Atheists - A Question...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you ever been to the house of an angry person who owns an animal, and the home of a gentle person who owns animals?
I have, and the difference is evident.

Just so we're clear: you think that God owns our "house", right?

If the actions of an animal reflect on the character of an animal's owner, how do you think our actions reflect on God's character?

... or do you just give God a free pass on stuff like this?

 

[Nimos]

God did not create cancer, but allowed all ills

So who did?

And how do you understand this?

Isaiah 45:5-7
5 - I am the LORD, and there is no other besides me: and there are no gods. I'm strengthening you, although you have not acknowledged me,
6 - so that from the sun's rising to the west people may know that there is none besides me. "I am the LORD, and there is no other."
7 - "I form light and create darkness, I make goodness and create disaster. I am the LORD, who does all these things.

If Jehovah God stepped in every time to correct something bad that was happening, He would be weakening His side of the issue, namely, that we need His loving rulership over us.

Would you suggest to parents that they follow God's parenting advice, just wondering?

 

[Nimos]

Couldn't God have created a completely different type of Universe if he wanted?

That's like asking, 'Couldn't we all stay single if we wanted?

Is it really like asking that?

Luke 1:37
37 - For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Matthew 19:26
26 - But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Mark 10:27
27 - Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”

Did Jesus get it wrong you think?

 

[nPeace]

I believe that Genesis says that all animals were vegetarians in the Garden.

That's what we read. Yes.

How then do you explain that a meat eating animal (say a lion) has a digestive system is adapted to eat meat, and a "vegetarian" animal (say a cow) has a digestive system that is adapted to eat plants? Can a lion be a vegetarian? - Quora

Variety is the spice of life, they say.

We know that living things vary in their makeup.
For example, you would not expect humans to eat glass, but likely you heard of a few cases, of people eating glass.

Some humans are lactose tolerant, while others aren't.

Some lions are known to eat both plants and meat.
There is a story of a lion who was mot carnivorous.

You might not think a cow would eat meat, but there it is.

For a vegetarian lion to eat meat would take a change to its body, not just its behavior.

What changes exactly?
The scientists are debating how certain changes arose, and what changes might have been involved.

Archaeological and genetic evidence casts doubt on the idea that the ability to digest lactose after infancy evolved gradually
Mapping the use of milk across Europe against the spread of lactase persistence showed no correlation, while computer models suggest that famine and disease offer better explanations.

Using changes in population size as a proxy for malnutrition, the researchers found lack of food was 689 times more likely to explain the rise of lactose tolerance than constant selection pressure. Using population density as a proxy for the spread of deadly pathogens, they found that disease was 289 times more likely to account for the spread.

This change occured within a few thousand years, they believe.
They also believe increased oxygen levels, and localities played a role in the changes, and speed of these changes.

Dawn of carnivores explains animal boom in distant past
A science team that includes researchers from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego has linked increasing oxygen levels and the rise and evolution of carnivores (meat eaters) as the force behind a broad explosion of animal species and body structures millions of years ago.

MAMMALS EVOLVE FASTER ON SMALLER ISLANDS
I show that mammals on smaller islands do indeed evolve more rapidly than mammals on larger islands, and also evolve by a greater amount. These results fit well the theory of an evolutionary burst due to the opening of new ecological opportunities on islands. This evolutionary burst is expected to be the strongest on the smallest islands where the contrast between the island and the mainland environments is the most dramatic.

It's anybody's guess, I suppose, what changes were needed, and how fast those changes occurred.

However, considering what the Bible says about what occurred after the flood waters resided off the earth, it's not hard to imagine how the population growth, and the pressure to survive, would have played a role in adaptation, but God also have had a hand in speeding up that process.
That's nothing new to God. He has intervened before in necessary processes, and will continue to do so.
He didn't save the animals, only to have them become extinct.

However, enough time would have passed for a population "explosion".
Whatever, the case, they learn to adapt.

 

[nPeace]

It probably doesn't matter to what you are saying, but why was the mist needed if there were no plants yet?

Try growing lush vegetation in baked soil.
This was obviously in the early stages of creation, before green vegetation sprouted.
The soil would be made fertile.

Some people don't understand that Genesis 2 is a historical account of the creative days, but not in chronological order, nor in full detail. Genesis 2:4

It sounds like you are saying that God made the world to have lightning strikes, but continually intervened to either stop them happening or to make sure they didn't hit any people. To go on, when A&E disobeyed him, he effectively said, "OK let's see how you get on without me" and removed his control over the natural world, which then behaved "naturally", as God had created it to behave. Am I right so far?

