There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

ISo how exactly can all of life on Earth have descended from a common, primordial population of microbes and at the same time populations not be capable of evolving into new species, genera, families, etc.?

I guess, theoretically, they could ...

First, research the Taxonomic Scale to get a better idea on how living organisms are actually classified. With that in mind, remember, what we are talking about are small genetic changes that add up after many successive generations. As homo saipian fits scientific definitions of "Mammal", "primate", etc (what we get from dictionaries and the like are very simplistic compared to the definitions biologists use in classifying newly discovered species), a lot would have to happen before we became a new genera, family, etc. However, to become a new "species", not as much as you may think! All that would be required would be 2 things:

1. A population of humans be sequestered from the remaining human population; and
2. Over time, those tiny variations in genetic mutations in that sequestered population would increase over time, and eventually reach a point where their genetic markers would be so different that we would not be able to successfully reproduce viable, fertile offspring with them; and at that time, officially and scientifically, that sequestered population would be a new "species" of primate that evolved from Homo Saipian.

 

[Serenity7855]

Pretty far fetched when we see a pretty clear picture of human evolution over millions of years WITH ABSOLUTELY NO MYTHOLOGY inserted.

No, we have a pretty clear picture of primate evolution. We are not a primate. We are children of God

The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Microevolution, Macroevolution, it's the same thing. Sorry to disappoint you. Oh, and the only people on the face of this earth who are "vigorously challenging" Macroevolution are thiests, and mostly Christians; and even there, a small fringe crowd of them called "Creationists". And most of those who are challenging it absolutely do not understand the theory. Heck, most who are challenging it don't even understand science!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Oh.

Yes.

We are a primate.

We have opposable thumbs, forward facing eyes, internal mammilia reproductive systems, breasts present on both male and female, and every other criteria set forth for "primate".

 

[Fredcow9]

Theobald said that "because of.......evidentiary independence," (which obviously means that a lot of the evidences that supports common descent are independent of each other, which makes the case for common descent much better than if evidences depended upon each other), "the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characteristics, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless."

precisely why...

None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa

so this whole case being claimed that evolution can be used to make predictions in the natural world is complete nonsense by this own authors definition. It would be better if the evidences DID assume natural selection is valid, it would make MORE sense if any one of those mentioned mechanisms were the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. It really seemingly comes down to if you are predisposed to evolution being true or not. If you are, lets look at the natural world through that view and smash the puzzle pieces together even if we are lacking adequate information that proves it valid.

What about all of the other evidence in the article?

why dont you pick a good or most solid evidence that you are aware of in the article and we will examine that.

No, you are not trying to match the Bible to the natural world, you are trying to match biblical literalism to the naturalism world. You cannot reasonably prove that the writer of book of Genesis intended for his audience to take creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory literally

Lets get one thing straight, there are no allegories or feel good representations in the Torah. The ancient Israelite s certainly didnt treat it as such and consistently the prophets pointed to these books as evidences for the mightiness of God himself. Its what gave them the stones to be as bold amongst their own populace as they were at times. If the world was not created in 6 literal days then why would Moses be inspired by God to not write how long it actually took? This kind of information was probably moot or useless until this day and age when its actually in question by a good amount of people. Why say its a worldwide flood if its not? What gain is there in flat out lying to people?

Your supposed interest in science is bogus since you do not personally know enough about biology, geology, and physics to support your claim that creationism, and the global flood theory, and the young earth theory are true from an entirely scientific perspective.

We havent even touched any of these things at all but I do appreciate predispositions. It does go to show how your really forming your opinions.

I assume that most experts would say that what you said did not even come close to adequately refuting Coyne's article

This is the naturally expected reply. "lets ignore the content and objections by other qualified scientists, Ill be damned if Im shown something that contradicts my beliefs"

You did not say anything about the complex mathematical theory that he mentioned

Well here it is again since you didnt bother to read it.
their model scales logarithmically rather than exponentially. This approach does not accurately reflect biological evolution, however, for two main reasons. First, within their model are implicit information sources, including the equivalent of a highly informed oracle that prophesies when a mutation is "correct," thus accelerating the search by the evolutionary process
Another issue is stated here in that quote:
It can only assess mutations based on their current effect on fitness in the local fitness landscape. Thus the presence of this oracle makes their model radically different from a real biological search through fitness space
Another issue stated:
They assume no epistasis between beneficial mutations, no linkage between loci, and an unrealistic population size and base mutation rate, thus increasing the pool of beneficial mutations to be searched
Lastly
Finally, in their model they represent each genetic locus as a single letter. By doing so, they ignore the enormous sequence complexity of actual genetic loci (typically hundreds or thousands of nucleotides long), and vastly oversimplify the search for functional variants. In similar fashion, they assume that each evolutionary "advance" requires a change to just one locus, despite the clear evidence that most biological functions are the product of multiple gene products working together. Ignoring these biological realities infuses considerable active information into their model and eases the model's evolutionary process."

