INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

No logic indicates that all possible Gods must be good.

In fact logic is exactly what indicates this.

Why is that? Why must all possible Gods always tell the truth?

However what you mean by good and what the philosopher means by it are not the same.

For purposes of these discussions, the main issue is whether or not the God of the Bible is who the Bible says he is. You have not provided reasonable evidence that he is not an imposter.

In divine command theory what God does is good or right because he is also the moral judge.

Then what an evil God does is good or right because he is also the moral judge.

What are great making properties? What can a good God do that an evil God cannot do? If an evil God is omnipotent, he quite naturally would be able to do anything that he wanted to do. For example, he could heal sick people, and predict the future, or do anything else that he wanted to do. He would have a different character than a good God would, but mere humans would not be able to know that.

I do not like the philosophy of great making properties nor divine command theory. I simply had to adopt them as there is no argument against them. If you want an explanation of them Craig or Zacharias would be better than me. I believe I have given you several links to what you requested.

At the other forum, you said that evil does not have great making qualities. It is up to you to explain your position, and you did not explain it.

I read Craig's article that I quoted, and nothing in it logically precludes the existence of an evil God.

If an imposter God can do things like heal sick people, predict the future, read people's minds, create planets, and create biological life, and is omnipotent, and omniscient, he would be able to successfully pretend to be the God of the Bible.

If God is an evil God who is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?.

Before I examine ways how to reject that, on what basis would I think it even remotely true? My awareness or apprehension of God comes from two sources.

1. Theological texts (revealed religion).

2. My conscience which apprehends for example an objective moral realm.

Regarding item 1, quite naturally, an evil, omnipotent, omniscient God would easily be able to inspire the Bible.

Regarding item 2, an evil, omnipotent, omniscient God would easily be able to trick anyone who he wanted to.

Your are asking me to reject my conclusions from both those methods and adopt the possibility of something with no evidence as a reason to assume my faith based on those two areas is faulty.

Not at all. If powerful good, and evil supernatural beings exist, and the leader of one of the groups is a God, no logic requires that the leader be the God of the Bible.

1. The amplification of any uncertainty to arbitrary levels where it can be dismissed.

2. Doing so on the basis of a counter argument that has no evidence, but is simply possible.

3. Ignoring of the reality a claim is about and concentration upon the theoretical.

Regarding item 1, Paul established uncertainty when he said that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. You cannot reasonably prove that Paul knew that it was not God who is masquerading as an angel of light.

Regarding item 2, the only evidence that I need is that no logic requires that a God be good.

Regarding item 3, your claim that God is who he says he is is theoretical.

I said:

If God is an evil God who is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?.

Please answer the question.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

Mate that is being a technician not a scientist. Sure I could fix your HUD - I would just need the manual.

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?

Yes classifications relate to genetic reality - they are descriptive of it.

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

Theories explain reality.

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

Sure, all mammals also share a common ancestors - that is how evolution works.

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.

Macro- evolution is clearly defined it refers to one SPECIES of animal producing another - which I gave you several examples of.

'Type' is a term that you have not defined - however science has observed an evolutionary transition at the level of phylum, when a single celled species evolved into a multicellular species. That must be an example of one 'type' evolving into another.

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.

You have been given the proof, you just pretend not to understand it.

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.

You have been given those examples, as I said - evolutionary transitions all the way up to the level of phylum have been observed. Cats and dogs nave been shown to have a common ancestor, and so the common ancestor of cats and dogs (the miacids) is a great example. Same goes for 'kind' transitions as you define them. The wild ancestor to the domestic sheep is a different kind to the modern species and can not interbreed. That transition has occured through the thousands of years of human husbandry of sheep.
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.

Yes and I gave you several examples of exactly that - evolutionary transitions that crossed the fertility barrier.

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.

Both domestic dogs and Lycaon Pictus are very closely related, they diverged into 2 species that can no longer interbreed. It is exactly the example you asked for.

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?

You were denying macro-evolution. One species of fruit fly diverging into 2 is exactly what macro-evolution means, and that transition was directly observed.

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.

Only because you do not understand the science you are denying. Mammals have evolved into an incredible diversity, from bats to whales - but of course they are still mammals. It is just about the most basic concept behind evolution,it makes no sense to you because you are in denial.

