Creationists: Here's your chance

[Jollybear]

I've already told you why I don't take your "6 views or nothing" statement seriously.

Oh, right, your hanging your life in the balance of waiting for a 7th to show up. Which you ASSUME will show up, you don’t know this. I make a different prediction; I predict a 7 will NEVER show up.

And in about 30 to 40 years from now I am going to come back and rub my prediction in your face, I CAN’T WAIT until those years come by.

Because it isn't a valid point when you're arguing that complexity = design and then trying to insert a complex first cause. You're shooting yourself in the foot, man! You're trying to create a god shaped loophole in your argument without offering any logical reason why a god would be immune.

I told you why God is IMMUNE! It’s because there has to be a FIRST CAUSE! Haha! Goodness gracious. And out of all the views on the table, he is the most PLAUSIBLE first cause.

All you've said over and over again is "first cause" but first cause doesn't make the contradiction go away.

There is no contradiction, I did not say ALL complex things are designed, if I said all things, THEN I would have contradicted myself. But I said, all complex things are designed ACCEPT God. Or everything that is complex accept God is designed. I did not contradict myself. If I said all things complex are designed, then said. God is complex but he is eternal. Well that would be a contradiction. But I did not say that. I said all complex things ACCEPT God are designed.

There has to be a first cause. Do you have ANY conceivable 7th view that you can come up with and bring to the table of options?

Hmm, pick a contradiction? No thanks.

If you pick a contradiction (assuming they all have one) you take a gamble. But here is the other thing, if you REFUSE to pick one, YOU STILL take a gamble, because you’re not committing to God. I don’t know why you’re not seeing that, it is so simple and obvious.

And yet you continue to make the same unreasonable argument over and over and then wonder why no one seems to take it seriously.

The argument from complexity forbids a complex first cause because it requires that complexity be designed. This is why I keep telling you that you can't have it both ways. You cannot use the argument from complexity and then postulate a complex first cause. It simply doesn't work. All it does is create a massive contradiction.

If you say there is no first cause, that view holds a contradiction!

If you were, in fact, motivated by reason then you would see this too.

I see what you’re getting at, yes, but I told why my view is the most plausible, philosophically speaking. And I also stated there is no other 7th view on the table of options. And I made a prediction, that there never will be a 7th.

This is YOUR predicament.

First cause doesn't save your view and I've already explained why.

Yes it does save it and I explained why, plus my view is most plausible philosophically.

Well then, if you're good with limiting yourself to those six views then your welcome. Just don't mind it if I decide not to limit myself to them.

Oh ok, so if you don’t limit yourself to them, then tell us what the 7the view is?

If you bring a 7 to the table, I will be glad to accept it on the table of options by all means. But it must be a TRULY 7th view, and not a view that is the same as the others, just said in a different way.

 

[Jollybear]

Wrong, I never said that making a prediction is a claim of omniscience.

However, saying "there will never be a 7th view" as a statement of fact is a claim of omniscience.

If you're saying "no 7th view" as a prediction, that's fine.

God knows that there will never be a 7th view come to the table, therefore he is omniscient. I predict a 7th view will never come to the table. In about 30 to 40 years I will come back and haunt you with that prediction.

Okay let's, for the sake of argument, assume that these 6 views really are all that there is. Why must I commit to any one of them?

Because if I am right then your goose is going to roast in hell.

My position on the origin of the universe is a very simple one, "I don't know."

And that is included as one of the 6 views I had mentioned.

Now, unlike what your 6 view chart would have us believe,

You mean the 5 on the chart, excluding yours which is one of them, making it 6.

saying I don't know is not saying that the other views are wrong. If one of them turns out to be right, great. However, I refuse to commit to any of them until there is enough evidence, simple as that.

Beautiful. On your death bed you’re not going to have “enough TANGIBLE evidence”. But, your still going to be taking a gamble. You even said it yourself that you don’t know if any of the 5 views are wrong. Your taking a gamble.

You know it.

If the god of the bible is the real one then I guess I'm screwed, aren't I? I'll be sent to hell for the crime of being an atheist and spend all of eternity burning in agony simply because my faith could not overcome my reason.

Ok, assuming I am right again, and God asks you to answer for being wrong, what would you tell him?

Believe it or not, there was a time when I wanted nothing more than to believe in god. I studied the bible, I prayed, I wept, but it simply never "clicked". My mind would never allow faith to take root.

Wrong, YOU never allowed faith to take root, it was not your mind not allowing it, it was you allowing your mind to take control. Therefore it was YOU that did not allow faith to take root. Don’t blame it on the mind now. When it comes to judgment day and you answer to God, you can’t blame it on the mind. You must take full responsibility.

I prayed that god would allow his words, his spirit to take hold of my life. I surrendered myself totally to god.

Apparently you did not surrender yourself totally to God. If you did, then you would have surrendered your reason and your mind to him.

Still, it simply wouldn't work.

For reasons I said above.

I spent nearly 20 years trying to overcome what I called "my skeptic's mind." I tried as hard as I could to simply turn my reason off. It never worked.

God never said that if you resist the devil he would not come back! It was working, the only time it STOPED working is when you STOPED FIGHTING.

You can't even begin to imagine the guilt I felt for that.

