INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Bunyip]

Oh come off it. Knowing about Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) studies is not the criteria for being scientifically literate. I can invent arbitrary tests for scientific literacy and you will fail them. For example tell me how to repair the raster high G compensator on an f-15 HUD. Can't do it. I guess your not literate. That is trivial, arrogant, meaningless and of no help or relevance. That is why I have not and will not say such a thing in earnest. Everyone has at least heard of the fruit fly experiments. As far as I have ever heard, only fruit fly's were ever created, even unlike nature when genomes were intentionally scrambled. Some had curly wings, some had black bodies, shorter or longer bristles, white eyes, etc..... yet they were all fruit flys. Now if unknown to me some scientists arbitrarily threw one of these variations of what was still obviously a fruit fly into a new species category, and you think that settles it, then you have misunderstood my request. I am not talking about categories in a book but the reality they represent. I want an example where a fruit fly in nature produced a non fruit fly. I want actual examples of a species X becoming a species not X. I want a dog to produce a non dog, a cat a non cat. I am not interested in a scientist reclassifying a Siamese as a new species and claiming macro-evolution has been observed. That is even assuming that this is the case with fruit flys. I have seen hundreds of pictures of the various fruit fly types. They are all fruit flys even if a scientists slaps a new label on them. I do not need a biology degree to see they remain fruit flys, a child can see that.

You have just demonstrated that you do not know what the term 'macro-evolution' actually means. To ask for a dog producing a non-dog (there are four species of canines), or a cat producing a non-cat (there are more than 30 species of felines) is simply to fail to understand the basic concepts.

Macro-evolution refers to evolutionary transitions at or above the species level, sure you don't need a biology degree, but you do need to know what the term you are denying actually means.

As to a dog becoming a non-dog, the African Hunting dog Lycaon Pictus is already a different species than the domestic dog - it can not breed with them.

Asking for an example where a fruit fly becomes a non-fruit fly is demonstrating that you don't know what the term 'speciation' or the term 'macro-evolution' means. So it is not an argument against evolution or science, instead it is a demonstration of your ignorance of the field of science you are contesting.

A domestic dog is a species of canine, macro-evolution will eventually cause dogs to diverge into more than one species - but they will remain canines, just as no matter how much humans diverge they will remain mammals, they will remain primates and they will remain homonidae.

A dog turning into a non-dog, a cat turning into a non-cat or a fruit fly turning into a non-fruit fly would DISPROVE EVOLUTION AND MACRO-EVOLUTION, not prove it. The evidence you ask for is evidence of magic, not macro-evolution.

 

[Thief]

God asking an ape to become a Man could be too much?.......?

 

[Bunyip]

God asking an ape to become a Man could be too much?.......?

Well if god existed I would assume he would at least understand the terms, and so would know that it is a silly question.

Macro-evolution is when one species of ape (for example) diverges into two species of ape, not when an ape becomes something other than an ape - that would be Harry Potter, not macro-evolution.

An ape becoming a man would DISPROVE evolution, not prove it.

 

[Thief]

Well if god existed I would assume he would at least understand the terms, and so would know that it is a silly question.

Macro-evolution is when one species of ape (for example) diverges into two species of ape, not when an ape becomes something other than an ape - that would be Harry Potter, not macro-evolution.

An ape becoming a man would DISPROVE evolution, not prove it.

No, not at all.

Man as a species .....Day Six.....evolution in play.
Day Seven....rest.....no more will be created.

THEN Chapter Two.....a manipulation, an alteration.

God is not allowed to 'tweak' His creation?

 

[Bunyip]

No, not at all.

Man as a species .....Day Six.....evolution in play.
Day Seven....rest.....no more will be created.

THEN Chapter Two.....a manipulation, an alteration.

God is not allowed to 'tweak' His creation?

Word salad?

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Frankly speaking am not sure why a concept God' is taken to be physically available.
It [ the concept] has been developed for an understanding.
The understanding is that Existence existed before we humans evolved and will still remain when humans are no more there on planet earth or on any other planet in this universe.

