: For years you have presumptuously declared that you know what God would or wouldn’t do (Proverbs 11:2).
GW: False. I don’t make presumptions. I draw rational inferences. The reason you reach false conclusions is because you draw IRRATIONAL inferences.
BA: If you really knew so much, you wouldn’t have to keep revising and updating your arguments.
GW: I don’t know everything, but I know that God doesn’t exist. Sure, I change details, but not the key points. I improve my arguments, based on feedback from critics, like yourself. That’s a good thing. Nothing wrong with that. You should change your conclusions in response to new evidence, reasons, and arguments, but you don’t. You remain closed minded and dogmatic. Not good.
God is not part of the universe, he created it (Genesis 1:1). God is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2 ESV); no beginning and no ending. Everything else that exists has a beginning to its existence, and therefore had a cause.
Scientists have been forced by their own discoveries to admit the universe had a beginning. The universe could not exist without “the forces of nature.” “Do you know the laws of the universe?’ (Job 38:33 NLT). God does because he created them.
God has abundant energy, or power, at his disposal (Isaac 40:26), which he transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe.We do not all all the intricate details, but this is what happened at the “big bang”.
No one disputes Micro-evolution, i.e., varieties of dogs, cats, etc.
Your description of Macro-evolution and ours are the same, just using different words to describe the same thing.
Macro-evolution, or Darwinism, is dependent on speciation for supporting evidence of the theory. Since there is none, the theory collapses.
The “kinds” God established (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25) are barriers which cannot be crossed.
BA: God is not part of the universe, he created it (Genesis 1:1).
GW: But you said “Nothing exists without a cause.” So, you were implying that since God is something, then he had a cause. Ok, so you slipped up and made an error. Be more careful and precise. If God did exist, then he created the universe. I have always included that in the definition of God. But, God does not exist.
BA: God is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2 ESV); no beginning and no ending.
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he would be eternal. I have always included that in the standard definition of God. But God does not exist.
BA: Everything else that exists has a beginning to its existence, and therefore had a cause.
GW: But the universe is probably eternal and probably had no beginning to its existence, and therefore probably had no cause. It has the same status as God, except we know that the universe exists and that God doesn’t.
BA: Scientists have been forced by their own discoveries to admit the universe had a beginning.
GW: False. The consensus of the relevant scientists right now is that we don’t know if the universe had a beginning, but there are four good reasons to believe it is eternal. We’ve talked about this many times. Your claim here is unfounded.
BA: The universe could not exist without “the forces of nature.”
GW: It certainly could. It is logically possible that the universe would have no forces, but we know it has.
BA: “Do you know the laws of the universe?’ (Job 38:33 NLT).
GW: Yes, we know some of the laws of the universe, but not all of them.
BA: God does because he created them.
GW: False. God does not exist, and this has been proven. But if God did exist, he would be all-knowing and thus would know all the laws of the universe. I have always included that in the standard definition of God.
BA: God has abundant energy, or power, at his disposal (Isaac 40:26), which he transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe.
GW: Where did that energy come from? According to scientific consensus, there was no matter at the time of the Big Bang.
BA: We do not all all the intricate details, but this is what happened at the “big bang”.
GW: False. There was no matter at the time of the Big Bang. Matter did not come to be until about 300K years later.
BA: No one disputes Micro-evolution, i.e., varieties of dogs, cats, etc.
GW: False. There are some extreme religious groups which deny all evolution.
BA: Your description of Macro-evolution and ours are the same, just using different words to describe the same thing.
GW: I am using the correct words. You are not.
BA: Macro-evolution, or Darwinism, is dependent on speciation for supporting evidence of the theory.
GW: False. Evolution is dependent on reproduction, mutations, and natural selection. Evolution results in changes in groups of organisms. These changes may be in domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, and variety. Your view is too narrow. But one inference of the theory of evolution is that all the different kinds of organisms are the result of evolution from a single organism which lived about 3.5 billion years ago. Genesis makes no mention of evolution. This is how we know that Genesis is false and could not have been inspired by or dictated by God. If Genesis was a message from God, then it would have mentioned both evolution and the Big Bang. It didn’t.
BA: Since there is none, the theory collapses.
GW: False. The theory stands and is thriving.
BA: The “kinds” God established (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25) are barriers which cannot be crossed.
GW: Nonsense! Evolution has occurred from the first organism to all the millions of kinds of organisms now, and the only barriers are the limitations of physics and chemistry. And, of course, God does not exist. We know this. It has been proven. You didn’t even address the proof I presented to you, and you have found no errors in any of my proofs. You are afraid to challenge them directly because you might learn that God does not exist.
Yes, Darwinism asserts that all life began with a single-celled organism which assimilated from non-living matter. Scientific evidence has proven such an idea to be impossible, although Darwinists are in denial.
Darwin’s “tree of life” ideas of evolutionary development from the imagined single-celled organism at the base of it IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.The Cambrian explosion in the fossil record proves it. Many species have become extinct since then, so there are considerably fewer species alive today than at the time of the Cambrian explosion. If Darwinism was true, the opposite would be true..
“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22 NIV).
BA: Yes, Darwinism asserts that all life began with a single-celled organism which assimilated from non-living matter.
GW: False. Evolution asserts that all kinds of life developed from a single-celled organism. Evolution is about origin of species, not origin of life. The hypothesis of abiogenesis covers origin of life.
BA: Scientific evidence has proven such an idea to be impossible, although Darwinists are in denial.
GW: False. But if you think there is proof against either abiogenesis or evolution, then present it here.
BA: Darwin’s “tree of life” ideas of evolutionary development from the imagined single-celled organism at the base of it IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
GW: Really? Then demonstrate it.
BA: The Cambrian explosion in the fossil record proves it.
GW: False. The so-called Cambrian Explosion occurred over a period of about 50 million years. There were lots of “new branches on the evolutionary tree” during that time period. It’s just what happened.
BA: Many species have become extinct since then, so there are considerably fewer species alive today than at the time of the Cambrian explosion.
GW: I think that is probably true, but not unusual. As I understand it, about 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. Hmmm. If God did exist, would that have happened? Why would God have such a high failure rate? These ideas could be developed into a new argument against the existence of God. Maybe I’ll work on that.
BA: If Darwinism was true, the opposite would be true.
