I have a layman's understanding of big bang theory and M-theory -- a proponent of which, physicist Stephen Hawking, has stated in his recent book "The Grand Design" that no god was necessary for the creation of the universe.  I accept these as theories advanced by scientists like Hawking who actually study cosmology, but I could not claim to defend them myself in any robust manner.  Furthermore, as these theories rest on evidence, it is possibly that new evidence could refine or even invalidate the theories.  (As it is, the evidence continues to support M-theory, but it is not yet as well-established as gravitational theory, for example.)  

In the end, however, I don't actually know where it all came from.  Even if the present scientific were falsified, it would not mean that the god-based explanation is suddenly confirmed as true; it would mean that we simply have no explanation.  It is more honest to admit we have no explanation, than to invent a bad explanation -- one based on no evidence, which in fact explains nothing.  I will go so far as to say that a natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural one.  

As you'll notice, I already accounted for the argument with which you responded:

What you did, by asserting "god is eternal so he has no beginning", amounts to moving the goalposts.  You are stating everything requires a cause, but then defining god to be something that does not require a cause.  This amounts to defining god into existence.  

This is a logical flaw, because god is what you are using the cosmological argument to prove in the first place.  When you make statements like "god is eternal", you're acting as if god's existence has already been proven...in order to make your proof for god work.  That is circular reasoning:  implying your desired conclusion in your premise.

Hopefully this doesn't go too far afield, since the point of this discussion was to examine your proofs for god, which I contend are fallacious.  If it becomes too involved, it should probably move to a separate thread.  

Yes, I do accept evolutionary theory.  It has been confirmed by two centuries' worth of scientific data, and a phenomenon observable in real time.  It can be used to make testable predictions, and has real-world application.  However, as before with cosmology, I do not regard evolution in either/or terms with respect to belief in god.  (I do however think that christianity specifically is incompatible with evolution, for reasons I can explain if desired.  Nonetheless, there are christians like Francis Collins and Ken Miller who do accept evolution.)  Even if evolution were falsified -- which at this point would be comparable to falsifying gravity -- it would not mean that belief in god was any more reasonable.  As before, we could only revert to saying "we don't know", and not "...therefore god exists".  

 Zachary, the reason your comment went to "pending approval" is because you were not logged in with your Zachary44 account when you posted it.  If you make sure you are logged in your posts should go straight through.

Welcome aboard,

Brian Sapient

I was first of all taking issue with your assertion that "god is eternal", or that "god has no beginning". Specifically, it is fallacious for you to make such claims about god when you haven't yet proven god exists in the first place.

 I'll address the other failings of the cosmological argument:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

P2. The universe began to exist

∴ The universe has a cause (presumably god)

This notion may immediately appeal to our intuition, but it is not actually an established truth to be used as a premise. I already mentioned Stephen Hawking and M-theory. I find it instructive to mention Hawking by name, since "professional philosopher" William Lane Craig has dropped Hawking's name in his rendition of the Cosmological Argument; in order to give P2 the veneer of scientific imprimatur. (It's ironic that in arguing for god's existence, Craig drops the name of a scientist who draws precisely the opposite conclusion.) I can also cite physicist Lawrence Krauss, and his lecture A Universe From Nothing. However counterintuitive it may seem, the scientific data is pointing to a universe without need for a creator. Furthermore, even if we grant P1 & P2, it remains fallacious to conclude that the "cause" of the universe is god. This is where you define god into existence; by stating without premise that god is eternal, in order to exempt god from "the law of causality" to which you hold all else beholden. Again: If you're going to claim god is eternal and has no cause, you first have to prove god exists -- using an argument other than one from causality.

I don't mind talking about the origin of the universe; I'm simply confessing from the outset that I don't know where the universe "came from". I will reiterate that not knowing is not a vindication of belief in god. If we were having this conversation a few centuries ago, we would not have the cosmological data available today, which point to an uncaused universe. Even without that data, using god as an explanation would be no more reasonable. No explanation ("We don't know" ) is better than a bad explanation ("god did it" ).

You'll have to explain what you mean by "stellar evolution". My understanding of "evolution" applies only to biology, and not astronomy -- nor have I used I have heard the term "stellar evolution" used by anyone other than creationists like Kent Hovind (along with "cosmic evolution", "chemical evolution" and "organic evolution" ), who invariably turn out to be conflating scientific terms.

Please explain how two centuries of scientific data disproves macroevolution. Please also explain what you understand macroevolution to be, when you deny it, while accepting microevolution. The only difference between the two is time scale. Accepting the latter while denying the former is like saying someone can walk to the end of the block ("micro-walking" ), but cannot walk to the next county ("macro-walking" ). Macroevolution is simply microevolution over an extended period of time. What I've had creationists have respond with at this point is that "there are changes within a species one species becoming another species", or "...they're still the same kind". At this point I ask what they mean by "kind", and am yet to get an actual definition. We can pursue this particular discussion if you like, but I do have to wonder why you brought it up; since once again: disproof of evolution would not render belief in god reasonable.

I didn't see this as a pointless argument, or I wouldn't have requested a one-on-one thread. The last time I tried this, with a muslim, I think he got overwhelmed by other people posting, and quit rather quickly. The fact that I used to be a practicing catholic and am not atheist should indicate that I'm open-minded, and willing to change my position. As a preliminary test of your open-mindedness, can you articulate what would suffice to falsify your belief in god?

False.  The very existence of the universe proves that there is a universe.  Your statement is no more sensible than:

The very existence of god proves there is a god-making machine.

I'm not sure precisely what argument you intended this statement.  Are you claiming complexity is proof of god?

Your use of terms like "creates" and "made" indicate you've presumed that the universe was created or made, without first proving that it was.  Thus, you're again implying your desired conclusion in your premises:  You imply that the universe was created/made in order to deduce the existence of a maker/creator.  That is still defining god into existence, and that is still fallacious.

Again, we still don't know in full how the universe "got here", so it is invalid for you to state it was "created".  Furthermore -- again -- the present state of cosmology strongly indicates that the universe was not created.  Allow me to provide a relevant quote from Hawking's The Grand Design:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist...It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.

I am not citing this quote dogmatically, nor claiming this disproves god.  As I mentioned before, even without the modern discoveries in cosmology, it would be invalid to conjecture that the universe was created, and thereby posit the existence of god.   However, it is noteworthy that the physicists actually investigating the origins of the universe are confirming the antithesis of your assertion; that the very existence of the universe points to no god at all.