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?

Wrong. A mammal will always remain a mammal, a primate will always remain a primate. Birds by the way are still classified as dinosauria.
One of the non-feline ancestors of the felines by the way would be Dormaalocyon latouri. How do they know it was an ancestor? Morphology.

I already know these can't be answered, which is why you supplied everything on earth except the evidence asked for.

Not only can they be answered, they have been answered, you are just immune to evidence.

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.

Smaller critters have shorter generations, and so macro-evolution occurs over a shorter period and can thus be directly observed - as with fruit flies as in the examples I have earlier.

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

I did. I note that several other people have done so also.

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.

Buddy miacis are ancestors to both the wild dogs and the wolf. It was exactly the example you asked for.

 

[1robin]

To everyone: I have been unable to post for quite a while. I will just pick up again at this point but if there were any posts where I left anyone hanging let me know.

 

[metis]

Humans have only had domesticated dogs for roughly 30,000 years, and just take a look at all the diversity of dogs that have been created in that relatively short period of time. Isn't it rather logical that over a greater expanse of time that the diversification would create new "kinds" that would be of different species, genus, etc? Is there supposedly some kind of magical barrier that that would keep genes from continuing to evolve? And if this barrier supposedly existed, then wouldn't one expect that the vast majority of geneticists would be opposed to "macro-evolution"?

To use the Bible or any other religious text as if they were science textbooks makes no sense, much like using my copies of Scientific American as if they were theology books makes no sense.

 

[1robin]

Humans have only had domesticated dogs for roughly 30,000 years, and just take a look at all the diversity of dogs that have been created in that relatively short period of time. Isn't it rather logical that over a greater expanse of time that the diversification would create new "kinds" that would be of different species, genus, etc? Is there supposedly some kind of magical barrier that that would keep genes from continuing to evolve? And if this barrier supposedly existed, then wouldn't one expect that the vast majority of geneticists would be opposed to "macro-evolution"?

That is an interesting observation made many times. However dogs were not domesticated from the first two dogs that "evolved". The different types of dogs were intensively and forcefully bred with the express intent of reaching certain goals. It was human manipulation of genetics on a industrial scale. This does not represent to much in the way of natural evolution. The point being we started with dogs and ended with dogs. No macroevolution at all. The bible suggested things change after their kind 4000 years before science did. It also hints that there are limits to how much change a specific thing can accomplish. This is exactly what we see in nature.

To use the Bible or any other religious text as if they were science textbooks makes no sense, much like using my copies of Scientific American as if they were theology books makes no sense.

Your are right. The bible is classified as historical biography not scientific. However it makes quite a few scientific claims or references, as well as historical, philosophical, moral, etc... It is perfectly justifiable to see if it's claims in these areas add up to observed reality in order to affirm it's accuracy about things that can't be observed directly. The exact same thing is done in every court room on earth concerning testimony.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have been unable to post for quite a while. I will just pick up again at this point but if there were any posts where I left anyone hanging let me know.

Please reply to my posts 3638, 3639, 3640, and 3641.

 

[Bunyip]

That is an interesting observation made many times. However dogs were not domesticated from the first two dogs that "evolved". The different types of dogs were intensively and forcefully bred with the express intent of reaching certain goals. It was human manipulation of genetics on a industrial scale. This does not represent to much in the way of natural evolution. The point being we started with dogs and ended with dogs. No macroevolution at all. The bible suggested things change after their kind 4000 years before science did. It also hints that there are limits to how much change a specific thing can accomplish. This is exactly what we see in nature.

I assume you know this, having had it pointed out to you many times - but I'll say it anyway.

Dogs, do not need to evolve into anything other than a dog to prove macro-evolution. It's hard not to notice how creationists simply refuse to grasp what macro-evolution means and endlessly repeat the same misconceptions.

Dogs do not need to evolve into anything other than dogs in order for macro-evolution to
take place. 'Dog' is not a species name, in fact there are already 2 species of dogs. So dogs have already demonstrated macro-evolution by diverging into 2 distinct species.

