INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Ouroboros]

Examples of how irreducible complex systems can evolve: scaffolding (bacterial flagellum), function shift or exaptation (bird feathers, arms), gene regulation/deployment of parts, gene duplication (new parts).

In other words, irreducible complexity is not unexplainable.

 

[Agnostic75]

In that context they are similar.

Bible prophecy and macro evolution are most certainly not similar. Just ask the National Academy of Science and find out for yourself.

 

[1robin]

Bible prophecy and macro evolution are most certainly not similar. Just ask the National Academy of Science and find out for yourself.

Oh come off it. Is this a purely rhetorical effort? In the context I used the comparison, it is perfectly appropriate. Everything has similarities and differences. If I had claimed they were equal then you have a complaint. I didn't. I made a comparison that would only require the most superficial similarities. They actually have far more than necessary and it is a silly relative complaint with objective criteria.

 

[1robin]

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.

According to you, you would not be aware of these reasons if they did exist, so what is the point? I thought of a better way to illustrate my position. I am not making any claim to the truth of the hypothesis about Macro-evolution but only about the conclusive weight of the evidence. You must choose one. Either me and you are too ignorant to debate it or we can. Pick one and act accordingly.

Again, it depends upon the issue.

Well I don't. If it is important to me then I myself must be satisfied as to the evidence. I have met God and so am satisfied. I have never met the first cell that arrived from non-living matter and regard it's existence as problematic.

Again, it depends upon the issue.

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

Well I could do as you do and insist I know your motivations in spite of your admissions and probably have far greater evidence but will not do so.

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.

I am not convinced since every argument you have made has been against God and the Bible. I however do not have a need to know and that was not the point.

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

Your stating the same thing in almost the exact same way does not help. Are you saying that creation is not evidence for a creator or just the biblical creator? I do not have faith based on creationism nor do I know anyone that does.

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.

Most say he was always a theist but the evidence either way at any time is controversial and not the subject. Either non-professionals can hold a justifiable position on evolution or not. I would bet many high school kids know more biology that he did not that it matters.

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.

Which subjects do you bow to popular opinion on and why? Neither the issue of God or macroevolution has a test or objective proof. Unlike evolution God has hundreds of millions of experiential claims to subjective proof. Why bow on evolution and bristle on God?

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.

Even if that were true how do you know who is VERY knowledgeable from who isn't. Is there a test? Is there an objective criteria or did you read a poll?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

Examples of how irreducible complex systems can evolve: scaffolding (bacterial flagellum), function shift or exaptation (bird feathers, arms), gene regulation/deployment of parts, gene duplication (new parts).

In other words, irreducible complexity is not unexplainable.

These seem to be addressed at me but until you address them to me I am not spending time responding.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

You're just asserting what is already explained to be false. It's really very simple:

Abiogenesis: The study of how life developed initially through natural means.
Evolution: The study of how life changes over time.

Evolution is not, and never has been, "completely dependent on abiogenesis". We are perfectly capable of observing and understanding how life changes and develops over time without understanding how life initially formed. For you to continue blindly asserting that evolution is dependent on abiogenesis shows total and complete ignorance of both scientific fields, and of science in general. You don't need to know how a ball is made in order to observe and understand how a ball rolls down a hill. It really is that simple.

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.

I already explained they didn't pop up independently - we all evolved from a common ancestor that evolved some form of eyes. Evolution explains exactly how so many species have eyes, by virtue of the notion that all of those many species share a common ancestor that had some form of eyes. Again, this is a very simple to grasp concept.

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?

I didn't deny information exists. I deny your assertion that such information cannot possibly have formed without a God - which is a completely baseless assertion without any basis in reality whatsoever.

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.

You accuse science a performing a "sleight of hand" and then immediately jump to an intentionally inaccurate analogy by comparing something that we know is designed to living, biological systems. Clearly, it is you who is engaging in the cheap, sleight of hand tricks. Not science.

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.

Yes, it is. We reduced the bacterial flagellum and found it still functioned as a type-three secretory system. Your woefully inaccurate analogy does absolutely nothing to dispute this simple fact.

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.

It is called an "explosion" because it was a relatively rapid period of speciation, not because all of these species appeared spontaneously out of nothing. You even admit yourself that there was "little" earlier evolution in the fossil record. That's the whole point. You've asserted that this is a problem for evolution, when it is no such thing as evolution accounts for it. The cambrian explosion was a rapid period of speciation, nothing more.

