INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496.

I am currently having so many problems with iron clad science that it is taking all my time up to rectify 20 year old technology even after 20 years of improvements, to do any consistent posting. Currently I am hitting and missing as I can.

That is fine. We can discuss those posts when you have more time.

 

[Agnostic75]

I reject all Bible prophecies. We are currently discussing the Tyre prophecy, and you have not provided any credible evidence that God inspired it. I will be happy to discuss any other Bible prophecies with you that you wish as long as I believe that I know enough about the individual prophecy to debate it.

Never claim I am biased or make decisions I am not qualified to make and at the same time tell me you reject all biblical prophecies. It just wrecks credibility.

No sensible person would compare the study of science with the study of Bible prophecy. Macro evolution is studied by using the scientific method, which is much different than studying Bible prophecy.

I usually debate issues that I am willing to debate with anyone, such as the Tyre prophecy, homosexuality, and my posts
3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496 in this thread, but you have refused to debate certain topics with experts, or even with knowledgeable amateur skeptics at other websites. Therefore, your comments are absurd.

It takes far less knowledge to adequately discuss the Tyre prophecy, homosexuality, and my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496 in this thread than it does to adequately discuss macro evolution, and many issues about biblical textual criticism.

You do not personally know enough about macro evolution to question it, and you certainly would not be willing to debate it with an expert who has a Ph.D. in biology.

Yes I do.......

Let me put it another way, you do not know enough about macro evolution for anyone to trust your opinions about it.

.......but I need not have as those that do are readily available.

But you are not qualified to judge debates by experts, and neither are the vast majority of people in the world.

I said the theory has major holes. It may still be enough to justify believing it to be true. I just have no commitment either way and see almost no reason to or relevance to compel me to do so. My consistent point has always been it is a theory that sounds reasonable but contains a great deal of faith and hurdles yet overcome.

You do not need to make a commitment since the vast majority of experts have already made a commitment. One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept macro evolution. Regarding science, it is reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts pending the availability of future research, especially when a large consensus includes the majority of Christian experts.

Wikipedia says:

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

So even though there is a lot left to learn about macro evolution, most experts believe that enough is known about it to accept it.

What scientific evidence suggests to you that creationism, and intelligent design might be true?

The Apostles burdened themselves with a massive empirical burden they had every reason to avoid if their claims were false. There was no expectation of a bodily rising Christ. Even they (even though they should have) did not expect Christ to actually physically resurrect. The Jews certainly didn't. They could have very easily claimed he spiritually arose from the dead and no one could have possibly proven otherwise. However they against all logic proposed he was not in his sealed and guarded grave any longer. Why? Issues with a theft claim only adds improbability onto improbability. Good luck. I can't event think of a bad explanation.

There are lots of reasonable explanations, but you do not want to discuss them with skeptic experts, or with very knowledgeable amateur skeptics, such as the skeptics at Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View forum - Christian Texts and History. There are also a few Christians at that forum.

You know that biblical textual criticism is a vast field, and that very few skeptics at these forums know a lot about it. That is why you want limit your discussions about it to websites, and forums where few people know a lot about it. Since lots of skeptics elsewhere would easily be able to adequately discuss those issues with you, skeptics at these forums who do not know a lot about biblical textual criticism do not need to be concerned with their own lack of knowledge about it.

 

[metis]

One of the nasty things the Romans sometimes did with the bodies after execution was to feed them to the dogs, which was especially a nasty slap in the face with Jews because there was some question then as to whether there had to be at least some body parts to bury from the individual whereas (s)he could rise from the grave when the Messiah arrives.

There were myriads of wild dogs running around back then in that area, and controlling their population was a real problem.

 

[1robin]

One of the nasty things the Romans sometimes did with the bodies after execution was to feed them to the dogs, which was especially a nasty slap in the face with Jews because there was some question then as to whether there had to be at least some body parts to bury from the individual whereas (s)he could rise from the grave when the Messiah arrives.

There were myriads of wild dogs running around back then in that area, and controlling their population was a real problem.

I am not disagreeing with a word you said, but why in the world did you say them? What is the context?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

When I say I don't believe it occurred then this may apply. I said the theory has major holes. It may still be enough to justify believing it to be true. I just have no committed either way and see almost no reason to or relevance to compel me to do so. My consistent point has always been it is a theory that sounds reasonable but contains a great deal of faith and hurdles yet overcome.

I know your busy to reply when you can.

But I have a question that I have asked over and over and over again and never received a strait answer from you or anyone else.

What are the "major holes" in 'macro evolution'? A lot of people say "there is no evidence" but that is demonstrably false and they only think that because someone else who also doesn't know what they are talking about, stated it.

