Sketch

 

A link to a basic sketch of the equations. The orange one is Dr. Lyons, the blue is mine and the green most closely matches the records I had access to. And Cap's is the laughable red. It goes out 40 days. 

That's pretty cool thanks. I even understand it lol. 40-50 feet is a shitload of rain. Did your research tell you what kind of area that could cover? This makes me wonder how quickly that rain would drain away. I suspect it would drain fairly quickly for the first couple of feet, but then the rate would slow as the ground became saturated and the atmosphere became extremely humid from the evaporation. At some point it would drain so slowly as to be imperceptible. Then it would result in new bodies of water where before there was plains and especially valleys, which should be capable of altering the climate in the affected region. Such changes should be detectable in core samples.

caposkia wrote:

That makes no sense... the fact that they're all different books alters pretty much everything...

How so? I remind you of the context:

Vastet wrote:

The bible isn't even 2000 years old. It is not proof of a god. It is proof that people can make up a bunch of things and get other people to believe those things.

Now if some of the books of the bible were 3000 years old and others 1000, then you'd have a minor point in that you'd proved my claim of the bible not being 2000 years old wrong. But all the resources I looked into agree that none of the stories in the new testament predate christ, so I'd be interested in seeing your sources. As far as I can tell, my statement was quite accurate whether you consider the bible as one book or one million books. None of them were written before the so-called birth of christ, so bundling them altogether has no impact on my statements veracity.

However, the context of my comment effectively renders it a moot point. In order to be evidence of your god, there would have to be something more than that. The books would have to be much older. On the order of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The capability to believe in gods has been with humanity at least as far back as cave paintings. If your god were real, why did it wait so long to reveal itself? There is absolutely no abrahamic symbology in any ancient art. The first of the abrahamic religions didn't even begin compiling their religious book until about 1400 BCE, a mere 3400 years ago. If you want to use the age of a religion as evidence supporting that religion, a figure representing less than 0.00001% of the time Earth has been existent and less than 0.1% of the time humanity has been existent is insufficient.

 I agree, though not for the same reason. I would think a god would lay it all down fairly quickly. If all the writings of christianity were done in a year, that would make a compelling reason to think there was more at work than people making things up. But if it took thousands of years, there is no such compulsion. People have written grander tales than the bible in far less time, albeit only relatively recently (to my knowledge). Also, why were all the books written ONLY by people already familiar with christianity? It would be FAR more impressive if each book were written by a different culture and then later compiled when those cultures met. It is not at all surprising that one has to be introduced to your religion before one can write a book that the church would consider scripture. That's exactly how logic would dictate the invention and spread of a human created mythology.

caposkia wrote:

empirical evidence for something no living creature on Earth has ever experienced?

Well you asked it of me. Turn around is fair play.

caposkia wrote:

I do believe God experiences time differently.

But it still experiences time.

 I'm going to dispute the suggestion that Earth time is unique to Earth. The sheer vastness of the universe allows for the possibility of multiple planets that have the exact same mass, spin, and velocity. It is also not necessarily impossible to recreate Earth-like conditions through artificial means. Beyond that, Earth time itself is not the same everywhere on Earth. A clock on a mountain will need synchronisation with a clock in a valley every so often. However, I have no cause to dispute the suggestion that god experiences time differently than people. I would assume as much as a given.

That is a misrepresentation of Einsteins theories. The theory of relativity postulates that the existence of space, matter, energy, and gravity creates and manipulates time. Not that time moves or doesn't move nor that anything moves through time. Time is a result of things moving and changing, the measurement of that movement and change. If there was no movement or change, then any measurement of movement and change would be impossible, and thus time wouldn't exist.

 You don't need no time to create those conditions. If you could survive the conditions of a black hole, as you got sucked in you would see stars going nova like a fireworks display, going faster with every second until the last star died and there was nothing left to see. Anyone outside the influence of the black hole who looked at you would never see you move, even if you were constantly moving. It would take millions of years of observations to see you blink. All parties involved would still experience time, just differently from each other.

lol. I can't definitively disagree that you've concluded as much, and I recognise that. So I guess the ball is in gods court.