I was about to say, not exactly, but then thought, perhaps you mean this...

Lightning plays an important role in nature.
Like everything else, that is important... for example, plate-tectonics, volcanoes, their severity can be invoked. Look at God's wrath.

God pours out blessing on his people, and their dwelling places, and their obedience results in protection.
The Bible shows that, when one removes themselves from God, they remove themselves from those things.

Is that what you are saying?

One question. Did God create the thistle seeds (Genesis 3:18) after A&E disobeyed, or had the seeds been in the ground all along and he had been stopping them from sprouting? I get the idea with the lightning, which is a natural consequence of having clouds, but why put thistle seeds in a perfect world? It seems to me that God either knew all along that he would need to punish us, and made an imperfect world that would need his continual attention to suppress the "bad" bits, or he made a perfect world that had to be changed to make it imperfect. Which?

The Bible does not say that God created thorns and thistles after Adam and Eve sinned.
Using the Bible, however, we can safely conclude that he did not.

For one thing, God's creative works were completed before man's fall, so God did not create anything new.
For another, the Bible repeatedly shows how God can bless the productive land, or curse it - that is, remove his abundant blessing.
Exodus 23:25, 26; Deuteronomy 29:5; Nehemiah 9:21

We know what that's like, when we experience drought, when the heavens are "stopped up".
So, just picture those springs, and mist not watering the earth. We know how thorns and thistles thrive in those environments.
Adam was going to have it rough. So was his wife, who would bear children with difficulty.

It does show how beneficial it is for us to take sides with Jehovah.

Reduced, yes, but there would still be some accidents caused by factors outside our control. And there would still be lightning strikes, which we have no control over whatsoever.

With man, problems will continue, and they are too big for him to solve.
With God, the opposite is true.
I never saw fork lightning where I live, believe it or not. I see sheet lightning all the time.
So, I think that should tell us something.

Nicely argued, but the response is that God created us with a propensity to disobey him, and should not be surprised or offended when we do just that.

Why shoul God not be offended when persons choose a path in opposition to him, simply because you can choose to?
Should I not be offended if some bloke chooses to scrape my car because he wants to?
Why is choosing to do wrong, okay?

 

[nPeace]

Maybe so. If you prefer, anyone who challenges a scientific finding without supporting their challenge with scientific evidence is not using science correctly. Just as you would ask a fellow believer that challenged your conclusions to support them from the Bible. How's that?

And yes, disagreement in science is fine, no matter what the source, so long as it it properly supported. That does not include saying that some scientific theory is wrong based on what it says in the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific document (which doesn't make it without value).

I did show you one example where scientists point out that those claiming "scientific findings" are not even using science correctly.
So think about it.
Here you have a case of a camp of scientists saying that the other camp of scientists are not supporting their challenge with scientific evidence, and therefore not using science correctly... and the other camp of scientists are saying that that camp has arrived at their ideas without scientific evidence - thus not using science correctly.

I have been careful all along to say "some believers" and not "all believers". And I try not to call any of you dishonest, as I have no access to your inner motivations. Anti-science yes, some of you. But not all Christians by a long shot. For example, the Catholic church now accepts the ToE, with some provisos. Do Catholics believe in evolution? This site says there are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. How Many Catholics are in The World - Scripture Catholic And that's just one example. I'm pretty sure it also applies to a lot of Protestant denominations.

You are referring to those who accept the one thing you consider science.
I'm referring to those who oppose that one thing you consider science.
So why mention the Catholic Church? That's not considering what I said.

Of course if you are claiming that Catholics are not Christians, I will allow our Catholic friends here to reply.

That's a topic for another thread, which isn't important here.

You can always find people that disbelieve in whatever subject you chose. Some people think the Earth is flat. So what?

Some people think we evolved from LUCA. So what?

IF we do that, and IF you think that is wrong, then why do the same thing? Do two wrongs make a right?(Philippians 2:14-15).

I'm just drawing a reference, so as to make a point. Fair is fair.

Wait a minute now. Those verses refer to "them that are lost" and goes on to specifically say that they "believe not" (having been blinded by the "god of this world"). I don't doubt your general point, but those verses don't support it.