I'm sorry, but I have several problems with your foregoing statement:

• What do you mean the scientific data comes from philosophy?  Any philosophy would be based on the based on the implications of the scientific data.  
• Since at this point we were only discussing cosmology and the universe's origins, I'm not at all sure why you suddenly brought up biology and geology, as they have no immediate relevance to the cosmological argument.  
• Evolution is a scientific theory which explains observed facts (just as gravity is).  It is not a presupposition, but rather a conclusion drawn from the data.  With all due respect:  that you think it is a presupposition betrays a gross ignorance of misunderstanding of the topic -- which of course means you're off to a bad start if your goal is to disprove evolution.  
• As far as disproving evolution:  Not sure what you hope to accomplish with this quest.  As I mentioned before, the accuracy of evolution does not disprove the existence of a god, in the general sense.  I do think evolution and the christian god specifically are incompatible, but it is not as if disproving evolution would prove the christian god by default.  Whether or not evolution is false, you still have the burden of proving the christian god.

Your analogy fails for several reasons.

We already have knowledge that animals exist, and that they produce said material.  Hence, in your provided scenario, we are relying on extant knowledge, which is not analagous to conjecturing a being of which we have no prior knowledge, to explain something of whose origin we do not have sufficient knowledge.  For your analogy to carry, we would need extant knowledge of gods creating universes to comparable to our knowledge of animals creating said substance.  Animals are material beings, and they aren't actually creating said substance, but rather transforming already-existing material into something else.  Unless I'm mistaken, the god whose existence you are trying to prove is not itself material and created the universe from nothing, rather than transforming existing material.  In keeping with this, it's worthwhile to note that animals die.  Consider that if we found a petrified pile of said substance, it would indicate an animal, but it would also indicate that the animal was also dead.  Are you open to the prospect that your god died after creating the universe?  That would actually make your argument more reasonable, since it would explain why we can't observe your god now -- for the same reason we wouldn't be able to find the animal that produced the now petrified pile of said substance.
 

"...from something else", as opposed to the god whose existence you still haven't proven?  Please correct me if I've misinterpreted your statement, but this appears to be an argument from ignorance (popuarly known as "god of the gaps" ):  We can't explain complexity, nor where the universe came from...therefore god exists.    

I believe in both forms of truth.  I daresay this is treading upon the moral argument.  If so, I think we ought settle the cosmological argument before proceeding to something else.

I totally messed up my reply. My replies are actually within your quotes on some parts. So just read over the whole thing and see which is which. I apologize for this. The end which talks of evolution is actually meant to be in the section that is replying to what you said of evolution quite a ways up from it ;p. Sorry about that.

I totally messed up my reply. My replies are actually within your quotes on some parts. So just read over the whole thing and see which is which. I apologize for this. The end which talks of evolution is actually meant to be in the section that is replying to what you said of evolution quite a ways up from it ;p. Sorry about that.

The cosmological argument is the most logical way to explain metaphysical origin. If you deny the law of causality, which is around you everyday, you then become illogical. You cannot use the cosmological argument for anything else or it wont make any sense. TO explain a metaphysical things, the law of causality is the best logical way to explain it. In your worldview, logic breaks down. Logic never breaks down in christianity. THe burden of proof is not on me, its on you. You dont know about origin and therefore are only taking a philosphy from 200 years ago in the late 1700's. The science that you see and the data you get is being portayed through a philosophy made by James hutton and charles lyle. I could take the same data and information in science tha you have, yet you would disagree, not on evidence, but beacause that philosophy is a presupposition to the data and evidence you obtain. Whether you admit it or not, you perceive science through a certain philosophy. If james hutton and charles lyle were wrong, everthing you claim is wrong pertaining to evolution.

Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher&rdquo. Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution.

Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as “a change in gene frequency,” then the fly example “proves evolution”—but it also “proves creation,” since varying the amounts of already-existing genes is what creation is all about.

If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others). 

Evolutionists are often asked what they mean by “species,” and creationists are often asked what they mean by “kind.” Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,” and evolutionists also use the interbreeding criterion. However, scientists recognize certain bower birds as distinct species even though they interbreed, and they can’t use the interbreeding criterion at all with asexual forms. So, both creationists and evolutionists are divided into “lumpers” and “splitters.” “Splitters,” for example, classify cats into 28 species; “lumpers” (creationist or evolutionist) classify them into only one!

"Perhaps each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits. Look at people, for instance. Each of us has certain traits that we may admire (or abhor): brown hair, tall stature, or even a magnificent nose like mine. Whatever the trait, someone else has exactly the same trait, but nobody has the same combination of traits that you do or I do. Each of us is a unique combination of non-unique traits. In a sense, that’s why it’s hard to classify people. If you break them up according to hair type, you’ll come out with groups that won’t fit with the eye type, and so on. Furthermore, we recognize each person as distinct.

We see a similar pattern among other living things. Each created kind is a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups. The platypus , for example, was at first considered a hoax by evolutionists, since its “weird” set of traits made it difficult even to guess what it was evolving from or into. Creationists point out that each of its traits (including complex ones like its electric location mechanism, leathery egg, and milk glands) is complete, fully functional, and well-integrated into a distinctive and marvelous kind of life.

Stephen Gould says “how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?” For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries. Darwin also recognized the problem. He finally ended by denying the reality of species. But, as Gould points out, Darwin was quite good at classifying the species whose ultimate reality he denied. And, says Gould, Darwin could take no comfort in fossils, since he was also successful in classifying them into distinct species. He used the same criteria we use to classify plants and animals today."

Darwin tried to explain “design without a Designer” on the basis of selection and the inheritance of traits acquired by use and disuse (pangenes), but Pangenesis failed. The neo-Darwinists tried to explain “design without a Designer” on the basis of selection and mutation, and mutations failed. The post-neo-Darwinists are turning to “hopeful monsters,” instead of simple mutations, and to “survival of the luckiest,” instead of selection. These new ideas have little basis in observation or scientific principle at all, and it remains to be seen whether the evolutionist’s faith in future discoveries will also fail.

One thing is for certain: if evolutionists had to prove their case in court, evolution would be thrown out for lack of evidence. That’s the conclusion of two insightful lawyers, Norman MacBeth (Darwin Retried) and Phillip Johnson (Darwin on Trial). Neither man is arguing for the Bible; both are simply writing in their field as experts in the rules of evidence and the rules of logic. I’ve had the pleasure of hearing Phillip Johnson, Professor of Law at the University of California (Berkeley), challenge college students to weigh the so-called evidence for evolution and to consider alternatively the concept that life (and, hence, each of their lives) is instead the gift of Intelligent, Purposeful Design.

The evidence is forcing evolutionists to admit the severe inadequacy of mutation and selection, but these same processes are being picked up and used by creationists. What would Darwin say about that? Would he object to his ideas and observations being used in Biblical perspective? Darwin did muse occasionally about the role of a Creator. But, of course, we’ll never know whether he would be willing to consider the Biblical framework as the more-logical inference from our present knowledge of genetics and ecology. We can be sure of this, however: a man as thoughtful and devoted to detail and observation as Darwin was, would be willing to “think about it.”