Ok now look at it from my perspective: I don't see a hot girl on the other side of the night club. I see an empty chair. If there is a hot girl sitting in the chair, she's invisible to my eyes. I can't touch her or see her or smell her or hear her or taste her. Is it possible she's there anyway? I suppose so. But trial and error suggests I'll have more luck approaching the girl I can see than I'll have talking to an empty chair. Your god isn't the only one who needs to know there'll be a commitment to a relationship. I need that too. I won't date a girl who has no interest in me, who never speaks to me and always tries to stay out of sight. From my perspective, she has no interest in a relationship and isn't going to be there for me when I need her. I could try anyway, but I'm not the self abusing type. If she's not interested, neither am I. I want someone who cares about me as much as I care about them. An empty chair doesn't care about anything. -------------- I have to go make dinner so I'll continue this later. I'm posting just in case there's a power flicker or my system freezes or something else happens that would delete what I've written so far.

I never suggested it was relevant. Omniscience, as defined by the English language, is not subject to the uncertainty principle. It is the absolute, limitless knowledge of everything. A being which is omniscient could predict the future with a 100% accuracy, PERIOD. Bob argued against this by throwing out omniscience as a bullshit word that describes the impossible. YOU have not thrown out omniscience as a bullshit word that describes the impossible, despite my challenging you to do so more than once; therefore his argument is inapplicable and your continuous reference to it is a demonstration of your ignorance of the subject matter. You agreed it was poorly defined, but you have not discarded it as a description of qualities your god possess. Having said exactly the same thing a good dozen times now, I'm done trying to explain this very simple concept to you. I end with one final attempted challenge: renounce omniscience or accept your god KNOWS with absolute certainty what lies in the future. Whether because that knowledge is part of its omniscience or a result of it is irrelevant, your god must have this knowledge if it is omniscient.

 

No. Science started with philosophy, but they parted ways centuries ago. Omniscience has nothing to do with science. Using the term is, in fact, a rejection of science, as science has shown that it is impossible to know everything.

  Then your perceptions are wrong. If you can comprehend why he can't accept your god, then you also know why I can't. Everything I've said has been an attempt to get you to comprehend my position, but in fact my basis for rejecting god is a mirror of Bobs. Logic, evidence, experience, and science.

You could, but then I'd list examples of you doing exactly what I said you did, and your dishonesty would be even more evident than it already is. The difference between us is I can point out where you failed to address a point and where I refuted a point. You cannot do the opposite, because it never happened.

 

caposkia wrote:

I know Bob would agree here, but Bob wouldn't need to be it that his take on God is non-existent. 

What exactly are you suggesting here? The vagaries of English allow for multiple interpretations of this comment.

 Nope. We already covered this when I admitted I can be wrong about things. Every single thing I know and/or believe is subject to new evidence that could contradict things I know and/or believe, resulting in new knowledge and/or belief. Such a voice would be compelling evidence, the first of its kind. I would HAVE to reevaluate my position.

 I find believers less trustworthy than non-believers, generally speaking. There are possibly exceptions, but I can't think of any right now. A believer in christianity only has to repent to be forgiven by god, at which point they are just fine in gods book. They must acknowledge it to themselves and to god, but need not go any further than that. A non-believer must repent first to themselves and then to other people to be forgiven, which is much harder, requires much more effort, and doesn't actually guarantee forgiveness. The catch 22 is a catch 22. If I'm to accept evidence for your god, people can't have anything to do with it.

 Hockey it is then! XD

 True enough, though as I'm not god I don't see them all the same way, and have a need to distinguish one from another. Hence my separation of them.

Ah but not getting expelled would be a significant change for god to make, and you say he doesn't work that way. If he can make that big of a change, why can't he do something more objective? Good or bad really doesn't matter in the long run. If your god exists, then by definition he trumps my ethics. I might consider him a dick, but he made everything so he decides what is good or bad, and that makes me the dick. The people who ran the school were muslim, so it stands to reason that if a god interfered, it was the muslim god. Also, within a year or two of the incident, a new school opened up near me and I started going there, and it was a much better school. All said and done, if I could go back and change things, I would have been happy to be expelled. I was scared at the time because I was an ignorant kid who didn't know the consequences. Today I know that I just would have ended up in a different school, and my parents would have saved some money. Considering some of the shit that happened at that place, it would have done me a world of good to be put back in the public system. But nothing happened.

