Christians’ Secret Weapon Against Evolution (2 of 2)

Christians’ Secret Weapon Against Evolution (2 of 2) May 24, 2017

ButterflyThis is the conclusion of a critique of a Greg Koukl podcast about the death of evolution (part 1 here). Since some Christians refuse to stop embarrassing themselves with this stupid argument, I will continue to see it a civic duty to laugh at them.

The problems with evolution

After much overconfident bluster about why evolution has breathed its last in part 1, Koukl finally gives the three reasons supporting this conclusion.

1. Abiogenesis. “First you have the insurmountable problem of getting living stuff from dead stuff. . . . This is not just a problem. This is an insurmountable problem.” (17:45)

Yeah? Insurmountable? Write your paper detailing the proof and collect your Nobel Prize. (It’s true that there is no Nobel Prize in Biology, but I’m sure that will change once Koukl shows that abiogenesis is impossible.)

What will you do if a consensus view for abiogenesis does develop over the next decade or so? Let me guess: you’ll not apologize, you’ll sweep under the rug the fact that you backed the wrong horse, you’ll hope that no one remembers, and you’ll stumble forward grasping for some new as-yet-unanswered question within science, learning absolutely nothing from the experience.

2. Cambrian Explosion.

Koukl focuses on the basics, which is that he doesn’t like evolution and thinks that the Cambrian Explosion is fatal to it. He’s not so good on details like when it happened (he’s off by about a factor of six; in fact, it began roughly 541 million years ago and lasted for 20–25 million years).

The big deal about the Cambrian Explosion is that most of the 30-some animal phyla (the top-level category, which defines the basic body plans) appear for the first time in the fossil record in this relatively brief period.

Here are some reasons why this rapid emergence of phyla isn’t a nail in evolution’s coffin.

  • The phyla had to appear at some point. Some estimates say that animals began to exist 650 million years ago. Is it hard to imagine that the outline of this new kingdom would be mostly completed in about 4% of the total time (25 million years out of 650 million), with the individual species added and deleted gradually after that point?
  • While we’re most excited about animals, being animals ourselves, we must not miss the big picture by singling out the Cambrian Explosion to the exclusion of the rest of evolutionary history. This period had an impressive bit of evolution, but there is a lot of other diversity besides just animal. Let’s have some humility.

Tree of life

Source: Wikipedia

  • To take one additional example of evolutionary change within animals, the Great Ordovician Biodiversity Event was another relatively brief period of change, and it created many more genera (“genuses”) than did the Cambrian (more).
  • The starting gun in the Cambrian Explosion may have been when the ocean finally became relatively transparent and vision became useful for the first time (all animals were aquatic during the Cambrian Period). This triggered an arms race—better sight meant that animals had to protect themselves with armor or speed, or they could arm themselves with teeth or strength (more). This struggle for survival may explain the suddenness of the development of phyla.
  • Maybe it wasn’t that the evolution of new phyla happened only during that time; perhaps instead the conditions had changed to allow fossilization to happen. That is, the suddenness might apply to fossilization, not the development of phyla.
  • Biologists (remember them—the ones who actually understand this stuff?) haven’t responded to the Cambrian Explosion by rejecting evolution.

3. Genes don’t explain everything. Mutation of DNA is a key part of evolution, but DNA only codes for protein. That’s only part of the picture, Koukl tells us—how do you get the body? That requires epigenetics. That’s not in the genes. “Now, they’re working on it, trying to figure it out, but if it’s not in the genes, if the genes aren’t doing the work, then natural selection doesn’t do its work on genetic mutations, then that is neo-Darwinism, and it’s dead” (22:10).

I’m not sure what Koukl is getting at. Embryology is fairly well understood, and we can see a single cell develop according to the body plan defined in its DNA. Magic isn’t necessary. And, yes, epigenetics is a new and exciting aspect of genetics. There is much to be learned. But how does this destroy evolution?

Creationists’ goal

Taking a step back, I see several problems. One is the unstated idea that if evolution can be defeated, Creationism will step in to take its place as the explanation of why life is the way it is. Nope—Creationism can only replace evolution when the evidence shows that it can better explain the facts.

Scientific theories stand on their own merits, not on the failure of other theories (h/t commenter epeeist).

That Koukl is talking to the public and not to scientists reveals both his agenda and his impotence. He’s got PR, not evidence.

The other problem is that this entire tantrum seems to be semantic. His agenda seems to be finding a loophole so that you can’t call it “the neo-Darwinian Project” anymore (ignoring the fact that no one except him calls it that).

In Koukl’s wildest dreams, biology would develop in radical new ways so that evolution taught twenty years ago, say, will be seen as inadequate in important ways. But how does that help? Once Koukl’s smoke screen clears, the naturalistic discipline that explains how life developed on earth (whatever you want to call it) is still there, with no role for God to play.

I’ve written about two related issues, the Rube Goldberg appearance (rather than appearance of design) of life and the question of information in DNA.

Science’s unexplained “Big Bangs”

Koukl next brings up atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel, who says that evolution won’t allow for consciousness.

This is yet another question that might get answered, as tends to happen with scientific puzzles. Koukl’s argument is nothing more than: Science has unanswered questions; therefore, God. Again, he forgets that a weakness in science (I see no weakness here, but let’s pretend there is) does nothing to support the God argument.

He concludes by ticking off the unanswered questions—abiogenesis, the Cambrian Explosion, and the evolution of consciousness—and concludes, “Incidentally, these are no problem whatsoever for our point of view.”

Yeah—“God did it” explains everything. Of course, you’ve given us no good evidence for the God side of the question, but never mind. The real problem is that “God did it” is unfalsifiable. You could apply it to anything, and I couldn’t prove you wrong. Therefore, it’s useless. By explaining everything, it explains nothing.

Koukl’s podcast reminds me of Michael Denton’s 1986 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. His recent 30th-anniversary edition is titled Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (emphasis added). Creationists keep predicting that evolution is dead, and it keeps not being dead. Perhaps there’s a message in that.

What we have in Koukl is a popular Christian apologist (who has a religious agenda) who talks with a popular Christian science-y person (who has the same agenda) about their rejection of the scientific consensus. They reassure each other that they’ve indeed backed the right horse, and they shore up their argument with smug confidence.

Popularizing science is one thing, but rejecting it is another. I put them in with the anti-vaxxers.

The difference between a cult and a religion: 
in a cult there is a person at the top who knows it’s a scam, 
and in a religion that person is dead.
— seen on the internet

Image credit: Phil Fiddyment, flickr, CC

"You are correct. There is nothing within atheism which requires it to shut down churches ..."

Response to Atheists’ “Five Worst Arguments” ..."
"It doesn't take us very far. Even if you agree that Jesus was a real ..."

Response to Atheists’ “Five Worst Arguments” ..."
"I won't have the time to give a thorough response until tomorrow at the earliest. ..."

Four Years After Obergefell: Has the ..."
"That makes sense.I'm not sure about the compulsory part, but it makes sense.I recently heard ..."

Four Years After Obergefell: Has the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • JustinL

    Abiogenesis: “Baking a cake is impossible because you don’t know what store the ingredients are from.”

    Cambrian Explosion: “Baking a cake is impossible because there was a lot of new recipes once.”

    Consciousness: “Baking a cake is impossible because why would it be delicious?”

    • Kevin K

      We do know the store the ingredients came from…we just haven’t figured out the recipe yet.

      Still no reason to assume that the recipe includes an invisible wizard’s magical incantation.

    • Dannorth

      Well the proof of the pudding is the eating.

      …still waiting for some cake here!

    • Joe

      The cake is a lie.

    • Wishful thinking: “Baking a cake is impossible because wouldn’t it be great if they just appeared when you were hungry?”

    • Otto

      Do you really know there is a cake?

  • Michael Neville

    Abiogenesis is not evolution. That creationists like Koukl keep conflating the two just shows they don’t understand what evolution is.

    • Tommy

      They pretend not to understand what evolution is.

      • Michael Neville

        No, many of them don’t know what evolution is. I have a creationist cow-orker who once challenged me to a debate on evolution. I told him that I was an accountant, not a biologist, and so knew little about evolution. When he kept on pressing I asked him to give a one or two sentence definition of evolution. He started with abiogensis and was working his way to the Big Bang when I stopped him and said: “Evolution is how lifeforms change over time due to mutation, gene transfer and natural selection. I’ve already said I know little about evolution but I know more than you do.” That ended the debate.

        • Tommy

          Sorry for the misunderstanding, but my comment was referring to professional apologists like Koukl et. al. They know better than the misinformation they pander to the laymen who most of them genuinely don’t understand what evolution is.

        • Greg G.

          I have a creationist cow-orker

          Now I’m curious. How does one ork a cow?

        • Michael Neville

          I’ll explain it to you when you reach 14 or puberty, whichever happens first.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s an old wives tale.

        • Susan

          Now, I’m curious. How does one ork a cow?

          That depends. What’s a Henway?

        • Len

          Some things are better left uninvestigated.

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          They ask Saruman?

        • Susan

          I asked him to give a one or two sentence definition of evolution.

          Good question.

          He started with abiogensis and was working his way to the Big Bang

          That’s always the answer. They don’t have a clue or even curiosity about the subject.

          They also have no curiosity about abiogenesis or cosmology when they invoke them. It’s a great big muddled mess of willful ignorance.

          Their apologists make an excellent living preying on that willful ignorance.

        • Joe

          or even curiosity about the subject.

          You know, that never fully occurred to me before. You’re absolutely right.

        • Pofarmer

          Their apologists make an excellent living preying on that willful ignorance.

          And that is a shame. But science doesn’t silence heretics.

        • They don’t understand any of it and haven’t even bothered to try. I haven’t had a science class since high school and even I know more than that because I do read news articles (and more recently follow scientists and space probe feeds on social media like twitter…btw have you seen the new pics of Jupiter from the Juno probe? SO COOL. Sorry geeking out, anyway…) and watch programs like Cosmos. It’s really not that hard but you have to be curious about the world not just eager to prove everything inconvenient for your religious faith wrong.

          Here’s the weird part. I have no dog in this fight. If tomorrow all the biologists realized the evolution was wrong and it was really something else that developed life as we know it I would shrug and think, well that’s interesting. But if creationists had to admit that the world really is more than 6,000 years old (which is hilarious since we know that some civilizations are older than that) their whole world would fall apart.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Cue moral panic brigade:
          “*Gasp* look at this faithless one, admitting that his worldview is as [insert florid scripturesque canard] …”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Yep. Getting them to describe what they think they believe is the surest way to either fluster them or start them down the road toward freethough.

      • Susan

        They pretend not to understand what evolution is.

        More often, they don’t bother.

        But then when people point out the errors they’ve made, they just hit the reset button as though the errors weren’t pointed out.

        You can make a pretty good living doing this.

        • Pofarmer

          You can make a pretty good living doing this.

          Ya know, I think that’s one of the things that pisses me off the most about Brandon Vogt. Here you have a guy trained as an Engineer, not making any significant contribution to society whatsoever, IMHO of course, and he’s “New York Times Best Selling Author” blah, blah, blah, blah blah. I don’t think it’s jealousy as much as incredulity.

      • Maoh

        No, if they actually understood it, they probably wouldn’t be creationists.

        • Carol Lynn

          Upton Sinclair — ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’

  • Max Doubt

    “… the unstated idea that if evolution can be defeated, Creationism will step in to take its place as the explanation of why life is the way it is. Nope—Creationism can only replace evolution when the evidence shows that it can better explain the facts.”

    And that pretty much clinches it for creationism. They’ve defeated themselves by having nothing but arguments from incredulity and ignorance. That’s it. There isn’t a lick of objective evidence to support explanations other than a process of common descent and natural selection. Some of the details are still under investigation, but for explaining the diversity of life on earth, there are no plausible alternatives – least of all being poofed into existence through an act of magic.

    Even speaking hypothetically, if it were ever to turn out evolution is an utterly fictional notion, it’s still far more plausible, more reasonable fiction than the tale about an invisible omnipotent creature who decided to make some life and voila!, here we all are.

    • TheNuszAbides

      “They’ve defeated themselves …”

      Ah, if only​ zombies could and would *utterly* defeat themselves …

  • Kevin K

    That ain’t epigenetics. Science fail.

    • Maoh

      What else do you expect from a creationist?

    • There was a conference in the UK about a year ago that the Creationists were all excited about. They were billing it as the mother of all takedowns on evolution, but as I understand it, it was focused simply on epigenetics and how that changes evolution.

      The only feeble victory I can imagine out of all this for them is that evolution used to be A, B, and C, but now it’s A, B, C, and D. It’s still naturalistic. There’s still no need for magic.

      • Because the anti-science crowd can’t understand that in science showing that some earlier understanding of how things work was wrong (or more typically, incomplete) is a feature, not a bug. We get new evidence and adjust. New ideas and better understanding are welcome, not discouraged. In fact such overturning of other people’s work is usually how one becomes known in the sciences. There’s a great scene in the Stephen Hawking biopic The Theory of Everything dramatizing Hawking’s doctoral dissertation defense. His dissertation actually challenged some of the work of men on his committee! And for that feat they bestowed upon him a degree. That’s science.

        • or more typically, incomplete

          Yes, that’s important. Creationists seem to imagine that science will have an approximation and then completely toss that out when they find something better. In the early days of a new field, that does happen, but so often it’s building on what came before.

          For example, Newton’s law of gravity is F = Gm1m2/r^2. Relativity modified that; it didn’t toss it in the trash. You can land on the moon using Newton’s unmodified law.

      • Kevin K

        Yes, that conference was on epigenetics, and it was organized by either Templeton or some other religious foundation (I’ve forgotten which). They presented no new research, merely tried to shoehorn god into as many gaps as they could find.

        I read the conference report and was … underwhelmed.

        • I found “Beyond Materialism: Biology for the 21st Century,” held 11/12/16 in Cambridge, a joint conference of the Disco Institute and a UK-based ID group.

          But the one I was thinking of was held just before this one from the Royal Society: “New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives,” Nov. 7-9, 2016.

          On the Templeton connection, I found this from Jerry Coyne at Why Evolution is True:

          First, though, it’s worth noting that of the 26 presenters at the meeting, 10 were funded by Templeton’s “extended evolutionary synthesis” grant—an 8 million dollar grant over three years. Further, a representative of the Templeton Foundation was present at the meeting, presumably making sure his stable of prized thoroughbreds were running well.

        • Kevin K

          Yeah, it’s the second one I was referring to. Templeton had its dirty fingers running through the entire thing. Of course (because it’s Templeton and that’s not how they roll), they never said the word “god” or even “intelligent design” in any of the presentations or materials that I saw. But the very, very clear implication of the majority of the talks was that naturalism was not an adequate explanation for the evolutionary record, and that epigenetics was somehow the imprimatur of something “else” beyond the interaction of genes and transcription factors.

          The whole thing was an exercise in trying to create gaps where none exist. As you noted earlier, the entire thing turned out to be something of a bust. I don’t think creationists refer to the symposium at all — though the ID flavor of creationism made a big deal of it at the time. Non-Templeton scientists I’m familiar with just arched an eyebrow at the whole thing and then moved on to more-important things. Like actual-and-real science.

        • What does it say that the Royal Society was involved? That surprised me. I had higher expectations of them. But I don’t know much about how they work.

        • Kevin K

          To be honest, I don’t know the details. I do know there were some bog-standard talks — basically overview presentations you’d give to a college-level junior or senior. No new research was presented, nor any hypothesis generated that would in any way, shape, or form overturn the scientific consensus with regard to the facts of evolution or the current evolutionary models of biologic diversity.

        • Maybe it was a standard conference, and the “the End is nigh!” excitement was manufactured by the Disco Institute.

      • MadScientist1023

        I read about that conference, although it might have been another one they got excited about. If I recall correctly, there was a group of scientists who argued we needed to treat the abilities of animals to alter their environments as a unique phenomenon which current evolutionary biology didn’t account for. The other scientists were of the opinion that this was essentially already covered in current thinking on the selection of desirable evolutionary traits.

        In either case, it’s just a matter of scientists finding new depths to the theory of evolution. It’s amazing how creationists look at scientists saying “Oh look, there’s more substance here than we realized!” as a sign of weakness.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        “Science discovered it was wrong, has adapted and incorporated the new information….Film @ 11” 😉

  • GubbaBumpkin

    The Cambrian Explosion:

    1) Something that covered millions of years called an “explosion”? That’s just misleading nomenclature. Life forms evolved throughout the Cambrian. Trilobites for example, changed a lot (and continued to serve as exemplars of evolution until they were wiped out 250 million years ago in the Permian mass extinction)

    2) Precursors to the Cambrian life forms existed in the Precambrian. Key words: Vendian fauna, Ediacarian biota, small shellies, Doushantuo, Chengjiang. Much progress has been made relating Precambrian forms to Cambrian phyla.

    For a good anti-Creationist book covering palaeontogical claims, see Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Don Prothero.

    • Kevin K

      I also like Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. And Sean B. Carroll (the evolutionary biologist, not the physicist) has a book called Endless Forms Most Beautiful which covers the evo-devo ground that Koukl badly mangles and conflates with “epigenetics”.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    “First you have the insurmountable problem of getting living stuff from
    dead stuff. . . . This is not just a problem. This is an insurmountable
    problem.”

    Vitalism is dead. There is no “life force” which imbues life onto otherwise dead matter. There is no distinction between “dead” molecules and “living” ones. Non-living chemicals can be derived from biochemicals (beer, anyone?) and can be inserted into living cells where they function the same as identical chemicals naturally found there. The beginning of the death of vitalism can be traced to the chemical synthesis of urea in the 19th century.

    Today, even chemically synthesized genes and complete chromosomes can be inserted into living cells, where they function normally, and get replicated and passed down to progeny.
    Researchers assemble five new fully artificial yeast chromosomes

    • Kevin K

      Yes, the notion of “vitalism” or “quintessence” if you want to get all Aristotlean about it, has been dead since the 1840s or thereabouts. Even before Darwin.

      Organic chemistry is chemistry. You don’t need to posit any additional force, or field, or something else extra in order for organic chemistry to work. Or if you do, you have to be able to prove it with evidence.

    • Wait–geese don’t come from barnacles? Whoa … worldview reset.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    but DNA only codes for protein.

    Is that a direct quote? Because it’s blatantly wrong. DNA also codes for RNA which never gets incorporated into proteins. For example, ribozymes (enzymes consisting of RNA) and the biggest, baddest ribozyme of all, the ribosome. The key parts of the cellular protein factory are made of RNA!

    As for epigenetics: the environment can have effects on DNA that is passed down to offspring. Typically this consists of a chemical modification of the DNA such as methylation. To make this work, you need receptors for some environmental molecule. You need enzymes to carry out the actual chemical modification. And you need switch molecules to bind the environmental factor and turn on the enzymes. How do you get all this stuff? You inherit it in a manner completely consistent with Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics.

    • Direct quotes are in quotation marks, but I did my best to paraphrase (and shorten) everything else accurately. The time stamps are accurate if you are truly bored and want to hear exactly what he said.

      This is yet another example showing why I get my biology from biologists, not people like Koukl.

      It baffles me how he can cackle with glee at the demise of evolution, not realizing that epigenetics is just a newly discovered feature … of evolution.

  • KarlUdy

    A couple of points …

    1. abiogenesis is a completely separate issue to evolution.

    2. As Michael Denton describes himself as agnostic, I’m not sure how accurate it is to call him a “creationist”. At the least, this is an important distinction for him, as his opposition to evolution is not based on religious positions at all.

    • GubbaBumpkin

      … as his opposition to evolution is not based on religious positions at all.

      I read his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. It certainly was not based on a sound understanding of science. And yes, it had some defense of religion in it.

      I have heard that in his second book, he disowned all of the crap he wrote in the first book. I’m not sure about that because I haven’t read the second book. Why would I? After finishing the first book, I had no reason to believe that Denton had any wisdom to dispense. I am not obligated to value the man’s views after he has established himself to be a nincompoop.

    • Kevin K

      He’s not a YEC creationist, like Koukl (apparently, by the look of his “arguments”). He argues for an “intelligent designer”. However, he says this was a “one-off” event — which would make him something of a deist.

      In any event, he uses the fine-tuning argument and apparently has a completely muddled understanding of the fossil record, because he disclaims the notion of transitional forms. Just like the common, ordinary creationist. AFAIK, he has not published any actual research supporting his beliefs in the scientific peer-review literature. Only books funded by the Discovery Institute — which neither an institute nor has it discovered anything.

      • GubbaBumpkin

        and apparently has a completely muddled understanding of the fossil record

        Yes. He actually claimed in his book that all the important fossils should be found by now. And yet, we keep reading about new finds.

        Specific “gaps” he chose to highlight in Evolution:ATIC include whale ancestors and the development of bird feathers. That didn’t age well, did it?

        He also stated that evolution had not been modeled on computers, and couldn’t be; another gap that has been well filled.

        This was all in his first book, perhaps he has disowned these opinions by now.

        • busterggi

          Ah, but what about whale feathers?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          or horsefeathers? 😉

        • The thing about fossils is that most organisms that ever lived decayed without leaving any. It’s kind of an accident that there are any at all. And with genetic research we don’t actually need them to prove evolution. They help but they are bits and pieces of a huge puzzle. It’s amazing that we have them at all. The creationist claim that there are all these gaps is therefore absurd. Of course there are.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It’s just their way of demanding evidence for something they don’t like which is MUCH more stringent than they’d demand for what they *want* to believe

      • I think Koukl is an old-earth Creationist.

        neither an institute nor has it discovered anything.

        Nice clarification!

        • Kevin K

          I don’t “get” old-earth creationists. They’re positing that the universe is 14 billion years old, the solar system is 5 billion years old (meaning Earth is that old), but that suddenly one day (vaguely — a few thousand years ago?) God decided to create fish with fins and birds with feathers. And make a mud-man and rib-woman eat IQ-raising sin fruit at the behest of the talking snake-with-legs.

          Might as well go in for the whole megillah if that’s your position.

        • Agreed. As I understand their position (and there are varieties, I’m sure), they pretty much accept all of science except that they don’t like evolution. And that’s where it goes off the rails. As Francis Collins (an evangelical, I believe) said, DNA alone proves evolution.

    • Greg G.

      His opposition to evolution was because of a creationist level of understanding of evolution. He didn’t understand that modern fish and modern amphibians were equidistant from their common ancestor.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Theory_in_Crisis

      His next book corrected some of his misunderstandings but his standing at the Discotute was diminished for a while. Maybe he redeemed himself with them with his latest book.

    • adam
  • Dannorth

    Another reason for the Cambrian Explosion is that the genetic regulatory apparatus had to develop before large animals could evolve.

  • theot58

    This article is tripe.

    Koukl’s arguents are much more convincing that the rebuttles.

    Macro evolution is a dying myth being killed by recent discoveries in genetics.

    The mind blowing complexity in the DNA and a single cell clearly shows evidence of intelligent design not natural forces working over large periods of time.

    Malcom Muggeridge
    Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo said:

    “I, myself,
    am convinced that the theory of evolution,
    especially to the extent to which it’s been applied,
    will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.
    Posterity will marvel
    that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis
    could be accepted with the credulity that it has.”

    The magic genie of natural selection is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of designing a human brain or blood circulation system. As a minimum; there is no credible evidence that it can. All we have is bold claims by evolutionists – but no credible evidence.

    Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said :

    “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false,
    you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
    Macro evolution is a fairytale for grownups.

    • Rudy R

      I pity your students.

    • islandbrewer

      Until you can pony up a shred of support for your pet quotes, there’s no reason for anyone to treat as anything other than a troll, you know.

    • adam

      Malcom Muggeridge was a British journalist, and satirist

      John C. Sanford (born 1950) is an American plant geneticist, and an advocate of intelligent design and young earth creationism.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6d5d4b3da20e59a2f832acfa99b328fa199e7d9d7f445ae668009f9c109235dd.jpg

      • Treyarnon

        Malcolm Muggeridge? Did he really quote him?
        Dead since 1990 for heavens sake!

        • Kuno

          See? He already knew about 40 years ago that the ToE will be proven false. Any day now. Can’t be long.

    • Jack Baynes

      Macro evolution is a dying myth being killed by recent discoveries in genetics.

      And young Earth Creationists, don’t forget them. In fact they believe Macro evolution happened radically faster than any evolutionist would think possible.

    • Greg G.

      Macro evolution is a dying myth being killed by recent discoveries in genetics.

      Religious nuts have been saying that sort of thing for two hundred years. Now it is refined to “macro evolution” about twenty years ago but it was “evolution” in general about a century or more before that. They were saying the same thing about geology before they started to saying it about evolution. But the Bible thumpers have been saying that Jesus is coming any minute now for two thousand years. They can’t help it.

    • Lark62

      Yeppers. Just look at dogs. The domesticated dog evolved from the wolf, and via a series of small changes dogs have different coat types – thick, curly, wiry, long, medium, and short, just like wolves. They have different coat colors – white, yellow, red, gold, brown, black, blue merle, tricolor, spotted, speckled, etc., just like wolves. They have different sizes and shapes like Mastiffs, Great Danes, Newfoundlands, Greyhounds, Border Collies, Dachshunds, Bassett Hounds and Chihuahuas, just like wolves.

      Yep. It is obvious all traits in descendents (domesticated dogs) are commonly present in the ancestor (wolves). In a pig’s eye.

      Without human intervention, many dog breeds could not breed and produce viable offspring. Without human intervention, Newfoundlands and Chihuahuas would be different species.

      This variation arose in just 10,000 to 20,000 years.

      The variation of animals on earth could and did arise over 600,000,0000 years, give or take. Evolution happens. We see it happen.

      • Greg G.

        Long ago I read that Great Danes and St. Bernards were genetically incompatible as the allele that made Great Danes’ bones long was lethal when paired with the allele that made St. Bernards’ bones think.

        • Lark62

          Speciation at work, in real time.

        • Interesting. But then, I’m guessing thinking bones are pretty lethal…

        • Greg G.

          Doh! Thanks. I’ll correct it.

        • I got the message. Well, actually, I guessed “thin” rather than “thick”, but I got the deeper message about incompatibilities.

          When I was looking into the neanderthal genes we carry, one of the things said was that some problems come from activation of neanderthal genes and how they interact with sapiens genes. And that some neanderthal genes must have died out fairly quickly in sapiens because they were usually lethal in combination with sapiens.

          There is a danger in playing with it, so I’m a little on the fence about genetic manipulation. On the one hand, we have the potential to break a lot of things and only realise long after – but on the other hand that isn’t very different from the many species serving us that we only have due to imprecise human experimentation (aka artificial selection).

      • adam
      • It’s easier to see in the species that reproduce the most quickly like insects or bacteria. In humans it’s a slow process what with only producing 4-5 generations in a century. Some species can do that within a day or two! We see new species show up all the time in insect populations.

        What’s silly here is arguing with someone who keeps quoting someone who isn’t even a scientist as if he’s refuting science. What absurdity but then that’s all YECs have to work with.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Someone didn’t watch the video I provided in the previous post. Would it be helpful if I shared it again?

      • Michael Neville

        Of course this creationist didn’t watch your video. It had facts and logic in it, things that are anathema to creationists, who only have their book to support their beliefs.

    • Otto

      Malcom Muggerige was a journalist, there is no reason to think he has any idea what he is talking about, but no surprise, he was a religious nut.

      John Sanford is a Young Earth Creationist… I bet next you will cite a geologist who thinks the earth is flat.

    • Joe

      Malcom Muggeridge
      Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo said:

      “I, myself,
      am convinced that the theory of evolution,
      especially to the extent to which it’s been applied,
      will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.
      Posterity will marvel
      that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis
      could be accepted with the credulity that it has.”

      Was he confident enough to put a timeline as to when he thinks he’ll be proven correct?

      Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said :

      “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false,
      you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”

      I don’t suppose either the good doctor, or yourself, are aware of the irony in the parts I’ve highlighted?

    • PacMan

      Macro evolution is a dying myth being killed by recent discoveries in genetics.

      Can you identify any of these “recent discoveries” or are you just parroting what you have been told?

    • TheMarsCydonia

      You have repeated the same thing over and over for years now. Yet the theory is no more on its deathknell now than it was when you started years ago.

      And you have always done so without a shred of evidence.

      So what do you hope to accomplish? Do you think that what you are actually accomplishing brings you any closer to your objective rather than away from it?

      • Max Doubt

        “So what do you hope to accomplish? Do you think that what you are actually accomplishing brings you any closer to your objective rather than away from it?”

        It appears theot58’s objective is to cling to the belief that some sort of intelligent agent, a god if he were being honest, somehow magically produced life as we know it – with some tiny micro-evolution in there somewhere or another. It also appears theot58’s foot stomping and complaining are, if not getting nearer his objective, certainly preventing him from moving any further away from it.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          But if that is his objective, he does not to do it here.

          What he is actually accomplishing here is an objectively verifiable failure to convince anyone that the theory of evolution is near its deathknell as he has been affirming for years which he supported by nothing more than the quotes bereft of evidence.

          So is he actually trying to convince us? Does he not have the awareness to see that is failing miserably and that erhaps he should quit or come up with something new (such as evidence) if he does not wish to continually be seen as both a troll and a complete joke? Apparently he doesn’t.

    • Max Doubt

      “Macro evolution is a dying myth being killed by recent discoveries in genetics.”

      Again, you’re either woefully ignorant or you’re lying.

      “The mind blowing complexity in the DNA and a single cell clearly shows evidence of intelligent design not natural forces working over large periods of time.”

      The fact that something blows your mind, that you aren’t informed enough or possibly just not intelligent enough to understand it, does not lend credence to your pet explanation of magical intervention. It does, however, lend credence to the notion that you’re too stupid or too ignorant to understand the science of evolution.

      “Malcom Muggeridge Pascal Lectures, Ontario Canada, University of Waterloo said: […]”

      Someone else’s ignorance and incredulity doesn’t provide any more support to your silly ideas than your own ignorance and incredulity does.

      “The magic genie of natural selection is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of designing a human brain or blood circulation system. As a minimum; there is no credible evidence that it can. All we have is bold claims by evolutionists – but no credible evidence.”

      There is no objective evidence that something designed a human brain or blood circulation system, not a magic genie or any other magical agent like Atum or a magical dwarf or Brahma or God or…

      “Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said : […]”

      And once more, someone else’s ignorance, incredulity, or stupidity doesn’t support your idea that some magical agent poofed life, the world, the universe into existence any more than your own stupidity or ignorance does.

      “Macro evolution is a fairytale for grownups.”

      Yeah, yeah, you’re sufficiently amazed by something you don’t understand. Big fuckin’ deal. Leaving aside your incredulity, even if something should ever call the process of natural selection into doubt, there still are no other currently available, objectively demonstrable explanations for the diversity of life on earth.

      And if you care to have an honest discussion about the matter – which pretty obviously you don’t – you’d have to start here: Admit that you have no objective evidence for any alternative explanation. Acknowledge that you can’t objectively demonstrate that any magical agent even exists much less was responsible for creating life. Admit that you’re incredulous, that you simply don’t understand the science of evolution. You’ve already as much as admitted that you don’t want to understand it.

      • theot58

        Now that you have pushed me into a corner – I will have to admit.

        I admit that I once believed the evolution fairy tale because it was taught to me as a scientific fact in school and because it is an assumption in many movies and documentaries.

        I had been hearing about the “mountains of evidence” proving Evolution for years; I thought it was rock solid science.

        One day I started scrutinizing the so called “mountains of evidence” and to my utter disgust I found that it was actually mountains of cow dung.

        There are mountains of ambit claims in the big print but when I analysed the small print I discovered that I was conned.

        The deception starts with a vague and changing definition of evolution; if they do not define what the word means then the evidence they provide does not have to prove anything in particular. (see link for details http://youtu.be/fQ_h-S7IuaM). The evolutionists provide countless examples of micro evolution (adaptation) and INFER that this somehow proves Macro evolution (development of new body parts). This is typical “bait and switch” advertising.

        I also admit that evolutionists hurt my feelings calling me all manner of unpleasant things – but I cannot sit idly by and not do anything while thousands of young people are being deceived every day. Being told that they the end product of millions of accidents in an undirected, purposeless process.

        I hope this helps you understand better.

        Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recognizes that Darwinism is not true. In his book “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False ” he said

        “.. for a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe,

        including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works.

        The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes. …

        It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected to abandon this naive response not in favor of a fully worked out physical/chemical explanation but in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some examples”

        (pp. 5-6).

        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          I also admit that evolutionists hurt my feelings calling me all manner of unpleasant things

          Do you have any idea why we call you “unpleasant things”? Because you’re a dishonest debater and a liar. Most people react poorly when someone lies to them, especially when the lies are obvious and quite stupid. But I’m sure that you’ve been told this before. It doesn’t match your self-image so you ignore it, just like you ignore the tons of evidence supporting evolution.

        • Joe

          The deception starts with a vague and changing definition of evolution

          We have a very clear and concise definition: The change in allele frequency within a population over time.

          No wonder people call you a liar. I tend to agree with them.

        • theot58

          Have you read any of the school text books?
          Why don’t you explore what we are teaching the students – you may be surprised.

        • Joe

          Please point out where they give an alternative definition.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          EVIDENCE.

          It’s a thing.

          Provide some.

        • Lark62

          School textbooks summarize information considering the age of the students. Textbooks are not the definitive word on any subject.

          Any elementary school lesson on planets won’t discuss how scientists analyze chemical compensation of distant objects, but that doesn’t mean they can’t.

        • One day I started scrutinizing the so called “mountains of evidence” and to my utter disgust I found that it was actually mountains of cow dung.

          But who cares? You primarily should realize that you’re not a biologist and that your evaluation of a field in which you’re not an expert counts for very little.

          There are mountains of ambit claims in the big print but when I analysed the small print I discovered that I was conned.

          What did you read that led you to this conclusion?

          see link for details

          Yeah, that’s compelling stuff. And that guy has a doctorate in biology? He’s a working biologist?

          If not, why waste our time giving us a Creationist video? We already know that Creationists hate evolution! You need to show us that the biologists (the people who count) reject evolution.

          The evolutionists provide countless examples of micro evolution (adaptation) and INFER that this somehow proves Macro evolution (development of new body parts).

          A little evolution applied for a long time turns into a lot of evolution. It’s not hard.

          Where’s the problem? Behe accepts common descent.

          Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recognizes that Darwinism is not true.

          Sounds like you need to have a discussion with Nagel. I don’t share his opinion. Indeed, in the area of biology, an area where he, too, is no expert, I don’t give a shit what he says.

          My opinion is very easily changed. Change the scientific consensus, and I’m there.

        • Kevin K

          Cow dung would actually provide evidence in favor of evolution … coming from a creature that was artificially “evolved” from an auroch.

        • Lark62

          I call bullshit.

          I’m not saying your fable about fully accepting evolution then rejecting it after seeking evidence is impossible, because humans are infinitely capable of self delusion. I do find it extremely unlikely.

          It smells of a standard “this is how I found Jesus testimony” with typical padding for extra drama. “I was an evil sinner, living a life of selfishness and debauchery when my kindergarten teacher told me about Jesus.”

          The chemical basis for life and new knowledge of the genetic code strengthen the evidence for evolution.

          Biologists moved past “is evolution true” long ago and use existing knowledge as a starting point for more detailed study of the evolution of specific species, speciatiation, genetics, embryology, etc. etc.

          In 150 plus years, all evidence advances evolution and no evidence contradicts it.

        • theot58

          Your statement “In 150 plus years, all evidence advances evolution and no evidence contradicts it.”

          clearly shows that you are the deluded one.

          There is significant dissent from Darwinism. For proof of the dissent to go http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ and download the list of brave scientists who are willing to publicly declare their dissent from Darwinian/Macro evolution. Micro Evolution is observable science, Darwinian/Macro evolution is a fairytale supported only by propaganda.

          Dr Phillip Skell (National Academy of Sciences member) speaks convincingly against the fallacious assertion that “nothing in biology makes sense without evolution”. Listen to this interview with Dr Skell and decide for yourself. Click on link: http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-06-06T13_36_13-07_00

        • Lark62

          I said evidence. Ignoramuses are not evidence.

          There are more scientists named Steve with relevant PhD s willing to sign a statement affirming evolution than there are people on the Discotute’s list (the discotute list includes many without PhDs and many in irrelevant fields such as engineering and computer science).

          Further, the discotute’s statement was so poorly worded that some people who signed the statement actually accept evolution and have since repudiated the use of their names to call the Theory of Evolution as a whole into question.

          Evidence would be in the form of a published scientific paper, not a name on a list.

        • theot58

          If it peer reviewed articles you are looking for,
          go to http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8818 to read peer reviewed scientific journals which show the implausibility of Darwinian/Macro evolution.

          Inspite of the dogmatic evolutionist’s attempts to suppress dissent, growing numbers of scientists are courageously standing up and expressing it anyway.

        • epeeist

          This is the report of a conference, papers for which are not peer reviewed.

        • Lark62

          As described by one blogger, that is just a summary of talks:

          A diverse group of [secretly invited] scientists [many of whom were not scientists] gathered at [but not under the auspices of] Cornell University in 2011 to discuss their research [not peer-reviewed] into the nature and origins of biological information [loosely interpreted].

          The first “editor” was an electrical engineer with no training or published work in biology.

          Still no scientific studies. Still no peer review. Still no evidence.

        • Cool! And when the scientific consensus changes, I’m there.

          My mind is easy to change, but telling us how counterintuitive you find natural selection isn’t the way.

        • I’m probably late to the bitch-slap party, but I’ll note that if you eliminate the not-biologists from that list, you’ve got a very small list.

          I presume you know about Project Steve? If so, I wonder why you didn’t mention it.

        • Otto

          Only people whose religion is threatened by evolution willfully deny the evidence, basically you are a conspiracy nut.

        • theot58

          I was waiting for you to call me a “science denier” and a “cretard”. That is standard procedure for people who do not has strong scientific arguments.

          Why don’t you wake up and realise that natural forces CANNOT produce the complex design function we now see in a cell and in the DNA.

          Believing in macro evolution is like believing that natural forces carved out the faces on Mt Rushmore.

          Can’t you see how silly that is?

          Macro evolution is also useless; listen to Dr Phillip Skell (National Academy of Sciences member) as he speaks convincingly against the fallacious assertion that “nothing in biology makes sense without evolution”. Listen to this interview with Dr Skell and decide for yourself. Click on link: http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-06-06T13_36_13-07_00

        • Susan

          That is standard procedure for people who do not has strong scientific arguments.

          Do you have a strong scientific argument?

          natural forces CANNOT produce the complex design function we now see in a cell and in DNA?

          Why not?

          Believing in macro evolution is like believing that natural forces carved out the face on Mt. Rushmore.

          No. It’s not.

          If by “macroevolution”, you mean the evolution of species you can see with your naked eyes. It’s a silly term.

          There is “evolution”. What’s the cutoff point between “micro” and “macro” evolution (creationist terms) and why?

        • Yes, I’ve always wondered how Creationists can happily accept mutation and natural selection as long as it’s contained. But what contains it? What force keeps a gray wolf within the bin labeled “gray wolf”? If we came back in 100M years, apparently all the bins would be essentially unchanged (no speciation) or empty (extinction). And there would be no new bins with new animals because no speciation.

        • Otto

          You are welcome to your weird conspiracy theory…but here is the funny thing. It really wouldn’t matter if evolution was proven completely wrong, it in no way would offer any validity to your religion. That is the sheer stupidity of the creation wackos, all the effort you put into your willful ignorance in the end amounts to absolutely nothing in the way of evidence for your myth. Your worldview gives you no choice but to deny evolution, mine isn’t affected one bit either way.

          The reason why 99.9% of the scientists around the entire planet accept evolution is because that is where the evidence points, you on the other hand have to convince yourself that they are all in some grand conspiracy together…as if that makes any sense.

        • Nothing is riding on Creationists’ rejection of evolution. If they eventually accepted evolution as reality, it wouldn’t affect their belief. Their belief is self-sealing.

          You hear the story about the guy who thought he was dead? His therapist got him to agree that dead people don’t bleed, then he poked the guy’s finger with a needle.

          “Oh, I guess dead people do bleed,” the guy says.

          Like that.

        • Does Dr. Skell reject evolution?

          Creationists enjoy debating this or that bit of minutia because it’s Amateur Hour. They know that when the actual experts get into the discussion (that is, not you or me), it’s game over.

        • That might depend upon the “experts,” which way the argument goes.

          There are so many famous Christian scientists, not just people like Newton and Galileo and Copernicus, etc., of the past, but the thousands existing today …. many with phd’s and very impressive backgrounds. It could be game over for evolutionists if they got into the picture.

          And even Albert Einstein, who did not believe in the personal, loving Christian God, still believed in a singular supreme being he called “God” that intelligently designed the universe and all in it.

          He found far too much design, order, balance and intricate relationships in nature to ever believe that we and our universe could ever have happened randomly. He was quite persuasive.

          You are assuming that just because someone is a Christian, and believes in Creation, that they are amateurs. It’s just as likely that those believing in evolution are amateurs.

          Could go either way, depending upon the players.

        • There are so many famous Christian scientists, not just people like Newton and Galileo and Copernicus, etc., of the past, but the thousands existing today …. many with phd’s and very impressive backgrounds. It could be game over for evolutionists if they got into the picture.

          Evolution is the overwhelming consensus within the field of biology. We’re on the same page here, right?

          And even Albert Einstein, who did not believe in the personal, loving Christian God, still believed in a singular supreme being he called “God” that intelligently designed the universe and all in it.

          You mean a deist god?

          You are assuming that just because someone is a Christian, and believes in Creation, that they are amateurs.

          I’m talking about the typical Christian blog commenter. He’s an amateur about evolution, and so am I. He and I are going round and round like two teeny dogs fighting. The big dogs are looking down, laughing.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.

          Pitiful attempts to poke holes in the other side’s argument may be fine for a debate, but if you want people to believe *your* argument, you have to bring your OWN evidence, your OWN logic & rules, and allow OTHERS to stress-test it to strength or destruction.

        • Kodie

          One day I started scrutinizing the so called “mountains of evidence” and to my utter disgust I found that it was actually mountains of cow dung.

          Calling bullshit. YOU did not start scrutinizing anything. You were lured down a back alley of false information by appealing to your ego. They told you what to think and that evolution is a lie. They told you how to approach the information by being suspicious of schools and teachers and scientists, because you actually don’t know what you learned in school, you don’t know anything about science, and you were an easy mark to be easily manipulated into denying evolution because you wish something else to be true.

          You are just a brainwashed dumb fuck. Stay away from children.

        • Rheingold

          “I admit that I once believed the evolution fairy tale because it was taught to me as a scientific fact in school”

          I hear this from creationists a lot. And it always makes me think: given the abysmal state of evolution education in this country, I’d love to know what school this was.

    • RichardSRussell

      Your go-to authority is Malcolm Muggeridge? The same guy whose biology chops are summarized thus in Wikipedia?

      Thomas Malcolm Muggeridge (24 March 1903 – 14 November 1990), known professionally as Malcolm Muggeridge, was a British journalist, and satirist. As a young man, Muggeridge was a left-wing sympathiser but he later became a forceful anti-communist. During World War II, he worked for the British government as a soldier and a spy. He helped bring Mother Teresa to popular attention in the West and stimulated debate about Catholic theology. In his later years he was outspoken on religious and moral issues. He wrote two volumes of an acclaimed—and unfinished—autobiography Chronicles of Wasted Time.

    • RichardSRussell

      Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said :

      “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, …

      Well, the relevance of this statement turns directly on the phrase in brackets, doesn’t it? And brackets indicate that somebody other than the original author has inserted something purporting to be a simplification or explanation of what the original author must have meant. So why should we, as readers, assume any honesty or intellectual integrity whatsoever on the part of the inserter?

      • Kevin K

        Re: Sanford.

        https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/

        The money quote from that post ….

        Sanford’s Genetic Entropy, on the other hand, is simply wrong from beginning to end. It misrepresents everything it touches: beneficial and deleterious mutations, gene duplication, natural selection, and synergistic epistasis. In all these areas, Sanford avoids engaging the large body of work which directly refutes his viewpoint, and instead cherry-picks a few references that seem to point his way, usually misinterpreting them in the process.

        Just another liar for Jesus.

        FWIW: “theot58” must be a sock puppet, because I don’t recall ever blocking someone with that nym, and yet it comes up as blocked in my feed.

    • Malcolm Muggeridge? You mean not-biologist Malcolm Muggeridge?

      Yeah, I’m sure his evaluation of evolution is well grounded.

      Macro evolution is a fairytale for grownups.

      Oh? Show me the scientific consensus saying that. Until that point, I’d be an idiot to reject it. “Well, theot says that it’s bunk!” won’t help, I’m afraid.

    • D Rieder

      Please link to summaries of those recent discoveries in genetics.

    • Kuno

      you can’t create information with misspellings

      Of course you can.

      • Kevin K

        U meen “uf coarse u kan”, don’t you?

        • Lark62

          This is found in multiple places. I don’t know the original source:

          I cnduo’t bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.

        • I’m poor at anagrams, but reading this isn’t that hard. The context is a huge help, of course.

    • Jim Jones

      Did someone leave the screen door open? Idiots are getting in.

      • TheNuszAbides

        It’s kinda that “let a thousand flowers bloom” thing of Bob’s.

        And of course we have our ways of targeting the noxious weeds when they try to settle in.

      • yeah, that is weird.