For you personally, you say you dont know of origin. That puts you in the category of an agnostic. If you had 50% of all knowledge in the world, is it possible that the other half would point to a God? You really need to look at what athiesm leads to. It lead to one thing, no purpose. I believe you do have a purpose though , but with your worldview it leads to no purpose.
 

I should of done this from the start but rather late than never . Alright, I am going to lay down the cosmological argument down right now from the horizontal view and the vertical view. Both parts work as one.  I will then display how it is a SOUND argument and not fallacious. We may be looking at two different styles of the argument so i must specify.

Horizontal

P1-Evething that had a beginning had a cause

P2- The universe had a beginning

P3- Therefore, the universe had a Cause

Vertical

P1-Every part of the universe is right now dependent for its existence

P2- If every part is right now dependent for its existence, then the whole universe must also be right now dependent for its existence

P3-Therefore, the whole universe is dependent right now for its existence on some Independent Being beyond itself

To add on to this, if everthing were contingent, then it would be possible that nothing existed. But something does exist (me), and its existence is undeniable, for i havt to exist in order to be able to affirm that i do not exist. If some contingent being now exists, A Necessary Beign must now exist, otherwise there would be no ground for the existence of this contingent being.

This argument is valid and sound for this reason.

In order for my argument to be sound and good its premises must be true. For instance a Valid argument has a form such that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. THe premises necessarily lead to the conclusion. But for the argument to be Sound, the premises must first be true. The cosmological arguments premises are definetely true, therefore leads to the conclusion.

Saying that the universe itself is evidence it exists is true but your are missing a vital point. If i was to say that i found a perfect chair in the wilderness i would assume that the chair does indeed exist but i also would ask myself what brought that into being. This is ofcourse a simple chair so if a simple chair points to a creator, why wouldn't the most complex things imaginable (the universe) not point to this as well? Again your saying that the universe came from nothing then but itself. Nothing can come into existence without the existence of another. No i do not believe in an ex nihilo creation. I never said "from nothing, nothing comes" in my points. Saying that GOd created the universe wouldn't be saying that. If i were to say that nothing created something, i would be saying that. I am saying a being created something (the universe).

Actually if you want to get technical, the proper definition of athiest would be, someone who has Absolute knowledge that there is no God. Unless you claim to have absolute knowledge (where you would have to be omnipresent) you then have a lack of knowledge. Hence the defintion of Agnostic-without knowledge, ignoramous, not knowing. There are no real athiests in the world if you want to get technical.

You are claiming that there is no god and therefor cannot explain where things came from or how "evolution" made complex cells or even the simplest cell. The burden of proof lies within your own science you are standing on. There are huge gaps in your theories where there is no evidence backing up what your philosophy stands on. The four arguments for Gods existence makes a logical claim. Your refutation of the cosmological argument seems to be that you dont know how we came to be, just because science hasn't figured it out yet doesn't mean it points to a creator. The burden of proof lies with you because you have no explanation in the first place. Besides the sciene you are talking about is looked through a philosophy of either James hutton and charles Lyle or Huxley. To say the burden of proof doesn't lie on someone who cant explain how we came and just says that science will figure it out eventually is odd. I have evidence based on logic and our everyday surroundings. In no way whatsoever can the simplest cell form from anything but a designer. Even the anthropic principle is a good example.  

I am only too pleased to get technical.  Some dictionaries define "atheist" as one who believes no god exists, while others define "atheist" as one who does not believe in god.  I will explain why I use the latter definition, and the difference between it and the former.  

I use the prefix "a-" to mean "not"; therefore, "atheist" means anyone who is not a "theist", i.e., anyone who lacks belief in god.  The set of those who lack belief in god can be further subdivided into those who assert god there is no god (which corresponds to your definition of "atheist" ), as well as those who make no assertion, but simply hold the default position (which corresponds to your definition of agnostic).  So to be technical, I am an agnostic atheist:  I don't believe in god, but I don't actively assert there is no god.  I lack belief by default, but am open to changing my position with suitable evidence.  

I will very explicitly point out once again that I am not claiming there is no god; I hold the default position -- lack of belief in god, as sufficient evidence has not been presented for me to change from the default position.  If you are claiming there is a god, you have the burden of proving its existence.  My inability to explain where things came from does not validate your claim that god exists.  If furthermore have not said or even implied that "science will figure it out eventually".  Maybe science will, maybe it won't.  It is worth noting that multiple times in the past we have seen science produce a more satisfactory explanation for phenomena previously attributed to the supernatural (disease, natural disasters, etc.).  Science may or may not succeed in providing a satisfactory explanation for "where things came from".  If it doesn't, then we have no explanation and that's it.  We do not have a warrant to use god as a stub explanation.    

Again, I will ask you:  Were you born believing in god?

Fair enough. I see where you are coming from.

Ofcourse there are other categories that prove a God other then the science aspect and dealing with the four arguments. You seem to be relying on your science (remember your science is interpreted by a certain philosophy) and that if your science cant explain it, then that's it, we just dont know. Your problem is that if your science cant explain things, then there is no way of knowing. Your limiting yourself and what could possibly lead you to truth. This would involve the philosophy behind the interpretation of scientific data. Either the philosophy behind the science being interpreting is right ,or its wrong.  

First off, we must define what type of evolution we are talking about. I believe micro evolution is true. Macro, on the other hand is not.

This is micro evolution which i believe in. In no way does this lead to macro evolution. My point is that there is no evidence of macro evolution. 

Again, we see only micro evolution here. The flies always stay flies. They never change from a fly to something else.

The point is i am making is that there is no evidence making the transition from one kind to other kind true. I can see where you are coming from referring to kind. Transitional fossils for example, would be the evidence portraying a feline turning into a fish slowing over millions of years. I am saying that for transitions, there is no evidence but only assumptions. It seems as if Charles lyle and Charles Darwin literally made up the transition process. We only observe micro evolution today and always will only observe micro evolution. Thats what i was getting to.

So the actual charts that evolutionist show, which would be the slow process of a feline turning into a whale, or an ape turning into a man, can be proven true with evidence? They have fossils that show this change? If it happened over millions of years, there would be thousands of fossils showing this change. I understand what you are implying by more significant changes over time. We would see these changes in the process though through the fossils. We do not see these little changes in the "fossil record" which then lead to a different kind of animal. I say kind as referring to a fish and a cat. They both are different kinds. Do you really know that you are implying that we came from a banana? OR to go farther back, that we came from a rock? Sure the population will then change and have differernt traits. They will become different in little ways but will not change to an entirely different animal. Your not going to seperate  two cats and put them in two entirely different places and then get something other then a cat later on in time. They will have different traits and vary in size sure, but will remain a feline.

Your referring to a non organic thing and using it to prove that an organic lifeform could do it as well. This would be implying that we could not tell when a fish would actually sprout legs to go up on land. Is this process of transition then an instant transition? This would be saying that there is no evidence to tell where the fish got legs.

