You'll go to hell if you disobey my God

[Shad]

Massive amounts of evidence for people who are open to evidence and don't have a closed heart on the subject. Not including solid evidence of the scriptures themselves which are historical documents, non christian sources also attest to Jesus. Here are a fraction of them.
Hostile Non-Biblical Pagan Accounts There are a number of ancient classical accounts of Jesus from pagan, non-Christian sources. These accounts are generally hostile to Christianity; some ancient authors denied the miraculous nature of Jesus and the events surrounding His life: Thallus (52AD) Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who previously tried to explain away the darkness occurring at Jesus’ crucifixion: “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1) If only more of Thallus’ record could be found, we might find more confirmation of Jesus’ crucifixion. But there are some things we can conclude from this account: Jesus lived, He was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of His crucifixion. Tacitus (56-120AD) Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame: “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” In this account, Tacitus confirms several historical elements of the Biblical narrative: Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD) Early Christians were also described in early, non-Christian history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians: “They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” This early description of the first Christians documents several facts: the first Christians believed Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers met regularly to worship Jesus.

That is evidence of what Christians believe not evidence for Jesus. Just as the Book of the Dead in Egyptian mythos is evidence of their beliefs not evidence of their gods. Just as the god complex of the Pharaohs is evidence of their belief not that the Pharaohs were actual gods. Also sources written centuries after the event are not compensatory thus not evidence of Jesus but the belief in Jesus. Your examples are primary evidence of Christianity as a religion not primary evidence of Jesus as a person. Use Josephus as your argument since he was from the area, talking about Jesus directly and about the events surround Jesus. However you will find no miracles or religion in it, merely a brief account of a few events and his death.

 

[Pudding]

Nope. Defensive move that goes nowhere. Remember, many are well-intentioned, they really want to save you. So, try to save them by arguing that belief in a god will damn them, or some other easy to make up nonsense, using the same evidence or lack thereof.

Let them ask whether we can agree to disagree. Always.

Ciao

- viole

I'm not sure, maybe response in the way of an eye for an eye, or to just simply ignore the preacher politely.

 

[viole]

I'm not sure, maybe response in the way of an eye for an eye, or to just simply ignore the preacher politely.

It is more like nonsense for a nonsense. And why should I be polite with someone who tries to push nonsense to me?
If someone sits next to you on a bus and annoys you about his visions of Elvis alive, what do you do? You politely say that you respectfully disagree or do you change sit inventing some silly excuse?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Pudding]

It is more like nonsense for a nonsense. And why should I be polite with someone who tries to push nonsense to me?

The meaning to act politely is to avoid making unnecessary quarrel.
I understand that we've no obligation to must politely treating those who unpolitely treating us, and self-defence is acceptable.

If someone sits next to you on a bus and annoys you about his visions of Elvis alive, what do you do? You politely say that you respectfully disagree or do you change sit inventing some silly excuse?

Ciao

- viole

Depends on the situation, if the person have any means to harming me then i may change sit, self-defence is acceptable.

 

[Thief]

Non believer: if God exists, He will be humorous enough to send believers in any God to the hottest hell you can imagine. Ergo, all believers in God will lose and only non believers will win.

Ciao

- viole

More likely.....without the mindset to walk among the angelic....
You will be cast out of heaven and you will walk among others that think and feel as you do.

oh hell....

 

[Shad]

I question the validity of a lot of those "facts". When you read the "evidence" for yourself, bias tends to make you gloss over the inference that is made in the language used to describe their findings. To state that something "might have" or "could have" taken place is not a statement of "fact". It is supposition. These terms do not mean something "must have" taken place....and this is what I take issue with. Supposition is a belief.

Fallacy of equivocation. A hypothesis is what you call a supposition. However since this requires experiments, which have been conducted, in order to become a theory it is no longer a supoosition. You also forget that evolutionary theory has several models which work while you admit you view has none as per your 3rd comment.

Again, the Bible does not state all the details of how the Creator did what what he did.....nor does it state specifically how long it took him to do it. The vagueness of the terminology in Genesis does not in any way detract from what we observe in nature. It wasn't written as a science textbook...it was a brief overview of what the Creator did with the barest of detail. Human intelligence was not equipped to cope with even the volumes connected to the human genome, let alone the specifics of all living things on earth. We are talking about things only discovered relatively recently in man's history. This knowledge has in fact puffed him up to the point of extreme arrogance...(often demonstrated by those who are infuriated by any challenge to their pet theory.)

The very lack of a model and an argument of ignorance in bold

Claiming something is a fact and actually proving it is very difficult without eyewitness testimony and no one was around to observe what took place. The evidence is circumstantial at best, so it is open to interpretation. What you have is the scientists' interpretation of the evidence and an expectation that the evidence will confirm what they already assume. That is bias, which can lead to very twisted conclusions.

Like the Bible.... Scientist also have done experiments and have observation of speciation which have been linked in this thread ad nauseam.

No I don't dismiss any of it as balderdash. I see amazing design in all aspects of nature. I see complex systems that could not ever have been produced by random chance mutations. When I see biological systems that have completely separate components to them and these singular components are awesome in their function and then I see how these components work in perfect harmony with other individual component to produce a whole harmoniously functioning organism...I am in awe. While men are in awe about the science...I am in awe of the Scientist!

You see stuff but can not produce a model of what you see. Such as view is worthless as far as science goes.

The watchmaker argument has been done to death I know, but when I see the computer I am using to speak to you today, I am not talking about a watch. I am talking about a piece of technology that is made up of individually designed and manufactured components. It is the putting of those components in the correct order of assembly that results in the complete workable machine. No amount of chance could have placed those components where they needed to be in order for my computer to function as it was designed to. Even the simple pieces of a mousetrap need to be assembled correctly for it to function as it was designed to. No amount of time could see those pieces form themselves into a workable instrument by chance.

If you knew its been done to death, also fallacious, then why bother bringing it up again. Either you do not understand it was refuted by Hume or you do not care. Regardless the point has no merit. The mousetrap argument was refuted by Miller in court no less.

But that is not all......my computer, with all its clever design and capabilities, would be worth nothing without a power source. This is another separately designed system that works in conjunction with the computer's operation. It would be useless even as an ornament, without power.

See above.

Then there is its "online" capability...still another completely separate system that makes it possible to communicate with people all over the world, instantly. Could it ever be a matter of chance that all these things just came about by random chance?
The human brain is more complex than a super computer...science is only just beginning to understand its capacity and functioning abilities....yet science wants me to believe that it was the product of a series of fortunate accidents of nature.
Sorry but that just does not compute! (Pardon the pun)

See above. Also to use the word accident is to provide evidence that you have no studied biology at a collage/university level.

I know that "creationists" have ruined people as far as the credibility of creation is concerned...but there is a more reasonable explanation that is found in the Bible itself. This is what I subscribe to....an extremely intelligent and superior designer, an old earth and and very long creative periods, not 24 hour days.

You are in the same boat they are, you are just trying to paddle a different direction then the rest.

Edit: And just to keep within the topic of the thread...the Creator has no desire to torture anyone in flames forever....he would rather they just trust him and follow his instructions for life.