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.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. Your continued ignorance of this simple fact does nothing but make it clearer and clearer how willfully ignorant you are about science.

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

All I see on that site is the bogus probability calculation again. Can you give me a verified, scientific source?

 

[Ouroboros]

e:

Abiogenesis: The study of how life developed initially through natural means.
Evolution: The study of how life changes over time.

It's been said so many times. It's befuddling that anti-evolutionists just can't understand the difference.

Granted though, abiogenesis could be termed "chemical evolution", whereas Evolution in general refers to the "biological evolution." Also, natural selection has been shown to apply to systems of chemical evolution as well in experiments.

Abiogenesis is only important to understand how life came about, but not important to understand how DNA works. It's like having a requirement that we have to understand quantum mechanics to put a nail in a wall. Hanging a painting works regardless if there's a Higgs boson or not. You don't need to know where the metal came from in your car to drive it. The motor works regardless if the iron was taken from a mine in China or India. If God created the prokaryotes and eukaryotes, so be it, we still know that the biological evolution is true.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

I was about to go through and find all the links to the scientific evidence that displaces all of your problems with evolution (as they are not actual holes in the theory) but If your going to disregard all the scientific evidence then I don't see the point.

Can you give me an example of the evidence that has been brought to you and why it is somehow fallacious or unreliable? And this isn't a cop out to appeal to authority but just a question aside the argument; why do you think that you have somehow stumbled upon these holes while scientists who spend their entire lives studying the same thing are somehow ignorant of it? This question doesn't have any actual bearing on the debate but just a personal question.

 

[Agnostic75]

Oh come off it. Is this a purely rhetorical effort? In the context I used the comparison, it is perfectly appropriate. Everything has similarities and differences. If I had claimed they were equal then you have a complaint. I didn't. I made a comparison that would only require the most superficial similarities. They actually have far more than necessary and it is a silly relative complaint with objective criteria.

I will be happy to debate that with you as long as you like, but I would rather get back to discussing issues, such as the Tyre prophecy.

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

You are referring to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496. This is typical of some of our debates. You debate a topic a lot, get into trouble, say that you are repeating some of your arguments, refuse to reply to my replies to those arguments, and claim that you won the debate.

Those posts contain some of my best arguments against the Bible.

My post 3448, at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-345.html for quick reference, shows that 1) the God of the Bible would not have free will even if he did exist, and that 2) it is probable that the God of the Bible does not exist since he asks people to love him even though morality has not meaning without choice. No moral God would do that since that would be deceptive.

My post 3449, at the same page, shows that God is not fair regarding providing reasonable evidence for everyone. That also implies that the God of the Bible does not exist since a loving God would be fair to everyone. In that post, I also showed that chance, and circumstance largely determine what people believe.

My post 3450, at the same page, reasonably proves that self interest is a primary reason why Christians claim that the Gospels are a reliable source of information.

My post 3496, at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-350.html for quick reference, reasonably proves that it is just as likely that God is an imposter as it is that he is who he claims he is. Actually, it is more likely that God is an imposter than it is that he is who he claims he is.

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.

Aquinas is dead. I would not debate Craig, White, Plantinga, or Zacharias about biblical textual criticism, but I would be willing to debate them regarding homosexuality, the Tyre prophecy, and my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496 in this thread. That is because regarding those topics, I believe that I have the advantage, not because I am as intelligent, or more intelligent than they are, but because no amount of intelligence, and education can reasonably prove that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, that a God inspired the Tyre prophecy, that God has free will, that God provides reasonable evidence for everyone, that self interest is not a primary reason why Christians claim that the Gospels are a reliable source of information, and that God is not an evil God who is masquerading as a good God.

 

[Agnostic75]

Neither the issue of God or macroevolution has a test or objective proof.

I thought you said that you did not want to discuss macroevolution anymore.

Consider the following:

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.

How much do you know about paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy?

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community.

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[6][18] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community. 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".

Please note:

"Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature."

Also, please note:

"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.'"

Michael Behe, who you once used as a source in this thread, said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp. 71–72

Unlike evolution God has hundreds of millions of experiential claims to subjective proof. Why bow on evolution and bristle on God?