        Looking at the dashboard, I see a spike on Monday. I can’t see incoming sources (links elsewhere that someone clicks on) for Monday, but yesterday, there were a lot from Facebook. Perhaps some Christian FB page highlighted a post and urged the zombie army to come and slap some sense into us with savagely rational intellectual arguments.

  • islandbrewer

    About evolution and morphology (which Koukl obviously doesn’t understand). While there are some mutations in proteins that change morphology, that’s not primarily how morphological evolution works.

    Remember, we have essentially the exact same genes as a mouse, with just a few trivial exceptions. So what’s the difference between a mouse and a man? What’s the secret of growing a hand with an opposable thumb instead of a mouse’s paw?

    It’s the same as the secret to good comedy …. timing.

    Turn off the growth factors in the thumb area while the growth factors in the rest of the limb are still on, and the thumb digit “moves” farther up the limb and becomes opposable. Leave all the growth factors on longer, the limb and digits grow more.

    Our body plan and layout of bones are the same as a mouse’s. All the genes used to “make a mouse” are the same as those used to “make a human.”

    What makes the genes express differentially, turn off earlier or later, makes promoters bind more tightly or loosely, are mostly mutations in the non-coding regions of the genome.

    Have you ever heard creationists use the line “Mutations in the DNA of a gene are almost always deleterious.” That’s true. However, the mutations that change the morphology of a late Cretaceous tree shrew into an upright bald primate are primarily mutations in the non-coding regions around the genes – the areas that actually control the genes’ expression.

    You know how creationist trolls (*cough* See Noevo) like to use the line about observable evolution “producing no new information”? It turns out, according to their definition of “new information,” there’s no “new information” that differentiates a mouse from a man.

    • Michael Neville

      I tried to get See Noevo to define “information.” Like almost every creationist I’ve asked this question to, he choked. “Information is information, you know, INFORMATION!”

      • Joe

        Which they don’t mean, because if taken at face value would mean they are wrong. A mutation introduces a wealth of new information.

        • islandbrewer

          And there’s a reason that biologists don’t use “information” as any sort of measure of a genome or complexity or … anything. In genetics, it’s a rather meaningless term.

        • Kevin K

          I don’t think I’ve ever seen the term used in the way that creationists use it, that’s for sure. In fact, just this week, I was just looking at a GWAS heat map looking for genetic signatures of a particular disease (this stuff is way above my pay grade, but fascinating) — sure looked liked a shit-ton of “information” to me.

        • Kevin K

          Exactly correct. In fact, if a mutation in a germ cell causes the appearance of an organism with a different phenotype than the prior generation, then the amount of information has doubled.

          DNA – mutation = organism A (phenotype 1)
          DNA + mutation = organism B (phenotype 2)

          It’s really quite simple. Whether or not those phenotypes are more or less adapted to their environment and are likely to persist in their ecology is a separate question.

        • Greg G.

          If a mutation causes an enzyme to be more specific, it is a loss of information because it works with fewer molecules. If an enzyme becomes less specific, it is a loss of information because it is less specific. If a subsequent mutation restores the produced enzyme to its original form, it is two losses of information.

          If a gene for an enzyme is duplicated there is no additional information. If one of the alleles of the duplication mutates to be either more specific or less specific, it’s still a loss of information.

          It doesn’t have to make sense, it’s just how IDiots are programmed to think.

        • Kevin K

          No no no. You’re thinking teleologically.

          What you’re describing is not “loss of information”. It’s DIFFERENT information. Which by definition is more information than what you had previously.

          Information Set A: enzyme is pan-specific.
          Information Set B: enzyme is more specific.

          That is a DOUBLING of the amount of information available.

          Even a gene duplication that does not result any phenotypic change in the organism is an increase in information. Geneticists can look at it in the lab and compare the two organisms and declare them to be genetically distinct, even if they are phenotypically and morphologically identical.

          And any time you change the phenotype (the outcome of the genetic instructions), you’re increasing the information available — to the universe. Even if that information results in a loss of function in the individual organism, there is still more “information” than there used to be. In fact, each individual organism is an increase in information — Dolly the sheep was genetically indistinct from its genetic “mother”, but was a separate animal. Separate animal = more information. There’s Dolly over there, there’s her gene donor over there. MORE information.

          I’m actually hard pressed to come up with an example of “loss of information” in biology. “Who let the dogs out”, maybe?

          In physics, it’s a different thing, due to Heisenberg. The more specific we are about the location of a particle, the less certain we are about its vector. That’s probably a loss of information (or maybe an equal exchange of one type of information for another).

  • Joe

    1. Abiogenesis. “First you have the insurmountable problem of getting living stuff from dead stuff. . . . This is not just a problem. This is an insurmountable problem.” (17:45)

    Because a sperm and egg cell aren’t made of ‘dead’ atoms?

    • Garry Willits

      No they’re not. They are living cells (which can be killed). Remember we are multi-cellular life forms. It all depends on your definition of life. Is a virus alive?

      • Joe

        Where did the atoms come from, to form the molecules, to form the proteins, to form the cells ? Everything that comprised me came from something my parents consumed.

        Is a virus alive?

        Depends on your definition of ‘alive’. I would say yes, but that would be in opposition to a lot of theists.

        • Garry Willits

          Playing devils advocate here I doubt even creationist would deny that the atoms themselves are inert, but if they had any wits they would point you to the ‘ship of theseus’. Life is an emergent property of things that aren’t alive -but we categorize things as alive which meet certain criteria. For many scientists viruses and prions are borderline as they don’t self reproduce.

        • Joe

          Creationists don’t believe in emergence.

          Did you mean the Sorites paradox, not the Ship of Theseus?

        • Garry Willits

          I hadn’t thought of the sorites paradox – I can see it would apply quite well to prions and viruses (at what point do we call protein enzymes life ).What I was trying to get at is that life is more than just an assembly of parts, you can put all the atoms in a bath and you wouldn’t get a living thing and you can replace all the parts and still have the same living thing at the end.
          So life requires something to cause the arrangement that makes life possible. A non-theist might believe that arrangement was caused by natural processes whereas a theist would claim divine intervention. Of course the theist is playing ‘God of the gaps’ here, but pointing out that atoms themselves are inert is not going to counter a well educated theist.

        • Joe

          you can put all the atoms in a bath and you wouldn’t get a living thing and you can replace all the parts and still have the same living thing at the end.

          Wouldn’t you? What is different?

          Of course the theist is playing ‘God of the gaps’ here, but pointing out that atoms themselves are inert is not going to counter a well educated theist.

          Why? They just said ‘life doesn’t come from non life’. If they respect logic, then they should accept that at one point they were not alive.

        • Garry Willits

          I don’t think I’m explaining myself here.
          1 My point was life is more than just the constituent of it’s parts, it requires something to organise it into being alive.
          So no, if you took all the molecules that made you and separated them into a bath, there would be nothing left alive.
          2 That’s not what they mean. They mean evolution can’t explain how life came from dead stuff but magic can. As I recall Adam was made from dirt ‘with the breath of life breathed in’.

        • Joe

          I disagree with part 1, which I don’t think you’re explaining very well. What’s actually different between me as soup in a bath, and me as a person, apart from the arrangement of molecules?

          2. They won’t mention magic. Ever. What they actually do is equivocate ‘life form non-life’ to mean ‘you can only get life from something that is already living‘. i.e. Our parents give birth to us.

          The reason they aren’t more specific is that it leads to the problem “who made god”, to which they have to apply special pleading.

        • Garry Willits

          1Sorry I’m not explaining this well. Its the arrangement that’s the key point. This is what makes life possible. Every debate I’ve seen about this revolves around how this came to be not what the material of life is composed of.
          2 Of course they won’t mention ‘magic’ but that’s exactly what they mean. They don’t like the term because it is laughable concept today – but look up the terms for magic and supernatural in the dictionary, they are synonyms. Many of them are smart enough to know what DNA is. They see that as divinely created (or designed) – in that view it cannot come from natural sources. But I don’t think that means they think the material itself is alive, though of course they think that was created by magic too.

    • RichardSRussell

      The question the creationists are asking — and actual scientists are asking it, too, except with the intention of finding the correct answer — is “How did we get from those dead atoms to these living cells?” It’s a legitimate question, just as legitimate as “Why does the west coast of Africa look like a mirror image of the east coast of South America?” and “How can the sun still be burning just as brightly after all these centuries as it was in olden times?” And just as susceptible to scientific investigation, which the curiosity-killers at the “Discovery” Institute hope nobody will ever discover.

      • Gary Whittenberger

        Living stuff does not come from dead stuff, but it may come from nonliving stuff. At least it appears that this happened about 3.5 billion years ago on the Earth.

        • RichardSRussell

          Living stuff does not come from dead stuff, but it may come from nonliving stuff.

          I’m not sure what the distinction is you’re trying to make between “dead” and “nonliving”. Could you explain?

          For sake of example, please refer to the water I drink every day, which gets incorporated into the cells in my body. Dead or nonliving in your assessment?

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Dead stuff is stuff that was once alive but isn’t now. All nonliving stuff is not dead stuff. Some nonliving stuff was never alive. Do you agree? If not, why not?

        • RichardSRussell

          All nonliving stuff is not dead stuff.

          You might try rendering that statement as a Venn diagram to see if you really mean it.

          Anyway, with respect to the water I drink every day (which I inquired about above), some of it may at one time have been a constituent of another living being, and some of it may not. Why is the distinction significant? By the time it gets to me, it’s just another molecule of H2O, and they’re all pretty much indistinguishable from each other. (Unless you want to get into homeopathy. Do you?)

  • Otto

    The dishonesty of the Christian apologist is only trumped by the Christian YEC apologist

    • TheNuszAbides

      Surely any flavor of YEC will do …

  • Chuck Johnson

    Bob:
    “The real problem is that “God did it” is unfalsifiable. You could apply it to anything, and I couldn’t prove you wrong.”

    Chuck:
    Not to me.
    I see the “unfalsifiable claim” assertion all the time, but I don’t buy it.
    The absurd and magical claims of religionists are easily falsified by science, but the religionists respond to falsification with lies, dimwitted logic, blind obedience to authority, etc.

    When consensus eventually shows them (they tend to value consensus over evidence and logic) that God didn’t do it, that’s not a problem either. They just move the goalposts by reinventing God.

    Their claims and their God are so rapidly mutable that it only appears that they are unfalsifiable. Scientists can be stumped by this because such insincerity is surprising and alien to scientific ways of thinking.

    This is similar to the fact that many scientists can be stumped by magic tricks that a person like James Randi can easily understand and explain.

    • I believe you’re saying that we don’t believe in God (or a particular formulation of God) for the same reason that we don’t believe in alien abductions or Nessie–because there’s insufficient evidence.

      I was talking about a different approach, that of saying, “Well, you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist” (or doesn’t fiddle with evolution or didn’t create the universe 6000 years ago with light from distant galaxies en route and so on).

      • Chuck Johnson

        Bob:
        “I believe you’re saying that we don’t believe in God (or a particular
        formulation of God) for the same reason that we don’t believe in alien
        abductions or Nessie–because there’s insufficient evidence.”

        Chuck:
        Yes, the evidence is insufficient.
        Billions of Christians and centuries of Christianity have generated tons of evidence to believe in God. The quantity of evidence is there, but this is poor quality evidence from a scientific standpoint.

        In addition, science has created a huge amount of better-quality evidence that supernatural beings and events are false beliefs. So falsifying the supernatural works from both directions.

        So gods exist only in the sense that they exist as fictional characters. Humans created these ideas many thousands of years ago.

      • Chuck Johnson

        Bob:
        “I was talking about a different approach, that of saying, “Well, you can’t prove
        that God doesn’t exist” (or doesn’t fiddle with evolution or didn’t
        create the universe 6000 years ago with light from distant galaxies en
        route and so on).”

        Chuck:
        Yes, the religionists like to say that you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. This goes to show their ignorance of the way that science works. Many people who are not religious also share this ignorance.

        Science does not try to prove data and theories to a degree of absolute certainty. Such attempts at (or fantasies of) absolute certainty are a big part of why religions fail to learn the truth and teach the truth.

        Science continues to gather truth and knowledge despite the fact that the knowledge gathered is a collection of probabilities, not certainties.

        John Loftus in his Debunking Christianity blog has dealt with this repeatedly, including just this month:

        http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2017/05/on-solving-problem-of-induction.html#more

        This perceived weakness of science (no absolute certainty) is actually one of its greatest strengths.

        And the much-promoted virtue of Christianity (belief without naturalistic evidence) turns out (in the long run) to be a major failing. Blind obedience to authority tends to produce shot-term advantages, but long-term failings.

      • Gary Whittenberger

        Hasn’t already been “proven” (take that word with a grain of salt) that God did not create the universe 6000 years ago?

  • Don’t they ever notice that gaps in our knowledge tend to get filled, and so far this is never by “God did it”? Wiser heads than they (including Christians) know better.

    • Pofarmer

      And you never see science say, “Oh shit, the theists were right, we better back track.” Never.

      • No, it’s a pretty clear trend in the opposite direction.

        • Pofarmer

          You have a gift for understatement.

        • Thanks, I guess. I’m understated because yes, it’s possible something can change, but that isn’t looking likely. Reading up on the history of science, explicitly religious claims were once considered credible. Contrary to what people like Koukl think, it wasn’t due to bias they were thrown out (since most scientists believed in the beginning). Rather it’s just that the evidence wasn’t there.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Koukl no doubt sees a bias *for* evidence as a bias *against* religion to protect his delusion.

        • Could be.

    • Max Doubt

      “Don’t they ever notice that gaps in our knowledge tend to get filled, and so far this is never by “God did it”?”

      Reminds me of a cut-and-restored rope routine I used to do in my magic act. The premise was something like this… “You see how this piece of rope has two ends? Well I don’t like ends, so I’m going to cut it right here and that’ll get rid of this end. Uh oh, now look what I’ve done. Instead of two ends now I have four. And you know I don’t like ends, so I’ll just cut this end off…”

      Gaps schmaps. Just fill ’em up with gods who are clearly are badder-ass today than back when there was only one gap.

    • eric

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair.

      I’d say that quote is just as good if you substitute “religion” for “salary.”

      • Yes, that applies to many things.

  • Joseph Patterson

    HA. It’s actually creationism that is on the way out among Americans according to the latest polling data.. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/is-creationism-on-the-wane-in-america/

  • Klapaucius

    Nothing changes ….

    “Only a few years ago there was no person too ignorant to successfully answer Charles Darwin; and the more ignorant he was the more cheerfully he undertook the task” Robert Green Ingersoll, “Orthodoxy” (1884).

  • D Rieder

    “Koukl next brings up atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel, who says that evolution won’t allow for consciousness.”

    Well consciousness seems to develop/arise between the time a human develops from an embryo (which I presume Koukl would agree would probably not be conscious) to a toddler who, from all appearances is conscious. So they would need to explain how consciousness develops out of unconsciousness during human development and could not develop during evolution.

    As for how abiogenesis occurred, I’m interested in the research of Scripps Institute where, if I understand it, they’ve synthesized long chained molecules that reproduce, pass on their pattern, mutate, compete and evolve into different molecules.

    This site discussed it a little: http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Abiogenesis

    • I understand that people who I would respect say that consciousness is a tough problem, though I don’t know the details. In my simple view, it seems like it’s an emergent phenomenon, like surface tension or pH or turbidity in water. It’s not there in 1 molecule or 10 or 100, but it is with quadrillions of molecules.

      Same with consciousness in brain cells. (But I admit that I’m an outsider, so I may be off base.)

      • eric

        I think the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ (why we have experiences that appear to be different from or distinct from just sensory inputs) is indeed hard. And we won’t be able to define ‘consciousness’ well in biochemical terms until we know what biochemistry produces it, so that’s a hard problem too.

        But the conditional question, “if, consciousness is a result of patterns of neural activity of the brain, how could it evolve?” is IMO not a hard problem. Evolution seems pretty easily to fit that bill, IMO. Human brain structure is a result of mutation followed by natural selection on earlier, nonconscious brain structures, where each kid is born with slightly different instructions for building brains, and the ones with brains that confer an adaptational advantage tend to leave more children.

        • Agreed. It’s like vision–you could marvel at the complexity of the human eye. (Of course, you could marvel at the imperfections in the human eye as well, but let’s not go there.) But comparing the human eye to the seeing ability in, say, a rock isn’t the way to go. You can lay out today a sequence of living things that go from light-sensitive spots all the way to vision in vertebrates (that is, you needn’t point to or hypothesize extinct animals as intermediate steps–you’ve pretty much got the sequence within living things today).

      • Kevin K

        This also is not my area of expertise, but it’s my understanding that one of the biggest issues is in defining what you mean when you say “consciousness”.

        If the definition is something akin to “extra-instinctual awareness of one’s surroundings”, then it’s nothing special. Bees are “conscious” when they report the location of pollen to their hive. Flatworms can be trained to make pain-avoiding choices in their environments. Pigeons will develop “superstitious” behaviors under the right circumstances (as shown in a famous BF Skinner experiment).

        If it’s something like “higher order thinking”, then you’re faced with positing that dogs are not conscious when they stare at you to send you EPS signals that they want to go out or get a treat. In other words, what’s the dividing line? Whales and dolphins and the great apes, yes? What about elephants? Meerkats and prairie dogs?

        I think the best answer is, as you say, is that consciousness is an emergent property of things with “brains”. And some brains are better at it than others.

        • Kodie

          This is the thing about all animals, or living organisms. They all have some ability. How do they do what they do if they’re not “conscious”? On the one hand, you get people who anthropomorphize too much and give animals and other living things qualities they may not have or definitely don’t have, and then there are others who distinguish what humans can do as superior and divine in some way, and “careful” not to anthropomorphize other living things, easily dismiss every ability and quality they do have that is in any way similar. It is not to anthropomorphize living creatures to see similarities. Do other animals eat, move, yawn, poop, sleep, or have sex for completely different reasons than humans do? Ok, we can put those thoughts of reasons into language, so we are doing these things with a lot of consciousness about them, but animals are like, what, completely led by unconscious triggers directing them to do this or that?

          Hungry-stalk-kill-eat-nom-nom-nom! Vs. a human goes to the grocery store with a shopping list from a recipe for a dinner they evited their friends to share next Saturday to celebrate Lisa’s graduation from elementary school. I don’t see how these plans are all that different.

        • Kevin K

          I’m willing to accept that animals like ants are not “conscious” in the way we would traditionally define that term. They follow some fairly rigid instinctual rules, which work just fine without having to invoke any extra-instinctual awareness of their surroundings.

          How does an amoeba know to envelope its food? Doesn’t. It just does. That’s not consciousness on any level, just an organism following simple repeatable algorithms.

          But at some point, you can define extra-instinctual behaviors that don’t follow rigid algorithms. That’s either consciousness or proto-consciousness.

          Frankly, this is the argument from incredulity logical fallacy that theists used to invoke by quote mining Darwin about the evolution of the eye.

        • Kodie

          I was going more in the other direction. All living beings seem to have some awareness of their surroundings, maybe awareness is the wrong word, but they have sense of it and adapt and react to it, and maybe not on a conscious level. Some animals besides us surely must.

          The way I was thinking was more how basic animals humans are. Because we are social, we invent things like holidays and picnic blankets and beer, but when we go at things, it’s more like an animal to the stimuli. And for instance, we have to train to do certain jobs, but once we’re in a routine, that knowledge we acquire outside of instinct seems to go to a more habitual part of the brain than a conscious one.

          Your co-workers are all leaving early today because it’s John’s last day and we’re having drinks, but they didn’t tell you about it and now you don’t know where everyone went. Maybe it happened to you before, maybe it’s because you didn’t go last time they asked and they took it as a snub, or you got a promotion or you work in a different department that they overlooked you, or you’re some kind of workaholic who loves it when everyone leaves and you get a lot done. It’s natural as a human to feel something when others do something together and don’t include you, while it may be more conscious to gather everyone for drinks, but the part where someone says, “hey, we’re cutting out at 4 ’cause John’s last day”, your animal brain kicks in to that environmental/social stimulus to finish up your work and grab your coat at 3:55.

          To me, this is just like a dog would behave. I came home and turn on the tv and tennis happens to be on, so I see these players reacting to the ball, and I think, that is like a dog too. They train to be professional tennis players, they know the rules and whether they are winning or behind, which is unlike a dog, but I think once you key into the activity, the muscle memory and such, it’s training your body to act without thinking, to respond to the environment without consciousness.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Nailed it. We’re really good at embellishing and imbuing. Potentially, pathologically good.

      • Lark62

        Consciousness of some sort is present in all animals. Elephants grieve. Horses and dogs recognize people they haven’t seen in years.

        Plants can sense the direction of sunlight.

        How consciousness evolved is a question yet to be answered. But that doesn’t mean it’s not answerable.

        • Jim Jones

          > Plants can sense the direction of sunlight.

          And the direction of gravity.

        • Kodie

          And the duration of daily sunlight.

        • Lark62

          The Coursera course “What a plant knows” is fascinating and discusses how and why plants respond to light, how they “know” when to flower, etc.
          Answers to questions I never even thought to ask. There may also be a book by the professor with the same name.

        • Kodie

          I saw the program “What Plants Talk About” on PBS show Nature. Super interesting.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkUoVyzPEak

      • Gary Whittenberger

        I agree with you, Bob. Emergent phenomenon. That’s just the way it is.

  • Abiogenesis is the closest thing here to a problem. We really don’t know exactly what happened. But instead of throwing up our hands, those of us in the reality-based community look for answers based on evidence. All they have is “god of the gaps” and the problem with that is that the gaps keep getting smaller and of course it’s still a huge leap from that deity to their specific one. Anyway, I don’t know isn’t an admission of failure. It’s a challenge to find out.

    • Yep, saying “Golly! Must’ve been God!” has provided zero useful answers to scientific puzzles.

      The truly telling point to me is that they have no skin in the game. They handwave that problem X (abiogenesis, consciousness, cause of the Big Bang, whatever) is a super huge problem for atheists. (They confabulate atheists with scientists, but whatever.)

      My response: So you’d abandon your faith if science did find a consensus answer to this puzzle?

      Them: No, of course not.

      Me: Then you’re wasting my time. Clearly this isn’t a huge issue at all since it’s meaningless to you.

      • Gary Whittenberger

        What would count as evidence that God created life from nonlife?

        I think a replication would count. If God were to meet with a group of us under controlled conditions and he made a living organism out of nothing at all or even out of a bunch of chemicals “off the shelf,” then I’d count this as evidence in favor of the God hypothesis.

        I’ve asked my religious friends to arrange a meeting many times, and no matter how much God loves them, they still haven’t persuaded God to show up to a meeting to create life. I don’t know why he’d need any persuasion, if he existed. The best explanation? God almost certainly does not exist.

      • TheNuszAbides

        Good reminder. Another demonstration that — among the bizarre attempts to equate faith & science, faith & atheism, faith & skepticism, as opposed forces/identities of identical type — they fail to grasp the immense distinction between (a) “aw, shucks, all i have to do is stay true to my beliefs and it all makes sense”[sic], narratives about struggling with doubt, etc., and (b) “new evidence can overturn our current understanding of how shit actually works, AND THAT’S OKAY.”

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Unfortunately, theists don’t view the filling of knowledge gaps in quite the same way. For them it is like the old George Carlin joke, “What do you get when you split a crumb? Two crumbs, man.”

      Gaps may be shrinking, but they are multiplying!

      • epeeist

        Cantor dust, you may get more crumbs but they become smaller and smaller.

  • Jim Jones

    > Abiogenesis. “First you have the insurmountable problem of getting living stuff from dead stuff. . . . This is not just a problem. This is an insurmountable problem.”

    Not a problem at all. No one doubts that sexual reproduction occurs. Abiogenesis is a far smaller ‘problem’. We don’t know how to replicate it yet? It seems highly likely we will figure it out.

    And there’s this:

    A New Physics Theory of Life

    From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

    “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.

    • Kevin K

      Basically, it’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics … which theists used to love to invoke (badly, ineptly) as a reason why evolution was impossible.

  • Gary Whittenberger

    Of course I agree with you Bob on your comments about evolution, but these claims bothered me a little bit:

    “The real problem is that “God did it” is unfalsifiable. You could apply it to anything, and I couldn’t prove you wrong. Therefore, it’s useless.”

    “God created the universe” is a variation of “God did it.” So, lets see if we can falsify the former.

    1. If God created the universe, then there wouldn’t be any bone cancer in children. (See recent Stephen Fry interview.)
    2. But there is bone cancer in children.
    3. Therefore, God did not create the universe.

    If all premises of an argument are true and the logic is sound, then the conclusion is true. I assert that this is the case here. If I am correct, then haven’t I falsified “God created the universe”? I think so.

    • Kodie

      1. We don’t know that god didn’t create the entire universe for the express purpose of giving bone cancer to children.

      • Gary Whittenberger

        I didn’t say “god.” I said “God.” I am talking about the most commonly worshiped god — the Jewish, Christian, Islamic god.

        Given this conception, God would not create a universe in which there was bone cancer in children. This would be contradictory to his nature.

        You’ve got to start with a definition of “God,” and it needs to be a definition accepted by most believers in order to avoid a straw man argument.

        • Greg G.

          Most theists define God as being both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But suffering exists, including in the form of bone cancer. If suffering serves no purpose then there cannot be a benevolent omnipotence as the benevolent part would not allow it.

          If suffering does achieve some purpose, then the purpose is logically possible to achieve. If a being cannot achieve that logically possible thing then the being is not omnipotent. If the being can achieve the purpose without the suffering, the suffering is superfluous and the being is not benevolent.

          That doesn’t rule out a malevolent omnipotence. We know that benevolent beings exist that do not have the power to prevent all suffering but we do not call them gods.

        • Max Doubt

          “Most theists define God as being both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But suffering exists, including in the form of bone cancer.”

          Omnipotence is powerful stuff, so powerful that an omnipotent god can be omni-benevolent and give kids cancer. That’s some badass juju.

        • adam
        • Gary Whittenberger

          That is really funny! I like it.

          If I am the surgeon, I’d say “Go to the waiting room and prepare to tell us later for what reason your dad gave this guy cancer. We’ll see ya in a few hours.”

        • Gary Whittenberger

          No, I disagree. Giving kids bone cancer is contradictory to being omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If you think otherwise, then please tell us why.

        • Max Doubt

          “No, I disagree. Giving kids bone cancer is contradictory to being omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If you think otherwise, then please tell us why.”

          Why? Simple. Because only your very own personal god is bound by your very own personal attribution of characteristics. Sure, maybe your god can’t be omni-benevolent and give kids cancer. Other people’s gods can do or not do whatever the hell those people want.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Max, I have no “very own personal god.” I am an atheist! Are you an atheist?

          Any god which is triple-O, i.e omniscient, omnipotent, and omnimoral would not create bone cancer in children. Do you agree, yes or no? If not, please explain and defend your position.

          Now, if you agree with the above, then “God” is conceived as a triple-O god. Do you agree, yes or no? If not, please explain and defend your position.

        • Lark62

          Who says god wouldn’t create cancer in children. It’s a nice thought, but unprovable.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Again, I’m not talking about “god.” I’m talking about “God.” Please use the correct terminology.

          I say God wouldn’t create bone cancer in children! Stephen Fry apparently thinks so too. There are probably millions of others who think so.

          Here is the rational demonstration of the claim that God would not create bone cancer in children and that God does not exist:
          1. If God existed, then he would be triple-O.
          2. If God existed, because he would be triple-O, then he would have developed, implemented, and followed correct universal morality.
          3. The first principle of correct universal morality is “Minimize harm to others, if you can.”
          4. All other things being equal, if an omniscient omnipotent god were to create a world with bone cancer in children, then more harm would be done than if he were to create a world with no bone cancer in children.
          5. Thus, if an omniscient omnipotent god created any world which included bone cancer in children, he would not have followed correct universal morality and would not be omnimoral.
          6. But we live in a world with bone cancer in children.
          7. Therefore, a triple-O god does not exist.
          8 And God does not exist!

          Do you agree, yes or no? If not, then explain and defend your position.

        • Lark62

          You are describing the god/God/glob of your imagination. Every one of your 8 principles is your opinion. For example, who says “The first principle of correct universal morality is “Minimize harm to others, if you can.””

          That’s a nice opinion. But it is an unprovable opinion

        • Gary Whittenberger

          What do you think is the first principle of correct universal morality? Let’s compare and evaluate our different first principles.

        • Lark62

          There is no such thing as a “correct universal morality”

        • Kodie

          That’s too specific to apply to the god most people believe in. You are killing that straw man hard though!

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I am referring to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims, not necessarily to most people.

          What are the essential properties of God, according to the J, C, and M faiths?

        • Kodie

          Explain why billions of people still believe that this alleged “god” exists.

        • Explain why the majority of Christians have no problem accepting evolution and speciation. But you do.

          Weird. It’s almost like Christianity is ambiguous.

        • Greg G.

          But most theists redefine “omnipotence” to “not quite omnipotent” which is the “logically possible” caveat to eliminate the “rock too heavy” questions. That omnipotence limits omnipotence and benevolence by making all suffering unnecessary (by being omnipotent) and the allowance of unnecessary suffering is incompatible with benevolence because it is effectively sadistic. The existence of suffering then disproves the existence of any and all beings that are supposed to be omnipotent (or sufficiently powerful to accomplish whatever suffering can do) and benevolent.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Greg, I agree with your reasoning here and I think it supports my argument.

          In the definition of “God,” the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence are included. But my argument can also be applied to very knowing, very powerful, and very benevolent gods, with the addition of a caveat on probability.

        • Greg G.

          I agree. My argument starts with the weak definition of omnipotence* but also allows “sufficiently powerful” which is “powerful enough to prevent all suffering”.

          * the ability to do anything that is logically possible. For example, possibly poofing a bachelor into existence, but not a married bachelor.

        • Kodie

          No, you don’t. I’m talking about god, which I almost never capitalize under any conditions or references anyway. Given a very specific concept of god, the kind of god who would never give bone cancer to children, that one doesn’t exist. Next on the list is the kind of god who is testing out his best cancer specimens on children, for those good old mysterious reasons. It doesn’t matter if this god is widely accepted. All the concept of god is is observing things about the world and telling a story of a deity who made it that way. It’s my impression that that’s the god of the old testament.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          My argument is not applicable to all gods, but it is applicable to God.

          God would be so intelligent, powerful, creative, moral, and loving that he wouldn’t “test out his best cancer specimens on children for mysterious reasons.” Moral persons do not conduct experiments on other persons where the treatment is harmful without acquiring informed consent in advance.

        • Kodie

          If you can falsify one god, they will just change the definitions so you can’t falsify another one. And so on.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Who are “they”?

          We’ll take on their gods one by one, but I’m addressing that one god which at least 4 billion people on the Earth believe in. I think that’s a good start.

        • Kodie

          No, you’re just fooling yourself. “They” are they, the billions of people who already refute your argument.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          No, Kodie, they are fooling themselves. They haven’t refuted my argument.

        • Kodie

          Of course they are also fooling themselves. It’s not mutually exclusive here.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          They are fooling themselves, but I’m not. If you think I am, then find a critical error in my argument. I claim it is sound.

        • TheNuszAbides

          It is practically irrelevant until you have someone on record testifying to the deconverting powers of your Sound Argument.

          You seem to think we are, or should be, in search of such arguments.

          I’m pretty sure that what Kodie meant is that you’re fooling yourself to think it matters how sound your argument might be in the context of arguing with the ‘typical monotheist’ you are modeling.

        • TheNuszAbides

          That’s a non-starter to anyone who believes in The Devil, demons, etc.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I am not sure what you mean by your comment, but I’ll take a guess. Are you implying that JCMs do not think that God created bone cancer in children but that the Devil did? If that is not what you mean, then be more specific.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Your guess is essentially correct. I was referring to the as-yet-abundant yet far-from-universal Christian belief in demonic figures as agents/causes/propagators of All Things Evil. I don’t know as much about specific Judaic or Muslim mythologies, or how widespread each one might be, as you seem to think you do.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          This doesn’t get a Christian out of hot water because by this interpretation if God did exist, he would have created demonic figures which then created bone cancer in children. Accountability is just moved back by one step.

          Of course, one premise could be modified to: If God did exist, he would not enable bone cancer in children.

        • TheNuszAbides

          there’s one improvement.

        • Max Doubt

          “Are you implying that JCMs do not think that God created bone cancer in children but that the Devil did? If that is not what you mean, then be more specific.”

          Whether any Jews, Christians, or Muslims think their gods are responsible for bone cancer in children is irrelevant to their notions about their gods’ omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence. If you weren’t so scared of finding out you’re wrong, you could learn this stuff by, you know, just asking them how they actually imagine their gods. It’s a far more reliable way to get to the truth of the matter than your current method of pulling guesses out of your ass. It’d also save you the embarrassment and desperation you get from dishonestly trying to defend a “proof” you made up that only applies to a god you made up.

    • Max Doubt

      “If all premises of an argument are true and the logic is sound…”

      Truth and logic require honesty to develop valid conclusions. The claim that gods do exist cannot be defended with honesty, hence no honest argument can be made against one’s existence. Because god believers are not honest, this premise…

      “1. If God created the universe, then there wouldn’t be any bone cancer in children.”

      … becomes an unfounded assumption. Even for people whose notion of a god supposedly includes the characteristics of omnipotence and omni-benevolence, there’s that free pass thing, the omni-do-shit-we-can’t-possibly-understand trait. Yes, their gods are also omni-capricious. There are no arguments against the existence of a god whose primary defining characteristic, possibly its only consistently attributed characteristic, is its existence.

      • Gary Whittenberger

        Honesty from both sides is a prerequisite for a rational civil discussion.

        Premise #1 is not unfounded. It is founded. My answer to your objection is the same as above: “Wouldn’t God have the intelligence and power to make us smart enough to understand any reason he might present for creating bone cancer in children?”

        I don’t think you have refuted my argument, but I am willing to listen to all objections to it.

        • Max Doubt

          “Honesty from both sides is a prerequisite for a rational civil discussion.”

          The claim that a god exists cannot be defended with honesty.

          “Premise #1 is not unfounded. It is founded.”

          Your premise only applies to your very own individual god which possesses your personally defined set of characteristics. So although your premise may be founded in one and exactly one instance, when you speak of gods in general, or the gods you imagine other people believe exist, your argument is irrelevant.

          “My answer to your objection is the same as above: “Wouldn’t God have the intelligence and power to make us smart enough to understand any reason he might present for creating bone cancer in children?””

          Your god may be restricted by your definition of its abilities vs its limits. Other people’s gods? Not so much.

          “I don’t think you have refuted my argument, but I am willing to listen to all objections to it.”

          You don’t get to define other people’s gods. Your argument, as it is, is about a god that is as personal to you as the next fellow’s is to him. Outside your own imagination your argument fails because everyone else gets to attribute or deny whatever characteristics they choose to their own gods, including and beyond the ability to make a rock so heavy even he/she/it can’t lift it. Their gods are not your god.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          MD1: Your premise only applies to your very own individual god which possesses your personally defined set of characteristics. So although your premise may be founded in one and exactly one instance, when you speak of gods in general, or the gods you imagine other people believe exist, your argument is irrelevant.

          GW1: I disagree with you on all counts here. I don’t have my “very own individual god.” I am an atheist! I use a definition of “God” with which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree. My argument does not speak of “gods in general,” only of one prominent god. However, the argument can be tweaked to apply to other gods.

          MD1: Your god may be restricted by your definition of its abilities vs its limits. Other people’s gods? Not so much.

          GW1: See my comments above. The god I am addressing is believed in by at least 4 billion people!

          MD1: You don’t get to define other people’s gods.

          GW1: What do you mean by I “don’t get to”? I get to concisely summarize other peoples’ concept of the god they believe in, specifically “God.” I am using a definition of God acceptable to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

          MD1: Your argument, as it is, is about a god that is as personal to you as the next fellow’s is to him. Outside your own imagination your argument fails because everyone else gets to attribute or deny whatever characteristics they choose to their own gods, including and beyond the ability to make a rock so heavy even he/she/it can’t lift it. Their gods are not your god.

          GW1: What are you talking about? I am an atheist and I am an investigator and scholar of religion.

        • Max Doubt

          “GW1: I disagree with you on all counts here. I don’t have my “very own individual god.” I am an atheist! I use a definition of “God” with which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree. My argument does not speak of “gods in general,” only of one prominent god. However, the argument can be tweaked to apply to other gods.”

          You’ve invented a god that you believe can’t exist according to your definition and your “reasoning”. The gods other people imagine are not limited by your criteria, and you’re being dishonest to insist they are or should be.

          “GW1: See my comments above. The god I am addressing is believed in by at least 4 billion people!”

          If those people believe their god can be omnipotent, omni-benevolent, and kill kids with cancer, then it isn’t the god you’re addressing. You have created your own version of a god that you can defeat by attributing it with certain characteristics then showing how those characteristics aren’t compatible according to what you imagine. That’s called a straw man, a dishonest argument strategy.

          “GW1: What do you mean by I “don’t get to”? I get to concisely summarize other peoples’ concept of the god they believe in, specifically “God.” I am using a definition of God acceptable to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims.”

          I mean exactly what I wrote. You do not get to define the characteristics of other people’s gods. The gods you imagine are yours. The gods other people imagine are theirs. It doesn’t matter how you summarize them. If other people believe their gods can give children cancer all the while being omni-benevolent, the you are flat out, unequivocally wrong in your summary.

          “GW1: What are you talking about? I am an atheist and I am an investigator and scholar of religion.”

          Then you’re a shitty scholar. You’re dishonest and your alleged investigation neglects reality.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          “GW1: I disagree with you on all counts here. I don’t have my “very own individual god.” I am an atheist! I use a definition of “God” with which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree. My argument does not speak of “gods in general,” only of one prominent god. However, the argument can be tweaked to apply to other gods.”-

          MD2: You’ve invented a god that you believe can’t exist according to your definition and your “reasoning”. The gods other people imagine are not limited by your criteria, and you’re being dishonest to insist they are or should be.

          GW2: I haven’t invented any gods, but other people have. We must use a definition of “God” acceptable to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and then see where that leads. I am being honest.

          -“GW1: See my comments above. The god I am addressing is believed in by at least 4 billion people!”-

          MD2: If those people believe their god can be omnipotent, omni-benevolent, and kill kids with cancer, then it isn’t the god you’re addressing. You have created your own version of a god that you can defeat by attributing it with certain characteristics then showing how those characteristics aren’t compatible according to what you imagine. That’s called a straw man, a dishonest argument strategy.

          GW2: I disagree. I am using their definition of God and showing where that leads. They may have an intuition that it is possible for a triple-O god to create bone cancer in children, and I am trying to show them that their intuition is mistaken. My argument is a concrete man, not a straw man.

          -“GW1: What do you mean by I “don’t get to”? I get to concisely summarize other peoples’ concept of the god they believe in, specifically “God.” I am using a definition of God acceptable to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims.”-

          MD2: I mean exactly what I wrote. You do not get to define the characteristics of other people’s gods.

          GW2: And I mean exactly what I wrote. I get to use a definition of “God” which refers to a god which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in. Apparently I “get to” because I have done it!

          MD2: The gods you imagine are yours. The gods other people imagine are theirs. It doesn’t matter how you summarize them. If other people believe their gods can give children cancer all the while being omni-benevolent, the you are flat out, unequivocally wrong in your summar y.

          GW2: If other people believe that a triple-O god can create bone cancer in children, then they are simply mistaken. Do you think one can? If so, then rationally demonstrate that. My summary is flat out unequivocally correct.

          -“GW1: What are you talking about? I am an atheist and I am an investigator and scholar of religion.”-

          MD2: Then you’re a shitty scholar. You’re dishonest and your investigation neglects reality.

          GW2: Now you are just making an ad hominem attack. Try to stick to the argument.

        • Max Doubt

          “GW2: I haven’t invented any gods, but other people have.”

          Sure you have. You’ve invented a god that can’t exist according to your own criteria.

          “We must use a definition of “God” acceptable to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and then see where that leads.”

          Let’s. Their gods by their reckoning are omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omniscient, and they exist.

          “I am being honest.”

          Not as long as you keep trying to redefine other people’s gods, you’re not.

          “GW2: I disagree. I am using their definition of God and showing where that leads.”

          Their definition of gods include existence without regard to Gary’s foot stomping.

          “They may have an intuition that it is possible for a triple-O god to create bone cancer in children, and I am trying to show them that their intuition is mistaken. My argument is a concrete man, not a straw man.”

          You’ve constructed a god that you can defeat into non-existence by playing one set of characteristics against another and declaring that you’ve kicked its ass out of existence. That is definitively a straw man. Your god is every bit as much a figment of your imagination as theirs. But it is your very own.

          “GW2: And I mean exactly what I wrote. I get to use a definition of “God” which refers to a god which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in.”

          But you aren’t. Their definition of gods includes the trait of existence contrary to your ever increasingly whiny demand that they don’t. The god you’ve invented is not the god they believe exists. You’re a liar.

          “GW2: Now you are just making an ad hominem attack. Try to stick to the argument.”

          I’m not saying your argument fails because you’re a shitty scholar. That would be an ad hominem. I’m saying your shitty use of shitty logic to try to change what exists only in other people’s imaginations demonstrates that you’re a shitty scholar. You’ve provided your very own objective evidence to support that, and plenty of it I might add.

          So as far as your fucked up argument? I’ve been sticking to it. You’re fighting against your own made-up god. Sure you’re proud; you whipped it good. You pulled it out of your ass, smacked it around with a little crappy circular argument, and declared victory. Those Jews, Christians, and Muslims? Their gods still exist just as they did before you started. You. Are. A. Failure.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          GW2: I haven’t invented any gods, but other people have.

          MD3: Sure you have. You’ve invented a god that can’t exist according to your own criteria.

          GW3: Nope. Other people have invented a god that can’t exist. I’m an atheist. I examine other peoples’ inventions of gods.

          GW2: We must use a definition of “God” acceptable to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and then see where that leads.

          MD3: Let’s. Their gods by their reckoning are omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omniscient, and they exist.

          GW3: The triple-O is part of their definition, but existence is not. The hypothesis is that God exists, and that’s why we say “If God exists…” in the first premise. Neither you nor they can beg the question.

          GW2: I am being honest.

          MD3: Not as long as you keep trying to redefine other people’s gods, you’re not.

          GW3: I’m not trying to “redefine” other peoples’ gods. I am summarizing their own definition of “God,” and doing so honestly. Present a definition of “God” which you believe is common to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and then we can compare definitions.

          GW2: I disagree. I am using their definition of God and showing where that leads.

          MD3: Their definition of gods include existence without regard to Gary’s foot stomping.

          GW3: You are still confusing a definition with a hypothesis. They are not the same thing, regardless of your foot stomping.

          GW2: They may have an intuition that it is possible for a triple-O god to create bone cancer in children, and I am trying to show them that their intuition is mistaken. My argument is a concrete man, not a straw man.

          MD3: You’ve constructed a god that you can defeat into non-existence by playing one set of characteristics against another and declaring that you’ve kicked its ass out of existence. That is definitively a straw man. Your god is every bit as much a figment of your imagination as theirs. But it is your very own.

          GW3: I disagree. I am using their definition and showing how the implications contradict reality. My argument is a concrete man, not a straw man.

          GW2: And I mean exactly what I wrote. I get to use a definition of “God” which refers to a god which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in.

          MD3: But you aren’t. Their definition of gods includes the trait of existence contrary to your ever increasingly whiny demand that they don’t. The god you’ve invented is not the god they believe exists. You’re a liar.

          GW3: Existence is not a trait. You and they can’t assume that something exists from the outset; that would be begging the question. I am using their definition of “God” which includes triple-O. Your insults won’t magically change that. So far, none of your objections refute my argument. You must know this because you are arguing from emotion and using insults more and more as we continue. If this were a formal debate, by now you’d be disqualified. Maybe Bob should give you a first warning. Bob, are you reading the insults of Max Doubt?

    • I’m talking about irrefutable proof. The Christian would obviously object to your premise 1 by saying that God could have his reasons that you and I are just too stupid to understand.

      • Gary Whittenberger

        I think I have presented you with an irrefutable proof. If you think it is refutable, please try to refute it and we’ll see.

        To your Christian I would reply “Please present one reason God could have for creating bone cancer in children and we can discuss it.” and/or “Wouldn’t God have the intelligence and power to make us smart enough to understand any reason he might present for creating bone cancer in children?”

        • Lark62

          I refute your irrefutable proof.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Let’s hear your alleged refutation.

        • We seem to have different definitions of “proof.” The Christian would demand that you prove that there are absolutely no possible good reasons that God could have for the bad things in our world.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I have presented a “proof” in the classic philosophical sense — a set of premises leading to a conclusion. I claim that the premises are true and the logic is valid, and therefore the conclusion is true. If anyone thinks otherwise, then step forward and make specific objections, and I will do my best to address them.

          Bob, you are setting up a straw man for the Christian to knock down. My argument does not refer to “the bad things in our world.” My argument refers to bone cancer in children. I am not suggesting that it can necessarily be generalized to all bad things.

          I have given a rational demonstration of all my premises which you can read in my many posts on this thread. So, my response to your hypothetical Christian would be “Present one possible good reason which God could have for creating (or even allowing) bone cancer in children, and then we can discuss it.” You are welcome to answer this challenge too.

        • Greg G.