Yet if they do not he has no issues with torture for eternity. If that is your interpretation of hell. If a person just has lack of believe, for good reasons, then God's worship desire is reinforced by the punishment for disobeying desires. This is no better than dictators wanting the best for their nation from their own point of view while torturing those that do not agree 100%.

 

[JayJayDee]

Fallacy of equivocation. A hypothesis is what you call a supposition. However since this requires experiments, which have been conducted, in order to become a theory it is no longer a supoosition. You also forget that evolutionary theory has several models which work while you admit you view has none as per your 3rd comment.

Seeing adaptive change in an animal over time is one thing....all living organisms have the capacity to adapt to a change in environment or food supply.....but taking that to be evidence of a gigantic leap of fantasy, as in all life evolved from a single organism that sprang into life for no apparent reason....makes your theory as scientifically plausible as mine, if we are playing on an even field.

Proof that organisms can adapt, is not proof that all life sprang from a simple living cell that miraculously appeared and multiplied and changed over millions of years to produce all we see as life on earth. That is as fanciful to us as our Creator is to you.

Like the Bible.... Scientist also have done experiments and have observation of speciation which have been linked in this thread ad nauseam.

Speciation never changed one "kind" of creature into another completely different "kind" ever, as far as I can see.
I was given the horse as evidence of evolutionary change....but after 55 million years, it was still a four legged furry creature, if it ever was a horse ancestor to begin with. Science makes a lot of assumptions and makes them sound like facts. When you examine them more closely, they aren't.

In all the "evidence" for speciation experiments that I have ever read, the flies remained flies.....the fish remained fish.....and not one ounce of evidence exists to argue with that. Science states what they "believe" "might have" or "could have" taken place. This is not fact...it is assumption. Why do you argue that it isn't?

You see stuff but can not produce a model of what you see. Such as view is worthless as far as science goes.

Science relies on illustration and computer generated imagery to establish their "facts". The evidence from the fossil record is nowhere near conclusive. They are free to interpret their evidence in favor of the outcome they expect. That is a biased stance from the beginning.

If you knew its been done to death, also fallacious, then why bother bringing it up again. Either you do not understand it was refuted by Hume or you do not care. Regardless the point has no merit. The mousetrap argument was refuted by Miller in court no less.

You think men of science are infallible? Incapable of error or fraud? Really? You think they can't misinterpret evidence when they have a biased position to start with?
You need a court of law to prove that a mousetrap could not possibly assemble itself? Well, that speaks volumes!

See above. Also to use the word accident is to provide evidence that you have no studied biology at a collage/university level.

So you are going to tell me that a chance mutation is not a biological "accident"? My husband suffered with a genetically transmitted neurological disorder that took his life. I researched a lot about gene mutations, because my son inherited an expansion of the mutated gene. Do I have a university degree? No, but I know a lot about the detrimental effects of mutations. Was this selected as a beneficial thing? Are mutations often beneficial? Not that I can see.

If people with a university degree cannot see what is right under their noses, what is the use of them? Do they people insight or just opinions? How are they any different to those who believe in the existence of an intelligent designer?
What thing that you use for a designated purpose in your life, was not designed by someone for that purpose?

You are in the same boat they are, you are just trying to paddle a different direction then the rest.

Which has been my position all along. I cannot provide proof of my Creator that would be acceptable to an evolutionist any more than an evolutionist can provide proof that life just happened and emerged from the primordial soup to become all the living things that exist on this planet. Your fantasy is not my fantasy.

Yet if they do not he has no issues with torture for eternity. If that is your interpretation of hell.

Well this is where I tell you that I hold practically no beliefs in common with Christendom. There is no fiery hell. The Biblical hell is just the grave....nothing more. We sleep in death with no consciousness at all. You can't torture an unconscious person.

If a person just has lack of believe, for good reasons, then God's worship desire is reinforced by the punishment for disobeying desires. This is no better than dictators wanting the best for their nation from their own point of view while torturing those that do not agree 100%.

This is where you have been swayed by the errors of Christendom. There is no "punishment" for those who disobey the Creator. He has no wish to impose himself or his ways on anyone against their will. He has no need to do that. He has given all his intelligent creatures free will to choose what they want to do with the life he has given them. As Creator, he has the right to set reasonable limits for his creation, just as any manufacturer places limits on the things he designs. To use an instrument outside of the manufacture's guidelines would result in an undesirable outcome.

Life is like that. God has placed reasonable limits on what humans are allowed to choose. Free will is not really free in the absolute sense. It is limited to operate within set boundaries so that the free will of others is not impinged. It is the misuse of free will that is the cause of all the world's problems. We humans needed to learn what happens when free will is abused. We are living in a world where the demonstration of that has never been more apparent.

God has requirements for those who get to keep their lives. He will terminate the existence of those who wish to abuse the gift God gave them. He has no use for those who have no use for him. Why would he? Only those who appreciate the gift and use it as he instructed will get to keep it. Do you find that unfair? I don't. Those who do not believe in a Creator, do not entertain a life in the future anyway. They see their existence as finite and when they die, that is the end of it. They will get what they expect...so, how is that unfair?

God has no need of rebels who only want to do things their way. He could have created us all like robots, but he didn't...he allowed us to choose the life we want. There is no eternal torture...there is only eternal life or eternal death. All of us qualify for either one or the other by our own choices. Sounds fair to me. I have never found the requirement of the Creator to be hard to carry out. Have you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Seeing adaptive change in an animal over time is one thing....all living organisms have the capacity to adapt to a change in environment or food supply.....but taking that to be evidence of a gigantic leap of fantasy, as in all life evolved from a single organism that sprang into life for no apparent reason....makes your theory as scientifically plausible as mine, if we are playing on an even field.

I'm afraid we are not playing on an even field. Reproduction with variation exists, the fossil record exists and genetics exist. All that is required for common ancestry to be true is for observed processes to merely continue doing what have been observed doing; unlike creationism, there is no need to invent an unobserved, untestable phenomenon into the gaps. If you know things can "adapt", then answer what prevents life for diversifying to such an extent that all life can share common ancestry. Everything we have observed in genetics and the fossil record strongly indicates that this is the case, and I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for what we observe in either that isn't the theory of evolution. You either believe all species found in the fossil record randomly died out and were somehow replaced with coincidentally similar species that appeared out of thin air thousands of years down the line, or you believe one species came from the other by way of reproduction, variation and selection over many generations. You either believe that all life shares similar genetic makeup because "that's the way God made it" despite the fact that God could have made the genetic makeup of life any way that they wanted but somehow randomly decided on a specific genetic makeup which fits perfectly with then notion that all life evolved from common ancestry, or you believe our shared genes are evidence that we share common ancestors. No matter what way you look at it, the evolutionary explanations simply make far more sense, have more explanatory power, and don't evoke untestable and unobserved, supernatural causation. The playing field is simply nowhere near even.

Proof that organisms can adapt, is not proof that all life sprang from a simple living cell that miraculously appeared and multiplied and changed over millions of years to produce all we see as life on earth. That is as fanciful to us as our Creator is to you.