According to most experts, the evidence for macro evolution is overwhelming. Why should anyone question it? On what basis should anyone question it?

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Which subjects do you bow to popular opinion on and why?

It depends upon the issue, but regarding macro evolution, as I have told you, I would still be an agnostic even if most experts said that creationism is true. That is similar to your claim that you would still be a Christian even if macro evolution is true.

I never disagree with a large consensus of experts unless I believe that I know a lot about an issue. Millions of Christian creationists in the world know very little about biology, and they still reject macro evolution. Do you object to that?

Which subjects do you bow to popular opinion on and why?

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

Your stating the same thing in almost the exact same way does not help.

Stating something that is true differently does not change the fact that it is true.

Are you saying that creation is not evidence for a creator or just the biblical creator?

Just the Gods that people make up, not all possible Gods.

I do not have faith based on creationism nor do I know anyone that does.

You have debated many issues at these forums that your faith is not based on.

I do not base being an agnostic on accepting macro evolution.

Whether or not creationism is true is very important to millions of Christian creationists, and so are many other issues.

As I have told you, my only reason for mentioning macro evolution is that millions of conservative Christians reject it. I assume that your main reason for mentioning macro evolution is that naturalists accept it, but I am an agnostic, not a naturalist.

Personal experience, and how many people have personal religious experiences, is very poor evidence that any God exists. How are your personal religious experiences more valid that the personal religious experiences of the followers of all other religions, including deism?

The Bible implies that far fewer people will be saved than the current number of professing Christians in the world, which means that even if a God inspired the Bible, it would be impossible for anyone to know who is actually saved, and approximately how many people are saved, which means that many professing Christians who claim that they have personal religious experiences are not Christians.

Feeling wonderful does not necessarily have anything to do with the truth. Are you implying that the supposed large number of Christians who have had wonderful personal experiences reasonably proves that the God of the Bible exists?

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.

Even if that were true how do you know who is VERY knowledgeable from who isn't. Is there a test? Is there an objective criteria or did you read a poll?

There are of course not any required knowledge tests for participating in discussion forums, but anyone who has followed your posts about macroevolution in this forum knows that you do not personally know enough about it to question it, and that most experts have no problems accepting it. An easy way for you to prove that you know a lot about biology would be to defeat some experts in debates, but you refused to do that.

As I have told you before, even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, most experts would still disagree with you, and most people would still not be able to adequately judge debates between experts. You said that some aspects of evolution can be understood by high school students, but few high school students know enough about biology to have informed opinions about macro evolution.

At the Dover trial, the judge was John E. Jones III. He is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president. In part of his ruling, he said:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

.......one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony.......was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath.......

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

Please note:

"while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science."

In other words, even if intelligent design is true, science is not able to reasonably prove that it is true.

According to you, you would not be aware of these reasons if they did exist, so what is the point?

At Internet discussion forums, after a while, it often becomes apparent who personally knows a lot about a topic. It has become apparent that you do not personally know enough about macroevolution to question it.

I thought of a better way to illustrate my position. I am not making any claim to the truth of the hypothesis about Macro-evolution but only about the conclusive weight of the evidence. You must choose one. Either me and you are too ignorant to debate it or we can. Pick one and act accordingly.

All that I have done in this thread is to defer to what most experts say about macroevolution, which means that I have not debated it. You can claim that all that you have done is to defer to what creationist experts say about it, and that you have not debated it, to which my reply would be that I am not aware of any good reasons not to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts, including the majority of Christian experts.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

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.

Regarding the thread on homosexuality, by far the most important issue is what should be done about it. You said on several occasions that it was not up to you to provide solutions for homosexuality, but yet on a number of occasions, you said that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. Following is your first post in that thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-30.html, you said:

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

He did not say you could not do it. He said you should not do so. I can kill but I shouldn't. If you are saying you see nothing wrong with it. That it produces no negative effects then why does the blood bank ask you if you are a homosexual as one of their prohibitive requirements? Are you suggesting that your desire to do something makes that thing right? I do not understand the contention here.

So in your first post in that thread, you said that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, but later on several occasions that it is not up to you to provide solutions. From a secular perspective, no action is wrong unless there are reasonable alternatives. Quite obviously, there are not any reasonable alternatives to monogamous homosexuality.

