There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Fredcow9]

You dont get it.

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

Actually this is completely false. See my contention has been that this book has stood the test of time and for good reason. Man has again always believed in the devine for a reason, its not on accident that God is riddled throughout so many ancient texts. What is inescapable is that God has always been the known cause of all things to be. Your claiming otherwise and so the burden of proof is on you to show the bible is a lie, is not trustworthy, or is a forgery, not historically trustable ect.

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

Oh Im sorry, you were standing in the way of all those schools, didnt see them there.

•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.

Still waiting to see all this evidence.Its so obvious right? you can just pull it up cant you?

•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.

Im not sure how this has anything to do with evolution but ok. This is just a fact of life...

•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

What about 1 billion years ago? 3 billion? what about a half million years ago? again since the evidence is so overwhelming you should have little trouble citing empirical evidence that proves this is true.

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.

wow! I didnt know that plants release oxygen through photosynthesis! Im so glad this age old question has finally been answered by modern science.

•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

Even just one evidence of this would suffice. Sounds like someone let their imagination go a little too far on some drugs thinking that because organisms share a similar genetic code that surely they all magically transformed over billions of years. Lets just throw some large numbers out there and it all makes sense!

 

[outhouse]

Those in the dark, often scream the loudest! "dont let the light in!"

It is not my job to teach the wilfully ignorant. But im a sucker.


Aristotle's Rhetoric (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Aristotle's Rhetoric has had an enormous influence on the development of the art of rhetoric. Not only authors writing in the peripatetic tradition, but also the famous Roman teachers of rhetoric, such as Cicero and Quintilian, frequently used elements stemming from the Aristotelian doctrine.

Paul and Rhetoric— a Review

Paul and Rhetoric— a Review

September 1, 2012 By Ben Witherington

The long running SNTS seminar ‘Paul and Rhetoric’ has produced some excellent discussion about Paul’s use of Greco-Roman rhetoric


http://www.romans2000.org/Romansrhetoric2.pdf

​

Rhetorical Structure of The Letter to the Romans




Quit argueing what you dont have a clue about.


​

 

[outhouse]

Actually this is completely false.

:biglaugh:


Like you can discredit the WORLDs scientific communities due to blind faith

 

[Serenity7855]

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!

It may have the same process but they are both very different to observe.

Microevolution

Microevolution is the change (not the evolution) in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population.This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift.

Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.

Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution. Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

Macroevolution

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.

The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus

 

[outhouse]

It may have the same process but they are both very different to observe.

Post links to your copy and paste job.

It is against forum rules

 

[outhouse]

It may have the same process but they are both very different to observe.

No kidding.

he told you one is a snapshot of a bigger picture.

 

[Fredcow9]

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.

Woah there slow it down. Im only saying that because of personal time constraints and having real world things I attend to. I run a business and am studying towards a masters degree in healthcare administration let alone many other personal things to balance such as family. There are others who are better suited to answer that kind of call.
Actually the only evidence you cited, I refuted with a more than adequate source that raised some serious issues on your authors understanding of fundamental biology and evolutionary process so dont jump the gun there.

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.

Well lets be honest about something here before we go further. The only reason the National Academy of Sciences wont recognize creation as valid is because theres no money in that. I dont think I have to make anyone aware that many scientists will be discriminated against just because they can show the evidence points towards a creator and away from blind evolution. It all goes back to political correctness and all that mumbo jumbo. Its hardly based on science at all.

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.

Im not aware of any uneducated non phd holding scientists debating in the field of evolution and creation on the professional level however maybe you know of more than I do. irregardless their claims would be that much easier to disprove so whats the problem?

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.

Actually I was just googling one day and came across this page.I enjoy debating religion and religious topics especially against other religions. However I couldnt keep away from the topic at hand, is there a God? Which as I have stated before is supported by historical studies by ancient peoples.
I am also sure you wouldnt be able to stand up to a debate with any creationist who is an expert in their field either. Its the same reason that Richard Dawkins wont debate James White for example. Because while Richard is smart, its out of his field and he would probably jeopardize his career. Outside of an attempt of personal potshots toward me which hardly are where Im from, this is kind of just wasting space.

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.

well so what are you trying to do?

 

[Serenity7855]

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!

Oh, I am not disappointed, on the contrary. Thanks for the taunt though. It takes little effort to see the difference in both disciplines

Microevolution - Wiki

Microevolution is the change (Change not evolution) in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift.

Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.

Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.[2] Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

Contrast with Macroevolution Wiki

Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process. Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different.

Macroevolution Wiki

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.

The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus.

 

[Fredcow9]

Those in the dark, often scream the loudest! "dont let the light in!"

It is not my job to teach the wilfully ignorant. But im a sucker.


Aristotle's Rhetoric (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Aristotle's Rhetoric has had an enormous influence on the development of the art of rhetoric. Not only authors writing in the peripatetic tradition, but also the famous Roman teachers of rhetoric, such as Cicero and Quintilian, frequently used elements stemming from the Aristotelian doctrine.

Paul and Rhetoric— a Review

Paul and Rhetoric— a Review

September 1, 2012 By Ben Witherington

The long running SNTS seminar ‘Paul and Rhetoric’ has produced some excellent discussion about Paul’s use of Greco-Roman rhetoric


http://www.romans2000.org/Romansrhetoric2.pdf

Rhetorical Structure of The Letter to the Romans




Quit argueing what you dont have a clue about.


​

Oh I thought you had something meaninful to post other than that Paul used a common style of argument derived from a time period and culture that he existed in...

 

[Fredcow9]

:biglaugh:


Like you can discredit the WORLDs scientific communities due to blind faith

Said the person who by faith and 0 evidence holds to his contentions.

 

[Serenity7855]

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?

Well, I am glad that I am not the only one who thinks that

 

[Fredcow9]

Well, I am glad that I am not the only one who thinks that

It would be nice to discuss something relevant to the topic. Seems hes more interested in personal attacks rather than informational content. The guy literally contended that Paul using rhetoric in the 13 letters means something? Im really not sure where hes going with it.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Oh, I am not disappointed, on the contrary. Thanks for the taunt though........

Hmmm. Wiki, huh? If you truly understand everything in that article and could write it in your own words, then I would have this to say:

Oh! You DO understand. My apologies. You just deny!

The evidence of Macroevolution is the very same evidence for Microevolution. There is no difference. If you accept microevolution, you accept macroevolution. You are now an Evol.

 

[outhouse]

Said the person who by faith and 0 evidence holds to his contentions.

I post CREDIBLE links to back my statements.

You have only supplied biased opinion.

 

[outhouse]

Well, I am glad that I am not the only one who thinks that

Two people who go against knowledge and education and known history, does not help you or anyone for that matter.


Im glad you found a friend who don't back up his opinion.

 

[outhouse]

This just came up, in another thread since we are on the topic of how the bible is not a history book.

Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the beginning of the 21st century, and despite sporadic attempts by more conservative scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen to save the patriarchal narratives as history, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'

 

[Blackdog22]

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).

You don't believe in Evolution, then you do, then you don't, then you do absolutely, then you do, but don't in the case of humans? You do think their maybe better ways of getting what you mean across yeah?

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph:

"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."

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 don't worship science.

Then your supposed interest in science is bogus.

I would have to see the whole page [about Dr. Henry Morris] 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!

I have read many articles by the late Dr. Henry Morris. It is common knowledge that he was an inerrantist, and that he accepted creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory. He obviously believed that science supports those theories, but he, like many other inerrantists, also believed that that Bible alone is sufficient evidence for people like laymen to accept creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory.

Regarding the book by Jones and Yarhouse, I have the book, and I read all of it, and there are not any doubts whatsoever that Jones and Yarhouse believe that the Bible alone is sufficient evidence to reject homosexuality, which means that they would still object to homosexuality even if they did not have any scientific evidence against it, and by implication that the Bible alone is sufficient evidence for anyone to reject homosexuality. If the Bible alone is sufficient evidence for people to accept creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, and reject homosexuality, what need is there for any Christian, or prospective Christian, to discuss what science says about those things?

What I quoted from the book all comes from a chapter that is titled "Is Homosexuality a Psychopathology?" The authors spend most of the chapter discussing only science, only to finally eventually and essentially say that science is only an unnecessary convenience since the Bible opposes homosexuality.

.......no Bible believing Christian is going to support homosexuality and as they stated.......

Iceland is predominantly Christian, and a past prime minister was an admitted lesbian.

Spain, Argentina, and Canada are predominantly Christian, and same-sex marriage is legal in all three of those countries. Would you like to claim that no Christians who live in those countries, and support same-sex marriage will go to heaven?