"Proof" does not exist in science. Science leans on evidence. The fact that populations of organisms change over periods of time is evidence that populations of organisms change a great deal over a much larger period of time, and since this theory is currently the only one that can sufficiently explain what we observed both in the fossil record and DNA, it is not fanciful.

Speciation never changed one "kind" of creature into another completely different "kind" ever, as far as I can see.

The problem is that "kind" isn't very well defined. Can you tell me exactly how you can differentiate one "kind" from another "kind"? If I presented you with two animals that you had never seen before and were similar but noticeably different in many ways, what could you do to demonstrate whether or not these two animals belonged in the same or different "kind"?

I was given the horse as evidence of evolutionary change....but after 55 million years, it was still a four legged furry creature, if it ever was a horse ancestor to begin with. Science makes a lot of assumptions and makes them sound like facts. When you examine them more closely, they aren't.

So what existed BEFORE the 55 million years?

In all the "evidence" for speciation experiments that I have ever read, the flies remained flies.....the fish remained fish.....and not one ounce of evidence exists to argue with that. Science states what they "believe" "might have" or "could have" taken place. This is not fact...it is assumption. Why do you argue that it isn't?

That's because everything that reproduces produces a variation of what it is. Evolution doesn't predict that flies will produce bees. It predicts that the flies will produce different kinds of flies, and those kids of flies will produce different kinds of kinds of flies. Humans, for example, are a kind of mammal - but our ancestor didn't have to produce something "other than what it was" in order to produce humans, it just had to produce a variation of a mammal. Evolution works like a branching tree: everything is a continuation of what came before it, but remains a subsection of the whole.

Science relies on illustration and computer generated imagery to establish their "facts". The evidence from the fossil record is nowhere near conclusive. They are free to interpret their evidence in favor of the outcome they expect. That is a biased stance from the beginning.

Can you demonstrate where computer projection and reconstruction are inaccurate?

You think men of science are infallible? Incapable of error or fraud? Really? You think they can't misinterpret evidence when they have a biased position to start with?

Can you demonstrate that scientists start from a biased position?

You need a court of law to prove that a mousetrap could not possibly assemble itself? Well, that speaks volumes!

Life isn't a mousetrap, or any other kind of man-made object. Life is a biological, naturally reproducing system. If you cannot tell the different between living, biological systems and man-made objects, there is a serious problem.

So you are going to tell me that a chance mutation is not a biological "accident"?

"Accident" implies an intent that went awry. Mutations aren't "accidents", they are merely a natural result of genetic replication. They are no more an "accident" than oil and water not mixing - it's just part of the process. When you stop trying to force intent on biology, you realize why this is an error.

My husband suffered with a genetically transmitted neurological disorder that took his life. I researched a lot about gene mutations, because my son inherited an expansion of the mutated gene. Do I have a university degree? No, but I know a lot about the detrimental effects of mutations. Was this selected as a beneficial thing? Are mutations often beneficial? Not that I can see.

Mutations are rarely beneficial and rarely harmful, the vast majority of mutations are neutral. You should know this from your research.

 

[viole]

More likely.....without the mindset to walk among the angelic....
You will be cast out of heaven and you will walk among others that think and feel as you do.

oh hell....

Good. I don't know what I would talk about with Mother Teresa or Muhammed (depending on which God is true) for all eternity.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

Good. I don't know what I would talk about with Mother Teresa or Muhammed (depending on which God is true) for all eternity.

Ciao

- viole

Are you saying Mother Teresa and Muhammed are gods?

 

[viole]

Are you saying Mother Teresa and Muhammed are gods?

No, but only one of the two can be in Heaven, at most.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

No, but only one of the two can be in Heaven, at most.

Ciao

- viole

Why not both of them?

 

[viole]

Why not both of them?

I think she did not believe in Allah, and Muhammed did not believe in Jesus dvinity. So, unless God is very ecumenic about that, I do not see how they can be both in Heaven.



Ciao

- viole

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think she did not believe in Allah, and Muhammed did not believe in Jesus dvinity. So, unless God is very ecumenic about that, I do not see how they can be both in Heaven.



Ciao

- viole

This explanation makes sense

 

[Thief]

No it doesn't.

If your mentor fails....you will not be allowed.

What?....no Jews in heaven?....Moses didn't make it?
What?...no Christians?....Jesus failed?
What?...no Muslims allowed....Muhammad go it wrong?

Well gee!....I got no one to answer to!!!!!!!

but it's still not a sure bet.

 

[Shad]

Seeing adaptive change in an animal over time is one thing....all living organisms have the capacity to adapt to a change in environment or food supply.....but taking that to be evidence of a gigantic leap of fantasy, as in all life evolved from a single organism that sprang into life for no apparent reason....makes your theory as scientifically plausible as mine, if we are playing on an even field.

Nope it is part of the theory called speciation which has been observed as with the hawthorn fly.

Proof that organisms can adapt, is not proof that all life sprang from a simple living cell that miraculously appeared and multiplied and changed over millions of years to produce all we see as life on earth. That is as fanciful to us as our Creator is to you.

Nope it is eviedence of evolution via specialization. You confuse abiogensis with evolution thus your point has no merit since you conflate the two.

Speciation never changed one "kind" of creature into another completely different "kind" ever, as far as I can see.

You do not understand how speciation works. You are expecting an animal to produce a new species not related to the base species at all. Like a dog giving birth to a cat. This is standard creationist nonsense due to a lack of education.

I was given the horse as evidence of evolutionary change....but after 55 million years, it was still a four legged furry creature, if it ever was a horse ancestor to begin with. Science makes a lot of assumptions and makes them sound like facts. When you examine them more closely, they aren't.

Again you are not understanding speciation as pointed out above

In all the "evidence" for speciation experiments that I have ever read, the flies remained flies.....the fish remained fish.....and not one ounce of evidence exists to argue with that. Science states what they "believe" "might have" or "could have" taken place. This is not fact...it is assumption. Why do you argue that it isn't?

Again you are not understanding evolution. A dog does not give birth to a cat since the two species are not based on the same family line. Your lack of education is not a refutation of evolution.

Science relies on illustration and computer generated imagery to establish their "facts". The evidence from the fossil record is nowhere near conclusive. They are free to interpret their evidence in favor of the outcome they expect. That is a biased stance from the beginning.

It is called a model. Models are required in order to test if an idea is true.

You think men of science are infallible? Incapable of error or fraud? Really? You think they can't misinterpret evidence when they have a biased position to start with?

Strawman, I never claimed this. Also it is a red herring since it does nothing to address my point. You point has no merit.

You need a court of law to prove that a mousetrap could not possibly assemble itself? Well, that speaks volumes!

Actually I was pointing out that the mouse trap defense you have used was refuted in a court of law in the Dover trial. It has no merit in science and in the justice system.

So you are going to tell me that a chance mutation is not a biological "accident"? My husband suffered with a genetically transmitted neurological disorder that took his life. I researched a lot about gene mutations, because my son inherited an expansion of the mutated gene. Do I have a university degree? No, but I know a lot about the detrimental effects of mutations. Was this selected as a beneficial thing? Are mutations often beneficial? Not that I can see.

