Darwin textbook author burbles on, misleading many

There is a problem here. How do you accept the historical accuracy of the bible but accept the earth to be billions of years old? You accept a world wide flood and the data doesn’t support that. It seems that you flip flop back and forth between accuracy and metaphor at least that’s what I see otherwise there can be no reconciliation. How and where do you draw the line between the two?

Because the Hebrew word rendered “day” in Genesis can refer to more than a literal 24 hour day. Why do you, as well as others, believe that every word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally when it is obvious to anyone with reading comprehension that this is not the case? What is stated in Genesis fits the facts. I may have mentioned this earlier, but I don’t dispute the evidence: I dispute the interpretation of the evidence. You state that the data doesn’t support a worldwide flood, but consider, for example, the precise date recorded in the Scriptures. The second month of the ancient calendar ran from what we now call mid-October to mid-November. So the 17th day corresponds approximately to the first of November. It may not be a coincidence, then, that in many lands, festivals for the dead are celebrated at that time of year. Other evidences of the Deluge linger in mankind’s traditions. Practically all ancient peoples have a legend that their ancestors survived a global flood. African Pygmies, European Celts, South American Incas—all have similar legends, as do peoples of Alaska, Australia, China, India, Lithuania, Mexico, Micronesia, New Zealand, and parts of North America, to mention only a few. Of course, over time the legends have been embellished, but they all include several details indicating a common source narrative: God was angered by mankind’s wickedness. He brought a great flood. Mankind as a whole was destroyed. A few righteous ones, however, were preserved. These built a vessel in which humans and animals were saved. In time, birds were sent out to search for dry land. Finally, the vessel came to rest on a mountain. Upon disembarking, the survivors offered a sacrifice. What does this prove? The similarities cannot possibly be coincidental. The combined evidence of these legends corroborates the Bible’s ancient testimony that all humans descend from the survivors of a flood that destroyed a world of mankind.

How and why do you know you’re interpretation is correct and is the best fit? Others would disagree with you. Why are they wrong? Christianity is just as relative as atheism is. If it doesn’t have a solid footing in all areas, how can one claim truth in it?

You look at the facts. Christianity, unlike atheism, is not relative. Jesus emphatically stated “your word is truth.” Truth is that which corresponds to reality. That truth is relative is a disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth—especially moral and spiritual truth—is not absolute but relative and ever changing. This, of course, implies that people can determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. (Isaiah 5:20, 21) It also allows people to reject as out-of-date the values and moral standards held by past generations. One thing I found valuable in studying the Bible was to group scriptures by subject. That helped me to understand some of the main tenets of Christianity (the fall, the random, the Kingdom of God, etc.). To do this successfully, though, you need to keep and open mind and an open heart. If you’re reading the Bible looking for supposed contradictions or problems, then you won’t find the truths contained therein.

What about the accounts that don’t line up with the bible like the world wide flood? How come the prophecy of Jesus’ return has happened yet after 2000 plus years? Why has no evidence been found for the Exodus after years of searching. Why are there no extra biblical accounts of Jesus post death appearances? He appeared to 500 people and no one wrote about this except his followers. That seems suspicious.

The flood is explained above. Jesus’ return is of great interest, and while it hasn’t happened yet, that does not mean it will never happen. Remember, God’s timetable is different than that of humans. As far as the Exodus goes, consider: The New Encyclopædia Britannica, although claiming that the Exodus account contains “legendary elements,” nevertheless admits that “present-day scholars tend to believe that behind the legends there is a solid core of fact.” In speaking about the difficulty of dating Egyptian dynasties from lists of kings, Britannica also says: “The weakness of these lists as historical records is that they include only the names of kings deemed worthy of honour; many modest and certain unpopular rulers are wholly overlooked—expunged from the record.” In the face of such historical inaccuracy and manipulation of facts, is it surprising that this devastating defeat for Egypt and her false gods was simply “expunged”? This becomes evident when we remember that those who recorded history did so under the tutelage of priests, whose chief interest, obviously, was maintaining their position and upholding the glory of their gods. But the Egyptians were not above altering historical records when the truth proved to be embarrassing or went against their political interests. When Thutmose III came to power, he tried to obliterate the memory of his predecessor, Hatshepsut. Says Egyptologist John Ray: “Her inscriptions were erased, her obelisks surrounded by a wall, and her monuments forgotten. Her name does not appear in later annals.” Similar attempts to alter or conceal embarrassing facts have even taken place in modern times. With respect to Jesus’ resurrection, in the book of Acts, the Gospel writer Luke stated: “To [the apostles] also by many positive proofs [Jesus] showed himself alive after he had suffered, being seen by them throughout forty days and telling the things about the kingdom of God.” (Acts 1:2, 3) A number of disciples saw the resurrected Jesus on various occasions—in a garden, on a road, during a meal, by the Sea of Tiberias.—Matthew 28:8-10; Luke 24:13-43; John 21:1-23. Critics question the veracity of these appearances. They say that the writers fabricated the accounts, or they cite seeming discrepancies in them. Actually, minor variations in the Gospel accounts prove that there was no collusion involved. Our knowledge of Jesus is broadened when one writer supplies details that supplement other accounts of certain incidents in the earthly life of Christ. Were Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances hallucinations? Any argument along those lines is implausible, since he was seen by so many people. Among them were fishermen, women, a civil servant, and even the doubting apostle Thomas, who was convinced only when he saw the irrefutable proof that Jesus had been raised from the dead. (John 20:24-29) On several occasions, disciples of Jesus did not at first recognize their resurrected Lord. Once, over 500 people saw him, most of whom were still alive when the apostle Paul used that incident as evidence in his defense of the resurrection.—1 Corinthians 15:6. Also consider that there is no such thing as a shared dream or a shared hallucination. If 500 people saw Jesus, then 500 people saw Jesus. There is no shred of evidence to suggest that these people were mistaken. Those who were fully convinced that Jesus Christ had been raised from the dead declared this truth fearlessly even though it could have meant their death. They could not have exercised such faith on the basis of a mere vision or on their imagination. Any attempts at deception would have been exposed at the time, as the enemies of Christians were bent on discrediting them and stopping their activity. As far as extrabiblical accounts of Jesus go: The Roman historian Suetonius (c. 69-140 C.E.), in his history The Twelve Caesars, stated regarding the emperor Claudius: “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from the city.” This occurred about the year 52 C.E. (Compare Acts 18:1, 2.) Note that Suetonius expresses no doubt about the existence of Christ. On this factual basis and in spite of life-endangering persecution, early Christians were very active proclaiming their faith. It is hardly likely that they would have risked their lives on the basis of a myth. Jesus’ death and resurrection had taken place in their lifetime, and some of them had been eyewitnesses to those events. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, wrote in reference to the death of Jesus: “That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”14 In addition, according to Justin Martyr, these same records mentioned Jesus’ miracles, regarding which he says: “That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.”15 True, these “Acts,” or official records, no longer exist. But they evidently did exist in the second century, and Justin Martyr confidently challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said. Those are but two people who wrote about Jesus’ life and death.

Again this could be due to thermodynamics which is natural and not sin which is supernatural. There is so evidence that the sin of lying would lead to have my genes degrade.

If could be due to thermodynamics, but then again, God could have set that physical law in motion after the fall, too, couldn’t He? The fact is that you are aging and because of this process, your genes are degrading. Scientists don’t understand exactly why it happens; trees and turtles live longer than humans yet humans are far superior in terms of intellect.

Maybe the best evidence is that the ancients calendars were not the same as modern ones. July and August didn’t even exist until Roman times. Did the ancients even calculate 365 days a year? Lack of knowledge is better explaination than sin is.

Various calendar systems have been developed by men in the past, and a number continue in use today. Early calendars were mainly lunar calendars, that is, the months of the year were counted by complete cycles of the moon, as, for example, from one new moon to the next new moon. On the average, such lunation takes about 29 days, 12 hours, and 44 minutes. The months were usually counted as of either 29 or 30 days, but in the Bible record the term “month” generally means 30 days.—Compare De 21:13; 34:8; also Re 11:2, 3. A year of 12 lunar months falls nearly 11 days short of a solar year of 365 1?4 days. Since the solar year determines the return of the seasons, there was need to adjust the calendar to this solar year, and this resulted in what are called lunisolar, or bound solar, years—that is, years in which the months were lunar but the years were solar. This was done by the addition of a number of days each year or of an additional month during certain years to compensate for the shortness of the 12 lunar months. Perhaps the problem is that you aren’t objectively viewing the evidence. You seem content to explain away anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions.

Doesn’t doubt imply asking questions?

No, doubt implies that there is no real answer to the questions asked.

What’s he doing today? Is he causing floods, earthquakes and tornadoes like in ancient times? No. Is he healing people of disease? No. Is he ending pain and suffering? No. Is he making himself know with a booming voice or something? No. Is he still creating? No. What’s he doing then?

Just because He hasn’t ended pain and suffering according to YOUR needs doesn’t mean that He never will. How arrogant humans become when speaking about an almighty Being. They stamp their feet and practically have a temper tantrum, demanding that God acquiesce to their needs RIGHT NOW.

There are lots more but I won’t post like BA77. There are also lots of Christian to atheist blogger sites everywhere. How may atheist to christian sites can you give me?

There was a blog called Atheism is Dead but I don’t know if its owner is still posting. I don’t typically look up atheist to Christian sites online because I have no need for them. As for your first link, a Gallup poll is cited. I would agree that in some Western nations, particularly France, religion is fading. However, as a current resident of what’s called “The Bible Belt” in the US, I can tell you that religion is doing quite well. The same holds true for the second link; self-identified Christians may be declining. Other religions are increasing. One thing to keep in mind when using a survey to find information: error is something that every researcher deals with when conducting studies. Respondents may not understand the question and thus not provide an accurate answer. Sometimes respondents may exaggerate in answering questions (prevarication bias). A good survey will show both validity in content and construction and reliability (meaning that the survey may be conducted twice with similar results). I would suggest, though, that you look up some information that doesn’t simply confirm your preconceived notions as to what Christianity should be.

“If there is no irrefutable argument for evolution, then it is merely a theory and (like the Bible) open to interpretation. Think about this: you claim that there are no irrefutable arguments for Christianity, which is why you turned to atheism. If there are no irrefutable arguments for evolution, then it can and should be replaced because it’s false. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC.” I knew this is where it was going. I admit, I stepped into this one. One point for you.