What you said was an example of the fallacy of composition. Wikipedia says:

"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole."

Lots of homosexuals have been monogamous for five years, or longer, and do not have any STDs.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: You withdrew from the thread on homosexuality primarily because you know that your claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence is not valid, and because you got into trouble when I mentioned which other groups of people should practice abstinence in order for you to be fair. I showed that black Americans, black Africans, and people who live in poverty, also have high risks. You said that those groups of people should not practice abstinence. I asked you why not, but you conveniently refused to answer the question. You said that heterosexuals need to have sex in order to maintain the population. I said that women over 40 years of age do not need to have sex in order to maintain the populations of many countries. You conveniently refused to discuss that issue when you got into trouble.

In that thread, you said:

I have taken every single challenge you have given me regardless of them being repeated and your being periodically inexhaustible you would be a fool to deny it.

That is false. I can provide a number of examples from that thread that prove that you refused to reply to my arguments, and that even when you did reply to them, you did not reply to my replies to your arguments. You never replied to my arguments about identical twin, and fraternal twin studies even though I posted them at least several times. Even when you did reply to my arguments, your arguments were not valid.

I only refuse the lack of a challenge and my greatest desire is to be challenged. It just could not be achieved to any extent on this issue in my sincere opinion. You are free to believe as you wish despite this, as apparently you are well aware.

I believe that the opposite is probably true since evasiveness is very typical of the majority of people when they get into trouble in debates. You like to debate far too much to give up when you believe that you have the advantage. You often use numerous arguments to try to gain even a small advantage, and when your attempts fail, you claim that those issues were not important. The truth is that your arguments are important to you if you believe that your opponents did not adequately refute them.

Of course, your claim is false since you would never withdraw from unchallenging debates if non-Christians were becoming Christians because they read your arguments, or if people who are already Christians benefitted from your arguments. Surely you are far more interested in results than a challenge. In addition, you surely are not interested in challenges since you have refused to debate experts on a number of occasions.

Regarding the thread on the Tyre prophecy, if necessary, I can provide some examples of where you were boastful, such as when you said that debating me is like herding cats. You said that before my arguments got better, and you realized that you were in trouble. It is amazing that it does not bother you that some of the experts that you quoted disagree with you about part of the prophecy. You still have not replied to many of my most recent posts in that thread. I provided lots of reasonable evidence in that thread that the Tyre prophecy is a very poor example of a divinely inspired prophecy.

You easily lost the debates in the thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other.html. You realized that you were in trouble, and refused to reply to some of my posts. So, in order to not have to reply to some of my arguments, you stated your major arguments as follows:

Here is the conclusion I promised at the end of answering all remaining points at this time.

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

I replied to those arguments in my post 2101 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-211.html, but I will also briefly reply to them here.

Your claims are quite odd since the greatest health threats to heterosexuals by far are themselves, certainly not homosexuals, as proven by, for example, heart disease, and obesity, both of which are frequently preventable, and which cause far more suffering, and medical costs than homosexuality does.

Regarding item 1, it only applies to homosexuals who cause massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

Regarding item 2, homosexuality is justified for any homosexuals who do not cause massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

Your recommended solution to homosexuality was that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, but surely all major medical organizations disagree with that utterly absurd claim, including the CDC. Any reasonable person knows that people's actions should be judged on an individual basis, not on a collective basis.

The biological issues were about homosexuality's genetic roots.......

I discussed homosexuality and genetics extensively in the primary thread on homosexuality, and in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/150708-homosexuality-genetics.html that is titled "Homosexuality and genetics." In the opening post, I quoted where you said "I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality," but I did not mention your name.

You did not make any posts in the latter thread, and you ignored many of my posts about homosexuality and genetics in the primary thread on homosexuality. I posted lots of evidence in both threads that reasonably proves that genetics is an important part of homosexuality, including research about identical twins, and fraternal twins. You said that you would provide evidence regarding the causes of homosexuality if you were asked to. I asked you on several occasions to provide the evidence, but you refused to provide any.

Even if environment is an important factor, so is genetics. People cannot control their genetics, and young people often have little control over their environment when they are young.