I will reply to the rest later on today. I ran out of time

To continue on my reply, i will start with the color spectrum you posted. Its interesting to me that you use this analogy. The light spectrum is a completely different matter concerning organic things. It has nothing to do with how the fossil record works. FIrst, you would have to have a fossil record showing these changes slowly to a point and seeing the start of a change at least from one animal to a completely different one. The color scale is an immediate thing which we can see. The fossil record happened over millions of years. It doesn't work the same way. If the fossil record is millions of years in between, you would definetely see the transition. You would also see an animal leading up to a completely different animal as well. You do not see this either. If the analogy you used was correct and it worked the same way as the fossil record does, we would at least see a incling of an animal leading up to a change and seeing it have qualities that would lead it to the next stage (example: a fish would start to grow legs) 

Creation allows for small amounts of change. A dog can produce a variety of breeds of dogs. This is variation-not evolution. Creation does not however allow for large scale changes like dinosaurs evolving into birds for example.

Micro evolution (variation)-Observable

Micro evolution (Variation)-scientific

micro evolutioin-(variation)-biblical

Macro evolution (evolution of all living matter from non living matter) is assumed. It has never been observed.

Macro evolution is religious in nature. It takes faith to believe it, because there is no evidence.

Micro evolution states that all breeds of a dog came from a dog. Macro says that all dogs came from a rock

Macro evolutionists try to use micro as evidence for macro. This takes a "leap of faith" and logic to believe.

Everything about Macro evolution, chemical evolution, orgainic evolution, and stellar are made up by someone. We do not observe animals having large scale changes that lead to a completely different animal, we do not see stars forming (exploding but not forming), we do not see the chemicals evolving either.

yes, creationist do bother to explain these things because it is quite explanable.It is not a problem for us to rationalize why certain animals do not appear in certain parts of the world. Why, for example, does Australia have such an unusual fauna, including so many marsupials? Marsupials are, of course, known elsewhere in the world. For example, opossums are found in North and South America, and fossilized marsupials have been found elsewhere. But in many places, climatic changes and other factors could lead to their extinction. The lack of great marsupials in other continents need be no more of a problem than the lack of dinosaurs. As with many species today, they just died out—a reminder of a sin-cursed world. One  theory is that marsupials—because they bore their young in pouches—were able to travel farther and faster than mammals that had to stop to care for their young. They were able to establish themselves in far-flung Australia before competitors reached the continent. Similar statements could be made about the many unusual bird species in New Zealand, on islands from which mammals were absent until the arrival of European settlers. How did the marsupials get to austalia in the first place? The sea level was much lower and therefore had land bridges from which animals could indeed cross. Not to mention that people at that time did know how to build boats.

The research indicates that the problems experienced with wisdom teeth in modern society are not due to mutations selected by the environment but largely to changes in diet, namely to softer, less abrasive processed foods which do not give the teeth the workout which they require to ensure proper relationship in the mouth. I can go more in detail on this matter, but the thought of it having to do with vestiges of ancestors has been debunked.

For the matter of human nipples, I had to research this one alot. I found a quite adequate explanation in answers in Genesis.

Tommy Mitchel writes "Evolutionists often raise this issue as an objection to the concept of a creator God. After all, if there were an all-knowing Creator, why would He design men with a structure for which they have no use? In females, the nipple has an obvious function, that is, to breastfeed a baby. So what’s the purpose for nipples on males?

A frequently promoted evolutionary view of male nipples is that they are leftovers from our evolutionary past. They are often considered to be vestigial organs. The vestigial idea suggests they were functional in the past, but as the evolution of man progressed, their function was lost. Upon close examination, this view does not make sense. In fact, this is a very poor evidence for evolution.

If male nipples are, in fact, vestigial, they must have had a more robust function in the past. Does the evolutionist actually suggest that our male evolutionary ancestors breast-fed newborns, and that somehow as evolution progressed, this ability was lost? Alternatively, would the evolutionist argue that our ancestors were all females, that modern males diverged from this all female population, and that in this process they lost the ability to lactate?

Actually, evolution posits that mammals evolved from reptiles and that the divergence of male and female took place first in reptiles. Why then would another divergence occur as humans began to evolve? In reality, if evolution were true, then it could be argued that male nipples are still developing and that men should be able to breast-feed in the future!

The creation model provides a much better explanation for the presence of nipples in males. Male nipples are not a vestige of evolution but are instead a vestige of embryology. They in no way diminish the abilities of the creator God, but are actually another example of His wisdom. Nipples in males are actually an evidence of “design economy.”

Very early in their maturation, male and female human embryos are essentially the same. All these embryos have structures that will ultimately form the defining physical characteristics of male and female. In the early stages of development, all embryos have both the Wolffian duct and the Mullerian ducts, for instance. Under the influence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system develops into the internal and external structures of male anatomy, and the Mullerian ducts regress. Conversely, in the absence of a Y chromosome, the Wolffian system regresses considerably, and the Mullerian system develops to its full potentials, forming many of the female anatomical structures.

It should be clarified, however, that embryos do not all “start out female.” The genetic makeup of each individual is in place from the time of fertilization. Thus the “programming” for “male” and “female” is determined from the outset, and the anatomical gender is simply a result of the expression of those genes.

The mammary duct system and the associated nipple is likewise the same in both genders, developing during the sixth week. The rudimentary mammary duct system remains indistinguishable at birth. This tissue is hormonally sensitive, and it can, in either gender, respond to maternal estrogen transferred across the placenta by producing a secretion known as “witch’s milk.” Male and female breast tissue remains poorly developed until influenced by estrogen in the early stages of puberty in the female. If nipples and breasts are “useless” to males, they are equally useless to prepubescent girls, and for that matter are “useless” to any woman who is not breastfeeding a child.

It should be noted that male nipples are not useless, as has been suggested. They are very sensitive and are a source of sexual stimulation. Further, to characterize them as vestigial is problematic, as they are fully vascularized and have more than adequate nerve supply. Why would this be so if they were, in fact, a worthless by-product of our evolutionary ancestry?

Far from being a problem for creationists, the presence of nipples in males is actually another example of the wisdom and creativity of the God we serve. It is, in fact, the evolutionists who have a problem with this issue, as they can provide no reason for the existence and persistence of male nipples in an evolutionary scenario."

Why bats have nonfunctional eyes is just a process of variation (micro). Bats are nocturnal, therefor there is no need to see. As we all know, they have sonar that detects things for them. Just another example of something we can observe, microevolution.