Nope it is not an accident since it is based on a series of events and mechanics which can produce changes. Accident implies that a species can suddenly develop a change which is not a result of the mechanics and events. Like a dog developing wings.

If people with a university degree cannot see what is right under their noses, what is the use of them? Do they people insight or just opinions? How are they any different to those who believe in the existence of an intelligent designer?
What thing that you use for a designated purpose in your life, was not designed by someone for that purpose?

Anti-academic now?

One has a model which can be tested, and has. The other has no model to test. There is a vast difference.

A constructed item is not a natural one. You conflate the purpose of say a phone with nature.

Which has been my position all along. I cannot provide proof of my Creator that would be acceptable to an evolutionist any more than an evolutionist can provide proof that life just happened and emerged from the primordial soup to become all the living things that exist on this planet. Your fantasy is not my fantasy.

Abiogensis not evolution. You conflate the two thus your point has no merit and is fallacious.

Well this is where I tell you that I hold practically no beliefs in common with Christendom. There is no fiery hell. The Biblical hell is just the grave....nothing more. We sleep in death with no consciousness at all. You can't torture an unconscious person.

Christianity has a core of shared ideas. You confuse dogma and doctrine for core beliefs.

This is where you have been swayed by the errors of Christendom. There is no "punishment" for those who disobey the Creator. He has no wish to impose himself or his ways on anyone against their will. He has no need to do that. He has given all his intelligent creatures free will to choose what they want to do with the life he has given them. As Creator, he has the right to set reasonable limits for his creation, just as any manufacturer places limits on the things he designs. To use an instrument outside of the manufacture's guidelines would result in an undesirable outcome.

This is your doctrine and dogma.

By providing free will the "manufacture" has created a situation in which an undesirable outcome is possible. Watchmaker fallacy along with teleology which is not found in nature.

Life is like that. God has placed reasonable limits on what humans are allowed to choose. Free will is not really free in the absolute sense. It is limited to operate within set boundaries so that the free will of others is not impinged. It is the misuse of free will that is the cause of all the world's problems. We humans needed to learn what happens when free will is abused. We are living in a world where the demonstration of that has never been more apparent.

A lack of a belief harms no external person. Your argument has no merit.

God has requirements for those who get to keep their lives. He will terminate the existence of those who wish to abuse the gift God gave them. He has no use for those who have no use for him. Why would he? Only those who appreciate the gift and use it as he instructed will get to keep it. Do you find that unfair? I don't. Those who do not believe in a Creator, do not entertain a life in the future anyway. They see their existence as finite and when they die, that is the end of it. They will get what they expect...so, how is that unfair?

Since it judges a person by their beliefs not their actions. Also it is no more than a carrot on a stick in which belief is coerced based on reward and punishment. This is not only an outdated idea as a motivator it is also outdated in training of animals and raising of children. It does not appeal to our reasoning but greed and desires. Our base instincts

God has no need of rebels who only want to do things their way. He could have created us all like robots, but he didn't...he allowed us to choose the life we want. There is no eternal torture...there is only eternal life or eternal death. All of us qualify for either one or the other by our own choices. Sounds fair to me. I have never found the requirement of the Creator to be hard to carry out. Have you?

Reward/punishment models do not appeal to me at all.

If belief is the major requirement rather than acts then I have no use or such an arbitrary god. Appeals to emotions does not work on me.

 

[JayJayDee]

Nope it is part of the theory called speciation which has been observed as with the hawthorn fly.

At what point in this experiment did the fly cease to be a fly? How many species of flies are there within their kind? When do they cease being flies?

Nope it is eviedence of evolution via specialization. You confuse abiogensis with evolution thus your point has no merit since you conflate the two.

I'm not confusing anything. I am fully aware of the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
What happens to your beloved theory if a Creator reveals himself and tells you that you have been dead wrong about how life came to be in such great variety on this planet? We all understand why evolutionists don't want to discuss abiogenesis because frankly it's a bit of an embarrassment to them. What is the point of arguing how life changed...if you don't know where it came from?

Answer the abiogenesis question and the rest takes care of itself.

Can science create life? Can it even define what it is? The truth is...science cannot even create a blade of grass.

So, it's "Mother Nature" or "God the Father"...pick your parent.

You do not understand how speciation works. You are expecting an animal to produce a new species not related to the base species at all. Like a dog giving birth to a cat. This is standard creationist nonsense due to a lack of education.

I do understand how "speciation works" according to science. Producing a new species within a kind in an artificial environment proves what? That is like breeding a lion with a tiger. Genetic roadblocks appear when we start messing with unnatural species interbreeding. A horse and a donkey can produce a mule...but can you breed a mule with a mule? In nature, kinds naturally remain true to their species. In the rare event that crossbreeding occurs, the offspring are invariably sterile.

Variety is what we see in speciation. When did I say that I expected a dog to give birth to a cat?
How many dog breeds are there? Cats? Bears? Equine animals? All different species within their kind. Even the ones that can interbreed do not do so in the wild.
Oceans full of fish stay within their kinds to an amazing degree. Creatures staying true to their species would not be possible any other way.

Actually I was pointing out that the mouse trap defense you have used was refuted in a court of law in the Dover trial. It has no merit in science and in the justice system.

Are you telling me that a mousetrap actually had to go on trial for men to determine whether it could assemble itself or not? Really?

You have no doubt heard of biomimetics? This branch of science studies the clever things in nature that can be copied in order to facilitate usefulness to man in other applications.

It is amazing to think that men with science degrees and great intelligence can copy and attempt to reproduce those clever things found in nature, but the clever things themselves had no designer or maker! Go figure.

Nope it is not an accident since it is based on a series of events and mechanics which can produce changes. Accident implies that a species can suddenly develop a change which is not a result of the mechanics and events. Like a dog developing wings.

Some evolutionists suggested that a whale's pelvis was vestigial and so proof that it once had legs, making its ancestors land animals. They know that this is not true now, don't they?

History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

Anti-academic now?

No more so than Jesus was. He ridiculed the learned ones of his day and said that God had 'hidden things from the wise and intellectual ones (usually because they liked to look down their noses at the uneducated masses with disdain) and revealed them to infants'. You think a Creator God would be impressed with the limited learning of humans acting like they know it all? Science has only scratched the surface.

One has a model which can be tested, and has. The other has no model to test. There is a vast difference.

The model is the earth itself and the test is common sense. What do we see with our own eyes and what do we know in our own hearts? These are the only tests I can regard as trustworthy. You can test all you wish in the cold clinical analysis of godless science. It answers none of the important questions in life.

A constructed item is not a natural one. You conflate the purpose of say a phone with nature.

An apostle of Jesus Christ once said..."every house is constructed by someone, but he who constructed all things is God". That is good enough for me......maybe not for you.

Christianity has a core of shared ideas. You confuse dogma and doctrine for core beliefs.

I don't confuse Christianity with Christendom. These are poles apart. Their "core of shared beliefs" have no origin in scripture.