Your claim that there are limit to evolutionary change is a claim only made by young earth creationists who deny evolution as an expression of their faith - no such limits have been discoveredby actual science.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Michael Behe wrote a well-known book that it titled "The Edge of Evolution: The search for the Limits of Darwinisn." In the book, Behe says:

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism - Michael J. Behe - Google Books

When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of another, within a copy of the same words. That sort of evidence is seen in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. For example, both humans and chimps have a copy of a broken gene that in other mammals makes vitamin C. As a result, neither humans nor chimps can make their own vitamin C. If an ancestor of the two species originally sustained the mutation and then passed it to both descendant species, that would neatly explain the situation.

More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin - not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene too.

How do you explain that, and how do you explain the rest of the book?

Please critique Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, mutation, natural selection, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun. If you do not adequately understand the article, you have no business questioning common descent based upon your own personal knowledge of biology.

There are a number of other articles, and books that you need to critique in order to show that you know enough about biology to question common descent.

Many creationists do not know very much about biology, and accept the story of Adam and Eve primarily by faith. Do you object to that?

 

[samosasauce]

What if something can create itself? Or was never created? How do we know that our rationalizing is the same as the universe's?

 

[Thief]

What if something can create itself? Or was never created? How do we know that our rationalizing is the same as the universe's?

and what would be the difference between something alive as compared to dead?

Would the dead beget the living?
I don't think so.

Spirit first.

 

[1robin]

See: Ring species

Ring species of what? Can class rings and wedding rings mate.

 

[1robin]

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

I have already explained why his CORRECT data produced an embarrassingly flawed conclusion in an analogy with a reciprocating engine. Remember. The only thing he proved is that similar sets of parts can constitute different levels of complexity in functional body plan. He did not do anything to explain how a simple plan evolved into a far more complex one. He proved a simple syringe and a complex flagellum used similar parts. He did not show how one evolved into another and can't.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Would you like to critique Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, mutation, and irreducible complexity at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html.

I have already explained why his CORRECT data produced an embarrassingly flawed conclusion in an analogy with a reciprocating engine. Remember. The only thing he proved is that similar sets of parts can constitute different levels of complexity in functional body plan. He did not do anything to explain how a simple plan evolved into a far more complex one. He proved a simple syringe and a complex flagellum used similar parts. He did not show how one evolved into another and can't.

No, you never showed that Miller did not accomplish what he intended to accomplish, which was to show that the flagellum is not an example of irreducible complexity. In the article, Miller said "The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex." Most experts agree with that, you did not adequately refute that, and you are not in a position to adequately refute it based upon your own personal knowledge of biology.

Miller most certainly did not intend to, as you falsely claimed, "to explain how a simple plan evolved into a far more complex one." Even most amateurs know that evolution explains "what" happened, not "how" it happened. Like many other creationists, you try to force debates about common descent to become debates about naturalism, but it is common knowledge that evolution does not try to claim how life began. Michael Behe agrees with Charles Darwin about "what" happened, he only disagrees with Darwin about "how" it happened. Behe (and probably most other experts) is so convinced about what happened that he has said that the matter is trivial, and that the most important issue is the mechanisms of common descent, not the supposed fact of common descent.

You have no clue about much of what the article says. You are just bluffing, which would easily be shown if you had some discussions about the article with some experts. It is comical that a mere dabbler like you would presume to lecture Ken Miller, Michael Behe, and the vast majority of other experts who accept common descent, including the majority of Christian experts. They have spend their entire academic lives studying biology, and you would not even be able to pass a final exam in biology in the first year of college.

No sensible skeptic would be concerned if he cannot adequately reply to any of your arguments about common descent since you would not be able to adequately reply to arguments that experts made if you had some discussions with them.

Michael Behe wrote a well-known book that it titled "The Edge of Evolution: The search for the Limits of Darwinisn." In the book, Behe says:

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism - Michael J. Behe - Google Books

When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of another, within a copy of the same words. That sort of evidence is seen in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. For example, both humans and chimps have a copy of a broken gene that in other mammals makes vitamin C. As a result, neither humans nor chimps can make their own vitamin C. If an ancestor of the two species originally sustained the mutation and then passed it to both descendant species, that would neatly explain the situation.

More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin - not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene too.

How do you explain that, and the rest of page 71, and pages 72-74? Why don't you buy the book and critique all of it, and show where you are right, and Behe is wrong?

Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of biochemistry at the University of Colorado at Boulder. His contact information, which you will probably not use since you do not want to embarrass yourself by corresponding with experts, is as follows:

Email: [email protected]
Office telephone: 781-736-2303

At 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, Theobald has a well-known article that is titled "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution." Please provide a detailed critique of the article, and state where you think Theobald made some mistakes. Since you will probably not contact him, with your permission, I will send him some of the comments that you have already made in this thread, and some of the comments that you might make regarding his article, and post his replies.

Also, please provide a detailed critique of Theobald's reply to a Christian named Ashby Camp at A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique".

Regarding the Dover trial, in part of Judge Jones' ruling, he said:

A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. Expert testimony revealed that the peer review process is “exquisitely important” in the scientific process. It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to study, testing, and criticism. (1:66-69 (Miller)). In fact, defense expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that science must “publish or perish.” (22:19-25 (Behe)). Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the scientific method, and are relevant to other scientists in the field. (1:39-40 (Miller)). Moreover, peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field, journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field and deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures, employed up-to-date methods, considered and cited relevant literature and generally, whether the researcher has employed sound science. The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian); 11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.

So you cannot provide any reasonable scientific experiments to test intelligent design.

Many creationists do not know very much about biology, and accept the story of Adam and Eve primarily by faith. Do you object to that? If not, you should not object that some skeptics know very little about biology, and accept primarily by faith the scientific opinions of a large consensus of experts who accept common descent. William Lane Craig loves to appeal to a consensus when he believes that a consensus agrees with him.

Do you intend to make any more posts in the thread on the Tyre prophecy? You have made many poor arguments in that thread, and even some of your own sources disagree with you about certain issues. You even tried to discredit one of your own expert sources. During the first few weeks of that thread, you were very boastful and arrogant, and claimed that debating me was like herding cats. However, now you know that you are in trouble, and that you cannot adequately refute some of my arguments.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have been unable to post for quite a while. I will just pick up again at this point but if there were any posts where I left anyone hanging let me know.

Please reply to my posts 3639, 3640, and 3641.

Regarding those posts, I have tried to pick important topics that cannot be refuted by Christian experts, and I would be happy to discuss those posts with anyone.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Since you said that some other high risk groups of people should not practice abstinence, such as heterosexual black Americans, heterosexual black Africans, and heterosexuals who live in poverty, you do not have a fair basis for saying that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. In addition, you never gave any good reasons why women over 45 years of age need to have sex since they do not need to have sex in order to maintain the population in most countries.

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 primarily by environment. Last year, I started a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/150708-homosexuality-genetics.html. You did not make any posts in that thread. 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. In the main thread on homosexuality, you said that you would provide sources about that issue if you were asked to provide them. I asked you several times to provide sources, but you conveniently refused to provide any. I provided a number of expert sources in that thread, and in some other threads, that show that genetics is an important part of homosexuality. You did not adequately refute my sources, and you refused to comment at all regarding some of my expert sources. You conveniently refused to comment when I told you several times that the vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. If you were right, that would not be the case.

The more that I debate you, the more that I realize you are poorly prepared to debate certain topics, and that you resort to evasiveness when you get into trouble. You often try to gain even a small advantage in a debate, and when your argument doesn't work, you sometimes claim that it was not important, although those arguments were important to you when you believed that you had the advantage. You would rather claim that an argument was not important than to admit that you were wrong, such as your false claim that Alexander would not have attacked the island fortress of Tyre if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers on the walls of the fortress. You like debating far too much to give up when you believe that you have the advantage. Therefore, you withdrew from the thread on homosexuality because you knew that some of my arguments had gotten better, not because you were repeating arguments that had not been adequately refuted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ring species of what? Can class rings and wedding rings mate.

Actionbioscience | Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation

 

[1robin]

Actionbioscience | Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation

Now that I understand what you meant by a ring, what is the argument? I find nothing to reject about the THEORY contained in the ring model mentioned, nor do I see anything relevant to theology.

 

[1robin]

No, you never showed that Miller did not accomplish what he intended to accomplish, which was to show that the flagellum is not an example of irreducible complexity. In the article, Miller said "The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex." Most experts agree with that, you did not adequately refute that, and you are not in a position to adequately refute it based upon your own personal knowledge of biology.