That guilt was the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Good thing you felt that guilt, if you didn’t, that would mean God left you.

The entire time I tried and failed, I begged to know what I was doing wrong.

And I just told you what you did wrong, you stopped fighting, you did not surrender your mind to God and you blamed your mind for having a lack of faith instead of taking responsibility yourself.

I referred to my own mind as "my curse".

The mind is not your curse, it is what comes INTO the mind that is a curse. The mind is a channel, God can use it, and the devil can also use it and our own flesh can use it. It’s just a channel, it’s neither good or bad, it’s what comes THROUGH it, that depends on when it’s good or bad.

Jollybear, I nearly went mad trying to find god

Why go mad looking for him? He already found you, and you DID find him, you just stopped serving him or seeking him.

and if god decides to send me to hell because I couldn't bear putting myself through the torment anymore then I guess he isn't worth worshiping anyway.

Or perhaps you are not worth bringing to heaven TO HIM if you give up trusting him. God created this universe, gave you life, gave you good things, came down in the flesh and died for your sins, and promises many blessings in heaven for you if you stand fast in trusting him, and you cannot do that? Then maybe it’s you that is not worth bringing to heaven to him? It’s not him that is not worth worshiping, he is worth it. It’s not worth GIVING UP worshiping him.

If God put himself through torment for you, why can’t you do a little bit for him? The bible says “we must share in the sufferings of Christ that we also may share in his glory”. It also says “take up your cross and follow me (Jesus says)”. He did not say it would be easy. He said narrow is the road that leads to life and FEW there be that find it.

Why am I not concerned about what will happen after I die? Because I see no reason to believe that my consciousness will survive my own death.

You see no reason? Your reasoning is not knowledge. You don’t know if you will NOT survive after death and what will happen to you after death. So, being that this is the case that you don’t know if I am wrong, you need to be a bit concerned.

 

[Jollybear]

That's funny, in his latest book he referred to it as "[E]volution by non-random natural selection."

Yea, that is funny since I heard him in audio say it was little chances over much periods of time. Isn’t that something now?

Like I said before, I'm waiting for evidence, that's all.

I have to ask this, I can’t wait 30 years to ask it. What will you do if my prediction is true at your death bed, will you choose one of the views?

You missed my point. The bible does argue for a young earth and we know that the earth is far from young. If a book that claims to be infallible is known to be wrong in this case, why trust it for anything else? A little leaven leaventh through.

Yes, I believe the bible argues for a young earth, although some bible believers disagree, but short answer is, their wrong. But I was not arguing for a young earth this whole time. I was arguing for design.

Also even if the bible was proven to be false in ONE area then that would not make it false in ALL areas. Were you ever wrong in your life on anything? If yes, does that make everything you have ever done in life not trustworthy? Come on now, of course not.

Plus, you don’t KNOW that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, you assume this. You were not a witness of all that time going by. And dating methods, well we could get into those, I have issues with them. But another point to ponder is, God can give an appearance of age (and no that is not deception since he told us how he made it in genesis).

Looks like you're still stuck with your contradiction.

Looks like you’re stuck with accounting for the first cause and it also looks like your stuck with your gamble. So, hah.

So, how do you know which one is right and which one is wrong? You have two scientists, one says evolution, the other says creationism. How do you pick?

I pick based on looking at both sides and going with the most plausible in EVERY regards.

Also when you say the word creationism, I hope you mean design, not just young earth creationism.

Evolution is not a simple subject. I posted an article which explains it in simple terms. If you want to know what evolution is, how it works, and how changes come into existence then read the linked to information.

Ok, I gauss I will have to, even though I read a good bit of information on evolution over the years. But once I am done reading it, I am coming back with vengeance.

Refresh my memory, when did I say chance played no part in evolution? Chance does play a part but it is not the driving force. Natural selection is the driving force and natural selection is most certainly not random chance.

So is natural selection intelligent selection? Or is it chance selection? Define “natural” selection.

Also when I represented macro evolution as chance, you said I did not know the first thing about it, and you said it was not designed, but it came about by natural means. I asked what was that natural means if not design nor chance? And I am still asking it.

Because, saying "All mutations are harmful" is wrong. We have ample evidence to the contrary.

Also, saying that mutations do not add new information is again wrong. Once again, we have ample evidence to the contrary.

Examples of beneficial mutations

Here is a short article with talk origins saying the same thing your article says and then a response from the creation side. This article shows that mutations never create new information.

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Most_mutations_are_harmful

That is a complete non-sequitur.

Your saying that 'they don't know everything about their subject' equals 'they don't know ANYTHING about their subject'.

No, I was not saying that, I was saying that if they don’t know the correct view on a given issue, that means they only know ABOUT their field, and they don’t KNOW there field better than the other scientist. Therefore, the layman who agrees with the CORRECT scientist, the wrong scientist is not better then the layman. He is WORSE, since he should know better than the layman.

 

[Jollybear]

Jose_fly

So "complex = design"? If so, how are you defining "complex" and how are you measuring it?

I define complex as many vital parts, without those vital parts that make up the system it won’t work. How am I measuring it, by looking at those vital parts and seeing that if one part is taken away, what happens to the system, and what happens is, it stops working.