Love & rgds

 

[Thief]

Friends,

Frankly speaking am not sure why a concept God' is taken to be physically available.
It [ the concept] has been developed for an understanding.
The understanding is that Existence existed before we humans evolved and will still remain when humans are no more there on planet earth or on any other planet in this universe.

Love & rgds

So all forms of physical life are destined to fail...physically....(extinction).
And spiritual life would then be the 'norm'.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Thief,

So all forms of physical life are destined to fail...physically....(extinction).
And spiritual life would then be the 'norm'.

Where does 'God' fit into this?
The point was pointing at is that God is a concept and not an entity which is eternal and remains even after the Sun's energy is no more, planet earth is no more etc. etc.as evolution along with 'God' concept is eternal.

Love & rgds

 

[Thief]

Friend Thief,


Where does 'God' fit into this?
The point was pointing at is that God is a concept and not an entity which is eternal and remains even after the Sun's energy is no more, planet earth is no more etc. etc.as evolution along with 'God' concept is eternal.

Love & rgds

Someone had to be First...in mind and heart.
There is the appearance of order and scheme of things.
That would be the mind and heart of God as Creator.

in the beginning......

 

[zenzero]

Friend Thief,

Someone had to be First...in mind and heart.
There is the appearance of order and scheme of things.
That would be the mind and heart of God as Creator.

in the beginning......

Yes we are speaking of the same God but am just pointing that someone coined that word for the understanding you have stated and not to be taken as a person/deity as God!

Love & rgds

 

[1robin]

You have just demonstrated that you do not know what the term 'macro-evolution' actually means. To ask for a dog producing a non-dog (there are four species of canines), or a cat producing a non-cat (there are more than 30 species of felines) is simply to fail to understand the basic concepts.

I guess that was a no on the F-15 HUD. Since you established that any arbitrary scientific test (if failed) disqualified that person from being scientifically literate, then you have disqualified your self.

1. Do you actually think classifications that only exist in a text book or in a lab have anything at all to do with genetic reality. If Dawkins classified a whale as a fish, would the whale act differently or be different? If Behe classified a bear as a herbivore do you think it will stop hunting fish?
2. Have you swallowed what your told to, to the point that theory has replaced reality and the other way around?
3. Every wolf, setter, Spaniel, or hound descended from the same animal and are the same type of animal.
4. I did not ask for a dog that produced another dog, to which some scientist created another arbitrary label for. I asked for one type on animal hat produced another. As usual you side does not provide what was asked but insists the lack of evidence is because of the theories skeptic's ignorance.
5. It is not my view that created the claim that dogs came from non-dogs and will produce non dogs. I didn't invent the dinosaur to birds progression, or the whole fish to human necessity. It was evolutionists. It is their claim and I am asking for the proof it is based on.
6. The only relevance evolution has in a theological forum is a counter claim to God. To be any threat to God at all then it must show that it explains all of genetic reality. That requires exactly what I asked for or it is of no relevance what ever. The bible claimed that things evolve after their kind 3000 years before Darwin so changes within a kind are no threat. You must show one kind can become another. I use the term species for convenience but since you want to be technical about terms in a book regardless of their impotence to affect reality let me clarify. A kind is most often translated as a group of types that is mutually fertile. If it can breed it is a kind. A cat and a dog cannot reproduce and would be two kinds. Present the proof that one type of creature became another across the lines of fertility or stop claiming it exists and faith is not involved.

Macro-evolution refers to evolutionary transitions at or above the species level, sure you don't need a biology degree, but you do need to know what the term you are denying actually means.

What I asked fro is exactly what you defined. I still do not have it. Definitions and claims about how little another person knows will not produce it.

As to a dog becoming a non-dog, the African Hunting dog Lycaon Pictus is already a different species than the domestic dog - it can not breed with them.

I was certain that I was going to have to fight tooth and nail to get you to accept the relevance of the fertility barrier to evolution in this context. I am glad to see that will not be the case. I asked for evidence of a thing becoming another type that it could not breed with. This must have occurred millions of times by necessity. Here you did surprise me by having two tings arbitrarily called dog that cannot breed, and I will investigate it. However this is not what I asked for. If Pictus was the ancestor of all Canines and you had proof of that then you would have. You have only provided a separate creature than someone slapped the name dog on (which is probably 80% ascetically based) that can breed with similar looking animals.