This is good. At least you are admitting that you could be wrong. I could be wrong, too. The main thing is that we critically analyze what we’re told and see whether or not it fits the facts and conforms to reality.

I guess I don’t know what the truth is right now and this is why I am questioning. BA77, for example, has cited all those links to counter the examples I gave. I can’t tell if that’s good science or trying to find ways to break down the theory because it threatens religion. If all that falsify Darwinism then it wouldn’t be standing. Science just isn’t that dishonest. I know it’s not perfect either but there is no conspiracy.

I agree that science isn’t a grand conspiracy. Linus Pauling famously stated that science is the search for the truth. This is why experiments are carried out and hypotheses revised. I don’t believe that Darwinian evolution threatens my religion; I think, however, that Darwin was himself looking for something besides God to explain life. Remember, he trained as an Anglican priest but his beloved younger daughter Anne died of illness, and this angered him. Could his research have been biased due to his disgust with God or religion? I don’t know for sure, but that is one possibility. Other scientists have seen weaknesses in Darwinian evolution, most notably Michael Behe and Michael Denton, both of whom have written about the subject. But note the responses to their books; Richard Dawkins stated that if anyone didn’t believe in evolution that person was stupid, wicked, and insane. Why the hyperbole? Why the nastiness? Does questioning evolution really threaten Dawkins’ worldview that much? If so, why? Barb

correction: ‘science’ is not even possible withOUT Theistic presuppositions,, bornagain77

JLAfan2001, your dismissive comment towards me, for lack of a better word, is insane. The blatant hypocrisy in it would be hard to top. For instance, out of the many comments that can be turned right around on you and be much more properly used against your position, you claim:

Science is not out to disprove God, but creationism is out to prove him. That’s biased.

Yet it is the atheistic materialists themselves who are the ones who are dogmatically trying to impose their philosophical conclusion, naturalism, onto the scientific method prior to investigation i.e. Methodological Naturalism. Phillip Johnson exposes that dishonesty here:

There are two definitions of Science in our Culture - Phillip E. Johnson - audio http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zK5sqd1SKXo#t=1596s “For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses.” Phillip Johnson - The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/09/002-the-unraveling-of-scientific-materialism-26

And as was already pointed out to you, metaphysical naturalism is Reductio ad absurdum on AT LEAST 8 points:

Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

Moreover JLAfan2001, out of all the contradictory things you have said, you hold that Near Death Experience are feasible. In fact you state:

"It could be that the energy in our brain survives, since it can’t be destroyed, and moves on to other universes."

Though I agree with you that there is nothing within known science that would prevent Near Death Experiences from happening, and indeed there is much evidence within science to strongly suggest that they are true and are to be expected, it is your position, atheistic naturalism, that is the position that presupposes that man does not have a soul that lives passed the death of his body.,,, I tell you what JLAfan2001, if you really do believe that atheists are willing to believe that a soul for man is likely, as you seem willing to believe since the evidence strongly points in that direction, why don't you wander on over to PZ Myers, or Jerry Coyne's, blog and start a discussion on that topic?,,, :) footnote,,, 'science' is not even possible with Theistic presuppositions:

Comprehensibility of the world Excerpt: ,,,Bottom line: without an absolute Truth, (there would be) no logic, no mathematics, no beings, no knowledge by beings, no science, no comprehensibility of the world whatsoever. https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/comprehensibility-of-the-world/

bornagain77

Why hasn’t UD rallied against you?

It seems as though you've missed Nullasulas' point by the widest margin possible. Upright BiPed

@ JLAfan I do not believe that we have yet had the opportunity to interact. I grant that this is a late addition to the thread, but I wanted to peruse the discussion as a whole before jumping in. First, I have a measure of sympathy for your situation. It is indeed a challenge to sort through the multitudinous arguments for and against the existence of God, the accuracy of Scripture, the plausibility of evolution (in its full-throated Neo-Darwinian sense), etc. I myself puzzled over these same questions for some time, and while I am quite confident in theism, specifically Christianity, I nevertheless maintain a deep interest in the arguments for and against. Having said that, it's hard to ignore the manifold deficiencies of your comments. For example, you state:

You believe that we descended from one couple because of an age old book written by ancient men who believe in a deity that may not exist over modern scientific evidence from fossils and genetics that we can see and verify with our eyes?

Your comment repeatedly emphasizes the antiquity of Scripture and contrasts this with the thinking of modernity. I would caution you that the bare fact that a resource is old does not constitute an argument against its accuracy. In essence, you are allowing the age of Scripture to prejudice your view of it. Another problem with your statement is that you evidently misunderstand exactly what the fossil and genetic evidence can really demonstrate. Fossil evidence allows us to state with confidence that organisms now extinct once existed. But that's really about it. Common descent is often portrayed to be the natural explanation for the similarities evident in fossilized remains. In fact, common descent is often mistakenly elevated to the level of empirical fact purely due to the existence of fossils. This is outrageously fallacious, though. The fossils are an empirical fact; common descent is a hypothesis that is wholly distinct from the empirical fossil evidence. In the pre-Darwinian world, similarity between organisms was attributed to design archetypes. Genetics is a new science that is subject to revision as our knowledge increases. So it would be prudent to avoid deciding worldview-level questions based on a science that is in such a state of flux. After all, it was only a few years ago that Dawkins et al. were confidently proclaiming that the bulk of the genome is 'junk,' an assertion that is rapidly eroding due to the work of ENCODE and others.

The same book that sets out to prove the very same thing it claims, meaning God exists cause the bible says so and it’s true cause the bible is from God?

This is confused and represents only a crude caricature of how believers view God and Scripture. The Bible does obviously claim explicitly to be from God (e.g. 2 Tim. 3:16), but it also indicates that the existence (and even the nature) of God is discernible from the natural world. Paul's famed statement in Romans 1 indicates that even absent divine revelation persons are accountable to God because the evidence from nature is so forceful. As Barb made clear, we judge the inspiration of Scripture by evaluating its scientific, historical, and archaeological underpinning. You lampoon this, but I don't think you're seriously engaging the argument. A brief list of scientifically sound statements in Scripture include: 1. Gen. 1:1 - That the cosmos had a definite beginning 2. Isa. 40:22 - That the earth is round, not flat 3. Job 26:7 - The earth is suspended in empty space 4. Job 38:33 - The cosmos operates according to laws (not the whims of moody deities) 5. Leviticus 13 - Potentially infectious diseases should be quarantined If you have an interest in historical corroboration of the Bible, I would recommend reading up on Josephus, Herodotus, and Tacitus.

That’s just blind faith versus what we can verify. This is what irrationality is. Clinging to a belief that has zero proof and clearly has been refuted by modern science. I guess I shouldn’t complain too much because the polls are showing Christianity is dying. Your kids, grand kids and great grand kids will eventually wake up and realize the truth. When that happens, your religion will die even more.

I think you have picked up bad habits from reading internet atheist blogs. You are of course entitled to your view, but to make such highly dismissive remarks after having misrepresented the view you disagree with is distasteful. Has anyone actually made the claim that lying degrades the genome? Your comment is the first I've ever heard of such a thing. Think what you wish, but tone down the rhetoric. It smacks of arrogance and dogmatism, traits which are entirely inappropriate to a scientific perspective (which is always subject to revision). Optimus

BA77 Concerning the NDEs, it could be that all material is reduced to quantum energy and there is that in the processes of the brain. Quantum Mechanics also posits a multiverse scenario. It could be that the energy in our brain survives, since it can't be destroyed, and moves on to other universes. It explains why so many NDEs are so different. It could just be natural not supernatural. Even Sal has suggested that there could be some kind of mind in the Quantum realm. http://www.robertlanza.com/does-death-exist-new-theory-says-no-2/ JLAfan2001