Regardless of what causes homosexuality, it is very difficult to change sexual orientation. In another thread, you claimed that there are successful reparative clinics all over the world, but you refused to provide any evidence that that is true. I told you that the past president, and founder of the recently disbanded Exodus International, which was the largest ex-gay organization of its kind in the world, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and apologized to gay people.

You gave up debating homosexuality because you knew that I made many arguments that you could not adequately refute. You claimed that you were tired of repeating your arguments, but I proved that I made many arguments that you never replied to. You used the same approach in part of the debates on the Tyre prophecy. You debated some issues at length, got into trouble, and then claimed that the issues are not important. If they are not important, why did you mention them? You are very misinformed about homosexuality, and about the Tyre prophecy.

.......and other animals that act in homosexual ways, though we are the only species that exclusively engage in it.

What do you mean by "we are the only species that exclusively engage in it?" Over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality. All bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual. Humans do a lot of things that other animals do not do, but only because humans are more intelligent than other animals are.

Please reply to my four previous posts.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

It would seem to make sense to me. We might also say that Intelligence is a better answer than luck, which it is, and would seem to point therefore to Consciousness being everything. However, I suppose some might be equally able to say that there was some form of energy and that it changed into everything we see, and we are just plain lucky. For me, that does not work as everything is too complex, and it does not explain believe in God in the first place, which has been around for thousands of years with the largest part of the world still believing, and that with modern science. Nor does it explain Scripture and the way it works within itself and with modern science. Plus we have our own personal experiences which we all go off. So all in all, it would seem to make the most sense. Atheists of course are blind so I'm afraid these words will fall on deaf ears

 

[1robin]

I was about to go through and find all the links to the scientific evidence that displaces all of your problems with evolution (as they are not actual holes in the theory) but If your going to disregard all the scientific evidence then I don't see the point.

They themselves admit of the problem areas I mentioned. Or at least most of them acknowledge most of the areas I mentioned. The list I gave was only the tiniest fraction of the problems that are out there. You can literally find them faster than you can type them. A post or even several would only contain a representative smattering of the problems that exist. There are not any answers to any of them. There are some theories that have never been demonstrated and which contain additional problems but no actual solutions. For whatever reason you suggest the opposite is the case. Let's reduce this down to one simple problem that is easily debated. Abiogenesis. There are no example's of life coming from non-life. There is no evidence for me to deny. Even when scientists in a lab attempt to create life by cheating they have failed miserably. It has never been observed or documented. There are the most easily refuted theories but no actual evidence of any kind. Exactly what is it I am denying. BTW if you think I reject all evidence against my claims I would prefer it if you just ignored me Please do not claim a bunch of answers exist but you are unwilling to supply them and half hint that no debate is justified. In spite of no one ever changing their minds I supply evidence and debate or I completely ignore a person on rare occasions. I do not engage a person by telling them they are not worth debating.

Can you give me an example of the evidence that has been brought to you and why it is somehow fallacious or unreliable? And this isn't a cop out to appeal to authority but just a question aside the argument; why do you think that you have somehow stumbled upon these holes while scientists who spend their entire lives studying the same thing are somehow ignorant of it? This question doesn't have any actual bearing on the debate but just a personal question.

Just on the subject mentioned above I have been given dozens of articles that claim that the "problem" of life coming from only life has been resolved. I have spent hours reading these articles only to find out what I already knew. They have no evidence at all, no examples, no observations, no records, nothing but theories that still have problems. I have critiqued a representative amount of those articles several times and it can easily be searched for. I cannot and will not go through all that again from scratch. At least 90% of those problem areas I mentioned I have learned of through secular scientists. I think they were all mentioned by a panel moderated by Bill Buckley. A half dozen secular scientists pointed out the problems and another half dozen either conceded the issue, moderated it's relevance, or attempted to refute them in a few cases with theory. Not one of them suggested there was no issue to begin with. These are so well known and granted that there exists no end to the discussions and research on each of them.

You suggest that most scholars except macro-evolution. I grant that, but they do so in-spite of the problem areas. There are many reasons why: Tenure, grant money, honest conclusions, faith, the ability to get published, theological preference, etc.... BTW I have provided evidence of each of these from the scientists themselves. There is no proof of macroevolution, there is only faith that it occurred based on the interpretation of evidence. I simply find the problems with it, in light of my own experience and research unconvincing. If a single scientists could know (go out and measure macro-evolution) I would be very convinced by their agreement. Since it is not something that can be known, so much of the evidence is arbitrary and speculative, and since science has become a money driven industry I remain justifiably skeptical.