Then there are some run of the mill propaganda websites that host nothing but psuedo science that can be debunked by a high school level of education.

So I ask you, What are the problems with macro evolution?

 

[1robin]

No sensible person would compare the study of science with the study of Bible prophecy. Macro evolution is studied by using the scientific method, which is much different than studying Bible prophecy.

I would actually believe the study of prophecy to be more developed by now, to have more access to the evidence, and certainly to be much more meaningful. I did not compare them, but even if I had there is no reason to contend with that comparison.

I usually debate issues that I am willing to debate with anyone, such as the Tyre prophecy, homosexuality, and my posts
3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496 in this thread, but you have refused to debate certain topics with experts, or even with knowledgeable amateur skeptics at other websites. Therefore, your comments are absurd.

Yeah, I refuse to take of ramps constructed to derail or escape. No formal debate I have ever seen nor should any informal debate ever held include the argument "Oh yeah go argue that with X and see what happens". That does not have any place in a debate. I am debating you and it is your responsibility to provide the data. You would no last 30 seconds with a Craig, White, Plantinga, Aquinas, or Zacharias. However I have not once claimed that about you nor anyone else because it is not part of a debate.

It takes far less knowledge to adequately discuss the Tyre prophecy, homosexuality, and my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496 in this thread than it does to adequately discuss macro evolution, and many issues about biblical textual criticism.

I can partially agree with you. However homosexuality has biological issues just as complex as evolution. Evolution is very complex but the hurdles I mention are very simple. Life only comes from life. Do I need a PhD to know that is what the evidence has shown? The exact same type of eye being evolved in two completely independent lines of evolution makes no sense, on the natural basis. How many degrees does it require to see that simple fact?

Let me put it another way, you do not know enough about macro evolution for anyone to trust your opinions about it.

I am not sure that is relevant. I am supposed to present what I believe to be true and defend it as best I can and you are supposed to do the same. Trust has many elements I am not in control of. It depends in large part on the other persons views. I long ago learned not to expect a person to change their position in a debate. Debates take place between convinced parties and neither side would trust the other's claims in most cases. I the hundreds or maybe thousands of hours of debate I have seen and read only once have I seen a person completely concede a position. Minor points rarely, a position almost never.

But you are not qualified to judge debates by experts, and neither are the vast majority of people in the world.

There are areas in the debates I cannot fully comprehend but most are so simply stated (they are intended to be understood by a general audience) that a high school student could easily grasp them. If laymen just can't judge evolution on any level then why are you debating it?

You do not need to make a commitment since the vast majority of experts have already made a commitment. One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept macro evolution. Regarding science, it is reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts pending the availability of future research, especially when a large consensus includes the majority of Christian experts.

The point was pointing out how many people believe something is not relevant with a person who holds no firm position and has left the question open. At one point it was a virtually unanimous position that the Hittite culture never existed and the bible was wrong. Now there are museums full of artifacts from that same culture. Outside Christian circles it was universally believed Luke had gotten many of his Roman titles wrong in his gospel. These days we know he was perfectly correct. At one time a major study concluded there were no crumbled walls around Jericho in Joshua's time. That study has been found to have been dated wrong and new studies have found the walls and a layer of burned ruins exactly where they should be. It was once widely believed the sun circled the earth. As recently as less than 200 years ago it was believed Picket had the bulk of the command in Picket's charge. It is now know that was not true, that Hill had commanded 2/3 of them. Each one of those claims was about something almost infinitely more accessible or "knowable" than how life began or evolved a half billion years ago and science has never had the burden to be as instantly quick with an answer and as hungry for grant money as it is today. If they were wrong about he former I cannot trust the latter.

Wikipedia says:



So even though there is a lot left to learn about macro evolution, most experts believe that enough is known about it to accept it.

That is a subjective claim. It might be enough for a atheist who does not allow room for a God period, or a person who wants to keep getting grant money, or a person who wants tenure, or even a middle of the road honest scholar. It might not be for another. There is enough evidence to convince 2 billion people that the bible is right. Is that a persuasive argument? Did you change your mind?

What scientific evidence suggests to you that creationism, and intelligent design might be true?

That the only observations and evidence we have is that life only comes from life. That the whole universe in which a razors' balance was achieved to even allow for evolution has no natural explanation. That nature is rational. That if macro evolution did occur it was against so many odds that it would be miraculous it's self. Personally the most persuasive issue is that the complexity of life simply makes random natural selection sound absurd as an explanation. How did random mutation select the exact rods and cones, the exact optic nerves, the exact muscles, the exact visual cortex, the exact motor control, ect... as infinitum. You do not build a space shuttle by throwing a bunch of blueprints and parts in a hopper and shaking them up for a million years. That reminds me of another. Nature is full of information, in fact it may be said to be information. Yet information has one known source, mind.