I have considered the evidence and have drawn the conclusions. The evolutionary ideas are completely based off of assumption. I dont have to beleive in the bible to see that. There are athiests in australia and Europe that laught at evolution. I have seen how the foundation of evolution was formed. Radio carbon dating and all the methods that fall under it wouldn't exist without the geological column which Charles lyle had made. We know that the geologic column is circular reasoning. How he knew the dates of the rocks and made that column is beyond me . T

 It is with some mild bemusement that I note the three arguments you used in your response match verbatim the arguments found on this California State U. professor's web page, with the following slight revisions:

• ...Therefore, there must be a Prime Mover, Unmoved Mover, which everyone understands to be / I claim is God

• ...Therefore, there must be a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God / which i claim as God as well.

• ...Therefore, there must be a necessary being having its own necessity, and this all men speak of as God / i am referring To God.

Your recitation of the 1st Cause argument fails to counter the problems I raised with your premises for the cosmological argument. You seem to acknowledge that "begins to exist" implies a change in from from something that already exists, inasmuch as you acknowledge "things that exists in another form have to be come from something". Yet once again you are employing conflation when using the phrases "begins to exist / come from":  both of these Thomistic arguments are tied to an empirical observation in their first premises ("...we see in the world..." ). The definition of causality thereby derived -- for things within the universe, is then applied to the universe itself, a conflation I alerted you to in the previous post.

Furthermore, the "infinite regress" problem does not require exclusively a "first cause" for its solution. An alternate solution would be an eternal universe that continuously expands and contracts, and has always done so (the big bang-big crunch cycle). So would -- as much as it pains you -- a universe from nothing.  You previously said the "scientific laws" themselves disprove the Stephen Hawking quote that no god was necessary for the universe to spontaneously emerge.  However, you never provided what these "scientific laws", the violation of which is not apparent to the scientists actually researching the origin of the universe.  I invite you to provide those "scientific laws" now, and in what way they are being violated.  (Here again is Krauss' lecture on A Universe From Nothing, if you need an example to point the errors out in) Whether or not you can actually articulate any violation of the "scientific laws" in a godless cosmology, your proposed god-based cosmology raises the question:  Does your god operate within the "scientific laws", or is your god capable of violating them?  

Even further still, none of these arguments qualifies why this prime mover/first cause/necessary being is what you (or "we" ) call god. This holds no more worth than muslims call this allah / hindus call this brahman / physicists call this the gravity / atheists call this an unknown. What you call god could also be only the secondary mover or tertiary cause or a contingent being several levels down from the actual necessary being. Unless this god can itself be empirically observed (as wood and fire can be, as cited in the 1st argument), there's no logical constraint to the number of causes/movers/contingencies you can string onto the end. Nor do any of these arguments demonstrate that what you call god still exists.  After postulating a god a a first cause, there is nothing to prevent someone from further postulating that this god died after creating the universe.   As I pointed out already, this would make the first cause argument more reasonable, as it would explain why this god cannot be presently observed. 

Paley, in his Watchmaker Argument, draws a distinction between a stone he finds on the beach, and a timepiece he finds on the beach.  It might not be absurd to think that the stone just happens to be there and required no "artificer", while it certainly would be absurd to think the same of the timepiece.  (He then extrapolates from that example to infer a designer from nature itself).  

I understood from your example that you would be able to identify a chair found in the wilderness as a "created" object, and not think it was part of the wilderness in which you found it, as you might of a tree or rock you find in the wilderness.  In other words, I took your example to be a rendering of Paley's argument, with "chair/wilderness" corresponding to "watch/beach".  If I mistook you, then your explicit mention of the wilderness was entirely irrelevant.  Since as you yourself said, "there is no distinction between the two",  your argument would have been no different had you mentioned finding a chair in a room full of chairs.  However, I suspect you were in fact drawing a deliberate distinction between the chair and the wilderness and utilizing Paley's argument, the fallacy of which I outlined previously, and which you inadvertently betrayed by saying there's no distinction between the chair and the wilderness (when of course there is).   

This, of course, fails to address your argument from complexity.  You've several times now attempted to argue for the existence of god based on examples of "complexity", most clearly encapsulated in your previous post:  "...if a simple chair points to a creator, why wouldn't the most complex things imaginable (the universe) not point to this as well?"  You're essentially saying complex things point to a creator.  By this logic, your god requires a creator as well.  After all, if a complex universe points to a creator, why wouldn't a more complex god point to this as well?  You attempt to let yourself off the hook by invoking contingency/necessity.  However, if you're willing to accept a complex god "necessarily" existing without need for a creator, you should be willing -- in fact more willing -- to accept a less complex universe "necessarily" existing without need for a creator.  The Thomistic attempt to make the universe "contingent" again exploits a conflation of terms as applied to things within the universe, and the universe itself.  Things within the universe are not really "generated" or "destroyed", but rather change form, as I already explained.  A chair is "generated" from already existing matter.   Saying a chair "begins to exist" means nothing more that already existing matter "begins to exist" in the form of a chair.  If a chair is "destroyed", only the form stops existing; the matter which held the form of a chair continues to exist.  Trying to apply contingent existence to matter itself (i.e., the universe) based on the contingency of items composed of already-existing matter (i.e., things within the universe) is a fallacy of composition.  Unless you can prove that matter itself is contingent -- or empirically demonstrate the existence of this eternal god -- then "necessary universe" is as efficient an explanation than "necessary god"; in fact, more efficient, as it saves a step.  Saying "god did it" provides no new information; it's an empty step.

You first said god created the universe out of preexisting matter.  Then you said god made matter.  Unless I've misconstrued, these statements are contradictory.  Was the "preexisting matter" always there, uncreated?  Or did god create this matter (which he then fashioned into the universe), out of nothing -- ex nihilo?  

Synopsis:

• In more than one argument, you've moved the goalposts
  • "Everything needs a cause...except god"
  • "Complexity point to a creator...yet the most complex thing of all (god) requires no creator"
• You claim an uncreated universe violates the "scientific laws", but are yet to support this with any actual science.  Furthermore, you present as an alternative a supernatural being which presumably -- unless you indicate otherwise -- operates outside the bounds of the "scientific laws".  
• I'll cite again your quote:  "If someone could prove to me that complex design and the universe came from something else based off of their thoery, and it is truth, then i am open."  Your justification of god's existence remains an argument from ignorance; you would be open to a proof of complexity and the universe from something else, but in absence of one, "god did it" is satisfactory.  

As i stated before, the cosmological argument is the most logical foundation to explain the universe and how it came to be. The "Oscillatiing Universe" theory still has a problem. This cycle doesn't get started by itself. No matter how many times you go through the cycle, it still needs something to begin this cycle. This theory also fails because we can see that the universe will continue to expand.