Nullasullus I guess I’m not getting what you’re saying. It just seems to me that you have adopted an agnostic relativistic position and are dogmatic about it even though you are against dogmatism. You have adopted a position that essentially says I don’t know it all, I’m open to correction, this is what’s true for me and everyone should feel this way. Your position is to have no definite position but to be swayed to and fro which Christianity teaches against. If I’m not mistaken you are a theistic evolutionist who believes in common descent. Why hasn’t UD rallied against you? Barb “I have no problem believing the earth is 4 billion years old, or believing that the universe is 13-14 billion years old. I believe that Adam and Eve were real people and that the biblical flood did occur. I also believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible, which includes the Exodus. I also believe that Jonah and the whale is not a fable.” There is a problem here. How do you accept the historical accuracy of the bible but accept the earth to be billions of years old? You accept a world wide flood and the data doesn’t support that. It seems that you flip flop back and forth between accuracy and metaphor at least that’s what I see otherwise there can be no reconciliation. How and where do you draw the line between the two? “You’re correct in stating that the Bible is open to interpretation. That is why I feel it’s important to not only read it but actually study it and determine which interpretion is the correct one, which best fits the facts.” How and why do you know you’re interpretation is correct and is the best fit? Others would disagree with you. Why are they wrong? Christianity is just as relative as atheism is. If it doesn’t have a solid footing in all areas, how can one claim truth in it? “I already stated that I studied both the Bible and evidence from science, history, and archaeology which corroborated the Bible’s accounts. That’s not circular reasoning, that’s critical thinking.” What about the accounts that don’t line up with the bible like the world wide flood? How come the prophecy of Jesus’ return has happened yet after 2000 plus years? Why has no evidence been found for the Exodus after years of searching. Why are there no extra biblical accounts of Jesus post death appearances? He appeared to 500 people and no one wrote about this except his followers. That seems suspicious. “My evidence is the prevalence of birth defects, which could include cystic fibrosis or other diseases such as trisomy 21 (Down syndrome). The evidence is that man is not improving physically.” Again this could be due to thermodynamics which is natural and not sin which is supernatural. There is so evidence that the sin of lying would lead to have my genes degrade. “What fits the evidence best? The Bible’s account of man’s life being 80 or 90 years (Psalms) makes sense given that most people only live that long. Some might make it to the century mark or beyond, but that is rare. What other evidence do you need, besides mortality rates in the Western world?” Maybe the best evidence is that the ancients calendars were not the same as modern ones. July and August didn’t even exist until Roman times. Did the ancients even calculate 365 days a year? Lack of knowledge is better explaination than sin is. “So, in other words, you stopped asking questions and began doubting. Which argument against Christianity did you find most compelling? I’m actually curious. I’ve found that many arguments against Christianity are little more than logical fallacies dressed up to resemble actual, debatable premises. And most of the Internet-based atheists I’ve met have taken the position of “I don’t want to believe” rather than “I don’t believe”. You might be different, but that’s been my experience.” Doesn’t doubt imply asking questions? I would LOVE to debate the questions I have with you but it would have to be off thread because this thread has already been hijacked as it is. I do want to believe but I also don’t want to follow a lie either. I am open to the possibility that atheism is a lie as well. Actually, I’m more of an agnostic than an atheist at the moment. “God has less to do? Says who?” What’s he doing today? Is he causing floods, earthquakes and tornadoes like in ancient times? No. Is he healing people of disease? No. Is he ending pain and suffering? No. Is he making himself know with a booming voice or something? No. Is he still creating? No. What’s he doing then? “Provide proof for your claim. Simply telling me to Google something isn’t going to work. BA77 at least provides links. You can certainly do the same. Unless you really don’t have any evidence for this claim, in which case it can be dismissed.” http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/The-Decline-and-Fall-of-Christianity http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/03/the-end-of-christian-america.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4593918/Christianity-in-decline-because-of-political-correctness.html There are lots more but I won’t post like BA77. There are also lots of Christian to atheist blogger sites everywhere. How may atheist to christian sites can you give me? “If there is no irrefutable argument for evolution, then it is merely a theory and (like the Bible) open to interpretation. Think about this: you claim that there are no irrefutable arguments for Christianity, which is why you turned to atheism. If there are no irrefutable arguments for evolution, then it can and should be replaced because it’s false. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC.” I knew this is where it was going. I admit, I stepped into this one. One point for you. I guess I don’t know what the truth is right now and this is why I am questioning. BA77, for example, has cited all those links to counter the examples I gave. I can’t tell if that’s good science or trying to find ways to break down the theory because it threatens religion. If all that falsify Darwinism then it wouldn’t be standing. Science just isn’t that dishonest. I know it’s not perfect either but there is no conspiracy. “JLAfan2001 at 5: “Can you tell me that if I lie or steal or lust that this will degrade my genes or the genes of my children? Of course not.” You implied it, not me.” Barb@1 “According to the Bible, God made the first man perfect. It is impossible for God to make things any other way. The creation account says: “God proceeded to create the man in his image . . . After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Genesis 1:27, 31) What is a perfect man like? A perfect man has free will and is able to imitate God’s qualities completely. A perfect man would live forever in perfect health, according to the Bible. The fall from perfection explains why the human body, though marvelously designed, is susceptible to deformities and disease. Evolution is therefore incompatible with the Bible. Evolution presents modern man as an improving animal. The Bible presents modern man as the degenerating descendant of a perfect man.” This is essentially what I was writing about in the first place. Chance Ratcliff “Well it’s quite impossible to imagine what would happen if the most influential book in human history was never written. However the arguments I presentedat #10 are philosophical, and the video linked there goes into much more detail. You asked for evidence in favor of theism apart from the Bible, and those are such arguments. They are discernible without a Christian world view, and accessible to anyone who wants to hear how one can conclude that theism is the best explanation for the universe and its inhabitants.” Of course this doesn’t prove the Christian God or the bible is true. It just means that naturalism my not be the only explaination for everything. Also, if naturalism is the only thing, people are faced with a choice of either dealing with the harsh reality of life or giving up on it. I know that seems crappy but it could still be true. It is possible that all forms of theism was invented to cope with the arguments you presented. Humanity couldn’t deal with life and death and created something greater than themselves to see them through. I believe psychology is showing that may be a real possibility. One could even argue that suicide is a from of natural selection to weed out the weak. BA77 I know that you love to show all these links but it kind of proves the point I’m trying to make. Just about all the links you post are from sites that you favor. The evidence comes in supporting evolution and you look for evidence against it because you feel threatened by it. There has been some evidence shown here in the last couple of days with ATP Synthase and mutant cockroaches and creationists/IDists set out to disprove the claims rather than looking at them objectively. Science is not out to disprove God, but creationism is out to prove him. That’s biased. If we were to come across a crime scene where the victim is dead with 17 stab wounds and the suspect is holding a bloody knife, it would be reasonable to conclude the suspect murdered the victim. Not wanting the suspect to be prosecuted, creationists and IDist would say that it could be that the man just tripped on the knife 17 times and therefore the murder scenario is refuted especially since no one has witnessed it. If Darwinian evolution is not true then one would have to say that God created the life forms ex nihilio at different times, in different places using the same DNA material. How can science test for that? If Homo Sapiens did not descend from a primate common ancestor then they appeared fully formed out of nowhere. That would be harder to explain than the current deficiencies in the fossil record, right? ID uses the Cambrian explosion as evidence then how would it explain that explosion. If you used the bible that could be considered circular reasoning. Phinehas “Based on your say-so? Believe it or not, I don’t think God starts out each day wracking His brain for some way to convince atheists that He exists. Instead, He seems ever-so-content to reveal Himself to those who realize they are spiritually poor while confounding those who claim to be wise. He appears to reserve His grace for those humble enough to doubt, and is inexplicably pleased by those doubtful enough to require faith. But He scoffs at the proud and their certainties. Apparently, Godhood lends Him enough self-confidence that He doesn’t particularly feel a need to prove anything to anyone. Believe it. Or not.” I understand that God doesn’t have to do tricks for the people or be it’s lap dog but I think it would be beneficial from time to time considering the stakes is eternal separation, don’t you? The last great miracle that he did was a couple of hundred years ago at best. If he only reveals himself to certain people then he would unfair in my book. It may not be a big deal to you but anybody could see that borders on tyranny. He doesn’t fell the need to reveal himself to everyone or anyone yet sends them to “hell” if they don’t believe in him. JLAfan2001

If God is the truth, there should be at least one irrefutable argument that the atheists just can’t answer.

Based on your say-so? Believe it or not, I don't think God starts out each day wracking His brain for some way to convince atheists that He exists. Instead, He seems ever-so-content to reveal Himself to those who realize they are spiritually poor while confounding those who claim to be wise. He appears to reserve His grace for those humble enough to doubt, and is inexplicably pleased by those doubtful enough to require faith. But He scoffs at the proud and their certainties. Apparently, Godhood lends Him enough self-confidence that He doesn't particularly feel a need to prove anything to anyone. Believe it. Or not. Phinehas

But perhaps most importantly JLAFan2001, is that there is a stark difference in the NDE's of Judeo-Christian cultures and those of foreign cultures. All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with 'The Being Of Light' and tend to be very unpleasant NDE's save for the few pleasant children's NDEs of those cultures that I've seen (It seems there is indeed an 'age of accountability'). The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE's:

Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm Near Death Experience Thailand Asia - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8M5J3zWG5g

I could list several more studies along this line that show the stark difference in NDE's, but to tie NDE's more directly to Christianity I want to point out,,,

Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural - December 2011 Excerpt: And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks (on the Shroud), the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values - Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio - 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the 'quantum' is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271

If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the "3D - photographic negative" image on the Shroud I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE's) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright 'Light' or 'Being of Light' who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before.

Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? - article with video Excerpt: "Very often as they're moving through the tunnel, there's a very bright mystical light ... not like a light we're used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns..." - Jeffery Long M.D. - has studied NDE's extensively http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/beyondbelief/experts-death-experience/story?id=14221154#.T_gydvW8jbI "Suddenly, I was enveloped in this brilliant golden light. The light was more brilliant that the light emanating from the sun, many times more powerful and radiant than the sun itself. Yet, I was not blinded by it nor burned by it. Instead, the light was a source of energy that embraced my being." Ned Dougherty's - Fast Lane To Heaven - Quoted from "To Heaven and Back" pg. 71 - Mary C. Neal MD “The Light was brighter than hundreds of suns, but it did not hurt my eyes. I had never seen anything as luminous or as golden as this Light, and I immediately understood it was entirely composed of love, all directed at me. This wonderful, vibrant love was very personal, as you might describe secular love, but also sacred. Though I had never seen God, I recognized this light as the Light of God. But even the word God seemed too small to describe the magnificence of that presence. I was with my Creator, in holy communication with that presence. The Light was directed at me and through me; it surrounded me and pierced me. It existed just for me.” – testimony taken from Kimberly Clark Sharp’s Near Death Experience http://www.near-death.com/sharp.html 1 John 1:5-7 "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." Toby Mac (In The Light) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_MpGRQRrP0

All people who have been in the presence of 'The Being of Light', while having a deep NDE, have no doubt whatsoever that the 'The Being of Light' they were in the presence of is none other than 'The Lord God Almighty' of heaven and earth.

In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 Heaven Is Real: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife - Dr. Eben Alexander - Oct 8, 2012 Excerpt: One of the few places I didn’t have trouble getting my story across was a place I’d seen fairly little of before my experience: church. The first time I entered a church after my coma, I saw everything with fresh eyes. The colors of the stained-glass windows recalled the luminous beauty of the landscapes I’d seen in the world above. The deep bass notes of the organ reminded me of how thoughts and emotions in that world are like waves that move through you. And, most important, a painting of Jesus breaking bread with his disciples evoked the message that lay at the very heart of my journey: that we are loved and accepted unconditionally by a God even more grand and unfathomably glorious than the one I’d learned of as a child in Sunday school. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

bornagain77

Axel, though I appreciate the sentiment, I would much rather, as impossible as it may seem, that atheists not view this as a battle but as a search for truth. JLAFan2001, I read somewhere the other day, though I can't find it now, where I believe you gave a nod towards Near Death Experiences as potentially being valid. Which is a good thing since they have far more evidence going for them than neo-Darwinism has going for it:

Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Michaela's Amazing NEAR death experience - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLEmETQdMkg&feature=player_detailpage#t=629s

Even though the researchers in this following study found evidence directly contradicting what they had expected to find, they were/are so wedded to the materialistic/naturalistic view of reality, the view of “I’ am my body”, that it seems sadly impossible for them to even conceive of the fact that they may be wrong in their naturalistic presuppositions, and to even admit to the possibility of the reality/truth of the soul, i.e. admit to the “I’ am a soul distinct from my body” view of reality.

