Answering Atheists

[Sheldon]

If I called you dishonest every post I made, it would likely be considered a personal attack. I'll keep those thoughts to myself.

Have I called you dishonest then, could you quote where I did that please? Also you clearly didn't keep your thoughts to yourself?

All you keep doing is saying what you believe.

I have quoted the post you're responding to verbatim below, and I was directly answering a question you asked, and offering objective evidence for it. This is the kind of handwaving you keep doing to avoid actually addressing post content.

Look.
Quote
We know something is designed because we have objective evidence to support that fact. We can see the designs, see things being designed, see the designs being used to manufacture things, and above all designed things don't just occur in nature.
Unquote

A whole lor of long talk, and you cannot even point out what that objective evidence is. Lol.

You're kidding right? I'll try bullet pointing each piece of objective evidence then, good grief.

We know something is designed because we have objective evidence to support that fact.

1. We can see the designs
2. We can go and see things being designed
3. We can see the designs being used to manufacture things
4. We can see that designed things don't just occur in nature

Each one of those facts is objective evidence???

Is the objective evidence seeing something being done? Then none of science is objective, where they do not see things. Every thing they infer, or interpret, is subjective. Is that okay with you?

Please tell me this a windup? I think it would help if you knew what objective meant. Are you saying being able to demonstrate designs are made, then used to manufacture or create those designed objects, is just an opinion? good grief.

Have you ever seen a wolf become a whale, or a reptile become a bird? How then is there objective evidence for a transitional fossil?

Two straw man fallacies, and all fossils are transitional, did you not know this simple fact?

Therefore, there is no objective evidence for the evolution theory. Is that okay with you.?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. Seriously something as basic as understanding what a scientific theory is, and you don't know this? The objective evidence is contained in a scientific theory.

If it is not, then please stop just stating things that you believe, and start making some statements that are actually factual, and meaningful for discussion.

Is it an objective fact that designs exist? Now think carefully before you answer.

Is it an objective fact that anyone can go to a design office and see designs in every stage of creation? Again think carefully before you answer.

Is it an objective fact that anyone can go to a factory and see those designs being used to create things? Again I urge you to think before you answer.

Or are you really going to suggest this is just a subjective opinion? I have spent my entire adult life in the manufacturing industry, so I suggest you never ever get on a plane if the designs I saw day in and day out are not real. Also this has nothing to do with the scientific fact of evolution, you are conflating to entirely different processes and methods, again it's hard to know what to say except cor blimey.

You asked a question, now true to form you wave away the answer. We know something is designed because we have objective evidence to support that fact. We can see the designs, see things being designed, see the designs being used to manufacture things, and above all designed things don't just occur in nature. Even in Paley's watchmaker fallacy he recognised though, by placing a designed watch on a beach and contrasting it as if it was out of place. What he failed to recognise was it was out place because watches don't randomly appear in nature.

Now re-read that post, look at the context in which it was offered (your post I responded to), and try and offer something beyond vapid handwaving?

If the only defence you have for a belief is the denial of a fact as well established as species evolution you might want to consider that, but first you'll need to grasp the most basic understanding of the scientific method. You won't need a university or a degree, Google will more than suffice.

 

[Sheldon]

Scientific facts??? LOL.
That's a good one. Start posting them, and we can talk about them.

A fact is something that is known or proven to be true. Accepted scientific theories are known by science to be true, ipso facto they are scientific facts. This doesn't make them absolutes, but how likely is it we will wake tomorrow and the world really was flat and at the centre of the universe after all? That is how likely it is that species evolution will be substantively reversed. You have been sold an empty bag here, leaving your beliefs aside for a minute, the idea that species evolution is not an established scientific fact is preposterous propaganda.

 

[Sheldon]

Did I say the flood account is a second hand source? Where?
You have no idea what the primary and secondary sources are, and how they were verified, do you.

It's very very similar to an earlier flood myth, and so similar it is in all probability plagiarised. Though this misses the point, there would be global geological evidence, and there isn't any.