GW: False. Evolution is true, and the extinction of species is predictable from the theory. Mutations will be favorable, unfavorable, or neutral with respect to survival and reproduction. Extinction of species is expected because of the incidence of unfavorable mutations and changes in the environment.
BA: “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22 NIV).
GW: Yes, this describes people who continue to believe in God. In the face of sound arguments against the existence of God, like mine, some people continue to believe that God exists. But that percentage is in decline, and this is good.
GW: You still have not directly addressed the argument I presented last week. Why are you evading it?
GW: Ok, here is a new argument for you to evade or address:
Argument 81.
Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Prayer: by Gary Whittenberger, Revised 7-22-2024
1. Definition: God is 1) the HYPOTHETICAL, unique, exclusive, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would possess all desirable traits to their highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship.
2. If God did exist, then he would favorably intervene in response to worthy intercessory petitionary prayers.
3. The intercessory petitionary prayers by religious people for heart patients would be worthy.
4. If God would respond favorably to these kinds of prayers, then the rate of good outcomes for heart patients would be much higher for an experimental “prayed for” group than for a control “not prayed for” group in a well-designed scientific experiment.
5. However, in an experiment like this, i.e. the Benson study*, the rate of good outcomes for the experimental group was slightly lower than the rate for the control group.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.
*Benson, Herbert, Jeffery A Dusek, Jane B. Sherwood, Peter Lam, Charles F. Bethea, William Carpenter, Sidney Levitsky, Peter C. Hill, Donald W. Clem, Manoj K. Jain, David Drumel, Stephen L. Kopecky, Paul S. Mueller, Dean Marek, Sue Rollins, Patricia L. Hibbard. “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer.” American Heart Journal 151.4 (2006): 934-42. Print.
Biblical answer to your #81:
1. Some miraculous healings did occur during Bible times (Acts 19:11,12).
2. First century baptized Christians did not get miraculously healed (1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20).
3. “Completeness” has come (1 Corinthians 13:10 NIV), that is, the Bible was completed by the end of the 1st century (Jude 3), and genuine “miracles” were no longer necessary (Hebrews 2:3,4 NIV), nor did they occur.
4. Christians were foretold to be Jesus’ “witnesses . . . to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8 NIV), but not foretold to perform miracles.
5. Jesus foretold there would be some, at the end, who would claim they had, “in [Jesus’] name perform[ed] many miracles” (Matthew 7:22 NIV).
6. Based on the scriptures, it is not surprising that the prayed for group would not have any better outcomes than the non prayed for group.
BA: 1. Some miraculous healings did occur during Bible times (Acts 19:11,12).
GW: These are stories of alleged miraculous healings in the Bible, but they have not been confirmed by evidence. But, it really doesn’t matter since my argument addresses the opportunity for such a healing in the present.
BA: 2. First century baptized Christians did not get miraculously healed (1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20).
GW: This is what we would expect if God does not exist.
BA: 3. “Completeness” has come (1 Corinthians 13:10 NIV), that is, the Bible was completed by the end of the 1st century (Jude 3), and genuine “miracles” were no longer necessary (Hebrews 2:3,4 NIV), nor did they occur.
GW: You are not quoting complete verses here, so we are skeptical of your interpretations. In fact, your interpretations are very odd and not accepted nowadays. Most modern day Christians completely disagree with you and claim that miraculous healings by God occur today. Also, if God did exist and healed in Bible times there is no good reason to think he would stop.
BA: 4. Christians were foretold to be Jesus’ “witnesses . . . to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8 NIV), but not foretold to perform miracles.
GW: This is irrelevant. If God did exist, he would not confine miracles to any period of time. He would not say “Oh sorry, I quit doing miracles on January 1, 101 CE.” Wouldn’t happen.
BA: 5. Jesus foretold there would be some, at the end, who would claim they had, “in [Jesus’] name perform[ed] many miracles” (Matthew 7:22 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, he would not use any intermediaries or messengers, as Jesus is claimed to be. And God would perform miracles throughout human history. He wouldn’t stop.
BA: 6. Based on the scriptures, it is not surprising that the prayed for group would not have any better outcomes than the non prayed for group.
GW: False. Based on the scriptures we would expect the prayed for group today would do better than the non-prayed for group. There are many stories in the Bible when somebody prayed for a healing and it occurred. But, the scriptures don’t matter much since if God did exist, he would respond favorably to requests for healing anyway. That’s what an all-powerful, all-loving, and perfectly moral being would do.
GW: Here’s a fictional analogy for you to ponder. Once upon a time, there was a doctor who was also a medical researcher. He invented a pill which was a cure for all cancers. He lived with family and ten medical assistants on a mountain where the pills were made. He charged $500 per pill. When the word got out, he had to set up a website where people could apply to have a medical evaluation at the clinic on the mountain and purchase one of the pills. Would it be ethical for the doctor to turn away patients? No, of course not, except for maybe eight hours a day to allow time for sleep. If God did exist, would it be ethical for God to turn people away if they prayed for a cure? No, of course not. And God would not turn them away because he would be all-powerful, all-loving, and perfectly moral.
GW: As was the case with my other arguments, you have found no error in this one.
Truth is not dependent upon whether anyone believes it or not. For example, the earth revolves around the sun, and is round rather than flat, regardless of who believes it. Likewise, there is not a single Biblical instance of a baptized Christian being healed. This is true whether modern Christians believe it or not. Even if modern Christians believe miraculous healings occur in the present, that belief does not equate to truth.
Almighty God can start or stop doing something such as miraculous healing at his choosing. He is not bound to do or not do anything.
Someone praying for something, such as healing, does not to obligate Almighty God to do anything. “He does whatever he pleases” (Job 23:13 NIV).
BA: Truth is not dependent upon whether anyone believes it or not.
GW: I don’t think that is correct. What is truth? A truth is a thought about and a description of reality, accurately depicting reality. A thought must have at least one thinker and thus a description accurately depicting reality must have at least one believer.
BA: For example, the earth revolves around the sun, and is round rather than flat, regardless of who believes it.
GW: At least one person must believe it. There can be no accurate description without a describer who is the believer.
BA: Likewise, there is not a single Biblical instance of a baptized Christian being healed. This is true whether modern Christians believe it or not.
GW: That’s not saying much. I’m not sure we can say that there were any Christians in the stories of the Bible. I don’t think the concept of “Christian” had yet been invented.
BA: Even if modern Christians believe miraculous healings occur in the present, that belief does not equate to truth.