By providing free will the "manufacture" has created a situation in which an undesirable outcome is possible.

Giving man free will was not going to work unless he understood the gravity of abusing it. Does he understand it yet, do you think?

Watchmaker fallacy along with teleology which is not found in nature.

Biomimetics is not a fallacy. The designer of the things that science wants to copy...exists. Denying his existence does not make him go away.

Can you tell me what thing that exhibits design serves no purpose? There is design and purpose to everything....especially life. Evolution takes that all away.....we have no purpose to our existence....we just are.

And yet we do not eat grass like other animals. We have taste receptors and infinite variety in the things that make up our food supply. Much of what we eat is enhanced by what we see and smell, long before we taste our favourite foods.
Is this a survival thing? Or is it a gift that we take for granted?

Why do we respond to beauty when animals do not? How is it that we developed written language along with art, poetry, music, literature and theatre, when no other "animals" exhibit these behaviors? None of those things are born from a survival instinct.

Is it co-incidence that we have just the right mixture of gasses in our air supply so that we can warm ourselves by a fire or cook a meal without blowing ourselves up because the oxygen level was too high?

Is it just a happy co-incidence that we breathe in what trees breathe out and vice versa?

Is precipitation just another fortunate accident so that the earth's water supply, which is too salty to drink, is converted to fresh water so that all living things can survive? What is water? Can science reproduce it?

Is it co-incidental too that the earth is just the right distance from the sun, spins at the perfect speed, on a perfect axis and is placed at precisely the right position in our solar system in just the right place in the galaxy?
Amazing isn't it, what numerous strokes of good luck can produce?

A lack of a belief harms no external person. Your argument has no merit.

This is not what my Creator says. The merit in the argument is still to be seen. The fat lady has not sung yet. I believe that she is practicing her scales as we speak.

Since it judges a person by their beliefs not their actions. Also it is no more than a carrot on a stick in which belief is coerced based on reward and punishment. This is not only an outdated idea as a motivator it is also outdated in training of animals and raising of children. It does not appeal to our reasoning but greed and desires. Our base instincts

The Bible is a book about human nature...it never changes. The Bible's message is never outdated....only in the minds of those who refuse to believe it. God forces no one to serve him, as I have said many times, but all are put on notice so that no one can say they were not told of God's intentions.

Reward/punishment models do not appeal to me at all.

Duly noted I'm sure.

If belief is the major requirement rather than acts then I have no use or such an arbitrary god. Appeals to emotions does not work on me.

Shouldn't belief motivate actions? The Bible says that faith without works is dead. I believe we need both.

The Bible also makes a distinction between a "physical man" and a "spiritual man"...but it doesn't tell us what makes a person one or the other. I guess we are just born that way.

Appeals to emotion really don't count with God either. He cannot demand that you love him......all he can do is ask you to get to know him. If you don't want to, well that's OK. He will not force you to do a thing against your will. That seems very fair to me.

 

[Shad]

At what point in this experiment did the fly cease to be a fly? How many species of flies are there within their kind? When do they cease being flies?

You not understand speciation, you comment has no merit since it is based on ignorance

I'm not confusing anything. I am fully aware of the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

You comment demonstrated otherwise. "Proof that organisms can adapt, is not proof that all life sprang from a simple living cell that miraculously appeared and multiplied and changed over millions of years to produce all we see as life on earth. That is as fanciful to us as our Creator is to you."

No one claims all live came from one cell. You are producing a strawman of abiogensis then attempting to use it against evolution.

What happens to your beloved theory if a Creator reveals himself and tells you that you have been dead wrong about how life came to be in such great variety on this planet? We all understand why evolutionists don't want to discuss abiogenesis because frankly it's a bit of an embarrassment to them. What is the point of arguing how life changed...if you don't know where it came from?

How it is revealed? In person so anyone can see or only myself? How can we test these it's claims? You provide oversimplified scenario which does nothing to produce a convincing view.

Abiogenesis still have models which can be tested in a limited fashion while your view has no models. I find no reason to be embarrassed given this fact.

Answer the abiogenesis question and the rest takes care of itself.

There are several views that have already been tested. It seems like the problem is becoming one which can be solved

Can science create life? Can it even define what it is? The truth is...science cannot even create a blade of grass.

They have created synthetic life

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7500/full/nature13314.html

So, it's "Mother Nature" or "God the Father"...pick your parent.

You exclude the possibility proven above.

I do understand how "speciation works" according to science. Producing a new species within a kind in an artificial environment proves what? That is like breeding a lion with a tiger. Genetic roadblocks appear when we start messing with unnatural species interbreeding. A horse and a donkey can produce a mule...but can you breed a mule with a mule? In nature, kinds naturally remain true to their species. In the rare event that crossbreeding occurs, the offspring are invariably sterile.

The lion/tiger hybrid are sterile while the Hawthorn fly is not. Your example is flawed. I guess you missed the part of speciation cover viability of offspring.

Variety is what we see in speciation. When did I say that I expected a dog to give birth to a cat?

Your comment displays otherwise. "for speciation experiments that I have ever read, the flies remained flies.....the fish remained fish."

You seem to expect species to radically diverge in short term experiments which is an indicator that you do not understand evolutionary timescales and discount the fossil record.

How many dog breeds are there? Cats? Bears? Equine animals? All different species within their kind. Even the ones that can interbreed do not do so in the wild.

A dog breed is not a species neither are household cats. You confuse species with breeds and kind with genius regarding Bears. Wild Dogs do breed with domestic dogs as do Wild Cats breed with domesticated cats. Other animals are limited based on location. There are also records of hybrid Bears found in the wild such as the Gizzly-Polar hybrid found by hunters in which 3 cases had DNA testing to prove it each kill was a hybrid.

Oceans full of fish stay within their kinds to an amazing degree. Creatures staying true to their species would not be possible any other way.

Lungfish disagree with you.

[quote[Are you telling me that a mousetrap actually had to go on trial for men to determine whether it could assemble itself or not? Really? [/quote]

Incoherent comment. The mouse trap example was refuted in court as part of the Dover Trial. I clearly said this. Your comment is a red herring.

You have no doubt heard of biomimetics? This branch of science studies the clever things in nature that can be copied in order to facilitate usefulness to man in other applications.

It is amazing to think that men with science degrees and great intelligence can copy and attempt to reproduce those clever things found in nature, but the clever things themselves had no designer or maker! Go figure.

Argument from incredibility. You seem to think our ability to understand parts of nature and use it is new and unique. We have been doing this well before the theory of evolution. Also you comment has nothing to with ID and does nothing to support it. Non-sequitur

Some evolutionists suggested that a whale's pelvis was vestigial and so proof that it once had legs, making its ancestors land animals. They know that this is not true now, don't they?

History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/promiscuous-whales-make-good-use-pelvises-180952620/

One model was falsified.. So what? This happens within every scientific field. You seem to think because models fail, change, etc this is some how this undermines evolution but it does not since the case was specific. You seem to expect a level of certainty within a field which is based on probability and models

No more so than Jesus was. He ridiculed the learned ones of his day and said that God had 'hidden things from the wise and intellectual ones (usually because they liked to look down their noses at the uneducated masses with disdain) and revealed them to infants'. You think a Creator God would be impressed with the limited learning of humans acting like they know it all? Science has only scratched the surface.