Asking for an example where a fruit fly becomes a non-fruit fly is demonstrating that you don't know what the term 'speciation' or the term 'macro-evolution' means. So it is not an argument against evolution or science, instead it is a demonstration of your ignorance of the field of science you are contesting.

My request strictly meets your definition above. You examples of what are obviously genetically mutated fruit fly's is not an example of what I asked for. I can see you going to dwell in shades of grey and ambiguity so let me get specific. Supply the proof that a pyrodicticum became a Themoproteus. Do you realize how hard it is to even find a genetic tree with it's trunks labeled. They only label the tips of the branches. According to one of those a cow and camel had a common ancestor. What was it and how does anyone know that whatever it was became a cow and a camel?

A domestic dog is a species of canine, macro-evolution will eventually cause dogs to diverge into more than one species - but they will remain canines, just as no matter how much humans diverge they will remain mammals, they will remain primates and they will remain homonidae.

So if dogs do as dinosaurs did and eventually learn to fly and grew a craw it would still be a canine. That makes no sense whatever.

A dog turning into a non-dog, a cat turning into a non-cat or a fruit fly turning into a non-fruit fly would DISPROVE EVOLUTION AND MACRO-EVOLUTION, not prove it. The evidence you ask for is evidence of magic, not macro-evolution.

What? It is evolutions claims that the first cell became dogs, cats, horses, and fly's. If evolution is true then a canine will become a non-canine, a feline a non-feline, a primate a non-primate. You oscillate between sounding knowledgably and irrational in the extreme. The feline is supposed to have a non-feline ancestor. What was it and how do they know it was?

I already know these can't be answered, which is why you supplied everything on earth except the evidence asked for. I know the evidence is missing because we have not lived long enough to have observed these changes. It is a stacked death. If a non-feline became a feline it would have done so over so long a period that it would not be available as proof and would have no distinguishing step which in reality it became another type of creature.

Please cut out the personal commentary and supply what is necessary.

BTW why did you link wild dogs and domesticated dog. They have little to do with each other besides being called a dog. Are you allowing semantics to link what in reality is not linked? Pictus does not even share an immediate ancestor with Canines. It descended (theoretically) from Miacis and the wolf (theoretically) descended from Cynodictus. No site I looked these "dogs" up on said that their history is certain. They went out of their way to indicate that their history is conjecture. Which is exactly what I stated to begin with. And this is for fairly recent and accessible evolution. How much less certainty there must be for hundreds of millions of years ago claims. I am not arguing against macro-evolution, but against any claims of certainty associated with it.

 

[Agnostic75]

I guess that was a no on the F-15 HUD. Since you established that any arbitrary scientific test (if failed) disqualified that person from being scientifically literate, then you have disqualified your self.

1. Do you actually think classifications that only exist in a text book or in a lab have anything at all to do with genetic reality. If Dawkins classified a whale as a fish, would the whale act differently or be different? If Behe classified a bear as a herbivore do you think it will stop hunting fish?

2. Have you swallowed what your told to, to the point that theory has replaced reality and the other way around?

3. Every wolf, setter, Spaniel, or hound descended from the same animal and are the same type of animal.

4. I did not ask for a dog that produced another dog, to which some scientist created another arbitrary label for. I asked for one type on animal hat produced another. As usual you side does not provide what was asked but insists the lack of evidence is because of the theories skeptic's ignorance.

5. It is not my view that created the claim that dogs came from non-dogs and will produce non dogs. I didn't invent the dinosaur to birds progression, or the whole fish to human necessity. It was evolutionists. It is their claim and I am asking for the proof it is based on.

6. The only relevance evolution has in a theological forum is a counter claim to God. To be any threat to God at all then it must show that it explains all of genetic reality. That requires exactly what I asked for or it is of no relevance what ever. The bible claimed that things evolve after their kind 3000 years before Darwin so changes within a kind are no threat. You must show one kind can become another. I use the term species for convenience but since you want to be technical about terms in a book regardless of their impotence to affect reality let me clarify. A kind is most often translated as a group of types that is mutually fertile. If it can breed it is a kind. A cat and a dog cannot reproduce and would be two kinds. Present the proof that one type of creature became another across the lines of fertility or stop claiming it exists and faith is not involved.