Lots of Christians believe that Christian homosexuals will go to heaven. In the Christian Western world, as far as I know, the majority of inerrantists live in the U.S., and in some poor African countries.

The same Internet article that shows that a study showed that 99.86% of American experts accept common descent shows that some of the most likely groups of people who accept creationism are women, and people who have less education, and people who have less income.

.......and the APA used to state that it is a psychological issue before the whole politically incorrect thing came around.

That can easily be refuted since the majority of experts today would say that there was not sufficient scientific evidence to add homosexuality to the DSM of the American Psychiatric Association in the first place.

From a secular perspective, there are not any doubts whatsoever that some homosexuals are much better off having safe sex than they would be if they practiced abstinence for life. If you wish to discuss homosexuality further, the main thread on that topic is at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2807-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other.html.

I can appreciate this, my only beef however is that evolution is just bad science plain and simple. There is a reason so many distinguished scientists are not on board with the evolutionary agenda. One has to really wonder why that is.

You have not reasonably proven that evolution is bad science. In order for you to do that, you would need to provide comprehensive explanations for lots of scientific literature that you do not understand, and cannot adequately refute. No serious, honest debater would show up at an Internet forum where there are not any experts in biology, and make a few posts about common descent, and refuse to explain lots of evidence, and then make a claim that evolution is bad science.

According to a research study, which is mentioned at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation, 99.86% of American experts accept common descent, and that "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."

700 out of 480,000 scientists is certainly not very many scientists, and it is reasonable to assume that many of those Christian experts believe that the Bible alone is sufficient evidence for people to reject common descent.

If you wrote a letter to the National Academy of Sciences, and told them what you have said about common descent in this thread, they would immediately reject your amateurish arguments, and they would surely make an issue out of the fact that you do not have even a bachelor's degree in biology, or knowledge that is roughly equivalent to a bachelor's degree in biology. Surely very few college students who do not have a degree in biology would ever get anywhere claiming that evolution is bad science. You take yourself, and your knowledge about biology, geology, and physics too seriously.

You have implied that people are lazy if they do not learn enough about biology, geology, physics, history, biblical theology, and biblical textual criticism in order to make informed decisions about what those fields have to do with accepting, or rejecting some of biblical literalism. That is unreasonable, and it unfairly criticizes many Christians who have low IQ's, do not have much education, and live in third world countries, sometimes in remote areas. Some of your comments are contrary to the simple faith that the Bible sometimes mentions.

Creationists who lived 1,000 years ago, and knew very little about evolution were certainly not lazy since very little was known about evolution, but I doubt that you object that most Christians back then were creationists.

I would also add that any person is free to think for themself. The large consensus of scientists are wrong many many many many times throughout history.

That is true, but experts have been right many times, and what you said does not reasonably prove that common descent is wrong. Common sense indicates that the fact that a particular large consensus was wrong does not necessarily have anything to do with whether or not another large consensus is wrong about a different subject.

Do you find a life filled with the latter fulfilling?

What kind of life are you referring to?

I mean come on...obviously 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.

What people?

This is an indication that regardless of God, you're going to believe evolution is that cause and drive of everything. It's not unfair, it's just natural human bias, everyone has one.

In spite of initial bias, many Christians who used to accept creationism are now theistic evolutionists, and many of them did so because they studied biology a lot. You could argue that many creationists used to be skeptics, and are now creationists, but I assume that the majority of them do not know a lot about biology, and reject common descent primarily because of the Bible, not because they studied biology a lot.

 

[Agnostic75]

Do you really think if evolution was proven false 100% that Richard Dawkins is going to stop supporting the cause?

I do not know what Richard Dawkins would say, but if evolution was proven false 100% by say 99.86% of experts, which one study showed was the percentage of American experts who accept common descent, I, and many other skeptics would become theists, or deists, but not necessarily Christians. I much prefer deism to Christianity.

A great many Christians, surely tens of millions of them, or hundreds of millions of them, believe that it is acceptable for Christians to accept common descent.

For many years, I have seen many Christians object to common descent who know very little about biology. However, even many Christian creationists who have a bachelor's in biology cannot adequately refute common descent in the opinions of the vast majority of experts.

Ashby Camp is a Christian whom I admire. I admire him because he made a detailed critique of Dr. Douglas Theobald's article on common descent. Dr. Theobald made a reply to Camp's reply at A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique". Would you like to give a detailed critique of Dr. Theobald's critique of Camp's critique of his article? Probably not since you know that even if you had the time, you do not have enough knowledge to critique at least a lot of what Theobald, and Camp said. In addition, surely most creationists would not be able to adequately understand at least a lot of what Theobald, and Camp said.