So there are no organisms that don't have brains, hearts, intestines, or veins? Funny...I'm quite sure there are all sorts of organisms that don't have some of those things yet still survive quite well.

I was not saying all organism have these things. But even those organisms that don’t have these organs DO in fact have other VITAL parts to make THEM work. Either way you look at it, you’re left with that dilemma.

Plus, could you stick with what I said. The human body. How could all those organs and vital parts in the human body come about by a natural means and not design?

Um, you do realize that evolution is non-random, yes?

Stop beating around the bush and tell me how the complex human body came about? Or how about I put it this way since you may give a beat around the question type of answer. What brought about the first complex BODY of whatever?

But I think the main flaw in your thinking is you're working backwards. You're taking H. sapiens and taking parts away, noting that it can be lethal, and using that to conclude "it must have come together all at once". But that's not anything like how evolution operates. No one has ever suggested there were H. sapiens without hearts or brains and those things just evolved into them.

Instead, evolution states that humans evolved from earlier species of primates that already had brains, hearts, etc. And those primates evolved from organisms that had those things as well. You see the point here, right? The organisms in which the precursors to, and later the early versions of brains, hearts, etc. evolved weren't human at all...heck, they weren't even mammals!

That's why your reasoning is simply a straw man fallacy.

You just keep beating around the bush. Who cares if humans came from a common ancestor at this moment or not, who cares if we came from something smaller then that even. What caused the first complex body of whatever to come to be?

 

[Jose Fly]

I define complex as many vital parts, without those vital parts that make up the system it won’t work. How am I measuring it, by looking at those vital parts and seeing that if one part is taken away, what happens to the system, and what happens is, it stops working.

By that criterion, HIV, ebola, and all other pathogens that cause disease are "designed". IOW, by your own criterion your god intentionally designed the pathogens that cause tuberculosis, small pox, rabies, botulism, cholera, etc.

Your god is the worst bioterrorist that's ever existed.

I was not saying all organism have these things. But even those organisms that don’t have these organs DO in fact have other VITAL parts to make THEM work. Either way you look at it, you’re left with that dilemma.

So are there any organisms that aren't "designed"?

Plus, could you stick with what I said. The human body. How could all those organs and vital parts in the human body come about by a natural means and not design?

Obviously you either didn't read or understand what I posted. "All those organs and vital parts" didn't arise in the human body; they arose long before humans ever existed. So your "all at once" argument is the fallacy of argument via straw man.

What brought about the first complex BODY of whatever?

I'll answer after you let me know whether there has ever been a "non-complex" organism.

You just keep beating around the bush. Who cares if humans came from a common ancestor at this moment or not, who cares if we came from something smaller then that even. What caused the first complex body of whatever to come to be?

Is this too difficult for you?

 

[painted wolf]

I understand it’s not one giant step, but all those micro changes leading to a big change over much time, is NOT PROVEN! It’s not proven that tons of micro changes led up to big changes!

But we can see the micro changes in the DNA of living and extinct animals... Part of my research on American Horseshoe crabs was measuring some of those changes at population levels, but if I had DNA from other Horseshoe crab species I could measure the micro changes between them... and other more distantly related species.
Like a genealogy... but for species going further back into time.

Kind is the human race for example. Kind is, a cat for another example.

So would that be like the genus or species? Is it determined by appearance or genetics?
Is a housecat the same kind as a Tiger... or a Nimravid?

Information is that which holds intelligence. It’s like a language, a communication.

Ok... so mutations that add new sequences of nucleotides must therefore add information yes? Polyploidy (very common in plants) adds whole new sets of chromosomes that add useful function to the organism. Modern Wheat was developed via polyploidy.

Simple enough?

It's a good start, thank you. Perhaps a little oversimple, as it leaves me with lots of other questions. I hope you don't mind asking more questions as I try to figure this out.

wa:do

 

[Wotan]

"1 energy is eternal or the universe is
2 universe created itself
3 nothing, plus chance and time created the universe
4 God created the universe."

WHICH god?
How do you know?

 

[Wotan]

"You see no reason? Your reasoning is not knowledge. You don’t know if you will NOT survive after death and what will happen to you after death. So, being that this is the case that you don’t know if I am wrong, you need to be a bit concerned. "

Strange is it not that of the myriads that before us passed the door of darkness thru
not one has returned to tell us of the road that to learn we must travel to?

 

[Wotan]

"Jollybear, I nearly went mad trying to find god "

Trying to find objective evidence of the products of other people's imagination can do that.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

And what part of my sentence did you not understand? The law of gravity has evidence for its existence, but it does not have TANGIBLE evidence for its existence. Magnetism has evidence for its existence, but not TANGIBLE evidence for its existence. God has evidence for his existence, but not TANGIBLE evidence for his existence. Get use to it, no one will ever give you “tangible” evidence for God’s existence to your thread here. But, just because there is not TANGIBLE evidence does not make it false, no more than it would make gravity or magnetism false.

It’s TANGIBLE evidence that you want, not just evidence. If it’s JUST evidence, well I gave it to you. If it’s tangible, well forget it, me nor anyone else will give it to you, because it cannot be given to you until your dead or unless God gives you a sovereign direct revelation or apparition. And those things are rare occurrences. Although you could seek him for one. \

see point #4 of the OP

Ok, if you deny that there is a cycle of eternity, then you’re saying in essence the universe came from nothing along with time. Or, do you stick with the “I don’t know”?