Since your generalized objections to my position were to broad and un-specific to assist in resolution I have suggested that you only give me the evidence that conclusively shows life came from non-life. Can you do so? Don't bother telling me macro-evolution is independent of abiogenesis. The theory as it exists in a textbook may not but the reality it supposedly represents does. I work in the application end of science and am interested in whether the instrument works in a real system not whether it looks good on paper.

 

[1robin]

I will be happy to debate that with you as long as you like, but I would rather get back to discussing issues, such as the Tyre prophecy.

If only.

You are referring to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496. This is typical of some of our debates. You debate a topic a lot, get into trouble, say that you are repeating some of your arguments, refuse to reply to my replies to those arguments, and claim that you won the debate.

What the heck? I never complain about repeats except concerning you alone. I wil even answer the same question or address the same post 2 or 3 times in a row. Only you just keep repeating things over and over and over. Just look back through your posts. Even after you have edited out duplicates (which you alone contently do) what is left is usually a few points stated in different or even identical ways over and over again. Your guessing at my motivations here is no more accurate than any where else and I wish you would stop confusing exasperation with defeat.

Those posts contain some of my best arguments against the Bible.

My post 3448, at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-345.html for quick reference, shows that 1) the God of the Bible would not have free will even if he did exist, and that 2) it is probable that the God of the Bible does not exist since he asks people to love him even though morality has not meaning without choice. No moral God would do that since that would be deceptive.

Some of your points are good. However repeating them over and over again makes you appear to be a robotic one trick pony. I try and not guess at what is driving an opponent unless I can prove it in some way, but if I was to, I would suggest you have canned arguments that you copy and paste over and over and do not really think hard about. I however do not regard either of the two arguments above as among the good points you have made.

My post 3449, at the same page, shows that God is not fair regarding providing reasonable evidence for everyone. That also implies that the God of the Bible does not exist since a loving God would be fair to everyone. In that post, I also showed that chance, and circumstance largely determine what people believe.

That is not what you posts showed. You posted God did not show everyone an equal amount of evidence. I do not even know how anyone would go about doing what you claimed you have. I have shown that with a willing heart the amount of evidence necessary for faith is not that great and that with an unwilling heart no amount is enough and that most of us have at least that minimal amount and probably much more.

My post 3450, at the same page, reasonably proves that self interest is a primary reason why Christians claim that the Gospels are a reliable source of information.

My post 3496, at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-350.html for quick reference, reasonably proves that it is just as likely that God is an imposter as it is that he is who he claims he is. Actually, it is more likely that God is an imposter than it is that he is who he claims he is.

It would take several volumes of well researched textual and historical scholars to demonstrate even the possibility of what you state. I have more than enough justification to think the Bible an the NT scriptures vastly more reliable than the minimum necessary for faith. It is more textually reliable (on an objectively demonstrable scale) than any other work of any kind in ancient history and it's historical reliability is legendary and only increasing.

Aquinas is dead. I would not debate Craig, White, Plantinga, or Zacharias about biblical textual criticism, but I would be willing to debate them regarding homosexuality, the Tyre prophecy, and my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3496 in this thread. That is because regarding those topics, I believe that I have the advantage, not because I am as intelligent, or more intelligent than they are, but because no amount of intelligence, and education can reasonably prove that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, that a God inspired the Tyre prophecy, that God has free will, that God provides reasonable evidence for everyone, that self interest is not a primary reason why Christians claim that the Gospels are a reliable source of information, and that God is not an evil God who is masquerading as a good God.

It was a parody not an actual challenge. Did that escape you? Of course I do not expect you to debate these very busy scholars, so they need not be alive. It appears you will not debate them about matters even slightly applicable to them (only one of them is a textual scholar) but you would be willing to debate them about a subject they have no relevance to. Why is that? Judging from this forum I would not debate the issue of homosexuality against anyone if I were you. There never has been a single issue as impossible to defend as yours on homosexuality in the thousands of hours of debate experience I have in formal and informal debates. Not a single subject no matter how bad or good have you made have been as ineffectual as for homosexuality. It is not your fault, as it is an indefensible position. However it is your fault for defending what can't be.