So Jesus is Captain Obvious now? It does not take the Son of God to understand their are limits to our knowledge at the times. Limits in the past were removed by innovation. The rest of your comment is religious rhetoric.

The model is the earth itself and the test is common sense. What do we see with our own eyes and what do we know in our own hearts? These are the only tests I can regard as trustworthy. You can test all you wish in the cold clinical analysis of godless science. It answers none of the important questions in life.

Common sense is unreliable in science and the Earth is not your model as a model is testable. You have displayed your anti-science bias for all to see, thank you.

I don't confuse Christianity with Christendom. These are poles apart. Their "core of shared beliefs" have no origin in scripture.

Christ is a core belief shared by Christianity. Unless you want to say Christ is not supported by scripture.

Giving man free will was not going to work unless he understood the gravity of abusing it. Does he understand it yet, do you think?

The Bible is an horrible example of free will since God violates it numerous times, sanctioned acts which we now find immoral and criminal.

Biomimetics is not a fallacy. The designer of the things that science wants to copy...exists. Denying his existence does not make him go away.

Biomimetics is taking examples from nature into a design while the watchmaker fallacy is based on examples design read into nature. You are conflating two different concepts which share principles but not ordering or methodology. It is a fallacy of equivocation in treating two concepts as one. You are also using one concept in order to prove another but the former concept only proves it's own ideas not the later's

Can you tell me what thing that exhibits design serves no purpose? There is design and purpose to everything....especially life. Evolution takes that all away.....we have no purpose to our existence....we just are.

Nature since it is not designed.

If you can not create your own purpose in life this is not evolution's problem nor mine. It is the problem of society(ies) which drives "purpose" loaded ideals on to people which creates a lot sorts of nonsense for the purpose of a coping mechanism.

And yet we do not eat grass like other animals. We have taste receptors and infinite variety in the things that make up our food supply. Much of what we eat is enhanced by what we see and smell, long before we taste our favourite foods.
Is this a survival thing? Or is it a gift that we take for granted?

Taste is a beneficial and negative trait when it comes to energy consumption and gathering. Some animals can taste bitter flavors since bitter tastes are found in food's which are poisonous and/or of low nutritional value. However some poisons have a sweet taste such as lead. Our sense of taste was flawed as the effects of lead despite taste is toxic to use.

Why do we respond to beauty when animals do not? How is it that we developed written language along with art, poetry, music, literature and theatre, when no other "animals" exhibit these behaviors? None of those things are born from a survival instinct.

Beauty is subjective due to attractiveness due to traits and cultural perception. In some cultures large males are considered beautiful while in others thin males are. This is entry level psychology

Is it just a happy co-incidence that we breathe in what trees breathe out and vice versa?

Since plant life first developed on the large scale no it is not surprising. However there is life that requires no oxygen such as Loricifera. Planet also do not just use CO2 but other gases as well. Your comment is an argument from incredibility. You accept adaptability earlier in your post but assume that life is not adaptable to the environment(Earth) as a defense later... Nice flip/flopping there.

Is it co-incidental too that the earth is just the right distance from the sun, spins at the perfect speed, on a perfect axis and is placed at precisely the right position in our solar system in just the right place in the galaxy?
Amazing isn't it, what numerous strokes of good luck can produce?

See above

This is not what my Creator says. The merit in the argument is still to be seen. The fat lady has not sung yet. I believe that she is practicing her scales as we speak.

My lack of belief thus can not be used against me in judgement. Considering I believe I am more moral than many of the figures of the Bible since I never owned a person as property, killed anyone by divine command or not, stolen, committed genocide, etc I have nothing to worry about.

The Bible is a book about human nature...it never changes. The Bible's message is never outdated....only in the minds of those who refuse to believe it. God forces no one to serve him, as I have said many times, but all are put on notice so that no one can say they were not told of God's intentions. [/quote[

Yes it has many examples of horrible acts of humanity commanded to commit these acts by God. Why do I need your book to understand genocide is wrong. If my belief is not a requirement then as per above I have no worries.

Shouldn't belief motivate actions? The Bible says that faith without works is dead. I believe we need both.

I question beliefs that accept the commands to commit genocide, slavery, pillaging and a monarch form of government based on claims of God in a book. If I have no need of your book to live a peaceful life what good is it beside dolling out lessons for those that can not figure it out for themselves?

Appeals to emotion really don't count with God either. He cannot demand that you love him......all he can do is ask you to get to know him. If you don't want to, well that's OK. He will not force you to do a thing against your will. That seems very fair to me.

Reward/punishment with the Heaven/Hell dynamic is an appeal to emotions. It flies with God since God created the dynamic....

 

[JayJayDee]

You not understand speciation, you comment has no merit since it is based on ignorance

I understand speciation.....I just don't accept that it results in what science claims it does over millions of years. There is no eyewitness testimony and when examining the fossil record, they fill in the gaps with imagination. It's all there in the words of the scientists themselves....you just ignore it.

You comment demonstrated otherwise. "Proof that organisms can adapt, is not proof that all life sprang from a simple living cell that miraculously appeared and multiplied and changed over millions of years to produce all we see as life on earth. That is as fanciful to us as our Creator is to you."

No one claims all live came from one cell. You are producing a strawman of abiogensis then attempting to use it against evolution.

Then you must believe in a different kind of evolution to the one taught by science......all living things have a common ancestry according to them.....the simple cell that sprang to life and evolved and then emerged from the primordial soup and turned into everything else over a very long period of time? That makes us related to grass I guess.....doesn't it?

There are several views that have already been tested. It seems like the problem is becoming one which can be solved

They have created synthetic life

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7500/full/nature13314.html

Have they? Did you read it all? There are difficulties as stated......

"However, expansion of an organism’s genetic alphabet presents new and unprecedented challenges: the unnatural nucleoside triphosphates must be available inside the cell; endogenous polymerases must be able to use the unnatural triphosphates to faithfully replicate DNA containing the UBP within the complex cellular milieu; and finally, the UBP must be stable in the presence of pathways that maintain the integrity of DNA. Here we show that an exogenously expressed algal nucleotide triphosphate transporter efficiently imports the triphosphates of both d5SICS and dNaM (d5SICSTP and dNaMTP) into Escherichia coli, and that the endogenous replication machinery uses them to accurately replicate a plasmid containing d5SICS–dNaM. Neither the presence of the unnatural triphosphates nor the replication of the UBP introduces a notable growth burden. Lastly, we find that the UBP is not efficiently excised by DNA repair pathways. Thus, the resulting bacterium is the first organism to propagate stably an expanded genetic alphabet."

They are a long way from creating life.

The lion/tiger hybrid are sterile while the Hawthorn fly is not. Your example is flawed. I guess you missed the part of speciation cover viability of offspring.

If species can interbreed, then they have not been removed from their "kind"...have they?
At what point do the flies stop being flies in this evolutionary process?