          I think the objections come from using “God” because there are so many concepts. Your proof works against a benevolent omnipotence, which is most Christians’ favorite idea of God, so just claiming you disprove the BO is enough.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Yes, my argument falsifies the claim “God exists” as God is imagined by about 4 billion people. I think that is a good start.

        • But where did this “premises” come from? Anyone can make up a biased premise and present an imaginary conclusion. Which is all that you are doing.

          None of which is logical or truthful. Or scientific in methodology either.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Once again, if the premises are true and the logic is valid in a formal argument, then the conclusion is true. This is the case with my argument.

          Since the ancient Greeks, arguments of this form have been shown to be logically valid:
          1. If G, then C.
          2. Not C.
          3. Therefore, not G.

          My second premise, i.e. that bone cancer in children exists, is true. You can tell by observation.

          The only vulnerable premise is the first one. I have shown why it is true and nobody so far as come up with a successful refutation. So for now I’m standing by my argument.

        • Gary, Gary, Gary.
          “IF” the premises are true. That IF is a very big word.
          You can make anything up, and pretend that it’s true.

          And your first premise is not even close to being true, so there goes the conclusion!

          You do realize that your “argument” doesn’t even make sense?

        • Gary Whittenberger

          My first premise is true and I have rationally demonstrated why. If you think that the first premise is false, then rationally demonstrate that it is false. So far, I haven’t seen any good objections. My argument makes excellent sense!

          I challenge you to do this: Rationally show how the existence of a triple-O creator god would be compatible with the existence of bone cancer in children. So far, nobody has been able to do this.

        • How is your first premise true? Prove it.

          My premise is that God did NOT make bone cancer.
          Therefore he must exist.

          See? Prove MY premise wrong.
          You can’t.
          All we have is a difference of OPINION on both sides, neither of which can be proven scientifically. Back to square one.
          See how futile this is?

        • I’d like your position to be correct, but I don’t see it. What is your proof that there are not and can not be reasons that God could have to cause childhood leukemia?

          One possible reason God could have is that suffering children builds compassion in those of us who remain after the child’s painful death, but it’s not my job to show God’s plausible reasons. Rather, it’s your job to prove that God could have none.

          Imagine telling a joke to a lizard. It won’t work because the intelligence gap is far too great—not just for English understanding but also for humor. Imagine this gap (or one a billion times larger if you’d prefer) between us and God. He might not even bother trying to explain it (if he existed, and if he cared to communicate) since we wouldn’t get it.

          my response to your hypothetical Christian would be “Present one possible good reason which God could have for creating (or even allowing) bone cancer in children, and then we can discuss it.”

          Not his job.

        • Interesting. Good analogies.

          But I don’t see the point in asking someone to try to ascertain God’s reason for allowing bone cancer.

          Especially after reading your analogy of the gap between God’s knowledge and intelligence and our own. It’s true. So how on earth could a human being even begin to understand God’s designs or reasons for anything? We can’t.
          Like telling a joke to a lizard. God trying to explain his reasons to us. If we were even capable of understanding.

        • I agree. Gary claims to have the proof, so it’s his burden to prove that God couldn’t have a plausible reason for allowing childhood leukemia.

          Of course, I’d love for Gary to be right, but I don’t think his argument holds up (at least under a strict definition of “proof”).

        • Gary Whittenberger

          If God did exist, a human being could fully understand any good reason which God might have for creating bone cancer in children because God COULD and WOULD enable us to understand. That’s what a moral person would do.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          BS1: I’d like your position to be correct, but I don’t see it.

          GW1: Well you are in luck because my position is correct and I am confident that you will see it, given sufficient discussion.

          BS1: What is your proof that there are not and can not be reasons that God could have to cause childhood leukemia?

          GW1: I presented this elsewhere on this thread, but I will try to summarize it here. Because God would be omnipotent, he could produce any benefit which anyone believes is contingent on bone cancer in children without creating bone cancer in children itself.

          BS1: One possible reason God could have is that suffering children builds compassion in those of us who remain after the child’s painful death, but it’s not my job to show God’s plausible reasons. Rather, it’s your job to prove that God could have none.

          GW1: Bob, I don’t agree. That could not be a possible reason because a moral person would not deliberately cause severe suffering in some other persons so that third parties can thereby feel joy, when this is totally unnecessary. You wouldn’t do that, would you? I don’t think so. I wouldn’t either. Because I have already shown why God could not have good reasons for creating bone cancer in children, now the burden of proof shifts to those who claim that he could have a good reason. When I ask for one, most people do not present one. Also, if God exists and had good reasons for creating bone cancer in children, he would have already presented them to us. That’s what a moral person would do. In the end, I think it boils down to what is correct universal morality.

          BS1: Imagine telling a joke to a lizard. It won’t work because the intelligence gap is far too great-not just for English understanding but also for humor. Imagine this gap (or one a billion times larger if you’d prefer) between us and God. He might not even bother trying to explain it (if he existed, and if he cared to communicate) since we wouldn’t get it.

          GW1: I don’t think that works either. If God existed, he would be omnipotent and so enabling us to understand any good reason he might have had for creating bone cancer in children would be easy for him. Not only could he do it, he WOULD do it! Why? Because he would be perfectly moral all the time.

          GW: my response to your hypothetical Christian would be “Present one possible good reason which God could have for creating (or even allowing) bone cancer in children, and then we can discuss it.”

          BS1: Not his job.

          GW1: Yes, it is his job! He claims there COULD be a good reason for God creating bone cancer in children. In fact, he claims something even stronger – there IS a good reason for God creating bone cancer in children (since he already assumes God created all things, including bone cancer in children). So, Christian, if there is a good reason, present it. He might say “But I don’t know what it is.” And my reply is “You, I, and all humans would know what it is if God existed because he would have already told us!” If God existed, unlike Michael Flynn, he would not plead the Fifth.

          GW1: Bob, I really appreciate your civil challenges to my argument. Unfortunately, the person going by the name “Max Doubt” is sometimes not being civil in his challenges. He is being insulting from time to time. Look closely at his posts and you will see what I mean. I suggest that you give him a warning.

        • You’ve largely convinced me.

          Because God would be omnipotent, he could produce any benefit which anyone believes is contingent on bone cancer in children without creating bone cancer in children itself.

          That’s a good point. Greg G. has brought this up before, now that you remind me of it.

          Because I have already shown why God could not have good reasons for creating bone cancer in children, now the burden of proof shifts to those who claim that he could have a good reason.

          I’ll accept that.

          if God exists and had good reasons for creating bone cancer in children, he would have already presented them to us. That’s what a moral person would do. In the end, I think it boils down to what is correct universal morality.

          This is a tangent off your main argument. I don’t see why we can know for certain that, just because you and I would make clear our reasons, God would never have reason to do otherwise.

          If God existed, he would be omnipotent and so enabling us to understand any good reason he might have had for creating bone cancer in children would be easy for him. Not only could he do it, he WOULD do it! Why? Because he would be perfectly moral all the time.

          My objection here is similar to the last point. God being omniscient doesn’t mean that we are. He would be able to give us the best (simplest) possible explanation for all issues, but not all of such best-possible explanations are understandable by our limited minds.

          BS1: Not his job.
          GW1: Yes, it is his job! He claims there COULD be a good reason for God creating bone cancer in children. In fact, he claims something even stronger – there IS a good reason for God creating bone cancer in children (since he already assumes God created all things, including bone cancer in children). So, Christian, if there is a good reason, present it.

          Good point.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Bob: This is a tangent off your main argument. I don’t see why we can know for certain that, just because you and I would make clear our reasons, God would never have reason to do otherwise.

          GW: I assert this moral principle: If person X causes harm to person Y and has a good reason for doing so, then it is morally obligatory for X to disclose the reason to Y, if he is able to disclose it. If a creator god exists who has created bone cancer in children for some alleged good reason, then this god is morally obliged to disclose the reason to the afflicted children and their parents. This comes from a rule utilitarian moral system which we need not discuss right now.

          Bob: My objection here is similar to the last point. God being omniscient doesn’t mean that we are. He would be able to give us the best (simplest) possible explanation for all issues, but not all of such best-possible explanations are understandable by our limited minds.

          GW: All explanations given by God would be understandable to us all the time because of God’s omnipotence, if he existed. If necessary, he would enhance our brains to enable understanding.

        • If person X causes harm to person Y and has a good reason for doing so, then it is morally obligatory for X to disclose the reason to Y, if he is able to disclose it.

          But now we’re back to my original complaint: you must prove that an omni-3 god would have this moral obligation. I agree that you and I would do so, but we’re not a billion times smarter, like God is.

          GW: All explanations given by God would be understandable to us all the time because of God’s omnipotence, if he existed. If necessary, he would enhance our brains to enable understanding.

          I don’t see this. Back to the problem of having a lizard get a joke: there simply is no way to explain humor to a creature that doesn’t understand humor.

          You might say that this is disanalogous because we do understand morality (a little, anyway), and that’s the domain that God is acting in when he gives leukemia for a good reason. But if that’s your complaint, then we can find some other example—teaching calculus to a chimp, say. Chimps are kind of smart, just not smart enough to understand calculus. Or poetry. Or non-everyday physics.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Bob: But now we’re back to my original complaint: you must prove that an omni-3 god would have this moral obligation. I agree that you and I would do so, but we’re not a billion times smarter, like God is.

          GW: A person of great intelligence, like a person of great power (“might” as you referred to it) is not exempted from correct universal morality. He has the same moral obligations we do. He who would say otherwise is engaged in “special pleading.” Also, one of the three “omni”s is omnimoral.

          GW: The development, implementation, and promulgation of correct universal morality is actually a more important project than the inquiry into the existence of God, in my opinion. But since we already have a good outline for it, we can use it to show that God does not exist.

          Bob: I don’t see this [why we would understand God’s explanations]. Back to the problem of having a lizard get a joke: there simply is no way to explain humor to a creature that doesn’t understand humor.

          GW: If we had enough intelligence and power, then we could enhance the lizard’s intelligence just enough so that it could understand some joke or explanation we gave it. If God existed, by being omnipotent he could do the same thing with us.

          Bob: You might say that this is disanalogous because we do understand morality (a little, anyway), and that’s the domain that God is acting in when he gives leukemia for a good reason. But if that’s your complaint, then we can find some other example—teaching calculus to a chimp, say. Chimps are kind of smart, just not smart enough to understand calculus. Or poetry. Or non-everyday physics.

          GW: We are not omnipotent, but if God existed, then he would be omnipotent. And thus, he could communicate so effectively and could enhance our brain power so much that we could understand any good reason he might give us for creating bone cancer in children. I really don’t see the problem with this. Omnipotence means the ability to do anything not logically impossible. It is not logically impossible to increase the intelligence of a species by some degree X.

        • A person of great intelligence, like a person of great power (“might” as you referred to it) is not exempted from correct universal morality. He has the same moral obligations we do.

          That’s fine, but what is “correct universal morality”? Apparently, you say that it includes being transparent about actions that will cause harm. But how to prove that that’s correct universal morality?

          Also, one of the three “omni”s is omnimoral.

          Right. Also undefined.

          If we had enough intelligence and power, then we could enhance the lizard’s intelligence just enough so that it could understand some joke or explanation we gave it. If God existed, by being omnipotent he could do the same thing with us.

          OK. The lizard isn’t a lizard anymore, but I see how that would work.

        • Actually, the Christian would not demand this kind of “proof.” Ever hear of Job? Case closed.

        • That’s a good point. The lesson of Job is that God can do whatever the hell he wants to. Might makes right.

        • Um, no. Not quite the point of Job. But to each his own, I guess.

        • Then tell me your interpretation.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m not fond of Job. The idea of killing people to win a bet is something that only a mafia boss or a god would do and is something I find abhorrent. But the part I find annoying is after Job wins the bet for Yahweh, he and Yahweh have a discussion. Job asks one of the most important questions in Judeo-Christian theology, if Yahweh is a loving god then why is there evil in the world? Considering what Job went through it’s reasonable that he be given a good answer. Instead Ol’ Yahweh blows him off with a long-winded sneer: “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.” Job 38:4 (NIV) and in a similar vein for the rest of the chapter.

          Most Biblical scholars (all of the non-literalist ones) think that Job is fiction. But it certainly shows Yahweh to be an asshole.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Basically God is depicted here as claiming that morality does not apply to him. But if God did exist, he would not make such a claim. Instead, he would have devised, implemented, and followed correct universal morality which would have been incompatible with allowing Satan to cause horrendous suffering to Job.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          But if God did exist, he would not behave in the way described in Job and he would not agree that “might makes right.” He would know that right is something independent of might.

        • Well, a god could indeed exist who was just a much-more-powerful version of a small-minded king of that time period.

          The omni-everything God that Christians imagine today, however, would fail your test.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Yes, the triple-O god, i.e. God, imagined by the Jews, Christians, and Muslims today is incompatible with the existence of bone cancer in children. Therefore, it does not exist.

        • TheNuszAbides

          You must not be terribly familiar with Jewish faith if you think they follow the triple-O interpretation. And they aren’t important to the populum aspect of your contention anyway.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I disagree with you. I believe that most Jews do accept the triple-O interpretation. Of course, you will find some that do not.

        • TheNuszAbides

          You’re welcome to provide clinching quotes from scripture or thought-leaders, since you’re the one attempting to defend a thesis here.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I offer the proof whether Christians demand it or not. They are now stuck with it.

          If God did exist, he would not behave the way in which he is described in the book of Job. The author of Job doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

          Would God make a wager with Satan? No, I don’t think so.

        • Obviously you’ve never heard of Job.

          Gary, stick to things you know about. K?

        • I’m pretty sure Gary just mentioned Job.

          Yes, God wagered with Satan. What a dick, huh? Job’s life is trashed just so God could prove a point.

        • I’m pretty sure I mentioned Job. Not Gary.

          And God did not “wager” with satan at all. God and satan are not “buddies.”

          And such a childish and shallow interpretation! You entirely miss the point of Job.

          satan insists that the only reason for Job’s faith was self serving, and that if God removed Job’s blessings that Job would turn on God.

          There is a very important lesson here.

          satan was proven totally helpless and without power to shake Job’s faith. It was actually Job that beat the devil and proved he actually had more power. Job ended up teaching satan a lesson.

          Job perseveres, continues to worship God even when he questions him in his suffering.

          Job never forgets that this is a temporary life on this earth, he never loses sight of eternity.

          And he is greatly rewarded in the end. On earth and for eternity.

          Or I guess we could just go with our in-depth, brilliant analysis and just say God was a dick for playing with Job’s life.

          That’s just your choice.

          We all have choices.

        • And God did not “wager” with satan at all. God and satan are not “buddies.”

          I think someone needs to go back and read Job.

          At this point in the evolution of the religion, Satan was God’s prosecuting attorney. He was very much on God’s side. Satan as an evil person opposed to God was a development 1000 or more years later.

          You pretty much missed the point. satan insists that the only reason for Job’s faith was self serving, and that if God removed Job’s blessings that Job would turn on God.

          You pretty much missed the point. We learn that God can do whatever the hell he wants. Job has a complaint? Job doesn’t like how God is handling things? After he’s created a universe, God tells him, then he can share his complaints with God.

          Job never forgets that this is a temporary life on this earth, he never loses sight of eternity.

          No? Share with us what “eternity” is according to Job.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          “There is a very important lesson here.”

          Yes, and the lesson is that if God existed, he would not behave immorally as it is depicted in the book of Job. So, either God does not exist or the author of the book of Job is mistaken. Which is it? The answer is that God does not exist, as my argument has shown.

        • How did God behave immorally? That is YOUR opinion.
          You completely miss the entire point of Job.

          In your mind, God does not exist. And you are entitled to your OPINION.

          But it is far from proven fact.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          You need to re-read the book of Job. Obviously, you have forgotten about some key elements.

        • Max Doubt

          “I think I have presented you with an irrefutable proof. If you think it is refutable, please try to refute it and we’ll see.”

          Yeah, yeah. Gary has defined a god that can’t exist according to the characteristics which Gary has attributed to his god, therefore Gary’s god can’t exist. It’s a simple circular argument, and it’s dishonest. Outside your own imagination your argument fails utterly and completely. Your argument is refuted once you try to apply it to other people’s imaginations because their gods are not bound by the traits Gary has given to Gary’s god.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          MD: Yeah, yeah. Gary has defined a god that can’t exist according to the characteristics which Gary has attributed to his god, therefore Gary’s god can’t exist.

          GW: No, no, Max. Gary has used a definition of “God” agreeable to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and shown how that god couldn’t exist, given that bone cancer in children does exist.

          MD: It’s a simple circular argument, and it’s dishonest.

          GW: It is not circular and it is not dishonest. You have shown neither of those claims to be true.

          MD: Outside your own imagination, however, your argument fails utterly and completely.

          GW: My argument succeeds completely. You have not refuted it.

          MD: Your argument is refuted once you try to apply it to other people’s imaginations because their gods are not bound by the traits Gary has given to Gary’s god.

          GW: Gary has no god. I am an atheist. I just use other peoples’ definitions of their own gods.

        • Max Doubt

          “GW: No, no, Max. Gary has used a definition of “God” agreeable to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims,…”

          The definition they almost universally agree on is their gods necessarily include the attribute of existence without regard to any allegedly logical argument you might make. Quite simply, by their definition, their gods exist. So it is untrue that you’re using a definition they all agree on. Go with it again and you’ll have moved from just being a misguided mistaken arm chair philosopher to being a liar.

          “… and shown how that god couldn’t exist, given that bone cancer in children does exist.”

          You cannot show that their gods don’t exist when one of the criterion, one of the primary defining characteristics their gods possess – regardless of your continued dishonest bleating – is existence. You. Have. Failed.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          GW: No, no, Max. Gary has used a definition of “God” agreeable to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims,…”-

          MD: The definition they almost universally agree on is their gods necessarily include the attribute of existence without regard to any allegedly logical argument you might make. Quite simply, by their definition, their gods exist. So it is untrue that you’re using a definition they all agree on. Go with it again and you’ll have moved from just being a misguided mistaken arm chair philosopher to being a liar.

          GW: Existence is an attribute? St. Anselm might have thought so, but that idea has been largely debunked. The hypothesis is that God, defined in a particular way, exists. I didn’t say “they all agree on” the definition I am using. I said most of them do. When your objections don’t work, you start to use ad hominem attacks. That is worthless and uncooperative. Try to stay on topic.

          GW: -“… and shown how that god couldn’t exist, given that bone cancer in children does exist.”-

          MD: You cannot show that their gods don’t exist when one of the criterion, one of the primary defining characteristics their gods possess – regardless of your continued dishonest bleating – is existence. You. Have. Failed.

          GW: I already answered this above. However, you keep using the term “god” which I am not using, and so you are setting up a straw man argument. My argument is sound. If you think not, then show how it isn’t.

        • Max Doubt

          “GW: Existence is an attribute?”

          Yes. If something has the attribute of existence it is said to exist. Something that does not have the attribute of existence doesn’t exist. If that’s too difficult to wrap your head around, substitute a synonym like property or characteristic.

          “St. Anselm might have thought so, but that idea has been largely debunked. The hypothesis is that God, defined in a particular way, exists. I didn’t say “they all agree on” the definition I am using. I said most of them do.”

          I’d say you’ve created a definition that you find easy to debunk, so you’re sticking to it like glue. But the definition you’re using only applies to the god(s) you’ve manufactured in your head. Most of those god believers in your argument would at the very least add some criteria to their definition that makes it glaringly different from – and objectively contradictory to – the one you’re trying to foist upon them.

          “When your objections don’t work, you start to use ad hominem attacks. That is worthless and uncooperative. Try to stay on topic.”

          When you lie and people call you out on it, that’s not an ad hominem. It’s a criticism of your shitty way of treating the other people in the discussion. So knock it off and you won’t be subject to that particular criticism.

          On topic, you’re using a circular argument to defend a straw man. Both are dishonest.

          “GW: I already answered this above. However, you keep using the term “god” which I am not using, and so you are setting up a straw man argument.”

          No. You’re trying to attribute Christians, Jew, and Muslims with a definition of a god that you created. You defined it for your purpose, not in a way that is in agreement with the god they believe exists.

          “My argument is sound. If you think not, then show how it isn’t.”

          I have. You argue that some particular criteria of a god you designed irrefutably demonstrates that some other people’s gods don’t exist. You built your god specifically to be defeated by the argument you offer. I agree that you’ve sufficiently kicked its ass. What you have not done is demonstrate that the gods of the Christians or Jews or Muslims don’t exist. Their gods have something that flushes your “irrefutable” logic down the shitter. Their gods aren’t subject to the rules of existence you’ve made up for your god.

        • I have to agree with you here. But Gary will not let go of his imaginary “god” as he has no other way to prove his argument.

          Because there isn’t one.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I haven’t imagined a god. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have.

          The premises are true, the logic is valid, and thus the conclusion is also true.

        • wow. I think you better leave this type of logic up to the Greeks, Gary. Because you are very, very bad at it.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I am excellent at it. This is valid logic, according to the ancient Greeks and modern logicians.

          1. If G, then not C.
          2. C.
          3. Therefore, not G.

        • Gary, I can prove the existence of the man on the moon with this loose “logic.”

          I can also prove creation with this logic.

          I can prove anything ridiculous thing I want with this logic.

          Really, I think you need to leave this to the ancient Greeks. Stick to reality.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          GW1: Existence is an attribute?

          MD2: Yes. If something has the attribute of existence it is said to exist. Something that does not have the attribute of existence doesn’t exist. If that’s too difficult to wrap your head around, substitute a synonym like property or characteristic.

          GW2: I don’t think existence is an attribute, and I think most philosophers would agree with me and disagree with you. However, if it were an attribute it wouldn’t be an attribute in the same way that omnipotence is an attribute. My argument treats the existence of God as a hypothetical in the first premise. This is standard. You can’t beg the question.

          GW1: St. Anselm might have thought so, but that idea has been largely debunked. The hypothesis is that God, defined in a particular way, exists. I didn’t say “they all agree on” the definition I am using. I said most of them do.”-

          MD2: I’d say you’ve created a definition that you find easy to debunk, so you’re sticking to it like glue. But the definition you’re using only applies to the god(s) you’ve manufactured in your head. Most of those god believers in your argument would at the very least add some criteria to their definition that makes it glaringly different from – and objectively contradictory to – the one you’re trying to foist upon them.

          GW2: Please present a minimal definition of “God” which you think most people of the Abrahamic religions agree with.

          GW1: When your objections don’t work, you start to use ad hominem attacks. That is worthless and uncooperative. Try to stay on topic.

          MD2: When you lie and people call you out on it, that’s not an ad hominem. It’s a criticism of your shitty way of treating the other people in the discussion. So knock it off and you won’t be subject to that particular criticism.

          GW2: Your insults are not counter arguments. They are just insults. Try to focus on the argument rather than on me.

          MD2: On topic, you’re using a circular argument to defend a straw man. Both are dishonest.

          GW2: No, I’m neither using a circular argument nor a straw man argument. But even if I were, this would not necessarily be dishonest. Try to focus on the argument rather than me.

          GW1: I already answered this above. However, you keep using the term “god” which I am not using, and so you are setting up a straw man argument.”-

          MD2: No. You’re trying to attribute Christians, Jew, and Muslims with a definition of a god that you created. You defined it for your purpose, not in a way that is in agreement with the god they believe exists.

          GW2: Please present what you believe is a minimal definition of “God” which would be agreeable to most Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and we’ll go from there.

          GW1: My argument is sound. If you think not, then show how it isn’t.

          MD2: I have.

          GW2: Nope, you haven’t. But you are welcome to keep trying. What definition of “God” would most Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree to?

        • Max Doubt

          “Nope, you haven’t. But you are welcome to keep trying. What definition of “God” would most Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree to?”

          No two Muslims, Christians, or Jews imagine the same god, but the gods they do imagine almost universally have the property of existence.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Existence isn’t a property. What properties does God have, according to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims?

        • epeeist

          Actually according to Kant existence is not a predicate. An object can have the property of redness or hotness for example but not the property of existence (or non-existence).

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Yes, I agree with you and Kant on this point. Well put.

        • POSTED: GW: No, no, Max. Gary has used a definition of “God” agreeable to most Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and shown how that god couldn’t exist, given that bone cancer in children does exist.
          ____________________________

          Actually, you have not used a definition of God that is agreeable to most Jews, Christians and muslims.
          First of all, while the God of the Jews and Christians is the same God, the “God” of the muslims (allah) ic completely different, and has no truly similar characteristics.

          I didn’t actually even see any definition of God in your posts.

          You truly did just make up your own “definition” of God. And it’s false.

          You basically refuted your own argument.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          No, you are mistaken. The god of the Muslims is not “completely different.” The triple-O traits in God are assumed in all three religions. The alleged founder of all three religions was Abraham. A basic concept of God has continued through all three religions. Islam was built on the back of Christianity which was built on the back of Judaism.

          What definition of “God” do you think underlies all three Abrahamic religions? Does it not include the triple-O traits?

        • Gary Gary Gary! Again, wow. unreal.

          They are all called “Abrahamic” because all people can trace their lineage back to Abraham.

          But that is where the similarities end. The Christians and Jews descend from Isaac, the muslims from Ishmael.

          And while the Torah/Bible was written by at least 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years, the qu’ran was written only by muhammad during his lifetime.

          BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG difference. Only the Christian and Jewish Bibles have the same authors. Islam is COMPLETELY different, and no where near as ancient.

          And the Trinity is only accepted in Judiasm and Christianity. The muslims consider it blasphemy because they don’t understand it. They also don’t even accept Jesus as the Son of God, nor do they understand the Christian/Judaic concept of God as a loving father. This is totally alien to them. There is just no comparison at all.

          Where do you get your sorry lack of accurate “information” from? Your ignorance is really on display here.

          History is history. It’s either true or not. You REALLY need to do a lot of research. Stay FAR away from wiki and atheist sites, too, if you want any accurate info about any religion.

          Gary Gary Gary. I’m really disappointed in you.

        • The muslims consider it blasphemy because they don’t understand it.

          But you do understand the Trinity? I’d heard it was a mystery.

          Explain it to us then.

        • You “hear” that it’s a mystery? 🙂 And I thought that you were a Bible expert.

          Are you really the least bit interested in Biblical Theology?

          Or are you just trolling?

        • Maybe you’re new to Christianity. If so, let me clue you in: you can make the Bible say just about anything. And you can find “Christians” who will declare just about anything.

          Some say that the Trinity is a mystery, and some don’t.

          Clearer now?

        • No. Maybe you’re new to the Bible and Christianity.

          You cannot make the Bible say whatever you want, as it is very specific and clear. Such as the 10 commandments, for example. There is one, and only one way to interpret them.

          You can misquote and misinterpret the Bible, but that does not change the Bible.

          Clearer now?

        • Well, you could be right. You might be the expert and I’m the novice. Let’s test that idea.

          You cannot make the Bible say whatever you want, as it is very specific and clear. Such as the 10 commandments, for example. There is one, and only one way to interpret them.

          Quiz: how many different 10 Commandments are there in your Bible? Give me the chapter(s) where it/they reside.

          And if there are more than one very different versions of the 10 Commandments, explain how that can be from a book that a scholar of Christianity once told me, “is very specific and clear.”

        • So you are going to quiz me? LOL

          Yes, I agree, it’s a little confusing.

          Start with the Gospels:
          Jesus Christ summarized all of God’s laws in two great commandments. “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40).

          This is what usually confuses most people. Jesus summarizing all of God’s laws into 2 commandments, which some mistake as THE first two commandments.

          Actually, the 10 Commandments expand on Jesus’summary. The first four commandments telling us how God wants to be loved, or what our obligations to God are, and the last six commandments showing how to demonstrate love for other people (our obligations to each other).

          So, here are the actual 10 commandments as given to Moses:

          You shall have no other gods before Me.

          You shall not make idols.

          You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.

          Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

          Honor your father and your mother.

          You shall not murder.

          You shall not commit adultery.

          You shall not steal.

          You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

          You shall not covet.

          But if you’ve read the Bible, you’d understand that the 10 commandments existed from the beginning of creation. Adam and Eve were aware of them, but were disobedient anyway. They lied. Cain knew that it was wrong to murder Abel.

          But there are dozens of references to the 10 commandments throughout the Bible.

          Paul explained: “For the commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:9-10).

          There are more, but I hope this begins to clear things up.

        • Yes, I agree, it’s a little confusing.

          Not for a bible scholar like you.

          Start with the Gospels:

          Why run away from the issue? You’re man enough, no? This long preamble makes it sound like this is counterevidence to your claim that the Bible is “very specific and clear.”

          This is what usually confuses most people. Jesus summarizing all of God’s laws into 2 commandments

          Fabulous. And off topic.

          So, here are the actual 10 commandments as given to Moses:
          You shall have no other gods before Me.
          You shall not make idols.
          You shall not take the name of the LORD y our God in vain.
          Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
          Honor your father and your mother.
          You shall not murder.
          You shall not commit adultery.
          You shall not steal.
          You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
          You shall not covet.

          Wrong again. Those were the ones that got smashed. The ones that got put into the Ark were set #2. That set—which includes the Bible’s first reference to the “Ten Commandments”—were quite different.

          But you knew all that, didn’t you? You’re a Bible scholar, after all. So impress and give us that second set.

          Adam and Eve were aware of them, but were disobedient anyway.

          Right you are, O great scholar. Except that they hadn’t eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So no, they didn’t know the 10 Cs; they didn’t have moral knowledge.

          Cain knew that it was wrong to murder Abel.

          That’s nice. He was post-apple.

          There are more, but I hope this begins to clear things up.

          Yes, quite clear. You have a big mouth, bragging about how comprehensive your Bible knowledge is compared to all of us wicked atheists, and, when quizzed, you get an F.

          Maybe you need more of that Christian humility than you thought.

        • Sorry, but my statements stand as true and factual. And dead on topic. You are free to disagree, but you would be wrong.

          You yourself said that this was “confusing.” So I started with the main reason for confusion, which was Jesus’s summary of all the commandments, which some people took as the first two commandments. They are not.
          So no diversion or off topic issues here. I was actually agreeing with your premise that the 10 commandments can be confusing and positing the main reason why. Maybe you need to just relax and read.
          And so what if the first tablets were smashed? Doesn’t negate the commandments. Please, THINK before you post. The very same commandments were listed in Deuteronomy and Exodus. And in the Gospels. You asked for some chapter and verses, and I gave them to you. AND THEY ARE ALL THE SAME GENIUS.

          I think you need to buy a Bible.

          They knew that it was wrong to eat from the tree of knowledge BEFORE they ate from the tree of knowledge. They knew that it was wrong to be disobedient to God BEFORE they ate the apple. So there goes your “post apple” stupid nonsense.
          Their disobedience would be a violation of the first commandment. If you love God with all your heart, mind and soul, you are NEVER disobedient. Sorry, but your logic is so poor. Pathetic even.

          And I stated that the 10 commandments were known BEFORE they were given to Moses. So did Cain kill Able BEFORE the exodus? Mmmm? Sorry, wrong again. Again, your ignorance of the Bible is astounding.

          Far from clearing anything up, you are just muddying the waters with your ignorance and nonsense. YOUR big, bragging mouth just swallowed both feet, my friend. Your arrogance just made you look the fool.

          I answered you truthfully and in good faith. But for some reason you seem to be threatened by knowledge. Especially if that knowledge is greater than your own. And even my 8 year old granddaughter knows more than you do.

          You wouldn’t know what Christian humility was judging by your post. 🙂 Nice try, little boy, but no fly.

          My statements stand. Every one of them. You have failed miserably to prove your superiority, which is what you are arrogantly trying to do.

          Pride goeth before a fall. And my boy, you are FALLING FAST.

          If you had any humility at all, you might actually be able to learn something! lol

        • You are free to disagree, but you would be wrong.

          Only my pigheadedness explains why I continue then.

          You yourself said that this was “confusing.”

          I was mocking you, idiot. It’s not confusing at all. Your “clear” Bible can be made to say just about anything because it’s full of contradictions.

          And that’s hardly surprising. It’s a book written over 1000 years by multiple authors from a tribe of ignorant goat herders who didn’t know where the sun went at night.

          So I started with the main reason for confusion, which was Jesus’s summary of all the commandments

          Hilarious! If this were John 3:16, you’d say, “What’s the problem? It’s right there in black and white!” But when there are 2 sets of completely incompatible Commandments, you’ve got to song-and-dance a bullshit story. And you think we’re going to believe this? Most of the commenters here are actually quite well informed about apologetics, evolution, and the Bible.

          You need to bring your A game, though I’m certain that even that will be laughably inadequate.

          I was actually agreeing with your premise that the 10 commandments can be confusing and positing the main reason why.

          And you didn’t even understand what I’m talking about: there are 2 sets of Commandments!

          And so what if the first tablets were smashed? Doesn’t negate the commandments. Please, THINK before you post.

          Hilarious!

          Homework for the dunce: give us the 10 Commandments from Exodus 20 and then give us the set from Ex. 34. Compare them and discuss.

          AND THEY ARE ALL THE SAME GENIUS.

          You’ll soon be eating those poorly chosen words. Ex. 20 and Ex. 34. Read . . . if you know how.

          They knew that it was wrong to eat from the tree of knowledge BEFORE they ate from the tree of knowledge.

          God must’ve felt like such an idiot for labeling the tree the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil since it was redundant and Adam already had that knowledge. Whoops! Guess he’s only human.

          Their disobedience would be a violation of the first commandment.

          You mean the first commandment that had not yet been given to Moses? That one?

          If you love God with all your heart, mind and soul, you are NEVER disobedient.

          Is that true for you?

          And I stated that the 10 commandments were known BEFORE they were given to Moses.

          God must’ve felt like an idiot for that whole Mt. Sinai charade. Hey—are you sure you want to worship this guy? He sounds about as stupid as you are.

          I answered you truthfully and in good faith.

          Don’t forget the condescension. And the hatred. And arrogance. That’s your message, not Christian love.

        • Lark62

          If klyneal bothers to read Exodus 34, I wonder if he will notice his god requires human sacrifice (females only need apply).

        • Klyneal and theot58 would handwave some excuse. My favorite, where God actually brags about it, is this one: “So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah” (Ez. 20:25–6).

          Hey, let’s all worship that guy!

        • Lark62

          You first. ☺

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Please specify the essential properties of the alleged God which are common to the three faiths which have a common origin.

        • Yea, but it makes Gary happy! lol

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Gary’s happiness is irrelevant to the argument. Focus on it. Try to find a fatal error. So far you haven’t.

        • Disease was not a part of God’s original creation. Disease didn’t enter into human existence until after Adam and Eve’s fall from grace. This is clearly stated in the Bible, and was a result of a lack of faith, trust and obedience in God.
          We all have free will, or faith, trust, obedience and love would have no meaning. We make our own choices.

          As for the human condition, disease and calamities that exist in our world, Job is good reading. Not easy reading, and also requires knowledge of the Bible in general, but it at least gives you an idea.

          The philosophy is quite interesting

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Creation before the alleged Fall, creation after the alleged Fall — it doesn’t matter. If God did exist, he would not create bone cancer in children! And, by the way, children do not choose to have bone cancer by their own free will!

          If God did exist, he would never say to Job what it is alleged he said to Job. And he would never make a wager with Satan. Come on, think rationally!

    • Michael Neville

      Your argument only applies to an omnibenevolent god. Any other kind of god is unaffected by your argument, which is really a restatement of the problem of evil.

      • Susan

        Any other kind of god is unaffected by your argument.

        Gary W. is correct about “God” in that sense.

        But yeah, “God” can morph into anything to fit with someone’s belief.

        I hate the word. It impedes discussion.

        “God” is a way of of avoiding making a clear claim and supporting it.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I love the word “God” if it is clearly defined to represent the belief of most Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the world.

          Usually the discussion should start with asking a person “Which god do you believe in? Please define it.” Or we can present a standard definition of “God” and ask the person “Do you believe in God, given this definition?”

          In the end, my argument applies to God, given a standard definition, and I think it shows that “God did it” can be falsified. There are many arguments to be used with this form:
          1. If G, then C.
          2. Not C.
          3. Therefore, not G.
          Most of these arguments against the existence of God are focused either on morality or efficiency issues.

        • Lark62

          That is nice, except when “If G, then C” either isnt actually true or is unprovable.

          If dogs exist, then god exists.
          Dogs exist.
          Therefore god exists.

          If dog/cat hybrids exist, then god exists.
          Dog/cat hybrids do not exist.
          Therefore god does not exist.

          One could keep this up all day. Logic games are not proof. God cannot be falsified any more than one could identify the biggest possible number. Whatever number you pick, I would simply add 1 and get a bigger number.

          Whatever definition or characteristic of god is apparently disproved can simply be changed to say that isn’t what god is. Imaginary constructs cannot be disproved.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          L1: That is nice, except when “If G, then C” either isnt actually true or is unprovable.

          GW1: If “If G, then C” cannot be rationally demonstrated to be true (or probably true), then they argument is not going to work. But in the argument I presented about God, premise #1 is sound.

          L1: If dogs exist, then god exists.
          Dogs exist.
          Therefore god exists.

          GW1: Premise #1 is false and this argument is not of the same type I presented.

          L1: If dog/cat hybrids exist, then god exists.
          Dog/cat hybrids do not exist.
          Therefore god does not exist.

          GW1: Premise #1 is false and this argument is not of the same type I presented.

          L1: One could keep this up all day. Logic games are not proof. God cannot be falsified any more than one could identify the biggest possible number. Whatever number you pick, I would simply add 1 and get a bigger number.

          GW1: You could keep giving bad arguments all day, but that wouldn’t refute my good argument. The existence of God can be falsified. See my argument.

          L1: Whatever definition or characteristic of god is apparently disproved can simply be changed to say that isn’t what god is. Imaginary constructs cannot be disproved.

          GW1: You are confusing “god” with “God.” You are talking about jello, while I am talking about a stone. We always need to start with a specific definition of a specific god, not just any old god.

        • Max Doubt

          “If “If G, then C” cannot be rationally demonstrated to be true (or probably true), then they argument is not going to work. But in the argument I presented about God, premise #1 is sound.”

          Your premise #1 only applies to the god(s) you imagine. Consequently your alleged demonstration of truth only applies to that god and is unsound when considering the gods other people imagine. Their gods are not bound by the criteria you attribute to yours. Your continued insistence that your dishonest assessment of reality is somehow relevant to gods outside your own imagination is just plain dishonest. And it’s making you look like a dick.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I don’t imagine any gods. Other people imagine gods. The Jews, Christians, and Muslims have imagined one particular god. That is the one I am addressing in the argument.

          What do you think are the main traits which the J,C,Ms attribute to their god?

          Your insults are not counter arguments. I wish Bob would give you a warning about them.

        • Max Doubt

          “I don’t imagine any gods.”

          Yes, you do. You’ve described one of them here several times.

          “Other people imagine gods. The Jews, Christians, and Muslims have imagined one particular god. That is the one I am addressing in the argument.”

          No, it’s not. You’re a liar.

          “What do you think are the main traits which the J,C,Ms attribute to their god?”

          They attribute the property of existence to their gods.

          “Your insults are not counter arguments. I wish Bob would give you a warning about them.”

          If you don’t like begin called out for being a lying dick, stop being a lying dick.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I’ve already refuted these objections. Your insults are not counter-arguments.

        • Kodie

          Yes, you are talking about the stone you are set in. “god” doesn’t work that way and neither do theists. Get with the program. Your argument sucks.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          So far, you have found no critical error in the argument, so the argument stands.

          My argument is addressed to one particular god, not all gods.

        • Kodie

          My argument is addressed to one particular god, not all gods.

          That’s the critical error. You found it yourself, hooray!

        • Gary Whittenberger

          The argument has a particular scope, i.e. it applies to the one god in which about 4 billion people believe. But there is no critical error in it.

        • Kodie

          You are dumb. Done talking to you now.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          You are making an ad hominem attack which is uncalled for on a forum like this.

        • Kodie

          It’s not ad hominem, it’s a fact. You’re stubborn and too fucking dumb to carry on an intelligent discussion with on a forum like this.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Do you know the meaning of civil discourse? You have gotten into a bad habit of insulting people because they have different views from your own.

          I call on Bob to give you a warning.

          Try to talk about my argument rather than me.

        • Kodie

          Gary, I tried. You’re just in deep denial about how shitty your argument is. I showed you exactly how shitty it was several times, and you said, no, I know I’m right because I’m right! You deserve your insults and Bob isn’t going to warn me. It’s too late. I already engaged you and it was fucking pointless. I have other shit to do, are you done complaining that I have nothing nice to say?

        • Gary Whittenberger

          You started out making some interesting points, but then you went in the gutter — becoming uncivil in your remarks. This is totally uncalled for in a forum like this.

          I hope that when you get more free time, you will return and try out some more objections but next time doing it in a civil manner.

          The premises of my argument are true, the logic is sound, and therefore the conclusion is also true.

        • Kodie

          I have nothing else to say that I haven’t said already. That’s where you come in, repeating that turd of an argument you’re so proud of and denying that there are any errors in it. If you want to continue engaging me, buckle the fuck up and get out your clutching pearls.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Unfortunately you are relapsing into insults. I hope you will come back and engage in civil discourse.

        • Kodie

          Listen close, Gary. You don’t know what civil discourse is. Your whole argument is “I’m right because I’m right”. You’re the one who failed. I can’t say any more than I’ve said without tearing you a new asshole. You offer me nothing else, there is no more “discourse” to be had on the matter. You rejected everyone’s points and keep repeating yourself on the subject. That means WE ARE ALL DONE HERE. You keep saying there is more to say, but you don’t say more. How am I supposed to be civil at you. You are a fucking bag of hammers.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I think you know what civil discourse is, and you refuse to engage in it. Bob should give you a warning. Your behavior is totally unacceptable on a forum like this. If I were the moderator, I’d give you a warning and then if you kept insulting participants, I’d block you from participation and wipe out all your comments.

          Do you think that expressing your frustration, anger, or hatred like this will persuade me or our readers to accept your position? I don’t think so. In my case, I know so.

          The premises of my argument are true, the logic is valid, and therefore the conclusion is true. So far, you haven’t found any fatal error in it. So the argument stands. If you want to come back and engage in a civil rational discussion, I’d be happy to talk with you.

        • Kodie

          I’m not trying to persuade anyone to my position now. EVERYONE ELSE that gave you the fucking time of day agrees with me. Nobody agrees with you. You lost, it’s over.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          So you were trying to persuade me and our readers to your position by expressing your frustration, anger, or hatred! That’s what I thought.

          Next time, please try a different way — civil rational discourse.

          Meanwhile, my argument stands unscathed.

        • Max Doubt

          “Meanwhile, my argument stands unscathed.”

          Your argument, more accurately described as an unsupported assertion, is that some god you imagine with some particular traits can’t exist because of a conflict between some of those traits and reality. Fine, we can all invent a being with some weakness then set about attacking that weakness. It can even be entertaining, especially if you’re hangin’ in the dorm with your college pals smoking weed and solving the all philosophical puzzles of the ages. But here’s where your “argument” becomes fully scathed…

          You dishonestly attribute the characteristics you’ve given your god to the gods billions of other people imagine. Then you dishonestly declare that your “argument” applies to those gods, too. But in truth, objectively, demonstrably, factually, those billions of people aren’t imagining the god you’re slaying. Those people’s gods have additional characteristics that you dishonestly and willfully ignore. Other people’s gods are not subject to your god’s rules. Their gods aren’t vulnerable to “logic” that defeats your god. Their gods are capable of being omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, and still exist even though children get bone cancer. You see, that’s how they imagine their gods.

          You want proof? Go to a Christian forum and tell them their god is the one you designed with the vulnerability that you gave it. Tell them their god can’t exist because of some rules you made up for your god. See how many of them say, “You know, you’re right. My god can’t exist!” And see how many say, “That’s not my god. My god can exist and be omni-benevolent and kids can get cancer.”

          It’s a simple test. It would take less time than you’ve spent here lying to these good people, whining about how we should be civil in the face of your incivility, and demanding that you’re right because by fuckin’ golly you say you’re right. The biggest obstacle for you? You have neither the balls nor the honesty it takes to do that test.

        • Kodie

          I was trying to persuade you, but you’re a dunce. Everyone else is already convinced to agree with me on both counts. The argument is over. You can go hug and kiss your shitty argument and stop trying to drum up any more business here. You lost. There’s no more discourse. You fucked it up by losing and it’s over. Stop clinging to the past, man, it’s fucking over.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Hint: You will increase the probability of persuasion if you leave the insults out of your communications.

          What is your correct full name, Kodie? What city are you from? Are you an atheist? If not, what are you?

        • Kodie

          GET A FUCKING CLUE YOU MORON.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          There you go again — engaging in insults.

          I wish Bob would ban you from the discussion group since you don’t care to engage in civil discourse.

          What is your correct full name? What city are you from? Are you an atheist? If not, what are you? I suspect you won’t answer these questions because you want to hide behind your anonymity.

        • I scold and ban infrequently. My suggestion is that if Kodie rubs you the wrong way, don’t engage with her.

          Asking for identifying information is kinda off topic. You shouldn’t be surprised when anyone refuses such a request. This is the internet, after all.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Bob, I recommend that you scold and ban more frequently. Doing so is one way of maintaining a civil and rational forum.

          You are correct that asking for identifying information is kinda off topic, but not entirely. My hypothesis is that if people give some correct identifying information about themselves (as you, I, and some others do), they will be less likely to make insults, ad hominem attacks, and other uncivil remarks.