GW: I agree. There is no good evidence that any miracle has ever occurred in the history of humankind.
BA: Almighty God can start or stop doing something such as miraculous healing at his choosing.
GW: Yes, he COULD, if he did exist. But we are not discussing his ability, power, or competence here. We are discussing what he WOULD do or SHOULD do, if he did exist.
BA: He is not bound to do or not do anything.
GW: False. He WOULD BE (not “is”) bound by his own decision to comply with Correct Universal Ethics, if he did exist. CUE requires this: “If any person P1 prays to any other person P2 that P2 cure person P3 of a moderate to severe malady, then if P2 has the ability, power, or competence to perform the cure, he should cure P3.” And so, if God did exist and was asked to cure a human being of a significant malady, then God could, would, and should do it. He would BIND himself to do it. So, he is BOUND by himself. Get it now?
BA: Someone praying for something, such as healing, does not to obligate Almighty God to do anything.
GW: It certainly does under certain conditions. See the moral rule above.
BA: “He does whatever he pleases” (Job 23:13 NIV).
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he would do whatever he pleases and it would always please him to act morally in every situation. Get it?
GW: Ok, I accept those verses as evidence that Christians were referred to in the NT. So, let’s go back to your original claim.
BA: Likewise, there is not a single Biblical instance of a baptized Christian being healed. This is true whether modern Christians believe it or not.
GW: You mean a healing of a baptized Christian by an apparent miracle or even by a medical expert of the time is not mentioned in the Bible? Ok, that could be true. I do not know. However, it could also be true that during those times a baptized Christian prayed to be healed by God and was not healed. Although I have no evidence for that, I would suspect that it occurred. It occurs now quite often, as you and I both know.
GW: If God did exist, then he would cure people of serious maladies in response to intercessory prayer. This is refuted in scientific experiments. And so, God does not exist.
We’re in agreement that miraculous healings do not occur today. They did occur during the early years of Christianity in the 1st century, when non-Christians were healed. God had a purpose in such miracles, which was to publicly show that his favor shifted from Jews who kept the Old Law Covenant to Christians in the New Covenant. This is evident in the anger and reactions of leading Jews in response to miraculous healings of non-Christians through Christians (Acts 3:1-4:31; 5:12-40; 6:8-7:60).
Why did God have miracles, such as healings, to occur back then? To show his favor had shifted to Christians. “So how will we escape punishment if we reject the important message, the message that God saved us? First, the Lord told this saving message. Those who heard him confirmed that message. God VERIFIED WHAT THEY SAID THROUGH MIRACULOUS SIGNS. amazing things, other powerful acts, and with other gifts from the Holy Spirit as he wanted” (Hebrews 2:3-5 GWT). Once Christianity was “complete”, “once for all time” (1 Corinthians 13:10 GWT; Jude 1:3 GWT), the miracles stopped, because they were no longer needed to prove the point.
Why doesn’t he answer prayers for healing today? God doesn’t do any miraculous healings today, so such prayers are not “according to his will” (1 John 5:14 NIV).
Christians who were sick, such as Epaphraditus, Timothy and Trophimus, did not get healed, but recovered without miraculous healing (Philippians 2:25-27; 1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20). There is no evidence that anyone prayed for them to get healed.
BA: We’re in agreement that miraculous healings do not occur today.
GW: Let’s have a celebration! We agreed on something!
BA: They did occur during the early years of Christianity in the 1st century, when non-Christians were healed.
GW: I doubt it. You have no good evidence for that, just like nobody now has any good evidence for miraculous healings today.
BA: God had a purpose in such miracles, which was to publicly show that his favor shifted from Jews who kept the Old Law Covenant to Christians in the New Covenant.
GW: Ah, God does not exist, and this has been proven. If God did exist, he would perform miraculous healings, especially in response to prayer, throughout history. This has never happened or been proven to happen. Therefore, God does not exist.
BA: This is evident in the anger and reactions of leading Jews in response to miraculous healings of non-Christians through Christians (Acts 3:1-4:31; 5:12-40; 6:8-7:60).
GW: There is no proof of these alleged miraculous healings. Jewish anger is irrelevant.
BA: Why did God have miracles, such as healings, to occur back then?
GW: You have no proof of these alleged miracles. And besides, God does not exist. This has been proven.
BA: To show his favor had shifted to Christians.
GW: Nonsense! If God did exist, he wouldn’t be in the business of showing favoritism to a group of people who believed irrational bizarre ideas like resurrection, atonement, and forgiveness. If God did exist, he would perform miracles in the presence of ALL PERSONS SIMULTANEOUSLY to authenticate his identity, to show that he was God. Duh. It is obvious to me now that you worship a lesser deity than God.
BA: “So how will we escape punishment if we reject the important message, the message that God saved us? First, the Lord told this saving message. Those who heard him confirmed that message. God VERIFIED WHAT THEY SAID THROUGH MIRACULOUS SIGNS. amazing things, other powerful acts, and with other gifts from the Holy Spirit as he wanted” (Hebrews 2:3-5 GWT).
GW: These are just the irrational ramblings of an ancient goat herder. We now know that God does not exist. If God did exist, he would perform miracles for us during his regular meetings with all of us at the same time. Duh.
BA: Once Christianity was “complete”, “once for all time” (1 Corinthians 13:10 GWT; Jude 1:3 GWT), the miracles stopped, because they were no longer needed to prove the point.
GW: This is complete nonsense! If God did exist, the distinction of “complete vs. incomplete” would not apply to him or his message. In every regular meeting with us he would present at least FIVE key facts: 1) himself, 2) miracles, 3) Correct Universal Ethics, 4) the basis of CUE in reason and compassion, and 5) the consequences of compliance and noncompliance with CUE. Isn’t this obvious? Yes, it is.
BA: Why doesn’t he answer prayers for healing today?
GW: Because God does not exist. Duh.
BA: God doesn’t do any miraculous healings today, so such prayers are not “according to his will” (1 John 5:14 NIV).
GW: Here you and the author of 1 John are thinking irrationally. If God did exist, it would be his will to perform miraculous healings and he would preform them, today. Wouldn’t he do at least one during every regular meeting with all of us? Yes, of course. A single resurrection of a person dead for a year would be quite a miracle. See my argument step 2.A.6)b.
BA: Christians who were sick, such as Epaphraditus, Timothy and Trophimus, did not get healed, but recovered without miraculous healing (Philippians 2:25-27; 1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20).