Seriously, what part of my last few postings have you failed to understand?!

Plus, my argument about eternity is a philosophical argument.

And this is a thread for scientific evidence.

Either way you look at it, you can’t get out of it. You constantly think your nice and snug in your “I don’t know” position and you think that keeps you safe from any problems. No, it don’t, it creates a different problem, the problem which is, your taking a gamble by not committing to God.

You know it too.

I mean you can say all you want “he probably does not exist” but that holds no weight in comparison to the other views, and the fact that no other views are on the table, shows you’re taking a REAL gamble by not committing to him. You know it.

Whatever

NO, if you don’t answer the argument, you show my case to be strong and yours to be weak. Also by not addressing the argument you think this is PURELY a fact or science issue and it’s NOT! It’s a philosophical issue as well. We cannot prove any view 100% either way, I predict we never will, now that being said, the only way we can BEST figure out what view is most plausible, we need to go the philosophical path, which means, ADRESS THE ARGUMENT I MADE.

You aren't by any chance related to Fatihah, are you?

The only ones that are the most serious are 4 views, the rest are not as serious. The most serious are
1 energy is eternal or the universe is
2 universe created itself
3 nothing, plus chance and time created the universe
4 God created the universe.

The other 2 views are not as serious, which are
5 I don’t know why the universe is here or how it got here
6 The universe is not really here, it’s an illusion

The 5th view is not really a view, it’s the I don’t know position; which asserts still a view which is that nothing bad will happen to you after you die.
And the 6th view is pathetic to say the least for obvious reasons.

That means there are only 4 SERIOUS views. But I mention the 6 to be fair. There is no 7, never will be.

So you say.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Oh, right, your hanging your life in the balance of waiting for a 7th to show up. Which you ASSUME will show up, you don’t know this. I make a different prediction; I predict a 7 will NEVER show up.

And in about 30 to 40 years from now I am going to come back and rub my prediction in your face, I CAN’T WAIT until those years come by.

So you really want me to be here in 30 or 40 years just so you can tell me that I was worng? Do you have any idea how pathetic that sounds?

I told you why God is IMMUNE! It’s because there has to be a FIRST CAUSE! Haha! Goodness gracious. And out of all the views on the table, he is the most PLAUSIBLE first cause.

More 'by fiat' declarations.

There is no contradiction, I did not say ALL complex things are designed, if I said all things, THEN I would have contradicted myself. But I said, all complex things are designed ACCEPT God. Or everything that is complex accept God is designed. I did not contradict myself. If I said all things complex are designed, then said. God is complex but he is eternal. Well that would be a contradiction. But I did not say that. I said all complex things ACCEPT God are designed.

see below

There is your evidence that God exists [...] Complexity is design.

You've (by your own admission) been arguing for a complex god, therefore according to your first post, that complex god would have to be designed too.

There has to be a first cause. Do you have ANY conceivable 7th view that you can come up with and bring to the table of options?

Not interested.

If you say there is no first cause, that view holds a contradiction!

When did I say that there was no first cause. I said that science shows that, on a quantum level, a first cause is unnecessary, but I never said that there was no first cause.

I see what you’re getting at, yes, but I told why my view is the most plausible, philosophically speaking. And I also stated there is no other 7th view on the table of options. And I made a prediction, that there never will be a 7th.

And I've told you why your view is implausible. As long as it continues to contradict itself, it isn't logical.

Yes it does save it and I explained why, plus my view is most plausible philosophically.

This isn't a thread for philosophy.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

God knows that there will never be a 7th view come to the table, therefore he is omniscient.

You claim to speak for god now?

Because if I am right then your goose is going to roast in hell.

And if you've picked the wrong god, you're screwed too. See you in hell, Jollybear.

Beautiful. On your death bed you’re not going to have “enough TANGIBLE evidence”. But, your still going to be taking a gamble. You even said it yourself that you don’t know if any of the 5 views are wrong. Your taking a gamble.

You know it.

Whatever.

Ok, assuming I am right again, and God asks you to answer for being wrong, what would you tell him?

Not enough evidence, sir. Not enough evidence.

Wrong, YOU never allowed faith to take root, it was not your mind not allowing it, it was you allowing your mind to take control. Therefore it was YOU that did not allow faith to take root. Don’t blame it on the mind now. When it comes to judgment day and you answer to God, you can’t blame it on the mind. You must take full responsibility.

Apparently you did not surrender yourself totally to God. If you did, then you would have surrendered your reason and your mind to him.

For reasons I said above.

God never said that if you resist the devil he would not come back! It was working, the only time it STOPED working is when you STOPED FIGHTING.

That guilt was the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Good thing you felt that guilt, if you didn’t, that would mean God left you.

And I just told you what you did wrong, you stopped fighting, you did not surrender your mind to God and you blamed your mind for having a lack of faith instead of taking responsibility yourself.

The mind is not your curse, it is what comes INTO the mind that is a curse. The mind is a channel, God can use it, and the devil can also use it and our own flesh can use it. It’s just a channel, it’s neither good or bad, it’s what comes THROUGH it, that depends on when it’s good or bad.