          I am not surprised when somebody refuses a request for identifying information. They want to hide behind their anonymity so that they can insult others with impunity.

          You might want to consider requiring correct full names on your forum. If you did, I bet you’d see less of the kind of uncivil behavior exhibited by Kodie and Max Doubt. In a live debate the moderator would give a warning and then, if the behavior continued, throw the violator off the stage and out of the lecture hall.

          Unfortunately, in this new age of Trump, uncivil behavior is being given too much leeway.

        • Identifying information is good because it can hold people accountable (they’re not hiding behind a handle), but it’s bad if it gives trolls information they can use against you. Kodie being female might be a reason she’s legitimately more cautious.

        • Kodie

          Maybe this blog isn’t for you. I don’t give a shit what you’re whining about asshole. I don’t have to tell anyone what my name is and where I live or supply any reasons.

        • adam

          ” They want to hide behind their anonymity so that they can insult others with impunity.”

          I know an atheist who was tracked down using such information and SHOT in attempt to kill him for BLASPHEMY.

          Religious NUT JOBS who ‘believe’ that their ‘god’ tells them what to do…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/96f7282d507681a8f2d9b1e0df55dadf5d1ee80173cca0745ada61eda096d945.jpg

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/adb34696e37c4044fa70ab831144ad6fd7e22c2b39567170fe3702636759364e.png

        • Max Doubt

          “Bob, I recommend that you scold and ban more frequently. Doing so is one way of maintaining a civil and rational forum.”

          You do know you can start your own blog where you can be every kind of cry-baby you want to be, don’t ya?

          “You are correct that asking for identifying information is kinda off topic, but not entirely.”

          Entirely off topic, as is this post bitching about how your sensitive little feelings get hurt when someone catches you lying or wallowing in your willful ignorance. There are ways you could avoid the criticism, but it would require you take responsibility for your own dishonesty and over-sensitivity.

          “My hypothesis is that if people give some correct identifying information about themselves (as you, I, and some others do), they will be less likely to make insults, ad hominem attacks, and other uncivil remarks.”

          My hypothesis is that if you’d knock off the dishonest, willful ignorance, and throwing little tantrums when you’re demonstrably wrong about something, you wouldn’t get criticized. I can even give you evidence that it’s true. Notice the only other people in these blog comments who are receiving the kind of harsh criticism you’re receiving are also lying, repeating things that have been shown to be false, and willfully ignoring helpful reasoned replies are the creationist Christians? That should tell you something about your own behavior.

          “I am not surprised when somebody refuses a request for identifying information. They want to hide behind their anonymity so that they can insult others with impunity.”

          And here you are insulting other people while playing innocent, couching your assholiness in a feigned request for other people to, ya know, be brave while treat you like a sensitive little wussy flower. Here’s a clue: Grow the fuck up. The rest of are adults.

          “You might want to consider requiring correct full names on your forum. If you did, I bet you’d see less of the kind of uncivil behavior exhibited by Kodie and Max Doubt. In a live debate the moderator would give a warning and then, if the behavior continued, throw the violator off the stage and out of the lecture hall.”

          A live debate wouldn’t stop people from calling you out on your lying, pissing and moaning, repeating the same refuted stupid arguments over and over, stomping your foot and insisting you’re correct without a lick of support, and proposing silly and dishonest syllogisms. The biggest difference might be that you’d have a whole audience watching you lie and cry and make a fool of yourself.

          “Unfortunately, in this new age of Trump, uncivil behavior is being given too much leeway.”

          You’re obviously not happy here. So again, in the name of being helpful, go start your own fucking blog where you can whine and whimper and carry on like a spoiled child all you like.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I disagree with everything you’ve posted this time. You are still engaged in insults, ad hominem attacks, and other uncivil behavior. Shameful! Also, you’ve evaded the questions, challenges, and requests I made to you. You appear uninterested in any cooperative, civil, and rational inquiry.

          Oh, and by the way, my argument still stands unscathed.

        • adam
        • Gary Whittenberger

          I like that. Our best tools are science and reason.

        • Max Doubt

          “I like that.”

          Thanks. I made that meme.

          “Our best tools are science and reason.”

          Unfortunately you’ve demonstrated that your ability to apply reason is severely sub par. And, perhaps most importantly, to apply science and reason in a way that allows us to reach valid conclusions, we must apply them honestly. You are also severely lacking in the ability to be honest. Would you like a little help with that deficiency?

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I like the meme anyway.

          The rest of your post is just ad hominem attack. I don’t care what you think of my personal traits. You’ve gotten completely away from the argument I presented.

        • Max Doubt

          “The rest of your post is just ad hominem attack.”

          No. An ad hominem would be if I said your argument fails because you’re an uncivil liar. In this case your argument fails because it’s a shitty argument. The fact that you’re an uncivil liar is demonstrated by your response to criticisms of your failed argument. See the difference? Did you learn something today? You’re welcome.

          “I don’t care what you think of my personal traits.”

          I don’t really care if you’re a lying dickhead, other than when you come into a forum and treat all these other good people with the kind of disrespect and contempt that you’ve shown here. Should Bob maybe ban you for that?

          “You’ve gotten completely away from the argument I presented.”

          And I’ve asked if you’d like a little help understanding why your argument fails so miserably. That’s not getting away from your nonsense at all. It’s attempting to help you address it directly and with focus, so you’re lying again. But leaving aside your incivility, in the name of being helpful, and because unlike you I do engage in discourse with honesty and attention to what people are actually saying, do you care to understand why you’ve failed so badly here?

        • Gary Whittenberger

          MD: No. An ad hominem would be if I said your argument fails because you’re an uncivil liar.

          GW: No. You have made a series of ad hominem attacks. You should be ashamed of yourself.

          GW: Bob should ban you for your series of ad hominem attacks, insults, and other uncivil behavior.

          MD: And I’ve asked if you’d like a little help understanding why your argument fails so miserably.

          GW: When you insult people, you are not helping them. Obviously, you are not interested in civil rational discourse. If you were, you wouldn’t behave the way you do.

          GW: I asked you to present what you believe that most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe are the essential properties of God and the only thing you came up with was “existence.” When I disputed your answer, that’s when you went off on your uncivil tirade and you haven’t stopped. Why do you do that? Can you disagree without insulting? Why do you feel that it is necessary to do that? Do you think it actually influences me or others to adopt your position? What is your goal in being uncivil? Would you like for me to insult you? Is your goal to push the envelope and find out what it takes to be banished?

        • Max Doubt

          “You have made a series of ad hominem attacks. You should be ashamed of yourself. […] Bob should ban you for your series of ad hominem attacks, insults, and other uncivil behavior.”

          You’ve lied to these good people – and a couple of Christian trolls, too – over and over again. The incivility is yours. Own it. Sure you’re mad because somebody had the audacity to catch you lying and call you on it. Sure you’d be more comfortable if the people who catch you lying weren’t here to catch you. But seriously guy, you’re a liar. You’ve relinquished the right to ask for or expect any respect or consideration. Knock off the whining about it and straighten up your act, ‘kay?

          “When you insult people, you are not helping them. Obviously, you are not interested in civil rational discourse. If you were, you wouldn’t behave the way you do.”

          Yeah, wahhh fuckin’ wahhh.

          “I asked you to present what you believe that most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe are the essential properties of God and the only thing you came up with was “existence.””

          Correct. And not because it’s the only thing I can come up with, but because it’s the only thing necessary to show that your claim fails. Although there may be a significant amount of overlap in how Jews, Christians, and Muslims imagine their gods, one property they’d nearly universally agree on is that their gods exist.

          “When I disputed your answer, that’s when you went off on your uncivil tirade and you haven’t stopped. Why do you do that?”

          Your disputing my answer was (a) an utterly unsupported assertion and (b) a falsehood. So you gave up the right to any sort of respect or consideration when you went full tilt dishonest. That’s as good a reason as needed for not patting you on the little head and treating you like a sensitive nine year old who simply misunderstands something. Suck it up.

          “Can you disagree without insulting? Why do you feel that it is necessary to do that? Do you think it actually influences me or others to adopt your position?”

          I’ve got news for you, Gary. Everyone else here already agrees with my position on your demonstration of logic. Even the Christian trolls. You claimed you can show that the gods Christians, Jews, and Muslims imagine can’t exist, and you’ve failed to achieve that. If anything, you have influenced them to adopt my position. Congratulations.

          “What is your goal in being uncivil? Would you like for me to insult you? Is your goal to push the envelope and find out what it takes to be banished?”

          The rest of us are adults here. I’ve already suggested that if you don’t want to hang with the adults, you can go to any number of other blogs or even start your own. If you think everyone here should tailor their comments to suit your sensitivity to criticism you’re sorely mistaken. Grow up.

          You asserted HERE and HERE and HERE – and in several other places – that you’ve demonstrated that a particular god doesn’t exist. You described this god as being subject to a certain set of rules that you made up in order to perform your demonstration. So far so good. Imagine a god with green hair if you like, make a rule that says green hair is poison to your god, and declare therefore that the god you invented for your scenario doesn’t exist. Cute exercise, but you’ve got to admit – if you’re honest – your god, your rules, it’s pretty much just philosophical masturbation.

          But then you cross the line into abject dishonesty… You asserted HERE and HERE and HERE – and in several other places – that the god you’ve shown to be non-existent is the god that Muslims, Jews, and Christians imagine, and that is simply not true. The god you created for your demonstration is substantially different from the gods those billions of people imagine, and in a way that renders your alleged proof a failure.

          So for the umpteenth time, straight up and simple, the god you built to knock down is vulnerable. Its existence is dependent on some particular criteria you’ve bestowed upon it as you explained HERE – and in several other places. You’re dishonestly attributing to the gods other people imagine the traits and characteristics you’ve given to your god. You’re dishonestly declaring that other people’s gods are subject to the logic you propose for yours. They aren’t.

          Get that? You may not – with any honesty – insist that figments of other people’s imaginations are something other than what they imagine. Ask any god believing Muslim, Jew, or Christian if their god is vulnerable to the criteria you require for their existence, regardless of their all knowing, all seeing, all goodness, and those people will tell you, “No, a god you describe as vulnerable to your logic is not the god we believe exists.” I’ve been on the ‘net for over twenty-five years, crossed paths with hundreds, maybe thousands of god believers, and not a single one of them would ever have agreed that a god as you imagine it is the same as the gods they imagine.

          You cannot use your rules to defeat a god that isn’t subject to your rules. Trying to do that is not only dishonest, it’s also the same kind of assholiness as when evangelical Christians describe atheists by telling us what we believe instead of asking us. Ya don’t believe their gods don’t obey your god’s rules? You can stay ignorant and keep stomping your foot and insisting you’re right – even though you are demonstrably wrong – or you can take an hour or two, get out from behind that willful ignorance, and find out for yourself. Go ask those believers whether your logic applies to their gods. Seriously, go ask them. I predict willful ignorance on your part. Do you have the guts and honesty to show that prediction wrong?

        • BlackMamba44
        • Max Doubt

          “I disagree with everything you’ve posted this time.”

          Of course you do. You’re too willfully ignorant to actually read for comprehension and too dishonest to admit you’re wrong.

          “You are still engaged in insults, ad hominem attacks, and other uncivil behavior.”

          I am criticizing you for your dishonesty. The fact that you find some unfriendly words less civil than your own lying and ignorance says much about your shitty values.

          “Shameful!”

          Wahhh, ya fuckin’ cry-baby.

          “Also, you’ve evaded the questions, challenges, and requests I made to you.”

          No, you’re lying again. You asked me to show where your argument fails. I showed where your argument fails. Many times. Do you enjoy getting smacked down like that? You want it again? Ask me again. Not only will I knock your silliness down time after time after time, I’ll also tell you how you can test my smack down… again.

          “You appear uninterested in any cooperative, civil, and rational inquiry.”

          Yet you’re the one who is repeatedly lying, ignoring legitimate criticism of your feeble attempt at an argument, refusing to actually put your stupid “logic” to a test, and instead of addressing the valid criticism you want to run to daddy like a crying little boy. Cooperative? You asked me to rip your argument apart and I did. Rational inquiry? You haven’t offered any.

          “Oh, and by the way, my argument still stands unscathed.”

          No, you’re lying again. Your argument has been shredded. You claim you built an argument against a god that Muslims, Christians, and Jews imagine, when factually, demonstrably, and objectively the god you imagine, the one you attack, is not the god those people imagine. When you asked me and others to explain how their god is different from your straw man, I and others explained it to you in terms simple enough for a grade school child to understand. I even gave you a very simple test you can do to see that you are wrong and that you’ve earned the criticism you’re receiving.

          So, do you have the balls or honesty to run that little test? Are you scared to actually find out that your silly little god-is-dead argument is wrong? You ready to try a little civil, cooperative, rational inquiry for yourself, or is that just something you demand from other people so as to not make you cry? We’re surely not going to pat you in the little head and say what a good boy you are when you’re lying or when you’r wrong. That wouldn’t be cooperative, civil, or related to rational inquiry, now would it?

        • Kodie

          Bob, Gary doesn’t seem to understand that he’s a worthless interlocutor and the discussion is over, which I think I said on Sunday, May 28. He keeps badgering me to carry on a civil discourse because he doesn’t understand that the discourse portion has been over several days and nobody is interested in continuing to challenge his delusions.

        • Max Doubt

          “I wish Bob would ban you from the discussion group since you don’t care to engage in civil discourse.”

          Civil discourse? Uh, here you are lying in post after post, willfully ignoring reasoned explanations as to why your little god-doesn’t-exist syllogism fails, whining about being rightfully called out on your lying, and calling for other people to be banned because you refuse to engage in civil discourse. You’re a real piece of shit, Gary, with your fingers in your ears and your head all stuffed up tight in your ass. Your ignorance and dishonesty apparently know no bounds. You’d make a great Christian.

        • Kodie

          I think that’s a reasonable response to you badgering me. Get over it. There’s nothing left to talk about with you, because a person like me only has so much patience. You ignored the warnings and you think there’s some discussion happening still. I’m not dropping subtle hints, jackass. I’m telling you it’s fucking over. Find another fucking hobby.

        • Michael Neville

          Instead of whining about how mean Kodie is to you, why don’t you pay attention to what she’s telling you? Everyone and that is EVERYONE who has commented on your argument have disagreed with you. If everyone else thinks your argument is wrong then maybe the failure isn’t with us.

        • Max Doubt

          “I think you know what civil discourse is, and you refuse to engage in it. Bob should give you a warning. Your behavior is totally unacceptable on a forum like this. If I were the moderator, I’d give you a warning and then if you kept insulting participants, I’d block you from participation and wipe out all your comments.”

          Oh you poor little tender cry-baby. Here’s a thought. When someone points out how your shitty argument isn’t an argument at all, and explains in detail why it’s not valid, you should say thanks. Instead you keep stomping your little foot and insisting your failure really means success. When people become frustrated with your dishonesty and willful ignorance, and call you out on it, they’re not being uncivil. They’re pointing out your incivility. You’re a liar, and that’s you refusing to engage in civil discourse. That makes you an asshole. Don’t like it? Knock off your childish dishonest tantrums, accept your failure, and make a graceful exit.

          [More of Gary’s childish pissing and moaning snipped…]

          “So far, you haven’t found any fatal error in it.”

          The fatal error is this: You’re attacking the god you’ve created for the specific purpose of kicking its ass rather than addressing the god Christians, Jews, and Muslims actually imagine. I gave you a way to demonstrate that you’re correct. Do you have the balls to do the test? Or is your lack of honesty matched by a similar lack of courage?

          “So the argument stands.”

          No, it doesn’t. You’re a liar.

          “If you want to come back and engage in a civil rational discussion, I’d be happy to talk with you.”

          You’re a real piece of work, Gary. You’re unwilling to engage in an honest discussion, apparently embarrassed by your failure, and instead of acting like a decent human being and admitting you’ve failed, you’re projecting your very own shitty treatment of other people as a way to declare victory. Stop being such an asshole, will ya?

        • Max Doubt

          “Whatever definition or characteristic of god is apparently disproved can simply be changed to say that isn’t what god is. Imaginary constructs cannot be disproved.”

          This is what Gary is willfully ignoring in his desperation to be correct. He imagines a god he can defeat with a simple line of logic, but it only takes a few short visits to forums and blogs like this one to understand that most people’s gods are immune to logic or reason. Gary wants his god to be the god, or at least the god of Christianity. He says he’s an atheist, but given his shitty reasoning skills and willful ignorance, he’d make a mighty fine Christian.

        • Actually, God’s characteristics are specifically explained and never change. But you would actually have to read the entire Bible and study it in order to even begin to understand it let alone debate it. And it would be a very long debate, I’m sure.

        • Tommy

          So your knowledge your god comes from a book?

        • Gary Whittenberger

          They believe the book/s was authored, dictated, or inspired by their god. They have insufficient evidence that this is the case. But still, they believe that the hypothetical God is triple-O.

        • Tommy

          They have insufficient evidence that this is the case.

          They have no evidence that this is the case.

        • TheNuszAbides

          All rhetorical. The No True Evidence game is too nearly pedantry; i prefer Chuck’s ‘concession’ that, sure, it’s evidence — it’s just weak, trivial, and always superimposed with meaning or value that requires circular reasoning (note the same principle in the concluding phrase: it IS a form of reasoning, even if impractical/useless/unsound/etc.).

        • Michael Neville

          Actually your god’s characteristics change quite a bit. They evolve, if you will. As Zach Breitenbach in the “Room for Doubt” blog puts it:

          The God in the OT commanded his people to commit genocide, killed little children, wiped out the entire world population in one fell swoop, sent plagues and devastation, and (if you believe the writers of the Bible) created a world full of people but decided to only reveal Himself and his rules to one group of people and condemn the rest because they were born in the wrong place. And then we are told in the NT that God is a God of love and mercy, that his followers are to spread peace and not hate, that we are to follow the example of Jesus who did nothing to stop his enemies from killing him. I am all for believing the New Testament record of Jesus and his followers, but how can anybody possibly believe God is “the same yesterday, today, and forever?”

          Yahweh in the OT is a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He kills people just because he can. He condones slavery, orders rape and genocide, and is an all-around asshole. Jesus is a nice guy, preaching mercy and love of one’s neighbors. It’s almost like they were two different gods.

          As it happens, Mormons do think that Yahweh and Jesus are two separate gods, with The Spook as a third god. Christadelphians don’t even consider the Holy Spirit to be a god.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Still, most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe their god is triple-O. That’s what we are focused on here. This combination of traits is incompatible with bone cancer in children.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          The hypothetical God has many traits, but most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are united in thinking that this god is triple-O — omniscient, omnipotent, and omnimoral. If you do not agree, then which one of these traits do you think they leave out? Explain your answer.

          I don’t see why this has to be “a very long debate.”

        • BlackMamba44

          Maybe you should ask Max if he has read the buybull instead of assuming he hasn’t? Most atheists within this comment section have.

          The god of the Old Testament morphed into Yahweh 2.0, the new and improved version, when the New Testament came along.

        • God never “morphed.” You have obviously never read the Bible.

          Jesus came along in the New Testament. God remained the same.

          And it’s the history and prophecy that I referred to in previous posts.

          I never mentioned the buybull, btw. So how could I have “assumed”anyone hadn’t read it?

        • BlackMamba44

          You obviously are assuming again, you ass.

          And YahwehJesus is a little better than Yahweh. Less genocide but still could be a bit of a dick at times.
          So, yes, there was change.

        • wow. You need to get out of those comic books. LOL!

        • BlackMamba44

          I’m using the bible as my source. You calling the bible a comic book?

        • Candy Smith

          Why are you using My Bible. I thought you don’t believe it?? So why are you using it if you dont believe in it. Try again but this time dont use my Bible.

          Where is your Bible?? Where is your objective standard??

        • BlackMamba44

          I think you replied to the wrong comment.

        • Candy Smith

          Did you not say “I am using the Bible as my source”??

        • adam
        • Candy Smith

          The skavery in the Bible isnt what it seem kike. What is wrong with snakes talking????

        • Gary Whittenberger

          What are the essential properties of the god in which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in?

        • Gary Whittenberger

          The god I am talking about is not immune to logic or reason. It is vulnerable and rationally shown to not exist by my argument. So far, you have found no critical error in the argument. An insult from you is not a counter argument.

        • Max Doubt

          “The god I am talking about is not immune to logic or reason. It is vulnerable and rationally shown to not exist by my argument.”

          Why yes, you designed it that way. It’s your very own god. You can make it however you like.

          “So far, you have found no critical error in the argument. An insult from you is not a counter argument.”

          The critical error in your argument, which I have pointed out several times, is the god you have deleted with your “logic” is the one you made up in your head while dishonestly claiming it’s the god of the Muslims, Jews, and Christians. It’s not.

          Helpful hint: If you don’t like the sort of harsh criticism you’re receiving, stop being an asshole and stop lying.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I’ve already refuted these objections more than once.. And, your insults are not counter-arguments.

        • Max Doubt

          “I’ve already refuted these objections more than once..”

          No, you haven’t. You have whined and whimpered and insisted and stomped your little-boy petulant foot. You’ve bawled and bitched and complained. You’ve asserted without foundation that you are correct and that the god you have refuted is the god Muslims, Christians, and Jews imagine. It’s not. You’re a liar. Oh, and a cry-baby. Grow the hell up, kid.

          “And, your insults are not counter-arguments.”

          My counter argument is this: You’ve built an argument against a god you invented, and you claim it is an argument against the god imagined by billions of other people. Since the god you invented is not the same as the god imagined by those billions of people, your argument failed before you even started. You have no argument. Your continued pissing and moaning about it will not change your lies into truth or change the god you manufactured into someone else’s god.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Your insults are not a counter argument. Do you understand what civil discourse is?

          You have found no fatal flaws in the argument, and so it stands.

          You still haven’t even answered the important questions I asked you. What is the God which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims have imagined? What are its alleged properties?

        • Michael Neville

          You have found no fatal flaws in the argument

          There is one fatal flaw in your argument. The god you describe is idiosyncratic to you. It is not the god the majority of Abrahamists worship. You’ve been told this several times by different people and your response is always “nope, I’m right and you’re wrong, so there, NYAH!”

          As Max said, if you don’t like being called an asshole there’s an easy fix. Stop being an asshole and you won’t be called one.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          What are the essential properties of the god in which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in?

          If Max Doubt evades this question, maybe you won’t.

        • Michael Neville

          Existence, as you’ve been told many times before, you dishonest debater.

        • Max Doubt

          “Your insults are not a counter argument. Do you understand what civil discourse is?”

          I certainly do, and I’ve been extremely patient with your apparent inability to engage in civil discourse. Civil discourse has no place for your continued lying and treating these good people like shit. It has no place for your little tantrums when you get called out for lying. If criticism of your dishonesty is going to make you cry like that, get the hell out of the discussion. The rest of us are adults here.

          “You have found no fatal flaws in the argument, and so it stands.”

          I explained to you several times how your argument is fatally flawed, so if you’re not knowingly lying here, maybe you’re just stupid as a fucking stump. Was I wrong to have been giving you the benefit of the doubt? Care to try again?

          The single most glaring fatal flaw in your argument – regardless of your foot stomping childish insistence to the contrary – is that your foundation fails before you even state your premises. You claim to be demonstrating that some particular group of gods do not exist while willfully ignoring one critical fact. The god you’ve invented to slay with your argument is not the god(s) you claim to be slaying.

          “You still haven’t even answered the important questions I asked you. What is the God which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims have imagined? What are its alleged properties?”

          You’re asking me? So, have you built an argument which supposedly addresses the properties of the gods that Jews, Christians, and Muslims imagine, yet you’re unsure what those properties are? Looks like we just found another fatal flaw in your argument, didn’t we? But leaving aside your steadfast and persistent failure…

          How about you read up and down this thread and find all the places I already addressed the particular properties that turn your alleged argument into a simple unsupported assertion. Then you come back here and apologize for badgering me with concerns I have already addressed, and for your dishonest insistence that I haven’t. That’d be how civil discourse works.

        • Dom Saunders
        • Gary Whittenberger

          I have refuted all your objections. If you want to discuss the argument further, then tell us what you believe are all the essential properties which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims have attributed to their god, i.e. God.

        • Max Doubt

          “I have refuted all your objections.”

          No, you haven’t. You can’t refute my objection, because my objection is demonstrably true. The god you invented to defeat with your “logic” is subject only to your logic. The gods Muslims and Christians and Jews imagine, those gods you claim to be proving into non-existence, are not beholden to your rules. When you continue to insist they are you’re lying.

          “If you want to discuss the argument further, then tell us what you believe are all the essential properties which most Jews, Christians, and Muslims have attributed to their god, i.e. God.”

          Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is noted. For the sake of civil discourse, how about you stop being such a dishonest petulant asshole, eh?

          Now I’m going to kick your silly claim’s sorry ass, again, right here, right now in the publicly accessible forum, for all to see, on the record. You ready?

          You created a god that is subject to the rules you have given it. Sure, you can do that. It’s your god. Shred it, burn it, tear it limb from limb. Hell, imagine it’s a guy with a nice ass and jack off thinking about it if that’s what you like. But when you claim these rules you invented for this god you invented also apply to the gods Muslims, Jews, and Christians imagine, you are flat out unequivocally wrong.

          You want to know for sure? Go to some Christian forums and Muslim forums and tell them their god is subject to your rules of logic. Run your little syllogism past them. Ask them nicely – or be an utter dickhead as you have here. Demand that your rules apply to their gods. Insist that your argument proves their gods don’t exist. Then you bring all those newly converted atheists over here to tell us how well that worked.

          But when you fail, when you find out your rules don’t apply to their gods and that your “logic” starts with a lie, how about you have the human decency to acknowledge that you’ve been wrong, that you’ve been dishonest. Admit that you can’t prove a god doesn’t exist when you willfully ignore characteristics that make your alleged proof impossible. That would be a demonstration of civil discourse. Your continued unsupported assertion, fluffed up with a heaping helping of your childish belly aching, is contrary to civil discourse as well as being contradictory to any notion of intellectual honesty.

      • Phil Rimmer

        I think the argument only applies to an omnipotent god.

        Present an omnibenevolent, omniscient god with the trolley problem and someone’s still going to die, but with harms minimised or some boons facilitated. (How you breed caring trolley engineers….). Suffering hones the generations into mutuality and the recognisable humanity we know.

        The omnipotent god simply builds the safest public transport from the outset. But no honing and is deathless not worthless?

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I disagree that the argument only applies to an omnipotent god. There is some minimum amount of power X needed to create a world without bone cancer in children or remove bone cancer from the world, but I don’t think X needs to be the power to do anything logically possible.

          Nevertheless, God is conceived as all-powerful, so the argument does apply to him. The claim “God created the universe” is falsified.

        • Phil Rimmer

          A moderately potent god may have done all the fixing up he can. What we see is the result.

          The omnibenevolent god with insufficient power may contrive a self refining process for his creations. Suffering, self correcting, so with an exponential decay.

          Triple O gods are self negating. In the end Theo inevitably sublimes to Deo becomes indistinguishable from physics…

        • Gary Whittenberger

          PR1: A moderately potent god may have done all the fixing up he can. What we see is the result.

          GW1: My argument addressed God who is not “a moderately potent god.” However, the argument can be tweaked to yield the conclusion “moderately potent god X probably doesn’t exist.”

          PR1: The omnibenevolent god with insufficient power may contrive a self refining process for his creations. Suffering, self correcting, so with an exponential decay.

          GW1: My argument addressed God who is not defined as you describe here.

          PR1: Triple O gods are self negating. In the end Theo inevitably sublimes to Deo becomes indistinguishable from physics…

          GW1: Please rationally demonstrate that Triple-O gods are self-negating. I don’t think that is correct.

        • Phil Rimmer

          To defeat suffering entirely doesn’t simply require clever medical skills it requires constructing beings motivated, happy in themselves and with each other and have lives of value and capable of eternally positive feelings. Fixing bone cancer, thats our job anyway so should be a cinch for a god. The other though…..? I can’t begin to imagine such a life. I’m not happy demanding such a thing. That requires a capacity beyond my imagination.

          I don’t argue the POE with Christians. I don’t want to argue for a better god (a moral disaster in any form) when I haven’t anything better I am confident I want to argue for.

          Myriad versions of Epicurus dispatch triple O gods.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          My argument doesn’t say anything about “defeating suffering entirely.” It focuses on bone cancer in children.

          The god I am addressing is a triple-O god. It is God!

          It now sounds like you are agreeing with me — “God did it” can be and has been falsified!

        • Phil Rimmer

          No. I am disagreeing about omnibenevolent as a necessary selected characteristic and substituting omnipotent as necessary in the argument. The reason is to better defeat Christians who think suffering is a benevolent God’s way of moral improvement as very many Christians do. These are Christians somewhat accepting reality and observing a truth that adversity drives evolution, genetic and cultural, and mutuality. Such a truth makes for a feeble god, morally formative but indistinct.

          Its omnipotence that counts. Good intentions without the ability to act sufficiently makes theistic benevolence, by Christians’ own accounts, indistinguishable from no god.

          Bone cancer is a knock out for omnipotence for Christians who believe eternal happiness could possibly be a thing.

          Oh and the “fall” that spectacular framing of the naughty kids cos daddy was out that day and neglected his duty of care, is the other reason not to make that argument as you’ve just found out. God is off the hook and you’re on it. Now its plan B….suffering until we can learn enough to have nice things again.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          God is a hypothetical triple-O god! God does not exist. The argument I presented shows this. You have not found a critical flaw in it. You just think I should tackle other gods. Well maybe, but let’s start with the big guy.

          Bone cancer is a knock out for any triple-O god.

          God would not create bone cancer in children before or after any alleged Fall. The Fall does not take the hypothetical God off the hook. I hope you are not buying into that objection.

        • Phil Rimmer

          Look, Michael Neville made a wrong assertion about your idea I thought and I corrected it. Your point such as it is, still stands but moving on to what Christians actually claim for themselves is more pertinent in actually defeating their folly.

          Parsing the problem to show why they cannot have a triple O god, why William Lame Craig in seeking to reclaim omnibenevolence in the face of horrors immediately cedes omnipotence, etc. etc..

          The Christian response to bone cancer not defeating an omnipotent god and therefore a triple O God, is the Fall. You can’t stop, admiring your argumentative handiwork and not move on pretty smartly.

          Can we move on yet? If the fall, omnibenevolence doesn’t mean what it says….etc. No? Ok.

          And don’t mind about me too much. Somewhat aspie and the comments have little social lube.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I agree with your first two paragraphs here, but don’t understand the latter three. Sorry.

        • Phil Rimmer

          don’t understand the latter three

          Para 3. The Fall is the excuse for an omnicompetent god inflicting suffering by way of a corrective to “naughty, curious children” Adam and Eve discovering the recreational aspects of their bodies etc.. “We” made god do bone cancer. Balls back in your/our court. (There was a missing question mark at the end, now restored to illustrate.)

          Para 4. A restatement of three, and a repeat request about progressing the argument.

          Para 5. My excuse for not writing clearly or perhaps with seeming antagonism is in being somewhat aspie. I fail fairly often, for instance, when, after a thought of mine has been had with perfect clarity in my own head, I think it must clearly exist in another’s.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          “Para 3. The Fall is the excuse for an omnicompetent god inflicting suffering by way of a corrective to “naughty, curious children” Adam and Eve discovering the recreational aspects of their bodies etc.. “We” made god do bone cancer. Balls back in your/our court. (There was a missing question mark at the end, now restored to illustrate.)”

          GW: Yes, I think that is the way many religious people think (apparently one person on this thread does). But the excuse doesn’t work in my opinion. We would not have “made” God create bone cancer. He would have decided on his own to create bone cancer in children as a punishment of Adam and Eve. Of course, a triple-O god would not do such a thing.

          GW: Thanks for your clarifications.

        • wow. Just wow.

          Nothing has been “falsified” in any scientific or observable way. Your entitled to our opinion, but lets be honest. It’s still just your opinion, not fact.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          Bone cancer in children is observable. Do you know any of these children? Have you visited any? Have you seen photos of any?

          The premises are true, the logic is valid, and therefore the conclusion is true. If you think otherwise, then find an error in the argument. So far, you haven’t. Your Fall idea does not work.

        • Michael Neville

          I agree that suffering influences humanity. I disagree that an omnibenevolent god would allow children to die of starvation so you can gain empathy with other starving children.

          https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3575/8755/original.jpg

        • Phil Rimmer

          I disagree that an omnibenevolent god would allow children to die of starvation

          Nor would she want that but without omnipotence that might not be possible.

          An omnibenevolent theo lacking omnipotence may well resort to directed evolution (whatever that could be!!!) as her tool. Evolution depends critically on death before reproduction to select out and favour the other. Evolution happens because life is a bitch. Tiktaalik climbs out of the water (perhaps) to find a place where her eggs are less eaten.

        • Greg G.

          The problem of evil and/or suffering does not disprove a malevolent omnipotence. But we know that benevolent being which are not omnipotent exist but we do not call them gods, just Earthlings.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          But the existence of bone cancer in children disproves a triple-O god which is what the Jews, Christians, and Muslims think God would be.

        • Greg G.

          Yep, you only have knock out one O, and you don’t have to say which O goes down.

      • Gary Whittenberger

        My argument is applicable to some gods other than God, which are not omnibenevolent. However, the god must be conceived as highly intelligent.

        But the scope of my argument was not our focus here. My claim was that “God did it” is falsifiable. I think my argument shows that it is, not by science alone, but by a combination of science and philosophy.

        • Unfortunately, as I explained in the above post, your argument doesn’t apply to the God of the Christian Bible, as you used false and incomplete information. No cherry picking, please.
          Cherry picking is not a valid scientific method.

          So your claim of “God did it” is far from falsified.

          An neither science nor philosophy can “disprove” creation or intelligent design. That is just wishful thinking on your part.

        • Tommy

          What’s the evidence of intelligent design?

        • Greg G.

          What’s the evidence of intelligent design?

          The complete miscomprehension of information theory.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I have used a combination of philosophy and science to falsify the claim “God exists,” despite your wishful thinking that it were otherwise.

          If God did exist, he would not create bone cancer in children either before or after your alleged Fall. A moral person does not punish children in future generations for alleged sins of two alleged original humans. How could you think such a horrible thing?

    • Actually, according to the Bible, when God first created the universe and Adam and Eve, there was no disease. That came into the world after “the fall” of Adam and Eve, and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

      If you had actually read the Bible, you’d know that your argument is false and contradicted by the Bible itself.

      If you really want to be accurate, you have to actually READ the Bible and quote it accurately. You misquote. So your premises are not true to begin with.
      Therefore, if your premise is not based on fact and truth, neither is your conclusion.

      Honestly, we read about leprosy, blindness, mental illnesses, etc., and other diseases very early on and throughout the Bible. Specifically attributed to mankind’s fall from grace.

      • Michael Neville

        Why should we accept a couple of 2500 year old creation myths as having anything to do with reality? After you’ve shown that stories Hebrew priests stole from the Babylonians might perhaps possibly per chance almost conceivably have some minor relationship with something that happened, then you have to give reasons why we should consider your particular interpretation of a fictional legend over any others.

        • What creation myths? You’ll have to be a whole lot more specific than that.

          And the “stories” existed long before Israel was defeated and carried off by Nebuchadnezzar into Babylon. And Babylon is actually where the book of Daniel was written. If anything, the Babylonians assimilated some of the Hebrew narrative after they took them into their kingdom.

          All I did was point out that you falsely “quoted” the Bible and God. If you don’t know what’s written in the Bible, you’ll just sound foolish.

          Which you do.

          No laboratory experiment can either confirm or falsify a process which, by its very nature, requires millions of years to accomplish significant results. Nor can creation be proven.
          Evolution is, therefore, neither fact, theory, nor hypothesis. It is a belief—and nothing more. Same as creationism.

          Neither evolution nor creation is accessible to the scientific method, since they deal with origins and history, not with presently observable and repeatable events.

          So you’ll have to be a whole lot more specific.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I haven’t misquoted the Bible because I haven’t quoted the Bible. I haven’t misquoted God because God does not exist. The argument falsifies the proposition “God exists.”

        • Perhaps you didn’t see the quotation marks around “quoted?”

          You try to say things like “After you’ve shown that stories Hebrew priests stole from the Babylonians” when this isn’t even possible.

          well, what stories are you referring to? I mean, since you read the Bible “cover to cover” this should be a very easy question for you to answer, right?

          What “myths?”

          And where in the Bible does it say that God created bone cancer at all, let alone in children?

          This is a false premise that can only be made in extreme ignorance. But oh please, mr. Bible expert that read the Bible from cover to cover, tell us where you could possibly have gotten this from the Bible?

          Mmmm?

          So much for being more specific. You don’t have the knowledge or intellect to even being to discuss the Bible. But prove me wrong. Answer the questions, genius.

        • Gary Whittenberger

          I am using the same story you brought up — the story of the Fall. Don’t you believe God created bone cancer in children after the Fall? If not, then explain and defend your position.

        • where in the Bible does it say that God created bone cancer at all, let alone in children?

          This is just too easy. “I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, who does all these things” (Isaiah 45:7).

      • Gary Whittenberger

        I have read the Bible cover-to-cover at least twice and Genesis many more times.

        1. If God existed, he would not create bone cancer in children anytime, whether before or after the alleged Fall, and so there wouldn’t be any bone cancer in children.
        2. But there is bone cancer in children.
        3. Therefore, God does not exist.

        Your objection fails, and the argument stands. If you think otherwise, then you must rationally show that a triple-O god would create bone cancer in children in thousands of successive generations as a punishment for the alleged sin of the alleged Adam and Eve. I don’t think you can do that.

        • You also have no idea what “The Fall” was all about. That was precipitated by man, not God.

          God did not create bone cancer.

          Now if you really did read the Bible “cover to cover TWICE” then where is it written that God created any kind of cancer?

          wow. dumb and dumber. Can’t even answer the question. So your logic falls on it’s face. Big time FAIL.

          Like I said, Gary, leave this kind of ‘logic” to the Greeks, since you obviously don’t know how to use it.

  • “Koukl tells us—how do you get the body? That requires epigenetics. That’s not in the genes”

    Is he really unaware that development is very much under genetic control?

    • Hey–don’t rock the boat. It makes him sad.

    • Tommy

      I doubt it.

    • Kanawah

      If you have one change every 3 or 4 generations, in 10,000 years there could be hundreds of changes for larger species, and thousands for small species. When they add up, you get MAJOR changes. Every now and then two or three “minor changes” come together and you get something entirely new.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “1. Abiogenesis. “First you have the insurmountable problem of getting living stuff from dead stuff.”

    This is a red herring & has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is about how EXISTING life forms can change over time.

    • theot58

      So what do you think is the starting point of macro evolution?
      Is it a self replicating molecule?
      It is a bacteria?
      Is it a simple cell?

      • Tommy

        Micro evolution, duh!

        • Beginning in the 1930s, the term microevolution was used by some to describe changes within existing species.

          “Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type.

          Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation.

          The variation and adaptation sometimes referred to as microevolution does not conflict with the biblical account of creation.

          “Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes. …

          “Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes *(which are never observed).* And never can be observed or tested.

          The reason microevolution does not lead to macroevolution is that microevolution only involves variations based upon *existing genes.* No new genetic information is being added.
          In macroevolution, however, new genetic information would have to be added to an organism and then this must be passed down through the genes to its descendants. This information would have to accumulate over many generations to produce macroevolution. Something that has never ever happened, not even in the case of “mutations” which still come from existing genes and normally involve duplication of existing genes.

          https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/is-there-a-god/proof-of-god/microevolution-vs-macroevolution/

        • Michael Neville

          Yawn. Another creationist website spreading half-truths, misinterpretations and straight-out lies that some godbot thinks atheists will accept.

          There’s two differences between “microevolution” and “macroevolution”. One is time-scale. The other is that creationists are forced to admit that “microevolution” happens but they pretend that “macroevolution” doesn’t happen because it contradicts their interpretation of a couple of 2500 year old myths written by people who didn’t know where the Sun went at night.

          Around the year 400 Augustine of Hippo consider the literal interpretation of Genesis. He rejected it for numerous reasons, both theological and pragmatic. I’ll give you three of those reasons:

          Christians believe that God created the universe (which includes the Earth). Augustine argued that rejecting God’s universe for a book written by people was disrespectful to God.

          Augustine also argued that if there’s discrepancies between God’s universe and your interpretation of the Bible then the problem is most likely with your interpretation, not with the universe.

          Quite often an unbeliever knows something about how the Earth and the universe were created and how they work. If a Christian tells the unbeliever something that they know is wrong and cites the Bible as authority for the wrongness, then the unbeliever will consider the Christian to be a fool and the Bible to be a collection of myths and fables with nothing important to say on any subject including redemption. “They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.” 1 Tim 1:7 (NIV)

          Congratulations, fool, you’ve just shot yourself in the foot.

        • LOL! For starting with a *yawn,* you certianly woke up with this long post! Too funny.
          Actually, it’s YOUR feet that are missing, dear. Just a lot of double talk.

          No one is “forced” to acknowledge anything.

          Microevolution has been observed.

          Macro evolution has not. Fact. And you haven’t refuted it with your sarcasm (another shot in the foot, eh? 🙂

          Who said anything about St Augustine, or where the sun went at night? You have quite an active imagination, but if you want to actually refute anything you’ll have to learn to stay on topic. You’re wandering. Or escaping. Or diverting.

          And these “if” scenarios, perhaps you could provide some proof of one? Haven’t seen any yet in these posts.

          You obviously don’t even own a Bible, so you can’t argue from a position of ignorance. Talk about a fool.

          Your childish rant doesn’t even have anything to do with my post, other than you can’t refute any points made, so you go off on some imaginary tangent. Nice shot in the foot, dear.

          But hey! You’ve created some myths and fairy tales of your own! Brilliant! LMAO!

        • theot58

          Right on point klyneal.
          I got a good laugh from your awesome response.
          These believers in the macro evolution myth have to surrender their intellect to continue believing in it.
          They TALK about “evidence” and “reason” but I don’t think they would recognize if it came and bit their nose of.
          The evidence is clear that there is evidence of intelligent design.
          Millions of accidence cannot and do not produce a human person.

        • Tommy

          I got a good laugh from your awesome response.
          These believers in the macro evolution creationist myth have to surrender their intellect to continue believing in it.
          They TALK about “evidence” and “reason” but I don’t think they would recognize if it came and bit their nose of.
          The evidence is clear that there is evidence of intelligent design evolution.
          Millions of accidence creationists cannot and do not produce a human person god.

          I fixed your comment. You’re welcome.

        • theot58

          Dearest Tommy,

          thank you for taking the time;
          but you really should not have.

          As a token of my appreciation, consider a quote from
          Dr. Wernher von Braun (NASA director and father of the American space program) who said:

          “For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design….
          Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process,
          but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye.”

        • Michael Neville

          Werner von Braun was not a biologist. It’s not rocket science to understand that biologists are competent to talk about biology, other types of scientist are not.

          Besides, all von Braun had was the arguments from ignorance and incredulity. Those are hardly convincing arguments for GODDIDIT.

        • theot58

          This “Biologist only” argument is really crap.
          It’s like saying that only mathematicians can determine that 2+2 = 4
          What about Jonathan Well’s he is a biologist – would you give his views more credit.
          He wrote a book called Icons of Evolution.
          Check it out

        • It’s like saying that only mathematicians can determine that 2+2 = 4

          Whitehead and Russell in their Principia Mathematica famously stated “From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2” (page 379 in volume 1). So, yeah, you do kinda have to be a mathematician.

          I believe I was at the book release party for Wells’ Icons of Evolution (I’m certain I was at the event for The Myth of Junk DNA). Is there anything of interest in his book that you want to point out?

        • Michael Neville

          Would you accept a biologist saying that rockets don’t work because he thinks they don’t? Of course not, you’d dismiss that argument as nonsense coming from someone who didn’t know what they were talking about. In a similar way, a rocket scientist is not the person to make a convincing argument about one of the basic theories of biology.

          Von Braun made an Argument from Incredulity, basically saying that since he didn’t understand how the brain or eye evolved then they couldn’t have evolved. He was wrong about the evolution of the brain and the evolution of the eye. These are well understood by biologists, so his argument fails because he didn’t know things that actual biologists did.

        • Joe

          You’re not saying 2+2=4 though, are you?

          You’re saying some unspecified designer designed life in some unspecified way, using unspecified methods, and may or may not (you don’t say) still be actively designing.

          That’s not the same thing.

        • Tommy

          Dearest theot58,

          Thank you for taking the time, but you shouldn’t have. As a token for my appreciation consider this link: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

        • theot58

          Thank you Tommy

          I am pleased that you are a gentleman.

          Your respectful attitude is appreciated even though I disagree with your conclusions.

          How about I play my atheist card. Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recognizes that Darwinism is not true. In his book “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False ” he said

          “.. for a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe,

          including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works.

          The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes. …

          It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected to abandon this naive response not in favor of a fully worked out physical/chemical explanation but in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some examples”

          (pp. 5-6).

        • Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recognizes that Darwinism is not true

          Very powerful evidence, with the small problem that no one gives a shit what a not-biologist says about the consensus view within biology.

        • theot58

          Greetings Bob.

          The assertion that only Biologists have a say about the macro evolution myth – is really really dumb.