This guy goes through how preposterous the claims in the Noah myth are, seriously it's up to you, but he's not asking for faith, or blind belief, only pointing out flaws in the narrative. If you really think it is literally true I suggest you watch that and explain where he is going wrong.

 

[joelr]

You said... Outside of watches and objects humans created, the entire visible universe has created itself with natural laws.
I asked how you know this, and, you give me this... We can account for all these processes from the laws of physics.
...and you want a pat on the back.

You have given me nothing. Your limited knowledge is just that. Sorry to burst your bubble, but scientist know very little. The vast amount they think they know, is very little... and honest scientists admit that, by the way.

Oh sorry, you must be behind about 1 century on science. There are 4 fundamental forces in nature. They account for everything we see from the formations of super clusters of galaxies to all the processes that happen here on Earth. From looking at distant galaxies we see the same spectrum coming from stars and the processes happening there are the same across the entire universe. Same with gravity. Everything that happens here on Earth is understood to be some manifestation of one of the 4 forces or the associated particle (boson) that communicates the force. So we understand an incredible amount at the fundamental level. At larger scales there is also vast knowledge from chemistry, molecular science up to macroscopic sciences that deal with geology and such.
While there are still mysteries in science the laws of physics account for an amazing amount of knowledge. What your point is here is unknown, do you have one?

You can say what you like.
We know for a fact that biblical archeologist, and scholars vary in their opinions. So because I point that fact out, and you don't like the fact that I do not have to accept the scholars opinions that you favor, you want to call it not caring about truth. You are free to choose "which pool you will swim in".
Some pools have sharks. Some don't. You choose the company you keep.

There are no OPINIONS. There is evidence.

The entire biblical history field is vastly in agreement. The gospels are myths written about a teacher named Jesus. Biblical archeology is also mostly in agreement. Moses is a myth, Exodus didn't happen, Israelites came from Canaanites, all the empires were far smaller than claimed, Yahweh was paired with Ashera and so on. The evidence shows this. The myths are all re-works of Mesopotamian myths, not just the flood myth.
It did not happen the way it said, was written far after when it claims and does not support most of the events in scripture.
There is no historian who thinks the supernatural stories in the gospels are actual history.
Here is a quote from historian Richard Carrier on the field:

"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."

After the 2nd Temple Period the Israelites were occupied by the Persians and Greeks and were greatly influenced by both cultures myths. National God being promoted to supreme, dying/rising saviors who after a passion return to life, resurrection, souls that can return to heaven after being redeemed, all elements of Hellenism which Judaism adapted to during the invasion. As did most religions during this time. All historical facts. Yes, apologists avoid this like the plague for obvious reasons.

Scientific facts??? LOL.
That's a good one. Start posting them, and we can talk about them. So far, you have not even got past hypotheses, and I am not even sure you touched on a theory... did you?

Ok.

Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.[ Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying these principles, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. They study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide Earth's history into eons, eras, periods, epochs, and faunal stages characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record (see Geologic time scale). In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.


Erosion
The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly.

Geochronology
Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.

Paleontology
If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.[84] Creationists argue that evidence for the geological column is fragmentary, and all the complex layers of chalk occurred in the approach to the 150th day of Noah's flood.[114][115] However, the entire geologic column is found in several places, and shows multiple features, including evidence of erosion and burrowing through older layers, which are inexplicable on a short timescale. Carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition that are not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.

Geochemistry
Proponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.

Sedimentary rock features
Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." These include continental basalts, terrestrial tracks of animals, and marine communities preserving multiple in-situ generations included in the rocks of most or all Phanerozoic periods, and the basalt even in the younger Precambrian rocks. Others, occurring in rocks of several geologic periods, include lake deposits and eolian (wind) deposits. Using their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval.[117] A single flood could also not account for such features as unconformities, in which lower rock layers are tilted while higher rock layers were laid down horizontally on top.

 

[joelr]

Wait wait wait. Hold up. Now I didn't just hear the word "unlikely". Did I just hear you say, "unlikely to be"?

Okay. We can stop there. You just said it all. No need to go any farther.