The verses do not say whom individually are unbelievers. Is that what you are saying?
The followers of Christ were believers. Anyone else was an unbeliever. Including false believers. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

 

[nPeace]

Neither are examples of animals in their natural habitat doing what they have to do to survive
What should crocks do then? Not hunt an kill? Die of hunger?

This is a pretty stupid analogy to be honest.

Trained pets doing what they are trained to do vs animals in their natural habitat, doing what they naturally do.



Predators have pretty much always existed.
Sorry to burst your bubble.



Again comparing pets in homes vs animals in their natural habitat.


And completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Whoosh. What was that?

You always miss the point, don't you.
The point is, behaviors are learned. They can be unlearned.
Everything you said here is irrelevant. They do not address the point.

 

[Alien826]

Try growing lush vegetation in baked soil.
This was obviously in the early stages of creation, before green vegetation sprouted.
The soil would be made fertile.

God was keeping the soil soft ready for eventual planting? OK, that makes some kind of sense.

Some people don't understand that Genesis 2 is a historical account of the creative days, but not in chronological order, nor in full detail. Genesis 2:4

Not in full detail I can buy, but why not in chronological order? Seems to me that's just confusing the account.

I was about to say, not exactly, but then thought, perhaps you mean this...

Lightning plays an important role in nature.
Like everything else, that is important... for example, plate-tectonics, volcanoes, their severity can be invoked. Look at God's wrath.

God pours out blessing on his people, and their dwelling places, and their obedience results in protection.
The Bible shows that, when one removes themselves from God, they remove themselves from those things.

Is that what you are saying?

Pretty much, yes.

As I understand you, you are saying that God created lightning and volcanoes so he could use them to punish people. And so long as we obey him he will make sure the bad things don't happen to us?

Or to put it more dramatically, the world is like an attack dog that God keeps on a leash so long as we obey him.

The Bible does not say that God created thorns and thistles after Adam and Eve sinned.
Using the Bible, however, we can safely conclude that he did not.

For one thing, God's creative works were completed before man's fall, so God did not create anything new.
For another, the Bible repeatedly shows how God can bless the productive land, or curse it - that is, remove his abundant blessing.
Exodus 23:25, 26; Deuteronomy 29:5; Nehemiah 9:21

We know what that's like, when we experience drought, when the heavens are "stopped up".
So, just picture those springs, and mist not watering the earth. We know how thorns and thistles thrive in those environments.
Adam was going to have it rough. So was his wife, who would bear children with difficulty.

Here's the passage I read.

17And to Adam He said: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat, cursed is the ground because of you; through toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18Both thorns and thistles it will yield for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.

I took that to mean that the thorns and thistles didn't grow before God's curse. I suppose God could have been preventing them from growing, but only in planted fields. There still remains a picture of a world filled with undesirable things that God is holding in check. I suppose that's not unreasonable, if he know that A&E would rebel and need to be punished with these things.

With man, problems will continue, and they are too big for him to solve.
With God, the opposite is true.
I never saw fork lightning where I live, believe it or not. I see sheet lightning all the time.
So, I think that should tell us something.

I'm not sure what it tells me, unless you are suggesting that God is protecting you from lightning. If you don't see any fork lightning, does that mean he is protecting the whole area where you live, including everyone that lives there? Are they all obedient to God?

Why shoul God not be offended when persons choose a path in opposition to him, simply because you can choose to?
Should I not be offended if some bloke chooses to scrape my car because he wants to?
Why is choosing to do wrong, okay?

It's not. But you didn't create the guy who scrapes your car, including a propensity to commit petty vandalism. I would have thought God's reaction would be more like "Hey that guy just behaved exactly as I designed him. I'm not surprised or offended, it's all part of the plan".

Regarding the vegetarian lion, I repeat, a carnivore has a very different GI tract from a plant eater, and a present day lion cannot survive without eating meat. Therefore, God must have made physical changes to the lion, not just behavioral changes. That's all.

 

[nPeace]

God was keeping the soil soft ready for eventual planting? OK, that makes some kind of sense.

Of course it makes sense.

Not in full detail I can buy, but why not in chronological order? Seems to me that's just confusing the account.

Straightforwardness on every page would be too perfect.
There had to be a way to get you guys to use common sense.

As I understand you, you are saying that God created lightning and volcanoes so he could use them to punish people. And so long as we obey him he will make sure the bad things don't happen to us?