          It’s like saying that only mathematicians
          can declare that 2+2 = 4

          Surely the question should be:

          What is the scientific evidence supporting macro evolution.

          Macro evolution can be stated as an equation

          Simple beginning (e.g. 1 primitive cell or bacteria = no brain, no nervous system, etc.)
          + lots of time
          + lots natural selection
          + many mutations
          + natural forces (rain, wind, gravity etc.)
          =============
          extremely complex organism
          (e.g. human, brain, blood circulatory system)
          is this not more reasonable?

        • Surely the question should be:
          What is the scientific evidence supporting macro evolution.

          Yes, for the biologists. They’re the ones who can properly evaluate it. It’s great that you’re an armchair biologist, but don’t flatter yourself that your evaluation of evolution trumps that of the community of biologists.

        • Tommy

          Quote mining. Argument from Authority (again).

        • TheMarsCydonia

          If the evidence is clear then please do present it. You’ve have been predicting the demise of evolution for years but think how quickly you will achieve this by simply presenting this clear evidence.
          One wonders what you may be waiting for…

        • Michael Neville

          I see, I bring up one of the “Doctors of the Church” who ripped the Genesis myths to shreds some 1700 years ago and you sneer at him and me. How about rebutting Augustine? Oh wait, you can’t because they’re reasonable arguments which you know you can’t answer.

          One thing I’ve never, ever, not even once, seen is a creationist try to support creationism with actual facts. All you people do is try to poke holes in evolution. That’s what the guy tried, and failed, to do in the link you quoted from. But creationists never give facts and logic to support creationism. Is that because you know you don’t have any facts since the Bible is a collection of myths, fables and lies?

          Incidentally, I’ve done something most Christians, including most fundamentalists, haven’t done. I’ve actually read the entire Bible. I’ve done it three times, two different versions, three translations. Can you say the same thing?

        • No one has been able to disprove or “rip to shreds” anything in Genesis.

          Just one simple observation: Only humans were created in God’s image.
          Could this be why, out of all the millions of different life forms that supposedly “randomly” developed, that only ONE species, humans, came to completely rule the earth? How likely is that to happen randomly? The odds are impossible, which even Einstein was aware of.
          This has never even been challenged, let alone trashed.

          And how does evolution explain male and female sexes?

          So much for your doctor of the church. Nice try. Not gonna fly.

          Augustine had nothing to do with my post at all, it was a childish diversion on your part. You see, in a discussion, you rebut the actual post of the other person before you go off on a tangent. Answer my post, and I’ll gladly answer yours. It’s a different subject. Like I said, you need to be able to follow a train of thought, not avoid it or divert from it.

          How is the Bible a collection of myths, fables and lies? Just because you say so?

          Good thing the founders of our country knew better. If your inalienable rights did not come from God, and if this government and society hadn’t been built on that premise, the most successful and powerful nation in the history of mankind would never have existed. So much for “myths.” I guess what the Bible said about politics, human nature, laws and nations was true. 🙂 Certainly worked like a charm.

          I can tell you haven’t read the Bible. You are so grossly ignorant of Biblical knowledge, it’s glaringly obvious and you don’t even know it.
          If I were to ask you any simple question, you would not be able to answer it accurately. Guaranteed.

        • Michael Neville

          Just one simple observation: Only humans were created in God’s image.

          First you need to show that your god exists. After that you need to show that your god created things. After that you need to show how Congo pygmies and Nunavut Inuit were both created in “God’s image”.

          I can tell you haven’t read the Bible.

          You think I’m ignorant about the Bible because I’m not a Biblical literalist. That’s what I love about you Christians, your favorite fallacy is No True Scotsman. You forget that I’m an atheist. As far as I’m concerned your Bible is a collection of myths, fables and lies with little or no relationship with reality. But don’t feel I’m picking on you, I feel the same way about the Quran, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon and all of the other “holy” books. But the Vedas have better stories than the other books.

          If I were to ask you any simple question, you would not be able to answer it accurately. Guaranteed.

          Okay, asshole, you’re on. Give me your best “simple question”.

        • Michael Neville

          Augustine had nothing to do with my post at all, it was a childish diversion on your part. You see, in a discussion, you rebut the actual post of the other person before you go off on a tangent. Answer my post, and I’ll gladly answer yours. It’s a different subject. Like I said, you need to be able to follow a train of thought, not avoid it or divert from it.

          Damn but you’re a dishonest debater. Which is what we expect from creationists. I brought up Augustine because he made some good arguments against Biblical literalism in general and the Genesis myths in particular. How about answering them instead of pretending Augustine’s arguments aren’t germane to a discussion about Genesis and creationism? Or just admit that you can’t rebut the three arguments that I quoted from Augustine.

        • Lark62

          The earth has been here for approx 4,540,000,000 years. Man has “ruled” it for maybe 10,000 years. Your god is a screw up.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Funny! LMAO!

          Reminds me of the people here “pretending” to even know the Bible that they try so hard to trash. And the circular logic of evolution beliefs.

          🙂 I like it.

        • Should I listen to your views on evolution? Or should I listen to the biologists?

          Decisions, decisions.

        • Are you referring to Christian biologists? Or those that believe in ID?

          You seem to be assuming that to be a biologist, you HAVE to believe in evolution……. mmmmm.

          I more honest question would be, Should I listen to Christian biologist’s views on evolution? Or strictly atheist biologist’s views?

          Decisions, decisions.

          just sayin. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Please do listen to christian biologist’s views on evolution. I recommand Kenneth R. Miller, Francis Collins, etc.

        • You seem to be assuming that to be a biologist, you HAVE to believe in evolution

          You seem to be assuming that more than a miniscule fraction of biologists don’t accept evolution.

          Just sayin’.

        • BlackMamba44

          There you go assuming again.

          You’re a real condescending ass, aren’t ya?

          And a moron, too.

          I haven’t had a chance to go through the comments over the last couple of days. But I’m sure tthere’s nothing I can say that hasn’t already been said.

        • Assuming what? The obvious? LOL! You’ve used the word “assume” for every post after I thanked you for “assuming that you know me.” 🙂 Even when it makes no sense.

          There is something so seriously wrong with you. The arrogance is yours, my friend. Which is why you are getting so angry.

          No sense of humor whatsoever. 🙂

          Just sayin.

        • BlackMamba44

          What’s obvious? We do know the Bible. You’re ASSuming we don’t.

          Every post. All 2 of them. And where did you thank me? I made no assumptions about you.

          I’m not your friend, asshole. Now that’s arrogance. You entire comment is drippong with it.

          I have been through the comments. There is nothing for me to add to the conversation that my fellow commenters haven’t already explained.

        • eric

          Just one simple observation: Only humans were created in God’s image. Could this be why, out of all the millions of different life forms that supposedly “randomly” developed, that only ONE species, humans, came to completely rule the earth? How likely is that to happen randomly?

          [facepalm]
          LOL you don’t think the fact that humans wrote the bible had anything to do with the bible claiming humans are made in the image of God?

        • ??? Wow. just wow.

          So the fact that humans rule this planet, and that there is no comparison between humans and any other form of life on the planet at all, is somehow not true just because humans wrote the Bible?

          You missed it completely, but still there it is.

          No matter who wrote the Bible, the Bible states that ONLY humans were made in God’s image.

          Sooo, the question remains: Why, out of all the millions of different life forms that supposedly “randomly” developed, did only ONE species, humans, “evolve” so much differently and come to be so much more advanced than ANY other?
          Only ONE out of many millions of different forms of life on this planet? Not even two or three, or hundreds at least out of millions?
          Why did only ONE evolve to completely rule the earth? How likely is that to happen randomly? How is it even possible?

          Try and answer the question this time.

        • Joe

          So the fact that humans rule this planet

          They do?

          Why, out of all the millions of different life forms that supposedly “randomly” developed, did only ONE species, humans, “evolve” so much differently and come to be so much more advanced than ANY other?

          The lottery fallacy, presented without a hint of irony.

          Why did only ONE evolve to completely rule the earth? How likely is that to happen randomly? How is it even possible?

          If every last human disappeared tomorrow, which species would ‘rule’ the planet? How is that likely to happen randomly? How is that possible?

        • wow. You don’t think humans rule this planet? What planet are you from? (Planet of the Apes, I suppose. lol)

          Ok, then tell me what species DOES rule this planet?

          What is the “lottery fallacy”? Sounds dumb. This doesn’t even being to answer the question. It’s actually pretty evasive, but says nothing.

          Ok, so you can’t refute that either.

          Seriously, joe? You could at least try a thoughtful, intelligent answer.

          Or just admit that you can’t answer this, and neither can evolution.

        • Joe

          Ok, then tell me what species DOES rule this planet?

          None. Ruling suggests some kind of feudal system is in place.

          What is the “lottery fallacy”?

          “The chances of me winning the lottery are one in 50 million. Nobody could possibly win the lottery if they played for millions of years.”

          See the problem there? Think about it.

          I can’t answer your very specific, question begging position, because it doesn’t allow room to answer. It’s just word games. You offer nothing, contribute nothing and are either too scared or too embarrassed to put forward your own opinion. Why should we take such intellectual dishonesty seriously?

        • Humans rule this planet. Please.

          And how does “ruling” suggest a “feudal” system????? That escape didn’t work for ya.

          And what does the lottery fallacy have to do with creationism? Mmmm?
          Think about it.

          What questions begs position? My questions only beg an honest, intelligent and thoughtful answer. It’s not impossible, you know.

          I believe my opinion has been clearly stated numerous times. Neither evolution nor creation can claim to be proven fact.
          THAT is intellectual honesty, my friend. Admitting the truth.

          Any questions? 🙂 Good.

        • One species will be at the top of the list for whatever you want to measure. Don’t then be shocked and tell us, “OMG! This species is at the very top of the list!!”

          Humans are more advanced intellectually, though we’re pretty closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos.

        • Really? But I thought that evolution was totally random?

          So no single species should be so incredibly far and above any of the other millions of species. The odds against it are astronomical.

          Why any at the top of the list at all? If humans didn’t exist, the rest of all life on earth would be pretty even.

          And this is mainly the point that evolution will never ever be able to explain. Why has only man “evolved” to this point? Why?

          It’s not a matter of being on the top of a list. It’s a matter of being the ONLY species to have such developed capabilities.

          Call me the next time a chimp sends a satellite into space, or a dolphin even just writes a poem. Only man has these incredibly advanced capabilities on a planet with millions of forms of life. Not too random, is it?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “Really? But I thought that evolution was totally random?”
          That was hilarious. You thought wrong because that is not factual.

          On another note, do you have any familiarity with logic? Sound reasoning? Logical fallacies?

          Can you spot the glaring logical fallacy in your comment?

        • If I thought “wrong,” you’ll have to explain why.

          Try hard.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Evolution is not totally random.
          If you had any basic education about the subject, I wouldn’t have needed to explain.

        • Translation: I obviously can’t explain myself. 🙂 This IS funny.

          If YOU had any basic education, you’d be able to easily explain yourself.

          But you are nothing more than a troll. Trolls can never explain themselves and come up with all kinds of childish reasons as to why “they don’t have to” in order to cover up their ignorance.

          Troll somewhere else or come up with something at least somewhat intelligent and useful.

        • But I thought that evolution was totally random?

          It’s not. Learn a little about evolution before you declare it to be nonsense.

          So no single species should be so incredibly far and above any of the other millions of species.

          Humans are “so incredibly far and above” all the others? I don’t see it.

          Why any at the top of the list at all? If humans didn’t exist, the rest of all life on earth would be pretty even.

          Uh, yeah. Dolphins are pretty much intellectually even with snails. Chimps are pretty much even with lizards. Good point.

          Why has only man “evolved” to this point? Why?

          Intellectually, humans are at the top of the list. Some species will be at the top of the list. Saying, “Look! There’s a species at the top of the list!! :-)” isn’t a profound observation.

          It’s not a matter of being on the top of a list. It’s a matter of being the ONLY species to have such developed capabilities.

          Those are equivalent.

          Call me the next time a chimp sends a satellite into space, or a dolphin even just writes a poem.

          Call me the next time a human stays under water for an hour like a whale or stays aloft for weeks like a bird. Intellect is just one capability.

        • Max Doubt

          “Intellectually, humans are at the top of the list.”

          And that only relative to our understanding of intellect, of course.

          “Some species will be at the top of the list. Saying, “Look! There’s a species at the top of the list!! :-)” isn’t a profound observation.”

          Well, duh. When “Time in a Bottle” dropped off the Top-40 chart in January of ’74, there was no number one hit the following week. Or was there? 😉 Hey, wait, if there’s more than one species, it would be supernatural if there wasn’t a most intelligent species. The bizarre and dishonest contortions these god believers must engage in to maintain their otherwise unsupportable beliefs can be staggering.

        • But I thought that evolution was totally random?

          Next time you want to tell us how qualified you are to dismiss evolution, I hope I remember to bring up this gem.

        • I never said I was shocked that there is a “top of the list.”

          What is amazing is that there is such a tremendous gap between number one, and the rest of the millions of life forms on the list.

          You seem to be hell bent on ignoring this gap. Or diverting from it.

          And being “related” to chimps and bonobos doesn’t mean that humans are at the same level. Obviously only humans have advanced capabilities.

          What other species can send a satellite into space, or even compose music or poems? The gap is inexplicable in terms of random evolution.

          And just how could we all have evolved from single celled organisms?

        • steami

          Why (special) humans should be related to bonobos at all?
          Again, as they are designed from scratch, why don’t they have a unique DNA?.
          And what about the question about the oceanic islands? And what about the mass extinctions?
          As to death or other “problems” introduced by sin, who decided that those would be the consequences? And why those consequences were extended to animals as well?
          Can’t you think at about one million different arbitrary consequences that could be posed as conditional to “sin” but much less problematic?

        • POSTED: “Why (special) humans should be related to bonobos at all?”

          Um, is this a question or what? Are you going to propose why?

          Well, since only humans have human DNA, and bonobos only have bonobo DNA, isn’t that rather unique?

          And are you REALLY asking who decided the consequences for sin? REALLY?

          How do you know that the “consequences” were extended to animals?

          Your last sentence has me wondering if English is your first language, or if you are over 10 years old. It’s so poorly written as to be barely understandable. I doubt the consequences were “arbitrary” as God did warn that they “would surely die,” so the “consequences were known beforehand.

        • adam

          “Well, since only humans have human DNA, and bonobos only have bonobo DNA, isn’t that rather unique?”

          Unique only in their similarities….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/92d36fd1d564a25f6bcf9729f13029e98a53c8f7cd70634742368f0093be3d90.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/23e7092c60a928b6349cc029fd75cb332f18c86daab1c6a4e4f8fe6cef114c6c.jpg

        • steami

          No, English is not my first language, but unless what I write is incomprehensible it’s not a good objection, on the contrary yours appears as as a deflection. Stated that I don’t have fanciful literary ambitions and that my age has nothing to do with the soundness of my arguments, I hope you are not collecting logical fallacies as you last post displays plenty of them.

          Let’s try again. Why a specially designed human should share most (or any) of DNA with (let’s say) bonobos? And yes, it’s a question , the question mark should (have) help(ed) you.

          Besides this question there where two more that you didn’t answer, probably because you have issues in identifying questions, even with question marks attached.

          Yes, I am really asking you who decided the consequences. From my part I affirm that in your mithology the only responsible for stating the consequences for sin is your god. There isn’t any logical reason why death and/or pain should necessarily follow the alleged original sin: therefore the stated consequence is arbitrary . Being arbitrary could be another among millions and not necessarily extended to offspring.

          This has nothing to do with knowing the consequence beforehand. This has to do with linking A to B.

          As to animals, provided that it seems that you don’t think that the consequences weren’t extended to them, should I infer that your perfect god created them doomed to death and pain?

          Just to be clear: do animals die and suffer due to the arbitrary consequences of sin or because your “perfect” god created them in this way?

          By the way thank you for the unintended compliment: to be ten years old and write English, even incorrectly as I do, it’s a good feat!.To play the fool, instead, it’s a thing a five years old can do easily.

        • MadScientist1023

          Human and chimp (and bonobo) DNA is 99% identical. You’re really going to argue that creatures who share that much DNA are unrelated? You know, if you were more convincing, you could have a great career defending men from paternity suits by arguing the DNA evidence that shows who the father is doesn’t matter because babies have baby DNA and the father has his own DNA.

          If you read a book that was 99% identical to Harry Potter, and only 1% of the words were different, would you conclude it was written by someone who had never read Harry Potter and in no way based the book off of that? Would you really believe the two were made completely independently? Or would you realize that one is clearly based off the other?

          I notice you accuse people of poor English comprehension an awful lot. Has it ever occurred to you that you just aren’t an effective communicator?

        • epeeist

          If you read a book that was 99% identical to Harry Potter, and only 1% of the words were different, would you conclude it was written by someone who had never read Harry Potter and in no way based the book off of that?

          Not only that but the two books also had identical insertions in another font that were in exactly the same place in each volume and were not related to the story in any way (think ERV).

        • MadScientist1023

          Don’t bother. He’s stumped by this one and to afraid to even take a stab at it. He’d rather trade insults with people and repeat the same lines over and over no matter how many people correct him.

        • epeeist

          I liked your analogy, I was really posting what I thought was a small improvement.

        • steami

          Can you explain why humans share most of DNA with other species? The designer couldn’t figure out a unique DNA for “special” humans? Can you explain why in oceanic islands don’t live species that you can find on the continents and on continental islands? The designer had logistics problems?
          Can you explain why most of the species that apperared on this planet extiguished? Faulty design?

        • Greg G.

          Can you explain why humans share most of DNA with other species? The designer couldn’t figure out a unique DNA for “special” humans?

          Even more, why does chimpanzee DNA have a greater similarity to human DNA than to gorilla DNA? Why does gorilla DNA have a greater similarity to human DNA than to orangutan DNA? Why is gorilla DNA equally similar to human DNA and chimpanzee DNA?

        • wow! you really think that my post was about who wrote the Bible? Or “claims?”

          Man obviously does rule. And we are only one species out of millions of different life forms on this planet.

          So why is it that only HUMANS can write a song, or create the instrument, or write a poem or a book, or send satellites into space and travel to mars? This is just a fact.

          How bout answering the actual question?

          wow. just wow. Helllooo? Anybody home? LOL

          you’re scarin’ me eric.

        • Kanawah

          Macro evolution cannot be directly observed because it happens over hundreds (at the fastest) and in most cases thousands or tens of thousand years for small macro evolution changes.
          The last time i checked, until recently, most people only lived to be + or -, 60 years old. Today we are up to 70’s to 80′, at most. So we cannot directly observe it. We have to go by “observe by evidence.

          As to the “origin” of life, science is finding the answer as we disc us it. I read an article on what they have found. It is basically a half of the DNA strand that is called RNA. I do not remember the details. The article did say that this is how life probably started.

        • theot58

          That is an awesome explanation klyneal,
          I think it is simple and clear enough that even my evolutionists friends here may understand it.
          ( This may be wishful thinking – but we can but hope)
          Many thanks

        • Thank you. Not many here have very open minds.
          The reality is that neither creation nor evolution can be observed, tested or proven using scientific methods. It’s more a matter of looking at the evidence. And that is also what science is all about. No one has all the answers. Not even evolutionists, although they seem to think that they do.

        • Greg G.

          Wrong. Evolution has been observed. It’s why they tell you to take all the antibiotics prescribed to you.

        • Um, no. Just no.

          And if you dig deeper into bacterial adaptation, it actually refutes evolution. Yes, bacteria can adapt to become resistant to a certain type of antibiotic, but there is a trade off. The organism in general actually becomes weaker, may not be able to procreate effectively anymore, etc. Which doesn’t support evolution, as it supports that “mutations” are generally harmful, and at best neutral in nature.

          Evolution also states that we all came from single celled organisms over millions of years. This cannot be observed or tested with any scientific methods.

        • Greg G.

          Yes, bacteria can adapt to become resistant to a certain type of antibiotic, but there is a trade off.

          Successful evolution is survival, not being stronger. Having lots of reproduction results in bad mutations (death), neutral mutations, and beneficial mutations.

          The organism in general actually becomes weaker, may not be able to procreate effectively anymore, etc.

          MRSA survives.

          Evolution also states that we all came from single celled organisms over millions of years. This cannot be observed or tested with any scientific methods.

          Wouldn’t you say the diversity of single cellular lifeforms and multicellular lifeforms.

        • Greg G.

          Perhaps one of you could define “kind” in biological terms.

        • Tommy

          A creationist website. Sorry, but it’s all “microevolution” since changes occur at the cellular level. Saying microevolution is possible but macroevolution is not is like telling me that you belief in inches but not miles, but what is a mile but a lot of inches put together?

        • Michael Neville

          63,360 inches in a mile (I figured that out without taking off my shoes).

        • Tommy

          So you do understand that macro evolution = 1 mile is micro evolution = 63,360 inches?

        • And your point would be?

        • Michael Neville

          I see that humor is another attribute you lack, besides intelligence, knowledge and honesty.

        • omg. Seriously?

          Micro evolution involves changes in existing DNA.
          Again, this has been observed, especially when a species becomes isolated and therefore isolates the gene pool, or moves into a different climate and relies on different prey.

          Adaptions such as thicker coats of fur, coloration, or longer legs, etc., involve EXISTING DNA.

          But canines are still canines. They don’t turn info felines.

          Macro evolution involves the miraculous appearance of new, previously non-existent DNA information appearing out of nowhere to produce a new species.

          So sorry, NOT the same thing when you dive deeper into both.

        • Tommy

          omg. Seriously?

          OMG. Yeah I’m serious! Are you?

          Micro evolution involves changes in existing DNA.
          Again, this has been observed, especially when a species becomes isolated and therefore isolates the gene pool, or moves into different climate and relies on different prey.

          Adaptions such as thicker coats of fur, coloration, or longer legs, etc., involve EXISTING DNA.

          You got it.

          But canines are still canines. They don’t turn info felines.

          Of course canines are still canines. Of course they can’t ‘turn’ into felines. If that happened, it wouldn’t be evolution (natural), it would be magic (supernatural). Duh!

          Macro evolution involves the miraculous appearance of new, previously non-existent DNA information appearing out of nowhere to produce a new species.

          No, it doesn’t. What you are describing is creationism. You don’t really believe in creationism, do you?

          So sorry, NOT the same thing when you dive deeper into both.

          So sorry, but it IS.

        • Greg G.

          Do you believe in microarithmetic like 2+2=4? I do. Do you believe in macroarithmetic like 2,000,000,000,000+2,000,000,000,000=4,000,000,000,000? I do despite the fact that nobody has ever counted that far. It’s the same with microevolution and macroevolution.

        • No, it’s not the same at all. You are trying to compare apples with oranges.

          And the greatest mathematician of all, Albert Einstein, did not believe in random evolution because the mathematical odds against it are insurmountable.

          He believed in intelligent design, and he was not religious at all. Just realistic.

        • Albert Einstein the biologist? If you mean some other one, no one cares what he said. Cuz he’s not a biologist.

        • Never said he was. But he was the main contributor to quantum theory and a physicist. And a mathematician. Definitely more accomplished than Darwin ever was. All his other theories still hold true, and we still use them today, in everything from television screens to landing a man accurately on the moon, to sending satellites into space.

          So I’d say he carries some significant weight.

        • Hilarious! We don’t get our biology from Einstein. No one gives a shit what Einstein thought about evolution.

          Y’know, I should write a post about Creationists’ unwarranted confidence in their bullshit position. What do you think? Do you think it would make any Creationists a little more humble?

        • Lark62

          Creationists have been talking about microevolution for 90 years or so, and “kinds” much longer than that.

          Let’s see the definitive list of “kinds” that is your starting point. Show us the evidence supporting this list so that everyone who fairly reviews your evidence will get the same list of “kinds.”

          Now show us the microevolution changes that have happened within each kind. With evidence.

          Is wolf to dog microevolution or macroevolution? Clear answer please. Which equines are the same “kind”?

          Let’s see your clear hypothesis on exactly what animals are within each kind.

          Clearly differentiate those changes from “macroevolution.” Show us the mechanism that blocks microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

          Support all of this with evidence.

          Then account for the evidence that supports the evolution of Jurassic and Triassic marine reptiles, and the evolution of whales from hippo-like land animals, and the evolution of the horse, and the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. Your proposed theory must account for all of that evidence.

          Let us know when your complete hypothesis is ready.

        • Creationists have been exploring micro evolution for a whole lot longer than 90 years.
          But for both evolutionists and creationists, knowledge of DNA did not exist 90 years ago. Both groups have so much for information upon which to formulate their theories nowadays.

          As for lists of kinds, that’s just dumb. Even secular biologists can’t completely agree on this. Even the criteria for differentiating between species is contested. So not sure what this would prove. Other than futile.

          Micro evolution has been observed, such as when a species becomes isolated, thus isolating the gene pool, producing unique characteristics within a group. But dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc. are all still canines. Canines have never turned into felines, or any other form of life.

          Since you are the one that believes hippo-like animals became whales, I suggest YOU present the evidence.
          I’m not wasting my time as there is NO evidence. But go for it if you can.

          So let me know when YOUR hypothesis is ready.

          Waiting …………….

        • Lark62

          Bullshit. So many errors, so little time.

          The Theory of Evolution is well defined and well documented. Read a book.

          It is “kinds” that are never defined, allowing you to expand or contract the definition whenever contradictions are pointed out. And no, secular biologists do not agree on kinds because it is an imaginary concept with no scientific meaning. They also do not agree on the color of Santas sleigh. If you want anyone to take kinds seriously, define them.

          Up to 10% of humans have gill holes above their ears. Only 10 to 20% can wiggle their ears. These are vestigial traits, left over as we evolved.

          The evidence for whale evolution is excellent.

          Cladograms describe the progression of traits between species. A cladogram has been developed for every branch of life.
          Pick an animal and google xx cladogram. Canine cladogram. Horse cladogram. Frog cladogram. Anything you choose will have a cladogram summarizing its evolution. This is due to the unparalleled wealth of information and evidence supporting evolution.

          Whale evolution overview
          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

          The Evolution of Whales – Cladogram
          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

          If your theory depends on kinds, list them. If your not-so-intelligent designer created the “canine kind” then a heck of a lot of macro ecolution has transpired to get to foxes, wolves, chihuahuas and newfoundlands, jackals, coyotes and racoon dogs.

          Miacids are the common ancestor of canines, felines and bears. Genetic and fossil evidence back this up.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Indeed, micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different on a matter of scale similar to how walking a yard and walking a mile are different.

          Such a simple concept that is so incredibly hard to grasp if one is a creationist.

        • wow. so shallow and so simplistic. amazing.

          There is a really BIG difference between differentiation WITHIN a species (resulting from ALREADY EXISTING DNA) and completely changing from one species to a different species.

          Nuance is not your strong point. And this isn’t even a matter of “nuance.” Its HUGE.

          You do realize that micro and macro evolution are two very different things, right?

        • Joe

          There is a really BIG difference between differentiation WITHIN a species (resulting from ALREADY EXISTING DNA) and completely changing from one species to a different species.

          What difference is that, pray tell?

        • Max Doubt

          “What difference is that, pray tell?”

          I would say I eagerly await the answer to that, but I haven’t met a creation believer or evolution denier yet who was willing to apply a modicum of honesty to the issue. I predict your question will be met with typical Christian ignorance.

        • Joe

          They refuse to answer questions, it’s such a transparent and dishonest tactic. I’m of a mood to block them.

          A big visual change can result from a tiny change in DNA. Of course, they focus on the visual, and not the less than 5% difference in DNA that separates mice from men.

        • I think micro and macro evolution were made up by Creationists, not biologists.

          “Macro evolution” is just lots of microevolution. If you disagree, show me the constraints that allow evolution to happen but prevent speciation no matter how long you wait.

          Michael Behe (author of Darwin’s Black Box) accepts common descent. In other words, he accepts speciation.

        • I don’t think so.
          And I don’t agree that macro and micro evolution are the same thing at all.
          micro evolution involves adaption WITHIN a species, involving already existing DNA.

          Like possibly wolves migrating to a very cold region, and eventually adapting by developing a heavier fur coat. But it’s still a wolf. And the DNA that causes the coat to develop already exists. This might not be the best example off the top of my head, but you get the idea.

          macro evolution tries to explain how one species could evolve into a totally different species. A fish crawls onto land and becomes a land animal, per se.

          One has been observed, the other has not.

          No one has ever proven that one species can become another, and if it takes millions of years for this to supposedly happen, it will never can be proven and is just a “belief.” A possibility.

          Where is the ‘proof” that we have ever been anything but human? There is none. Lots of speculation. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I suppose. But don’t try to pass it off as fact. That is dishonest.

        • Lark62

          There are species alive today that illustrate speciation in action.

          The horse and donkey are different species close enough to create live but sterile offspring.

          Lung fish are fish with both gills and lungs that can travel across land and live outside of water for 2 or 3 days.

          Dogs illustrate the variety of “new information” that can arise as species evolve. Because of human intervention the process was faster – 10,000 years rather than hundreds of thousands but the variety comes from changes in the genetic code. Or have you seen short haired, tricolor wolves? Or wolves that have curly fur? Or wolves that herd sheep rather than eating them?

          Of course, since creationists never get around to producing a clear list of “kinds”, you can just bring in the magic moving goalposts and declare various species the same kind or different kinds depending on which best fits your argument of the day.

          And don’t forget humans have vestigial traits and atavistisms left over from ancestors. Some humans have gill holes or can wriggle their ears.

        • Horses, zebras, donkeys, mules, etc. are all equine. Of one species. They would not mate in the wild, but can mate in captivity, but as you said, human intervention has introduced new “sub species.” But of course, from EXISTING DNA. No new information required.
          .
          Creationists have no problem with this. It can be observed.

          And dogs do not illustrate that any new information has arrived, either. Rather, two sets of existing information have commingled. Populations can become isolated, etc., which of course isolates different gene pools. But the different breeds are still dogs. Developed from EXISTING gene pools.

          Wolves, coyotes, dingos, domestic dogs, they are all still canines. They don’t turn into cats no matter how much evolutionists suggest that this is possible.

          And of course, even secular biologists have never agreed on all the different “kinds.” So that’s dishonest.

          One species has not ever turned into a completely different species, and even if this were possible, there is no way to test something that would takes millions of years to occur. As I said, micro evolution has been observed. Macro evolution just never will be by it’s very nature. We can only imagine.

          Even lungfish. There is no evidence at all that they have been anything else previously, since lungfish only beget lungfish.

          What Creationists have a problem with is that evolution depends entirely on MACRO evolution. One form of life actually turning into another.

          The ‘big picture’ of evolution is that protozoa have become trees, insects, fish, animals and humans. It’s all about the DNA and the genes. And you have to admit that this is merely a theory that cannot and will not ever be proven.

          Evolution must have involved processes which, for some unknown and only imagined reason, increased the genetic information in the biosphere. Something which again cannot be replicated in any scientific experiment or proven. Nor has this ever been observed. Can’t be. It would take millions of years.

          Still just a belief.

          And of course, natural selection can’t even being to explain how human beings evolved from some primordial soup to become so ridiculously more advanced than any other form of life arising from the same “soup.”

          Sorry, still not possible. Certainly never proven.

        • Kodie

          Nobody believes dogs turn into cats. Thank you for demonstrating just how ignorant you are. You are a gullible moron.

        • Max Doubt

          “Creationists have no problem with this. It can be observed.”

          Stars can’t be observed. Sure, those of us who subscribe to the stars-exist theory have made up some calculations that match what we do observe, but even if we’re correct, the supposed nearest stars may have vanished over four years ago. Most stars we calculate to be so far away that in all the time of human existence, no human could ever have seen them. We’re guessing, pulling it out of our asses.

          So yes, we’re makin’ up the star shit. Since you don’t accept that stars exist, will you take the next leap and believe all those sparkly thingies we see in the sky at night are just lighted speckles some god put there? Or are you going to be so irrational as to apply different criteria to your acceptance of claims that evolution occurs and stars exist?

        • Lark62

          Yep. Pluto was discovered in 1930. Its orbit is 248 years. This means Pluto cannot orbit the sun in klyneal’s world since man has never seen Pluto orbit the sun.

          The New Horizons spacecraft launched June 2006 arrived exactly where Pluto was in July 2015 by sheer dumb luck. We cannot possibly understand where Pluto would be since we’ve never seen Pluto orbit the sun.

          What a sad sorry world klyneal lives in.

        • Why can’t Pluto orbit the sun in my world? You said yourself that Pluto was discovered. It actually exists. We know that planets orbit the sun, and we know from existing criteria (speed of travel, path of orbit, rotation, etc.) how long it will take.

          Simple. So explain to me why this can’t happen in “my world?”

          You are so shallow and simplistic. You try so hard to attack my intelligence, while betraying the very lack of your own. Which a childish attack will always do.

          So explain how “my world” prohibits Pluto from orbiting the sun please.

          If you still can’t come up with a thoughtful, intelligent response I’ll just have to accept that you’re just another tiresome troll.

        • Lark62

          The evidence for evolution of whales from land animals and canines and felines from a common ancestor is just as strong as the evidence that Pluto orbits the Sun. The fact that man wasn’t there to see it does not make it untrue.

        • How so? We can observe Pluto and it’s orbit.
          But we don’t know how Pluto came to be, or where the properties that control the universe and Pluto’s revolution came from.

          So how is evidence that we all came from single celled organisms able to be found, observed, or tested in any scientific way?

          Doesn’t evolution depend upon the premise that we “evolved” from single celled organisms?

          Where did these LIVING organisms come from?

          How does life come from non-life?

        • Max Doubt

          “The New Horizons spacecraft launched June 2006 arrived exactly where Pluto was in July 2015 by sheer dumb luck.”

          It’s a miracle, I tell ya. A miracle!

        • It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

          they are all still dogs. They don’t turn into cats no matter how much evolutionists suggest that this is possible.

          They don’t. That this is news to you might suggest that you’re out of your depth. Maybe you should reign in your snotty comments?

          And of course, even secular biologists have never agreed on all the different “kinds.” So that’s dishonest.

          Biologists don’t talk about “kinds.” That’s Bible talk—you know, based on the science of a primitive Iron Age desert tribe from 3000 years ago.

          One species has not ever turned into a completely different species, and even if this were possible, there is not way to test something that would takes millions of years to occur.

          Millions of years? Who says this? I mean, besides you.

        • Bob, whenever you are so far out of your depth, that you can’t intelligently answer a question or posit an intelligent response, you feel threatened and try to arrogantly assert your “superiority” by getting nasty. More ad hominem (snotty) attacks that only betray your lack of class as well as knowledge.

          And yes, evolutionist DO suggest that this is possible. Not only that, evolution depends upon speciation. If this is news to you, then you are woefuly ignorant of evolution theory as well as the Bible.

          “Kinds” and “species” are the same thing. Doesn’t matter that the Bible uses a different word. And since the Bible is the Creationist view, there is no evolution theory way back then in the Iron age. There is science, but not evolutionary science.

          And evolutionists posit that speciation would take millions of years to occur. You should know this, mr genius.

          Why don’t you just give it up and actually do some research before you post?

        • Kodie

          “You’re wrong because you’re a troll” <–ad hominem

          "You're wrong and a motherfucking stupid wackaloon" <–not ad hominem

          Tell your Christian friends!

        • *sigh* Another classless troll.

          zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…….

        • Kodie

          Trying to teach you something you asshole.

        • Bob, whenever you are so far out of your depth, that you can’t intelligently answer a question or posit an intelligent response, you feel threatened and try to arrogantly assert your “superiority” by getting nasty.

          Is that the way it happened? Or did you start the condescending and obnoxious comments about a thousand comments ago? I kinda thought it was the latter.

          And yes, evolutionist DO suggest that this is possible.

          Your betters correct you, and you just double down. Unsurprising, I must admit.

          Not only that, evolution depends upon speciation.

          Thanks for sharing.

          “Kinds” and “species” are the same thing.

          None of the big name Creationists say that. They need “kinds” to be family or order to squeeze all the “kinds” onto the Ark. So you’re breaking new pseudoscientific ground—bravo!

          And evolutionists posit that speciation would take millions of years to occur.

          Wrong again, buffoon.

          But perhaps I speak to quickly . . .? I should model a little humility. Let me try again: this is surprising to me, klyneal. Could you please provide a reference? Many thanks!

        • Oh, and btw, the “gills” you speak of exist in ALL humans, they are called “fistula” and perhaps you forget that humans develop in amniotic fluid? These fistula close up right before we are born.

          And all humans that I know of can wiggle their ears somewhat. Not sure that that is supposed to prove?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          So, I’ll repeat for Mr. Seidensticker:
          “show the constraints that allow evolution to happen but prevent speciation no matter how long you wait”

          Go on, we’ll wait.

        • That has already been explained numerous times. Please read the previous posts. If you want to disagree, I’ll be glad to debate.

          Go on, I’ll wait.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          There is a difference between asserting and demonstrating.

          Where is your evidence? Still waiting.

        • Since you clearly don’t understand evolution, don’t you think that a little Christian humility would be appropriate? Or did God give you confidence without knowledge?

        • Bob, Bob Bob. A little humility yourself please.

          “Disagreeing” is not the same as “not understanding.”

          That’s a poor defense when you can’t refute what I’ve said.

          And since your knowledge of Creationism, Intelligent Design and the Bible appears to be limited, I would be a little more humble myself.

          Just try it.

        • Just winning friends everywhere you go, aren’t you?

          You’re disagreeing and you don’t understand. I and others have pointed out where you’re clueless.

          Suggestion: read a textbook on evolution so you can sit at the adult table. Go on, I’ll wait.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Since you asserted that evolution is something it clearly is not, perhaps its time to practice some of that humility yourself.

          Or you could keep us entertained and laughing. One is better for you, the other better for us. Decisions, decisions…

        • As for evolution requiring millions of years, let me give you a little homework: look up Lenski and nylonase (separately).

        • No, use your own words as I do.
          Or even provide a link. I’ll be happy to read it.

        • Uh, no, this is where you say, “Yes, I’m quite familiar with Lenski’s 20-year experiment with bacteria, as well as the discovery of nylon-eating bacteria” and then respond.

          Since you didn’t, this unfortunately adds to the evidence that you have no understanding of the discipline that you want to denigrate.

        • Actually, micro and macro evolution was not made up by creationists. Creationists do not believe in macro evolution.
          And Macro is not “lots of micro evolution.” Micro evolution WITHING a species, the differing combinations of EXISTING DNA, has been observed. Adaptation within a species. But macro evolution would involve the miraculous appearance of NEW DNA from …. well … thin air.

          Dogs have never turned into cats.

          Explain “common descent.”

          The evolutionary premise that all life evolved from single celled organisms?

        • Actually, micro and macro evolution was not made up by creationists.

          They’re the ones who talk about it. Evolutionary biologists don’t.

          Dogs have never turned into cats.

          No biologist says they did/would. Maybe if you knew why, you’d be better able to hold a conversation.

          Explain “common descent.”

          It’s hard to imagine someone so confident that he declares evolution bullshit and yet doesn’t understand the basic ideas within the field, let alone the evidence.

          Learn something before you pretend to sit at the adult table.

          If you were honestly eager to learn, you’d find some ready teachers here. Instead, it sounds like you just want to brag about how big your dick is.

        • MR

          Dogs have never turned into cats.

          Wow. Just wow. I am amazed at the longevity of these arguments. Do they have absolutely no desire to learn?

        • If they did care to learn, we’ve got a lot of smart people. With a little humility, he might come away smarter himself.

          What I’m stuck on is the irony of the situation. I write a post about unwarranted confidence, and this asshole is overflowing with it. Or is pretending to be, anyway.

        • MadScientist1023

          Micro and macro evolution are legit scientific terms. Creationists just completely misunderstand and misrepresent what they mean.

        • Thanks for the feedback.

          I never seem to see them anywhere except in Creationist literature, but I have since seen them at Wikipedia.

        • Greg G.

          Macroevolution is anything at or above the species differences, including speciation. It is such things that affect many different phyla, such as climate, the atmospheric oxygen concentration, or the rising of a land bridge that allows the introduction of new predators to an area.

          You allow that coyotes and wolves could come from a common ancestor thinking that is microevolution, but that is macroevolution.

          So obviously macroevolution happens. You just got the wrong definition from creationists. Whatever wiped out the dinosaurs was a macroevolutionary event. If Noah’s flood happened, that would be macroevolution.

          Species change even if they do not develop into two or more populations that can no longer interbreed. If a population is divided by a rising sea level, the two species will change independently. Maybe they can still interbreed and maybe they can’t.

          Species keep changing and changing again. When a group of species have been successful while most of their closer cousins have gone extinct, it is easy to set that group apart from others. Canines and felines were able to outcompete their common ancestors and most of their close cousins so it is now easier to make a distinction. Hyenas look a little more like dogs at first look but they are actually more closely related to cats.

        • Actually, I don’t think that coyotes and wolves and dogs are examples of macro evolution. They are all canine, and can interbreed.

          But I don’t know if they all came from a common ancestor, or if they were always different. In the wild they would not interbreed.

          All I know for sure is that they are all canines, and of the same “kind” as the Bible would put it.

          And that canines can’t interbreed with felines, or equines.

          To me, macro evolution would be a hippo evolving into a whale, or vice versa. BIG changes over a long period of time.

          One is short term and can be observed.
          The other is very long term and has never been observed because it’s just not possible. If that is wrong, then we possibly don’t have a problem agreeing with the short term view.

          I actually got the definition of macro evolution (speciation) from Darwin. The only thing I got from Creationists is baraminology. And there is overlap between creationists and evolutionists in classifications.

          I just haven’t seen any proof positive of one species becoming another and no longer able to mate. Maybe an example of this?

        • Greg G.

          To me, macro evolution would be a hippo evolving into a whale, or vice versa. BIG changes over a long period of time.

          The evidence shows that whales evolved from the Pakicetus and hippos evolved from an unknown common ancestor of the Pakicetus. When the line that led to hippos separated from the line that led to Pakicetus and whales would be a macroevolution event. Pakicetus to whales would be lots and lots of macroevolutionary events.

          What you are calling “macroevolution” is lots of microevolution and there is no limit on that. But macroevolution is more than just the microevolutionary steps that lead to speciation events. An ice age is a macroevolutionary event because it affects many phyla of life by changing the pressures on microevolution.

          You are completely misinformed by creationists.

        • You are completely misinformed by creationists

          That’s the Aha! that klyneal will either get (and slowly move down the road of reality) or always push down in his head.

        • I said I don’t know if wolves, coyotes, dogs, etc. all came from a common ancestor, or were always separate. Nobody does, actually. I can see why someone would propose that possibility, though.

          Macro evolution can’t be proven. Can’t be observed, tested, or proven. So stating that it’s a proven fact is not true. Scientists that tend toward evolution will interpret EXISTING information that way. But it’s still a guess. Creationists interpret the exact same evidence a completely different way. But it’s still a guess.

          The point being, that only what we call “microevolution” has been observed. Adaptation within a species. On a short time scale. This CAN be observed, tested and proven.

          Nor have we actually observed species “constantly changing.” I can’t make these assertions in the absence of any proof at all. It’s all possibilities, that’s it.

          As long as the information is presented honestly, I don’t have a problem with that.

          Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you don’t try to present it as something that has actually happened. Because we can’t prove that.

        • adam

          ” Nobody does, actually. I can see why someone would propose that possibility, though.”

          “The point being, that only what we call “microevolution” has been observed.”

          Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • The “different time scales” being the key, genius.

          You can observe changes WITHIN A SPECIES that occur in a couple of generations of an animal.

          You CAN’T observe changes that occur over supposedly “millions of years” and SPANNING SPECIES.

          THINK ABOUT IT. Plan an experiment that will take millions of years to come to fruition. And you will not have proven a thing.

        • adam

          “You CAN’T observe changes that occur over supposedly “millions of years” and SPANNING SPECIES.”

          Of course we can.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4d1921500198046a5e71159fe0f92d356446ddb62c2b5f950b08af22004db6a4.jpg

        • adam

          “THINK ABOUT IT. Plan an experiment that will take millions of years to
          come to fruition. And you will not have proven a thing.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/878b8e07d2b942087c85ac234890ad18b3e8f811594bc275918c5d05cbe88467.jpg

        • adam

          “The “different time scales” being the key, genius.”

          Yep, tough when universe is only 6000 years old, huh?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fdb39aadd75100b6a42a22589cc237e66125efb7c16def734b5dcc49a03caaa.jpg

        • TheMarsCydonia

          I did say it was a simple thing to understand unless you were a creationist.
          Just to be clear, you realize that a yard and a mile are two different things, right?

        • LMAO! Really? You find this comment to be mature, thoughtful and intelligent?

          Too stupid and childish to even warrant an answer.

          Try again. Be a big girl this time.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Are you able to recognize mature, thoughtful and intelligent? I am asking because you’re a creationist after all.

        • My point exactly. Thanks for proving it

          Try again.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Oh, are you not entertained?

        • Yes, but trolls also become boring very quickly.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          I disagree, I still find you entertaining.

        • Because I’m not a troll. I still find you boring.

          Moving on to more intelligent pastures! LOL

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Oh so the issue we are having is that you have no clue what a troll is then.

          Wait, I’ll help you in terms you should understand:
          Not clever, repeat the same stuff and never prove anything.

          So see, you are a troll.

        • Trolls can be entertaining if they’re clever. You are not.

          Just boring. Same stuff over and over and over, and never getting anywhere or proving anything.