'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/ Memories of Near Death Experiences (NDEs): More Real Than Reality? - Mar. 27, 2013 Excerpt: University of Liège researchers have demonstrated that the physiological mechanisms triggered during NDE lead to a more vivid perception not only of imagined events in the history of an individual but also of real events which have taken place in their lives!,,, ,,,researchers,, have looked into the memories of NDE with the hypothesis that if the memories of NDE were pure products of the imagination, their phenomenological characteristics (e.g., sensorial, self referential, emotional, etc. details) should be closer to those of imagined memories. Conversely, if the NDE are experienced in a way similar to that of reality, their characteristics would be closer to the memories of real events. The researchers compared the responses provided by three groups of patients, each of which had survived (in a different manner) a coma, and a group of healthy volunteers. They studied the memories of NDE and the memories of real events and imagined events with the help of a questionnaire which evaluated the phenomenological characteristics of the memories. The results were surprising. From the perspective being studied, not only were the NDEs not similar to the memories of imagined events, but the phenomenological characteristics inherent to the memories of real events (e.g. memories of sensorial details) are even more numerous in the memories of NDE than in the memories of real events. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327190359.htm A Doctor's Near Death Experience Inspires a New Life - video Quote: "It's not like a dream. It's like the world we are living in is a dream and it's kind of like waking up from that." Dr. Magrisso http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/as-seen-on/A-Doctor--186331791.html

bornagain77

QED. Atheists,don't mess with Phil! Axel

JLAFan2001 you then claim,,

chromosome 2

As evidence. Yet when we look at the evidence we find,,

New Research Undermines Fused Chromosome 2 Argument for Human Evolution From Apes - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyVVIfRNQOQ Fused Chromosome 2 commentary - Tomkins http://www.icr.org/article/new-human-chimp-chromosome-2-data-challenge/ Here are some excellent papers by Bergman and Tomkins: http://designed-dna.org/styled-3/technical-pubs.html Telomere and Chromosome Fusion Research… Bergman, J and J. Tomkins. 2011. The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution - part 1: re-evaluating the evidence. Journal of Creation 25:106-110. Get PDF Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2011. The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution - part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data. Journal of Creation 25:111-127. Get PDF Tomkins, J. 2011. The Junk DNA Myth Takes a Well-Deserved Hit. A review of "The Myth of Junk DNA" by Jonathan Wells. Journal of Creation 25:23-27. Get PDF Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2011. Telomeres: implications for aging and evidence for intelligent design. Journal of Creation 25:86-97. Get PDF

Not Impressed with your fusion evidence JLAFan2001 You then state,,

etc.

Would that 'etc' you allude to JLAFan2001 include the demonstrated origination of a single molecular machine by Darwinian processes??? Now THAT would impress me JLAFan2001!

Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291

of related note to the fact that Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of Darwinian processes EVER producing a molecular machine, here are several examples that intelligence can do as such:

(Man-Made) DNA nanorobot – video https://vimeo.com/36880067

bornagain77

JLAFan2001, you then claim

simpler to complex organisms in the strata,

Yet when we look at the evidence we see,,

The Cambrian's Many Forms Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes: Excerpt: "As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo's law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible." http://www.pnas.org/content/91/25/12283.full.pdf+html A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html Evolutionists Are Losing Ground Badly: Both Pattern and Process Contradict the Aging Theory – Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: Contradictory patterns in biology include the abrupt appearance of so many forms and the diversity explosions followed by a winnowing of diversity in the fossil record. It looks more like the inverse of an evolutionary tree with bursts of new species which then die off over time. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-are-losing-ground-badly.html "According to a ‘law’ formulated by E. D. Cope in 1871, the body size of organisms in a peculiar evolutionary lineage tends to increase. But Cope’s rule has failed the most comprehensive test applied to it yet."(body sizes tend to get smaller rather than larger) Stephen Gould, Harvard, Nature, V.385, 1/16/97 "Also that mammalian life was richer in kinds, of larger sizes, and had a more abundant expression in the Pliocene than in later times." Von Engeln & Caster Geology, p.19 "Alexander Kaiser, Ph.D., of Midwestern University’s Department of Physiology,,, was the lead author in a recent study to help determine why insects, once dramatically larger than they are today, have seen such a remarkable reduction in size over the course of history." Science Daily, 8/8/07 Giants among us: Paper explores evolution of the world’s largest mammals Excerpt: The researchers found that the pattern was indeed consistent, not only globally but across time and across trophic groups and lineages—that is, animals with differing diets and descended from different ancestors—as well. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-giants-paper-explores-evolution-world.html Don Patton - Entropy, Information, and The 'Deteriorating' Fossil Record - video (Notes on giant fossils in description) http://www.vimeo.com/17050184

As to the overall pattern of simpler to complex in the strata, besides the necessity of 'terra-forming' the earth (which we have abundant evidence of) Dr. Wells gives an excellent reason for why the simpler to complex pattern is expected from a theistic perspective:

Why Does the History of Life Give the Appearance of Evolution? - Jonathan Wells - February 21, 2013 Excerpt: Fossil evidence suggests that life on earth originated about three and a half billion years ago, starting with prokaryotes (single-celled organisms without nuclei, such as bacteria). Much later came eukaryotes (cells with nuclei), which included algae and single-celled animals (protozoa). Multicellular marine animals appeared long after that. Then came land plants, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, and finally humans. Not only did living things appear in a certain order, but in some cases they also had features intermediate between organisms that preceded them and those that followed them. Kenneth R. Miller challenges critics of Darwinism to explain why we find "one organism after another in places and in sequences... that clearly give the appearance of evolution." The answer is found in various religious traditions, especially Christianity. "Far from denying life's progression, tradition provides a reason for it," wrote Huston Smith in 1976. "Earth mirrors heaven. But mirrors, as we have noted, invert. The consequence here is that that which is first in the ontological order appears last in the temporal order." Smith explained: "In the celestial realm the species are never absent; their essential forms or archetypes reside there from an endless beginning. As earth ripens to receive them, each in its turn drops to the terrestrial plane." But "first a viable habitat must be devised, hence the inorganic universe is matured to a point where life can be sustained. And when living beings do arrive, they do so in a vaguely ascending order that passes from relatively undifferentiated organisms... to ones that are more complex." Thus "man, who is first in the order of worth on the terrestrial plane, will be last in the order of his appearance." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/why_does_the_hi069451.html

Not Impressed with your simpler to complex evidence JLAFan2001 bornagain77

JLAFan2001 you then claim,,

retro viruses,

as evidence. Yet when we look at the evidence we find,,

Refutation Of Endogenous Retrovirus - ERVs - Richard Sternberg, PhD Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4094119 Sternberg, R. v. & J. A. Shapiro (2005). How repeated retroelements format genome function. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 110: 108-116. Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation - 2006 http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14390.abstract. The definitive response on ERV’s and Creation, with Dr. Jean Lightner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feHYEgzaGkY Retrovirus in the Human Genome Is Active in Pluripotent Stem Cells - Jan. 23, 2013 Excerpt: "What we've observed is that a group of endogenous retroviruses called HERV-H is extremely busy in human embryonic stem cells," said Jeremy Luban, MD, the David L. Freelander Memorial Professor in HIV/AIDS Research, professor of molecular medicine and lead author of the study. "In fact, HERV-H is one of the most abundantly expressed genes in pluripotent stem cells and it isn't found in any other cell types. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133930.htm Transposable Elements Reveal a Stem Cell Specific Class of Long Noncoding RNAs - (Nov. 26, 2012) Excerpt: The study published by Rinn and Kelley finds a striking affinity for a class of hopping genes known as endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs, to land in lincRNAs. The study finds that ERVs are not only enriched in lincRNAs, but also often sit at the start of the gene in an orientation to promote transcription. Perhaps more intriguingly, lincRNAs containing an ERV family known as HERVH correlated with expression in stem cells relative to dozens of other tested tissues and cells. According to Rinn, "This strongly suggests that ERV transposition in the genome may have given rise to stem cell-specific lincRNAs. The observation that HERVHs landed at the start of dozens of lincRNAs was almost chilling; that this appears to impart a stem cell-specific expression pattern was simply stunning!" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121125192838.htm Retroviruses and Common Descent: And Why I Don’t Buy It - September 2011 Excerpt: If it is the case, as has been suggested by some, that these HERVs are an integral part of the functional genome, then one might expect to discover species-specific commonality and discontinuity. And this is indeed the case. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/retroviruses-and-common-descent-and-why-i-dont-buy-it/ Some (inconsistencies) ERVs that don't fit into the naturalistic evolutionary assumption of common descent: PTERV1 in chimpanzee, African great apes and old World monkeys but not in humans and asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm Conservation and loss of the ERV3 open reading frame in primates. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15081124 ERV3 sequences were amplified by PCR from genomic DNA of great ape and Old World primates but not from New World primates or gorilla, suggesting an integration event more than 30 million years ago with a subsequent loss in one species. From ancestral infectious retroviruses to bona fide cellular genes: role of the captured syncytins in placentation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22695103

In fact JLAFan2001, I could go on and on listing studies against ERV's. i.e. Not Impressed! bornagain77

JLAFan2001 you then claim

vitamin C pseudogene,

as evidence. Yet when we look at the evidence we find:

Vitamin C pseudogene refutation By Jonathan Wells - from appendix of 'The Myth Of Junk DNA' pages 109-114 by Jonathan Wells The Vitamin C Pseudogene Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is essential for many biochemical reations in living cells. Yet we are unable to synthesize it in our bodies, so we need supplements in our bodies with it. Guinea pigs, chimpanzees, and several species of monkeys are also unable to synthesize their own Vitamin C; 1-2 so are some (but not all) species of bats., 3-5 some (but not all) species of birds, 3,6-7 and some (but not all) species of fishes. 8-9 Vitamin C requires four enzymes, of which we have three; our cells also contain a segment of DNA very similar to the gene for the fourth enzyme, L-gulonolactone y-oxidase (abbreviated GULO or GLO), but this segment is not translated into protein. 10-11 In other words, the human genome includes the vitamin C pseudogene GLO. As we saw in Chapter 2, Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller and University of Chicago geneticist Jerry A. Coyne have argued that the GLO pseudogene provides evidence for Darwinian evolution-in particular evidence for common ancestry of humnas and other primates-and evidence against intelligent design or creation. Ken Miller's Argument "If the designer wanted us to be dependent on vitamin C," wrote Miller in 2008, "why didn't he just leave out the GLO gene from the plan for our genome? Why is its corpse still there?" Miller concedes that proponents of intelligent design could argue that the designer originally gave us a functional GLO gene, but that it was later inactivated by mutations; the inactivated pseudogene would then have been inherited by all living humans from their common ancestor. 12 But in that simple conclusion lies the undoing of any claim for our separate ancestry as a species," Miller continued, because humans are not the only species in which the GLO gene is broken. A vitamin C pseudogene is also found in "a certain group of primates, the very ones that happen to be our closest evolutionary relatives. Orangutans, gorillas, and chimps require vitamin C, as do some other primates, such as macaques. But more distantly related primates, including those known as prosimians, have fully functional GLO genes. That means that the common ancestor in which the capacity to make vitamin C was originally lost wasn't human, but a primate-an ancestor that, according to the advocates of intelligent design, we're not suppose to have."13 Yet intelligent design and common ancestry are two different issues. Major ID proponents pointed this out to Miller before he wrote his book.14-18 Indeed, Lehigh University biochemist and prominent ID advocate Michael J. Behe wrote in 1996 that "the simplest design scenario posits a single cell-formed billions of years ago-that already contained all information to produce descendant organisms."19 As we saw in chapter 1, intelligent design states that we can infer from evidence in nature that some features of the world, and of living things, are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided natural processes. Although some ID proponents (including me) question universal common ancestry on empirical grounds (as do some evolutionary biologists),20-21 intelligent design is not necessarily inconsistent with common ancestry. In addition to mischaracterizing ID, Miller went well beyond the published scientific evidence available at the time. For example, as of 2008 (when Miller's book appeared), there were no published data on the gorilla's need for dietary vitamin C. 22 Indeed, the most authorative review of the vitamin C requirements of non-human primates, published by the U.S. national Academy of Sciences in 2003, did not even mention gorillas. 23 Furthermore, when Miller publ;ished his book the sequencing of the gorilla genome had not been completed, and no vitamin C pseudogene had been reported.24 It wasn't until October 2010 that a sequence was published for a gorilla vitamin C pseudogene.5 For Miller, apparently, it was conclusion first and evidence later. Jerry Coyne's Argument In 2009, University of Chicago geneticist Jerry A. Coyne also argued that the vitamin C pseudogene provides evidence for common ancestry. He began by pointing out that the GLO pseudogene 'doesn't work because a single nucleotide in the gene's DNA sequence is missing. And it is exactly the same nucleotide that missing in other primates. This shows that the mutation that destroyed our ability to make vitamin C was present in the ancestor of all primates, and was passed on to its descendants. The inactivation of the GLO in guinea pigs happened independently, since it involves different mutations."35 Coyne then argued that this is evidence against creation by design. "If you believe that primates and guinea pigs were specially created," he wrote, "these facts don't make any sense. Why would a creator put a pathway for making vitamin C in all these species, and then inactivate it? Wouldn't it be easier simply to omit the whole pathway from the beginning? Why would the same inactivating mechanism be present in all primates, and a different one in guinea pigs? Why would the sequences on the dead gene exactly mirror the pattern of resemblance predicted from the known ancestry of these species?"26 Yet other aspects of the genome do not mirror the pattern Coyne predicted. For example, the human Y chromosome (which determines male sexual characteristics) contains about 60 million nucleotide sub-units. If humans and chimps were recently descended from a common ancestor, one would expect their Y chromosomes to be very similar. Genome researchers recently reported, however, that the male-specific portions of the human and chimp Y chromosomes "differ radically in sequence structure and gene content." 27 If similarities in the vitamin C are for common ancestry, then differences in the Y chromosome are presumably evidence against it. Furthermore, Coyne's argument-like Miller's-went well beyond the scientific evidence. For example, claimed that "all primates" not only need vitamin C in their diets, but also have "the same inactivating mechanism"-namely a single missing nucleotide. Yet prosimians (the lemures and lorises) are primeates that synthesize their own vitamin C, as Miller pointed out. And the need for vitamin C has been established for only nine of the over 260 species of monkeys. 2,23,28 It is quite possible that some-or even many-can make their own vitamin C. After scientists reported in 1976 that 34 of the over 800 known species of bats lacked the ability to make their own vitamin C,4 it was assumed for decades that all bats were alike in this respect-yet scientists recently discovered that some bats (not included in the original study) can make their own vitamin C.5 So Coyne didn't have the evidence to justify his claim that all bats need vitamin C in their diets, and was less justified in claiming that they are all missing the same nucleotide in their GLO gene. In fact, the only primates for which the GLO pseudogene sequences have been published are rhesus macaques, orangutans, cimpanzees, humans, and (more recently) gorillas. 5,29 Furthermore, the inactivation of the GLO gene might have due to something other than the deletion of a single nucleotide. The same scientists who first detected in 1999(29) concluded in 2003 that "it is not possible at present to decide what was the primary change responsible for the functional loss of the gene."30 Assumptions Masquerading As Evidence? In addition to going well beyond the scientific evidence, the vitamin C arguments of Miller and Coyne rely on speculations about the motives of the designer or creator that have no legitimate place in natural science. As we saw in Chapter 10, such speculations are common in Darwin's writing and the literature defending his theory. But the normal practice in science is to test hypotheses against evidence from nature, not speculations based on theological assumptions. Central to the vitamin C arguments of Miller and Coyne is their assumption that the GLO gene is completely nonfunctional. To be sure, there is general agreement that the pseudogene does not produce a functional enzyme, but this does not necessarily mean that it is completely without function. Indeead, as we saw in Chapter 5, there is growing evidence that although pseudogenes don't code for proteins they produce RNAs that function in various aspects of gene regulation. Miller and Coyne have not provided any evidence to justify their assumption that the GLO pseudogene is completely nonfunctional. In fact, they cannot. The strongest statement that could be warranted by the evidence would be that we do not currently know of a function for the vitamin C pseudogene. The Vitamin C Pseudogene Argument Is Circular If the GLO pseudogene turns out to serve any function at all, then the sequence similarities in humans and chimps on which Miller and Coyne based their arguments could be due to natural selection rather than common ancestry. In fact, as we saw in Chapter 5, Balakirev and Ayala in 2003 and Khachane and Harrison in 2009 argued that similarities in pseudogenes are functional.31-32 Why don't Miller and Coyne argue likewise that the similarities in the primate vitamin C pseudogenes suggest functionality rather than common ancestry? The difference is that the organisms analyzed by Balakirev and Ayala (humans, mice, chickens, and fruit flies) and Khachane and Harrison (humans, monkeys, mice, rats, dogs, and cows)- unlike humans and chimps-are not thought to share a recent common ancestor. In other words, if organisms are not thought to be closely related through common descent, then pseudogene similarity imply function, but if organisms are thought to be closely related through common descent, then pseudogene similarities imply that they are closely related through common descent. The second form (used by Miller and Coyne) is a circular argument, because the conclusion is already stated in the premises. To break the circle, Miller and Coyne would either have to establish the recent common ancestry of humans and chimps on other grounds (but then, why bother invoking the vitiman C pseudogene at all?) or they would first have to establish that the vitamin C pseudogene has no function whatsoever (but this is impossible). So their argument not only fails to refute ID, but it also fails to establish that human and chimps have descended from a common ancestor. All preceding references for GLO gene are on page 50 of this next website file: References for the book "The Myth Of Junk DNA" http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zGp3gRRDmA0J:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php%3Fcommand%3Ddownload%26id%3D7651+Sequence-dependent+and+sequence-independent+functions+of+%E2%80%9Cjunk%E2%80%9D+DNA:+do+we+need+an+expanded+concept+of+biological+information%3F+Jonathan+Wells&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiCq0TQUSKYlr0KNNIDgaGKMM7b3z0iEGiKe_faSd0646SzaYSoCCcNavm523X5TgaGbdQPtDFmN6Yw8IexI44RokfsMKs6q-EEeM_vyYw-zaMB-h_7wKu8JjGREn_JF-CPlkSq&sig=AHIEtbRfG8rv_5eur2oifBsWxHdM_e731g further notes: All Proposed Elements Of Junk DNA Are Now Found To Show Signs Of Containing High Level Function - List Of Over 100 Studies http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_25gqm4zzfd https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18LV9Xp1RJv4k2KRQDOpN3_cjSCwBC_XXb8WGVNP4L8M

Not impressed with your vitamin C pseudogene evidence JLAFan2001 bornagain77

JLAFan2001 you then claim,,

morphology,

,,as evidence. Yet when we look at the evidence we find:

The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011 Excerpt: The pervasive pattern of natural history: disparity precedes diversity,,,, The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artefact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes. These data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the paper. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitar Creation and Evolution: The Biological Evidence - Dr. Marc Surtees - Disparity precedes Diversity - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HT70ltbkQo&feature=player_detailpage#t=402s How to Talk About "Evolution" - Tom Bethell - October 18, 2012 Excerpt: What about the evidence for universal common ancestry? It can be summarized by the word "homology." To understand homology, think of the similarity of mammalian forelimbs. But we have to be careful how we define it. Ernst Mayr tried to co-opt it by definition. After Darwin, he wrote, the most "meaningful definition" of homology was: "A feature in two or more taxa is homologous when it is derived from the same (or a corresponding) feature of their common ancestor." Jonathan Wells and Paul Nelson criticized this as follows: "What Darwin proposed as the explanation for homology became its definition. For many biologists, the post-Darwinian (or phylogenetic) definition of homology has replaced the structural (or morphological) definition." These biologists hope to smuggle into their definitions what they should show in their demonstrations. It's hard to believe that someone as highly placed as Ernst Mayr, resting on his Harvard laurels, didn't know what he was doing. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/how_to_talk_abo065431.html Investigating Evolution: Homology - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgXT9sU6y18 The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again – Casey Luskin – November 5, 2011 Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that’s the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_case_of_the_mysterious_hoa052571.html As Evidence of Darwinian Evolution, Biogeography Falls Well Short of Satisfying - Jonathan M. - December 6, 2012 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/as_evidence_of5067151.html