An article at http://creationwiki.org/Ashby_Camp shows that Camp does not have a degree in biology, but knows a lot about biology. Even Dr. Theobald said that Camp knows a lot about biology.

The article says:

"The best piece of evidence that Ashby Camp has of intelligent design is every wonder and complex structure that appears in everything you find in life. He knows that only a Creator, God, could have made all of this and more."

That does not make sense because millions of Christian theistic evolutionists accept common descent, and reject creationism, and the kind of intelligent design that Michael Behe et al accept, but Behe accepts common descent. Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is a well-known Christian theistic evolutionist. Miller, and the National Academy of Sciences, and George Lemaitre, who was a brilliant Roman Catholic physicist who was one of the founders of the Big Bang theory all say that science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God. I agree with them, and so do many Christians.

Ken Miller has an article on the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html. You can provide a detailed critique of the article if you wish. If you don't, the majority of creationists will probably not be able to adequately understand what you say, and most experts will reject what you say, and you will refuse to debate some experts regarding what you say.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is futile to quote Internet articles to substantiate your opinions because there will be an article that will refute your article every time you present one.

A large consensus of experts accepts common descent, including the majority of Christian experts. It is common for amateurs to refer to large consensuses of experts. In court trials, experts are sometimes called to testify, not amateurs. Experts write textbooks, not amateurs. Are you implying that it is futile for amateurs to refer to large consensuses of experts? Would you prefer that amateurs refer to their own inadequate knowledge of various subjects?

William Lane Craig is widely known for appealing to a large consensus. I do not object to that, but I do object that Craig has some objections to common descent even though he has admitted that he is an amateur in biology.

Is it futile for amateurs to refer to large consensuses of experts who reject the global flood theory, and the young earth theory?

I do not need an article to tell me that evolution happens.

Why do you accept common descent? If some of your reasons are books, and articles, according to you, "it is futile to quote Internet articles to substantiate your opinions because there will be an article that will refute your article every time you present one."

Perhaps you mean that you personally know enough about biology to conclude that common descent is probably true, but I doubt that you know enough about it to defeat some creationists in debates who have Ph.D.s in biology. I do not know very much about biology, so I accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts who accept common descent. Experts can be wrong, but they are often right.

It is simply the only reasonable theory available.......

Tell that to Fredcow9.

.......just like there must have been a cause to the big bang.

If there was a cause for the Big Bang, that does not necessarily mean that a God exists, although I believe that an unknown God might exist.

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not.

The National Academy of Sciences if the most prestigious scientific organization in the U.S. It says that science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God.

George Lemaitre was a brilliant physicist, and a Roman Catholic priest. He was one of the founders of the Big Bang theory. Albert Einstein had some discussions with Lemaitre, and said that Lemaitre's theory was the most beautiful theory that he had ever read. Consider the following:

Georges Lemaitre, Father of the Big Bang

It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:

“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

So one of the founders of the Big Bang theory would object to you trying to use science to reasonably prove the existence of God.

Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is a well-known biologist, and testified at the Dover trial. Miller is a Christian, and a theistic evolutionist. Consider the following:

NOVA | In Defense of Evolution

Question: What's wrong with bringing God into the picture as an explanation?

Miller: Supernatural causes for natural phenomena are always possible. What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

If you close off investigation, you don't look for natural causes. If we had done that 100 years ago in biology, think of what we wouldn't have discovered because we would have said, "Well, the designer did it. End of story. Let's go do something else." It would have been a terrible day for science.

Question: Does science have limits to what it can tell us?

Miller: If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science.

Question: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a creator, of God?

Miller: Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.

Please note "Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question."

What is very interesting about evolution is abiogenesis. One of God's miracles that man cannot replicate, no matter how hard he tries or how much money he throws at it. A supernatural event.

It is common knowledge even to most creationist experts that evolution does not have anything to do with abiogenesis, and that evolution studies changes in lifeforms, not their ultimate origins.

If scientists were one day able to create life, many theists would still be theists and would still appeal to theology as evidence for their religious beliefs.

Are you proposing that if scientists were able to create life that that would means that naturalism is true, and that no god exists?

The fact that scientists have not been able to create life does not necessarily mean that they will not be able to create life in the future.

If a God exists, why must he be the God of the Bible?