          Doesn’t take much to entertain you, does it? LOL

        • TheMarsCydonia

          I again disagree, trolls can be entertaining even when they only think they’re clever, repeat the same stuff and never prove anything.

          If you managed to prove creationism, you would certainly be less entertaining.

        • If you find shallow trolls that repeat stuff over and over, entertaining, you are easily amused. Like a child. 🙂

          I don’t find you interesting for very long at all. Trolls such as yourself rarely are.

          If you managed to prove anything at all, you might be more interesting.

          Might. Maybe.

          Have you found any proof for evolution, btw?

          Mmm? LOL

        • TheMarsCydonia

          But you did manage to repeat over and over how you were entertainement on the previous piece. It seems that repeating your lack of evidence to everyone has becoming boring for you.

          But let’s see, evidence for creationism? Nope, you still have not provided any.

          Evidence for evolution? Are we in disagreement over micro-evolution now? Because you did use to say you accepted that.

          So change it up instead of repeating yourself:
          Do not repeat that you have no evidence for creationism, provide some.

          We’ll wait (in vain).

        • My my, has something I said “on a previous piece” gotten that much under your skin?

          Now I AM amused. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          You’re confusing my curiosity about how you went from repeatedly making the point that you were entertained to now being bored with getting under my skin.

          So what changed? Why do you find yourself repeating the same things and running away from presenting any evidence no longer entertaining?

        • Curiosity? More like obsession! LOL
          Did the fact that I I found your desperation amusing on a previous post upset you that much, that you have to stalk me?

          You really need to see a shrink, dear. 🙂 Just saying

        • TheMarsCydonia

          So no answer… Perhaps you need a bit more time to reflect?

        • Nope. I’m good. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          If you think so you may want to see that shrink you were talking about.

        • *yawn*
          gee how original. imitating me again.

          Wake me up when someone intelligent comes along.

          zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

        • TheMarsCydonia

          How would you recognize originality when you have no single indepedent thought?

          Break from the creationist mold: provide evidence.

        • zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……….

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Funny, that’s the type of response you always get from internet creationist trolls when you ask them for evidence.

          You fit the mold perfectly.

        • zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………………………………

        • TheMarsCydonia

          You don’t have to be so upset that you don’t have evidence. Get an education.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          You shouldn’t be so upset.

        • You really need to be more useful. Just saying. People who do nothing but mock tend to get banned.

        • Maybe less ridicule, smilies, and LOLs and more serious commentary and evidence. That’s how the adults do it.

        • Phil Rimmer

          What are the barriers for micro-evolution? What are the forces that tell mutation to cease or natural selection to stop selecting? What research in this obvious area has been done?

        • Micro evolution occurs WITHIN a species, and from changing combinations of ALREADY EXISTING DNA.

          Wolves, dogs, coyotes, dingoes, etc. will always be canines. They will never “evolve” into felines.

          Never have anyway.

        • Phil Rimmer

          No. Focus. What are the reasons why evolutionary pressure disappears at the “baramin” boundaries? “Baramin” DNA changes then suddenly can no longer change. By what mechanism? There’ll be tons of research on this because it absolutely proves the baraminologists case.

          No need to prove the unproveable of irreducible complexity when hidden evolutionary history sees repurposed structures explaining IC away. Simply show that early chordates could never produce hydroxyapatite for teeth. Try it on the toothless blindcat (a catfish) DNA for example. Show the pasted-in gene for its production is fatal and failing that show how the gene for brain sand (we’ve all got rocks in our head)and shells could not make that chemical producing transition.

          Or perhaps the DNA encodes the form manifest and a well defined set of tolerance limit forms that trigger apoptosis as they are approached?

          So, who is doing this vital work?

          And why does god not want to see her handiwork thrive by unfettered adaption to adverse pressures? Why is her bounty so prosaically bound?.

          Incidentally, here is the common ancestor of cats and dogs and more besides.

          http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/scitech/science/343965/cats-and-dogs-had-a-common-ancestor-and-here-it-is/story/

          Why you think pressures should drive one into the other as we see them now, you’ll have to explain. This is a bizarre thought experiment.

        • If you are referring to the boundaries between species, this is something that neither evolutionists nor creationists have universally agreed on. But creationists have come up with a basic classification that they agree on.

          I found a good website that explains how creationists classify baramin boundaries.

          Also DNA “changes.” By changes, do you mean the different combinations and even mutations that can occur within already existing DNA? Creationists have no problem with this.

          And how has “hidden” evolutionary structures (what structures?) explained IC away?

          The “experiments” you are suggesting are hypothetical. Neither evolution nor creation can be “proven” by any scientific methods, obviously. It is not something that is occurring any more, and something that takes millions of years to produce any significant changes cannot be measured or observed. It can only be “proposed.”

          For example, can you prove that early chordates COULD produce hydroxyapatite for teeth? See what I mean?

          Programmed cell death plays critical roles in a wide variety of physiological processes during fetal development and in adult tissues.
          In most cases, physiological cell death occurs by apoptosis as opposed to necrosis.
          Are you into cancer research?

          In any event, I fail to see how any of this disproves creation theory or intelligent design. Or evolution for that matter. Depends upon how you interpret the information.

          But if you want to know who is doing this vital work, then check out:

          The Baraminology Study Group (BSG) has been instrumental in this area of research. They are an affiliation of professionals in the biological and related sciences who are actively involved in developing a theoretical framework for biosystematics within creation biology. The group publishes a periodic creationist journal and organizes a semi-regular creation conference to provide a venue for further development in this field.[1]

          Here is a very useful explanation of baramin boundaries:
          http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology

          and:

          HybriDatabase
          The ability to reproduce is the keystone characteristic which indicates that plants or animals have descended from the same baramin. To aid in the identification of baramin, a database of known cases of interspecies reproduction was needed (for example, lion x tiger = liger). To meet this need, Ashley Robinson and Todd Wood started an internet database of published references to such interspecific hybrids. This important creation science research tool is called the HybriDatabase.[5] The database, which is hosted and maintained by the Center for Origins Research (CORE) at Bryan College[6], contains nearly 3000 hybrid records.[7]

          All very interesting. But push come to shove, canines have still never “evolved” into felines (general example), and life still can’t come from non life.

          And STILL the questions are left unanswered:

          How did humans end up so very far and above any other of the millions of forms of life by a random evolutionary process?

          How did we “evolve” from single celled organisms?

        • Phil Rimmer

          Deflections all, I’m afraid . And new nonsense to boot.

          What are the mechanisms that preserve species purity? Someone at least has a theory, surely?

          Interested in abiogenesis? Read Professor Nick Lane “The Vital Question.” He leads one of the best teams in the UK. Already overtaken by confirming results. Life it seems is comparatively easy its the prokaryote to eukaryote transition that is a little more challenging.

          Apes to humans is another fascinating and newly evidenced transition probably fueled by a mutation about 2.5 million years ago changing GABA transport mechanisms in the prefrontal cortex but bringing a legacy of schizophrenia. Also notable is the astonishing tendency for overimitation in kids (kids copy adults even against their better judgment) because human kids are born prematurely to fit their heads through the pelvis, and so are an incompetent danger to themselves. This faithful copying gives rise to culture and our inique achievements are entirely cultural.

        • Deflections? On the contrary. I gave you very exact classifications that evolutionists and creationists can agree on. Did you even look at it?

          Or maybe you didn’t expect me to respond with anything constructive? Not used to being challenged? Or perhaps you are disappointed because you failed to impress or intimidate? Or how dare I disagree with you? Whatever. Drop the pretentiousness, Phil, and maybe we might have an interesting and mutually enjoyable conversation.

          And of course there are mechanisms in DNA that preserve species purity.

          Humans will always be uniquely human, won’t we?

          And the whole point of abiogenesis is that life can’t come from non-life. No amount of deflection or diversion or obfuscation on your part can change that. Evolution does not explain how life came to be in the first place. How did prokaryotes and eukaryotes come into existence in the first place? And how is this “easy?”

          I understand that eukaryotes are thought to have evolved from prokaryotes. This is a theory of evolution. But how did living organisms appear from non life in the first place, is the question of abiogenesis. A question that has never been answered with any definite proof. And never can be. So my statements stand.

          As for apes to humans, this has never been proven, and no “missing links” have ever been found. And the gap between humans and apes would disprove that theory out of hand.
          Next time any ape sends a satellite into space or even writes a poem, you let me know.

          There is no comparison between humans and other living species on earth. That much is painfully obvious and not explicable by evolution. Plain and simple fact. Just look around you.

          And this “faithful copying” as you put it could also be attributed to the culture and achievements of apes and other mammals. But it doesn’t explain the immense gap in the achievements between humans and apes.

          I guess you are not interested in Baraminology? I thought you might be since you mentioned it.

        • Lark62

          Are viruses alive or not?

          Life can come from non life. We are getting closer to understanding how every day. The fact that we do not yet know the answer does not mean there is no answer.

          As for the statement: “Humans will always be uniquely human, won’t we? This highlights your fundamentall lack of understanding of evolution.

        • Really? We are getting close to understanding how life suddenly appeared from non life?

          wow. Proof please.

          LMAO! Ok, so how does the fact that humans have always been uniquely human highlight any fundamental lack of understanding of evolution?

          This is too funny! Explain please. In your own little words.

        • Lark62

          First you say “Humans will always be uniquely human, won’t we?” Then you say “humans have always been uniquely human.” Which point are you arguing?

          Regardless, an existing, current living thing does not “turn into” something different. A current living thing does not give birth to something entirely different. That is not what evolution predicts. A current living thing will produce offspring that are very similar to the parent, yet slightly different.

          If you are a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution, you are descended from someone living in North America around 1776. Your next door neighbor may also have descended from a Revolutionary War soldier. This does not mean you will wake up one day turned into your next door neighbor. You both descend from a population that existed in specific place at a specific time.

          Populations evolve. In 100,000 or a million years there may be descendants of humans that look and act very different. Just as 100,000 and a million years ago, there were ancestors of humans that look and act different than modern humans. These ancestors are documented and many transitional species have been identified. We don’t know what descendants of modern humans may look like, because evolution is not goal driven. It happens in response to the selection of features and adaptations that improve the chances of survival in changing environments.

          Evolution is the change in a population over time. It is documented.

        • Oh, dear. You’re rolling out the big guns–baraminology, an invented study, made up by Creationists to handwave away their lack of evidence.

          Real science is too hard, I guess?

          Evolution is the scientific consensus. Deal with it.

        • Sorry, Bob, but baraminology is REAL science. And since it shares a lot of common knowledge with evolution, you are just showing your stupidity here.

          Evolution is the scientific consensus among secular and atheist scientists.
          Creation is the scientific consensus among Christian and ID scientists.

          All of whom have the same credentials.

          Remember now, since neither evolution nor creation can be proven within any scientific observation or experimentation, that both are still just a belief. Or at best, at theory.

          Sorry, but it’s true. 🙂

        • Sorry, Bob, but baraminology is REAL science.

          Uh huh. So is alchemy.

          And since it shares a lot of common knowledge with evolution, you are just showing your stupidity here.

          It’s a transparent attempt by the Creationists to do something science-y. “Yuh huh!! ‘Kinds’ are too real!”

          Evolution is the scientific consensus among secular and atheist scientists.
          Creation is the scientific consensus among Christian and ID scientists.

          Wrong again. Evolution is the consensus among biologists, whether they’re Christian or Muslim or atheist or whatever.

          Remember now, since neither evolution nor creation can be proven within any scientific observation or experimentation, that both are still just a belief. Or at best, at theory.
          Sorry, but it’s true. 🙂

          Thanks for cushioning the blow, but I realize that evolution is a theory. A scientific theory is as good as it gets; it never graduates to anything better. Another tip: science never proves anything, so mocking me that evolution won’t be proven simply shows your ignorance.

          Are you at least learning something so that the next atheist blog you crash you won’t look so stupid?

        • Lark62

          There are no clear lines between species.

        • I don’t know how you can say there are no clear lines.

          There’s a pretty massive and clear line between humans and any other species of life.

        • Lark62

          No. There are many near ancestors of humans. They are all extinct, but they existed. The lines are obviously not clear since we carry Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.

        • So like I said, the line between humans and any other life form is massive, and evolution can’t explain it. Thank you.

        • Lark62

          What? The linrs between species are fuzzy. This supports evolution.

        • Kodie

          Humans are pretty terrible at evoking the essence of a flower the way the flower itself can be that beauty, be that color, be that soft, be that scent. That’s why people give flowers as a gift instead of show up without them. They are more than we are alone… sometimes. I don’t see a massive difference or line.

        • Not sure how this proves there is not massive line between humans and animals. Seems to be proving that there is.

          I guess when a chimp or a duck jumps in on these posts, I won’t see any line either. 🙂

        • Kodie

          You’re actually too ignorant to know what I’m talking about, but there is already a chimp jumping in on these posts.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “Canines” and “felines”? You realize those are not species right? Wolves, dogs, coyotes, foxes?
          No wait, foxes are not canines either, you have to go up a level: They’re canidae.
          Are they the same creationist “kind”? However, who knows since kind is pretty much anything that is required.
          Maybe “kinds” can go up further into the taxa with “caniforms”, thus wolves, foxes and bears would count as the same kind.

          But you’re right, canines will never evolve into a felines. You have to be completely ignorant of the theory of evolution if you think this would happen. Ignorant like a creationist.

        • Canine (family Canidae), also called canid, any of 36 living species of foxes, wolves, jackals, and other members of the dog family.

          There, clearer now?

          Trying to complicate things you know nothing about just makes you sound stupid. Amusing, but stupid nonetheless.

          If you are interested in baramin classifications:

          Holobaramin
          Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for “whole”) is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah’s ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of “baramin” above and is the primary term in baraminology.
          Monobaramin
          Monobaramin (mono-, from the Greek μόνος, monos for “single” or “one”) is defined by Walter ReMine (1993, p. 444) as: a group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. (A group comprising one entire holobaramin or a portion thereof). It is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Caucasians and Negroes are a monobaramin, as are any group of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.
          Apobaramin
          Apobaramin (apo-, from the Greek ἀπό, apo for “away from”) is a group consisting of the entirety of at least one holobaramin. It may contain a single holobaramin or more than one holobaramin, “but it must contain the entirety of each of the one or more holobaramins within it.” (Kurt Wise, 1999–2000). A groups consisting of both Humans and Canines are apobaraminic since both members are holobaramins. The term apobaramin is a term useful especially during evaluations of two types of organisms (pairwise comparisons).
          Polybaramin
          A polybaramin (poly-, from Greek πολύς, polus for “many”) is defined as a group consisting of part of at least two holobaramins. It may be any of numerous mixtures which could contain holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and individual specimens. It is an ad hoc group of organisms where at least two of the members must be unrelated. For example: Humans, wolves and a duck are a polybaraminic group. This term is useful for describing such hodgepodge mixtures of creatures.

          There ya go. Does that clear it up for you?

          LMAO!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Apparently, making the distinction between canines and canidae confused you.

          What is confusing you? How cannot you grasp this simple thing?

        • LMAO! Poor thing! getting desperate again, I see?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Indeed, I am desperate. Someone who has no clue about evolution or even taxias is killing me with laughter. When will the killing stop!

        • Never! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “Never” is right.

        • Told ya so. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          You showed me too. And proved me right.

        • Lark62

          No. It sounds like an attempt to scientifically classify leprechauns, unicorns and fairies. Nonsense and doublespeak.

          And you think Caucasians and “Negroes” are scientifically different? That is sick. And ignorant. That alone discredits any scientific validity of this nonsense.

          In which baramin does the Dormaalocyon latouri belong? It is a ancestor of felines, canines, ursidae (bears) and other carnivore mammals.

          The platypus is a mammal that lays eggs like a reptile.

          Tiktaalik roseae has features of both fish and amphibians.

          And you think that all species of canines could evolve from 2 or 14 individuals on a boat 6,000 years ago, but that mammals could not have evolved from a common ancestor species in 200,000,000 years (depending on what one considers the first mammal).

          Learn some real science.

        • I wasn’t aware that you were referring to leprechauns or fairies. That’s your doublespeak and diversions. I don’t stoop to such stupidity.

          And since when did I “think” that Caucasians and Negros are “different?” That is your dishonest imagination again, dear. my my.

          I only mentioned “humans,” meaning ALL humans. Find my post that proves you know what I think ….. LMAO! But gee, thanks again for pretending that you know what I’m thinking!

          None of your nonsense or diversions makes any point at all. Just nonsense and doublespeak, and a pathetic attempt to use “big” words to impress and/or give the false impression that you know anything at all.

          Do you always spend this much effort in hiding behind false impressions?

          Learn some real science yourself dear. Then grow up and learn some honesty and humility. It’ll improve your intellect and broaden your uneducated narrow mindedness as well.

          Good luck.

        • Greg G.

          Your tangent evaded every question. No answers?

        • Unfortunately for you, Greg, my “tangent” wasn’t a tangent at all. It was straight to the point.

          Busted, bud. 🙂

        • Greg G.

          You dodged 60% of his post completely.

        • LMAO! Who went off on a tangent about unicorns, leprechauns and fairies? Random BS you pulled out of thin air?

          Mmmmm? Sounds like a childish diversion to me!

          Unfortunately for you, Greg, my “tangent” was straight to the point and right on target.

          BUSTED. Still trying to create false impressions to hide behind.

          Now how bout you take the advice about honesty and humility, and actually try something constructive and intelligent for a change.

          Or be gone, troll! LOL

        • Greg G.

          How many times are you going to reply to this one post?

          You missed the last 60%. That part had the most interesting questions.

        • Lark62

          “For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. ”

          You said it, not me.

          But now that you have “progressed” to insults and ad hominem attacks, I take it you have no further arguments. Dont forget the requisite christian parting shot and tell me your loving god will torture me.

        • ?? If you are quoting someone, it’s not me. Find the post, my friend. It doesn’t exist. I never mentioned “Caucasian” or “Negro” anywhere. You have me confused with someone else.

          My loving God will torture you? 🙂 Yes, you are quite the comedian. Where do you get all this random stuff?

        • Lark62

          Unless there is another klyneal, you wrote this:

          Holobaramin
          Holobaramin (holo-, from the Greek ὅλος, holos for “whole”) is an entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes other races. Another example would be Canines, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard Noah’s ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of “baramin” above and is the primary term in baraminology.

        • BlackMamba44

          sounds to me like she didnt read her copypasta.

        • Lark62

          The magic moving targets. Does “micro evolution” occur within species, or within a genus or withing some other randomly chosen grouping? It depends entirely on which evidence has been used to paint the creationist into a corner.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          See, which was wrong (but unsurprising from a creationist) was that foxes were put under canines. They’re not.
          Unless you go up the taxonomic ranks to canidae, which klyneal, as a good predictable creationist did.

          And that is just because they go with the feeling that foxes and wolves are related but cannot say how exactly.

        • I guess what I am saying is that on a genetic or molecular level, I don’t know what all the boundries are (outside of DNA) but of course we know that they are there, since a pig always begets a pig, and a horse a horse.

          Both creationists and evolutionists are involved in studies to find out.

          Baramin boundries have been defined by a creationist group that most can agree on.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “since a pig always begets a pig, and a horse a horse.”
          If you knew anything about evolution, you would not expect something different…

        • Phil Rimmer

          You do realise the thinking you are evidencing here is at a very low level. Pigs beget pigs is exactly the prediction of evolutionists. Did you mean to say something more elaborate than this?

        • I already have elaborated, Phil, but this seems to set you off. The previous post is still there if you wish to respond with any sincerity. Up to you.

        • Kodie

          You seem to mistake being corrected with “being set off” or being a “fragile little snowflake”. You are obviously proud of your ignorance. What does that have to do with reality?

        • Phil Rimmer

          All I sincerely want you to do is point to a suggested mechanism for baramin/species preservation (apart from Godly fiat!). If you don’t know of one say, I don’t know of one. Don’t tell me other stuff as if it will do. It simply won’t.

          Now do you know of such a mechanism? Failing that do you know of someone who actually does have a theory (again not the theory of baramins. Thats what started all this questioning, of course we know that theory.)

          The mechanism.

        • Apart from Godly fiat? That would be welcome. I’m game.

          I thought you were looking for some common ground upon which to base classifications. I’ve always thought of Baraminology as a Creation biology discipline. Which it is. As you can see, I am very literal.

          And I’m not sure what you mean by “species preservation mechanism” then. Can you narrow that down a bit?

        • Phil Rimmer

          I judge things on evidence. I don’t dismiss stuff without it. I’m asking for the key evidence to show that this is a sustainable idea, that there is a mechanism for keeping species in non-overlapping groups.

          Do you think that science has a role in this mooted theory of non-overlapping species with self preserved identities?

          Are you of the opinion that no such science preserves species identities, but that God interferes to produce that effect?

          How are species identities preserved?

        • I judge things on evidence as well.

          And I’m still not sure that you mean by “non-overlapping.” An example might help.

          We certainly know that different species don’t mate with each other. Cats don’t mate with dogs.

          What would you consider an overlapping species?

          We all know the role that DNA plays. But too many generalities leads to confusion.

          Be a little more specific.

        • Phil Rimmer

          I am rephrasing the single idea I want you to respond to. Lets try this.

          What is the mechanism that stops microevolution become macroevolution?

          And what does microevolution change? Does it change digestion?

        • Ok, my understanding of microevolution is this:
          Microevolution is simply a change in gene frequency within a population. Evolution at this scale can be observed over short periods of time — for example, the frequency of a gene for pesticide resistance in a population of crop pests increases, or the larger size of sparrows in the north compared to the south, which may due to climate, and also due to differing food sources, etc.

          Micro evolution involves changes within a species, due to changes in existing DNA. Both evolutionists and creationists agree here.

          macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. And happens only over long periods of time. Millions of years.
          It includes ideas about the causes of speciation, long-term trends, and mass extinctions. Macroevolution can be loosely defined as evolution above the species level.

          Now, both evolutionists and creationists agree on micro evolution, which can be observed.

          Macro evolution cannot be observed or tested. It can’t be proven.

          That is my problem with macro evolution. You can posit theories, and they can be very plausible theories, but you can’t claim proof positive.

          There is no evidence at all that humans have been anything but humans. Just the huge gap between humans and any other form of life is proof enough for me to see that we have always been unique and there is no common ancestor. You may disagree, but neither of us can prove the other conclusively wrong.

          After all, thousands of years of breeding different species (dogs, cats, horses, etc.) has not led to completely new species being formed.

          So I suppose that some limitations are due to the following:

          Ability to procreate with other species limits macro evolution.
          The differences in physiology prevent compatibility, which is determined by DNA.

          DNA has proven to be pretty stubbornly consistent and unchanging.

          The fact that mutations tend to be overwhelmingly harmful or at best, neutral.

          Both sides have legitimate arguments for their causes. So I try to keep an open mind, as this is not likely to be solved in my lifetime.

          Now since micro and macro evolution occur on the molecular level, or DNA level, you would have to go deeper into genetics. This is fascinating, but I wouldn’t be the expert.

          The only thing I am really good at, would be research itself. I love it. So I’m not adverse to looking things up and studying all sides.

          Eventually I will form my own conclusion.

        • You may disagree, but neither of us can prove the other conclusively wrong.

          You have a delusion that these are symmetric positions. They’re not: the scientific consensus is clear.

          So I try to keep an open mind, as this is not likely to be solved in my lifetime.

          Sorry, bro. The ballots are in, and you lost.

        • Bro? LOL! There ya go, ASSuming again.

          I have no delusions my dear. When I say that there is proof for neither side, and that you can’t observe or test either side, that is straight up honest and factual.

          The delusion is that YOU think evolution has proof, or even merit.

          Oh, and of course they are symmetic positions. As I just explained, neither can be proven or disproven, and often the same evidence can even work to support either side.

          You are the most close minded person I’ve ever read. Even the snide remark about not being “symmetrical.” How childish. And not even true.

          No one here “lost” either. Except maybe you. I did see some marbles rolling around on the floor …..

        • You think that science proves thing. Sad.

        • adam

          “The delusion is that YOU think evolution has proof, or even merit.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • adam

          “The delusion is that YOU think evolution has proof, or even merit.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb49f25b842aef4e0a6e36dccd4c0d86c43e6e95e934f6a511dc718c5fd1fac3.jpg

        • Phil Rimmer

          Micro evolution involves changes within a species, due to changes in existing DNA.

          Now in order to think scientifically we musn’t include our preferred answer in the preamble to the question, so

          Micro evolution involves…… changes in existing DNA.

          What you need to tell me is why the DNA changing process (random mutation and a directing selective pressure) knows not to keep changing the DNA when it reaches the limit of “the species”. Why can’t it go blithely on until my sickle cell immunity has been traded for a lifelong production of lactase? Why are my genes different to other peoples’? Why as a bug can I get new genes to feed off citrate when the glucose supply dries up?

        • Random mutation is not a desirable DNA changing process, since it’s normally harmful, and it’s more of an “accident.” I really don’t consider this a proper vehicle for evolution since it would more likely lead to extinction.

          I don’t think the question is “what stops DNA from changing beyond a certain point,” because that seems to assume that DNA is always changing for no reason.

          DNA is stable. It does not change for no reason. There has to be some kind of pressure or event to cause a change.

          The outside environmental pressures that cause changes in DNA must be a limited set.
          We know some of the reasons, and I don’t see any that would cause a new species to somehow exist.
          We can imagine that this is possible, but there is no proof.

          Just like I don’t know if wolves and coyotes and dogs and jackals, etc. had a common ancestor, or if they were always wolves AND coyotes and dogs and jackals. No one knows.

          I still have a problem with the big picture. If the big picture is not possible, how is random “evolution” then possible?

          How could we be possible via “random” forces? I’d expect to look more like a platypus! lol

          But seriously. Our species, all higher species, wouldn’t be here unless some intelligent force was directing the process. Intimately and directly. I just don’t logically see any other possibility.

        • [DNA] does not change for no reason.

          No? Tells us what the reason for DNA change is then. I thought it was random mutations.

        • Phil Rimmer

          DNA is stable. It does not change for no reason. There has to be some kind of pressure or event to cause a change.

          Mutations are caused by (amongst other means) high enough energy radiation, certainly ionizing radiation of several electron volts or higher would do the job. Our magnetosphere protects us from some radiation and the ozone layer from higher energy photons like UV. But enough really high energy cosmic radiation gets through and the natural background radiation around rocks like granite can be fierce enough. Radiation at several electron volts will defeat a single base pair from copying correctly, hitting it smack on at the right time. The result is that very approximately every billionth or so base pair copying will experience a mutation.

          DNA is critically stable. It is very very stable to preserve the overarching integrity of the protein machine it grows but with enough small manufacturing error due to mutation to allow it to do better or worse than normal in some attribute in some relatively, mostly, subtle way. The small boon that improves reproductive fitness favours that particular mutation. That’s all. Nothing more to tell. DNA mutates. The physics works out beautifully. You can predict the mutation rates for the chemistry bond strengths involved. Mutation rates are measured under various conditions and for other replicators like RNA. And now we know thanks to Andreas Wagner and his team in Switzerland, that multifunction genes get to preserve much of their other functional integrity after a single mutation because of the wonderfully structured nature of the protein solution space, with many protein variants possessing many of the same attributes (to preserve other functions) as just one function is tweaked for better of worse.

          So what stops radiation causing this slow rate of mutation in DNA near the species border? Its still DNA. It does its thing of base pair copying bathed in a modest flux of ionising particles which strike unlucky once in a while. Why doesn’t the process just go on and on? Evolving and evolving…

        • Phil Rimmer

          The outside environmental pressures that cause changes in DNA must be a limited set.
          We know some of the reasons, and I don’t see any that would cause a new species to somehow exist.
          We can imagine that this is possible, but there is no proof.

          This is a collection of opinions with absolutely zero scientific content.

          From the silence I am guessing this has stopped being fun. DNA changes because it has very low level copying faults that are random and occur randomly but at a statistically knowable rate and for a number of prosaic and basic reasons. Perfect fidelity would be astonishing and demand an explanation. Equally prosaic is selection in favour of the more functionally fecund, or the sufficiently fecund with lower energy demands.

          Explaining why this isn’t always a good thing (using science, facts and reason and not feelings and opinion) will do me. There, a little opening for the skilled apologist…

        • epeeist

          DNA is stable. It does not change for no reason. There has to be some kind of pressure or event to cause a change.

          So your DNA is exactly the same as your fathers, or possibly your mothers?

        • I am the result of the *combination of DNA from my mother and my father.* Because both my parents are HUMAN, so am I, with all the human characteristics of my parents.

          So what is your point? That I may have a different eye color or height or whatever?

        • epeeist

          So what is your point?

          You claimed that “DNA is stable. It does not change for no reason”. And yet here we have a variation (“change”) in your DNA compared to that of your parents (and grandparents, and great-grandparents…).

        • I guess I have a problem trying to work out the specific details before putting evolution or creation in the correct context.

          I have to ask, do you believe in the long term view of evolutionists that we evolved from single celled protozoa?

          Forget the problem of abiogenesis, and where this lifeform would have come from in the first place. Life only comes from other life in our scientific reality. This is a biggie, but lets forget this for now.

          How could such complex lifeforms have “evolved” from single celled organisms? How could an eye and a liver and a foot, let alone a circulatory system, nervous system, and all the complex organs that have to work together at the same time have evolved from protozoa?
          Via “random selection?”

          This just SCREAMS planned, intelligently designed and directed, creation at a single point in time to me. Especially when you try to figure out how male and female could have evolved from asexual, single celled protozoa. Now this is a massive problem for me. As it was for Albert Einstein, which led him to believe in a creator, or God. Not the personal Christian God, since Einstein was not religious. But a supreme being, a creator nonetheless. Einstein saw far too much order, planning, design, and intricate balances in nature to even begin to believe the universe could have happened randomly.

          I have big issues with the long term view of evolution.

        • How could such complex lifeforms have “evolved” from single celled organisms? How could an eye and a liver and a foot, let alone a circulatory system, nervous system, and all the complex organs that have to work together at the same time have evolved from protozoa?

          You do realize, I hope, that the people who actually understand the evidence–the biologists–say that evolution from single-celled organisms to humans actually happened, right? You can’t be expected to understand this thoroughly without a lot of effort. So put in the effort, particularly if you plan on declaring evolution null and void.

          When you go up against the scientific consensus, a la Don Quixote, you tend to look foolish.

        • Whaaa? LOL! Of course I know that SOME biologists say that we came from single celled organisms.

          AND you Do realize that this is exactly what I am questioning? Right?

          If they didn’t propose the theory, then what would I have to question? You do understand this, right? wooow.

          My question was HOW do these “biologists” explain a plausible process for the question?

          The question of: How could an eye and a liver and a foot, let alone a circulatory system,
          nervous system, and all the complex organs that have to work together
          at the same time have evolved from protozoa?

          How bout YOU put in the effort to at least understand the basics of what you propose is possible?

          Ok, Don Quixote? Talk about foolish. It’s like being back in kindergarten.

        • Of course I know that SOME biologists say that we came from single celled organisms.

          Which biologists don’t? List them all. I suspect it’s a pretty short list. Not even Behe is on there.

          Go.

          My question was HOW do these “biologists” explain a plausible process for the question?

          But you’ve read evolution textbooks, right? If so, what questions remain?

        • adam

          ” How could an eye and a liver and a foot, let alone a circulatory system, nervous system, and all the complex organs that have to work together at the same time have evolved from protozoa?”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • Phil Rimmer

          I have to ask, do you believe in the long term view of evolutionists that we evolved from single celled protozoa?

          I believe we evolved from self replicating if slightly ill formed clumps of RNA. I believe this came from something like autocataylitic inorganic chemistry. Nowadays we can build such self replicators from the (inorganic) ground up. Nowadays we can see the lipid pouches that become carriers for self replicating machinery formed and reproduce for a few cycles. Early days, but the issue of abiogenesis is at the start of it relinquishing its secrets. Progress is increasingly rapid at the moment (read Nick Lane The Vital Question, then read The Arrival of the Fittest by Andreas Wagner). As a creationist you will be dismayed at the richness of our knowledge on abiogenesis from Nick, but overjoyed at Andreas and the new signature of god’s handiwork (as you will see it) in the astonishingly helpful arrangement of for instance the protein solution space available to evolution, Functional proteins a million times more available than we thought and patterned as pathways across the solution space enabling evolution even in the face of multiple pleiotropy (multifunction genes). Best hint yet for god but you will need to get with the program on evolution to claim it for him….

          Kick a rock and your throbbing toe screams hardness. But when you look carefully its all interacting fields and space, lots of space. Your intuitions are useless to you because because you don’t know where or how to look. To see things you need to use the right instruments.

        • What is the mechanism that stops microevolution become macroevolution?

          You’re like Diogenes, on an eternal quest. Let me know if any Creationist ever stands his ground enough to answer.

          My eternal question is: “What is your evidence for objective morality”? So far, nothing.

          http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/diogenes-of-sinope-9.jpg

        • Phil Rimmer

          Lawks! I have an answer and a motherlode of other assertions. I now have three big meetings. Still deferred gratification is the most delightful.

          The moral problem is always a version of choosing the lesser evil which needs computations of all apparent evils. This is tricky shit given there has been no objective morality with algorithms and computable values, nor a definitive list of all scenarios and scoring outcomes. Catholics solve the problem by negligence. No lesser evil for them. Rather do nothing to save the risk of taint to your own soul. I have a special distaste for Catholicism. Fortunately Catholics are mostly a lot better than their wretched faith, but get institutional and a critical mass of moral negligence happens without human moderation.

        • I don’t believe that God interferes with science. False premise. Just to be clear.

        • Why phil, I see you removed my entire post about barmin classifications.

          Perhaps my remarks about your pretentiousness and failure to impress or intimidate hit the nail right on the head?

          You can delete my post, Phil, but the fact that you had to proves that you can’t delete the truth.

          Just sayin. 🙂

          actually, more than one is missing …….. 🙂

        • Phil Rimmer

          Nothing to do with me. I don’t have the power. I hope they haven’t been removed. I’m very happy for them to stand.

          Never saw anything about pretentiousness. I can cope with that.

        • Good. I was hoping so. Because all these people jumping in is getting distracting.

        • Phil Rimmer

          Try reposting. Keep it pretty straight and there should be no problem that I can see. We’ll take the pretension charge as read.

        • I’m more interested in your clarification. In the interest of keeping it straight and on topic.

        • Lark62

          You get your science knowledge from a website named “life hope and truth”!?

          Oh my fucking gawd.

          Do you get wedding rings from crackerjack boxes and education guidance from fortune cookies?

          Read Why Evolution is True by Coyne.

          Read Your Inner Fish by Shubin.

          Read any 10 articles from the Talk Origins Archives. There are hundreds to chose from.

          Come back when you can converse with adults.

        • Which are you referring to?

          I was referring to http://creationwiki.org/Baraminology

          And the hybrid database.

          Since all evolutionists and creationists don’t universally agree on the classifications, you have to find some common ground.

          Would you agree with the classifications of species found here? Many evolutionists actually agree with many of the classifications.

        • Lark62

          If you were referring to creation wiki, why did you include a link to http://www.lifehopeandtruth.com?

          Even at creation wiki, there is no complete list of kinds or “baramin”. Just a lot of stuff plagiarized from real science sites focusing on popular animals like dogs, cats, elephants, rhinos and so forth. I don’t see a baramin for extinct marine reptiles or salamanders or eels.

        • Which post are you referring to?

          And actually, barmin classifications were created by creationists, so they could not have been plagiarized. But nice try.

          And what is on this site are the methods for classification, not complete lists. Although those can be found if you follow some of the links from this page. Comprehend much?

          Are you trying to ask me a question here? Or debate something? Because all I detect is a lot of whining ………………

        • Lark62

          Do you have the courage to read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne? Or are you too scared that your myth might be challenged?

        • wow. 🙂 You really think highly of yourself.

          Yea, I’m cowering in the corner over here.

          bwa ha ha ha HA HA HA HA HA HAAA!

          sorry. couldn’t resist.

        • Lark62

          If your response means you won’t read it, then you are too scared.

          They say ignorance is bliss. You must be as happy as a pig in shit.

        • Still cowering ….. bwa ha ha ha HA HA HA HA HAAA!

          sorry, not biting. 🙂

        • Lark62

          Bite or not, your choice. It’s a good book. If you are going to debate evolution, it might be handy perhaps to learn what it is,

        • Michael Neville

          Like all good creationists, klyneal doesn’t care what evolution is. His religious master have told him “it’s BAD!” and that’s all he cares about.

        • We all know what evolution is, dear. It’s not some deep dark secret. And neither are you the only person capable of research.

          Thanks, but no thanks. Been there. Moving on. 🙂 I already have tons of material to go through yet.

        • No, evolution isn’t a secret, but that’s not the point. Your poor understanding of evolution is the point. Lark62 was trying to help you out.

        • Yes, that is the point. And the incredible arrogance of assuming that the the very obvious info he posted was not already common knowledge. Unreal. And the point? THere was none at all.

          Next you are going to tell me that the sky is blue. Gee, thanks.

          Not to mention the total arrogance and stupidity of you yourself in ASSuming I would need any “help” from you or Lark62. Sad.

          If your “help” merely consists of attempting to force your views on me, without even considering any other evidence or points of view, you need to examine that arrogance and stupidity on your part and try for more maturity and humility.

        • adam
        • Good point. It is kinda sad that we have given any effort to helping you understand evolution. You’ve made it clear that you don’t give a shit how evolution works, and the Creationist cartoon that plays in your head is just fine for you.

          even considering any other evidence or points of view

          And this is where I’m stuck. There’s the scientific consensus … and what else? What is the competition? And what would cause me to reject the consensus?

          That’s an arrogance that I don’t have. You, with your big dick, are a different story.

        • MadScientist1023

          Microevolution is a technical term used to describe changes within a species that are insufficient to cause speciation. It is strictly within a species. Macroevolution refers to evolution at every other scale. Two species of the same genus, like chimps and bonobos, are an example of a macroevolutionary relationship.

          Science deniers like defining “macroevolution” as whatever supports their argument at a given moment. I find they’re also fond of discussing “kinds” of animals, which can mean genus, order, family, etc, depending on whatever they need it to mean at a given instant.

        • Actually, your definition of macro evolution and mine are pretty close. I posted mine to make sure that we could agree on some common ground, since even scientists are not all in agreement. You have to “pick a side” before you can examine it.

          “kinds” is simply another word for species. I like keeping things simple.

          The only time people complicate things is when they are trying to obscure the facts. Makes it easier to lie. Which has been a pretty common evolutionist tactic on this post. I mean, just read the posts. Sad. So diversionary, as well.

          These people spend all their time avoiding, running and hiding instead of simply answering a question. Or posting pictures like juveniles. Amazing. Hard to take that seriously.

        • MadScientist1023

          Yeah, that would be as hard to take seriously as someone who thought the first law of thermodynamic applied to information as if it were mass or energy. Information’s created and destroyed all the time. There’s nothing special about that. It would be as silly as someone claiming the laws of science are unreliable and change on the whim of some being. You might as well argue the universe was created last Tuesday and that all evidence to the contrary can’t prove anything because it happened in the past.

        • Ok, so how did you just run away from evolution and divert over to the first law of thermodynamics? C’mon. Stay on point, even if you can’t prove said point.

          Life ONLY comes from existing life. Matter comes from other forms of matter. No thing comes from nothing.

          And DNA doesn’t just miraculously produce completely new genes out of nowhere. Sorry. Different combinations can occur of existing genes. And existing genes could suffer mutation. But to think that a feline gene could somehow pop up in a canine, no. And this has NEVER been observed.

          And it would be silly to claim that the laws of science were created “randomly” (big bang, etc.) since the ensuing chaos would have no order.

          Tuesday isn’t exactly “millions” of years ago so that’s a bogus, dishonest analogy.

        • adam

          “Life ONLY comes from existing life.”

          Citation needed

        • adam

          “And DNA doesn’t just miraculously produce completely new genes out of nowhere.”

          No miracles needed, you are thinking of a magical sky daddy not chemistry and physics.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • adam

          “You might as well argue the universe was created last Tuesday and that
          all evidence to the contrary can’t prove anything because it happened in
          the past.”

          “Tuesday isn’t exactly “millions” of years ago so that’s a bogus, dishonest analogy.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d0d0298251c444a7ed04da50dce984d9062e4ab3cd35d48cb69c11eabfe078e2.jpg

        • MadScientist1023

          If a feline gene showed up in a canine, that would be evidence of design, not evolution. You know, a feline gene other than those canines and felines share because they’re both chordates, vertebrates, mammals, carnivores, etc. Those are obviously going to be similar because they had a common ancestor millions of years ago. But evolution doesn’t expect to see dogs turn into cats. It never has. You are the only one claiming it predicts that. Everyone who understands evolution is telling you over and over that’s not how it works. If you found a mammal with bird feathers, that would argue it was created. Feathers evolved in therapods after there was an evolutionary split from mammals. If a trait like feathers made a lateral jump to a different species which did not descend from therapods, that would argue against evolution. Feline genes not showing up in canines only proves the point of evolutionary biology.

          Evolution doesn’t posit that genes come out of nowhere. It posits that new genes are the result of duplication mutations. Genes multiply and form gene families, which have similar domains and structures but can have different functions. Genetic information can thus grow over evolutionary timeframes.

          I realize last Tuesday wasn’t millions of years ago. You’re the one arguing that the laws of science changed abruptly in the recent past. Your arguing that every species might have appeared out of nowhere as they currently are now, aren’t you? That would require an abrupt change in the laws of science in the recent past.

        • adam

          ” I mean, just read the posts. ”

          I read them, where are the lies?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/15ca0861e39343c39684a19ac9ceddd9534f334c6757b32dc5e2772146b00297.jpg

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        Define ‘micro’ evolution.

        Define ‘macro’ evolution.

        Explain why the first is possible but the second isn’t, using your own definitions.

      • Joe

        Where did the designer start?

        • If you can only answer a question with another question, than you can’t prove evolution.

          If you are really knowledgeable in evolution theory, then why can’t you answer the question?

          I think you are afraid to.

          I’d like to hear it as well: Please enlighten us.

          So what do you think is the starting point of macro evolution?
          Is it a self replicating molecule?
          It is a bacteria?
          Is it a simple cell?

        • Michael Neville

          Joe gave another question because theot58’s question was silly. Like the vast majority of creationists, including you, he has no clue about evolution other than he knows it contradicts a couple of 2500 year old creation myths that he and you both think reflect realty.

          First, you dishonest debater, define “macroevolution”. Then describe what a “starting point” is. Be specific. Define your terms so we can attempt to answer a stupid question.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          What is the starting point of god?

        • Another question? brilliant. LOL

        • Very clever! Respond to a question you don’t want to answer with an “LOL”!

          I bet you get good results with that.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          The question gets to the whole basis of the discussion here.

          Even if someone did disprove the theory of evolution, that would not be proof that god exists.

          The Christians should stop arguing over evolution & instead should present their evidence for a god.

        • adam
        • Joe

          The starting point would be organic molecules to proteins to RNA.

          Remember, at the start of a process, even the smallest change is significant.

          It seems the only one group of people around here are answering questions. It’s not the creationists. Do you think that’s polite, and fair? There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

        • The starting point for what? Human life?

          No free lunches here. So organic molecules are found in all life. But how would they “evolve” into complex human life? Eyes, nose, brain, nervous system, heart, lungs, etc. etc. There is a lot of “intelligent” design here, each and every part having a purpose within the whole. What directed this development? It certainly wasn’t random. Did the foot “evolve” before the liver? Or the eyes? Think about that.

          That is a HUGE stretch.

        • Lark62

          But how would they “evolve” into complex human life? Eyes, nose, brain, nervous system, heart, lungs, etc. etc.

          Wow. That’s a toughy. Maybe someone could come up with a comprehensive theory. Maybe scientists could perform research and publish papers explaining the answers to those questions and more. Maybe someone who prefers not to be ignorant would learn something.

          It certainly wasn’t random.

          Give the man a kewpie doll. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

          One should learn about the Theory of Evolution before trying to debunk it, lest one appear ignorant.

        • According to Darwin, we’re all here via random evolution that took place over millions of years. Natural selection is a pretty random process. Unless you can predict nature, especially over millions of years.

          But know what? Nobody can.

          And guess what else? Doesn’t matter how many millions of “opinions” are published on “evolution,” because it can’t be observed or tested or subjected to any scientific methods.

          No more than Creation can. You can test something that takes “millions” of years to occur, and you can only guess at how life began.

          And of course, we know that life can only come from life, sssooooooo…….

          Yep. Evolution is no more than a belief for those that can handle the honest truth.

          RUN FOR YOUR SAFE SPACES, SNOWFLAKES!!! LOL!

        • Lark62

          1. Darwin understood natural selection. You do not. Natural selection is not random.

          2. Darwin’s theory is excellent, but is not the last word. Knowledge has advanced quite a bit in 150 years. The discovery of DNA, for example. Evolution can be observed and tested.

          P.S. You won the Kewpie Doll for (accidentally) making one accurate statement: “It certainly wasn’t random.” I will send your prize any day now.

          One should learn about the Theory of Evolution before trying to debunk it, lest one appear ignorant.

        • adam

          “According to Darwin, we’re all here via random evolution that took place over millions of years. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7123c548a1342e2d1779d51809c0ce85d82e0551dcde5fa0f6496d68284963dd.jpg

        • Actually, the only one that appears ignorant, is the one that can’t intelligently answer the question.