Evolutionary cosmologist John Wheeler has drawn the following conclusion based on the scientific evidence: “With gravitational collapse we come to the end of time. Never out of the equations of general relativity has one been able to find the slightest argument for a ‘re-expansion’ of a ‘cyclic universe’ or anything other than an end” (1977, p. 15). As Ross has admitted: “Attempts...to use oscillation to avoid a theistic beginning for the universe all fail” (1991, p. 105). No one yet has improved on Genesis 1— “In the beginning, God created....”“

"The balance of evidence does point to an open model of the universe” (1980, p. 309, emp. added). Gribbin commented: “The consensus among astronomers today is that the universe is open” (1981, p. 316, emp. added). Jastrow observed: “Thus, the facts indicate that the universe will expand forever” (1978, p. 123, emp. added). Recent evidence seems to indicate that an oscillating Universe is a physical impossibility (see Chaisson, 1992).

We can see that the "oscillation cycle" does not hold up to anything. Now that this alternate solution is known to be false, what other alternatives are there? The universe had a beginning. Stephen hawkin fails to realize that things do not spontaneously emerge. Even in the "vacuums" or black holes, where they claim to see things spontaneously come to be because there is nothing inside. they have found that these vacuums are not empty but have matter inside. This would mean that they dont spontaneoulsy emerge, but are coming from a previous substance. The 1st law of thermodynamics is ignored by his theory. Not to mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics for the big bang. Not only does he ignore these laws, he also ignores the logic of a primemover, necesary being etc.

Well the God i am defending made the "scientific laws" through his creation. As a theist, that would mean that i believe that God is transcendant as well an immenent. He is outside of the universe (time) and he is inside the Universe as well. I deist would believe tht God only is outside the universe, which would be denying miracles. yes, God is capaple of violoating these laws. You can see that throughout the bible, for example the first miracle of Jesus. Turning water into wine. Wine takes time to ferment and needs grapes and alcohol. This would be creating something out of nothing. If God created the very foundation and the concept of everything we see, he would be able to surpass his own creation.

Yes paleys argument in what i was going along. Using a chair wasn't a very good anology since it is supposed to represent the universe. Yes, there is a deliberate distinction between the watch and lets say a rock (as mentioned in paleys argument). The basic concept is that the watch is supposed to represent the design of the universe. The watch has various materials inside of it and so does the universe. The watch has serving purposes inside of it as well as the universe. The distinction is made from the watch and the rock because of intelligent design. The stone could be made by unthinking things, such as natural forces through heat and pressure. The watch could not have been made by unthinking things because of the design. When i stated there was no distinction, that was on the premise of all things having design including the wilderness as well, but for this analogy that was a mistake.

This isn't the case because then it would just be an infinite regress of complexity. For example, if that was the situation, it would eternally go to a more complex being that to an even more complex being created and so on. There has to be an Necessary being that contingent beings rely on for existence. If you then leaned toward a universe that is its own necessary being, this would then lead to an unintelligent designer at the origin and also would then be nothing created everything. Our universe and what dwells on the earth is not a result of nature and its laws. For laws are just a description of how things work. The laws or descriptions on how to make a watch just dont happen by themselves. It takes a "watchmaker" to then put those into action or already know how to do it in the first place, then creating the watch. Saying the universe doesn't need a creator leads to a route of questioning purpose.

The first time i answered i read the question wrong and corrected myself. God made matter creating the universe out of nothing. Sorry about that 

There is no proof of complexity for the universe outside of an intelligent designer. Not only that, i dont just go off of emperical evidences for God either. This is just a section of what i hold to. I dont base my whole belief off of the cosmological argument. This argument does a good job in explaining an intelligent designer and lets remember how this conversation started. It was on the subject of the cosmological argument so thats what i held to (although i did get sidetracked to other subjects at times )

I will have to point out that even after 3 exchanges, I'm yet to understand what distinction you observe between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Certainly, you've defined micro as changes within a "kind", and macro as changes from one "kind" to another. This distinction, however, remains meaningless, as you have not yet defined what a "kind" is. The closest you came to providing a definition was:

Seeking clarity, I asked

You did not provide the requested clarification.

As your response to the hypothetical example indicates, you do not even consider the ability to interbreed as a defining criterion for "kind", as you consider the incompatible species of flies from the example to still be of the same "kind". This is in apparent contrast to your prior implied definition, "in terms of interbreeding", as the flies used for example here cannot "multiply after their kind". You can hopefully understand my confusion at this point, as I still don't know your precise definition of "kind", and therefore do not know what precise distinction you observe between micro- and macro-evolution.

First of all:  What exactly do you consider "transition"?  Obviously, since you still haven't defined what a "kind" is, "transition from one kind to other kind" is unintelligible, and hence, what "evidence making the transition from one kind to other kind true" you expect to see if evolution were true is also unintelligible.  

Second of all:  Did you arbitrarily choose "feline turning into a fish", or do you actually think evolution claims "felines" turn into "fish"?  Because that would be incorrect.  The evidence indicates life began in the oceans and moved to land (and in some instances like whales and dolphins, moved back to the oceans).  So a more accurate phrasing would be "fish into felines".  I'm sure you find this correct phrasing as hard to believe as your incorrectly-phrased example, but this is not a trivial error, and casts doubt on how familiar you are with the actual subject matter.

Again, I have to ask if you're simply arbitrarily picking "kinds" when you say "feline turning into a whale".  The evidence (which can go into) does indicate whales evolved from terrestrial creatures, but not felines.  I also have to wonder (with mild despair) if you think whales are fish, since you appended both to the phrase "felines turning into..."  Either you were recklessly constructing examples so did not notice this non-trivial discrepancy, or you are egregiously misinformed about even basic biology (as of course, whales are not fish, just as they do not share a common feline ancestor).  Another possibility would be that you are deliberately strawmanning, which many creationist apologists like Hovind or Comfort are known to do.  However, I do not suspect you of doing that.  

If instead you're asking whether there's evidence of evolution from terrestrial ungulates (not felines) to whales, yes, there is.  If you're genuinely interested, I can point to more detailed resources (although nothing you couldn't yourself find if you were genuinely interested); however, suffice it to say there are several fossil examples outlining whale evolution, aside from the living evidence of whales' mammalian features (warm-blooded, vertebrae, live young, air-breathing).  

So also with human evolution.  The DNA evidence alone shows that we have common ancestry with other primates (and all other living things), but since you specified fossils, there is abundant data showing how our species evolved, as well as other species of human.  (I should clarify at this point that when discussing taxonomy and evolution "human" does not mean only Homo sapiens.  "Human" corresponds to the genus Homo, which includes other human species such as H. heidelbergensis and  H. florensiensis.  Ours is the only surviving species of human.)  The hominid fossil record shows the gradual development of upright posture and larger crania, characteristic of humans.  

What is particularly amusing, and what lays bare the vacuousness of creationism is the inconsistency of creationists in trying to separate the "ape" fossils from the "human" fossils when given in chronological succession.  They cannot uniformly agree which ones are "ape", and which are "human".  I invite you to try this yourself:  If you're confident that you can rigorously defend creationism in consonance with the fossil record, I can provide a list of anthropoid fossils  (e.g., australopithecines such as afarensis and boisei, and hominids such as habilis, erectus & sapiens), and you can point out which are "ape", and which are "human", and by what criteria.  
 