What???
That was a joke right. I'm taking that as a joke.

Or to put it more dramatically, the world is like an attack dog that God keeps on a leash so long as we obey him.

Hee Hee. Funny.

Here's the passage I read.

I took that to mean that the thorns and thistles didn't grow before God's curse. I suppose God could have been preventing them from growing, but only in planted fields. There still remains a picture of a world filled with undesirable things that God is holding in check. I suppose that's not unreasonable, if he know that A&E would rebel and need to be punished with these things.

Or those thorns and thistles could have been controlled if man were perfect in mind - that is, "having God's mind", so that as they spread out in the earth, they did what most of us don't do.
Man, the bush is taking over. Many people don't seem to care about beauty anymore.

I'm not sure what it tells me, unless you are suggesting that God is protecting you from lightning. If you don't see any fork lightning, does that mean he is protecting the whole area where you live, including everyone that lives there? Are they all obedient to God?

It tells us, fork lightning isn't necessarily, and it can be rare.

It's not. But you didn't create the guy who scrapes your car, including a propensity to commit petty vandalism. I would have thought God's reaction would be more like "Hey that guy just behaved exactly as I designed him. I'm not surprised or offended, it's all part of the plan".

I don't expect any parent or teacher would appreciate someone saying, "Hey. Your training and teaching throughout those 13 years didn't do a thing."

In other words, you wasted your time.
Should the parent go, "He was designed to turn out that way"?
After all, being created with free will means you will do wrong. Right?

No. God didn't design anyone to do exactly wrong.

Regarding the vegetarian lion, I repeat, a carnivore has a very different GI tract from a plant eater, and a present day lion cannot survive without eating meat. Therefore, God must have made physical changes to the lion, not just behavioral changes. That's all.

Well I did not say God made behavioral changes to anyone, or anything, first of all.
Secondly, God needn't make physical changes either.
Not sure how that got relayed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You always miss the point, don't you.
The point is, behaviors are learned.

Who trained crockodiles to be a predator?
You are comparing them to trained pets. So I assume you believe that there was a crock trainer who trained crocks to kill their prey for food?

They can be unlearned.

I'ld like to see you try to train a crock to stop being a predator and just eat carrots or whatever instead.

A small tip though: don't get too close.

Everything you said here is irrelevant. They do not address the point.

lol!

Your point is that behavior is learned. So you believe that a crock or cheetah or lion or bear ... who devours his prey, only does that because he was trained to do so? That's your point right? And that they can "unlearn" such behavior and... what? Live on veggies?

 

[nPeace]

Who trained crockodiles to be a predator?
You are comparing them to trained pets. So I assume you believe that there was a crock trainer who trained crocks to kill their prey for food?





I'ld like to see you try to train a crock to stop being a predator and just eat carrots or whatever instead.

A small tip though: don't get too close.



lol!

Your point is that behavior is learned. So you believe that a crock or cheetah or lion or bear ... who devours his prey, only does that because he was trained to do so? That's your point right? And that they can "unlearn" such behavior and... what? Live on veggies?

"So I assume" ...and therein lies your problem... at least one of them.
The other problem - the major one - is looking through that narrow window at everything.

Who taught you to cuss... Did you learn it?
Did you need a tutor, or did your environment and your desires / interests shape your behavior?

 

[Alien826]

What???
That was a joke right. I'm taking that as a joke.


Hee Hee. Funny.

Excerpt from The Christian Apologist's Guide Book.

Sometimes you will be faced with an argument or question that you can't readily answer. Under no circumstances admit that you are at a loss for an answer. Try diversion. The following are time tested methods.

1. Laugh at your opponent. With any luck he will be either distracted or offended to the extent that he doesn't notice your lack of response.

.....

Or those thorns and thistles could have been controlled if man were perfect in mind - that is, "having God's mind", so that as they spread out in the earth, they did what most of us don't do.
Man, the bush is taking over. Many people don't seem to care about beauty anymore.

How did beauty get into it? By the way, did you know that the thistle is the national flower of Scotland? They're quite attractive.

Purple Thistle Flower Image Stock Photo 1901856883 | Shutterstock

It tells us, fork lightning isn't necessarily, and it can be rare.

Oh. I thought you were saying something about God protecting you.

And fork lightning is necessary, in the sense that the cloud discharges its electrical charge to the ground to balance the charge.