There are lots of reasonable explanations, but you do not want to discuss them with skeptic experts, or with very knowledgeable amateur skeptics, such as the skeptics at Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View forum - Christian Texts and History. There are also a few Christians at that forum.

You are to provide information in a debate. I have never seen anyone in any debate ever say "oh yeah just go to Cambridge and challenge them".

You know that biblical textual criticism is a vast field, and that very few skeptics at these forums know a lot about it. That is why you want limit your discussions about it to websites, and forums where few people know a lot about it. Since lots of skeptics elsewhere would easily be able to adequately discuss those issues with you, skeptics at these forums who do not know a lot about biblical textual criticism do not need to be concerned with their own lack of knowledge about it.

Yes it is a large field. Should not that indicate it contains a lot of results and reliable data. I want to limit a debate to the person I am debating because I do not have time for anything else and that is how debate works. I will consider the issue of my debating any scholar you refer to a closed issue and will no longer explain why debates do not work like that.

 

[1robin]

I know your busy to reply when you can.

But I have a question that I have asked over and over and over again and never received a strait answer from you or anyone else.

What are the "major holes" in 'macro evolution'? A lot of people say "there is no evidence" but that is demonstrably false and they only think that because someone else who also doesn't know what they are talking about, stated it.

Then there are some run of the mill propaganda websites that host nothing but psuedo science that can be debunked by a high school level of education.

So I ask you, What are the problems with macro evolution?

Hello MOR, I always have to eventually explain this so let me do so upfront. There are three possibilities here.

1. Naturalistic explanations alone for genetic reality.
2. Theistic macro evolution as an explanation for only life's ultimate source not it's development.
3. Theistic creation and guided or partially guided micro evolution.

Since my ultimate position is consistent with either 2 or 3 then my comments will me made in the context of 1. Since including God would fill in any possible gap, problems only exist concerning 1.

These problems are well known and widely discussed and even admitted by most. That does not mean they will not be resolved but just that at this time they remain obstacles to the theory in 1 (above).

A. There is no known example of life coming from non-life. No. 1 above requires this must have to occurred even if aliens are thrown in the mix.
B. The development of exactly the same "solutions" in independent lines of evolution. For example the eye.
C. The presence of information in a universe where only mind has ever been shown to be a source of it.
D. Irreducible complexity despite wishes to the contrary is just as unresolved as it ever was.
E. The seemingly explosion of all major body types without significant development in the Cambrian.
F. The chicken and egg problem with DNA and proteins.
G. The all left handed protein assembly problem.

Each of those require a book to discuss so I will halt here but this list has no actual end.

I have been extremely disappointed in the claims that evidence exists to explain away any one of these. I follow the links spend an hour reading to always find out there are only theories to explain the holes in the theory. That would be fine if the theories were not so extremely speculative. It is one thing to find an empire state building and speculate that intelligence is it's ultimate source. It is quite another to speculate it is the random assemblages of sand, iron, copper, and stone. No I an not drawing an equality, I am pointing out the inequality between speculative quality. Please respond only with reliable evidence preferably with observations.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A. There is no known example of life coming from non-life. No. 1 above requires this must have to occurred even if aliens are thrown in the mix.

This is a problem for abiogenesis, not evolution. No matter how you or others try and spin the issue, evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the origin of the first life forms. Evolution only explains how life changes over time, not how life originates. While it could be argued that the two are somewhat related fields of biology, it is fallacious to assert that one depends or relies on the other in any way. No matter what means life originated through, it does not impact - in the slightest - any of the science or evidence of evolution whatsoever.

B. The development of exactly the same "solutions" in independent lines of evolution. For example the eye.

Two problems. One, all eyes are different. Two, lots of separate species sharing traits such as eyes is a result of common ancestry. This is not a problem for evolution. In fact, quite the opposite. Evolution explains how it occurs.

C. The presence of information in a universe where only mind has ever been shown to be a source of it.

Garbage. No such "information" exists.

D. Irreducible complexity despite wishes to the contrary is just as unresolved as it ever was.

It has been resolved, despite your wishes to the contrary. We reduced that bacterial flagellum and found it still functioned. We have a comprehensive understanding of how complex forms such as the human eye can evolve in increments. To continue to tout irreducible complexity as a problem in evolution demonstrates how little you know or understand about modern evolution theory, and how far behind you are in understanding the developments therein.