False.  Evolution does not imply "we" came from a banana.  I would like to know your source for this misrepresentation.  More accurately, we share common ancestry with bananas, as with all other living things.  As with the fish/feline flub before, I'm sure you find common ancestry with bananas as incredible as "we came from a banana".  However, this again is not a trivial error; it is just as erroneous as saying you came from your cousin.  (And should you find it incredible that we share common ancestry with bananas, you need only consider that it is confirmed by the same genetics which confirm that you and your cousin have common ancestry.)

Furthermore, evolution does not say we came from a rock.  Evolution deals with how living things change over time; it does not deal with the emergence of life from non-life (that is called abiogenesis).  "We came from a rock" more aptly represents the (2^nd) biblical creation story, where a fully-formed man comes from a lump of clay.

 I'll provide a summary of the salient points at the conclusion of the post, but here your use of the phrase "different animal" treads upon the same ambiguity as your usage of "kind".  What precisely do you mean by "different", and how widely would two or more populations have to diverge genetically to satisfy your criteria for different?  

Your use of the word "feline" compounds the ambiguity.  You've previously used the term species, presumably as a term interchangeable with kind ("In no way, do we today witness a transition from one species to another" ).  "Feline" in the taxonomic sense, is a genus, i.e., a grouping of related species.  (The standard taxonomic hierarchy, which I briefly discussed before, is Kingom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.)  Domestic cats are classified as Felis catus.  Other species in that genus are Felis silvestris (wildcats), and Felis margarita (sandats).  For contrast, lions and tigers are not felines, but panthers:  members of the genus  Panthera (P. tigris and P. leo, respectively).  Felines and panthers both belong to the family Felidae.  What this classification signifies is that:  Lions, tigers, wildcats and domestic cats are all related (belonging to the same family), however lions and tigers are more closely related to one another than either are to wild cats or domestic cats, since they are in different genera within that family.  And of course, individual tigers are more closely related to each other than to lions, despite belonging to the same genus.  

My purpose in explaining this was to bring to light the laxity with which you use "kind", and to hopefully illustrate how the terminology is actually used.  Please let me know if this is clear, or if you have any objections to my explanation.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but I did not intend this to be a direct analogy to evolution.  It was only to demonstrate another example of fuzzy logic as opposed to discrete logic.  I also certainly did not make any reference to the fossil record; I only made reference to the system of taxonomy.  

The distinction between fuzzy and discrete logic I was trying to draw was this:  Your use of the (still undefined) term "kind" implies that there are discrete categories for living things, which no amount of change can traverse.  I simply provided the color spectrum as a more accessible example where we do not have any discrete boundaries between one color and another; we observe general areas of difference, but the boundaries between those different areas are fuzzy, not discrete.  

An analogous example would be "immediate family" vs. "distant family" (not in the taxonomic sense, but in the colloquial sense).   Consider how you define these two terms.  However narrowly or widely you define "immediate family" at some point in tracing your family tree you will cross the boundary to "distant family".  For example, if you define "immediate" as your grandparents and all their descendants down to your generation, then your first cousins will be part of your immediate family, but your second cousins will be distant.  (Likewise, your children and your siblings' children will be "immediately" related, but your children and your first cousins' children will be "distantly" related.)  Someone else might define "immediate" more broadly, to include another level of ancestry or posterity.  Someone may even choose to introduce more terms like "intermediate family".  But regardless of the system of terminology you use for describing your relatives, it is only a convention, and does not affect the degree to which your family members are related.  It is not as if there is some drastic difference between your first and second cousins in terms of their relation to you;  your second cousins are slightly less related to you than your first cousins, but they are still related.  So while for the sake of convention we may employ terms such as  "immediate" and "distant" with discretely defined limits for describing our families, there is no actual discrete difference between an "immediate" relative and a "distant" relative.  

The taxonomic hierarchy is simply the convention for classifying your relatives on a larger scale.  You can define "species" as narrowly or as broadly as you wish, just as you can define "immediate family" as narrowly or broadly as you wish.  That does not affect your relatedness to other livings things.  

You will protest at this point that everyone in your "immediate" and "distant" family are still human (Homo sapiens, to be exact).  Of course.  Everyone in your species are still human.  Just as everyone in your taxonomic order are still primates; and everyone in your taxonomic class are still mammals; and everyone in your taxonomic kingdom are still animals; and just like all other livings...are still living things.

 (I'm skipping a paragraph or two here, since I realize this post is getting lengthy.  I'll respond to them directly in another post.)

I brought up wisdom teeth, bats with useless eyes, male nipples and human embryos developing and losing tails in contrast to your mention of the platypus as "fully functional, and well-integrated". I was providing examples where organisms have traits which are not fully functional, and are not well-integrated. What then, is your assessment with wisdom teeth? That god made Homo sapiens "fully functional, and well-integrated" to eating more abrasive, unprocessed foods, but did not account for changes in diet? Could the same be said for the platypus: god made it "fully functional, and well-integrated" for its current environment, but a slight change in its environment would render it less than fully functional, and poorly-integrated? Your attempted explanation are in keeping with the cherry-picking of data I pointed out before: You pick out particular examples like the platypus as confirmation of creation because of their apparent full functionality (which itself is a subjective assessment), but either ignore or make excuses for the plethora of examples which fall short of full functionality.

Correct - bats' non-functional eyes and their highly developed sonar represent adaptation to a nocturnal environment. However, this serves as another counterexample to your platypus-based argument for creationism. Why are there so many examples of living things which are less than fully functional and less than well-integrated, such as bats? A creator that practiced "design economy" (the phrase Mitchell invokes to explain male nipples) would have created bats with no eyes at all, rather than useless ones. Respectfully, if you've borrowed at least some of your information from AiG, which unabashedly proclaims that it's based off of the assumption that the bible is true, and that all evidence has to confirm the bible.

There are likewise theists --including christians-- who believe in evolution. That is entirely irrelevant to the actual truth of the proposition.