What I asked for is exactly what you defined. I still do not have it. Definitions and claims about how little another person knows will not produce it.

I was certain that I was going to have to fight tooth and nail to get you to accept the relevance of the fertility barrier to evolution in this context. I am glad to see that will not be the case. I asked for evidence of a thing becoming another type that it could not breed with. This must have occurred millions of times by necessity. Here you did surprise me by having two tings arbitrarily called dog that cannot breed, and I will investigate it. However this is not what I asked for. If Pictus was the ancestor of all Canines and you had proof of that then you would have. You have only provided a separate creature than someone slapped the name dog on (which is probably 80% ascetically based) that can breed with similar looking animals.

My request strictly meets your definition above. You examples of what are obviously genetically mutated fruit fly's is not an example of what I asked for. I can see you going to dwell in shades of grey and ambiguity so let me get specific. Supply the proof that a pyrodicticum became a Themoproteus. Do you realize how hard it is to even find a genetic tree with it's trunks labeled. They only label the tips of the branches. According to one of those a cow and camel had a common ancestor. What was it and how does anyone know that whatever it was became a cow and a camel?

So if dogs do as dinosaurs did and eventually learn to fly and grew a craw it would still be a canine. That makes no sense whatever.

What? It is evolutions claims that the first cell became dogs, cats, horses, and fly's. If evolution is true then a canine will become a non-canine, a feline a non-feline, a primate a non-primate. You oscillate between sounding knowledgably and irrational in the extreme. The feline is supposed to have a non-feline ancestor. What was it and how do they know it was?

I already know these can't be answered, which is why you supplied everything on earth except the evidence asked for. I know the evidence is missing because we have not lived long enough to have observed these changes. It is a stacked death. If a non-feline became a feline it would have done so over so long a period that it would not be available as proof and would have no distinguishing step which in reality it became another type of creature.

Please cut out the personal commentary and supply what is necessary.

BTW why did you link wild dogs and domesticated dog. They have little to do with each other besides being called a dog. Are you allowing semantics to link what in reality is not linked? Pictus does not even share an immediate ancestor with Canines. It descended (theoretically) from Miacis and the wolf (theoretically) descended from Cynodictus. No site I looked these "dogs" up on said that their history is certain. They went out of their way to indicate that their history is conjecture. Which is exactly what I stated to begin with. And this is for fairly recent and accessible evolution. How much less certainty there must be for hundreds of millions of years ago claims. I am not arguing against macro-evolution, but against any claims of certainty associated with it.

It is interesting that you will not discuss that with experts, or even with very knowledgeable amateurs since you know that you would embarrass yourself. You surely know that experts would have counters to your arguments that you would not be able to adequately explain.

I did not say I have the time or the opportunity to seek out professionals. They do not have the time to spend contending with informal debaters.

At Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums, there are some professionals, and some very knowledgeable amateurs at Physics Forums, and some of them will be happy to discuss macroevolution with you. Physics Forums has over 385,000 members, and a number of them have Ph.D.s, or Master's degrees, so some professionals definitely sometimes do have informal discussions with amateurs. The biology forum there is at http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=82.

I was once at another discussion website, and one of the members had a Ph.D. in biology, and another member had a Ph.D. in physics.

At Evolution Debate Forum - Topix, there is a discussion forum that is devoted entirely to evolution. Many members there probably know much more about evolution than most members at this forum do.

It would not take you any more time to make posts at those forums than it takes you to make posts at these forums.

You said that you like a challenge, but that can't be true since you have refused to debate experts, or to even to a discussion website that is devoted exclusively to evolution.

Skeptics who know less than you do about macroevolution do not need to worry since there are thousands, if not millions of evolutionists who know far more about biology than you ever will.

It is comical that you are actually taking on the National Academy of Sciences, most other leading professional science organizations, and the majority of Christian experts.

I refer you to my new thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...st-ken-miller-discusses-science-religion.html. It partly shows that you ask too much of science. Please make a post in that thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess that was a no on the F-15 HUD. Since you established that any arbitrary scientific test (if failed) disqualified that person from being scientifically literate, then you have disqualified your self.