Not impressed with your morphology evidence JLAFan2001 bornagain77

JLAFan2001 you then claim

similar DNA,,,

as evidence, Yet we find,,

Darwin’s Tree of Life is a Tangled Bramble Bush - May 15, 2013 Excerpt: ,,, One whole subsection in the paper is titled, “All gene trees differ from species phylogeny.” Another is titled, “Standard practices do not reduce incongruence.” A third, “Standard practices can mislead.” One of their major findings was “extensive conflict in certain internodes.” The authors not only advised throwing out some standard practices of tree-building, but (amazingly) proposed evolutionists throw out the “uninformative” conflicting data and only use data that seems to support the Darwinian tree: “the subset of genes with strong phylogenetic signal is more informative than the full set of genes, suggesting that phylogenomic analyses using conditional combination approaches, rather than approaches based on total evidence, may be more powerful.”,,, ,,,tossing out “uninformative” data sets and only using data that appear to support their foreordained conclusion. Were you told this in biology class? Did your textbook mention this? http://crev.info/2013/05/darwins-tree-of-life-is-a-tangled-bramble-bush/ Bothersome Bats and Other Pests Disturb the "Tree of Life" - Casey Luskin - December 5, 2012 Excerpt: Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species. (Liliana M. Dávalos, Andrea L. Cirranello, Jonathan H. Geisler, and Nancy B. Simmons, "Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats," Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 87:991-1024 (2012).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/bothersome_bats067121.html Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story - 16 January 2013 - Helen Pilcher Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers (are just as essential as 'old' genes),,, But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn't be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven't-quite the opposite, in fact.,,, The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, "the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero".,,, Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing. http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution - Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. - Elie Dolgin - 27 June 2012 Excerpt: “I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. "...they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist - Kevin Peterson) Mark Springer, (a molecular phylogeneticist working in DNA states),,, “There have to be other explanations,” he says. Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong. http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885 pdf: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.10885!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/486460a.pdf Nature Article Finds MicroRNAs are "Tearing Apart Traditional Ideas about the Animal Family Tree" Casey Luskin June 29, 2012 Excerpt: When Peterson started his work on the placental [mammal] phylogeny, he had originally intended to validate the traditional mammal tree, not chop it down. As he was experimenting with his growing microRNA library, he applied it to mammals because their tree was so well established that they seemed an ideal test. Alas, the data didn't cooperate. If the traditional tree was correct, then an unprecedented number of microRNA genes would have to have been lost, and Peterson considers that highly unlikely. "The microRNAs are totally unambiguous," he says, "but they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.",,, Maybe the reason that different genes yield different evolutionary trees is because there isn't a single unified tree of life to be found. In other words, perhaps universal common ancestry is simply wrong. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/nature_article061471.html micro-RNA and Non-Falsifiable Phylogenetic Trees - lifepsy video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-i4pY6_MU This Paper Discusses Problems With the Evolutionary Tree That You Didn’t Learn in Biology Class - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012 Excerpt: In fact, it is impossible to construct a realistic evolutionary tree using all the (genetic) data. Evolutionists routinely construct evolutionary trees using a select, more cooperative, subset of the data. And even then the resulting trees are unrealistic. That is, they require evolutionary change for which there is no known mechanism. This is true even according to evolutionists who are quite liberal in allowing for speculation.,,, So neighboring species on the evolutionary tree may have a great many similarities, but in many cases they have some big differences, which evolutionary theory cannot explain beyond vague speculation. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/this-paper-discusses-problems-with.html

Not impressed with your similar DNA evidence JLAFan2001 bornagain77

JLAFan2001 as to:

"Darwinism has a lot of evidence."

Really??? Okie Dokie let's see: You claim,,

The fossil record,

yet we find,,

Darwin's Dilemma - Excellent Cambrian Explosion Movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWEsW7bO8P4 Living Fossils Interview with Dr. Carl Werner - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6LmWznY4Ys Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30932397 The Unknown Origin of Pterosaurs - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP6htc371fM Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes http://vimeo.com/30926629 Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed http://vimeo.com/30921402 Bat Evolution? - No Transitional Fossils! - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6003501/ "A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense." Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012) Paleoanthropologist Exposes Shoddiness of “Early Man” Research - Feb. 6, 2013 Excerpt: The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike. ,,, archaic species concepts and an inadequate fossil record continue to obscure the origins of our genus. http://crev.info/2013/02/paleoanthropologist-exposes-shoddiness/ Phillip Johnson - "Gould and Eldridge were experts in an area where the fossil record is most complete, "marine invertebrates", and developed the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium in response to what they saw in the fossil record in that area of research. Whereas, interestingly, the greatest claim for transitional fossils, such as ape-men, comes primarily from the area where fossilization is rarest, from land animals - April 2012 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJDlBvbPSMA&feature=player_detailpage#t=903s

Not impressed JLAFan2001 bornagain77

JLAFan2001,

"Those are good arguments and they stand well because the bible exists. If the bible was never written, how would you view those arguments then?"

Well it's quite impossible to imagine what would happen if the most influential book in human history was never written. However the arguments I presented at #10 are philosophical, and the video linked there goes into much more detail. You asked for evidence in favor of theism apart from the Bible, and those are such arguments. They are discernible without a Christian world view, and accessible to anyone who wants to hear how one can conclude that theism is the best explanation for the universe and its inhabitants. Chance Ratcliff

Wow, talk about being carpet bombed.

You’ll cope.

The scientific accuracy of six day creation, or 6000 year old earth or a single pair or a world wide flood? The historically accurate Exodus, Jonah and the whale? The bible is also open to interpretation and that is also it’s problem.

I have no problem believing the earth is 4 billion years old, or believing that the universe is 13-14 billion years old. I believe that Adam and Eve were real people and that the biblical flood did occur. I also believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible, which includes the Exodus. I also believe that Jonah and the whale is not a fable. You’re correct in stating that the Bible is open to interpretation. That is why I feel it’s important to not only read it but actually study it and determine which interpretion is the correct one, which best fits the facts.

Circular reasoning was the point I was making. You can’t use the bible to prove the bible. I already commented on the science and history part.

I already stated that I studied both the Bible and evidence from science, history, and archaeology which corroborated the Bible’s accounts. That’s not circular reasoning, that’s critical thinking.

This sentence implies that you think original sin is what is deforming our genes. That we have been failing ever since the fall. I can only assume it’s because of our sin. If that’s the case, where is your evidence?

My evidence is the prevalence of birth defects, which could include cystic fibrosis or other diseases such as trisomy 21 (Down syndrome). The evidence is that man is not improving physically.

Again, that is what you seemed to imply. We were perfect and became imperfect after the fall. Adam lived to be 930 years and we live for only 90. Is that because of sin?

What fits the evidence best? The Bible’s account of man’s life being 80 or 90 years (Psalms) makes sense given that most people only live that long. Some might make it to the century mark or beyond, but that is rare. What other evidence do you need, besides mortality rates in the Western world?

Read my post again. I was a Christian up until two years ago. Before that, I was one for 20+ years. I looked into all sorts of arguments to keep my faith but I found that they all have counter arguments. EVERY SINGLE ONE. If God is the truth, there should be at least one irrefutable argument that the atheists just can’t answer.

So, in other words, you stopped asking questions and began doubting. Which argument against Christianity did you find most compelling? I'm actually curious. I've found that many arguments against Christianity are little more than logical fallacies dressed up to resemble actual, debatable premises. And most of the Internet-based atheists I've met have taken the position of "I don't want to believe" rather than "I don't believe". You might be different, but that's been my experience.

Of course not but a majority of scientists today are atheists because knowledge has advanced and we are finding that God has less and less to do. Would those same scientists still believe today after knowing all the gaps we have filled?

Probably. They were critical thinkers after all, and didn’t simply follow along blindly whenever somebody said something to them that they didn’t understand. They actively looked for answers and didn’t doubt that they would find answers if the kept looking. In other words, the opposite of what you did. God has less to do? Says who?

There all over the internet. Try searching for them and you will see. Just the fact that Europe and North America is becoming more secular is proof of that.

Provide proof for your claim. Simply telling me to Google something isn’t going to work. BA77 at least provides links. You can certainly do the same. Unless you really don’t have any evidence for this claim, in which case it can be dismissed.

I can see what you are saying here but It just seems that evolutionists can see the evidence objectively where as ID tries to explain it away. I also agree that there is not one irrefutable argument for evolution but if it weren’t true, it would have been replaced.

If there is no irrefutable argument for evolution, then it is merely a theory and (like the Bible) open to interpretation. Think about this: you claim that there are no irrefutable arguments for Christianity, which is why you turned to atheism. If there are no irrefutable arguments for evolution, then it can and should be replaced because it’s false. BY YOUR OWN LOGIC.

That’s true. I spend more time on Christian websites trying to convince myself than on atheist websites. So far, not much luck.

If I were you, I’d try reading the Bible.

Not exactly. If confirms that there was a woman and a man not one woman and one man. There could still be a population of 10, 000.

The point remains that this evidence would confirm the Bible’s account as being factual and would be another argument against evolution.

You were the first to imply this, not me.

JLAfan2001 at 5: “Can you tell me that if I lie or steal or lust that this will degrade my genes or the genes of my children? Of course not.” You implied it, not me.

I have asked, seeked, knocked, prayed, searched, begged etc. I have not found good answers. It seems to me that just because my conclusions aren’t the same as yours, I didn’t try to solve anything. That’s just plain wrong.

Remember what Pontius Pilate cynically asked Jesus: “What is truth?” Think about that. What, to you, constitutes truth? Where would you look for it? Where would you know not to look for it? These are questions you should be asking yourself when thinking about what you believe and why you believe it. Barb

The only answer to his would be agnosticism. Either everybody is sure of their worldview or no body is sure of their worldview.