I assume that most experts

Well why dont we visit who wrote this then?
Ewert has a Phd in computer sciences.
Dembski holds a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy
Gauger holds a Ph.D., Developmental Biology/ Zoology
Marks is a professor of electrical and computer engineering. Marks has over 300 peer-reviewed technical publications, and is a fellow of the IEEE and the Optical Society of America

I dont know what your credentials you are expecting but Id say they are distinguished people that know what they are talking about. I really think your just dissatisfied with the results is what this comes down to.

 

[Fredcow9]

I am an agnostic, not an atheist, and not a naturalist. Therefore, I am not claiming one way or the other that intelligence does, or does not cause evolution. All that I am doing is claiming that most experts say that common descent is true, not how, or why evolution occurs. If a God exists, he is free to cause evolution to occur at whatever speed he wants it to occur.

I can appreciate this, my only beef however is that evolution is just bad science plain and simple. Theres a reason so many distinguished scientists are not on board with the evolutionary agenda. One has to really wonder why that is.
I would also add that any person is free to think for them-self. The large consensus of scientists are wrong many many many many times throughout history.
We can compare this to basketball in which if you had lebron james, kobe bryant, dwayn wade, ginobli and tim dunken on the same team, the large consensus of basketball players in the nba are still going to suck against a lineup like that.

Would you be willing to have some public Internet debates with some experts in biology who support common descent, and some geologists who oppose the global flood theory, and some experts who oppose the young earth theory?

Oh no I couldnt do that, I really couldnt find an excuse to do all that preparation and ignore my current studies in school lol. would be something nice to do when Im older though.
I will say this about those that accept any article of fact without researching into it, its very lazy. If you actually care about a topic or it means anything to you then you will certainly have some basic knowledge at the least of said topics if not more advanced knowledge. Me personally I have always had an interest in science. I remember I read a book called darwins black box which really opened my eyes to some serious objections. This is what put me on a course to learning as much about biological processes as I can in my spare time. I can remember reading through a human anatomy and physiology book and thinking there is really no way ANY of those processes could evolve especially blood clotting for example. Even one of my teachers for one of those classes thought biological evolution really looks stupid in the face of microbiology. So for me personally this is why I take interest and love these exchanges. The only thing I love debating more than that is the authenticity of the bible itself. could go on and on about this.

Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He once said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33.

I would have to see the whole page to understand the context of this quote as this could as you put it be an example of quote mining. I would say he is speaking as a man of faith first which is what he should do. As a Christian everything else is secondary and God is first. Now is he ignoring science in favor of God? You would have to prove his assertions wrong to make that precedence. which if your up to discuss lets do it!

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero iit was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

Do you find a life filled with the latter fulfilling? I mean comon...obviously no bible believing christian is going to support homosexuality and as they stated and the APA used to state that it is a psychological issue before the whole politically incorrect thing came around.
These people are doing nothing more than what you yourself said
If a God exists, he is free to cause evolution to occur at whatever speed he wants it to occur.
This is an indication that regardless of God, your going to believe evolution is that cause and drive of everything. Its not unfair, its just natural human bias, everyone has one. which brings me to a point that extremely rarely in these exchanges does anyone change their mind regardless of which way the burden of proof progresses. Do you really think if evolution was proven false 100% that richard dawkins is going to stop supporting the cause?

Morris, Jones, and Yarhouse all have, or had a Ph.D. in science, but implied that the Bible alone is sufficient evidence to accept the global flood theory, and to reject homosexuality. Do you agree with that? If so, your supposed interest in science is bogus.

Of course I do, I dont worship science...

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Uh ... Predictive powers of Evolution?