1. Do you actually think classifications that only exist in a text book or in a lab have anything at all to do with genetic reality. If Dawkins classified a whale as a fish, would the whale act differently or be different? If Behe classified a bear as a herbivore do you think it will stop hunting fish?
2. Have you swallowed what your told to, to the point that theory has replaced reality and the other way around?
3. Every wolf, setter, Spaniel, or hound descended from the same animal and are the same type of animal.
4. I did not ask for a dog that produced another dog, to which some scientist created another arbitrary label for. I asked for one type on animal hat produced another. As usual you side does not provide what was asked but insists the lack of evidence is because of the theories skeptic's ignorance.
5. It is not my view that created the claim that dogs came from non-dogs and will produce non dogs. I didn't invent the dinosaur to birds progression, or the whole fish to human necessity. It was evolutionists. It is their claim and I am asking for the proof it is based on.
6. The only relevance evolution has in a theological forum is a counter claim to God. To be any threat to God at all then it must show that it explains all of genetic reality. That requires exactly what I asked for or it is of no relevance what ever. The bible claimed that things evolve after their kind 3000 years before Darwin so changes within a kind are no threat. You must show one kind can become another. I use the term species for convenience but since you want to be technical about terms in a book regardless of their impotence to affect reality let me clarify. A kind is most often translated as a group of types that is mutually fertile. If it can breed it is a kind. A cat and a dog cannot reproduce and would be two kinds. Present the proof that one type of creature became another across the lines of fertility or stop claiming it exists and faith is not involved.

What I asked fro is exactly what you defined. I still do not have it. Definitions and claims about how little another person knows will not produce it.

I was certain that I was going to have to fight tooth and nail to get you to accept the relevance of the fertility barrier to evolution in this context. I am glad to see that will not be the case. I asked for evidence of a thing becoming another type that it could not breed with. This must have occurred millions of times by necessity. Here you did surprise me by having two tings arbitrarily called dog that cannot breed, and I will investigate it. However this is not what I asked for. If Pictus was the ancestor of all Canines and you had proof of that then you would have. You have only provided a separate creature than someone slapped the name dog on (which is probably 80% ascetically based) that can breed with similar looking animals.

My request strictly meets your definition above. You examples of what are obviously genetically mutated fruit fly's is not an example of what I asked for. I can see you going to dwell in shades of grey and ambiguity so let me get specific. Supply the proof that a pyrodicticum became a Themoproteus. Do you realize how hard it is to even find a genetic tree with it's trunks labeled. They only label the tips of the branches. According to one of those a cow and camel had a common ancestor. What was it and how does anyone know that whatever it was became a cow and a camel?

So if dogs do as dinosaurs did and eventually learn to fly and grew a craw it would still be a canine. That makes no sense whatever.

What? It is evolutions claims that the first cell became dogs, cats, horses, and fly's. If evolution is true then a canine will become a non-canine, a feline a non-feline, a primate a non-primate. You oscillate between sounding knowledgably and irrational in the extreme. The feline is supposed to have a non-feline ancestor. What was it and how do they know it was?

I already know these can't be answered, which is why you supplied everything on earth except the evidence asked for. I know the evidence is missing because we have not lived long enough to have observed these changes. It is a stacked death. If a non-feline became a feline it would have done so over so long a period that it would not be available as proof and would have no distinguishing step which in reality it became another type of creature.

Please cut out the personal commentary and supply what is necessary.

BTW why did you link wild dogs and domesticated dog. They have little to do with each other besides being called a dog. Are you allowing semantics to link what in reality is not linked? Pictus does not even share an immediate ancestor with Canines. It descended (theoretically) from Miacis and the wolf (theoretically) descended from Cynodictus. No site I looked these "dogs" up on said that their history is certain. They went out of their way to indicate that their history is conjecture. Which is exactly what I stated to begin with. And this is for fairly recent and accessible evolution. How much less certainty there must be for hundreds of millions of years ago claims. I am not arguing against macro-evolution, but against any claims of certainty associated with it.