Yes and Godzilla is unlikely to be real. However if you still think there is a possibility because the word "unlikely" is used then great, for you Godzilla is real.

The actual term for a world flood is "all evidence points to no flood". Again, quibbling about those semantics is further proof you have very little interest in what is actually true

Did I say the flood account is a second hand source? Where?

You have no idea what the primary and secondary sources are, and how they were verified, do you.

Whatever fantasy you have in your mind about primary sources I'm not at all interested in guessing what it is. You have to be a big boy and make points all by yourself.

I can however demonstrate actual PhD sources, over and over saying Genesis is fiction, written way after the fact and is not considered historical and the flood story was a re-work of the Epic of Gilamesh. It also contradicts 8 scientific fields.


"The narrative has very strong similarities to parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the Book of Genesis."


"A global flood as described in this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology, paleontology and the global distribution of species.[3][4][5] A branch of creationism known as flood geology is a pseudoscientific attempt to argue that such a global flood actually occurred.[6"



"While some scholars have tried to offer possible explanations for the origins of the flood myth including a legendary retelling of a possible Black Sea deluge, the general mythological exaggeration and implausibility of the story are widely recognized by relevant academic fields. The acknowledgement of this follows closely the development of understanding of the natural history and especially the geology and paleontology of the planet.["



"So-called "Flood Geology" was championed in the latter half of the twentieth and on into the twenty-first century by Christian fundamentalists who believe in Young Earth creationism. Historian Ronald Numbers argues that this ideological connection by Christians wanting to challenge aspects of the scientific consensus they believe contradict their religion was first established by the publication of the 1961 book, The Genesis Flood.[50] The scientific community maintains that flood geology is a pseudoscience because it contradicts a variety of facts in geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archeology.[6][51][3][52][53][54][55][56] For example, in contrast to the catastrophism inherent in flood geology, the science of geology relies on the Charles Lyell's established principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces, uniformitarianism explains the formation of the Earth's features by means of mostly slow-acting forces seen in operation today. In contrast, there is a lack of evidence for the catastrophic mechanisms proposed by flood geologists, and scientists do not take their claims seriously"

Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia

 

[nPeace]

I'm giving you tremenous benefit of the doubt by even entertaining that you might have a valid point, and that you might really have a reasonable test for "design." This benefit of the doubt has limits, though.

At some point, if you're interested in making your point, you'll have to clearly express it. My benefit of the doubt is not license for you to get me to shlep around the internet to find the stuff you can't even be bothered to copy-paste.

So: do you have a point? If so, get on with it and make it already.

Search the internet?
Oh wow. I can't hold back the tears. Is this typical of Atheists? I'm so glad I am not one.
One more time. last time that is. See What is design? here.

Repeating one last time. This is not something I made up. It is factual.
It is in the definition. Go look.
Design - the components of the object have 1) specific instructions, which are 2) intended to satisfying a set of specific requirements which are 3) intended to accomplish specific goals or a specific goal.
Design requires a designer.

Every house is constructed by someone. It does not construct itself.
There. Done. If you want to whine, go ahead. Throw tantrums if you want also.
Or... if you don't want to see, just say so. No need to waste anyone's time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Search the internet?
Oh wow. I can't hold back the tears. Is this typical of Atheists? I'm so glad I am not one.
One more time. last time that is. See What is design? here.

Repeating one last time. This is not something I made up. It is factual.
It is in the definition. Go look.
Design - the components of the object have 1) specific instructions, which are 2) intended to satisfying a set of specific requirements which are 3) intended to accomplish specific goals or a specific goal.
Design requires a designer.

Every house is constructed by someone. It does not construct itself.
There. Done. If you want to whine, go ahead. Throw tantrums if you want also.
Or... if you don't want to see, just say so. No need to waste anyone's time.

Wait... so this was all about the vague nonsense you posted earlier?

 

[nPeace]

Wait... so this was all about the vague nonsense you posted earlier?

No that was your post. Bye.

 

[nPeace]

Have I called you dishonest then, could you quote where I did that please? Also you clearly didn't keep your thoughts to yourself?