1 - How do you think fossils are found? Do you think they go out there, find some random spot and start digging? Nope, not at all. They look at the fossils that have been found, decide what to look for next, determine based on Evolution, plate tectonics, etc. where to look, and thereby, using the knowledge of Evolution with the cooberating evidence from other sciences ... dig and find what what they're looking for. The predictive power of Evolution!
2 - Humans have 46 pairs of chromosones. Champanzees have 48. Using the power of Evolution, geneticists predicted: Either we both had 48 pair of chromosomes and 2 pair of chromosomes of humans merged; or, we each had 46 pair of chromosomes and the chromosomes of Chimpanzees split, creating 48. Geneticists researched and found what they were looking for: Human chromosomes fused, giving us 46 (23 pair). The predictive power of Evolution!

The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists) : The Loom

Just because the predictive power of Evolution does not affect your everyday life, that doesn't mean it's not there.

(There is more. I just can't find the links right off hand).

 

[Serenity7855]

Oh.

Yes.

We are a primate.

We have opposable thumbs, forward facing eyes, internal mammilia reproductive systems, breasts present on both male and female, and every other criteria set forth for "primate".

Of course there will be similarities between primates and humans. We have been made from the same elements by the same creator.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

That's a cop out.

Why are you guys so sensitive about this? Let me try to put this in a different way:

"Primate" is a man made word. Humans fit that man made definition of "Primate".

 

[YmirGF]

Of course there will be similarities between primates and humans. We have been made from the same elements by the same creator.

Hahahahahahaahahhahahahahahahahaahhahaahhaahhahahahahahahahahahaha

*splutter*

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*cough*

*rolls off chair with laughter...*

 

[Fredcow9]

It is impossible for two primates to have a breeding population.

Stop with the ignorance.

According to which study is this 100% impossible.

Take a class at any credible college, and learn how Paul was trained and influenced by Aristotle's teachings.

Well since this is so obvious to demonstrate feel free to clue me in!!

Learn how the authors of the period were trained.
Because its obvious your lost here. To the point of embarrassment on all topics biblical and scientific.

well another reply that lacks actual substance. Oh well...

Moses has no historicity as ever existing. The exodus is viewed as religious mythology.

What is your source?

Sir, I debate against Achrya S [who the author quote mined from] for the historicity of Jesus and put her to shame. I am on the front line, debating the best Jesus mythicist who cannot get past me. Including Earl Doherty who quit posting public the last 2 years.

Your out of your league. If you would like to learn I can help.

Its alot of talk and still no substance. I really am not worried about who you are as Iv had my fair share of exchanges on the very same topic but :clap for the puffing of yourself.

Moses never penned a single word, we cannot say he even existed.

He has ZERO historicity as ever existing.

Im extremely excited and anticipating your evidences and sources behind this!

It floods everywhere in the world. So you have flood mythology. Tsunamis, river floods, flash floods ect ect.

ALL cultures and people have different dates for said floods, your up another impossible creek with no paddle.

it floods everywhere in the world so you have flood mytholgy...I thought you might have been someone who knew what they were talking about butttttttt yeaaaaaaa.

In 2900 BC the Euphrates overflowed its banks after a 6 day thunderstorm, the flood is attested. Soon after mythology starts from this devastating regional river flood. Sumerian legend states King Ziusudra who was on the known Sumerian kings list is said to have went down the river on a barge loaded with livestock. Landed next to a hill and made a sacrifice. Sound familiar?

Soon after the Akkadian's had their flood mythology and a trip down a river.

After that the Mesopotamians had their version and turned it into a sea deluge.

After that the Israelites formed after 1200 BC and turned that mythology into a global deluge.

ALL copies share word for word in many places.

Yes it does sound familiar and its no accident that it does. following the paths of Noahs sons lends much more understanding to this than you seemingly realize.

While the general narrative of the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land may be remotely rooted in historical events, the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated.

lmao yea just like George Washington and his conquest of the Brittish to for America is rooted in historical events, the figure of George Washington as a leader of Americans in these events cannot be substantiated.
by the way citing wikipedia instead of you know a scholarly journal continues to show your all talk and no game. You would literally fail any college course citing wikipedia!

Finkelstein states in the same book that at the time proposed by most scientists for the Exodus, Egypt was at the peak of its glory, with a series of fortresses guarding the borders and checkpoints watching the roads to Canaan. That means an exodus of the scale described in the Torah would have been impossible

Well lets get into it then!

No archeological evidence has been found to support the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".

I would also assume your not going to find archaeological evidence of a group of people traveling through the desert thousands of years ago.

 

[outhouse]

No, we have a pretty clear picture of primate evolution. We are not a primate. We are children of God

The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Quit posting information not credible and not taught in any normal university.

Are you that desperate?