See: Ring species

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Would you like to critique Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, mutation, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun

 

[1robin]

No, it occurred a number of times, including what I just quoted that I posted today. Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that you made a composition fallacy since nowhere near all homosexuals need to practice abstinence. You are trying to fix some cars that are not broke. That is utterly absurd.

You have got to be kidding. Seven posts in a row and they include a subject I have repeatedly said I am done with and one that YOU have disqualified us both from being able to resolve.

What cars am I fixing? What do you mean broke? That analogy makes no sense.

I am getting very burned out on debate lately and taking one look at 7 posts in a row on things that do not justify discussion caused me to close the page and do something else. No one else keeps demanding I discuss what I refuse to, repeat posts over and over, and posts 7 in a row.

 

[Agnostic75]

No, it occurred a number of times, including what I just quoted that I posted today. Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that you made a composition fallacy since nowhere near all homosexuals need to practice abstinence. You are trying to fix some cars that are not broke. That is utterly absurd.

What cars am I fixing? What do you mean broke? That analogy makes no sense.

You certainly know what a composition fallacy is, which is judging a whole based upon some of the parts, and that nowhere near all homosexuals have risks that are high enough to justify abstinence, and that you are trying to fix homosexuals who have low risk by claiming that they should practice abstinence.

Since you said that some other high risk groups of people should not practice abstinence, you do not have a fair basis for saying that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

You do not need to reply to my posts if you do not want to. All major medical organizations disagree with your claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. That is primarily why you lost the debate unless you can provide reasonable evidence that most experts are wrong about that. You made many false, and misleading claims in the thread on homosexuality, including your utterly absurd suggestion that homosexuality might be entirely caused by environment.

 

[1robin]

Are you disagreeing with my claim that most people do not know enough about macroevolution to claim that it is, or is not true?

I don't think anyone knows enough about it to know one way or another. However a healthy skepticism is justifiable for even a teen ager given the conjecture in the theory and the time spans that separate us from almost all the events it contains.

I have already told you that I have not debated macroevolution, and that I have only mentioned what most experts say about it. I have not supported macroevolution based upon my own knowledge of biology, but you have opposed it based upon what you think you know about biology.

I don't know anything about biology. I did not take any of the life sciences unless Chemistry counts. Not one thing I have said is my own view. I have spent more than a decade watching experts on either side debate the issues in evolution. In fact almost all my points are still known unresolved areas in most texts books.

Your frequent presence at these forums shows that you have sufficient time for a debate with an expert on macroevolution.

This too bizarre and inappropriate to even discuss anymore. I am not required 9nor have I ever seen a formal debater even asked) to debate others. This a non-issue than I have run out of patience on. Think whatever you wish, you will anyway.

On the contrary, there are some professionals at Physics Forums, and some of them will be happy to discuss macroevolution with you. The link is Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums. The biology forum is at Biology Forum. Physics Forums has over 385,000 members, and a number of them have Ph.D.s, or Master's degrees.

I had indicated my being weary of debates above, before I had read any of this (and your one of the main contributing factors). I can't even get to your posts alone in the time I have on a daily basis. I am not looking for others to debate unless I happen to run across them. I have been challenged to specific debates twice and even a moderated debate once. I accepted all three. One went well, and the other two disappeared upon agreement. Demanding your opposite debate other people is so bizarre I don't even know what to say about it. I am not interested unless they happen to show up in this thread along the way.

At Evolution Debate Forum - Topix, there is a discussion forum that is devoted entirely to evolution. Many members there would probably know much more about evolution than most members at this forum do.

I used to be fascinated by evolution debates. I grew completely bored with them years ago. I used to watch at least 2 formal debates a day. Now I have not seen a single one if over 5 years. I am burned out on the subject which is why I (and apparently I alone) was wiling to act according to you idea that no laymen can debate the issue even though I do not agree. Now I get seven posts in a row about that subject and one I have given upon on as well. I am just not interested in even that much debate much less challenges to debate other people.

I assume that Behe would disagree with the reasons for your surprise.

I am now putting on the list of things you claim that I am no longer responding to claims that I can't know anything about evolution but yet you can. If I cannot know what is surprising about those positions then you cannot know why they are not surprising, nor is your guesses about what Behe might think relevant.