Wow. Don't know what you wrote?
...the fact you have so dishonestly misrepresented what was said here speaks volumes
So you're now dishonestly moving the goalposts.

I have quoted the post you're responding to verbatim below, and I was directly answering a question you asked, and offering objective evidence for it. This is the kind of handwaving you keep doing to avoid actually addressing post content.

You're kidding right? I'll try bullet pointing each piece of objective evidence then, good grief.

We know something is designed because we have objective evidence to support that fact.

1. We can see the designs
2. We can go and see things being designed
3. We can see the designs being used to manufacture things
4. We can see that designed things don't just occur in nature

Are you thinking about what you post?
Quoting you...
We can see the designs. We can go and see things being designed. We can see the designs being used to manufacture things. We can see that designed things don't just occur in nature.
Unquote

In none of those, have you stated what design is. Therefore, you have only said this... "A designed object is any object that we see someone making.
Therefore, if you did not see anyone making it, it is not a designed object.
I give up. I think my time is being wasted here.
You are saying anything that comes to mind, and it simply is just what you believe. Not factual.

A designed object has certain "properties". It is not dependant on whether you see its origin or not.
We analyze things and determine, or reach conclusions, based on the evidence.
Whether you refer to that evidence as objective or not, is moot.

You discredit your own worldview with your "logic", because what you believe has not been seen, and therefore, according to your "logic", is not objective.
If you have any reference that supports your beliefs presented here, you can post them, and I will take a look.
Other than that, I have no more time to waste on just hearing you make things up on the fly.
The definition, and criterion for design is "written in stone".
You can't alter it to suit your fancy.

Something that is intricately designed - that is, it is not simple, but very complex, must meet those criterion.

Please tell me this a windup? I think it would help if you knew what objective meant. Are you saying being able to demonstrate designs are made, then used to manufacture or create those designed objects, is just an opinion? good grief.

What? Are you reading?

Two straw man fallacies, and all fossils are transitional, did you not know this simple fact?

I hear your beliefs. I do not see any factual data to support them. When you have those, please feel free to post them. I will not be responding to anything but the data you present.
After this post, I am no longer responding to things evidently flying off the top of your head.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. Seriously something as basic as understanding what a scientific theory is, and you don't know this? The objective evidence is contained in a scientific theory.

All evidence is a body of facts, and there are explanations and interpretations for these.
Your "reliable accounts of the world" sure do change often. Enjoy that world view.

Is it an objective fact that designs exist? Now think carefully before you answer.

It is a fact that designed objects do exist. Designs are everywhere, but I am not referring to the designs you see in a plaid shirt, for example.

Is it an objective fact that anyone can go to a design office and see designs in every stage of creation? Again think carefully before you answer.

I think your cart vered off the rail. What design are you talking about, because you seem to have shifted from the one I am referring to.

Is it an objective fact that anyone can go to a factory and see those designs being used to create things? Again I urge you to think before you answer.

Ah. Yes. You have vered off track. I am not talking about the blueprint.
I am talking about the designed object.
Planning goes into the design, and blueprints play a role, but the designed object is like the factory with all its components put together, based on the "instructions" keyed into those components, so that they carry out specific functions, in order to accomplish a set of goals, or goal.

Or are you really going to suggest this is just a subjective opinion? I have spent my entire adult life in the manufacturing industry, so I suggest you never ever get on a plane if the designs I saw day in and day out are not real. Also this has nothing to do with the scientific fact of evolution, you are conflating to entirely different processes and methods, again it's hard to know what to say except cor blimey.

I think you lost track. Sorry, you did, but you are going in another direction, and that explains why you made the error a few lines above.

Now re-read that post, look at the context in which it was offered (your post I responded to), and try and offer something beyond vapid handwaving?

If the only defence you have for a belief is the denial of a fact as well established as species evolution you might want to consider that, but first you'll need to grasp the most basic understanding of the scientific method. You won't need a university or a degree, Google will more than suffice.

Ha ha. Thanks for the laugh at the end.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can see the designs. We can go and see things being designed. We can see the designs being used to manufacture things. We can see that designed things don't just occur in nature.