No, see - this is just a glorious example of the sort of mentality you have, and what you seem unaware of. It's possible to have a view, but to say 'This is how I see it. I am fallible. I have these blind spots.' Hell, in your case, your blind spot is 'I spent years totally 100% buying a belief that I later found to be unbelievably broken.' So you've told yourself that there's basically two settings: full-on complete commitment or utter agnosticism. Gradations of belief, limited amounts of self-skepticism, are utterly unavailable to you. Hell, all evidence points towards the fact that such things utterly terrify you insofar as you're aware of them. So you go for the headstrong commitment because, what, it's worked out for you so far? It deceived you for 20+ years by your own reckoning. And the best part is - you could be wrong about that too. So no, it's not 'everybody is sure of their worldview or no one is sure of their worldview'. There's an additional option on the table, and considering the fact that you not only acknowledge yourself to have a humongous track record of being completely dedicated to beliefs that turned out to be completely wrong, but also your demonstrated inability to even cope with or accept arguments that trouble you ('Oh they're just loopholes!'), you should really second-guess yourself. But you won't. Because that's scary. Better to at least feel sure when you damn well know you shouldn't be (especially given your track record) than to entertain self-doubt and live in a world of questions, inconclusive answers, varieties of evidence towards multiple conclusions and ultimately recognizing your faith commitments. nullasalus

Wow, talk about being carpet bombed. Scordova “The existence of life itself. Evolutionary theory (as in common descent) attempts to explain biological similarity in terms of common descent. Even granting that, the first life appears to be miraculous.” This is a theory that UD’s pal VJTorley agrees with too. I noticed that when he spoke up about his agreement with common descent, a lot of people rallied against him for it. This is a guy who allowed to post articles in favor of ID by accepts the evidence for common descent. Does that mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about either? Let him “teach the controversy”. Also, the last sentence is, of course, god-of-the-gaps. “Second, some think that Quantum Mechanics implies there is a God. Whether true or not, it at least seems that physics doesn’t preclude and ultimate MIND.” So does this statement refute the idea that science can’t test for God’s existence? I always heard that is out of the scope of science but I guess not. God is not supernatural, he’s quantum. Anyway, nothing that says that mind is the Christian God. “Many of those are in doubt on scientific grounds alone, and time may show that those claims are fallacious. I respect that you think those are good arguments, but the problem of the fossil record actually argues against Darwin’s claims.” Creation science have these in doubt not mainstream science. Mainstream science continues to support or else it would have left the theory long ago. “There might be many reasonable arguments to reject Christianity. Evolutionism isn’t one of them because evolutionism isn’t scientific, it is speculation at best, and often falsified speculation.” Creation science isn’t scientific either. It starts with the bible and tries to find proof of it’s validity which is also speculation. “They show puntuated change with intervening times of statis. Transition isn’t a fair word, especially Darwinian transitions. Transitionals are not to be found in the fossil record except for forced interpretations of skeletal remains, and further the most important changes are ignored since they involve soft tissue. Many transitionals couldn’t exist even in principle based on physiology and anatomy. The transitionals don’t exist because likely they were never there…” As I said, the fossil record does have problems but one can’t deny that it shows change over time. If the fossils were the same through out, that would falsify Darwinism. We have tiktaalik and archaeopteryx to start. I know that UD has challenged those but they are clear transitions. Chance Ratcliff Those are good arguments and they stand well because the bible exists. If the bible was never written, how would you view those arguments then? I suspect that people would be living their lives pretty much the same as they do now. People show that they can have a good life within the subjectivity of their lives. Christianity has shown to be just as subjective as any other worldview and that’s with the bible. Why would life be hell if we didn’t have it? I don’t see any strictly atheist counseling groups to cope with the loss of all that you named. People make due and move on. Anyway, who’s to say that Nihilism isn’t the right answer in life? Barb “I believe in the authenticity of the Bible for many reasons, including the fact that it is scientifically and historically accurate. The main problem with evolution is not the evidence but rather the interpretation of the evidence.” The scientific accuracy of six day creation, or 6000 year old earth or a single pair or a world wide flood? The historically accurate Exodus, Jonah and the whale? The bible is also open to interpretation and that is also it’s problem. “Actually, no, because that is circular reasoning; I found it best to study the Bible and read it. I believe it, as stated above, because there is corroborating evidence for its authenticity from science, history, and archaeology. This is what’s known as critical thinking; it means you know what you believe and why you believe it.” Circular reasoning was the point I was making. You can’t use the bible to prove the bible. I already commented on the science and history part. “Did you even bother to read my post? I discussed this earlier. You ask about deformities, and it was explained to you. Evolution presents man as growing ever better, but the facts show otherwise. Humanity has accomplished some great things, but physical human improvement isn’t one of them. Which fits the facts better: the Bible’s account of sin, or evolution? his is what’s called a non sequitur: a logical fallacy that proves nothing. Lying or stealing does not degrade ones genes, only one’s dignity and self-respect. Lying might not degrade your genes, but would it cause your children to begin to distrust you? Furthermore, lying and stealing have absolutely nothing to do with genetics.” The fall from perfection explains why the human body, though marvelously designed, is susceptible to deformities and disease. Evolution is therefore incompatible with the Bible. Evolution presents modern man as an improving animal. The Bible presents modern man as the degenerating descendant of a perfect man. This sentence implies that you think original sin is what is deforming our genes. That we have been failing ever since the fall. I can only assume it’s because of our sin. If that’s the case, where is your evidence? “No, equating lying and stealing with genetic defects is irrational and silly.” Again, that is what you seemed to imply. We were perfect and became imperfect after the fall. Adam lived to be 930 years and we live for only 90. Is that because of sin? “Actually, many persons become Christians in adulthood primarily because of the evidence presented to them. You claim it has zero proof but, like most atheists, you haven’t bothered to look at any of it, which explains the condescending tone of your post. Yawn. Been there, heard it. Not impressed. Try again.” Read my post again. I was a Christian up until two years ago. Before that, I was one for 20+ years. I looked into all sorts of arguments to keep my faith but I found that they all have counter arguments. EVERY SINGLE ONE. If God is the truth, there should be at least one irrefutable argument that the atheists just can’t answer. “Modern science is what it is today because of the efforts of scientists over millennia who believed in God. Should we toss out all their scientific achievements because you don’t like religion?” Of course not but a majority of scientists today are atheists because knowledge has advanced and we are finding that God has less and less to do. Would those same scientists still believe today after knowing all the gaps we have filled? “Proof, please. What polls? The last time I checked, there were far more religious people on this planet than atheists. Provide evidence to back up your claim.” There all over the internet. Try searching for them and you will see. Just the fact that Europe and North America is becoming more secular is proof of that. “So, when a scientist claims that evidence X supports evolution and an IDist suggests otherwise, the IDist is always wrong. Anyone want to point out the flaw in JLA’s thinking here?” I can see what you are saying here but It just seems that evolutionists can see the evidence objectively where as ID tries to explain it away. I also agree that there is not one irrefutable argument for evolution but if it weren’t true, it would have been replaced. “Sounds to me like you did just hand wave it away. And it certainly doesn’t sound like you looked at any evidence objectively.” That’s true. I spend more time on Christian websites trying to convince myself than on atheist websites. So far, not much luck. “Um, tracing human genealogy back to one man and one woman would corroborate the Bible’s account. You do understand this, right?” Not exactly. If confirms that there was a woman and a man not one woman and one man. There could still be a population of 10, 000. “This from someone who equates lying with genetic defects. I see no evidence of critical thinking on your part.” You were the first to imply this, not me. “Losing your faith because of what you read on an Internet blog is pathetic. There are questions related to Christianity. Remember what Jesus said: “keep on asking, keep on seeking.” You obviously failed to do so. That’s your problem.” I have asked, seeked, knocked, prayed, searched, begged etc. I have not found good answers. It seems to me that just because my conclusions aren’t the same as yours, I didn’t try to solve anything. That’s just plain wrong. BA77 No offence but I can’t even begin to comment on all those links and posts. I concede just by sheer confusion. Nullasalus “I always marvel at that, actually. There’s this kind of person for whom self-criticism and self-doubt is an alien thing. They go from utter and total certainty that there is no God of any kind whatsoever, to complete and total certainty that God not only exists, but this particular subset of a subset of a religious view is utterly right. And the opposite too. They can admit that they were utterly certain about what turned out to be wrong for 10, 20, 30+ years, but that is never taken as evidence that they should moderate their views, be more skeptical of their certainty or their ability to properly evaluate evidence. Their positions change, but the same failed habits and mentality remains in force.” The only answer to his would be agnosticism. Either everybody is sure of their worldview or no body is sure of their worldview. Are you sure of yours? If so, then you are just what you described. If not, why should I listen to someone who’s not sure? JLAfan2001

Sounds like you have quite a bit of studying left to do.

He's not interested in studying, or even of being correct. His interest is almost exclusively in bolstering his current beliefs and telling himself that he is on the winning side in a game that doesn't even matter by his own measure. That's why any counterargument he comes across that he can't answer, or any flaw pointed out in his reasoning, is written off as a 'loophole'. The alternative - a good point, leading to a picture of the world that is less than certain in relevant ways - is actually pretty frightening. I always marvel at that, actually. There's this kind of person for whom self-criticism and self-doubt is an alien thing. They go from utter and total certainty that there is no God of any kind whatsoever, to complete and total certainty that God not only exists, but this particular subset of a subset of a religious view is utterly right. And the opposite too. They can admit that they were utterly certain about what turned out to be wrong for 10, 20, 30+ years, but that is never taken as evidence that they should moderate their views, be more skeptical of their certainty or their ability to properly evaluate evidence. Their positions change, but the same failed habits and mentality remains in force. nullasalus

JLAfan2001:

Darwinism has a lot of evidence. The fossil record, similar DNA, morphology, vitamin C pseudogene, retro viruses, simpler to complex organisms in the strata, chromosome 2 etc. I know that IDists and creationists have counter arguments to these examples but it’s because they don’t want to let go of their beliefs so they try to find loopholes. One can’t look at the evidence objectively and not see that Darwinism does indeed fit.

Wow. Sounds like you have quite a bit of studying left to do. Eric Anderson

In fact, entropy is also the primary reason why our physical bodies grow old and die,,,

Aging Process – 80 years in 40 seconds – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdxYmGro_Y

yet it is this 'entropy of death and decay' that Christ overcame in his resurrection:

A Particle Physicist Looks At The Turin Shroud Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbl4EmoH_jg A Quantum Hologram of Christ's Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. - Isabel Piczek - Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation

Thus JLAfan2001, I see no basis for your claim that sin is not related to entropy, since love is shown to lengthen life and conscious observation freezes entropy. Moreover Christ specifically overcame entropy, as witnessed on the shroud, thousands of years before entropy was even known about or related to Gravity.