I'll assume you mean "radiometric dating", of which carbon dating is only one method. There are creationist arguments against carbon dating, such as examples of living organisms dated through carbon dating to be thousands of years old. This also happens to be accounted for, e.g., carbon dating is unreliable for samples in marine environments, since organisms in such environments draw their carbon from humus, not the air. However, several different types of radiometric dating all converge on similar results. Nonetheless, I don't understand your claim that radiometric dating wouldn't exist without the geologic column. I wasn't familiar with Hutton or Lyell prior to your mention of them, and after having researched them, I'm honestly not sure what the actual point is. Darwin was arguably influenced by their ideas and Origin of Species may well reflect that influence; however, science itself is not dogmatically committed to defending Darwin, Lyell, Hutton, or anyone else for that matter. Science goes where the evidence leads; it does not choose conclusions in advance and then manipulate the evidence to arrive at them. There may be, of course, individual scientists who prevaricate about their findings, but science itself is self-correcting, by being open to new evidence, and willingness to admit that our present knowledge may be partially --or wholly-- wrong. Religion is by far more guilty of the circular reasoning you censure here: by holding dogmatic beliefs, and defending them in the face of countermanding evidence. AiG proudly admits to this by identifying as presuppositionalist. Your address of the geologic column serves well to demonstrate the difference between going where the evidence leads, rather than manipulating the evidence to go where you want it to. Whether or not you think evolution is compatible with the fossil data from the geologic column, biblical literalism is unquestionably incompatible with it. The first geologists to study the column were believers, and did their work well before Darwin, so they were not trying to confirm evolution or disconfirm creationism. Adam Sedgwick, a contemporary of Lyell's, hoped to find evidence in the column of a global flood and initially claimed that he had. However, as he investigated the column further, he admitted there was evidence for local floods, but none for a global one.

Synopsis

• What is clear from your last post is that you do not have an accurate understanding of evolution, what with your misbegotten examples of felines turning into fish and/or whales; or that we came from a banana/rock.  Either you have not researched evolution, or your research is primarily drawn from creationist sources, which routinely misrepresent science, either out of ignorance or deliberate deception.  I sincerely do not point this out to be offensive or condescending, but to hopefully enhance the productivity of this discussion.  This discussion does not promise to be useful if your arguments against evolution are based on a mistaken view of it.  You'll note I did not assume you as a professing christian were a biblical literalist; not even after you alluded to a belief in the great flood.  I could have assumed that, and simply argued against the nonsensicality of biblical literalism; but that would be arguing against a position which you do not necessarily hold (the strawman fallacy), thereby falsely vindicating my own position.
• Your referencing of the bible unsolicited, coupled with your demonstrated unfamiliarity with evolution suggests you are less concerned with actual scientific accuracy, and more concerned about reaffirming your belief in the bible against any science which might conflict with it.  This is in part why I asked if the source for one of your claims was Henry Morris of the IRC.  He is quoted as saying "When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."  Such a statement is a clear example of leading the evidence, not following it. 
• It should not be surprising at this point that the discussion is frustrated by the ambiguity of the terms you use.  I will reiterate what I pointed out in my first post on this topic:
  Quote:

  Macroevolution is simply microevolution over an extended period of time. What I've had creationists have respond with at this point is that "there are changes within a species one species becoming another species", or "...they're still the same kind". At this point I ask what they mean by "kind", and am yet to get an actual definition.

  You still have not provided a definition of "kind" as I requested, whereupon I am still unclear what you intend by ""transition from one kind to other kind".  I would also like to know precisely what you would accept as a "transitional fossil", or an actual example of macroevolution, but that may all be readily clarified once you provide a definition of "kind".  So I am politely but unequivocally asking for you define "kind" as applicable to evolution:
  • Not an example ("a dog will always stay a dog" )
  • Not an allusion ("Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding..." )
  • Not a scriptural reference ("...multiplying after their kind" )
  
  What I am asking for are specifics.  Provide a specific set of criteria by which we can determine whether any two living thing are the same kind or not.
  
  
  • Is there a minimum percentage of DNA two individuals of the same "kind" have in common -- and less than which, they would be different kinds?  If so, what is this percentage?
  • Is the ability to reproduce a defining characteristic of the members of the same kind?  Your "multiplying after their kind" reference suggested it was, yet your follow up about flies who can't interbreed (but whose ancestors could) suggested the opposite.  
  • What would you consider as a hypothetical example of one kind turning into another kind?  
     
  
  The potential for this particular discussion to yield any clarity hinges on you specifying what you mean by "kind".  (I will point out -- again -- that I have never received a definition from any creationist.)

I would caution against using Hovind as a source.  While I'm at this point skeptical that a reasonable argument for creationism can be made which accurately reflects the available evidence, in the case of Hovind we have someone who has on record made demonstrably false statements (such as his description of reproduction as two half-strands of DNA from each parent wrapping together; or claiming a drop of water spread thinly enough will cover the earth).  Furthermore, grouping the origin of the universe; star formation; abiogenesis and biological evolution all under the heading "evolution" is a distortion.  

Using the bible "as a filter" all but ensures your conclusions will be false.  This is proven by your chosen example of the great flood.  Not only is there no evidence at all that a global flood ever occurred, we know that a global flood could not occur; it is scientifically impossible.  This further affirms that you have accepted the bible/christianity as true on unreasonable grounds, and are now trying to construct a reasonable defense of those beliefs.

Well, as the thousands of different christian denominations indicate, there's no limit to the number of ways one can interpret the bible.  Believers pick and choose what parts of the bible they want to take literally -- even the fundamentalists.  In his debates, Craig borrows -- rather selectively -- from science in his debates, so that likely obligates him to accept some basics such as the big bang and evolution -- albeit in corrupted form.

I for one don't think there is any absolute purpose to our lives; any sense of purpose is of our own making.  Including a god in the equation does nothing to resolve either the moral problem or the problem of purpose.  Noone who believes god is the author of morality has ever given satisfactory response to the Euthyphro Dilemma ("Is it good because god commands it, or does god command it because it is good?" ).  Those who believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god (as presumably christians do) are confounded all the more by Epicurus' Riddle:

1. Is god willing to abolish evil (omnibenevolent), but not able?  Then he is impotent.

2. Is he able to abolish evil (omnipotent), but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.

3. Is he both willing and able?  Then whence cometh evil?

4. Is he neither willing nor able?  Then why call him god?

I thought we had already found clarity on this point.  You do not require the concept of "no god", or to formulate a conclusion to lack belief in god; one lacks belief by default, in the absence of any concepts or conclusions.    

For your hypothetical example of an untutored child in isolation: I can accept that such a child might at most adopt a belief in agency from its experience.  I am highly doubtful an individual child would of its own accord adopt belief in the supernatural, or an afterlife, or any of the other furnishings of religion.  Even if this should occur, it would represent movement from lack of belief to belief.  Furthermore, the adoption of such beliefs would not be the result of rational thought.   The closest actual correlate to this would be the cargo cults:  When primitive people have first encountered people from more advanced societies (as when Europeans arrived in New Guinea in the 19^th century), the primitives thought they were being visited by divine beings.

                       Check the dates  vBlueski the post before yours is dated in May. If he hasn't answered by now he is not likely to.   This is a common problem with theists who come here to debate; sooner or later  they run head long into simple logic or simple questions they can not deal with, or can't answer without aknowledging the absurdity of their theisim. I have yet to see one convert to atheisim they tend to run back to their fantasy world and never return.

                       btw   welcome to the forums.