You don't think that nature was designed? Interesting. Not what I expected.

 

[nPeace]

A fact is something that is known or proven to be true. Accepted scientific theories are known by science to be true, ipso facto they are scientific facts. This doesn't make them absolutes, but how likely is it we will wake tomorrow and the world really was flat and at the centre of the universe after all? That is how likely it is that species evolution will be substantively reversed. You have been sold an empty bag here, leaving your beliefs aside for a minute, the idea that species evolution is not an established scientific fact is preposterous propaganda.

Lol. You don't even know the difference between a fact in science, and a fact in general.
Sorry. i apologize, but playing knowledgeable, and being knowledgeable, are not the same thing.

It's very very similar to an earlier flood myth, and so similar it is in all probability plagiarised. Though this misses the point, there would be global geological evidence, and there isn't any.

This guy goes through how preposterous the claims in the Noah myth are, seriously it's up to you, but he's not asking for faith, or blind belief, only pointing out flaws in the narrative. If you really think it is literally true I suggest you watch that and explain where he is going wrong.

"in all probability plagiarised"
Thanks for letting us know you are giving us your belief, based solely on your opinion, or what you think.
Hence, no need to watch some poor guy try his best to give his opinion, as well. In all probability, he is either Atheist, or leaning there... Or, he is just another puppet, in the hands of the puppet master.

 

[nPeace]

You don't think that nature was designed? Interesting. Not what I expected.

You amaze me how you read, to be honest. That's a quote from one of the other Atheists in the thread.
I'll edit it, lest some other person makes that same mistake.

 

[Jose Fly]

@nPeace I noticed you posted some criteria for determining something to be "designed". The criteria are...

We infer or perceive design from this...
the components of the object have 1) specific instructions, which are 2) intended to satisfying a set of specific requirements which are 3) intended to accomplish specific goals or a specific goal.
That's design.​

First of all, that's at least something to work with, so good on you for trying. Most ID creationists never get that far. So let's examine these criteria.

"Specific instructions"

Can you explain what you mean by "specific" here? Specific to what? Are there examples of "vague instructions" we can contrast them with?

"Intended to satisfying [sic] a set of specific requirements"

"Intended" by whom, or what? How do you identify this intent? And as before, what do you mean by "specific requirements"? Are there examples of "vague requirements" we can use as a contrast?

"Intended to accomplish specific goals or a specific goal"

Again, "intended" by whom, or what? How do you identify this intent? What do you mean by "specific goals"? How do you identify the goals?

Finally, I'm hoping that your responses will be with examples from the biological world, rather than more analogies to man-made objects, because that would be much, much more helpful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You amaze me how you read, to be honest. That's a quote from one of the other Atheists in the thread.
I'll edit it, lest some other person makes that same mistake.

My mistake, then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A designed object has certain "properties". It is not dependant on whether you see its origin or not.
We analyze things and determine, or reach conclusions, based on the evidence.
Whether you refer to that evidence as objective or not, is moot.

What properties and what evidence?

 

[Sheldon]

There are no OPINIONS. There is evidence.

Oh their god, mikkel_the_dane is not going to like that, let me tell you.

 

[Sheldon]

See What is design? here.

That's just a YouTube user making endless unevidenced claims? I've no problem with YouTube if it actually offers something, but if all you can cite are bare claims that's meaningless.

 

[Sheldon]

Are you thinking about what you post?

Yes.

Quoting you...
We can see the designs. We can go and see things being designed. We can see the designs being used to manufacture things. We can see that designed things don't just occur in nature.
Unquote

In none of those, have you stated what design is.

Is English not your first Language?

Therefore, you have only said this... "A designed object is any object that we see someone making.
Therefore, if you did not see anyone making it, it is not a designed object.

Nope not even close, and the real irony is you quoted what I actually said verbatim, and everyone can see it above again, so your sophistry is manifest.

A designed object has certain "properties".

Yes

1) Designs for it can be objectively evidenced at every stage, as I said previously and you have dishonestly ignored.
2) We can see designed things being manufactured, again as I have said repeatedly, and again you have dishonestly ignored.
3) We can see that designed things don't occur randomly in nature, and again I have pointed this out, and again you have dishonestly ignored this.