          Which would be …… YOU! LOL!

          Sure there are lots of books written about evolution. There is not a one that explains this conundrum.

          Or perhaps you could give me the link, book with chapter and pages, or even explain in your own little words the PROOF.

          Ok, kewpie. Let’s have it. Lest you appear even more ignorant than you’ve proven yourself to be so far. If that’s even possible.

          Waiting ……………………

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • Lark62

          I have recommended multiple resources that respond to your ignorance. Others here have likewise made recommendations. It is beyond my power to make you read them.

          Spoiler alert. Everyone who undetstands evolution knows natural selection is not random.

          Claiming evolution is random is akin to writing “I’m Stoopid” on your forehead.

        • adam

          “There is not a one that explains this conundrum.”

          Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6997adf8fb62c73d264b1d31bab38cb8d25f74a42805126347c4708bb1fde326.jpg

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Not one? Now that’s hilarious…

          Sorry the pictures aren’t there:

          “How the brain evolved, that is a question for evolution.
          So first we need to have a good representation of how the system works and is composed. The brain has three main components,
          the neurons (cells that transmit signals)
          the synapsis (the connections between the neurons)
          and the circuitry (allowing for the brain to send out specific signals in response to input stimuli).
          Well to first state the obvious, the brain is not an irreducible complex structure. These components are known to exists without forming a brain. Like Jelly fish have no brain, but they do have a simple nervous system with neurons. But how did we have neurons evolve? From what?
          First explain in basics the neuron. Neurons are basically cells that use action potentials, modulated by ion channels within the membranes of the cells, that sends an electrical signal. This may seem irreducible at first, but each part of this system is found on its own associated with a function that are often not related to the function of the nervous system.

          First you have many ion channels, some are voltage gated that allow ions to flow between the membranes in response to a passing wave of action potential in order to continue the action potential even further.
          Ion channels have been found in single celled organisms that use these channels for many different purposes, mainly to maintain ion homeostasis, but a surprising function in them is to communicate with electrical impulses. Even though these single cellular organisms don’t have any neurons, they do have ion channels that are homologous the ones in our neurons and they serve a very similar function to module action potential to send electrical impulses to neighboring cells. Even specialized voltage-gated ion channels have been found in prokaryotes. Even in single cellular protists, these electrical signals generated by ion channels can be used in very sophisticated ways. When the single cellular paramecium bumps onto an obstacle, that bump opens the ion channels generate a wave of ion flow across the cell. The resulting voltage wave reverses the beating of the cilia making the protist travel in the opposite direction.
          So these key components already existed and performed many functions, before any neurons and thus a complete nervous system (including brains) already existed.

          What more can we find? what about the synapses? It turns out that many of the components of the synapses are also found in animals that don’t even have a nervous system like sponges. For example, the critical synaptic scaffold gene, dlg has homologs present in sponges serving another purpose. And the glutamate receptor (that bind to secreted neuro transmitters) also show a phylogenetic history that precedes synapses.

          From this we can construct the phylogenetic history of the synapses.
          Missing Image
          Phylogenetic tree depicting taxons of current relevance to synapse evolution. An extant model organism of each clade is displayed at the top of the phylogeny (see Supplementary information S2 (Box) for additional details on the phylogenetic placing of Porifera relative to Cnidaria). Nodes on the phylogeny represent the divergence points of various clades and are presented by coloured circles. The red node represents Urbilateria (the last common ancestor of all bilaterians). The small grey circle represents the ursynapse (last common ancestor of all synapses). Beside each node the range of published estimations of the given divergence time are given in mya (millions of years ago), as well as the average (av) estimated divergence time based on published studies (available through the public resource for knowledge on the timescale and evolutionary history of life, Timetree43, 104). Superimposed on the phylogeny are notable proteins that are involved in synapse formation and/or function, showing at what intervals in evolutionary history various synaptic components arose. See Supplementary information S3(Box) for additional details on the possible origins of GABA and metabotropic glutamate receptors. AMPA, α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid; CaMKII, calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II; CASK, calcium/calmodulin dependent serine protein kinase; CRIPT, cysteine-rich PDZ-binding protein; Dlg, discs, large homolog; GABA, g-aminobutyric acid; GKAP, guanylate kinase associated protein; GRIP, glutamate receptor interacting protein; KIR channel, inwardly rectifying potassium channel; LIMK, LIM domain kinase; MAGUK, membrane-associated guanylate kinase; MASC, MAGUK associated signalling complex; MuSK, muscle specific kinase; NCAM, neural cell adhesion molecule; NF1, neurofibromin 1; NMDA, N-methylase-D-aspartate; NOS, nitric oxide synthase; PKC, protein kinase C; PMCA, plasma membrane calcium transporting ATPase; Shank, SH3 and multiple ankyrin repeat domains; S-SCAM, membrane associated guanylate kinase, WW and PDZ domain containing 2; SynGAP, synaptic Ras GTPase activating protein.

          Now we have a rough understanding of the evolution of neurons and the synaptic connections between them, but how can neural networks evolve. Well that is relatively simply. Any connection has a benefit or not and the ones that do are preserved, while others are not. This can be shown with simulations of evolving neural networks or in real life robots with neural networks evolving based on the rules of population genetics.

          From this we have functional nervous system and later we can develop a more complex system with a brain and so on. From the simple brain of the lancelet, which is barely a larger area of the central nerve chord, to the brains of fishes, then amphibians, reptiles and mammals.
          Zoom in (real dimensions: 1280 x 868)Image
          Molecular evolution of the synapse. The postsynaptic proteins comprising the receptor and signalling machinery of vertebrate synapses arose in prokaryotes and eukaryotes and were coopted into the earliest metazoan synapses. The red arrow indicates the two genome duplications that expanded the numbers of proteins to produce the highly complex vertebrate synapse proteome around approximately 550 Ma. The subsequent radiation of vertebrate species is illustrated.

          https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/42 … Evolution1
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606080/

          So here’s an explanation of the “brain” conundrum that was apparently inexistant. Now, go ahead and deny…

        • wow, you start out by childishly explaining the EXISTING brain. ????? Existing neurons? What are you, 8 years old?

          “Possible origins…?” I thought you had PROOF!

          So how does a whole lot of nonsense about how the components and chemical makeup of the existing brain explain how we evolved from single celled protozoa?

          Mmmmm?

          LMAO! Oh, I get it. You are using Theo’s explanation of what evolutionists do to try and confuse and obfuscate a subject so much that the other person just gives up and goes along with it. 🙂

          Nice try. Only you are THAT stupid! But OH so funny!

          FAIL.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Proved me right.

        • LMAO! Ok, if you say so.

          I’ll copy and paste it to prove Creation, too. Works both ways! How bout that!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          That would be wonderful! Finally some evidence for creationism!

          I’ll be waiting….

        • Greg G.

          Did the foot “evolve” before the liver?

          No, the liver evolved in aquatic animals.

          Or the eyes?

          Nerves that are sensitive to light would be useful in worms so they could hide under rocks. A concave place allows a creature to identify the direction of the light source. Increasing that leads to a pin-hole camera type of eye that can resolve shapes. A lens sharpens the images. There are examples of each of those types of eyes in animals that exist to this day.

          How can you not understand this and still go around trying to argue against evolution?

        • wow. that’s deep, man.

          bwaa ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA!

        • adam
        • No free lunches!
          And stupidity not allowed. Just sayin. 🙂

        • adam

          “And stupidity not allowed. Just sayin. :-)”

          No, no, you ARE allowed, as is your stupidity…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ba84f8055b4d39d6678611c48e8069dd2234f9f79dc706a30b4b5d3546aa5665.jpg

        • adam
        • STupidity: If you can’t explain yourself in words, use pictures!

          I had picture books before I started school, too. I just don’t still use them. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Must be why scientific theories is beyond your ability to understand, pictures would help.

        • Help who? I have never used them. How bout you? 🙂 Just sayin ………………………………………

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Must be why scientific theories is beyond your ability to understand, pictures would help.

        • adam
        • Or someone that has never ever studied astronomy, cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, or geology and still tries to explain evolution.

          OR someone who believes in evolution BECAUSE they have never studied any of these things.

          Yep. Prove positive all over these posts. Especially by those that have to use pictures.

        • “In the beginning ….” 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          And 6 days later he breathed on some dirt and poof, there was man.

        • Yep. There he was. Intelligently designed and fearfully and wonderfully made. :-0 )

        • TheMarsCydonia

          And thank you for demonstrating how there are exceptions.

        • If you say so, dear. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          You wouldn’t happen to finally have some evidence would you?

          Decades and creationism still comes up short.

        • epeeist

          A couple of years ago a friend of mine died of prostate cancer. The doctors thought they had caught it in time but unfortunately they were too late to catch the metastases.

          Last year another friend of mine died, this time of breast cancer. The cancer she had been treated for five years ago reoccurred and again underwent metastases.

          While we were away we had word another friend had also died. Also of cancer but this time it had left him in a state where he could eat but not digest food.

          What great illustrations of things ” Intelligently designed and fearfully and wonderfully made.”

        • MR

          Intelligently designed and fearfully and wonderfully made:

          A calcified ovarian tumor that appears to have begun to grow teeth was found in the abdominal cavity of a woman buried in a 15th-18th century cemetery in Portugal. (source)

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4c7ac173de18af6d21804f5cb8f1632fd71bdd858f1ed354032810a7d01bce33.jpg

          Indeed.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        Why are you asking me instead of a scientist trained in the relevant fields?

        Evolution is evolution whether it’s macro or micro evolution.

      • Greg G.

        Macroevolution is anything at or above the species differences, including speciation. It is such things that affect many different phyla, such as climate, the atmospheric oxygen concentration, or the rising of a land bridge that allows the introduction of new predators to an area.

        • theot58

          The question is
          What is the starting point of Macro evolution?
          Your comments do not make sense.
          They are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

        • Joe

          Q. What’s the staring point for a journey of a thousand miles?

          A. The first step.

        • Greg G.

          The first macroevolution (all one word) would be the first speciation event. For sexual reproduction, it is when two populations with a reduced ability to interbreed. For asexual reproduction, it’s a judgement call usually based on form and function.

          Why is that so hard for you to understand. You should read more science and converse with real scientists in biology.

    • It’s still hard to separate HOW we came into existence with HOW we continued our existence.

      One would logically lead to explanations of the other.

      Mmmm. I seem to remember a book called the “ORIGIN of Species.’ By Darwin, wasn’t it?

      • TheMarsCydonia

        Yet you forgot when you were taught back in school that “species” and “life” are not the same thing.
        How old are you exactly?
        But thanks for coming to prove my point in this thread too…

        • ?? wow. I still suspect that English is not your first language. And what is your point in mentioning the obvious for no apparent reason?
          LMAO! you are so random! LOL

        • TheMarsCydonia

          It was to complete a gap in your education.

        • Something that you are not intellectually capable of doing. 🙂
          Just pointing out the obvious here.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          I was pointing out to the oblivious.

        • Sure you were.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Still am in fact (but he’s oblivious so he doesn’t get it)

        • Sure you still are. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Because you still are.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        The theory of evolution is about how existing life forms change over time.

        How life came into existence is NOT evolution.

  • TheMarsCydonia

    Someone who is basically asserting “The evidence for this natural process is insufficient, the alternative must be this magical process for which I have no evidence for” should not be expect to be taken seriously, much less be found convincing.

    • True. Anyone saying that, even in the reverse, should not be taken seriously.

      Aside from stating the obvious, your point would be?

      • TheMarsCydonia

        So, another one missed?

        • Yep, you completely missed your own point. Which is why it can be used against you.

          Which is why I can’t take you seriously. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Is that why? I’m convinced.

          Who knew you wouldn’t actually need evidence for your magical process to be convincing? I’m taking seriously without evidence at all.

        • What magical process? The one where we evolved from single celled organisms from some primordial soup?

          Sounds pretty magical to me. 🙂

          Abra ca dabra! Poof! Evolution begins. Magical!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Still confusing evolution with abiogenesis I see.

          But sure, the alternative hypothesis of “dirt then abracradra and poof here’s man” makes so much more sense. No evidence needed at all.

        • Actually, you are confused. At no point did I point out that life cannot come from non-life, which is abiogenesis (not evolution).

          But it’s another wonderful example of a magical process, thank you for that. How would life have “evolved” randomly from non life?

          MAGIC! There ya go!

          No evidence required for that! LMAO!

          Now, back to random “evolution.”

          Let’s assume that life has already magically evolved into single celled protozoa.

          How does evolution explain the evolution of higher species, such as humans, from protozoa?

          Mmmm?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          So if you were not alking about abiogenesis, we’ll take ti to mean that your primordial soup you referred to was alive?

          Do you understand what life is? Soup, even primordial, isn’t alive. And dirt, the thing you think we were magically poofed up from, isn’t either.

        • “primordial soup” was facetious dear. Please develop a sense of humor!

          I was asking how on earth (literally) did humans evolve from single celled organisms?

          Mmmm?

          I never mentioned dirt. Only you did. So CAN you answer the questions with no diversions or running away?

          well?

        • Max Doubt

          “I never mentioned dirt. Only you did. So CAN you answer the questions with no diversions or running away?”

          What grade are you in? Middle school? Junior high? Your science background is abysmally deficient even for a grade school child, but you may have gone to some shitty schools. Let us know where you live and how old you are, and we’ll point you to some beginner level science tutors in your area. A lot of that sort of education can be had at no cost.

        • Sorry, Max, not buying your childish insults and drivel.

          You are obviously a fragile little snowflake that can’t handle any kind of disagreement.

          And you haven’t said a single, thoughtful, intelligent thing in your juvenile diatribe.

          Grow up, kid. Try harder. You’ll get there someday.

        • Kodie

          It’s not just disagreement, you’re a fucking turd to have around. Your arguments are moronic bullshit from the bullshit factory, but you think you’re outsmarting everyone by acting like a total douche about how ignorant you are. Does your teachermom know you’re on the internet?

        • my my. Quite the tantrum! Did something upset you? lol

        • Kodie

          Lol. You’re just an idiot with nothing to say.

        • Michael Neville

          A couple of days ago you threatened to give me a Biblical verse that was supposed to be simple yet I couldn’t understand it. So, dishonest asshole, where’s this verse?

        • A couple of days ago? If you say so. I really didn’t think you were interested in the Bible. But if you want a verse that you won’t understand, I suppose any will do.

          Ok, I like the history in the Bible, so I’ll choose:

          Psalm 106:36-39
          They served their idols,
          which became a snare to them.
          They sacrificed their sons
          and their daughters to the demons;
          they poured out innocent blood,
          the blood of their sons and daughters,
          whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan;
          and the land was polluted with blood.
          Thus they became unclean by their acts,
          and played the harlot in their doings.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          If you’re going to stay, can’t you say something new? My suggestion is: evidence for creationism.

        • Greg G.

          That passage refers to God’s favorite people.

        • What passage, the psalm that I posted?

        • Greg G.

          Yes, the psalm about the Exodus fairy tale.

        • Michael Neville

          So what am I supposed to explain? The Hebrews, who were in a state of cold war with the other Canaanites, were accusing them of child sacrifice and other evil things. It’s a propaganda piece, saying the Hebrews’ enemies are double plus ungood and any Hebrews who do Canaanite things are damned.

          Come on, you’re supposed to be the Biblical whiz. Give me something hard like 2 Kings 23:24: “Moreover, Josiah removed the mediums and the spiritists and the teraphim and the idols and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, that he might confirm the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.”

          I would have to look up what a teraphim is and who Hilkiah was.

          Damn but you’re lazy. You just pulled some verses out of your ass without giving any thought as to how they were supposed to stump the atheist.

        • Greg G.

          He is quoting a reference to events that never even happened.

        • Actually, secular historians already know that these events happened and when. They are familiar with the people and the civilizations of this time. Mainly via archaeology. This has never been disputed, so it should not be controversial to you.

        • Greg G.

          Egyptian archaeology shows that the Hebrews did not exist in Egypt in large numbers.

          Archaeology of the Sinai should find evidence of millions of people who were there for decades. There is none.

          Israeli archaeology finds no sudden change in culture that would happen if the Hebrews had wiped out the Canaanites. Had a culture that had been in Egypt for centuries arrived, it would be pointless to wipe out people and adopt their culture. Instead, archaeologists find many sites with identical culture except that some have pig bones and some don’t have them. That is a clue that Jews started out as a slightly different religion than their neighbors.

          Egypt was a world power when the exodus supposedly happened. If a third of their workforce suddenly walked away, the turmoil would have crashed their economy and they would have lost their status as a world power. That never happened.

          Actually, secular historians already know that these events happened and when.

          That was certainly true in the 1970s when Tommy Thompson wrote his dissertation showing that those Bible stories were based on the stories of their neighbors. Joseph Ratzinger, the now ex-Pope, rejected his thesis. In the 1990s, Israeli archaeology was hoping to find evidence to support the Bible stories but they actually refuted them and Egyptian archaeology supported them.

          Now most scholars realize that the Exodus never really happened. There was no flood and now Garden of Eden, either. David and Solomon were not the great kings the Bible makes them out to be. Those are all fairy tales.

        • “Millions of people???” Where the heck did you get that? Hebrew tribes migrated to Egypt during a famine, that’s how they ended up as slaves there. Not in “large numbers” and certainly not in the “millions.”
          Which doesn’t contradict Biblical or archaeological records. Where are you getting this stuff from?
          A group of German scholars did the first excavations at Jericho in the early 1900s. In the 1930s, British archaeologist John Garstang started new excavations at Jericho, finding local Canaanite pottery from Joshua’s time and evidence for massive destruction by a fierce fire, including ash deposits up to 3 feet (1 m) thick. The evidence was consistent with an Israelite attack on the city around 1400 BC, the biblical date for the Conquest.
          And since the Hebrews took over the existing cities and infrastructure, there would be no “foot print of destruction.”
          Hence:
          “When the Lord your God has cut off the nations whose land the Lord your God is giving you, and you dispossess them and dwell in their cities and in their houses . . .” (Deuteronomy 19:1). And, “I have given you a land for which you did not labor and cities which you did not build, and you dwell in them; you eat of the vineyards and olive groves which you did not plant” (Joshua 24:13).

          When they defeated various Canaanite kings in battle (Joshua 12:7–24), the Israelites simply took over the preexisting infrastructure. There was no need to build new cities, so there would be no archaeological “foot print” of a destructive invasion or the building of new cities. So the Biblical narrative again fits the archaeological findings.

          After 40 years of wandering in the desert, and the death of the adult generation who had departed from Egypt (Numbers 13–14), it makes perfect sense that the Israelites would not have left a footprint in the archaeological record during these early, nation-forming days. They had been living in tents as sojourners in the desert for 40 years. They would have had little or no pottery-making expertise, and none of them had ever built a city.

          If you had actually READ the Bible, this would have been evident to you.

        • Greg G.

          “Millions of people???” Where the heck did you get that?

          The Bible says they had 600,000 soldiers. There were also their families. There would be an equal number of sisters of the 600,000 men. They would have fathers and mothers, little brothers and sisters, and their own children. They also took livestock which would also leave evidence in the desert.

          Hebrew tribes migrated to Egypt during a famine, that’s how they ended up as slaves there. Not in “large numbers” and certainly not in the “millions.”
          Which doesn’t contradict Biblical or archaeological records. Where are you getting this stuff from?

          The Bible says they were there for 430 years. Apologists say that if there were only 70 there originally, it is possible to have millions after four centuries.

          A group of German scholars did the first excavations at Jericho in the early 1900s. In the 1930s, British archaeologist John Garstang started new excavations at Jericho, finding local Canaanite pottery from Joshua’s time and evidence for massive destruction by a fierce fire, including ash deposits up to 3 feet (1 m) thick. The evidence was consistent with an Israelite attack on the city around 1400 BC, the biblical date for the Conquest.
          And since the Hebrews took over the existing cities and infrastructure, there would be no “foot print of destruction.”

          The archaeology on Jericho that has happened since then shows that the wall collapsed because it was undermined by erosion and the city would have been abandoned when the Hebrews were supposed to have arrived.

          If you had actually READ the Bible, this would have been evident to you.

          I have read the Bible. I also read material that is not related to the Bible and material from both sides that is related to the Bible. You seem to be fixated on only material that supports your belief no matter how outdated it is. That’s your cognitive dissonance at work.

        • Greg G.

          PS: In the early 20th century, they called it “Bible Archaeology” because they thought they were finding things that supported the biblical account. They abandoned the term because it turns out that what they find tends to discredit the Bible more often that it supports it.

        • “Millions of people???” Where the heck did you get that?

          Humility tip: when an atheist here says something, check it out first. It just might be right.

          Where the heck we got that is the Bible. Fact 1: the Bible says that 600,000 men of fighting age left Egypt. Add in males too young or too old plus all the women, and you get about 2 million people. Fact 2: God needed them all to die out before they entered the Promised Land®, so that’s 2M corpses in the Sinai desert.

          As a Bible scholar once said, “If you had actually READ the Bible, this would have been evident to you.”

        • MR

          Fact 2: God needed them all to die out before they entered the Promised Land®, so that’s 2M corpses not in the Sinai desert.

          FTFY

        • When an atheist says something, not only will there be no humility, there will be no truth or even the slightest bit of intelligence.

          FACT: 600,000, or even one million, is NOT “millions.” Sorry. It doesn’t exactly say, so you don’t know.

          FACT 2: Case in point of total lack of humility or intelligence. Just a childish, stupid garbage answer – so typical of evolutionists! LOL Thanks for proving me right.

          FACT 3: If YOU had actually read the Bible, I wouldn’t have to constantly correct you.

          Try it sometime, Bob.

        • adam

          “When an atheist says something, not only will there be no humility,
          there will be no truth or even the slightest bit of intelligence.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/681785c573e0e941d7e81f66dd2e305bc7671f7e9b41f0b84b263f098be05d79.jpg

        • When an atheist says something, not only will there be no humility, there will be no truth or even the slightest bit of intelligence.

          Uh huh, never.

          FACT: 600,000, or even one million, is NOT “millions.” Sorry. It doesn’t exactly say, so you don’t know.

          You tell me then: how big would the tribe be if it had 600,000 soldier-age men? Maybe (dare I say it?) 2 million?

          If YOU had actually read the Bible, I wouldn’t have to constantly correct you.

          My, don’t you have a big dick! I wonder, though, why I’m so often having to point out your Bible errors.

          And that reminds me: you forgot to reply to the comment in which I rubbed your nose in the fact that you didn’t know that Exodus 34 had a second and incompatible version of the 10 Commandments. But don’t worry about that if it’s embarrassing—we’ve all forgotten that.

        • I wouldn’t exactly call it “cold war.” 🙂 Went a little wee bit beyond that.

          Nor would I call it a propaganda piece. Since no nations at that time even needed propaganda, or an excuse, to invade other countries. I don’t think you fully understand the times.

          I gave you a psalm. A passage from the Bible, which is what you asked for. If this one is too hard, use yours.

          You asked for me to pick a passage from the Bible. Are YOU now to lazy to research it?

          And I guess it did stump you. welp, that was easy! lol

        • Michael Neville

          I see propaganda is another thing you don’t understand. It’s used for home consumption as well as impressing or overawing foreigners.

          Most of the time the Hebrews were not fighting the other Canaanites but were hostile to them. That, you ignorant twit, is called a cold war.

          As I said, you’re lazy. You just pulled something out of your ass and expected me to fall down. I didn’t but, in true creationist style, you ignored reality and declared yourself the winner.

        • Um, no.
          The Hebrew exodus led them out of Egypt, after many years of travelling through the desert, to Canaan. So no they were not fighting other people or hostile to the Canaanites. They were slaves to the Egyptians before this. They didn’t even know each other existed before this. They traveled a good 500 miles on foot just to get to Canaan.

          So no, this doesn’t even resemble a cold war. Not even in your wildest dreams. It was an invasion and flat out war.

          Sorry, but you really need read and know Biblical history. The only ‘propaganda” here are the pathetic lies you are using to get your foot out of your mouth. Sad but true.

          Stop being lazy and actually read and research Biblical history, instead of just saying you did.

          Another big time fail on your part.

        • MR

          They traveled a good 500 miles on foot just to get to Canaan.

          No great feat. Took me a month to walk over 400 miles, the lazy bastards.

        • Nice diversion. The point was that there was no “cold war.”
          It was a flat out invasion and all out war.

        • MR

          And what does that have to do with anything I said? That’s your argument with someone else.

          They didn’t even know each other existed before this.

          Yeah, kind of shitty for God to allow the Canaanites to inhabit the land for, what was it? 215-430 years, depending on which of the various conflicting verses you choose, only to have the Israelites return and insist that they wipe them off the face of the earth. What’s a little genocide for a God who so loved the world and all…. Too bad archaeology doesn’t even hold up the myth. No mass Exodus, no wandering the desert, no conquest of Canaan.

        • And it’s more like 200 miles from Cairo to Jerusalem.

        • Greg G.

          Even if it was 500 miles, they couldn’t maintain a pace of 13 miles a year.

        • MR

          Two weeks, easy.

        • Well, yeah, but what’s your hurry? It’s the desert–take some time to enjoy the sights!

        • MR

          What’s there to see? A rock, some sand, goddamn scorpions…. 40 years of this? Fuck that, I’m catching the next boat for Santorini and doing Ouzo shots on the beach. In all that time it never occurred to them to just go somewhere else?

        • Lark62

          Hundreds of thousands to a few million people supposedly spent 40 years wandering in the desert until an entire generation had died, yet there is no archaeological evidence. None. No human bones, no animal bones, no camp fires, no broken pottery, no needles, no tent poles or holes from tent poles, no latrines. Nothing.

          You believe this impossible myth then accuse us of believing things without evidence?

        • Who says there is no evidence?

        • Michael Neville

          Most Biblical scholars (the non-literalist types) and all Egyptologists believe that Exodus was fiction. There are no Egyptian records of Hebrews in Egypt, no mention of any plagues, no armies being drown in seas, nothing to suggest that Exodus actually happened. What is believed is that some Hebrews wrote a piece of propaganda, basically saying that a small country’s god is a bigger badass than the gods of the local superpower.

          Just because I don’t accept the Bible as being anything but a collection of myths, fables and lies doesn’t mean I don’t know anything about it. Like all other creationists, you worship the book as much as you worship your god, which colors your interpretation of it.

        • No dear. It’s already been proven by archaeological excavations. Pretty recently (circa 2009) and most of the ancient middle east has not been explored yet. There’s a long way to go.

          And hieroglyphics have been found detailing the plagues and passover, and other events exactly as detailed in the Bible. Stay out of them comic books and start doing some real, unbiased research.

          It has been confirmed that this was during the reign of Ramses II.

          Even secular and atheist historians agree on the accuracy of Biblical history, with archaeology consistently confirming this. Where you get this “myths” thing, I have no idea. So shallow and sad.

        • It’s already been proven by archaeological excavations.

          Well, heck–game over. I shall correct my evaluation of the Old Testament.

          klyneal has a proven track record of meticulous accuracy in his statements, so we don’t need a journal reference.

        • busterggi

          klyneal is the Sean Spicer of apologists.

        • I wonder if he hides among the bushes, too.

        • MR
        • Michael Neville

          It’s already been proven by archaeological excavations.

          I don’t believe you. Since you’ve already established that you’re a liar, I need links to reputable sites. Until then I’ll go with reality, not with what some dumbass creationist liar tries to sell.

          As for myths, read Genesis. Six day creation is a myth. The flood is a myth. The Tower of Babel is a myth. Do you need any other examples of myths, lying creationist?

        • Max Doubt

          “Sorry, Max, not buying your childish insults and drivel.”

          You’ve been here for days whining about not understanding something. I offered you a way to help you understand it.

          “You are obviously a fragile little snowflake that can’t handle any kind of disagreement.”

          And you get that from my offer to help you understand something you admit you don’t understand?

          “And you haven’t said a single, thoughtful, intelligent thing in your juvenile diatribe.”

          If you saw a diatribe in my offer to help you get answers to questions you keep asking, your language skills are as shitty as your science skills.

          “Grow up, kid. Try harder. You’ll get there someday.”

          You keep telling us how ignorant you are, how you don’t have a lick of understanding of the topic of evolution. You’ve acknowledged your ignorance over and over. I’ve offered you a way to actually get answers to the questions you’re asking, and at a level appropriate to your age and education. And rather than thanking me and following up on it, you throw a little tantrum.

          So do you really want to know the answers to all these questions you’re asking, or are you just here to piss and moan about how much you don’t know about evolution?

        • When did I complain about not understanding anything?

          Proof please. Provide that post. You’re such a liar! lol

          You made no offer to help me understand anything. You were the one that whined when you couldn’t refute my posts. Instead of intelligent conversation, you resorted to personal attacks.

          HINT: This is not an offer to help.
          It’s a TEMPER TANTRUM.

          Stop the childish whining already! LOL

          You are just proving my point about being an infantile, delicate little snowflake that can’t handle disagreement of any kind.

          Stop trying to force me into your politically correct little fold, dear. Not gonna happen.

          You are not going to change my mind no matter how much you stamp your little feet and hold your breath.

          Now, now dear. Calm down. Take a couple of xanex and come back in the morning when you’ve had a nice little rest.

          🙂 Cya.

        • Max Doubt

          “When did I complain about not understanding anything?”

          Your complaints are in every question you ask which has already been answered.

          “Proof please. Provide that post.”

          Just a small sampling…

          I was asking how on earth (literally) did humans evolve from single celled organisms?

          […]

          So what do you think is the starting point of macro evolution? […] Is it a self replicating molecule? […] It is a bacteria? […] Is it a simple cell?

          […]

          I guess what I am saying is that on a genetic or molecular level, I don’t know what all the boundries are (outside of DNA)…

          […]

          I don’t know how you can say there are no clear lines.

          […]

          Not sure how this proves there is not massive line between humans and animals.

          […]

          Explain “common descent.”

          […]

          So how is evidence that we all came from single celled organisms able to be found, observed, or tested in any scientific way?

          […]

          And these “if” scenarios, perhaps you could provide some proof of one?

          […]

          And how does evolution explain male and female sexes?

          […]

          So why is it that only HUMANS can write a song, or create the instrument, or write a poem or a book, or send satellites into space and travel to mars?

          […]

          Why, out of all the millions of different life forms that supposedly “randomly” developed, did only ONE species, humans, “evolve” so much differently and come to be so much more advanced than ANY other? […] Only ONE out of many millions of different forms of life on this planet? Not even two or three, or hundreds at least out of millions? […] Why did only ONE evolve to completely rule the earth? How likely is that to happen randomly? How is it even possible?

          […]

          And just how could we all have evolved from single celled organisms?

          […]

          Really? But I thought that evolution was totally random?

          […]

          Why has only man “evolved” to this point? Why?

          […]

          Only man has these incredibly advanced capabilities on a planet with millions of forms of life. Not too random, is it?

          […]

          If I thought “wrong,” you’ll have to explain why.

          There are, of course, more examples.

          “You’re such a liar! lol”

          No, but you’re a mouthy asshole with a demonstrated lack of understanding a subject which you dare to criticize without foundation.

          “You made no offer to help me understand anything.”

          Sure I did. I asked how old you are, what grade you’re in at school, and where you live. If you want some help with your deficient understanding of science, there is help available for you. It really looks like you’re not here to learn about the stuff you don’t know, but instead you’re just using this forum as a way to insist you don’t know it. That point you’ve made abundantly clear.

          “You were the one that whined when you couldn’t refute my posts.”

          I didn’t whine about anything and I didn’t try to refute your posts. Your posts are arguments from incredulity and ignorance. You’re not supporting a position; you’re rejecting sound science based on your repeated admission to not understanding it. Now if you’d make a claim, like about how life on earth has achieved the diversity we see today for example, and if your claim is unsupported or unsupportable, then you will have offered something to refute. So far you’ve offered nothing but questions, ignorance, and incredulity, hence no refutation necessary.

          “Instead of intelligent conversation, you resorted to personal attacks.”

          If you want intelligent conversation you need to learn a bit about the subject. You’re asking questions, admitting that your knowledge of the subject is lacking, severely lacking in most cases. If you want intelligent conversation you should accept the help I offer and that all these other good folks are offering. Instead you’re rejecting their replies out of hand, and based on nothing but your own ignorance. So really, do you want help understanding this stuff, or are you just here to piss and moan about what you don’t understand?

        • LMAO! Did you go through all my posts?

          Yes, I have been asking how on earth humans could have evolved from single celled organisms, and neither you nor anyone else could answer the question.

          My statements stand. Point made.

          And who is a ‘mouthy asshole?” LOL ! Hilarious! But you don’t resort to ad hominem attacks. Oh no! Not you! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAA!

          “How dare I criticize???!!! ” You actually said that? Um, did I mention that you were a fragile little snowflake that can’t deal with differences of opinion? LOL! Better find your safe space and hide!

          Sound science???? !!!!!!! BWHAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA! You are such a comedian!

          I’m obviously getting under your skin, aren’t I?

          Not used to this much of a challenge? Well?

          omg, you’re just killin me here. But thanks so much for the laugh! I needed that!

          Tooooo funny!

        • LMAO! Did you go through all my posts?

          Yeah, can you believe you wrote all that crazy shit and still claim to hold the intellectual high ground? Whatever gets you through the day, I suppose.

        • Phew! That was good. Ok, now that I’ve stopped laughing … mostly ….

          How about actually answering the only two questions that I’ve been asking for the longest?

          And just how could we all have evolved from single celled organisms?

          Why, out of all the millions of different life forms that supposedly “randomly” developed, did only ONE species, humans, “evolve” so much differently and come to be so much more advanced than ANY other? Only ONE out of many millions of different forms of life on this planet?

        • Lark62

          Good question.

          Now should we answer it with evidence or 3000 year old myths?

          Decisions. Decisions

        • What a cowardly response. Not even the slightest attempt to answer the question.

          wow. what a waste! LOL

        • adam

          “And just how could we all have evolved from single celled organisms?”

          Evolution

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • LOL! Pictures, guys? REALLY? What are you, 8 years old?

          Use REAL WORDS people! BIG people words. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Someone can be deeply ignorant of science no matter their grade and if one is a creationist, it’s a guarantee.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          You were asking how “single celled organisms from some primordial soup”, now how humans have evolded from single celled organisms…

          You do realize those are different questions right?
          Answer to the first: I don’t know, hence why abiogenesis is still an hypothesis
          Answer to the second: look up the theory of evolution, just looking it up should help you because you’re deeply ignorant of it.

          But I did mention dirt. Still no evidence from you…

        • So your answers are:

          To the first question: I don’t know.
          To the second question: Go look it up.

          Alrighty then! LMAO!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          While your answer is “zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……….” like a good little, no-thought-of-their-own creationist.

          Should that convince anyone that the origin of biodiversity is magic?

        • zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Still no evidence.

        • *yawn* zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

        • TheMarsCydonia

          zzzzzwhy won’t this guy leave me alonezzzzI have no evidencezzzzzz

        • zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “zzzzzzzzwhy is repeating stuff without evidencezzzzzznot convincing people that magic is truezzzzzz”

        • What’s the problem with bringing up dirt? That’s the real science for a Creationist. God created Adam from dirt.

          Or are the consequences of your religion embarrassing even for you?

        • My religion? You are ASSuming again.

          From dust were ye made. Yep. And your point would be?

          I mean, where does evolution say humanity came from? Mmmm? big bang? rocks?

          well?

        • I really need to slow it down for you, don’t I?

          Someone mentioned dirt. You whined that “I never mentioned dirt.” Uh, yeah, the point was that your religion says we came from dirt.

          Are we all clear now?

        • Otto

          So why is there still dirt then…?

        • How would life have “evolved” randomly from non life?

          No idea. Biologists don’t say that it did.

          God damn, you’re stupid. Indeed, I should’ve used you instead of Koukl to illustrate groundless confidence as Christians’ secret weapon. It’s not an effective weapon, but I guess it’s the best you’ve got.

        • Why don’t you just say that you have no idea?

          Biologists say this is impossible. As far as we know in the REAL world, life only comes from life.

          Soooo, if I ask you a question that forces you to say “I don’t know,” somehow I’M the stupid one?

          wow. you’re funny.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “Life only comes from life”, creationism disproved…

          But creationists do not actually believe that, they believe life came from non-life, you simply need the magical ingredient: god.

        • Biologists say this is impossible.

          Biologists say that abiogenesis is impossible? Guess again, stupid one.

        • Joe

          What’s magic about chemistry?

        • Can chemistry change single celled organisms into humans and other advanced forms of life? REALLY?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Theory of evolution: can genetic mutations change single celled organisms into multi-celled organism?

          Creationism: can dirt magically poof into a human being?

        • zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

        • zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…….

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “zzzzzzzshit, I was called out again, I better write a bunch of zzzzzzzzzzzz”

        • What magical process? The one where we evolved from single celled organisms from some primordial soup?

          Sounds pretty magical to me. 🙂

          Abra ca dabra! Poof! Evolution begins. Magical!

          Did I mention that your (lack of) “logic” can be used against you? LOL

          Now please, try to be more thoughtful and intelligent, and actually say something USEFUL.

          No more trolling. It may be amusing, but ultimately futile.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          No more trolling? Finally you’ll go away? We’ll miss the entertainement but we hope you’ll spend the time away learning the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, learn the evidence for both, etc.

          or finally find the evidence for the magical process of “dirt then abracradra and poof here’s man”.

        • zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “zzzzzzzzzbetter troll againzzzzzzzzI’m here to stayzzzzzzand show no evidence cause I have nonezzzzzz”

        • adam

          “What magical process? The one where we evolved from single celled organisms from some primordial soup?

          Sounds pretty magical to me. :-)”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • STill trying for that free lunch, eh?

        • What? Is evolution still around? That’s such a pain! I suggest putting your fingers in your ears.

        • adam

          STill trying to be the most ignorant person on the internet, eh?

        • And you still have not explained what your point would be.

          Don’t have one?

    • Pofarmer

      Well, except their evidence is actually the evidence you collected and use. They’ll just claim it and misinterpret it.

  • TheMarsCydonia

    So after a couple of days and several comments of two visiting creationists, I can give you a summary of the evidence they have provided against the theory of evolution or/and for magical special creation:

    Were you expecting anything else?

    • Joe

      I’m an optimist, so one day a creationist will have the courage to put their cards on the table. Today was not that day.

      To me, it’s the arrogance of the approach that is galling: Assume your faith-based position is correct, continually ask questions and refuse to accept the answer.

      EDIT: I read about 2-3 comments down and ended up blocking that loser. They’re still repeating the same points over and over again. There is literally no getting through to them.

      • So what’s in your wallet?

      • TheMarsCydonia

        What amazes me is their approach to creationism. I am not sure what their objective is but how could it possibly be to convince us that evolution is false and magical spontaneous creation is right?

        I accept the theory of evolution based on explanations supported by evidence, presented to me by educators and scientists behaving respectfully.

        They present creationism with assertions devoid of supporting evidence and act like arrogant asses.

        Why believe I would come to accept creationism by acting the complete opposite of how I came to accept evolution? How can they even take themselves seriously?

    • They’ve got nothing except confidence.

      • theot58

        Wishful thinking on your part.

        We have shown that the evidence evolutionists present to support the macro evolution myth are significantly inadequate.

        We have presented credible scientific evidence to illustrate that only intelligent designers can create the design information we observe in the cell and DNA.

        Since Evolution is taught as a fact – THE ONUS OF PROOF IS ON EVOLUTIONISTS. to provide credible evidence.

        So what is the evidence?

        hint: Scoffing and sarcasm do NOT constitute evidence.

        The scientific method requires a sceptical approach. Treating evolution like a sacred cow is bad for science.

        Consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine in an article “Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism’s limits” 03 February 2010

        “Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical.

        The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin’s account of evolution is hardly considered.

        Such dissent as there is often relies on theistic premises which Darwinists rightly say have no place in the evaluation of scientific theories. So onlookers are left with the impression that there is little or nothing about Darwin’s theory to which a scientific naturalist could reasonably object.

        The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”

        • TheMarsCydonia

          You have done no such thing:
          – You have not shown in any way that the evidence for the theory of evolution is inadequate.
          – You have shown no credible scientific evidence that magic can create the “information” creationists observe in the cell (namely because this “information ” is simply a false equivalence in terms, they take an analogy and turn it into something literal).
          -You have certainly not shown any evidence of how dirt can turn into a human being in a fraction of a second.

          Evolution is taught as fact because only evolution is concordant and explicative of all the facts observed about the diversity of life. Scoffing and dismissing the evidence will not change this fact.

          If you had anything of value to offer, you would have offered it years ago instead of predicting the demise of the theory which is no closer to its death than it was at the time you started copy-pasting your own comments.

        • Um, so where is the evidence, dear?

          What Theo has said is true. Since Evolution is taught as a fact – THE ONUS OF PROOF IS ON EVOLUTIONISTS. to provide credible evidence.

          Can you do that?

          HINT: diverting and scoffing are not “evidence.”

          Well? I can just as easily say that only creationism is concordant and explicative of all the facts observed about the diversity of life.

          And it would be true.

          So how bout some actual PROOF dear? It might actually wake me up if you can provide any. 🙂

          If you can’t, then you just proved Theos point. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Do you have a learning impediment? Because we’ve discussed this before:
          Micro-evolution
          – You granted that it is real
          – We’ve explained its relation to macro-evolution
          – Your response was “Nuh-uh!” but unfortunately, that only makes us a laugh and is not actually a valid objection.
          – You’re still coming up on empty on providing evidence that micro-evolutionary changes do not and cannot accumulate.

          And since you both refuse to provide evidence for creationism, for several dozens if not hundreds of comments, shouldn’t you just admit that you don’t have any? Why try to play with the adults?

        • Greg G.

          Um, so where is the evidence, dear?

          What Theo has said is true. Since Evolution is taught as a fact – THE ONUS OF PROOF IS ON EVOLUTIONISTS. to provide credible evidence.

          The evidence is cleverly hidden in displays in museums. More evidence is described in books. How can you not know this?

          Anatomists can show relationships from the anatomy of animals. Botanists can do show relationships from the structure of plants. Nested hierarchological trees are created by these comparisons.

          DNA studies also create nested hierarchological trees of relationships between plants and animals.

          The trees created by two different methods confirm one another.

          Then there is tons (literally tons) of fossil evidence that supports the twin nested hierarchies.

          Evolution is well supported by the evidence and by logic.

          Creationism is supported by a book that has been shown to be right with a success rate that is shamed by a blind squirrel.

        • What Theo has said is true. Since Evolution is taught as a fact – THE ONUS OF PROOF IS ON EVOLUTIONISTS. to provide credible evidence.

          It’s the scientific consensus. That you can’t understand the evidence isn’t science’s fault.

        • Lark62

          How about reading the material that was recommended to you, material that, ya know, presents the evidence for evolution?

          You can stand on a beach and declare that there is no evidence for sand. But that would not make it true. And you would still look stupid and willfully ignorant.

        • MR

          The willfully ignorant. ^1

        • How bout reading the Bible? (Don’t say you did, because that would be scary that you could still be do ignorant).

          Really. Saying “go read a book” is the same as saying “I have no idea how to defend my views because I’m completely ignorant.”

          How stupid!

          PROOF PLEASE.

        • Kevin K
        • If he were actually interested in learning something about evolution (I’m sure he isn’t), an easy place to poke around and get some questions answered is http://talkorigins.org/

        • Kevin K

          Ernst Mayr’s book is still a “go to” standard for my money. He was generally recognized as the father of the modern evolutionary synthesis that married Darwin’s concepts of natural selection with Mendelian genetics.

          Obviously, we learned a LOT since then, but in terms of laying out all of the evidence with clarity, you can’t go wrong with Mayr. You’d be able to pass a high-school level test on the subject for sure; maybe even freshman level in college.

        • And your link shows that the book is available online for free. Nice.

        • Lark62

          I will have to get Mayr’s book.

          I like “Why Evolution is True” by Coyne. Straightforward and clear. I read that after Dawkins Greatest Show on Earth. Dawkins is good but sometimes has too much editorializing to

        • Kevin K

          I read Coyne, but honestly, I think both Prothero and Carroll (the biologist) did a much better job. As for Dawkins, I have only ever read The Blind Watchmaker, and it didn’t do much for me.

          Daniel Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” is a very good read.

        • Max Doubt

          “If he were actually interested in learning something about evolution (I’m sure he isn’t), an easy place to poke around and get some questions answered is http://talkorigins.org/

          Hell, I even offered to help her find an age appropriate tutor in her area who might be able to help her overcome her radically deficient understanding of science. All I got back was her impersonation of a smart mouthed lying asshole refusing help with a problem she admits having. At least the impersonation was spot-on.

        • theot58

          I have go through tons of evolutionary literature.

          I have finally gained an understanding of the strategy being use to push the macro evolution myth.

          Evolutionists use the following steps to
          promote the idea that macro evolution is a “fact”:

          IMPRESS with computer graphics or marvels
          of nature
          -Impressive graphic animations or amazing feats of nature are used tohook and engage the reader

          CONFUSE with loads of irrelevant details
          and jargon
          -Loads of largely irrelevant details and scientific jargon are used to overwhelm the reader
          The objective is to get the reader to conclude:
          “Wow this is really complicated– I cannot undersdand it”
          “I cannot be bothered to sort this out – I will just accept their conlcusions”

          INTERPRET the evidence in an evolution
          friendly manner
          -Intermix facts with evolutionary interpretations which most people will fail to detect.