GW: So what? Some people experience spontaneous remission, meaning they are healed by natural forces or their own bodies. Other people are healed by legitimate medical practice.
BA: There is no evidence that anyone prayed for them to get healed.
GW: You are totally missing the point. Of course, people are healed WITHOUT prayers to God. Happens everyday. But if God did exist, he would heal people in response to prayers. This has never happened or been proven to happen. Therefore, God does not exist. See my argument based on the Benson et al prayer study.
Getty ImagesGetty Images
Getty Images
Getty Images
17 thoughts on “Darwinism Is Mistakenly Assumed To Occur”
BA: As the Bible says, “O LORD, what a variety of things you have made! In wisdom you made them all. The earth is full of your creatures” (Psalm 104:24 NLT).
GW: This is false. God does not exist. We know this. It has been proven.
BA: Do living things gradually change from one species to another species over the course of millions of years, as Darwinism claims?
GW: Evolution is a fact. It has been proven. And it is no longer called “Darwinism.”
BA: Darwinism asserts the gradual wholesale change from one species to another over long periods of time.
GW: “Wholesale”? No. Some populations of one species X may gradually evolve over time and become a new species Y, but some populations of X may remain as X.
BA: But the Bible says that living things only reproduce “after their kind,” or “according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25 NASB; NIV).
GW: I think this assertion is correct. It’s the kinds which change over long periods of time. The immediately offspring of parents are still very much like their parents.
BA: There is certainly “variety” within “kinds.” No one disputes this fact.
GW: Yes, that’s correct. Some of these varieties will evolve into new species.
Something can’t come from nothing, friend. God’s existence is proven by the fact there is something rather than nothing (Genesis 1:1).
The very recent BBC article, which was used as a basis for the article you commented on, uses the term “Darwinism” as being quite current, and not outdated, as you assert. The BBC article mistakenly asserts that variations of bacteria are examples of Darwinism. They’re not new species, they’re still the same types of bacteria, just different varieties.
Darwinism depends on the origin of new species from existing species, which is called “speciation.” The problem for Darwinism is that speciation has never been observed, and fossils, embryos and molecules don’t demonstrate common ancestry.
Your Darwinistic assertion that, “some of these varieties will evolve into new species,” has no supporting evidence. As Richard Goldschmidt so aptly stated back in 1940, “Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographical races, are not incipient species.”
The “kinds” that God created and established (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25) are insurmountable barriers that cannot be crossed, even over many millions of years of time.
BA2: Something can’t come from nothing, friend.
GW2: We’ve agreed on that point many times. So, God could not create something from nothing, if he did exist. Agree?
BA2: God’s existence is proven by the fact there is something rather than nothing (Genesis 1:1).
GW2: This is the error in thinking known as “non sequitur,” which means that your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise. There could be something without any God.
BA2: The very recent BBC article, which was used as a basis for the article you commented on, uses the term “Darwinism” as being quite current, and not outdated, as you assert.
GW2: The BBC article is using an outdated term. Most biologists today speak of “evolution,” not “Darwinism.” Why? Because, although Darwin may be viewed as the “discoverer” of evolution, the entire theory has been revised, improved, and strengthened since his time.
BA2: The BBC article mistakenly asserts that variations of bacteria are examples of Darwinism. They’re not new species, they’re still the same types of bacteria, just different varieties.
GW2: If you take a species of bacteria and you watch it over time and under changes in the environment, you will see changes in the species which are new varieties. This happens by the process of evolution. I think your mistake is thinking that evolution can only produce species to species changes. It does, but not only.
BA2: Darwinism depends on the origin of new species from existing species, which is called “speciation.”
GW2: No, this is another “non sequitur” error. Speciation does occur by evolution, but evolution also produces changes that are not new species.
BA2: The problem for Darwinism is that speciation has never been observed,…
GW2: It’s odd that you would make an argument like this since God has never been observed. Sometimes a thing or process can be rationally inferred to exist or occur from observations of abundant evidence. This is the case with speciation, but not with God.
BA2: and fossils, embryos and molecules don’t demonstrate common ancestry.
GW2: False. They do. Evolution is true. It has been proven. But the existence of God is false. This has been proven.
BA2: Your Darwinistic assertion that, “some of these varieties will evolve into new species,” has no supporting evidence.
GW2: False. In specific experiments varieties of bacteria have been observed to evolve into new varieties of bacteria. Also, varieties of dogs have been bred into new varieties of dogs by a process very similar to evolution.
BA2: As Richard Goldschmidt so aptly stated back in 1940, “Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographical races, are not incipient species.”
GW2: Goldschmidt was mistaken in 1940 and is now.
BA2: The “kinds” that God created and established (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25) are insurmountable barriers that cannot be crossed, even over many millions of years of time.
GW2: Genesis is a story which was fabricated as an explanation of the nature and origin of the world maybe 4000 years ago. The authors did the best they could with their limitations, but they were just wrong. Genesis does not mention things like evolution and the Big Bang. This is how we know it is mistaken and was not dictated or inspired by God.
GW2: Also, we know that God does not exist. Here is one of my improved arguments for your review:
Argument 4.
Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Absence of Universal Communication: By Gary Whittenberger, 3-18-2024, 6-19-2024, 7-11-2024, 7-20-2024
1. Definition: God is 1) the hypothetical, unique, exclusive, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would possess all desirable traits to their highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship.
2. If God did exist, then he could and would regularly meet with ALL persons in the cosmos at the same time. These meetings would be objective, not merely subjective.
A. Nature of the Meetings
1) God would give advance notice of the locations, days, and times of his upcoming meetings.
2) God would “clone” himself to be in all convenient locations at the same time where persons or intelligent agents exist.
3) God would appear in the same general form as the persons to whom he would be communicating. (To human beings, he would look like a human being, a kind and gentle woman 34-41 years old, a motherly figure, in particular.) This would help persons to be comfortable in his presence.
4) God would speak, audibly and objectively, to everyone in their own language at the same time.
5) God would identify himself as God.
6) God would perform at least three miracles. Examples:
a. Create an entire human person from a handful of dirt.
b. Resurrect a human person who had been dead for at least a year from bones or ashes of that person.
c. Voluntarily withstand destruction from firearms, explosives, heat, cold, or radiation.
7) God would specify at least one morally justified reason why he allowed the Holocaust which would be understood and accepted by all present.