I do not know how to force you to see what has been shown or not. I only intended to show that his argument (even if true) is not a threat to IC. His argument does noting to show that IC in general or even the example of the flagellum is false. Even if he is right it does neither.

Miller most certainly did not intend to, as you falsely claimed, "to explain how a simple plan evolved into a far more complex one." Even most amateurs know that evolution explains "what" happened, not "how" it happened. Like many other creationists, you try to force debates about common descent to become debates about naturalism, but it is common knowledge that evolution does not try to claim how life began. Michael Behe agrees with Charles Darwin about "what" happened, he only disagrees with Darwin about "how" it happened. Behe (and probably most other experts) is so convinced about what happened that he has said that the matter is trivial, and that the most important issue is the mechanisms of common descent, not the supposed fact of common descent.

Evolution is constantly used to explain a great many things that it can't (or is not suitable to explain). I however did not mean to suggest anything by the word "how". I said IC remains a problem for evolution in spite of anything miller did or found.

You have no clue about much of what the article says. You are just bluffing, which would easily be shown if you had some discussions about the article with some experts. It is comical that a mere dabbler like you would presume to lecture Ken Miller, Michael Behe, and the vast majority of other experts who accept common descent, including the majority of Christian experts. They have spend their entire academic lives studying biology, and you would not even be able to pass a final exam in biology in the first year of college.

I have no idea what you even mean by bluffing. Regardless of my level of expertise, the concept of IC was put forth by professionals not me. It remains just as unresolved as it was the day it was introduced.

No sensible skeptic would be concerned if he cannot adequately reply to any of your arguments about common descent since you would not be able to adequately reply to arguments that experts made if you had some discussions with them.

This is irrelevant.

Michael Behe wrote a well-known book that it titled "The Edge of Evolution: The search for the Limits of Darwinisn." In the book, Behe says:

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism - Michael J. Behe - Google Books



How do you explain that, and the rest of page 71, and pages 72-74? Why don't you buy the book and critique all of it, and show where you are right, and Behe is wrong?

Your having a different argument than I am. My position is that the theory of evolution as it is today is not reliable enough, not understood enough, and even if true not to be considered a challenge to faith. I do not really care specifically about total descent, partial descent, or no descent, specifically. My position is that there is nothing KNOWN about evolution that challenges faith. Maybe one day there will be, but today there is not. I am sure descent has occurred. As sure as I am that common descent is also not the sole mechanism by which genetic reality can be accounted for. Many scholars (not dabblers) suggest that evolution even if true is so finely balanced and requires such specific things and timing that it would be miraculous anyway.

Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of biochemistry at the University of Colorado at Boulder. His contact information, which you will probably not use since you do not want to embarrass yourself by corresponding with experts, is as follows:

Email: [email protected]
Office telephone: 781-736-2303

At 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, Theobald has a well-known article that is titled "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution." Please provide a detailed critique of the article, and state where you think Theobald made some mistakes. Since you will probably not contact him, with your permission, I will send him some of the comments that you have already made in this thread, and some of the comments that you might make regarding his article, and post his replies.

I have told you to desist from the speculations concerning my motivations, so many times, that at this point I will not respond to arguments that contain them. Currently I do not have the time.

Also, please provide a detailed critique of Theobald's reply to a Christian named Ashby Camp at A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique".

If I was to thoroughly do what you have suggested in just this one post, that would require all the time I have for today and even if I did so and proved the case as absolutely as I have about homosexuality you would still not accept it as such. So I can't think of a single justification for the investment of time your requests would require and no formal debate contains these types of demands.

Regarding the Dover trial, in part of Judge Jones' ruling, he said:



So you cannot provide any reasonable scientific experiments to test intelligent design.

There are no tests for absolute certainty but ID does have the same type of evidence or reasons to believe it to be fact that evolution does. However this concerns a method that science uses to regulate it's self, and is not a test for truth. Lets forget they do not follow their own rules and instead just focus on the fact that this is not a test for truth but a test for what is labeled science. Much of life and most of the important questions cannot be tested empirically. We do not test our mates by those methods before proposing, we do not defer all moral judgments until test results come in that do not even exist, and scientists do not even subject themselves to the same scrutiny. There are no tests for huge swaths and theories that science considers valid. There are no tests for multiple universes, dark matter, or M-theory yet these are cherished conclusions of science.