Why go mad looking for him? He already found you, and you DID find him, you just stopped serving him or seeking him.

You have no idea what you're talking about. None whatsoever.

Or perhaps you are not worth bringing to heaven TO HIM if you give up trusting him. God created this universe, gave you life, gave you good things, came down in the flesh and died for your sins, and promises many blessings in heaven for you if you stand fast in trusting him, and you cannot do that? Then maybe it’s you that is not worth bringing to heaven to him? It’s not him that is not worth worshiping, he is worth it. It’s not worth GIVING UP worshiping him.

If God put himself through torment for you, why can’t you do a little bit for him? The bible says “we must share in the sufferings of Christ that we also may share in his glory”. It also says “take up your cross and follow me (Jesus says)”. He did not say it would be easy. He said narrow is the road that leads to life and FEW there be that find it.

As I said, the mental torment I endured was more than I could bear. If god decides to send me to hell because I couldn't take it anymore then so be it.

You see no reason? Your reasoning is not knowledge. You don’t know if you will NOT survive after death and what will happen to you after death. So, being that this is the case that you don’t know if I am wrong, you need to be a bit concerned.

I'm not concerned. Not. One. Bit.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Yea, that is funny since I heard him in audio say it was little chances over much periods of time. Isn’t that something now?

Well, no doubt that little chance elements played their part but they aren't the driving force of evolution.

I have to ask this, I can’t wait 30 years to ask it. What will you do if my prediction is true at your death bed, will you choose one of the views?

No, not without evidence. Why should I?

Yes, I believe the bible argues for a young earth, although some bible believers disagree, but short answer is, their wrong. But I was not arguing for a young earth this whole time. I was arguing for design.

Also even if the bible was proven to be false in ONE area then that would not make it false in ALL areas. Were you ever wrong in your life on anything? If yes, does that make everything you have ever done in life not trustworthy? Come on now, of course not.

True, but I'm not god. If a book claiming to be the perfect word of god is found to be in error then what does that tell you?

Plus, you don’t KNOW that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, you assume this. You were not a witness of all that time going by. And dating methods, well we could get into those, I have issues with them. But another point to ponder is, God can give an appearance of age (and no that is not deception since he told us how he made it in genesis).

Wrong, it is deception. Telling us how he made it makes no difference. If god created the world to appear older then it actually is then, if anyone stumbles over that point and is lost because of it, god is to blame.

Looks like you’re stuck with accounting for the first cause and it also looks like your stuck with your gamble. So, hah.

I pick based on looking at both sides and going with the most plausible in EVERY regards.

I have to ask. How deeply did you look into the two sides? Where did you get your information on Evolution?

Also when you say the word creationism, I hope you mean design, not just young earth creationism.

It's an umbrella term to me. YEC, OEC, ID = same church, different pew.

Ok, I gauss I will have to, even though I read a good bit of information on evolution over the years. But once I am done reading it, I am coming back with vengeance.

I await your reply.

So is natural selection intelligent selection, Or is it chance selection?

It's neither.

Define “natural” selection.

Also when I represented macro evolution as chance, you said I did not know the first thing about it, and you said it was not designed, but it came about by natural means. I asked what was that natural means if not design nor chance? And I am still asking it.

I understand that and I'm trying to answer you as best I can.

Evolution is not a chance process, at least not purely. Neither is it an intelligent process. Evolution has no goal. It doesn't say, "Okay, now I'm going to evolve a wing or an eye."

Evolution works by natural selection (I know I'm repeating myself but bear with me). Now, if I may use an analogy. say you have group of fish swimming through a pond. In this pond, along with your fish, is a predator. The fish go about their lives; eating, swimming, and making baby fish. All the while the predator picks off some of them here and there.
Now, suppose that one fish is born that is slightly different than the others. He may be faster, more agile, better camouflaged to his environment, whatever. The point is that he is better able to evade the predator than the others. The odds of him surviving and reproducing are greater than those of the other fish. He evades the predator and passes the genes that made him a better survivor to the next generation. That, in a very simple form, is natural selection. Those animals better equipped to survive, do survive. They pass on their genes to their offspring and their offspring, thanks to heredity, pick up the variations that improved their parent(s).

Like I said, it's not a matter of chance or design. It's (pardon the pun) a whole different animal.

Here is a short article with talk origins saying the same thing your article says and then a response from the creation side. This article shows that mutations never create new information.

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Most_mutations_are_harmful

That article does not inspire confidence in its author. It condemns an evolutionary experiment for being conducted in an evolutionary framework, references a process called "Natural Genetic Engineering" which I sincerely hope is a joke, confuses artificial selection with natural selection, assumes negative side-effects where none are proven to exist, flat-out denies a beneficial RNA mutation (still can't understand why), and its examples of degenerative mutations that would have survival advantages are laughable.

No, I was not saying that, I was saying that if they don’t know the correct view on a given issue, that means they only know ABOUT their field, and they don’t KNOW there field better than the other scientist. Therefore, the layman who agrees with the CORRECT scientist, the wrong scientist is not better then the layman. He is WORSE, since he should know better than the layman.

But, again, the layman is simply assuming which one is right. He's done little, if any, research for himself. How does he know that the scientist he assumes is wrong is not, in fact, correct?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Trying to find objective evidence of the products of other people's imagination can do that.