8) God would specify Correct Universal Ethics for Persons (CUE-P).
9) God would specify the consequences of enforcement of CUE-P.
10) God would show how he derived CUE-P from reason and compassion.
11) God would provide digital or printed copies of his lecture to all persons who wanted them.
12) God would have one of these meetings at least once every seven years in human time. (Age seven is considered the “age of reason” for human persons.)
B. Reasons for the Meetings
1) God would be motivated to present the four most important sets of facts [(A5), A8)-10)] to all persons so that this knowledge would benefit them.
2) God would be motivated to present moral rules for proper behavior to all persons so that they would have a clear understanding of how to behave and not behave.
3) God would be motivated to forewarn all persons of the rewards and punishments for compliance and noncompliance, respectively, with moral rules.
4) God would be motivated to establish a “level playing field” so that all persons would have the same basic knowledge of the universe and life with which to work. God would not show favoritism to some people over others in providing the basic knowledge.
5) God would be motivated to minimize punishment.
6) God would not take away free will (if it even exists) by clearly presenting himself and CUE-P, but would be providing good information to help all persons make better decisions in the exercise of their free will.
7) God would be motivated to preclude confusion, distortion, disagreement, and conflict about himself and CUE-P. He would want there to be just ONE authority and authoritative text – himself and his word.
8) God would not use messengers, assistants, offspring, prophets, angels, or any kind of intermediaries to do his communication for him. He’d do it himself.
a) A single consistent authenticated source is more credible to people than multiple inconsistent unauthenticated sources. God would know this and he would want high credibility for his communications with other persons.
b) Only deities who are weak, lazy, shy, or deceptive would use intermediaries, and God would be none of those things.
9) God would be the perfect teacher, judge, and enforcer.
10) God would know all facts about communication, including that it is better to communicate with an entire group rather than subgroups in terms of objectivity, comprehension, and efficiency.
11) God would be acting exactly according to his nature – maximally rational, knowing, powerful, loving, and moral.
3. This kind of meeting of God with all living persons at the same time has never occurred!
4. Therefore, God does not exist.
Nothing exists without a cause.God is something, and has an abundance of energy at his disposal to transfer into matter, E=MC2 (Isaiah 40:26-29). No one disputes Micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is the theory of speciation without any supporting facts. The current theory is still essentially Darwinism. The BBC article gives examples of Micro-evolution, and labels it Darwinism (Macro-evolution).
Yes, there is powerful, abundant evidence to infer God’s existence (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:20), but none for speciation or Darwinism.
You make the same error the BBC article makes. Your examples of varieties of bacteria and varieties of dogs are examples of Micro-evolution, not Macro-evolution, or Darwinism.
As Elihu sarcastically said to Job, “So teach us what to say to God. We are too ignorant make our own arguments”—Job 37:19 NLT
For years you have presumptuously declared that you know what God would or wouldn’t do (Proverbs 11:2). If you really knew so much, you wouldn’t have to keep revising and updating your arguments.
BA: Nothing exists without a cause.
GW: Oh really? So if God did exist, he would have a cause? I don’t think you believe that. There are four good reasons to infer that the universe is eternal and did not have a cause. However, it appears that most things WITHIN the universe have a cause of their existence. Most things are combinations of smaller things. In a way, the smaller things and the forces of nature CAUSE the existence of the larger things. For example, the water molecule is a combination of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen.
BA: God is something, and has an abundance of energy at his disposal to transfer into matter, E=MC2 (Isaiah 40:26-29).
GW: If God did exist, he would be something. But your story is not clear. Do you believe that if God did exist, then he would have created this abundant energy out of nothing or out of pre-existing material? If so, what material?
BA: No one disputes Micro-evolution.
GW: False. There are small groups of religious people who do dispute it.
BA: Macro-evolution is the theory of speciation without any supporting facts.
GW: False. Macro-evolution is just plain old evolution over long time scales.
BA: The current fact is still essentially Darwinism.
GW: False. Most biologists today don’t even use the term “Darwinism.” See my reasons for why they don’t.
BA: The BBC article gives examples of Micro-evolution, and labels it Darwinism (Macro-evolution).
GW: The article is very poor. I have little trust in it. It is poor science education.
BA: Yes, there is powerful, abundant evidence to infer God’s existence (Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:20), but none for speciation or Darwinism.
GW: False. There is no GOOD, UNEQUIVOCAL, OR CONCLUSIVE evidence for God’s existence. In fact, there are several proofs that he doesn’t exist. I gave you one last round. You have found no errors in any of my proofs, so far.
BA: You make the same error the BBC article makes. Your examples of varieties of bacteria and varieties of dogs are examples of Micro-evolution, not Macro-evolution, or Darwinism.
GW: I don’t talk anymore about Darwinism. I talk about evolution. My examples can be viewed as macro or micro evolution. It depends on the length of time we are considering for evolution to operate.
BA: As Elihu sarcastically said to Job, “So teach us what to say to God. We are too ignorant make our own arguments”—Job 37:19 NLT
GW: But God doesn’t exist! The authors of the Bible may not have known this, but for you in this 21st century there is no excuse. You have access to and you have read some of the proofs against God’s existence.
BA: For years you have presumptuously declared that you know what God would or wouldn’t do (Proverbs 11:2).
GW: False. I don’t make presumptions. I draw rational inferences. The reason you reach false conclusions is because you draw IRRATIONAL inferences.
BA: If you really knew so much, you wouldn’t have to keep revising and updating your arguments.
GW: I don’t know everything, but I know that God doesn’t exist. Sure, I change details, but not the key points. I improve my arguments, based on feedback from critics, like yourself. That’s a good thing. Nothing wrong with that. You should change your conclusions in response to new evidence, reasons, and arguments, but you don’t. You remain closed minded and dogmatic. Not good.
God is not part of the universe, he created it (Genesis 1:1). God is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2 ESV); no beginning and no ending. Everything else that exists has a beginning to its existence, and therefore had a cause.
Scientists have been forced by their own discoveries to admit the universe had a beginning. The universe could not exist without “the forces of nature.” “Do you know the laws of the universe?’ (Job 38:33 NLT). God does because he created them.
God has abundant energy, or power, at his disposal (Isaac 40:26), which he transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe.We do not all all the intricate details, but this is what happened at the “big bang”.
No one disputes Micro-evolution, i.e., varieties of dogs, cats, etc.