E. The seemingly explosion of all major body types without significant development in the Cambrian.

Happened over a period of 60 million years. This is not a problem for evolution.

F. The chicken and egg problem with DNA and proteins.

This is a problem for abiogenesis to resolve.

G. The all left handed protein assembly problem.

Explain, please.

 

[Agnostic75]

You do not need to make a commitment since the vast majority of experts have already made a commitment. One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept macro evolution. Regarding science, it is reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts pending the availability of future research, especially when a large consensus includes the majority of Christian experts.

The point was pointing out how many people believe something is not relevant with a person who holds no firm position and has left the question open. At one point it was a virtually unanimous position that the Hittite culture never existed and the bible was wrong. Now there are museums full of artifacts from that same culture. Outside Christian circles it was universally believed Luke had gotten many of his Roman titles wrong in his gospel. These days we know he was perfectly correct. At one time a major study concluded there were no crumbled walls around Jericho in Joshua's time. That study has been found to have been dated wrong and new studies have found the walls and a layer of burned ruins exactly where they should be. It was once widely believed the sun circled the earth. As recently as less than 200 years ago it was believed Picket had the bulk of the command in Picket's charge. It is now know that was not true, that Hill had commanded 2/3 of them. Each one of those claims was about something almost infinitely more accessible or "knowable" than how life began or evolved a half billion years ago and science has never had the burden to be as instantly quick with an answer and as hungry for grant money as it is today. If they were wrong about he former I cannot trust the latter.

Sometimes the majority of experts have been wrong, but all cases are not the same. Humans can only go with best available evidence at a given time. Darwin wrote his book "On the Origin of Species" over 150 years ago. Since that time, macro evolution has become much more widely accepted by experts, and by amateurs. Wikipedia says:

Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

That is good enough for me, and much more importantly, it is good enough for the vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts.

Even if most experts said that creationism is probably true, the odds would still be astronomical that the God of the Bible does not exist.

But you are not qualified to judge debates by experts, and neither are the vast majority of people in the world.

There are areas in the debates I cannot fully comprehend but most are so simply stated (they are intended to be understood by a general audience) that a high school student could easily grasp them.

Few high school students, and few adult amateurs in the world know enough about biology to intelligently claim based upon their own personal knowledge of biology that macro evolution is true or false. You do not know enough about biology to intelligently claim based upon their own personal knowledge of biology that macro evolution is true or false.

If laymen just can't judge evolution on any level then why are you debating it?

I do not think that I have ever defended macro evolution in this thread based upon my own personal knowledge of biology, and I recall that I have said that I do not know very much about biology.

 

[Agnostic75]

I usually debate issues that I am willing to debate with anyone, such as the Tyre prophecy, homosexuality, and my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496 in this thread, but you have refused to debate certain topics with experts, or even with knowledgeable amateur skeptics at other websites.

Yeah, I refuse to take of ramps constructed to derail or escape.

No, you refuse to debate skeptics who know a lot more about an issue than you do. That is why you have refused to debate macro evolution with skeptic experts, any why you have refused to debate biblical textual criticism with skeptic experts.

You conveniently withdrew from the thread on homosexuality when you realized that my arguments are much better than your arguments are. You were boasting a lot in the thread on the Tyre prophecy, but now you know that you cannot adequately reply to all of my most recent arguments in that thread.

No formal debate I have ever seen nor should any informal debate ever held include the argument "Oh yeah go argue that with X and see what happens". That does not have any place in a debate. I am debating you and it is your responsibility to provide the data.

It most certainly is not my responsibility to debate topics that I do not know a lot about. You said:

The Apostles burdened themselves with a massive empirical burden they had every reason to avoid if their claims were false. There was no expectation of a bodily rising Christ. Even they (even though they should have) did not expect Christ to actually physically resurrect. The Jews certainly didn't. They could have very easily claimed he spiritually arose from the dead and no one could have possibly proven otherwise. However they against all logic proposed he was not in his sealed and guarded grave any longer. Why? Issues with a theft claim only adds improbability onto improbability. Good luck. I can't event think of a bad explanation.

I replied:

There are lots of reasonable explanations, but you do not want to discuss them with skeptic experts, or with very knowledgeable amateur skeptics, such as the skeptics at Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View forum - Christian Texts and History. There are also a few Christians at that forum.

You know that biblical textual criticism is a vast field, and that very few skeptics at these forums know a lot about it. That is why you want limit your discussions about it to websites, and forums where few people know a lot about it. Since lots of skeptics elsewhere would easily be able to adequately discuss those issues with you, skeptics at these forums who do not know a lot about biblical textual criticism do not need to be concerned with their own lack of knowledge about it.