I know that now

 

[Jollybear]

Jose_Fly

By that criterion, HIV, ebola, and all other pathogens that cause disease are "designed". IOW, by your own criterion your god intentionally designed the pathogens that cause tuberculosis, small pox, rabies, botulism, cholera, etc.

Your god is the worst bioterrorist that's ever existed.

Well there is a few problems with this statement.
1 If God created HIV ect that means he created the means for justice. In other words, remember when Adam eat the fruit? God said if you eat it, you will die. Also God said cursed be the ground because of what you did. That means God created a curse, a means of justice against sin. Why should we question God’s justice if we do wrong against him?
2 There is a more pleasant variation to number 1, God set it up in such a way that if we sin, our own sins will create the curse and we thus curse ourselves. And that happens at times, if you live a dirty life, that can create disease. God set it up that way. In other words, one must understand how to USE their own design so as not to damage it.
3 Your forgetting one thing, a Devil exists with his demons and they have been around for awhile and they know how to manipulate nature to create bad stuff.

So, looks like God still looks like a great God. Looks like your point fails then unless you can refute what I said here.

So are there any organisms that aren't "designed"?

No, all organisms ARE designed. Why do you ask?

Obviously you either didn't read or understand what I posted. "All those organs and vital parts" didn't arise in the human body; they arose long before humans ever existed. So your "all at once" argument is the fallacy of argument via straw man.

Ok, forget the human body then, for the sake of argument, how did a fully complex, functional, with tons of vital parts (who cares what we call the parts) come to be? And who cares what we call this body as well. Let’s call it the FIRST body (what a beautiful name huh? Better and more simple then the big huge mile long names scientists put on things).

I'll answer after you let me know whether there has ever been a "non-complex" organism.

Ha ha! You thought you could trap me huh? Your arrow missed! No, there has never been a non-complex organism.

Now let’s see you tell me how a complex body could come about. This should be good. Sits back with feet up and looks on with intent delight.

Is this too difficult for you?

No, what caused the first complex organism of whatever to come to be?

What is this conceivable natural means that brought it about?

 

[Jollybear]

Painted_wolf

But we can see the micro changes in the DNA of living and extinct animals... Part of my research on American Horseshoe crabs was measuring some of those changes at population levels, but if I had DNA from other Horseshoe crab species I could measure the micro changes between them... and other more distantly related species.
Like a genealogy... but for species going further back into time.

Give me proof that a crab came from something other than a crab? That means you would have to give me all the chain transitions. Show me them in pictures. Not an article saying that this has happened, I want all the pictures lined up in their rightful transitions.

That’s proof.

Do you have that?

So would that be like the genus or species? Is it determined by appearance or genetics?
Is a housecat the same kind as a Tiger... or a Nimravid?

For the most part it is determined by appearance. A tiger looks like a cat. A black man and a white man both look like humans.

There is the kind, and from the kind branch out variations of that kind.

Ok... so mutations that add new sequences of nucleotides must therefore add information yes?

It does not add new information, no it don’t. Mutations either scramble existing information or in some cases it’s NOT mutation at all, it’s genetic engineering.

Polyploidy (very common in plants) adds whole new sets of chromosomes that add useful function to the organism. Modern Wheat was developed via polyploidy.

Explain more? And explain it simple enough to where a kid can understand it too.

 

[Jollybear]

Evelyonian

see point #4 of the OP

In the beginning of the thread you asked for “tangible” evidence. What did you mean by tangible? If it’s tangible evidence you want for God, no one can give it. If it’s just evidence, well we gave it, and it IS evidence.

Again, let me ask you. Do you believe gravity exists? If yes, on what bases do you believe it exists? What evidence is there for gravity?

Seriously, what part of my last few postings have you failed to understand?!

Help me understand. If you deny there is a cycle of eternity, tell me how you know that? Or do you conveniently stick with the “I don’t know?”

And this is a thread for scientific evidence.

Is there scientific evidence for gravity? Is it tangible evidence for gravity?

What do you mean by scientific evidence, define that for me.

Whatever

And “whatever” means you know you’re taking a gamble too. You just can’t stand it. It’s just as tormenting as it was serving God for you.

You aren't by any chance related to Fatihah, are you?

Who is Fatihah? Plus this question does not address what I said

“NO, if you don’t answer the argument, you show my case to be strong and yours to be weak. Also by not addressing the argument you think this is PURELY a fact or science issue and it’s NOT! It’s a philosophical issue as well. We cannot prove any view 100% either way, I predict we never will, now that being said, the only way we can BEST figure out what view is most plausible, we need to go the philosophical path, which means, ADRESS THE ARGUMENT I MADE.”

So you say.

Ok world, come up with a 7th view on origins besides these views here

“1 energy is eternal or the universe is
2 universe created itself
3 nothing, plus chance and time created the universe
4 God created the universe.

The other 2 views are not as serious, which are
5 I don’t know why the universe is here or how it got here
6 The universe is not really here, it’s an illusion”

Because evelyonian cannot come up with one.

So you really want me to be here in 30 or 40 years just so you can tell me that I was worng? Do you have any idea how pathetic that sounds?