Because many laymen accept the opinions of experts, and Behe is an expert, and is part of a large consensus of experts who accept macroevolution.

You are debating them not me. You are not acting according to your pronouncements.

You can be pretty slow sometimes. I obviously do not have any personal convictions about macroevolution because I have told you a number of times that I do not know a lot about biology, and that I only accept macroevolution because most experts accept it.

This is not nor has it ever been a debate on what you or I have adopted. It has been a debate about whether macroevolution has problems, and what value the evidence should be given. I don't care what position you have adopted. That is not an argument. Nor should you care about my position but only the evidence upon which that position is founded. If your convinced by popular vote then that is only one more example of the theories adoption is based on faith.

Behe is not beyond questioning since his claims about irreducible complexity are rejected by most experts. What I was referring to was your being surprised by Behe's acceptance of common descent, and irreducible complexity. I do not think that you know enough about that to be surprised with Behe's acceptance of common descent, and irreducible complexity.

I still do not believe he is in perfect agreement with a Dawkin's for example. I think your misunderstanding his position. However I am so burned out on the issue I was hoping my expressing surprise would end that part of the discussion. I am coming to understand there is no ending anything with you. Are you new to debate? You remind me of me about a dozen years ago when this was still fascinating and something I thought had a terminus.

You will not get any discussing macroevolution.

Any what?

 

[Agnostic75]

You will not get any discussing macroevolution.

Any what?

Anywhere.

You can be pretty slow sometimes. I obviously do not have any personal convictions about macroevolution because I have told you a number of times that I do not know a lot about biology, and that I only accept macroevolution because most experts accept it.

This is not nor has it ever been a debate on what you or I have adopted. It has been a debate about whether macroevolution has problems, and what value the evidence should be given. I don't care what position you have adopted. That is not an argument. Nor should you care about my position but only the evidence upon which that position is founded. If your convinced by popular vote then that is only one more example of the theories adoption is based on faith.

Debate, discussion, call it what you wish but this forum is called the Religious Debates forum. I was not suggesting that you have formal debates with some experts, or with some very knowledgeable amateurs, only some informal discussions with them since that would show people that you do not personally know what you are talking about. However, even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, most experts would still disagree with you, and it would still be reasonable for amateurs to accept the opinions of a very large consensus of experts, including the majority of Christian experts. Surely the majority of creationists do not know enough about biology to reject macroevolution based solely upon their own personal knowledge of biology.

I don't care what position you have adopted, and I do not care what position your relative handful of creationist experts have adopted. You are not in a position to judge debates by experts. and certainly the majority of creationists aren't.

Of course macroevolution has some problems, but according to most experts, not enough problems to reject it. Most experts believe that there is overwhelming evidence that supports macroevolution.

Is it acceptable to you when people who know very little about biology become creationists?

Please quote one of your experts who is a creationist.

Have you visited my new thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...t-ken-miller-discusses-science-religion.html? Please make a post in that thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal.

No he did not. Nothing in his nature forced him to create anything. Creation is an expression of his nature not a dictate of it.

That is false. Every specific thing that God does, and does not do, is dictated by his nature. God specifically must not lie, which is an example of God's nature dictating a specific inaction. God specifically had to create humans, which is an example of God's nature dictating a specific action. If God acted contrary to those two examples, he would not be God. You once said that God would be good even if he never did anything, but that has to be false since if God never did anything, he would not be God.


John 3:16 says:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

If God had not given the world his only begotten Son, he would not be God, and such inaction would have been against his nature, which dictated that he give the world his only begotten Son. God cannot act, or refuse to act contrary to his nature.

Justification is the determining element in right thing. It is what separates killing from murder. Nothing in his nature forced him to create anything. Creation is an expression of his nature not a dictate of it.

That suggests that God giving the world his only begotten Son was optional, but it certainly was not optional since if God had not done that, he would not have been God, and quite obviously, God must always be God. Logically, in order for God to give the world his only begotten Son, he first had to create humans.

God's omnibenevolent nature is always his only justification for doing things, and the only reason why he ever does anything.

If God is never bound by specificity, then all of his actions, and inactions would be equal, and it would never matter what he specifically does, or does not do, but that cannot be true or God creating a small asteroid in a distant part of space would not be any different from him creating humans.