Since I know that some skeptics at that forum are far better qualified to reply to what you said than I am, why in the world would I want to embarrass myself by debating it with you, which is the same attitude that you have about debating what you said with some skeptics at that forum?

You would not last 30 seconds with a Craig, White, Plantinga, Aquinas, or Zacharias. However I have not once claimed that about you nor anyone else because it is not part of a debate.

I would be happy to debate the Tyre prophecy, homosexuality, and my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496 in this thread with anyone, but you are not willing to debate a number of topics with anyone.

It takes far less knowledge to adequately discuss the Tyre prophecy, homosexuality, and my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496 in this thread than it does to adequately discuss macro evolution, and many issues about biblical textual criticism.

I can partially agree with you. However homosexuality has biological issues just as complex as evolution.

Which biological issues are you referring to? You said that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. That is not a complex biological issue.

Evolution is very complex but the hurdles I mention are very simple.

Much of the scientific evidence that supports, and opposes macro evolution is very complex. Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, mutation, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun is very complex. Jerry Coyne's article on whether or not there was enough time for evolution at There’s plenty of time for evolution « Why Evolution Is True is very complex.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496.

I am currently having so many problems with iron clad science that it is taking all my time up to rectify 20 year old technology even after 20 years of improvements, to do any consistent posting. Currently I am hitting and missing as I can.

That is fine. We can discuss those posts when you have more time. I believe that my arguments in those posts are irrefutable by you, or by anyone else.

Please reply to my two previous posts.

 

[Agnostic75]

I reject all Bible prophecies. We are currently discussing the Tyre prophecy, and you have not provided any credible evidence that God inspired it. I will be happy to discuss any other Bible prophecies with you that you wish as long as I believe that I know enough about the individual prophecy to debate it.

Never claim I am biased or make decisions I am not qualified to make and at the same time tell me you reject all biblical prophecies. It just wrecks credibility.

No sensible person would compare the study of science with the study of Bible prophecy. Macro evolution is studied by using the scientific method, which is much different than studying Bible prophecy.

I would actually believe the study of prophecy to be more developed by now, to have more access to the evidence, and certainly to be much more meaningful. I did not compare them, but even if I had there is no reason to contend with that comparison.

But you did compare them when you said:

"Never claim I am biased or make decisions I am not qualified to make and at the same time tell me you reject all biblical prophecies. It just wrecks credibility."

Regarding the Tyre prophecy, nothing about it reasonably proves that a God inspired it.

 

[1robin]

This is a problem for abiogenesis, not evolution. No matter how you or others try and spin the issue, evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the origin of the first life forms. Evolution only explains how life changes over time, not how life originates. While it could be argued that the two are somewhat related fields of biology, it is fallacious to assert that one depends or relies on the other in any way. No matter what means life originated through, it does not impact - in the slightest - any of the science or evidence of evolution whatsoever.

Did you skip the preemptive explanation I was convinced would stop this type of response? I really cannot explain it any better. Please review it. Macro-evolution is a theory that represents a reality. That reality is completely dependent on abiogenesis. If the theory can't get out of the lab and stand on it's own two feet, then it is not persuasive.

Two problems. One, all eyes are different. Two, lots of separate species sharing traits such as eyes is a result of common ancestry. This is not a problem for evolution. In fact, quite the opposite. Evolution explains how it occurs.

Yet eyes are an exclusive solution to a problem a mindless system kept solving in virtually identical ways. I did not claim absolute equality. I claimed the same "way". Eyes are a category in a infinite set of possible data. It is just as much of a problem as saying God did it. In fact it is far worse. If God did it you would have no way of going beyond he did it and he is not bound by probability models. Nature is, yet seems to defy them at every turn. Saying evolution did it does not solve anything or make that claim true. Random mutation does not explain eyes popping up independently.

Garbage. No such "information" exists.

What the heck are you talking about. It is a universally granted fact hat the universe contains information. What are you typing? What composes the books you read? What is DNA? Do you remember the show Contact? They very logically pointed a receiver at the sky and said if we ever get information back we will know other intelligent beings exist. Why when we find information every where we look do we not say the same thing?

It has been. We reduced that bacterial flagellum and found it still functioned. We have a comprehensive understanding of how complex forms such as the human eye can evolve in increments. To continue to tout irreducible complexity as a problem in evolution demonstrates how little you know or understand about modern evolution theory, and how far behind you are in understanding the developments therein.