Your comment displays otherwise. "for speciation experiments that I have ever read, the flies remained flies.....the fish remained fish."

You seem to expect species to radically diverge in short term experiments which is an indicator that you do not understand evolutionary timescales and discount the fossil record.

What I expect to see are creatures that have the capacity to adapt to their environment. These adaptive changes do not result in one "kind" of creature evolving into another "kind" altogether. There is NO proof that this ever took place, no matter how many millions of years elapse.

A dog breed is not a species neither are household cats. You confuse species with breeds and kind with genius regarding Bears. Wild Dogs do breed with domestic dogs as do Wild Cats breed with domesticated cats. Other animals are limited based on location. There are also records of hybrid Bears found in the wild such as the Gizzly-Polar hybrid found by hunters in which 3 cases had DNA testing to prove it each kill was a hybrid.

I'm not confusing anything....the Bible identifies "kinds" in plain language, though not in strict biological terms. Read Genesis and see for yourself....they were created at different time periods and designed for their own environment and food supply. Having the same Creator and being made from the same raw materials explains the similarity in DNA. Adaptation facilitates small changes for feeding or camophlage, as it was designed to do.

Did the stick insects just decide to look like sticks all by themselves? Do you really believe that?

Lungfish disagree with you.

Tell me if the lungfish is still a lungfish after all this time? Tell me where they have found evidence that a lungfish was not designed to be a lungfish?

[quote[Are you telling me that a mousetrap actually had to go on trial for men to determine whether it could assemble itself or not? Really?

Incoherent comment. The mouse trap example was refuted in court as part of the Dover Trial. I clearly said this. Your comment is a red herring.[/quote]

It wasn't a comment...it was a question.....do we need a trial to determine that the parts of a mousetrap can never come together by chance?

Argument from incredibility. You seem to think our ability to understand parts of nature and use it is new and unique. We have been doing this well before the theory of evolution. Also you comment has nothing to with ID and does nothing to support it. Non-sequitur

And what does all that mean? I think I know when something sounds incredible....don't you? I know what appeals to my own sense of logic. It may not be the same as yours, but I do not lack the ability to comprehend when something sounds far-fetched.
I do not hold the accepted view of ID. I believe in an intelligent Creator whose awesome power created the universe.
Life did not appear as an endless series of fortunate accidents but was carefully designed and produced to replicate itself in an ongoing way. If you want to believe that that all just happened without intelligent direction, you are free to do so.

One model was falsified.. So what? This happens within every scientific field. You seem to think because models fail, change, etc this is some how this undermines evolution but it does not since the case was specific. You seem to expect a level of certainty within a field which is based on probability and models

I expect a field of science that claims to be established fact to actually have irrefutable proof for its findings.
Otherwise I would expect that it will be truthful in presenting itself as an unproven theory....best guess about what they "believe" took place. I find people admitting this and yet in the same breath defending evolution as fact. Go figure.

So Jesus is Captain Obvious now? It does not take the Son of God to understand their are limits to our knowledge at the times. Limits in the past were removed by innovation. The rest of your comment is religious rhetoric.

The rest is what I "believe". Do you not see that you also have a belief system?

Common sense is unreliable in science and the Earth is not your model as a model is testable. You have displayed your anti-science bias for all to see, thank you.

Nothing that happened millions of years ago is "testable". It can be estimated, but not stated with any certainty.
I have no "anti-science" bias at all.....I love true science and I have a reasonable expectation that things will be obvious. Design is obvious, so to my mind, a designer is required......an extremely gifted one. That is logical.

Christ is a core belief shared by Christianity. Unless you want to say Christ is not supported by scripture.

It isn't Christ that is the problem...it is the things they teach about Christ that I have issue with. Nothing they believe about him is what he taught. Their ideas came from outside of Christianity.

The Bible is an horrible example of free will since God violates it numerous times, sanctioned acts which we now find immoral and criminal.

That is your interpretation of events. Evolution is another interpretation of events.....interpretations can be incorrect.
Beliefs should be identified as such....even mine.

Biomimetics is taking examples from nature into a design while the watchmaker fallacy is based on examples design read into nature. You are conflating two different concepts which share principles but not ordering or methodology. It is a fallacy of equivocation in treating two concepts as one.

Do you know what that comment sounds like? Justification for not acknowledging design when you see it. If science has to copy it, it must be something that was acknowledged as 'innovative' enough to want to duplicate it.
Where did the idea for Velcro come from? Are gecko's feet "designed" to defy gravity, or are they an accident of "nature"?
What about spider silk? If humans could construct a net of equivalent strength, they could stop a jumbo jet in mid flight. Just another accident of nature?

If you can not create your own purpose in life this is not evolution's problem nor mine. It is the problem of society(ies) which drives "purpose" loaded ideals on to people which creates a lot sorts of nonsense for the purpose of a coping mechanism.

It has nothing to do with society....it is natural for humans to ask "why?"....animals don't do that. Children's curiosity is rather legendary.

Beauty is subjective due to attractiveness due to traits and cultural perception. In some cultures large males are considered beautiful while in others thin males are. This is entry level psychology

Beauty is something that is only appreciated by humans. We all seem to find the same things attractive actually...a colourful sunset, a snowcapped mountain, a tropical beach, moonlight on the water......I never see animals admiring those things...do you?

My lack of belief thus can not be used against me in judgement. Considering I believe I am more moral than many of the figures of the Bible since I never owned a person as property, killed anyone by divine command or not, stolen, committed genocide, etc I have nothing to worry about.

You know what? I haven't done any of those things either. But I do believe that those who choose to reject the clear evidence for the existence of a Creator will not fair well. If people don't want to know him, why would he want to know them? He loves those who love him and is loyal to those who show loyalty to him. No one is forced to believe in him and no one is forced to live as citizens of his coming kingdom.

Everyone is free to choose whatever beliefs and teachers they like.

 

[Shad]

I understand speciation.....I just don't accept that it results in what science claims it does over millions of years. There is no eyewitness testimony and when examining the fossil record, they fill in the gaps with imagination. It's all there in the words of the scientists themselves....you just ignore it.

The Bible was not written by eyewitnesses. Do you reject it as you do with science? I doubt it. Also eyewitness accounts are not required in science. Thus you hold a standard science does not follow. This is your personal problem nothing more.

Then you must believe in a different kind of evolution to the one taught by science......all living things have a common ancestry according to them.....the simple cell that sprang to life and evolved and then emerged from the primordial soup and turned into everything else over a very long period of time?

That makes us related to grass I guess.....doesn't it?

Nope. No credible textbook of biology claims everything came from a single organism. Common ancestry applies to groups of species under genus and family taxonomy. There could of be more than one simple cell, there could have been hundreds or a dozen, we do not know. You strawman is not impressive.



Have they? Did you read it all? There are difficulties as stated......