 

[outhouse]

Lets get one thing straight, there are no allegories or feel good representations in the Torah.
.

You believe in a flat earth, and bats are now birds :thud:

The ancient Israelite s certainly didnt treat it as such and consistently the prophets pointed to these books as evidences for the mightiness of God himself.

Who do you think you are to tell another culture how to interpret their own book

 

[YmirGF]

Quit posting information not credible and not taught in any normal university.

Are you that desperate?

Indeed it is hard to argue against nonsense. That said, I still maintain the Purple Fairies love nothing better than to ride on the backs of Pink unicorns.

Oddly, no one seems to be able to prove the statement is incorrect. Who knew?

 

[Fredcow9]

You believe in a flat earth, and bats are now birds :thud:



Who do you think you are to tell another culture how to interpret their own book

guess you gave up, address my post in its entirety or not at all sir.
Not that you will answer these questions because thats clearly your style is to dodge any relevant question or discussion building. But where does the bible support the earth is flat? Where does the bible support bats are birds?
Now me personally Im well aware such things are nonsense as is the bible

Who are you to tell another culture how to interpret their own book?

 

[Fredcow9]

I think its pretty consistent that outhouse is really just full of it. He pretends he has answers to anything but is so dodgy. What part of that article did you want to discuss bud?

 

[outhouse]

According to which study is this 100% impossible.

All of them.

Less those who teach mythology as real, like sunday school at church.

Well since this is so obvious to demonstrate feel free to clue me in!!

They were trained to write using rhetoric.

well another reply that lacks actual substance. Oh well...

Ignorance will not help you here.

What is your source?

It was posted, read much??

Im extremely excited and anticipating your evidences and sources behind this!

All credible historical studies.

What evidence do you hace? here is a clue, you dont have any credible evidence.

it floods everywhere in the world so you have flood mytholgy...I thought you might have been someone who knew what they were talking about butttttttt yeaaaaaaa.

Desperation on your part.

Weak, ignorance often attacks those with more knowledge on a topic

Yes it does sound familiar and its no accident that it does. following the paths of Noahs sons lends much more understanding to this than you seemingly realize.

Comprehensive skills are required here.

All of the civilizations mentioned lived before Israelites ever existed.

Noah has no historicity at all outside mythology.

I would also assume your not going to find archaeological evidence of a group of people traveling through the desert thousands of years ago.

We have factual evidence that Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites and other cultures. They factually filled th ehighlands slowly from 1200 BC to 1000 BC. There factually was no mass migration, but a gradual build up. Canaanites used your god in their mythology before Isarelites existed, and we see exactly how your god evolved into one god from two, when King Josiah made his reforms in 622BC

Its all history, please ditch the apologetics and try REAL history.

 

[outhouse]

I think its pretty consistent that outhouse is really just full of it. He pretends he has answers to anything but is so dodgy. What part of that article did you want to discuss bud?

You dont get it.

It is you that needs evidence for your bible. Not me.


I have every credible school behind me. Im not fighting education, kowledge and history, you are.


And it is alawys those with weak arguements that attack the messenger, because they cannot refute the message.

Lets work with facts, not your biased opinion.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

 

[Fredcow9]

All of them.

Less those who teach mythology as real, like sunday school at church.

Just give me one. Otherwise Im just going to assume your literally lying right now.

They were trained to write using rhetoric.

Thats all you got for pauls influence from aristotle?

Ignorance will not help you here.

yep

It was posted, read much??

heres what you wrote so forgive me if I missed the sorce cited by your copious amounts of evidences you stated

Quote:
Given that the book of Genisis was written by moses




Moses has no historicity as ever existing. The exodus is viewed as religious mythology.

All credible historical studies.

What evidence do you hace? here is a clue, you dont have any credible evidence.

figured, you dont have any.

Desperation on your part.

Weak, ignorance often attacks those with more knowledge on a topic

well frankly you will have to demonstrate ANY knowledge on this subject before you claim anything about superior knowledge.

Comprehensive skills are required here.

All of the civilizations mentioned lived before Israelites ever existed.

Noah has no historicity at all outside mythology.

oh really? I didnt know civilizations were around before the israelites existed!! Gosh golly gee, I remember something about many different groups in the bible being mentioned before the israelites guess I missed ALL of those! Man your points are almost as solid as water!