This is one of the worst pieces of slight of hand in science. lets restate this in more familiar terms for clarity. lets says we find a natural 8 cylinder engine somewhere. It is claimed based on the non-functionality of almost infinite compositions of it's parts that the non-functioning parts would not survive to be wedded to the rest of the assembly. What has been done is to show a 4 cylinder engine is a workable and simpler version of the 8 cycle. In what way does that resolve the original claim? It does nothing to explain why genetic windings would be retained without a stator, why a radiator would be retained without a pump, why a carburetor would be retained without a manifold. It did nothing to explain anything yet there is apparently such desperation that it is said to explain everything. That level of desperation is destructive to credibility. The genetic syringe is not a solution to IC.

Happened over a period of 60 million years. This is not a problem for evolution.

Well I am glad to hear it. If I had known that you thought it was no problem I could have slept better. How in the world would you know if that was long enough. There are no tests for that. However it was not the years (which I think your misrepresenting, the period it's self was only 53 million years long and has nothing to do with how long these body types evolved). It is called the explosion for a reason. These basic types simply appear with little or no earlier evolution in the fossil record. I do not care if each one had the entire period to evolve and it was 600 million years. They have virtually no evolutionary record.

This is a problem for abiogenesis to resolve.

That is like the wright brothers hoping someone will invent air. The theory in the context I explained in detail represents reality. In reality it depends on life coming from non-life. You need the whole it rained on the rocks, created a soup, the soup was struck by lightening and came alive to be true or something similar to even have a basis for the theory in the context. BTW everyone agrees that the circumstances are improbable in which life could appear. Some non-Christians calculate the odds at 1 in numbers bigger than the number of atoms ion the universe. IOW hyperbolically rare. What are the chances that astronomical improbability produced a cell (which is more complex than a factory) with a completely function ability to replicate it's self.

Explain, please.

I have not researched evolution in a few years. I gave the whole thing up as irrelevant, useless, and hopelessly unknowable. Though I do not deny it entirely. If my memory is correct proteins used in the assembly of life must have all left handed amino acids. If just one right-handed acid shows up the whole thing is useless. I have found a site that explains it better that I can but it is a well known issue that has not been resolved only conjectured about.

Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.

Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called "left-handed" and "right-handed." The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person's right and left hands.


The same protein's left- (L) and right- (D) handed isomers. The proteins in living creatures consist only of left-handed amino acids.


Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components
Darwinism Refuted.com

 

[1robin]

Sometimes the majority of experts have been wrong, but all cases are not the same. Humans can only go with best available evidence at a given time. Darwin wrote his book "On the Origin of Species" over 150 years ago. Since that time, macro evolution has become much more widely accepted by experts, and by amateurs. Wikipedia says:

I agree but in the category of places where science is most likely to err is in claims about details that occurred millions of years ago. I can't get applicable modern science to work in my lab, I don't have much confidence in the most theoretical end of science.

That is good enough for me, and much more importantly, it is good enough for the vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts.

So you answer each of life's questions by popular vote. How democratic of you. Then why do you deny the conclusions of most humans over history. That a transcendent power must exist. You must adopt at least a wrong theology to remain consistent.

Even if most experts said that creationism is probably true, the odds would still be astronomical that the God of the Bible does not exist.

I don't know what to say to this.

Few high school students, and few adult amateurs in the world know enough about biology to intelligently claim based upon their own personal knowledge of biology that macro evolution is true or false. You do not know enough about biology to intelligently claim based upon their own personal knowledge of biology that macro evolution is true or false.

However someone not trained in science at all walking around in the Galapagos islands is.

I do not think that I have ever defended macro evolution in this thread based upon my own personal knowledge of biology, and I recall that I have said that I do not know very much about biology.

Nor have I critiqued it according to my own knowledge. Not a single claim I made is my own. They are all classic and well known problems that have never been reliably resolved.

 

[Ouroboros]

A very simple problem in Math that is--so far--impossible to solve:

P vs NP.

Problem explained:

Consider the subset sum problem, an example of a problem that is easy to verify, but whose answer may be difficult to compute. Given a set of integers, does some nonempty subset of them sum to 0? For instance, does a subset of the set {−2, −3, 15, 14, 7, −10} add up to 0? The answer "yes, because {−2, −3, −10, 15} adds up to zero" can be quickly verified with three additions. However, there is no known algorithm to find such a subset in polynomial time (there is one, however, in exponential time, which consists of 2n-1 tries), and indeed such an algorithm can only exist if P = NP; hence this problem is in NP (quickly checkable) but not necessarily in P (quickly solvable).
An answer to the P = NP question would determine whether problems that can be verified in polynomial time, like the subset-sum problem, can also be solved in polynomial time. If it turned out that P ≠ NP, it would mean that there are problems in NP (such as NP-complete problems) that are harder to compute than to verify: they could not be solved in polynomial time, but the answer could be verified in polynomial time.