To you it sounds pathetic, to me it sounds lovely. That’s the nature of making a prediction, is to map it over time, what is so pathetic about that? If my prediction holds up in 30 to 40 years and you don’t believe my prediction will hold up, that means I get to rub it in your face in 30 to 40 years.

More 'by fiat' declarations.

This is not addressing what I said, it’s just a reply to what I said.

“I told you why God is IMMUNE! It’s because there has to be a FIRST CAUSE! Haha! Goodness gracious. And out of all the views on the table, he is the most PLAUSIBLE first cause.”

You've (by your own admission) been arguing for a complex god, therefore according to your first post, that complex god would have to be designed too.

“There is no contradiction, I did not say ALL complex things are designed, if I said all things, THEN I would have contradicted myself. But I said, all complex things are designed ACCEPT God. Or everything that is complex accept God is designed. I did not contradict myself. If I said all things complex are designed, then said. God is complex but he is eternal. Well that would be a contradiction. But I did not say that. I said all complex things ACCEPT God are designed.”

And…… there has to be a first cause, and you have not brought a 7th view to the table.


Let me ask you a new question. Assuming for the moment that all 6 of these views are the only ones that exist, ONE of them is right. Let’s just assume that for the sake of argument for the moment. What one would you RATHER pick out of all of them IF you had to choose one of them?

 

[Jollybear]

Not interested.

And this says volumes for your case and for how open you are.

“There has to be a first cause. Do you have ANY conceivable 7th view that you can come up with and bring to the table of options?”

When did I say that there was no first cause. I said that science shows that, on a quantum level, a first cause is unnecessary, but I never said that there was no first cause.

What do you mean when you say a first cause is unnecessary?

Define that please.

And I've told you why your view is implausible. As long as it continues to contradict itself, it isn't logical.

I am talking about which view out of all 5 views (excluding your’s the “I don’t know” position) which view out of the 5 is most plausible? I KNOW you think they are ALL non plausible, but if you had to choose which one is MOST plausible out of all 5, which one would you pick? And WHY?

This isn't a thread for philosophy.

“Yes it does save it and I explained why, plus my view is most plausible philosophically.”

Also tell me how science does not use philosophy? The multiverse view is science using philosophy for example.

IF that is not philosophy, what the heck is it?

You claim to speak for god now?

No, I am just saying that assuming God exists, it would be logical that he would be omniscient.

And if you've picked the wrong god, you're screwed too. See you in hell,

IF I picked the wrong God, YES I would be screwed too. But I told you WHY my God is more plausible then all the other gods, to which that argument was not addressed by you nor anyone else.

Now that being said, I am still open for someone to show me why any other god would be more plausible then my God. In other words, I SHOW CONCERN, while you do not by your own admittance.

Which I find quite suicidal in a different sense of the word.

Whatever.

“Beautiful. On your death bed you’re not going to have “enough TANGIBLE evidence”. But, your still going to be taking a gamble. You even said it yourself that you don’t know if any of the 5 views are wrong. Your taking a gamble.

You know it.”

Your lack of concern is suicidal

Not enough evidence, sir. Not enough evidence.

You would tell God he did not give enough evidence? That is what you would tell him? What if he says he did give enough evidence on a philosophical level? What would you tell him then?

You have no idea what you're talking about. None whatsoever.

Yea…..sure I don’t……instead of giving another one of your denying my statements or arguments lines that you give too much, why not address what I said.

As I said, the mental torment I endured was more than I could bear. If god decides to send me to hell because I couldn't take it anymore then so be it.

Strange, why can I endure it, but you can’t? If I can go through it, so can you.

If many other millions of folks can endure, so can you. Come on solder, don’t be a wimp and bail out now. Keep marching on.

I'm not concerned. Not. One. Bit.

Ok, let me ask you a different question. If after you die you find yourself at God’s judgment and he tells you that you have to go to hell, will you be concerned THEN?

And before you answer that, the torment in hell will be worse than the torment your mind put you through while you served God. Keep that in mind as you answer the question. IF you answer the question.

No, not without evidence. Why should I?

Why should you? Did it ever dawn on you that God set it up in such a way to where he requires an element of faith? Also did it ever dawn on you that there IS evidence for God, just not TANGIBLE evidence? The evidence is of a philosophical nature. Did that ever dawn on you? Therefore assuming a God at judgment day for you, if you use the excuse there was not enough evidence, that WON’T CUT IT before his court room. You have no excuse.

True, but I'm not god. If a book claiming to be the perfect word of god is found to be in error then what does that tell you?

It’s not FOUND to be in error, you just think it is, but I disagree with you on those lines. It’s NOT found to be in error. BUT, I say this to make a point, EVEN IF it were to be found to have an error, that does not mean one error = the whole book being in error.

 

[Jollybear]

Wrong, it is deception. Telling us how he made it makes no difference. If god created the world to appear older then it actually is then, if anyone stumbles over that point and is lost because of it, god is to blame.

No, you are so obviously wrong here. If God told you how he made it, and then you see an APPEARANCE of age in nature, God then did not deceive you, because he TOLD YOU how he made it. If however he made it and it is young, but he did not TELL you that it was young, and then you found out the appearance of old age in nature, EVEN THAT would not be deception, in that case it would only be a SECRET. Now if God made it a young earth, but told you he made it very old, and you also found that out from nature that it looked old. THEN that would be deception since he would have downright LIED to you.