William Lane Craig has said that God is the greatest conceivable being. J.P. Moreland, who is a distinguished colleague of William Lane Craig, has said that it is impossible for God to have his attributes to a greater degree that he already has them. That implies that if God could have done anything better than he already has done, he would have done it, and that when God does anything, it has to be the best that he can do, or he would not have done it. When God created man, and gave man his only begotten Son, that was the best that he could have done at that time. God's perfect, omnibenevolent nature dictated that he do those things.

You have said that God would be good even if he never did anything. That is ridiculous. Even if all that God ever did was think, he would be doing something, and he cannot control his thoughts any more than he can control his actions. For example, God cannot lie. He is not even able to consider lying because of his perfect, omnibenevolent nature. God had to create humans since that was part of his nature. Obviously, he had to have thought about doing it before he did it since thinking about doing it is also part of his nature. Since God could not have avoided thinking about creating humans, and giving them his only begotten Son, he could not have avoided creating humans, and giving them his only begotten Son.

No intelligent case could be made that God can control his thoughts since, for example, God cannot consider lying. In addition, no intelligent case could be made that God can control his actions. Since God cannot control his thoughts, he cannot control his actions either.

Logically, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things.

Repeat of the repeat above.

That was obviously not a repeat since it was the first time in that post that I said that morality has no meaning without choice. An omnibenevolent God could not ask humans to love a being who cannot control his thoughts, actions, and inactions since that would be deceptive. Therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is quite obviously not any need for me to read what Craig says about that since I am only referring to skeptics who have already been evangelized and would have become Christians under different circumstances, including living in another city in the same country, living in another country, or having different parents.

Since millions living where to be Christian risked death and still they believed this is not an excuse and not relevant.

That does not have anything to do with my arguments, and does not refute them. Let me try to make my arguments simpler for you. Let's say that John lived in South Korea. He grew up in a Christian home, had devout Christian parents, and attended church regularly, so he was sufficiently evangelized to be accountable. By age 18, John became a skeptic, and stayed a skeptic for the rest of his life. He lived in South Korea for his entire life. Most Christians would claim that John will not have eternal life. However, if John had been sent to the U.S. when he was a baby, and lived there for the rest of his life, it is reasonably possible that he would have become a Christian.

Let me put it another way. For the sake of argument, let's say that scientists were able to duplicate John at birth, and made one million exact duplicates of him, including his soul, and spirit. The scientists placed the duplicates in a wide variety of places all over the world, with adoptive parents of all major worldviews. It is a virtual given that at least some of the duplicates would have become Christians. Let's call one of them Tom. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?

I am saying circumstances are not to blame.

No, I just proved that they are to blame since there are not any doubts whatsoever that if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, John would have become a Christian. Since my arguments are irrefutable, you will have no choice except to complain about my hypothetical arguments, but hypothetical arguments are valid, and are frequently used by Christians.

If you claim that John should not have eternal life, you have a problem since an exact duplicate of him, Tom, became a Christian. In addition, you have another problem since Tom not have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same conditions where John was raised. My hypothetical arguments have to be valid because it is a virtual given that if one million clones were made of a skeptic named John, who was properly evangelized, at least some of the clones would become Christians under certain circumstances.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that you would not have become a Christian under certain other circumstances, and even if you knew enough about the Bible to be accountable.

However the circumstances would not have dictated that, the hearts in the clones would have.

There is no need for semantics. Well of course the hearts of the clones would have made the choices, but many of the choices that they made were different because the circumstances were different. Thus, the circumstances dictated which worldview some the clones would choose.

Where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history? He offers enough evidence not an equal amount.

For all practical purposes, John and Tom are the same person. Does Tom the clone deserve to have eternal life since he became a Christian? If so, why doesn’t John deserve to have eternal life since he would have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same circumstances as Tom? If Tom the clone deserves to have eternal life, why don’t all skeptics who have been sufficiently evangelized and would have become Christians under different circumstances not deserve to have eternal life? How are they any different than Tom?

If Tom had been raised under the same circumstances as John, he would not have become a Christian, in which case, his circumstances would have dictated the choice that his heart would make.