I don't expect any parent or teacher would appreciate someone saying, "Hey. Your training and teaching throughout those 13 years didn't do a thing."

In other words, you wasted your time.
Should the parent go, "He was designed to turn out that way"?
After all, being created with free will means you will do wrong. Right?

No. God didn't design anyone to do exactly wrong.

Neither parent or teacher actually designed and created the pupil, so are not responsible for the pupil's nature.

Well I did not say God made behavioral changes to anyone, or anything, first of all.
Secondly, God needn't make physical changes either.
Not sure how that got relayed.

Something to do with God creating lions in the garden of Eden to be vegetarian and peaceful, and modern lions being neither? If God didn't change them, who or what did? They certainly did change.

 

[Alien826]

I did show you one example where scientists point out that those claiming "scientific findings" are not even using science correctly.
So think about it.
Here you have a case of a camp of scientists saying that the other camp of scientists are not supporting their challenge with scientific evidence, and therefore not using science correctly... and the other camp of scientists are saying that that camp has arrived at their ideas without scientific evidence - thus not using science correctly.

You are confusing "science" with "scientists". Scientists are human and sometimes get things wrong for that reason. Science itself (or the scientific method to be more accurate) was devised filter that out. In the end it is tested against the real world, and that tends to settle things.

You are referring to those who accept the one thing you consider science.
I'm referring to those who oppose that one thing you consider science.
So why mention the Catholic Church? That's not considering what I said.

I gave an example of a lot of Christians that accept the ToE. That followed my statement that I wasn't applying "anti science" to all Christians. Was that really so hard to understand?

Some people think we evolved from LUCA. So what?

What's wrong with that?

I think your problem is that you tend to see outliers as representative of all science. For example, scientists come up with an idea that seem pretty far out at times. Sometimes they are shown to be wrong, sometimes they are right. That's how science is at the fringes of knowledge, and it's accepted. It's how science advances.

Tell you what, find an example of an established scientific theory that has been accepted for a long time and tell me why you think it is wrong. Not evolution, something more obvious to all. How about something in Chemistry? Or electromagnetism? Or you chose.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"So I assume" ...and therein lies your problem... at least one of them.

It seems like a safe assumption considering your analogy of comparing them to trained pets and refer to that trained behavior.

If my assumption is wrong, then what was the point of your analogy? How then is your analogy actually analogous?

The other problem - the major one - is looking through that narrow window at everything.

You mean that narrow window of "reason" where I don't just allow for magic to occur or anything else my imagination can produce?

Who taught you to cuss... Did you learn it?

Yes.
But I didn't learn how to pee or eat or drink.

Did you need a tutor, or did your environment and your desires / interests shape your behavior?

We humans are also domesticated animals in a sense though.
Parts are learned and other parts aren't.

But again you force the question: are you saying that there is a "someone" who is responsible for "teaching" the crock to kill his prey and eat it?
His predatory lifestyle is a "choice" or "learned behavior"?
Are you saying that a crock can be "trained" to no longer live as a predator but just feed on carrots or whatever?

If that is not what you are saying that what ARE you saying?
And how is whatever you ARE saying analogous to intentionally trained behavior in pets?

 

[nPeace]

But again you force the question: are you saying that there is a "someone" who is responsible for "teaching" the crock to kill his prey and eat it?
His predatory lifestyle is a "choice" or "learned behavior"?
Are you saying that a crock can be "trained" to no longer live as a predator but just feed on carrots or whatever?

If that is not what you are saying that what ARE you saying?
And how is whatever you ARE saying analogous to intentionally trained behavior in pets?

You said you didn't learn to eat and drink. Seriously?
I would like to know how you managed to eat and drink then.
We can proceed from there.

...are you saying that there is a "someone" who is responsible for "teaching" the crock to kill his prey and eat it?
No

His predatory lifestyle is a "choice" or "learned behavior"?
Yes

Are you saying that a crock can be "trained" to no longer live as a predator but just feed on carrots or whatever?
Yes

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You said you didn't learn to eat and drink. Seriously?

Yes.

I would like to know how you managed to eat and drink then.

It's a natural reflex.
Nobody has to "learn" that.
I have 2 young kids.

I had to potty train them, but I didn't need to learn them HOW to pee. Only where to pee.

I had to teach them table manners and how to use utensils. I didn't need to learn them how to eat.
Both of them were drinking / eating within hours after being born. They didn't require to "learn" it.