We have factual evidence that Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites and other cultures. They factually filled th ehighlands slowly from 1200 BC to 1000 BC. There factually was no mass migration, but a gradual build up. Canaanites used your god in their mythology before Isarelites existed, and we see exactly how your god evolved into one god from two, when King Josiah made his reforms in 622BC

Its all history, please ditch the apologetics and try REAL history.

This is what the bible says that they were from the land of Canaan...Abraham is their originator remember? Id say from all that traveling around in the desert and given the technology at the time that they didnt all just appear in the promised land at the exact same time either...
It would be no surprise that the Canaanites used God in their mythology before the Israelites existed. God had a relationship with many different people in those times. The Israelites being a seperate people specifically to show Gods glory was the whole point of the account which you apparently missed. Its about a promise made to Abraham being fulfilled in case you were not aware.

 

[Agnostic75]

Would you be willing to have some public Internet debates with some experts in biology who support common descent, and some geologists who oppose the global flood theory, and some experts who oppose the young earth theory?

Oh no I couldn't do that, I really couldn't find an excuse to do all that preparation and ignore my current studies in school lol. Would be something nice to do when I'm older though.

But you have not shown that you would be able to successfully debate some experts even if you had a lot of time. Even very few experts who have a Ph.D. in biology would not be willing to debate skeptic experts in geology about the global flood theory, or skeptic experts in physics regarding the young earth theory. I have already mentioned lots of scientific evidence that you do not understand, and cannot adequately refute, and I could easily post a lot more scientific evidence that you do not understand, and could not adequately refute.

Even the relative handful of creationists who have a Ph.D. in biology have not been able to convince the National Academy of Sciences, or any major biology organization, that common descent is false.

I will say this about those that accept any article of fact without researching into it, its very lazy.

Then the majority of Christian proponents of creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory are lazy since very few of them know enough about biology, geology, and physics to adequately claim from an entirely scientific perspective that those claims are true.

So for me personally this is why I take interest and love these exchanges.

Better stated, you love exchanges at Internet forums where you know there are few, or no experts in biology, geology, or physics. If you enjoyed exchanges with informed people, you would debate at places like Physics Forums, which is at Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums. The biology section is at Biology Forum.

Physics Forums has over 385,000 members, and many of them have a Ph.D., or a Master's degree in a science. You would not have any success there.

I have already told you that I am an amateur, and that I do not know very much about biology, but I am certain that you would not be able to adequately defend most of your arguments about biology in debates with experts.

The only thing I love debating more than that is the authenticity of the Bible itself.

You are welcome to discuss whatever biblical evidence that you wish. However, I wish to tell you that biblical theology, and biblical textual criticism are vast fields, and very few Christians, and skeptics know enough about those fields to make informed decisions about them. It takes years just to adequately get started with those vast fields. Or, the Bible does not require lots of knowledge about biology, geology, physics, history, biblical theology, and biblical textual criticism for people to become Christians. The book of Acts says that over 3,000 became Christians just by listening to a brief sermon by Peter.

At Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View forum - Christian Texts and History, there is a forum on Christian Texts and History. There are more knowledge people there than anywhere else I know at the Internet. I watched many of those people debate for years at another Internet discussion forum before that forum closed, and they went to the forum that I mentioned. Some of them have degrees in theology, such as a skeptic name Stephan Huller, and Philosopher Jay has a Ph.D. in philosophy. Many of the members are fluent in New Testament Greek. The forum was founded by a very learned Christian named Peter Kirby. The majority of the members are skeptics, and a few are Christians, including the very learned Christians Peter Kirby, Andrew Criddle, and Roger Pearse, who has his own web sites.

A very knowledgeable skeptics named "spin" a thread at Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View topic - Useful links & Forum rules that contains some useful links. Surely the vast majority of Christians, and skeptics, have never heard about much of that information, let alone be very familiar with it.

And then there is skeptic Dr. Richard Carrier's comprehensive article about the New Testament canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon. When you get some extra time, you might want to write a detailed critique of the article.
Surely many Christians would not be able to adequately refute the article.

And there are numerous other articles that I could mention.

I do not debate biblical theology, and biblical textual criticism very much since I know that I do not know very much about a lot of it, although I was a conservative Christian for decades, so I know a lot of basic information about the Bible. An exception is the Tyre prophecy, and I am currently debating a Christian in a thread on that topic. My position is that I do not need to debate biblical theology, and biblical textual criticism since I have some arguments that reasonably prove that it is plausible, or probable that the God of the Bible does not exist, and that even if he did exist, he is immoral, or is an imposter. I will post some of those arguments in the future.