From Wiki.

Since we haven't figured out a solution yet, Math must be wrong!

Math can't exist since we have problems in it that are easily stated and impossible to solve.

It's also impossible to go from algebra to trigonometry to calculus without taking intermediate steps in between. Since we don't know what the step is between "A" and
"sin(x)" and "dy/dx" we can conclude that Math is just a belief, a religion, without facts, evidence, or support.

Fermat's last theorem was supposedly solvable in a little more than a margin of a book, but it took hundreds of years to get to a solution that's hundreds of pages long and impossible to understand by common people, therefore, math is unnecessarily complex and therefore, it must be false.

(end sarcasm)

Evolution isn't easy to understand all the time, and the answers aren't always as simple as the questions, that doesn't mean that there's quite a lot of evidence to support evolution in general and in other ways. Having a few questions that have been answered (and even proved through experiments) to try to discredit evolution as a theory (mostly because of bias) is just dishonest.

Irreducible complexity has been studied in experiments and has been explained thousand times over in scientific journals, yet the anti-science crowd can't bother to pick one single book or article up and honestly read them (no, that would be childish and silly of me to ask them to do!).

 

[1robin]

No, you refuse to debate skeptics who know a lot more about an issue than you do. That is why you have refused to debate macro evolution with skeptic experts, any why you have refused to debate biblical textual criticism with skeptic experts.

This is an example of everything that is wrong with your thinking. In the entire history of the universe I alone am an expert on my motivations. There is not even a second place. Not only do I know exactly why I dismiss attempts to take off ramps from this debate, I have also supplied the rational reasons for my refusal, and have explained it is not practical nor done in formal or informal debate. Yet you in your omnipotence have rejected the statements of the only one of us that knows and substituted your own conclusions which have no access the data. Doing this at the same time as questioning my capacity to understand the simplest of claims and the persuasiveness of my arguments. If you can commit such an obvious in this case why should I trust your claims about anything? I know why I have refused to challenge Berkley to a debate. You do not.

You conveniently withdrew from the thread on homosexuality when you realized that my arguments are much better than your arguments are. You were boasting a lot in the thread on the Tyre prophecy, but now you know that you cannot adequately reply to all of my most recent arguments in that thread.

Good grief. Now your going to double down on the mistake above by making the same one here and polishing it off with a little arrogance and other false claims. Your arguments in the Tyre thread are way better than the ones in the homosexuality thread. That is why I continue with Tyre and gave up on the other. I do not remember what I boasted about or could have. There is not much boasting to be done in making claims that pre-exist me.

It most certainly is not my responsibility to debate topics that I do not know a lot about. You said:

So I guess you were a Tyre expert going into that debate. I did not say you had to debate anything. I said if you decided to then you have a responsibility to do your own debating and sourcing.

I replied:



Since I know that some skeptics at that forum are far better qualified to reply to what you said than I am, why in the world would I want to embarrass myself by debating it with you, which is the same attitude that you have about debating what you said with some skeptics at that forum?

You may have included this with all your other statements about my inability to win over random scholars and demands I debate people I never heard of in some other arena. Make your case here, do not challenge to debates I have no obligation or time for in with others

I would be happy to debate the Tyre prophecy, homosexuality, and my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496 in this thread with anyone, but you are not willing to debate a number of topics with anyone.

I think the only thread I ever gave up on was homosexuality. I have an extensive record of carrying on debates long past their due. I have continued in the Tyre thread long after you began making the same arguments that did not work the first time because occasionally you challenged me. For example with that biographer I got confused with the contemporary of Alexander. You still have not made a dent in the prophecy but I am still replying as I have time. The only thing I quit on as a lack of challenge. I wanted a challenging response to my two primary claims about homosexuality. That is why I debate. I asked and asked for them to no avail and finally gave up.

Which biological issues are you referring to? You said that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. That is not a complex biological issue.

That is bizarre. You ask a question then answer it for me (again) then complain about the answer. The biological issues were about homosexuality's genetic roots and other animals that act in homosexual ways (though we are the only species that exclusively engage in it). IO am not re-opening that debate by the way.

Much of the scientific evidence that supports, and opposes macro evolution is very complex. Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, mutation, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun is very complex. Jerry Coyne's article on whether or not there was enough time for evolution at There’s plenty of time for evolution « Why Evolution Is True is very complex.