They also have natural reflexes concerning what not to eat. Put a piece of bread in the baby's mouth and they will spit it out. Give them (breast) milk and they'll happily swallow while making cute "nom nom nom" noises.

They also don't require to learn how to breath.

Living things instinctively know how to do a lot of things.
And the more imperative to their survival (like eating), the more naturally / instinctively it will come to them.

...are you saying that there is a "someone" who is responsible for "teaching" the crock to kill his prey and eat it?
No

Then what was the point of the analogy with pet trainers?

His predatory lifestyle is a "choice" or "learned behavior"?
Yes

Is that a serious response?

Are you saying that a crock can be "trained" to no longer live as a predator but just feed on carrots or whatever?
Yes

Is that a serious response?

Care to demonstrate your response?
Show me a crockodile that was trained to NOT kill and only feed on vegetables, and who manages to stay in good health.


I dare say that these last two responses mark a new low.
Or a "new high" when it comes to absurd statements.

I don't even really know how to respond to this.
It's like on par with talking snakes.

 

[nPeace]

Excerpt from The Christian Apologist's Guide Book.

Sometimes you will be faced with an argument or question that you can't readily answer. Under no circumstances admit that you are at a loss for an answer. Try diversion. The following are time tested methods.

1. Laugh at your opponent. With any luck he will be either distracted or offended to the extent that he doesn't notice your lack of response.

.....

Oh. You weren't joking? Seriously?
I was laughing at what seemed to be a joke. Not at you.

You seriously are saying As I understand you, you are saying that God created lightning and volcanoes so he could use them to punish people. And so long as we obey him he will make sure the bad things don't happen to us? Seriously?

What else do you want me to do. As I understand you, you are saying that I say some awfully strange things, which I haven't said.

How did beauty get into it? By the way, did you know that the thistle is the national flower of Scotland? They're quite attractive.

Purple Thistle Flower Image Stock Photo 1901856883 | Shutterstock

Well there are some pretty annoying weeds with some really pretty flowers, but I don't think many would feel much like there are in paradise, running through a field of thistles. Ouch Ouch.
...and yeah, weeds don't make your garden pretty.

Oh. I thought you were saying something about God protecting you.

And fork lightning is necessary, in the sense that the cloud discharges its electrical charge to the ground to balance the charge.

Yeah. That's what they think, and you believe it.
If tomorrow, they were to tell you, "We previously thought this, but...", you'll believe that too.

Actually, from what I understand they tell us, lightning takes place when clouds are charged to such a high potential with respect to earth or a [neighboring] cloud that the dielectric strength of [neighboring] medium (air) is destroyed.

The give away, and take away there, is "such a high potential".
Which, tells me, this is an extreme, like what we have been hearing quite a lot about lately... global warming.
This fits well with what I mentioned earlier - cause and effect; action and reaction.
No doubt, man's actions are causing nature to react... yes, to "balance out".

...and it's hitting back at them.

Only, since this is the only home man has, the innocent has to suffer.

The most accepted belief, again points to man being the problem, and shows that fork lightning isn't necessary.
There are several theories which exist to explain how the cloud to be charge. The most accepted one is that during the uprush of warm moist air from earth between the air and the tiny particles of water causes the building up of charges.

Now picture the Ideal earth. Ah. Lush greenery. How refreshing.

Just look at those clouds. Plenty of air for preventing any build up charge... and plenty of clouds to release the charge.
Plenty of air between houses too, and no "concrete jungles" to trap hot air.
After all, when did you ever hear of rainforests burning down, in the past.

... and yes. Even if fork lightning were necessary though - which it does not seem to be, that would still not be a problem, as I mentioned.
Jesus calmed the storm, showing us we won't need to fear the elements... regardless.
At that time, God's people will have full protection. Peace will be complete. Isaiah 65:21-25; Isaiah 11:6-9

Neither parent or teacher actually designed and created the pupil, so are not responsible for the pupil's nature.

The pupil's nature?
Are you suggesting that the pupil's nature is to do wrong?
I don't think the developers at Apple would take you seriously, if you took your broken phone in to them, and said, "Its nature was to break... and so it broke. You owe me a phone."
I could see them now .

If you are saying that having free will to choose A or B, makes choosing B "your nature", then is that not the same thing as saying that choosing to jump off of a cliff, to my death, is my nature?
That argument seems rather odd, to me. You are not saying that, are you?