Your description of Macro-evolution and ours are the same, just using different words to describe the same thing.
Macro-evolution, or Darwinism, is dependent on speciation for supporting evidence of the theory. Since there is none, the theory collapses.
The “kinds” God established (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25) are barriers which cannot be crossed.
BA: God is not part of the universe, he created it (Genesis 1:1).
GW: But you said “Nothing exists without a cause.” So, you were implying that since God is something, then he had a cause. Ok, so you slipped up and made an error. Be more careful and precise. If God did exist, then he created the universe. I have always included that in the definition of God. But, God does not exist.
BA: God is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2 ESV); no beginning and no ending.
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he would be eternal. I have always included that in the standard definition of God. But God does not exist.
BA: Everything else that exists has a beginning to its existence, and therefore had a cause.
GW: But the universe is probably eternal and probably had no beginning to its existence, and therefore probably had no cause. It has the same status as God, except we know that the universe exists and that God doesn’t.
BA: Scientists have been forced by their own discoveries to admit the universe had a beginning.
GW: False. The consensus of the relevant scientists right now is that we don’t know if the universe had a beginning, but there are four good reasons to believe it is eternal. We’ve talked about this many times. Your claim here is unfounded.
BA: The universe could not exist without “the forces of nature.”
GW: It certainly could. It is logically possible that the universe would have no forces, but we know it has.
BA: “Do you know the laws of the universe?’ (Job 38:33 NLT).
GW: Yes, we know some of the laws of the universe, but not all of them.
BA: God does because he created them.
GW: False. God does not exist, and this has been proven. But if God did exist, he would be all-knowing and thus would know all the laws of the universe. I have always included that in the standard definition of God.
BA: God has abundant energy, or power, at his disposal (Isaac 40:26), which he transformed into matter at the beginning of the universe.
GW: Where did that energy come from? According to scientific consensus, there was no matter at the time of the Big Bang.
BA: We do not all all the intricate details, but this is what happened at the “big bang”.
GW: False. There was no matter at the time of the Big Bang. Matter did not come to be until about 300K years later.
BA: No one disputes Micro-evolution, i.e., varieties of dogs, cats, etc.
GW: False. There are some extreme religious groups which deny all evolution.
BA: Your description of Macro-evolution and ours are the same, just using different words to describe the same thing.
GW: I am using the correct words. You are not.
BA: Macro-evolution, or Darwinism, is dependent on speciation for supporting evidence of the theory.
GW: False. Evolution is dependent on reproduction, mutations, and natural selection. Evolution results in changes in groups of organisms. These changes may be in domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, and variety. Your view is too narrow. But one inference of the theory of evolution is that all the different kinds of organisms are the result of evolution from a single organism which lived about 3.5 billion years ago. Genesis makes no mention of evolution. This is how we know that Genesis is false and could not have been inspired by or dictated by God. If Genesis was a message from God, then it would have mentioned both evolution and the Big Bang. It didn’t.
BA: Since there is none, the theory collapses.
GW: False. The theory stands and is thriving.
BA: The “kinds” God established (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25) are barriers which cannot be crossed.
GW: Nonsense! Evolution has occurred from the first organism to all the millions of kinds of organisms now, and the only barriers are the limitations of physics and chemistry. And, of course, God does not exist. We know this. It has been proven. You didn’t even address the proof I presented to you, and you have found no errors in any of my proofs. You are afraid to challenge them directly because you might learn that God does not exist.
Yes, Darwinism asserts that all life began with a single-celled organism which assimilated from non-living matter. Scientific evidence has proven such an idea to be impossible, although Darwinists are in denial.
Darwin’s “tree of life” ideas of evolutionary development from the imagined single-celled organism at the base of it IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.The Cambrian explosion in the fossil record proves it. Many species have become extinct since then, so there are considerably fewer species alive today than at the time of the Cambrian explosion. If Darwinism was true, the opposite would be true..
“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22 NIV).
BA: Yes, Darwinism asserts that all life began with a single-celled organism which assimilated from non-living matter.
GW: False. Evolution asserts that all kinds of life developed from a single-celled organism. Evolution is about origin of species, not origin of life. The hypothesis of abiogenesis covers origin of life.
BA: Scientific evidence has proven such an idea to be impossible, although Darwinists are in denial.
GW: False. But if you think there is proof against either abiogenesis or evolution, then present it here.
BA: Darwin’s “tree of life” ideas of evolutionary development from the imagined single-celled organism at the base of it IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
GW: Really? Then demonstrate it.
BA: The Cambrian explosion in the fossil record proves it.
GW: False. The so-called Cambrian Explosion occurred over a period of about 50 million years. There were lots of “new branches on the evolutionary tree” during that time period. It’s just what happened.
BA: Many species have become extinct since then, so there are considerably fewer species alive today than at the time of the Cambrian explosion.
GW: I think that is probably true, but not unusual. As I understand it, about 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. Hmmm. If God did exist, would that have happened? Why would God have such a high failure rate? These ideas could be developed into a new argument against the existence of God. Maybe I’ll work on that.
BA: If Darwinism was true, the opposite would be true.
GW: False. Evolution is true, and the extinction of species is predictable from the theory. Mutations will be favorable, unfavorable, or neutral with respect to survival and reproduction. Extinction of species is expected because of the incidence of unfavorable mutations and changes in the environment.
BA: “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22 NIV).
GW: Yes, this describes people who continue to believe in God. In the face of sound arguments against the existence of God, like mine, some people continue to believe that God exists. But that percentage is in decline, and this is good.
GW: You still have not directly addressed the argument I presented last week. Why are you evading it?
GW: Ok, here is a new argument for you to evade or address:
Argument 81.
Argument Against the Existence of God Based on Prayer: by Gary Whittenberger, Revised 7-22-2024
1. Definition: God is 1) the HYPOTHETICAL, unique, exclusive, supernatural, independent, spiritual, normally invisible person, conscious intelligent agent, or sentient entity. He is OMNI lasting (eternal), present, knowing, powerful, intelligent, rational, creative, and resilient (invincible). He is also OMNI loving, compassionate, and moral with respect to other persons. He fills the roles of cosmos designer and producer (creator), occasional interventionist in the world, and afterlife manager who decides the favorable or unfavorable disposition of human souls after they die. or 2) the greatest imaginable possible person (the “GIPPer”) who, if he existed, would possess all desirable traits to their highest degrees and no undesirable traits, and who would be worthy of our greatest respect, admiration, and worship.