I will make you a deal out of exasperation. If you feel that evolution is too complex for anyone outside a biological lab to have an opinion on and not mention it again then I will agree and not mention it to you again. I am not going to keep having a debate about the ability to have a debate.

 

[1robin]

That is fine. We can discuss those posts when you have more time. I believe that my arguments in those posts are irrefutable by you, or by anyone else.

Please reply to my two previous posts.

Oh no, not the repeats of older posts again. Why do you alone do this?

 

[1robin]

But you did compare them when you said:

"Never claim I am biased or make decisions I am not qualified to make and at the same time tell me you reject all biblical prophecies. It just wrecks credibility."

Regarding the Tyre prophecy, nothing about it reasonably proves that a God inspired it.

In that context they are similar. You said I am biased if I do not agree with you about evolution. I said do not say that and at the same time you reject all biblical prophecy. What is there to debate about this?

 

[1robin]

A very simple problem in Math that is--so far--impossible to solve:

P vs NP.

Problem explained:

From Wiki.

Since we haven't figured out a solution yet, Math must be wrong!

Math can't exist since we have problems in it that are easily stated and impossible to solve.

It's also impossible to go from algebra to trigonometry to calculus without taking intermediate steps in between. Since we don't know what the step is between "A" and
"sin(x)" and "dy/dx" we can conclude that Math is just a belief, a religion, without facts, evidence, or support.

Fermat's last theorem was supposedly solvable in a little more than a margin of a book, but it took hundreds of years to get to a solution that's hundreds of pages long and impossible to understand by common people, therefore, math is unnecessarily complex and therefore, it must be false.

(end sarcasm)

Evolution isn't easy to understand all the time, and the answers aren't always as simple as the questions, that doesn't mean that there's quite a lot of evidence to support evolution in general and in other ways. Having a few questions that have been answered (and even proved through experiments) to try to discredit evolution as a theory (mostly because of bias) is just dishonest.

Irreducible complexity has been studied in experiments and has been explained thousand times over in scientific journals, yet the anti-science crowd can't bother to pick one single book or article up and honestly read them (no, that would be childish and silly of me to ask them to do!).

I would have thought you were responding to me until the claim about the anti-scientific crowd. I have a scientific degree and work in a scientific lab. I am about as pro-science as it gets. I guess your responding to someone else.

 

[Agnostic75]

That is good enough for me, and much more importantly, it is good enough for the vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts.

So you answer each of life's questions by popular vote.

It depends upon the issue. Regarding macro evolution, I am not aware of any good reasons not to accept the opinions of a large consensus of skeptic and Christian experts, especially since those experts claim that there is empirical evidence that macro evolution is true.

So you answer each of life's questions by popular vote.
How democratic of you.

Again, it depends upon the issue.

Then why do you deny the conclusions of most humans over history?

Again, it depends upon the issue.

As you know, skeptics have many varying reasons for rejecting Christianity.

That a transcendent power exists.

I am an agnostic. I do not claim that it is probable that a God does, or does not exist, but I do claim that it is probable that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Even if most experts said that creationism is probably true, the odds would still be astronomical that the God of the Bible does not exist.

I don't know what to say to this.

Common sense indicates that even if creationism is true, that does not necessarily mean that the God of the Bible exists.

Few high school students, and few adult amateurs in the world know enough about biology to intelligently claim based upon their own personal knowledge of biology that macro evolution is true or false. You do not know enough about biology to intelligently claim based upon their own personal knowledge of biology that macro evolution is true or false.

However someone not trained in science at all walking around in the Galapagos islands is.

First of all, when Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist. Second, although Darwin was not a biologist, he knew a lot about biology. Third, and most important, the vast majority of today's biologists agree with Darwin that macro evolution is true.

I do not think that I have ever defended macro evolution in this thread based upon my own personal knowledge of biology, and I recall that I have said that I do not know very much about biology.

Nor have I critiqued it according to my own knowledge. Not a single claim I made is my own. They are all classic and well known problems that have never been reliably resolved.

Most experts believe that in spite of the problems, there is overwhelming evidence that macro evolution is true. I am not aware of any good reasons not to accept the opinions of the vast majority of experts.

I will make you a deal out of exasperation. If you feel that evolution is too complex for anyone outside a biological lab to have an opinion on and not mention it again then I will agree and not mention it to you again. I am not going to keep having a debate about the ability to have a debate.

Everyone does not need to be an expert to discuss for example, macro evolution, quantum physics, Bayes Theorem, and biblical textual criticism, but they should at least be very knowledgeable about those topics. Otherwise, all that would happen would be unknowledgeable people debating other unknowledgeable people.