Something to do with God creating lions in the garden of Eden to be vegetarian and peaceful, and modern lions being neither? If God didn't change them, who or what did? They certainly did change.

(Genesis 9:2-3) 2 A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you.

It makes sense to me that the change occurred then, as animals too would be pressured to survive.
As lions and other animals searched for food, what they once played with, looked appetizing. Soon, they became such, and they adapted.

 

[Alien826]

As I understand you, you are saying that I say some awfully strange things, which I haven't said.

Well in general you do say some very strange things. I could go though all your words that led to me saying that, but if you don't mind I'll move on to some other strange things.

Well there are some pretty annoying weeds with some really pretty flowers, but I don't think many would feel much like there are in paradise, running through a field of thistles. Ouch Ouch.
...and yeah, weeds don't make your garden pretty.

Hmmm. I once read a discussion in a gardening magazine (a long time ago!) that tried to answer the question "what is a weed". It proved to be more difficult than it at first appeared. The final answer was "a plant in the wrong place". In other words, they are all plants. Don't you think a field of wild flowers is pretty, even if some have prickles or irritating juice?

This is a diversion, but it comes to mind. You know why they give out (fake) poppies on Memorial Day? It's in memory of WW1 where they fought over fields of poppies in Flanders, France. When I grew up in England, the wheat fields typically had lots of poppies growing in the them. They were very attractive, but you don't see them now because to the farmers they were weeds, and modern weed killing sprays kill them.

Yeah. That's what they think, and you believe it.
If tomorrow, they were to tell you, "We previously thought this, but...", you'll believe that too.

OK, we're back to the "strange things".

Actually, from what I understand they tell us, lightning takes place when clouds are charged to such a high potential with respect to earth or a [neighboring] cloud that the dielectric strength of [neighboring] medium (air) is destroyed.

The give away, and take away there, is "such a high potential".
Which, tells me, this is an extreme, like what we have been hearing quite a lot about lately... global warming.
This fits well with what I mentioned earlier - cause and effect; action and reaction.

Everything about the production of lightning in clouds is a result of natural laws. If you rub your (rubber soled) feet on carpet, you will build up static electricity in your body. Touch a metal doorknob and you will feel the electricity discharging, and it may even hurt a little. In a nutshell, that's the mechanism that produces lightning. It's static electricity finding a balance. What you say about dielectric strength is just part of the cloud finding a path through the air which is not a good conductor. Here's a link that sets it all out. Particularly interesting is how the cloud "finds" where to strike. What Causes Lightning and Thunder? | NOAA SciJinks – All About Weather

No doubt, man's actions are causing nature to react... yes, to "balance out".

...and it's hitting back at them.
View attachment 69453
Only, since this is the only home man has, the innocent has to suffer.

This is where I'd laugh at you if I used your debate tactics. Man's actions are causing lightning? I don't know where to start explaining how silly that is.

The most accepted belief, again points to man being the problem, and shows that fork lightning isn't necessary.
There are several theories which exist to explain how the cloud to be charge. The most accepted one is that during the uprush of warm moist air from earth between the air and the tiny particles of water causes the building up of charges.

Now picture the Ideal earth. Ah. Lush greenery. How refreshing.

Just look at those clouds. Plenty of air for preventing any build up charge... and plenty of clouds to release the charge.
Plenty of air between houses too, and no "concrete jungles" to trap hot air.
After all, when did you ever hear of rainforests burning down, in the past.

Rain clouds are formed by uneven heating of the Earth's surface. Warm air rises and as it rises it cools. When the temperature reaches the "dew point" the water vapor in the air turns to water droplets and a cloud forms. Notice how the bottoms of clouds are flat? As the cloud gets taller, the water droplets rub together (like your feet on the carpet) and static electricity forms. At some point lightning occurs. No intervention by humans is required.

Rainforests didn't burn down because of that very mechanism. Lots of water on the ground plus sunshine formed lots of clouds and it rained almost every day. All perfectly natural.

... and yes. Even if fork lightning were necessary though - which it does not seem to be, that would still not be a problem, as I mentioned.
Jesus calmed the storm, showing us we won't need to fear the elements... regardless.
At that time, God's people will have full protection. Peace will be complete. Isaiah 65:21-25; Isaiah 11:6-9

Now that would be confirming what you laughed at before. If God created lightning as part of the natural world, then he needs to protect the faithful from it. And withholding that protection could be seen as a punishment, could it not?