The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462

Verse and Music:

Phillips, Craig & Dean - When The Stars Burn Down - Worship Video with lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPuxnQ_vZqY Matthew 11:28&30 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.,,, For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

bornagain77

JLAfan2001, There is also a direct connection between human consciousness and the randomness of entropy as measured in the universe:

Thermodynamics – 3.1 Entropy Excerpt: Entropy – A measure of the amount of randomness or disorder in a system. http://www.saskschools.ca/

and,,

Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter - Random Number Generators - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007

I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiments, "Since you ultimately believe that the 'god of random chance' produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?" Moreover,,,

Quantum Zeno effect Excerpt: The quantum Zeno effect is,,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

The reason why I am fascinated with this Zeno effect is, for one thing, that Entropy is, by a wide margin, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the Big Bang:

Roger Penrose discusses initial entropy of the universe. – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”

JLAfan2001, you may object that human consciousness is limited in its scope so as to effect the universe, but you would be wrong in that objection,,, Our free will conscious choices are now shown to be able to 'reach back in time' and effect the state of material particles:

Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html

Thus there direct evidence that human consciousness can have a direct effect on entropy, but how can that be if the randomness of entropy is suppose to be the main driving force of creativity for Darwinism?

Shining Light on Dark Energy - October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/

Moreover,,,

Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! - January 2010 Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe

bornagain77

JLAfan2001 you stated:

"I don’t dispute that the genes are degrading but it’s due to the laws of thermodynamics not original sin."

Wow, you are the first Darwinist I've seen to admit that there is connection between entropy and the degradation of Genomes. ,,, A few facts that you may not be aware of though: A little known fact, a fact that is very antagonistic to the genetic reductionism model of neo-Darwinism, is that, besides environmental factors, even our thoughts and feelings can 'epigenetically' control the gene expression of our bodies:

Genie In Your Genes - video http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/ggtrailer.html Anxiety May Shorten Your Cell Life - July 12, 2012 Excerpt: These studies had the advantage of large data sets involving thousands of participants. If the correlations remain robust in similar studies, it would indicate that mental states and lifestyle choices can produce epigenetic effects on our genes. http://crev.info/2012/07/anxiety-may-shorten-your-cell-life/

Of related note to mental states having a pronounced epigenetic effect on genes (which is completely contrary to the materialistic presupposition of Darwinism), it turns out that having the positive 'mental state of love' has a tremendous impact on health:

ABC News - The Science Behind the Healing Power of Love - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t1p-PwGgE4 Social isolation and its health implications January 2012 Excerpt: Studies show that social isolation and/or loneliness predict morbidity and mortality from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and a host of other diseases. In fact, the body perceives loneliness as a threat. Research from the University of California suggests that loneliness or lack of social support could triple the odds of being diagnosed with a heart condition. Redford Williams and his colleagues at Duke University directed a study in 1992 on heart patients and their relationships. They discovered that 50% of patients with heart disease who did not have a spouse or someone to confide in died within five years, while only 17% of those who did have a confidante died in the same time period.12 http://www.how-to-be-healthy.org/social-isolation-and-its-health-implications/

Moreover the positive effect works both ways:

Study finds it actually is better (and healthier) to give than to receive - February 4, 2013 Excerpt: A five-year study by researchers at three universities has established that providing tangible assistance to others protects our health and lengthens our lives. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-02-healthier.html

Of course from a Theistic perspective this tangible effect of love on health is to be expected,,

Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

,,whereas from a materialistic perspective, well to put it mildly, from a materialistic perspective it is counter-intuitive: Verse and music:

1 Corinthians 13:1-8 If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.,,, For King & Country "The Proof Of Your Love" - Live Music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr9YVD05x8M

bornagain77

Darwinism has a lot of evidence. The fossil record, similar DNA, morphology, vitamin C pseudogene, retro viruses, simpler to complex organisms in the strata, chromosome 2 etc. I know that IDists and creationists have counter arguments to these examples but it’s because they don’t want to let go of their beliefs so they try to find loopholes.

So, when a scientist claims that evidence X supports evolution and an IDist suggests otherwise, the IDist is always wrong. Anyone want to point out the flaw in JLA’s thinking here?

One can’t look at the evidence objectively and not see that Darwinism does indeed fit. I used to be a Christian up until two years ago. I saw the evidence for evolution for the first time and started to lose my faith ever since. I didn’t just hand wave Darwin it away.

Sounds to me like you did just hand wave it away. And it certainly doesn’t sound like you looked at any evidence objectively.

But with respect to an ancestor couple even Darwinists suppose there was an Eve who is the mother of all women (as traced through mitochondrial DNA) — they call her Mitochondiral Eve. And then Darwinists hypothesize an Adam traceable through the Y-chromosome. They call him Y-chromosomal Adam. So it’s not unreasonable to suppose some couple that were parents to all humanity.” This was just a name that we tagged on to describe the findings. It doesn’t imply a first human couple or that they were the only ones. It just means that it can be traced to one man and one woman.

Um, tracing human genealogy back to one man and one woman would corroborate the Bible’s account. You do understand this, right?

If Darwinism is right, Christianity will be meeting it’s end in due time which has already started as I mentioned.

No, it hasn’t, but then again, you haven’t looked at all the evidence and you certainly haven’t remained objective in doing so, either.

I sound off against it because people should learn to think critically.

This from someone who equates lying with genetic defects. I see no evidence of critical thinking on your part.

There are so many unanswered questions within Christianity that no one pays attention to. Once people do, they lose faith. The internet is riddled with bloggers of ex-believers who want to let others know what they have learned. I sure do want there to be a God but I can’t bring myself to remain in the same place I once was.

Losing your faith because of what you read on an Internet blog is pathetic. There are questions related to Christianity. Remember what Jesus said: “keep on asking, keep on seeking.” You obviously failed to do so. That’s your problem.

And it should be to evolution just as it is to an old earth, no first couple, no world flood, no Exodus.

But evolutionists argue about the mechanics of evolution. Science should follow the evidence. Scientists don’t always do that; they are affected by peer pressure the same as everyone else. And you indicated that a first couple is compatible with science.

If the bible never existed, what proof of God’s existence would you have? Would you ascribe the laws to a law giver or deny evolution then or would you accept them as part of nature creating itself?

That’s actually an interesting question. I probably would ascribe the physical laws of the universe to a lawgiver, because that’s just common sense. Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies and Gerald Schroeder, all of whom are scientists and who have written on the subject would agree. Barb

JLAfan2001:

Let me get this straight. You believe that we descended from one couple because of an age old book written by ancient men who believe in a deity that may not exist over modern scientific evidence from fossils and genetics that we can see and verify with our eyes?

I believe in the authenticity of the Bible for many reasons, including the fact that it is scientifically and historically accurate. The main problem with evolution is not the evidence but rather the interpretation of the evidence.

The same book that sets out to prove the very same thing it claims, meaning God exists cause the bible says so and it’s true cause the bible is from God?

Actually, no, because that is circular reasoning; I found it best to study the Bible and read it. I believe it, as stated above, because there is corroborating evidence for its authenticity from science, history, and archaeology. This is what's known as critical thinking; it means you know what you believe and why you believe it.

What causes these deformities from our descent from this once “perfect” man? Is it our sin? Do you have proof of that?

Did you even bother to read my post? I discussed this earlier. You ask about deformities, and it was explained to you. Evolution presents man as growing ever better, but the facts show otherwise. Humanity has accomplished some great things, but physical human improvement isn’t one of them. Which fits the facts better: the Bible’s account of sin, or evolution?

Can you tell me that if I lie or steal or lust that this will degrade my genes or the genes of my children? Of course not. That’s just blind faith versus what we can verify.

This is what’s called a non sequitur: a logical fallacy that proves nothing. Lying or stealing does not degrade ones genes, only one’s dignity and self-respect. Lying might not degrade your genes, but would it cause your children to begin to distrust you? Furthermore, lying and stealing have absolutely nothing to do with genetics.

This is what irrationality is.

No, equating lying and stealing with genetic defects is irrational and silly.

Clinging to a belief that has zero proof and clearly has been refuted by modern science.

Actually, many persons become Christians in adulthood primarily because of the evidence presented to them. You claim it has zero proof but, like most atheists, you haven’t bothered to look at any of it, which explains the condescending tone of your post. Yawn. Been there, heard it. Not impressed. Try again. Modern science is what it is today because of the efforts of scientists over millennia who believed in God. Should we toss out all their scientific achievements because you don’t like religion?

I guess I shouldn’t complain too much because the polls are showing Christianity is dying. Your kids, grand kids and great grand kids will eventually wake up and realize the truth. When that happens, your religion will die even more.

Proof, please. What polls? The last time I checked, there were far more religious people on this planet than atheists. Provide evidence to back up your claim. Barb

"If the bible never existed, what proof of God’s existence would you have? "

Anyone seriously asking that question, in expectation of some well thought out answers, should look at this debate: Is Faith in God Reasonable? This is a good starting point for understanding arguments against naturalism and in favor of God. God is the best explanation of: 1) Why anything exists at all. 2) The origin of the universe. 3) The applicability of mathematics to the physical world. 4) The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. 5) Intentional states of consciousness in the world. 6) Objective moral values and duties in the world. These and more are covered in the first half hour of the debate. Arguments against naturalism, taken from Rosenberg's premises of arguments in favor of naturalism: Argument from intentionality: 1) If naturalism is true, I cannot think about anything. 2) I am thinking about naturalism. 3) Therefore, naturalism is not true. Argument from meaning: 1) If naturalism is true, no sentence has any meaning. 2) Premise (1) has meaning. 3) Therefore, naturalism is not true. Argument from truth: 1) If naturalism is true, there are no true sentences. 2) Premise (1) is true. 3) Therefore, naturalism is not true. Argument from moral praise and blame: 1) If naturalism is true, I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions. 2) I am morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for some of my actions. 3) Therefore, naturalism is not true. Argument from freedom: 1) If naturalism is true, I do not do anything freely. 2) I am free to agree or disagree with premise (1). 3) Therefore naturalism is not true. Argument from purpose: 1) If naturalism is true, I do not plan to do anything. 2) I planned to come to tonight's debate. 3) Therefore naturalism is not true. Argument from enduring: 1) If naturalism is true, I do not endure for two moments of time. 2) I have been sitting here for more than a minute. 3) Therefore naturalism is not true. Argument from personal existence: 1) If naturalism is true, I do not exist. 2) I do exist! 3) Therefore naturalism is not true. Conclusion: metaphysical naturalism is absurd. Those arguments use modus tollens and are logically valid. One must take issue with the premises in order to refute the arguments. The whole debate is worth watching. Those listed above are non-biblical arguments in favor of theism. However a biblical quote is appropriate here:

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20

One needn't read the Bible in order to conclude that a transcendent God is the best explanation for the universe. The text of the Bible however is essential for one to seriously consider whether Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Chance Ratcliff