You discredit your own worldview with your "logic", because what you believe has not been seen, and therefore, according to your "logic", is not objective.

Utter gibberish sorry, if you want a cogent response, and I suspect you do not, then you will have to offer something that vaguely resembles cogent English, and that does not.

The definition, and criterion for design is "written in stone".

Rubbish. Design is defined as a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made.

Something that is intricately designed - that is, it is not simple, but very complex, must meet those criterion.

Sorry? I thought your superstitious beliefs claimed your deity designed everything? If that were true then simple things are also designed, and your assertion is manifestly absurd. If there are no simple things, then again your assertion is asinine nonsense.

All evidence is a body of facts, and there are explanations and interpretations for these.

Excellent, glad you've grasped that, now can you demonstrate any fact, or explanation for any deity that goes beyond pure assumption? As that is all you seem to have offered thus far?

It is a fact that designed objects do exist.

Well done, you've got something right, and we know they are designed, because we can cite objective evidence that this is the case, as I previously pointed out and you have ignored here again. For instance we can know objectively that people create designs, there are designs themselves and (design) offices where they are created, and we know objectively that those designs are used to manufacture things, I have worked my entire life in manufacturing, and we use designs to manufacture things. Again if this is something you can't fathom, you might want to stay off commercial jets, as one example.

 

[Hidingfromyou]

One of the Atheists argument is as follows :-

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Is this the correct argument? I heard it before, but some of this sounds a bit strange.
However, the gist is somewhere in there.

Why can God not exist (as a morally perfect entity, who is all powerful, all knowing and all wise), where evil exists, although God knows when evil existed, and although God wants to do something about it?
The argument is not a sound one.

Romans chapter 8 verses 20 and 21 says this... "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God."

Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.
How can that not be moral?
It would actually be evidence too of one who is all knowing, all wise and all powerful. Isn't it?

Uh, I don't believe deities exist.

So if you try to tell me your deity exists and then use your own mythology to say "hey, see, it says so right here that my deity exists!" I am just going to laugh because I don't accept your mythology either.

Is there any way you can demonstrate that your particular deity exists rather than, say, Thor, without appealing to your mythology? I mean, other mythologies exist and various people have really and truly believed in their mythologies just as much as you believe in yours, so there's no particular reason yours is correct.

 

[night912]

Have you ever seen a wolf become a whale, or a reptile become a bird?

Nope. But if I something like that ever happens, then it will be evidence that the Theory of Evolution is definitely false.

How then is there objective evidence for a transitional fossil?

By your reasoning, dinosaur fossils don't exist and/or are not real because nobody has ever seen a living dinosaur becoming a dinosaur fossil. That's illogical.

Therefore, there is no objective evidence for the evolution theory. Is that okay with you.?

If it is not, then please stop just stating things that you believe, and start making some statements that are actually factual, and meaningful for discussion.

Have you ever seen any scientific publications (science textbooks, papers etc) that says that the Theory of Evolution states that a wolf becomes a whale, or a reptile becomes a bird? Keep in mind what I said that's in bold, because apologetic websites and books that say that, are not scientific publications. All they are are personal beliefs about something that they're ignorant of and/or false information that were purposely made to the readers who doesn't accept the Theory of Evolution and/or ignorant of that theory, atheists and theists alike. Is that okay with you?

If it is not, then please stop just stating things that you believe, and start making some statements that are actually factual, and meaningful for discussion, such as what the Theory of Evolution actually states.

But if you have seen it before, can you please post it here.

BTW,
I'm not talking about whether or not the Theory of Evolution is true because as of now, it's irrelevant. Before any of that can be discussed, establishing whether or not those involved in the discussion actually knows and understand the Theory of Evolution and are willing to have an honest discussion. Someone cannot prove that the Theory of Evolution is false if he/she is making arguments against something that is not that theory. It would be the same as someone claiming that Christianity is false and all they've done is give arguments as to why the Qur'an is false.