Somewhere else I challenged you to pick another area of scientific knowledge and try to show that it is wrong. And here you have done it, though not response to my challenge I'm sure. Guess what, you have made a terrible job of it. You should not have tried to show that the science of weather has errors. Weather is extremely well understood and all of it is the result of natural forces interacting.

And please don't raise weather forecasting. Weather is very difficult to forecast with any degree of accuracy over time because it is chaotic (sensitive to initial parameters), not because the mechanisms are not understood.

The pupil's nature?
Are you suggesting that the pupil's nature is to do wrong?

Yes. And to do good.

I don't think the developers at Apple would take you seriously, if you took your broken phone in to them, and said, "Its nature was to break... and so it broke. You owe me a phone."
I could see them now .

If it broke due to poor design, they certainly should admit responsibility and try to fix the design error. If it broke because I dropped it, then it's my fault. There's an interesting middle ground here, where we can ask how robust the phone should be. I'm thinking that analogy could be applied to God's designing us, don't you think? How resistant to sin should we be and still retain free will (which can't be absolute)?

If you are saying that having free will to choose A or B, makes choosing B "your nature", then is that not the same thing as saying that choosing to jump off of a cliff, to my death, is my nature?
That argument seems rather odd, to me. You are not saying that, are you?

Why not? Your nature could be to do stupid things. I see a lot of that, though jumping off cliffs is a bit extreme.

We may be using the word "nature" differently, so I'll set out my understanding. Free will is always subject to our nature (what we are). As an example, though I drank heavily when I was young, I never became an alcoholic. Others get addicted very easily. There seems to be something physical involved. I have a strong sex drive. That makes me more likely to have (what you would see as) immoral sexual relations. Putting it generally, we are all subject to temptation at different levels and in different circumstances.

I'll wait for your response before elaborating further.

(Genesis 9:2-3) 2 A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you.

It makes sense to me that the change occurred then, as animals too would be pressured to survive.
As lions and other animals searched for food, what they once played with, looked appetizing. Soon, they became such, and they adapted.

You're still not addressing what I said. If humans suddenly turned on the peaceful animals and started killing them and eating them (what a horrible picture, I guess God is not an animal lover), then I'm sure that would be a great shock to them and would cause them to avoid humans. They might then seek alternative sources of food (meat) but they would also need changes to their bodies. GI tract I have already mentioned.

Consider a cat. One of the most evolved predators in existence. It is totally adapted to hunting and killing prey animals. Teeth, claws, accurate jumping, speed. There is no way it could have evolved from a peaceful plant eater just by changing its habits. Huge changes to its body would be required. And if it already was shaped like a modern cat, why? Why would it need the abilities of a predator when it was a peaceful vegetarian?

 

[nPeace]

You are confusing "science" with "scientists".

You do that. Not me.

Scientists are human and sometimes get things wrong for that reason. Science itself (or the scientific method to be more accurate) was devised filter that out. In the end it is tested against the real world, and that tends to settle things.

We already been there.

I gave an example of a lot of Christians that accept the ToE. That followed my statement that I wasn't applying "anti science" to all Christians. Was that really so hard to understand?

Huh?

What's wrong with that?

I think your problem is that you tend to see outliers as representative of all science. For example, scientists come up with an idea that seem pretty far out at times. Sometimes they are shown to be wrong, sometimes they are right. That's how science is at the fringes of knowledge, and it's accepted. It's how science advances.

Well, at least you see where the right can be wrong... I hope.

Tell you what, find an example of an established scientific theory that has been accepted for a long time and tell me why you think it is wrong. Not evolution, something more obvious to all. How about something in Chemistry? Or electromagnetism? Or you chose.

Uh. That's not my job.
I can tell you of those that had been accepted for a long time, before being proven wrong, and therefore I have examples against any argument that would claim a theory is right, because it has been accepted for a long time.

 

[Alien826]

You do that. Not me.

Nyah, nyah, nyah.

We already been there.

And you still don't get it.

Well, at least you see where the right can be wrong... I hope.

Where a theory can be wrong.

Uh. That's not my job.
I can tell you of those that had been accepted for a long time, before being proven wrong, and therefore I have examples against any argument that would claim a theory is right, because it has been accepted for a long time.

See my last post. You did exactly as I asked, with predictable lack of success. Humans cause lightning. Give me a break.