But this is not the case is it? So how can you say he used deception? That’s nonsense.

Also if you stumble over this and get lost for it, it IS YOUR FAULT, NOT God’s fault, don’t blame it on him, he TOLD you.

So far I see two things working against you in God’s court room.
1 Your going to make up the excuse “not enough evidence” before him
2 Your going to call God a liar and deceiver
3 Your going to blame God and not take any responsibility yourself.

I hate to be you in his court room on that day. God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

Remember that in order to prepare for that day.

I have to ask. How deeply did you look into the two sides? Where did you get your information on Evolution?

Some of it I got from talk origins, some of it I got from intelligent design websites. Some of it I got from other evolutionist websites, I can’t remember them all. It’s been mountains of articles I have read over the span of probably about 3 years just about.

Also some of it I got from youtube, and some of it I got from listening to youtube debates from experts on both sides of the issue. Those were quite beneficial in listening to as well.

It's an umbrella term to me. YEC, OEC, ID = same church, different pew.

Ok, that is fine. But remember, any person who believes in God, gods, goddesses can use intelligent design, NOT JUST a church person or bible believer.

I await your reply.

Ok, may I offer another preposition, I’ll mention it below.

It's neither.

So natural selection is not intelligent or chance. Ok. Then what is it?

I understand that and I'm trying to answer you as best I can.

Evolution is not a chance process, at least not purely. Neither is it an intelligent process. Evolution has no goal. It doesn't say, "Okay, now I'm going to evolve a wing or an eye."

Evolution works by natural selection (I know I'm repeating myself but bear with me). Now, if I may use an analogy. say you have group of fish swimming through a pond. In this pond, along with your fish, is a predator. The fish go about their lives; eating, swimming, and making baby fish. All the while the predator picks off some of them here and there.
Now, suppose that one fish is born that is slightly different than the others. He may be faster, more agile, better camouflaged to his environment, whatever. The point is that he is better able to evade the predator than the others. The odds of him surviving and reproducing are greater than those of the other fish. He evades the predator and passes the genes that made him a better survivor to the next generation. That, in a very simple form, is natural selection. Those animals better equipped to survive, do survive. They pass on their genes to their offspring and their offspring, thanks to heredity, pick up the variations that improved their parent(s).

Like I said, it's not a matter of chance or design. It's (pardon the pun) a whole different animal.

Ok, thanks for that explanation and making it simple too. Now here is where my preposition comes in. Building on that analogy of the fish, could you tell me in again a simple way, using the same analogy of this same fish, how this fish could turn into something other than a fish? Actually I don’t want to get ahead, so I’ll ask it this way. After the survived fish passes on his genes to the offspring, and that offspring passes it on as well. Where does the fish changing into something else come into play and how does that happen? You mentioned natural selection, but so far in the analogy, that did not change the fish into something else, it only let survive the most fit or strongest fish. So how does the fish down the line of offspring change gradually into something else? And again, do what you did here, I like this, build on the analogy.

That article does not inspire confidence in its author. It condemns an evolutionary experiment for being conducted in an evolutionary framework, references a process called "Natural Genetic Engineering" which I sincerely hope is a joke,

Why would it be a joke?

confuses artificial selection with natural selection,[/quote]


Difference is?

assumes negative side-effects where none are proven to exist, flat-out denies a beneficial RNA mutation (still can't understand why), and its examples of degenerative mutations that would have survival advantages are laughable.

Why is it beneficial and does it have ANY downside to it at all?

But, again, the layman is simply assuming which one is right. He's done little, if any, research for himself. How does he know that the scientist he assumes is wrong is not, in fact, correct?

In my scenario the layman has done research. He just does not have access to science equipment like a scientist would. But he has read there articles.

 

[painted wolf]

Give me proof that a crab came from something other than a crab? That means you would have to give me all the chain transitions. Show me them in pictures. Not an article saying that this has happened, I want all the pictures lined up in their rightful transitions.

That’s proof.

Do you have that?

That would be a lot of pictures!

For the most part it is determined by appearance. A tiger looks like a cat. A black man and a white man both look like humans.

There is the kind, and from the kind branch out variations of that kind.

So what about creatures that look like they belong in more than one "kind"?

What about creatures that are related to one another but look vastly different?

It does not add new information, no it don’t. Mutations either scramble existing information or in some cases it’s NOT mutation at all, it’s genetic engineering.

I'm going to need you to explain what you mean by "information"... Otherwise I fear we will simply talk past one another.

Explain more? And explain it simple enough to where a kid can understand it too.

Polyploidy is a mutation... during normal cell division the chromosomes (which are made of two mirrored parts) are divided and one half goes to each new cell. The new cells then use their half to fill out their chromosomes.
In polyploidy the chromosome halves don't end up going to two cells but just one. The cell then acts like normal and copies the halves and ends up with double the number of chromosomes.
The extra chromosomes are then free to change without risk of harming the organism, they can also produce extra beneficial cellular products and provide extra resistance to disease.
This is actually very common in plants and new plant species develop quite quickly this way. Most human crops owe their high productivity to polyploidy mutations.
Ancestral wheat has two sets of chromosomes while many modern species have as many as six.