"However, expansion of an organism’s genetic alphabet presents new and unprecedented challenges: the unnatural nucleoside triphosphates must be available inside the cell; endogenous polymerases must be able to use the unnatural triphosphates to faithfully replicate DNA containing the UBP within the complex cellular milieu; and finally, the UBP must be stable in the presence of pathways that maintain the integrity of DNA. Here we show that an exogenously expressed algal nucleotide triphosphate transporter efficiently imports the triphosphates of both d5SICS and dNaM (d5SICSTP and dNaMTP) into Escherichia coli, and that the endogenous replication machinery uses them to accurately replicate a plasmid containing d5SICS–dNaM. Neither the presence of the unnatural triphosphates nor the replication of the UBP introduces a notable growth burden. Lastly, we find that the UBP is not efficiently excised by DNA repair pathways. Thus, the resulting bacterium is the first organism to propagate stably an expanded genetic alphabet."

They are a long way from creating life.

Nope. It is called synthetic life for a reason however the bacterium is still life.

If species can interbreed, then they have not been removed from their "kind"...have they?

Flies are an order not a genus where as bears are a genus thus can interbreed. A genus grouping at times is capable of interbreeding while an order is not. You set "kind" as an order but due to ignorance of taxonomy. Again you expect a species to not only change it's order but family and class. Again this only proves you never took biology about a grade school level and ad hoc place kind into whatever you think fits.

At what point do the flies stop being flies in this evolutionary process?

Flies don't. Again you are arguing from your ignorance of biology not an position of biology.

What I expect to see are creatures that have the capacity to adapt to their environment. These adaptive changes do not result in one "kind" of creature evolving into another "kind" altogether. There is NO proof that this ever took place, no matter how many millions of years elapse.

Congratulation you are getting closer to what biology actually teaches. There is evidence in genetic codes, dna and the fossil record.

I'm not confusing anything....the Bible identifies "kinds" in plain language, though not in strict biological terms. Read Genesis and see for yourself....they were created at different time periods and designed for their own environment and food supply. Having the same Creator and being made from the same raw materials explains the similarity in DNA. Adaptation facilitates small changes for feeding or camophlage, as it was designed to do.

Two comments above you displayed your confusing over taxonomy.

Did the stick insects just decide to look like sticks all by themselves? Do you really believe that?

Never said that, strawman.

Tell me if the lungfish is still a lungfish after all this time? Tell me where they have found evidence that a lungfish was not designed to be a lungfish?

Fish gain oxygen is a certain way via gills. However the lungfish has a secondary respiratory system aka lungs. Thus it is not the same as fish which was your example.

No one is obligated to disprove a claim that has no evidence thus no one needs to disprove design as design has no merit.

It wasn't a comment...it was a question.....do we need a trial to determine that the parts of a mousetrap can never come together by chance?

The mousetrap argument was about removing a part of the trap thus it could no longer functions ie irreducible complexity at all. This was refuted by Miller. You have changed this argument to the Boeing 747 argument which is just the watchmaker fallacy all over

And what does all that mean? I think I know when something sounds incredible....don't you? I know what appeals to my own sense of logic. It may not be the same as yours, but I do not lack the ability to comprehend when something sounds far-fetched.
I do not hold the accepted view of ID. I believe in an intelligent Creator whose awesome power created the universe.
Life did not appear as an endless series of fortunate accidents but was carefully designed and produced to replicate itself in an ongoing way. If you want to believe that that all just happened without intelligent direction, you are free to do so.

Argument from incredibility is that you do not think evolution is possible thus must not be true. You then inject God as an argument from ignorance.

You are using arguments which are repeatedly used by ID. ID just does not call itself religion but it still is. There is no difference between creationism and ID.

I expect a field of science that claims to be established fact to actually have irrefutable proof for its findings.

Another display of your ignorance of science. Science does not hold an irrefutable standard since by differentiation irrefutable is to be unfalsifiable. You want absolutism of religion in science.

Otherwise I would expect that it will be truthful in presenting itself as an unproven theory....best guess about what they "believe" took place. I find people admitting this and yet in the same breath defending evolution as fact. Go figure.

Again your ignorance of science. Theories are falsified not verified. Good thing science does not need your stance since it is a misapplication made by you and your expectations.

The rest is what I "believe". Do you not see that you also have a belief system?

Everyone has beliefs. However mine is justified by evidence while yours is not.

Nothing that happened millions of years ago is "testable". It can be estimated, but not stated with any certainty.

Again misapplication of certainty in science instead of probability

I have no "anti-science" bias at all.....I love true science and I have a reasonable expectation that things will be obvious. Design is obvious, so to my mind, a designer is required......an extremely gifted one. That is logical.

Since most of this post is a display of your ignorance of science and a refusal to learn it's standards I still think you are anti-science while also being irrational.

It isn't Christ that is the problem...it is the things they teach about Christ that I have issue with. Nothing they believe about him is what he taught. Their ideas came from outside of Christianity.

Which is the dogma and doctrine I spoke about. For example the claims of the Catholic Church as the only true church is based on their interpretations of scripture about Peter.

That is your interpretation of events. Evolution is another interpretation of events.....interpretations can be incorrect.

Which has yet to be falsified.

Beliefs should be identified as such....even mine.

Which has be falsified by evolution

Do you know what that comment sounds like? Justification for not acknowledging design when you see it. If science has to copy it, it must be something that was acknowledged as 'innovative' enough to want to duplicate it.
Where did the idea for Velcro come from? Are gecko's feet "designed" to defy gravity, or are they an accident of "nature"?
What about spider silk? If humans could construct a net of equivalent strength, they could stop a jumbo jet in mid flight. Just another accident of nature?

Nope. it is pointing out your fallacious argument since it contains errors in logic.

You hypothetical example is not impressive since it is imaginary.

It has nothing to do with society....it is natural for humans to ask "why?"....animals don't do that. Children's curiosity is rather legendary.

Since society was once very religion which taught the idea of purpose to the masses which has no meaning in biology or any other field which investigates nature. Society has yet to catchup to academia but this is nothing new but the status quo throughout history.

Beauty is something that is only appreciated by humans. We all seem to find the same things attractive actually...a colourful sunset, a snowcapped mountain, a tropical beach, moonlight on the water......I never see animals admiring those things...do you?

Attraction is a view of a thing as pleasing which is synonymous with beauty. Animals are attracted to mates based on physical characteristics. All you have done is ad ho changed beauty into a definition which exclude physical attractiveness of individuals of a species to other things. It is fallacious reasoning, nothing more.

Attractive Synonyms, Attractive Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

You know what? I haven't done any of those things either. But I do believe that those who choose to reject the clear evidence for the existence of a Creator will not fair well. If people don't want to know him, why would he want to know them? He loves those who love him and is loyal to those who show loyalty to him. No one is forced to believe in him and no one is forced to live as citizens of his coming kingdom.

So lack of belief is a parameter within judgement after claiming it was not. Nice flip/flopping there.

Everyone is free to choose whatever beliefs and teachers they like.

Yes. However not everyone is qualified to judge their teacher's abilities as students are not experts themselves otherwise they would not need a teacher. Hence why people look toward expertise, experience and evaluation of others if they are smart. This avoid a student following a teacher with no expertise in the subject, enrolling in a school which is not accredited, etc. So your choice can be incorrect regardless of your own judgement