2. If God did exist, then he would favorably intervene in response to worthy intercessory petitionary prayers.
3. The intercessory petitionary prayers by religious people for heart patients would be worthy.
4. If God would respond favorably to these kinds of prayers, then the rate of good outcomes for heart patients would be much higher for an experimental “prayed for” group than for a control “not prayed for” group in a well-designed scientific experiment.
5. However, in an experiment like this, i.e. the Benson study*, the rate of good outcomes for the experimental group was slightly lower than the rate for the control group.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.
*Benson, Herbert, Jeffery A Dusek, Jane B. Sherwood, Peter Lam, Charles F. Bethea, William Carpenter, Sidney Levitsky, Peter C. Hill, Donald W. Clem, Manoj K. Jain, David Drumel, Stephen L. Kopecky, Paul S. Mueller, Dean Marek, Sue Rollins, Patricia L. Hibbard. “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer.” American Heart Journal 151.4 (2006): 934-42. Print.
Biblical answer to your #81:
1. Some miraculous healings did occur during Bible times (Acts 19:11,12).
2. First century baptized Christians did not get miraculously healed (1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20).
3. “Completeness” has come (1 Corinthians 13:10 NIV), that is, the Bible was completed by the end of the 1st century (Jude 3), and genuine “miracles” were no longer necessary (Hebrews 2:3,4 NIV), nor did they occur.
4. Christians were foretold to be Jesus’ “witnesses . . . to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8 NIV), but not foretold to perform miracles.
5. Jesus foretold there would be some, at the end, who would claim they had, “in [Jesus’] name perform[ed] many miracles” (Matthew 7:22 NIV).
6. Based on the scriptures, it is not surprising that the prayed for group would not have any better outcomes than the non prayed for group.
BA: 1. Some miraculous healings did occur during Bible times (Acts 19:11,12).
GW: These are stories of alleged miraculous healings in the Bible, but they have not been confirmed by evidence. But, it really doesn’t matter since my argument addresses the opportunity for such a healing in the present.
BA: 2. First century baptized Christians did not get miraculously healed (1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20).
GW: This is what we would expect if God does not exist.
BA: 3. “Completeness” has come (1 Corinthians 13:10 NIV), that is, the Bible was completed by the end of the 1st century (Jude 3), and genuine “miracles” were no longer necessary (Hebrews 2:3,4 NIV), nor did they occur.
GW: You are not quoting complete verses here, so we are skeptical of your interpretations. In fact, your interpretations are very odd and not accepted nowadays. Most modern day Christians completely disagree with you and claim that miraculous healings by God occur today. Also, if God did exist and healed in Bible times there is no good reason to think he would stop.
BA: 4. Christians were foretold to be Jesus’ “witnesses . . . to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8 NIV), but not foretold to perform miracles.
GW: This is irrelevant. If God did exist, he would not confine miracles to any period of time. He would not say “Oh sorry, I quit doing miracles on January 1, 101 CE.” Wouldn’t happen.
BA: 5. Jesus foretold there would be some, at the end, who would claim they had, “in [Jesus’] name perform[ed] many miracles” (Matthew 7:22 NIV).
GW: If God did exist, he would not use any intermediaries or messengers, as Jesus is claimed to be. And God would perform miracles throughout human history. He wouldn’t stop.
BA: 6. Based on the scriptures, it is not surprising that the prayed for group would not have any better outcomes than the non prayed for group.
GW: False. Based on the scriptures we would expect the prayed for group today would do better than the non-prayed for group. There are many stories in the Bible when somebody prayed for a healing and it occurred. But, the scriptures don’t matter much since if God did exist, he would respond favorably to requests for healing anyway. That’s what an all-powerful, all-loving, and perfectly moral being would do.
GW: Here’s a fictional analogy for you to ponder. Once upon a time, there was a doctor who was also a medical researcher. He invented a pill which was a cure for all cancers. He lived with family and ten medical assistants on a mountain where the pills were made. He charged $500 per pill. When the word got out, he had to set up a website where people could apply to have a medical evaluation at the clinic on the mountain and purchase one of the pills. Would it be ethical for the doctor to turn away patients? No, of course not, except for maybe eight hours a day to allow time for sleep. If God did exist, would it be ethical for God to turn people away if they prayed for a cure? No, of course not. And God would not turn them away because he would be all-powerful, all-loving, and perfectly moral.
GW: As was the case with my other arguments, you have found no error in this one.
Truth is not dependent upon whether anyone believes it or not. For example, the earth revolves around the sun, and is round rather than flat, regardless of who believes it. Likewise, there is not a single Biblical instance of a baptized Christian being healed. This is true whether modern Christians believe it or not. Even if modern Christians believe miraculous healings occur in the present, that belief does not equate to truth.
Almighty God can start or stop doing something such as miraculous healing at his choosing. He is not bound to do or not do anything.
Someone praying for something, such as healing, does not to obligate Almighty God to do anything. “He does whatever he pleases” (Job 23:13 NIV).
BA: Truth is not dependent upon whether anyone believes it or not.
GW: I don’t think that is correct. What is truth? A truth is a thought about and a description of reality, accurately depicting reality. A thought must have at least one thinker and thus a description accurately depicting reality must have at least one believer.
BA: For example, the earth revolves around the sun, and is round rather than flat, regardless of who believes it.
GW: At least one person must believe it. There can be no accurate description without a describer who is the believer.
BA: Likewise, there is not a single Biblical instance of a baptized Christian being healed. This is true whether modern Christians believe it or not.
GW: That’s not saying much. I’m not sure we can say that there were any Christians in the stories of the Bible. I don’t think the concept of “Christian” had yet been invented.
BA: Even if modern Christians believe miraculous healings occur in the present, that belief does not equate to truth.
GW: I agree. There is no good evidence that any miracle has ever occurred in the history of humankind.
BA: Almighty God can start or stop doing something such as miraculous healing at his choosing.
GW: Yes, he COULD, if he did exist. But we are not discussing his ability, power, or competence here. We are discussing what he WOULD do or SHOULD do, if he did exist.
BA: He is not bound to do or not do anything.
GW: False. He WOULD BE (not “is”) bound by his own decision to comply with Correct Universal Ethics, if he did exist. CUE requires this: “If any person P1 prays to any other person P2 that P2 cure person P3 of a moderate to severe malady, then if P2 has the ability, power, or competence to perform the cure, he should cure P3.” And so, if God did exist and was asked to cure a human being of a significant malady, then God could, would, and should do it. He would BIND himself to do it. So, he is BOUND by himself. Get it now?