          -Repeatedly declare:
          “this is exactly what evolution would predict”
          “Virtually all scientists agree with this”

          CONQUER the reader’s intellect and common sense
          With the reader drowning the sea of irrelevant details and jargon and being told that virtually all scientist accept evolution. Most readers completely surrender their common sense and accept the totally implausible
          assertion that a bacteria became a baby over millions of years.

          Consider just a small number of fundamental scientific problems with Darwinian/Macro evolution which expose its fallacy

          1) Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?
          – it contains over 4 Gigabits of programming data; we have never observed natural forces creating programming data
          – a building is proof of a builder, a program is proof of a programmer, a design is proof of a designer

          2) How did genders “evolve” from asexual organisms?
          – Consider some of the challenges, have a look at this video http://youtu.be/Ab1VWQEnnwM

          3) How do you explain symbiotic relationships while holding to gradual “evolution”?
          – e.g.. The bees need the flowers, the flowers need the bees – they both MUST exist together, how could this occur slowly or gradually
          – What came first the Chicken or the egg?

          4) Where are all the myriad of transition fossils that Darwin predicted?
          – They were missing then and they are missing now.
          – How can the Cambrian explosion of millions of fully formed organism appearing abruptly be explained by Evolution?

          5) Which “evolved” first, the vagina or the penis?
          – how did one “evolve” from the other?
          – How could the sexual function “evolve” both separately yet simultaneously?

        • And yet evolution is still the scientific consensus. Kinda hard to handwave that one away, isn’t it?

          You ask questions as if you care for the answers–that’s cute! But you surely can’t be so stupid to imagine that there are no answers to these questions, right? That, if you put them in front of a biologist, they’d agree that evolution was bullshit?

        • Yep.

        • Do so then. That you waste time with idiots like us suggests that you’re lying.

        • adam

          Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • theot58

          How cute – and how stupid
          Sir Isaac Newton said
          “I can take my telescope and look millions and millions of miles into space, but I can lay it aside and go into my room, shut the door, get down on my knees in earnest prayer and see more of Heaven and get closer to God than I can assisted by all the telescopes and material agencies on earth”

          Nikola Tesla said:

          “The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.
          My mother taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.”

          “I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm
          that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood.”
          –Galileo (Letter to Grand Duchess of Tuscany)

        • adam
        • adam
        • Michael Neville

          Two Christian* scientists and a Christian engineer said that they believed in God. So what? None of them were biologists and none of the quotes you gave are on evolution.

          *Newton’s religious ideas would not be accepted by the vast majority of Christians.

        • Garbage. sigh.

        • Kevin K

          Settled science. Sigh.

        • Whining is settled science? *sigh*

        • Kevin K

          The biologic theory of evolution is settled science. Creatures were not poofed into existence with magic words by a giant garden gnome.

          The entire theory of evolution can be encapsulated into three words: Change over time.

          That you are too pitifully ignorant to understand the basic facts of biology says something about you.

        • Your shallow, pathetic over simplification is neither true nor “settled.”

          FAIL.

        • Kevin K

          Trolly troll trolls.

        • adam
        • adam
        • At least you say “evidence” and “theory” and not proof. There is at least a little intellectual honesty there.

          The rest is just whining.

        • adam
        • adam
        • sooo, a cartoon is your evidence?

          Figures. Nice job. lol!

        • adam
        • TheMarsCydonia

          The lack of self-awereness is hilarious…

        • theot58

          See reply above to
          TheMarsCydonia for some fatal flaws of macro evolution.

        • Fatal flaws? You know of fatal flaws in evolution??

          Why waste time talking to us? Write up your evidence, and collect your Nobel Prize!

          The fact that you’re doing it the other way around–wasting time talking to us–suggests that you don’t in fact have anything that would convince those who actually understand the information.

          Busted.

        • adam

          Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fdb39aadd75100b6a42a22589cc237e66125efb7c16def734b5dcc49a03caaa.jpg

        • We have shown that the evidence evolutionists present to support the macro evolution myth are significantly inadequate.

          Weird, though, that evolution remains the scientific consensus. All I can conclude . . . is that you’re full of shit. But how can that be, when you just told me you’re right!

          theot or the entire biological community . . . golly, which one do I believe?

          Consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine in an article “Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism’s limits” 03 February 2010

          That’s behind a paywall. Nevertheless, the authors say that their point can be distilled from the title of their book, What Darwin Got Wrong.

          Words can’t express how little I care about what Darwin got wrong. We don’t consult his writings to find out how life changes; we look at modern biology.

          Another hilarious fail on your part, I’m afraid. Is your whole routine clumsy pratfalls, or do you have something intellectual to add to the conversation?

        • Joe

          I’ve read through both torturous threads and you haven’t presented any evidence whatsoever.

        • Greg G.

          Consider a quotation from New Scientist magazine in an article “Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism’s limits” 03 February 2010

          “Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical.

          But is the literature wrong. More importantly is it wrong enough to overturn all the evidence that has been critically verified?

          When I was a creationist, I was amused by quotes like that so much that I decided to see if I could find them so I started reading books on evolution. I found a few of them that were quoted by creationists, but when read in context, they did not say what the creationist authors were implying they said. There is a term for that: “quotemining”. I can show you 17 verse in the Bible that have been translated to say “there is no god.” But that is quotemining because, in context, it says “There is no god besides me” and “the fools says in his heart ‘there is no god'”. That is what creationists often do when they take a sentence out of an evolutionary scientist’s work. It shocked me when I saw those.

          Then when I heard the preacher saying what evolutionists say when I knew that was a mischaracterization of what scientists actually said, I was quite disappointed. Five minutes later, he was using the same tone of voice and manner of speaking to tell us what heaven was like.

          He could have easily found out what scientists actually said but he made false statements anyway. There is no way he could know what heaven was really like but he told us anyway in the same tone of voice. I really liked him but I could no longer trust him and it was just another foundation of my faith that was being knocked out despite my desire to keep my faith.

        • theot58

          Greg I sympathise with you big time.
          There are gross deceptions being perpetrated in the name of religion. However the question of how the prevailing world came about is a scientific question (with religious implications).
          What would you say is the strongest evidence supporting macro evolution?
          How does it indicate that a bacteria became a human?

        • adam

          “What would you say is the strongest evidence supporting macro evolution?”
          Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dbb5ebd19667aae2c9b60afdbf72e9907a2c37d01a0986f1232ed576484110bb.jpg

          “How does it indicate that a bacteria became a human?”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • Darwin’s theories have been trashed. There was no critical thinking. Even Darwin himself admitted his theories don’t hold up to scrutiny.

          Just like the rest of your post. You reveal much more ignorance than you blissfully realize. 🙂 Pretty amusing though.

          You lie sssooo bad. You are ssssooo desperate to prove something wrong that you have no knowledge of in the first place.

          You’re getting desperate, snowflake. Better retreat into your safe space!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Darwin’s theories have been trashed?
          They have, by people that lack the basic scientific understanding to do so: creationists.

          By scientists however? Darwin’s theories remain a revolutionary discovery in science as Darwin showed incredible foresight.

          Cretinists have been predicting the doom of evolution for well over a century. The theory has never found itself more accepted than today, it will be more accepted tomorrow.

          Cretinists could dazzle us with evidence, what are they waiting for?

        • adam
        • Everyone knows when your statements are wrong. When you bluster like this, we all know that you know, too!

          Even Darwin himself admitted his theories don’t hold up to scrutiny

          Did he? Show me. Methinks that a proper interpretation would make for an amusing rebuttal.

          And, just to make this conversation even more irrelevant, you do know that modern biology isn’t based on his authority, right? No one cares whether Darwin was right or not. Modern biology stands on its own, not on “Because the Great Darwin said so.”

        • Michael Neville

          Darwin was right on some things like natural selection and wrong about other things like how heredity works. Since he wrote 150 years ago it shouldn’t be surprising that his theory has been modified due to new knowledge such as genetics.

          Darwin was a profound thinker who described how one part of evolution works. He is not the final word on evolution.

        • I’ve heard the suggestion that because Christians follow authority figures, they figure that atheists must, too.

        • MR

          This really rings true to me, and I’d even extrapolate that out into the political realm. “Give me a leader and I’ll follow him no matter what.” Whereas the other side tends to be more “show me the evidence and let me decide for myself.” I suppose both mindsets have their evolutionary value.

        • That highlights the problem with eugenics. The big issues plaguing society tend to change rapidly–what you’d select for today would seem stupid 50 years from now.

          Though society is often divided, diversity is our friend.

    • theot58

      Consider just a small number of fundamental scientific problems with Darwinian/Macro evolution which expose its fallacy

      1) Where did the information come from to build the DNA molecule?
      – it contains over 4 Gigabits of programming data; we have never observed natural forces creating programming data
      – a building is proof of a builder, a program is proof of a programmer, a design is proof of a designer

      2) How did genders “evolve” from asexual organisms?
      – Consider some of the challenges, have a look at this video http://youtu.be/Ab1VWQEnnwM

      3) How do you explain symbiotic relationships while holding to gradual “evolution”?
      – e.g.. The bees need the flowers, the flowers need the bees – they both MUST exist together, how could this occur slowly or gradually
      – What came first the Chicken or the egg?

      4) Where are all the myriad of transition fossils that Darwin predicted?
      – They were missing then and they are missing now.
      – How can the Cambrian explosion of millions of fully formed organism appearing abruptly be explained by Evolution?

      5) Which “evolved” first, the vagina or the penis?
      – how did one “evolve” from the other?
      – How could the sexual function “evolve” both separately yet simultaneously?

      • TheMarsCydonia

        I’ve considered them, in response consider the following:
        1) DNA molecules contains absolutely no programming data. Cretinists conclude it does based on this process: they wish there was a designer, therefore they’ll call what a DNA molecules does a “program”.
        Can we apply this process to other things to infer a magical being?
        – Snowflakes is proof of a snowflake-maker
        – Cancers are proof there is a cancer-maker
        Should I go on?
        2) How everything else has evolved.
        3) Symbiological evolution, there is no “first” there, it’s together.
        4) In museums. There are literally thousands. And where they found and the condition they were found in actually makes no sense if you believe they were poofed out of thin air.
        And the cambrian explosion? Do you have any idea of the timescale of it?
        5) Neither

        It’s a problem when someone repeats the same questions for years. It shows a fundamental incapacity to learn, either by lack of the required intelligence or by lack of willingness. In either case, your incapacity to learn does not invalidate evolution.

        And now consider this:
        1) The biggest objection evolution for a lot of creationists is “macro-evolution”. Macro-evolution is the sum of micro-evolutionary changes, like walking a mile is the sum of walking many yards.
        Can creationists demonstrate the barriers that prevent micro-evolutionary change from happening? An obstacle blocking someone from walking a mile is easily demonstrable, what are creationists waiting for when it comes to evolution?
        2) Where is the evidence that man was poofed out of dirt?

        These questions have been asked of you for years… Why do you still not have answers?

        • theot58

          Your answers are awesome – I am going to put them in my register of typical evolutionist BS.

          Total gibberish devoid of scientific merit to protect the sacred cow of macro evolution.

          Are you not embarrassed giving such tripe as answers?

          Are you not concerned that such tripe is being fed to students in class? Are you not concerned about the impact it is having on their self esteem?

          The consequences of teaching Darwinians/Macro evolution as a scientific fact are subtle but very destructive.

          The core assertion of Darwinian/Macro evolution, that from simple and chaotic beginnings all life-forms emerged by an unguided, purposeless process, is NOT harmless. The inescapable inference is that since we emerged from a random, unguided, purposeless process, then we are purposeless and of no inherent value. This has a subtle but very negative impact on the self esteem of students and is contributing to low self esteem, depression, nihilism, etc.

          If the scientific evidence for macro evolution was genuinely strong; I would not complain. The truth is that the scientific evidence shows that macro evolution is highly implausible

        • Are you kylneal? This is uninformed, condescending bullshit that he uses.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          kylneal appears relatively new to the christian trolling scene but theot58 has been tryong his baseless “evolution will die soon” for years. Literally as you can see the comments he copy-pasted years ago be the same comments he copy-pastes today.

        • And yet, no one here has yet to challenge Theo’s views in any significant way. Amazing. Why not change it up? PROVE SOMETHING.

          Just sayin.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          That is what I keep telling you and theot58: “PROVE SOMETHING”. You’re imitating me, I’m flattered.

        • I haven’t stated that I have proof. YOU HAVE.
          I’ve consistently stated that neither side can say that they have proof, or that either is “fact.”

          YOU DO.

          You are stating that evolution is fact,

          Soooo, where is it? Prove evolution is fact.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “Micro-evolution
          – You assertet that it is real
          – We’ve explained its relation to macro-evolution
          – Your response was “Nuh-uh!” but unfortunately, that only makes us a laugh and is not actually a valid objection.
          – You’re still coming up on empty on providing evidence that micro-evolutionary changes do not and cannot accumulate (that’s macro-evolution)”.

        • Saying that you explained something doesn’t mean you did.

          C’mon, POST SOME PROOF!

          well? waiting …………………….

        • adam

          Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • TheMarsCydonia

          I won’t keep you waiting:
          “Micro-evolution
          – You assertet that it is real
          – We’ve explained its relation to macro-evolution
          – Your response was “Nuh-uh!” but unfortunately, that only makes us a laugh and is not actually a valid objection.
          – You’re still coming up on empty on providing evidence that micro-evolutionary changes do not and cannot accumulate (that’s macro-evolution)”.

        • *sigh* more diversions and BS.

          Still waiting …………………

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Wait no further:
          “Micro-evolution
          – You asserted that it is real
          – We’ve explained its relation to macro-evolution
          – Your response was “More diversion and BS, still waiting” but unfortunately, that only makes us a laugh and is not actually a valid objection.
          – You’re still coming up empty on providing evidence that micro-evolutionary changes do not and cannot accumulate (that’s macro-evolution)”.

        • adam

          Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/32a8ffcdaee0703b996e6a81b2e4640ff89f649ad01748d74aeea4ea7775ee98.jpg

        • Well at least he has an open mind.

          Or maybe not.

        • BlackMamba44

          I would not be surprised. Sock puppets seem to be a thing with them.

          Edit: just saw TheMarsCydonia response.

        • theot58

          I am not kylneal.
          Why do you find it so extraordinary that someone is challenging the macro evolution myth?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Someone should first understand what it is they are challenging. You’ve made it repeatedly clear that you have no understanding of evolution and that your attacks on it are religiously and not scientifically motivated.

          You’ve failed for years and you will continue to fail as long as you keep disregarding the facts and let your hatred drive you.

        • LOL! So. Challenges are only allowed according to miss marscydonia’s marshal laws? HOW DARE SOMEONE CHALLENGE MISS CYDONIA’S VIEWS!

          The nerve!

          And just look at how she pretends to know other’s so well!

          How cutely arrogant. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Who says they’re only allowed when you understand it?

          I said someone “should” but its not a law, creationists can look like morons all they want. You do such an entertaining job of it. If it was a “law” we’d lose hours of laughter.

        • adam
        • So believing that a “big bang” can create life ISN’T magic? bwa ha ha ha HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA!

          You’re funny.

        • adam

          “So believing that a “big bang” can create life ISN’T magic? ”

          Who says a ‘big bang’ created life?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2f6c5ee819e85cc536f06ee9978ca5014843d0c6cea2e0be451a34308697efe.jpg

        • Don’t try to hide now, that’s YOUR evolutionary buddies, dear. Funny how fast they run! LOL

        • adam
        • How fast they run once they are proven wrong. LIke cockroaches when the lights are turned on.

          “I never said that!” LOL

        • omg. Can’t even think of anything to say, so just copy and paste childish pictures? And this doesn’t embarrass you?

          AMAZING.

        • Joe

          It didn’t ‘create’ anything!

        • Now at least we agree on something. 🙂

        • adam

          ” macro evolution myth?”

          The myth you are trying to create?

          Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • klyneal’s the “wise ass.” 🙂 Or so I’ve been told.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Don’t believe everything your mother tells you. You’re neither a wise ass or smart ass, you’re just an ass.

        • Actually dear, YOU and your buddies told me that. 🙂

          So it just must be true! LOL!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          And here I though “so it just must be true” was something you applied only to a book with talking animals, giants, dragons, unicorns, etc.

        • Actually, I apply it the same way you do.

          To evolution. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “Evolution just must be false because the talking snake must just be true”.

        • If you say so.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Magic, it explains everything.

        • If you say so.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Teenager

        • Well now, that’s a stretch!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Are we finally agreeing about the talking snake and magic?

        • If you say so.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “Micro-evolution
          – You granted that it is real
          – We’ve explained its relation to macro-evolution
          – Your response was “Nuh-uh!” but unfortunately, that only makes us a laugh and is not actually a valid objection.
          – You’re still coming up on empty on providing evidence that micro-evolutionary changes do not and cannot accumulate (that’s macro-evolution).”

        • I told you to lay off them red pills, now didn’t I?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          And I asked for evidence against evolution or for creationism.
          We obviously don’t always get we want.

        • Way to avoid answering a question or providing any proof for evolution! Way to go, MarsCydonia! LOL

          I guess we don’t always get what we ask for, eh? 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          When you ask evidence of creationist, you’re perfectly right: we never get what er asked for.

          But for evolution, let’s go over this again:
          “Micro-evolution
          – You granted that it is real
          – We’ve explained its relation to macro-evolution
          – Your response was “Nuh-uh!” but unfortunately, that only makes us a laugh and is not actually a valid objection.
          – You’re still coming up on empty on providing evidence that micro-evolutionary changes do not and cannot accumulate (that’s macro-evolution).”

          Coming up empty on evidence against evolution. Are you doing better on evidence for creationism?

          I’ll wait…

        • Um. This proves evolution?

          Don’t think so.

          Wow. I feel soooo sorry for you!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          You are indeed sorry and you effectively don’t think…

          “Micro-evolution
          – You granted that it is real
          – We’ve explained its relation to macro-evolution
          – Your response was “Nuh-uh!” but unfortunately, that only makes us a laugh and is not actually a valid objection.
          – You’re still coming up on empty on providing evidence that micro-evolutionary changes do not and cannot accumulate (that’s macro-evolution).”

        • MR

          As I’ve said, it was never atheist arguments that convinced me there’s no God, it was Christians like this. I guess we’re supposed to believe that trolling is what Jesus would do.

        • Oh heck, girl. Why not just admit you don’t have any proof?
          Isn’t the truth just soooo much easier?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Why not make the truth soooo easier and give up on creationism?

        • Is that what you are trying to do? Make me “give up on creationsim?”

          🙂 To do that, you’d have to intelligently answer a question, which you have repeatedly failed to do. Good luck with that! LOL

        • TheMarsCydonia

          So you’ll keep with creationism based on… a complete lack of evidence for it.
          I can do without the “intelligence” of creationists, truth is so hard when you’re one.

        • Lark62

          Look at the plus side – Half right is the best he’s done in this entire conversation.

        • adam
        • Gee, that’s real mature and intelligent. lol!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          It’s “creationist mature and intelligent”.

        • Naw, I meant it just like I said it

          Now what did I tell you about trying to read minds? LOL

        • TheMarsCydonia

          If you say so (it makes us laugh)

        • Yep. I said so. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          And it makes us laugh

        • adam
        • adam

          “Why do you find it so extraordinary that someone is challenging the macro evolution myth?”

          Stupid is as stupid does:

          Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62da10177de8c12d9feedf1a0ff3d448ed929feef887a1192640edb3a8a15953.jpg

        • I guess it’s sort of like the anti-vaxxers. Imagine if they’d grown up during the 40s and 50s when kids weren’t allowed to go in pools for fears of polio, or if they’d grown up a century earlier when smallpox or yellow fever or other diseases came through in periodic epidemics. They’d be 100% in favor of vaccines, and they’d laugh at the bullshit arguments they use today.

          The evolution deniers are from the same mold. They have electricity and computers and cell phones and the internet, and yet they fancy themselves smart enough to reject the scientific consensus? Whatever happened to humility?

          It also reminds me of city people who think that food comes from stores. They give no thought to where the stores get it from. And yet society has enough cushion to carry these people along, letting them focus on what they are good at doing.

          That’s you.

        • theot58

          Bob, you sound like a nice guy, but your preconceived idea is totally wrong.
          I am all for science.
          I am all for the scientific method.
          I am all for reason.
          I am all for truth
          But you are the one with the humility problem.
          All I am asking is for good science and reason to be applied to the macro evolution myth.
          My application of the scientific method leads me to the strong conclusion that the idea that a bacteria became a baby over millions of years IS A FAIRY TALE.
          It is condemned rather than supported by the evidence.
          It is evolutionists that are un reasonable. They are the science deniers – because the science shows that only intelligent being create specified information (which is what is observable in the cell and DNA).
          I say again:
          Since macro evolution is taught as a fact in the science class room – the onus of proof is on evolutionists to provide suitable evidence to support that claim.
          Take a look at the utter BS that is in the text books and ask yourself:
          What evidence do we have that a bacteria became a baby?
          I am currently putting together a document to clarify the macro evolution issue for year 10 students.
          I have to clearly describe the evidence for macro evolution.
          Evidence 1: Extrapolation of micro evolution
          Evidence 2: Homology (comparative anatomy)
          Evidence 3: Fossils/Geologic column
          Evidence 4: DNA/Genetics/Junk DNA
          Evidence 5: Anti bacterial resistance
          Evidence 6: Comparative Embyology (Ernst Haeckel deception)
          Evidence 7: Vestigial organs
          Evidence 8: Biogeography
          The headings sound impressive; however when I tried to write down exactly what the evidence is – it was hard because the evidence is so pathetically weak – that it looks laughable.
          You might like to try it sometime. Write down the science argument behind the usual evolutionary claims.
          Bob you seem intelligent – but in this regard you have drunk to “cool-aid”

        • All I am asking is for good science and reason to be applied to the macro evolution myth.

          Read a textbook on evolution.

          Next question.

          My application of the scientific method leads me to the strong conclusion that the idea that a bacteria became a baby over millions of years IS A FAIRY TALE.

          That’s nice, but who cares? In particular, why should you care? You know better than any of us your not-a-biologist status. And you’re going to set yourself up as judge of those who actually do understand the evidence and say that they’re wrong? Or liars? Or on the take?

          They are the science deniers – because the science shows that only intelligent being create specified information (which is what is observable in the cell and DNA).

          I’d completely believe you except for that pesky scientific consensus thing again. Dang.

          The headings sound impressive; however when I tried to write down exactly what the evidence is – it was hard because the evidence is so pathetically weak – that it looks laughable.

          Explain the problem to a biologist. See if he converts to your way of thought.

          You might like to try it sometime. Write down the science argument behind the usual evolutionary claims.

          Why? Because I might conclude, “Golly, this really doesn’t make any sense! I’m going to go correct the biologists, and then I’m going to tell those physicists to cram that nutty quantum theory up their collective asses!”?

          No, I think I have a bit more humility than that.

        • POSTED: All I am asking is for good science and reason to be applied to the macro evolution myth.

          ANSWER: Read a textbook on evolution.
          ________________

          Bob, Theo asked for GOOD science. Not a text book on evolution.

          Also, no, you don’t have more humility than that.

          You got pretty arrogant with Theo, and he came back to you with a compliment and more respect than you showed.

          Try that approach sometime.

        • adam
        • Yea, sounds like dawkins. I’d be embarrassed to post that, though.

        • adam

          ” I’d be embarrassed to post that, though.”

          No doubt, I see you as more of Kirk Cameron kinda person..

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6865a4cce3282762d39ccbf755e5a9a9ac316fdc6eeed7b3093b367aedf73658.jpg

        • Yep! you finally got something right! 🙂 Maybe there’s hope for you after all!

        • Michael Neville

          If you were “all for science” then you wouldn’t use fallacies like the argument from consequences or the argument from incredulity to try to undermine it. So you’re either a hypocrite or a liar (note these two choices are not mutually exclusive).

        • adam
        • TheMarsCydonia

          I am all for science.
          I am all for the scientific method.
          I am all for reason.
          I am all for truth

          Your may write the words down but your actions speak the complete opposite.

          All I am asking is for good science and reason to be applied to the macro evolution myth.

          You aren’t. What you are asking is that we forget about good science and reason because it contradicts your religious beliefs (which geology, physics and astronomy all contradict as well) while also asking that we forget about good science and reason because it does not support your religious beliefs.

          There’s a reason why the theory of evolution is accepted by a majority and overwhelming so by biologist. What can you show that they’re the ones forgetting good science and reason as opposed to you?

          My application of the scientific method leads me to the strong conclusion that the idea that a bacteria became a baby over millions of years IS A FAIRY TALE

          A fairy tale is fantasy narrative that often features talking animals (like in the bible), dragons (like in the bible), unicorns (like in the bible), giants (like in the bible) and magic and enchantments (like in the bible). If you’ve made discoveries that falsifies evolution and demonstrate creationism, what exactly are you waiting for? You should be able to demonstrate how you reached your conclusion, you used the scientific method after all. Biologists do that, hence why evolution is a consensus.

          It is condemned rather than supported by the evidence. It is evolutionists that are un reasonable. They are the science deniers – because the science shows that only intelligent being create specified information (which is what is observable in the cell and DNA).

          Perhaps you’re using a different “scientific method” but the ones use by scientists does not consist of:
          – Asserting that DNA contains “specified information”
          – Asserting that “specified information” requires a magical creator
          – Refuse any demand to support those assertions using evidence.

          The headings sound impressive; however when I tried to write down exactly what the evidence is – it was hard because the evidence is so pathetically weak – that it looks laughable.

          And so, let’s write down the information for creationism:

          And done. Yet you think we should take it seriously? You’ve been peddling this for years, shouldn’t you have come up with something by now?

        • theot58

          Why are you continually bringing the Bible and creationism into this discussion. They are NOT taught in schools; evolution is.
          I am an evolution skeptic because the scientific evidence condemns it.
          There is zero proof that a bacteria became a baby over millions of years. Why we teach students that that it did and call it a scientific fact – is nothing short of gross deception.

        • I wouldn’t expect an intelligent answer from this one. Haven’t seen one yet.

          Have you noticed how angry she is? wow.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          We’ve noticed how christian you are. So thank you.

        • Oh, you are so very welcome dear. 🙂 Anytime.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          You’re an inspiration. Theot58 should take notice of the impact creationism had upon you.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Because you’re dismissal of evolution is not based on science, its religiously motivated:
          – There is evidence that single-cell organism can become multi-celled organism
          – There is evidence that multi-celled organism can become more complex. etc.

          Just because you do not understand the mechanism of evolution because of religious motivations does not change the multiple facts of it.

          “If you’ve made discoveries that falsifies evolution and demonstrate creationism, what exactly are you waiting for? You should be able to demonstrate how you reached your conclusion, you used the scientific method after all. Biologists do that, hence why evolution is a consensus”.

          – There is no evidence of any barriers preventing micro-evolution from accumulating into a bigger sum of changes.
          – There is no evidence that our great …. Great grandfather was a a clump of dirt.

          So again, what evidence do you have against evolution and/or for creationism?

        • wow. you are truly comprehension challenged.

          Theo never brought up religion. Never. Not anywhere in these posts.

          So why do you keep bringing it up?

          And how do you know Theo’s motivation? Are you a mind reader?

          Or just threatened by any thought of Christ or God?

          Yep. I’ll go with the second one. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Not a mind-reader, simply a reader. You’re not subtle, you’re both brilliant exemple of creationist intelligence, honesty, kindness and humility. So thank you.

        • Then why keep trying to be a mind reader? You profess to know Theo’s reasons for not agreeing with you, insisting they are religious … you are constantly and pathetically trying to tell me what I think …. It’s a miracle! You can read minds! lol

          And again, you are very, very welcome. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Let me educate you:
          Words written in a comments sections are not minds.

        • Excellent post. I feel exactly the same way. My teachers would get frustrated with me because I actually asked questions that they could not answer and that called out the weakness of the evolutionary standpoint.

          Evolutionary theory brings up more questions than it answers.

          But I wouldn’t be holding my breath for Bob to exhibit any humility. 🙂 It does not seem to be the evolutionist’s strong point.

        • adam

          “Evolutionary theory brings up more questions than it answers.”

          Yes, greatfully

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eb8a7e73957ded447269085abf01df5d5cb0416d10b2f8752001a8d27bc8e2d9.jpg

        • What did I tell you about big boy words?

          And it’s “gratefully” not greatfully. You’re funny.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          You’re confused, your teachers would get frustrated not because of the questions you asked but because your inability to understand simple answers.

          And Bob isn’t at least exhbiting “creationistspeak humility”?

        • Not quite. I aced every course. Evolution was a breeze. It was so shallow and simplified!
          Which was why my teachers couldn’t answer the questions.

          I guess if someone like you never asked questions and just swallowed anything fed them like a good little girl … then they’d believe evolution was true!

          Pssst I got this bridge to sell …..

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Aced very course? You have evidence of that I’m sure, you’re keeping with your evidence of creationism I’m sure.

          And speaking of creationism… If want shallow and simplified (and you do), what is better?

          “Children, what is the origin of man”?
          “There was dirt and then poof, here was man!”

          Magic, what can’t it do?

        • Awww, couldn’t think of anything to say? You’re rambling dear.

        • Why thank you for associating me with someone with a brain. And some class. 🙂 How kind of you.

        • adam
        • Coming from you, that’s pretty funny!

          To use one of YOUR lines, Who cares what YOU think?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          I find it amusing that you feel entitled to anything more than tripe after years of delivering nothing but tripe. But did you offer any science-based objections? You offered tripe.

          And then? You offered even more tripe:
          – You confused abiogenesis and the theory of evolution
          – Your personal distaste for the theory of evolution does not constitute evidence against it in any way. That is simply an appeal to emotion, an obivous logical fallacy.
          – Nor would my distate for a worldview that teaches children are sinners condemned to hell would condemn it (the absence of evidence of it does)
          – Purpose and value are not dependent on a evidenceless magical being who, if the story is true, values mankind so much that he cannot actually make the case for his existence clear and then punishes to everlasting hell the skeptics while granting everlasting bliss to serial killers and rapists.

          It is deeply ironic that you would prefer to push a worldiew that teaches children are sinners, a worldview that fuels a hatred of truth and of others (you are evidence of that) and think that evolution is the thing that causes a negative impact. (It’s also completely evidenceless, we do have comparisons for the rates of happiness between secular and religious countries).

          You overplayed your hand, the hand of a dishonest and hateful man. This is even less convincing than your complete lack of evidence. Could you possibly sink even lower? Perhaps affirm that slavery is morally right?

          Congratulations.

        • omg! the arrogance and ignorance! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOLLLLL

          Lies, lies and more lies.
          Tripe, tripe, tripe, tripe and MORE tripe! omg, too funny!

          You are one sad, angry little girl, miss cydonia!

          Whatever happened to you? So sad ….. when it’s not funny. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Creationist intelligence and christian humility on display. Thanks.

        • Right on! 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          So thanks, if you ever show evidence for creationism (or simply god for that matter), I’ll know exactly how a christian is supposed to behave.

        • No one ever pretended to have proof of God.

          YOU keep pretending to have evidence of evolution.

          So instead of diverting and running away, how bout providing some proof other than “read this book” or “link.”

          Are you at least intelligent enough to use your own words?

          PROOF PLEASE.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Ok then, forget evidence for god, how about just creationism?

          Still waiting…

          “Micro-evolution
          – You granted that it is real
          – We’ve explained its relation to macro-evolution
          – Your response was “Nuh-uh!” but unfortunately, that only makes us a laugh and is not actually a valid objection.
          – You’re still coming up on empty on providing evidence that micro-evolutionary changes do not and cannot accumulate (that’s macro-evolution).”

        • Diverting again? No one ever said they had proof of creationism or God.

          So where is this proof of evolution that you say exists? If you really do understand it, you’ll be able to answer without saying something stupid like “read a book.”
          C’mon, where is your PROOF?

          Still coming up empty?

          Waiting …………….

        • TheMarsCydonia

          So, you admit there is no evidence for creationsim? Finally, you realized all yout trollig was in vain!

          If not, you’d provide evidence if you had any, right? You’re not just believing creationism out of pure wishful thinking, that would be completely moronic.

          “Micro-evolution
          – You granted that it is real
          – We’ve explained its relation to macro-evolution
          – Your response was “Nuh-uh!” but unfortunately, that only makes us a laugh and is not actually a valid objection.
          – You’re still coming up on empty on providing evidence that micro-evolutionary changes do not and cannot accumulate (that’s macro-evolution).”

        • Yep, no way to prove Creation happened.

          But YOU think there’s a way that evolution happened.
          So provide the proof. It should be easy for a genius like you. In your own little words.

          🙂 Still waiting ……..

        • TheMarsCydonia

          So you are believing creationism out of pure wishful thinking (with all the caveats that entails…). Not even a tiny little bit of evidence…

        • Michael Neville

          klyneal thinks he’s a wit. He’s half-right.

        • You are very, very welcome. 😉

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Creationist intelligence on display: replying multiple time to the same comment…

        • adam

          Trolls, whatta ya goin do….

        • “times” not “time.

          You’re welcome. LOL

        • adam
        • Actually, Adam, it’s atheists that think THEY Are God because they don’t believe anyone above themselves exist.

          You’ll get it someday.

        • adam

          “it’s atheists that think THEY Are God because they don’t believe anyone above themselves exist.”

          Nope, no deity belief for me.
          I dont need to NOT be held responsible for my own life and actions, like christians do…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c5445e273728092c84dc583a4e5d5b4272a1e62c42654b930aa001a7c5c86900.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fc7ab2c98ecd5d432d579b44c7bea11b9ca469d406c8e32490fe04a24f16a31.jpg

        • Rudy R

          So if the scientific evidence for macro evolution was genuinely strong, then you wouldn’t complain about the negative impact on the self esteem of students and the contribution to low self esteem, depression, nihilism, etc.? What kind of moral thug are you? Oh wait, you get that from worshiping the Abrahamic god, who is the all-time moral thug.

        • theot58

          What are you smoking?
          How do you think students self esteem is impact by the assertion that they the product of millions of mindless accidents?
          How does it make you feel?
          If you proceed from the macro evolution myth- how do you determine what is right from wrong, good from bad?
          Think about it

        • TheMarsCydonia

          How do you think students’ self esteem is impacted by the assertion, without eny evidence, that they are sinners deserving of everlasting punishment?
          If you proveed from christian myth, how do you determine what is right from wrong, good for bad?

          You demand that we think about it? Have you?

        • No, they are sinners that God loved so much He sent his only begotten Son into the world to to die for their sins, and to save mankind from themselves.

          In short, this is how the Bible puts it. If you are going to try and refute something, you have to learn it first.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          So you agreed, children are sinners destined to hell if they don’t buy the Jesus escape clause.
          I didn’t refute that you confirmed and it so thanks.

        • Ah, so now you are adding the “Jesus escape clause” and ignoring the rest? What, you don’t understand the rest?

          You morph your posts to fit your lies. Smart.

          In either case, you stand corrected.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Nope, try again.
          You agreed children are sinners. Take it from there.

        • So? Actually, not just children. Mankind. And your point would be?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          See above.

        • There is no point above.

          OH! I see, that IS the point! LOL

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Missed it again.

        • Got it! 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Ha, nice try but it takes more time than that to evolve a brain. Unless you have evidence god poofed you one up?

        • According to you my brain evolved! But, well, did my eyes evolve before my brain, even though I need my brain to see through my eyes?

          Mmmm?

          Ha! nice try! LOL

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Lol, you truly have no clue how it worked do you?

          You’ve convinced me, your ignorance of evolution proves its impossible!

        • How bout you explain it in your own simple little words, ok?

          Explain my one simple little question:

          But, well, did my eyes evolve before my brain, even though I need my brain to see through my eyes?

          C’mon genius, dazzle us with your brilliance and PROVE that your brain actually evolved!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          I don’t think there are words that simple…
          And no, you don’t neet a brain to have proto-eyes,
          and my evidence?
          You have eyes and are absent a brain.

          I wonder what about the evolution of the eye you don’t get… Oh wait, if don’t explain it to you in the comments, it doesn’t exist.

          Says he aced the evolution tests yet has no clue about evolution. Was your teacher your mother?

        • adam

          “No, they are sinners that God loved so much He sent his only begotten
          Son into the world to to die for their sins, and to save mankind from
          themselves THEIR OWN GOD.”

          ftfy

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/686caf5ac5a352ec099c00bc09dc7fbd4a918fcec466c4ff85f4ce400aa2f4b2.jpg

        • Yes, that would be the inference. Their own God. And you have a problem with that? lol

        • adam

          Just so they can avoid their own responsibility for their own actions, like cowards

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fc7ab2c98ecd5d432d579b44c7bea11b9ca469d406c8e32490fe04a24f16a31.jpg

        • If you say so! lol

        • adam
        • Adam Adam Adam. You really need to buy a Bible and READ it.
          I never professed to be a Christian, but I was not lying when I said I actually read the Bible.

          Adam and Eve were not created with original sin. That happened because Adam and Eve sinned.

          Nor did Jesus sacrifice himself for himself. That makes no sense at all, and just sounds stupid.

          And since Adam and Eve were created without sin, the last line is completely false as well.

          So, you have to resort to lies to try and prove a non-existent point?

          btw, Just what IS your point?

        • adam

          “And since Adam and Eve were created without sin, the last line is completely false as well.”

          Nope

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ad9800ce923b31295afed0a2d2a97d756340d851163d91fe88dc7cbe5bcb82af.jpg

        • Yep. Adam and Eve were created without sin.
          Remember the fruit from the tree of life and the serpent?

          Oh yea, you never read the Bible so you wouldn’t know.

          Stick to your cartoons and comic books adam.

          (Actually, that explains a lot! )

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Yes, we all remember the talking snake.

        • If there was a picture of it!

        • TheMarsCydonia

          It’s a nice fantasy in part but it could use less slavery and genocide.

        • But then it wouldn’t be an accurate and brutally honest record of history. 🙂 If it existed, it’s in there!

          An example and a warning – but history repeats itself anyway.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “History”.

        • adam
        • Whatever you say, dear. LOL!

        • adam
        • Prove it. How was the Bible used as the foundation for American government and society?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Because the bible says
          “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me”
          And the founding fathers would have none of this “no other god” business and enshrined the principle of freedom of religion as a right.

        • They didn’t, either. 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Confusing history and fantasy again…

        • adam
        • The Constitution was signed “In The Year Of Our LORD”

          And our founding documents were the Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution.

          Funny how you were afraid to mention the Declaration. Trying to hide something perhaps? LOL LOL LOL!

          And those pesky 10 commandments in the Supreme Court and all the major courthouses in the country. How could that be! 🙂

        • TheMarsCydonia

          “The year of our lord”? Really? Yup, that we call this year 2017 is clear evidence that the U.S. government was founded on magic!

        • wow, now YOU missed it completely! LOL

        • TheMarsCydonia

          I got it: “Year of our lord”, that was your big opening.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Nor did Jesus sacrifice himself for himself. That makes no sense at all, and just sounds stupid.
          1. He did
          2. That does sound stupid

        • If you say so. 😉

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Oh I only say so
          1. because the bible does.
          2. because it is. Aren’t you glad we agreed one this one thing?

        • adam

          “If you proceed from the macro evolution myth”

          Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/23e7092c60a928b6349cc029fd75cb332f18c86daab1c6a4e4f8fe6cef114c6c.jpg

        • adam

          “How do you think students self esteem is impact by the assertion that they the product of millions of mindless accidents?”

          Nothing accidental about chemistry and physics

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb49f25b842aef4e0a6e36dccd4c0d86c43e6e95e934f6a511dc718c5fd1fac3.jpg

        • But “evolution” resulting from a big bang, or some magical process that turns a single celled organism into a complex human being, is completely random.

          At least be honest enough to be SPECIFIC and not hide behind generalities.

        • TheMarsCydonia

          At first it was evolution from a primoridal soup and now it’s evolution from the big bang…

          And didn’t we explain?
          It’s not single-celled organism to human, its single-celled to multi-celled.
          While there’s no evidence of dirt to man.

          Wait, we did explain, your rebutall was “zzzzzzzzz”. You’re getting more and more ridiculous and thus hilarious.

        • Single celled to multi-celled?
          Ok, then how did multi-celled organisms become human beings?

          Wow, did you even begin to think that out?

          What “evolved” first? The hand or the eye? The brain or the heart? Lungs? Well?

          Don’t these things have to exist ALL AT THE SAME TIME for it to work?

          well?

        • TheMarsCydonia

          Lol. Multi-celled organisms evolved into more complex forms, brains didn’t simply poof into existence. I provided a detailed explanation, remember?

          Now, where is the evidence that your great, great, great… great grandfather was dirt?

        • adam
        • adam

          “process that turns a single celled organism into a complex human being, is completely random.”

          Nope, but you are too stupid to understand obviously.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2604d74a3602b9a653ca3bde07f9b615e04ef5423e93efc36252eaded367c6a.jpg

        • Or maybe you are just too stupid to even try to explain it.

          Yep. That about explains it!

        • So YOUR explanation is “nope” ??!!

          Well THAT explains it! lol

          More like you are too stupid to explain it, and you won’t admit it so you’ve sunk to childish name calling.

          Be proud! 🙂

        • adam

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62da10177de8c12d9feedf1a0ff3d448ed929feef887a1192640edb3a8a15953.jpg

          “So YOUR explanation is “nope” ??!!”

          NOPE,

          But since you’ve demonstrated that you wont understand evolution already, I dont see the point.

        • Joe

          How do you think students self esteem is impact by the assertion that they the product of millions of mindless accidents?

          Where are the accidents? Since when has the self-esteem of students been a consideration of whether something is true or not?

          That kind of thinking leads to historical revisionism. Don’t teach German children about the Holocaust! Don’t teach American children about slavery or the genocide of Native Americans! Think of their self-esteem!

          How does it make you feel?

          Good actually. But then again my feelings have no impact on the truth.

          If you proceed from the macro evolution myth- how do you determine what is right from wrong, good from bad?

          Irrelevant to truth, again!

          We use moral reasoning. How else would we do it?

        • Pofarmer

          What a fuckin’ moron. Holy cow.

        • wow. You miss the point entirely.

          Morals are NOT how a Christian would frame “naturalism.”

          First of all, define “naturalism?”

          Historical revisionism has been happening for decades and has done much damage. I don’t know how long you’ve been around …..

        • epeeist

          First of all, define “naturalism?”

          Methodological or metaphysical?

        • Rudy R

          You miss my point.

          Your words: “If the scientific evidence for macro evolution was genuinely strong; I would not complain”

          That being said, you would not have a complaint about the negative impact on the self esteem of students, thus making that argument baseless, unless your are a moral thug.

          How do you think students self esteem is impact by the assertion that they the product of millions of mindless accidents?

          That’s how a theist frames naturalism, not atheists. If your students were taught that they decide on the purpose of their own life, instead of someone else deciding for them, they wouldn’t have those self esteem issues.

          If you proceed from the macro evolution myth- how do you determine what is right from wrong, good from bad?

          Humans have always determined right and wrong from their social groups; and not from a magic sky daddy. Humans are not unlike any other biological organism with the prime directive of prolonging life to reproduce. In order to do accomplish that, groups make social compacts. Among which, if you don’t harm me, I won’t harm you. It’s really not that complicated.

          Think about it.

        • You are drawing the wrong conclusion.

          Now Theo can correct me, but from all his posts, which have been pretty clear and consistent, I would finish that sentence the way he has in previous posts:

          Your words: “If the scientific evidence for macro evolution was genuinely strong; I would not complain ABOUT EVOLUTIONISTS TRYING TO PASS IT OFF AS FACT”

          So the issue of low self esteem would still exist and would still be objected to.

          amiright?

        • Rudy R

          theot58’s words:

          If the scientific evidence for macro evolution was genuinely strong; I would not complain.

          Statement that implies evolution is true.

          The truth is that the scientific evidence shows that macro evolution is highly implausible

          Statement that evolution is false.

          klyneal’s words:

          I would not complain ABOUT EVOLUTIONISTS TRYING TO PASS IT OFF AS FACT”

          Statement that implies evolution false.

          See the problem in putting words in theot58’s mouth?

          I believe BobS is right that theot58 and klyneal are one in the same person.

        • So true. Good point.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re regurgitating the same nonsense kyneal tried to sell us before about the negative psychological aspects of evolution. I’ll give the same answer that I gave the last time this stupid assertion was made.

          The argument from consequences is a logical fallacy. Relativity gave us nuclear weapons, does that mean that e=mc² is wrong? Just because you feel threatened by evolution doesn’t mean evolution is falsified, it means you feel threatened by reality. Also evolutionary biologists are not depressed nihilists, so your “inference” is bullshit.

          Incidentally, asshole, a simple google search showed that you and kyneal plagiarized the paragraph about the psychological results of evolution. So you’re both thieves and liars.

          EDITED because I originally thought theot58 was spewing something he’d said before. Instead I found that the other creationist said exactly the same thing using exactly the same words.

        • theot58

          I agree with you that the impact does not have any bearing of the truth or falsity of the claim.

          My point is that the impact is negative; therefore I want to see rock solid evidence proving that macro evolution is true – AND THIS IS WHAT I DO NOT SEE.

          All I see is distractions and tons of scientific gibberish.

          After studying the origins controversy for
          many years, I have gained an understanding of the main strategy