Many creationists do not know very much about biology, and accept the story of Adam and Eve primarily by faith. Do you object to that? If not, you should not object that some skeptics know very little about biology, and accept primarily by faith the scientific opinions of a large consensus of experts who accept common descent. William Lane Craig loves to appeal to a consensus when he believes that a consensus agrees with him.

Yes, I object to all ignorance. Even though ignorance is a necessity I do not approve of it. The same way I do not approve of adopting evolution in totality when certain knowledge is not available. I do not believe in ascribing to God things which there is no actual reason to do so. However it is not my right to regulate others by my own methodology. I believe everyone is ultimately accountable to God individually and absolutely and not to each other, in the end. You threw Craig in there for some reason. Craig brings up a consensus of professional opinion if it is relevant and has conceded a consensus even when it was not in his favor, but this seems to be an unrelated point.

Do you intend to make any more posts in the thread on the Tyre prophecy? You have made many poor arguments in that thread, and even some of your own sources disagree with you about certain issues. You even tried to discredit one of your own expert sources. During the first few weeks of that thread, you were very boastful and arrogant, and claimed that debating me was like herding cats. However, now you know that you are in trouble, and that you cannot adequately refute some of my arguments.

What I intend is irrelevant. Currently I am doing what I am able to do based on things I cannot control. Me saying you were like hearding cats is not boastful or arrogant. It was true. I have also said that you would become IMO a formidable debater if you left out all the personal commentary, assumptions about motivation, appeals to the irrelevant, and redundancy. You are competent but not disciplined about debate. I have no right to demand you become so but do have the right to point out where it is lacking, and there is nothing arrogant about it (as there is about your assumptions about my motivations).

 

[1robin]

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.

I do not know of a single point I made about homosexuality that contained anything that had anything to do with a composition of anything. My argument consisted of two points which had nothing to do with extrapolations from individual truths to generalizations about groups.

Since you said that some other high risk groups of people should not practice abstinence, such as heterosexual black Americans, heterosexual black Africans, and heterosexuals who live in poverty, you do not have a fair basis for saying that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. In addition, you never gave any good reasons why women over 45 years of age need to have sex since they do not need to have sex in order to maintain the population in most countries.

You must have infinite more time to waste that I do. I am not debating this any longer and I have said so many times.

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 primarily by environment. Last year, I started a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/150708-homosexuality-genetics.html. You did not make any posts in that thread. 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. In the main thread on homosexuality, you said that you would provide sources about that issue if you were asked to provide them. I asked you several times to provide sources, but you conveniently refused to provide any. I provided a number of expert sources in that thread, and in some other threads, that show that genetics is an important part of homosexuality. You did not adequately refute my sources, and you refused to comment at all regarding some of my expert sources. You conveniently refused to comment when I told you several times that the vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. If you were right, that would not be the case.

What I want currently has nothing to do with what I do. I am doing what I think is justifiable based on the return and my availability of time.

The more that I debate you, the more that I realize you are poorly prepared to debate certain topics, and that you resort to evasiveness when you get into trouble. You often try to gain even a small advantage in a debate, and when your argument doesn't work, you sometimes claim that it was not important, although those arguments were important to you when you believed that you had the advantage. You would rather claim that an argument was not important than to admit that you were wrong, such as your false claim that Alexander would not have attacked the island fortress of Tyre if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers on the walls of the fortress. You like debating far too much to give up when you believe that you have the advantage. Therefore, you withdrew from the thread on homosexuality because you knew that some of my arguments had gotten better, not because you were repeating arguments that had not been adequately refuted.

I did not see any debate at all about homosexuality. I looked hard for one. I expected there to be one based on how popular the argument for it has become. I expected that I would be completely unprepared and incapable of finding any methodology by which it could be condemned without appeal to theology. I was unprepared for that argument, yet I was surprised to find no preparation was necessary and no argument was available to challenge my points. Pointing out my unpreparedness for that argument only makes your failure more glaring.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.