BA: Someone praying for something, such as healing, does not to obligate Almighty God to do anything.
GW: It certainly does under certain conditions. See the moral rule above.
BA: “He does whatever he pleases” (Job 23:13 NIV).
GW: Yes, if God did exist, he would do whatever he pleases and it would always please him to act morally in every situation. Get it?
“The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch”—Acts 11:26 NIV
“Christian” is used at Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:18.
GW: Ok, I accept those verses as evidence that Christians were referred to in the NT. So, let’s go back to your original claim.
BA: Likewise, there is not a single Biblical instance of a baptized Christian being healed. This is true whether modern Christians believe it or not.
GW: You mean a healing of a baptized Christian by an apparent miracle or even by a medical expert of the time is not mentioned in the Bible? Ok, that could be true. I do not know. However, it could also be true that during those times a baptized Christian prayed to be healed by God and was not healed. Although I have no evidence for that, I would suspect that it occurred. It occurs now quite often, as you and I both know.
GW: If God did exist, then he would cure people of serious maladies in response to intercessory prayer. This is refuted in scientific experiments. And so, God does not exist.
We’re in agreement that miraculous healings do not occur today. They did occur during the early years of Christianity in the 1st century, when non-Christians were healed. God had a purpose in such miracles, which was to publicly show that his favor shifted from Jews who kept the Old Law Covenant to Christians in the New Covenant. This is evident in the anger and reactions of leading Jews in response to miraculous healings of non-Christians through Christians (Acts 3:1-4:31; 5:12-40; 6:8-7:60).
Why did God have miracles, such as healings, to occur back then? To show his favor had shifted to Christians. “So how will we escape punishment if we reject the important message, the message that God saved us? First, the Lord told this saving message. Those who heard him confirmed that message. God VERIFIED WHAT THEY SAID THROUGH MIRACULOUS SIGNS. amazing things, other powerful acts, and with other gifts from the Holy Spirit as he wanted” (Hebrews 2:3-5 GWT). Once Christianity was “complete”, “once for all time” (1 Corinthians 13:10 GWT; Jude 1:3 GWT), the miracles stopped, because they were no longer needed to prove the point.
Why doesn’t he answer prayers for healing today? God doesn’t do any miraculous healings today, so such prayers are not “according to his will” (1 John 5:14 NIV).
Christians who were sick, such as Epaphraditus, Timothy and Trophimus, did not get healed, but recovered without miraculous healing (Philippians 2:25-27; 1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20). There is no evidence that anyone prayed for them to get healed.
BA: We’re in agreement that miraculous healings do not occur today.
GW: Let’s have a celebration! We agreed on something!
BA: They did occur during the early years of Christianity in the 1st century, when non-Christians were healed.
GW: I doubt it. You have no good evidence for that, just like nobody now has any good evidence for miraculous healings today.
BA: God had a purpose in such miracles, which was to publicly show that his favor shifted from Jews who kept the Old Law Covenant to Christians in the New Covenant.
GW: Ah, God does not exist, and this has been proven. If God did exist, he would perform miraculous healings, especially in response to prayer, throughout history. This has never happened or been proven to happen. Therefore, God does not exist.
BA: This is evident in the anger and reactions of leading Jews in response to miraculous healings of non-Christians through Christians (Acts 3:1-4:31; 5:12-40; 6:8-7:60).
GW: There is no proof of these alleged miraculous healings. Jewish anger is irrelevant.
BA: Why did God have miracles, such as healings, to occur back then?
GW: You have no proof of these alleged miracles. And besides, God does not exist. This has been proven.
BA: To show his favor had shifted to Christians.
GW: Nonsense! If God did exist, he wouldn’t be in the business of showing favoritism to a group of people who believed irrational bizarre ideas like resurrection, atonement, and forgiveness. If God did exist, he would perform miracles in the presence of ALL PERSONS SIMULTANEOUSLY to authenticate his identity, to show that he was God. Duh. It is obvious to me now that you worship a lesser deity than God.
BA: “So how will we escape punishment if we reject the important message, the message that God saved us? First, the Lord told this saving message. Those who heard him confirmed that message. God VERIFIED WHAT THEY SAID THROUGH MIRACULOUS SIGNS. amazing things, other powerful acts, and with other gifts from the Holy Spirit as he wanted” (Hebrews 2:3-5 GWT).
GW: These are just the irrational ramblings of an ancient goat herder. We now know that God does not exist. If God did exist, he would perform miracles for us during his regular meetings with all of us at the same time. Duh.
BA: Once Christianity was “complete”, “once for all time” (1 Corinthians 13:10 GWT; Jude 1:3 GWT), the miracles stopped, because they were no longer needed to prove the point.
GW: This is complete nonsense! If God did exist, the distinction of “complete vs. incomplete” would not apply to him or his message. In every regular meeting with us he would present at least FIVE key facts: 1) himself, 2) miracles, 3) Correct Universal Ethics, 4) the basis of CUE in reason and compassion, and 5) the consequences of compliance and noncompliance with CUE. Isn’t this obvious? Yes, it is.
BA: Why doesn’t he answer prayers for healing today?
GW: Because God does not exist. Duh.
BA: God doesn’t do any miraculous healings today, so such prayers are not “according to his will” (1 John 5:14 NIV).
GW: Here you and the author of 1 John are thinking irrationally. If God did exist, it would be his will to perform miraculous healings and he would preform them, today. Wouldn’t he do at least one during every regular meeting with all of us? Yes, of course. A single resurrection of a person dead for a year would be quite a miracle. See my argument step 2.A.6)b.
BA: Christians who were sick, such as Epaphraditus, Timothy and Trophimus, did not get healed, but recovered without miraculous healing (Philippians 2:25-27; 1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20).
GW: So what? Some people experience spontaneous remission, meaning they are healed by natural forces or their own bodies. Other people are healed by legitimate medical practice.
BA: There is no evidence that anyone prayed for them to get healed.
GW: You are totally missing the point. Of course, people are healed WITHOUT prayers to God. Happens everyday. But if God did exist, he would heal people in response to prayers. This has never happened or been proven to happen. Therefore, God does not exist. See my argument based on the Benson et al prayer study.