I have a better understanding of the whole concept than most people.  You don't need to explain anything, what you did need to explain is your perception on the idea... and you did.   Let's look at it this way, the Bible makes it very clear that God can predict teh future with 100% accuracy, however, that in no way determines the future, only what God has predicted will come to be.

I haven't seen that aspect in you yet... my perceptions are based strictly on conversations we have.  You have anger, denial and apprehension toward the subject, sprinkled with bits of reasoning... Due ot your previous post about your past, I understand your anger and apprehension.

here you go with the dishonesty thing again... This is where you're running away again.

You can try to piont out where I failed ot address a point and you can reference any point you want... every time you claim I falied to point something out, I attempted to address it... . again.

I have nto intentinoally ignored any points you've made or have been made on this thread. 

I ahve told you directly to point them out if I missed them or misunderstood so that we can readdress them... yet above you call me a liar and claim that you constantly point out places where I failed to address and you refuted.  YOu claim I cannot do the opposite, but who are you trying to fool here?  I now must call you a liar.

then I must admit something here.. you might have a stronger faith than I, because I'm not sure that I would have accepted a voice in a dream as God when I was not a beleiver.  Then again, you're probably thinking this would be quite a lucid dream right?

only have to repent to be forgiven... do you know what that means?

I don't believe I said He doesn't work that way... at least in this context... I did say that He doesn't work that way in the context that He would just do a significant thing just to prove His existence to you.... and it's not that He can't, but He won't.

Your ethics idea is spot on.  He is the one that determiens good and bad.  If this God is the almighty, the God doesn't have to be any particular God to interfere in any situation be it that this God would overrule all other gods.  Though technically speaking the Jewish, Christian and Muslim God are all the same God, just different followings and understandings of that God. 

I don't have any anger on this issue. The only thing about religion that makes me angry is attempts to force, through law, people who disbelieve in a religion to practice and accept it as if it were true.
I don't have any apprehension either. Else I'd not so eagerly approach every theist who comes here. My post count alone shows a lack of apprehension.
Any denial is based on reason and logic, and therefore justified.

caposkia wrote:

here you go with the dishonesty thing again... This is where you're running away again.

It amazes me to be told that I'm running away moments after delivering a brutal uppercut that knocked my opponent on his ass for a ten count.

caposkia wrote:

You can try to piont out where I failed ot address a point and you can reference any point you want... every time you claim I falied to point something out, I attempted to address it... . again.

And failed... again.

Have you been drinking? Or maybe you're on a phone? Or maybe you're excited? Your spelling has gone to shit. I don't care, don't get me wrong, but it's odd.
Anyway, I never said you ignored anything or didn't respond to anything. When I say 'failed to address a point', the terminology I use explicitly acknowledges that you TRIED to address a point, and that your attempt was unsuccessful.

I don't have to fool anyone. This topic and others prove what I say is true. I'll tell you the most glaring example was when I pointed out the equation for the probability for life that you posted requires life to exist in order for life to form, and you had no answer. I believe you suggested that must mean there is no probability for life, continuing to support an equation that had just been completely discredited.

There is a liar here, but it's not me.

If it wasn't a lucid dream before the voice, it certainly would be after. I have never experienced a disembodied voice in my dreams. There's actually a slight chance it would wake me up completely, because it is so far outside the realm of my experience my mind might decide I have to be conscious for this event.

Yeah. You have to be sorry. For real. You have to confess to god and ask for forgiveness, often through a priest, though I know not all denominations of christianity use the confessional. And you have to try to change your evil ways. Though since you're inherently evil it is inevitable that you'll still sin, and the cycle continues until you die.

It's a lot easier than repenting to your victim(s) and the public at large, where all the same requirements exist plus you have to deal with being exposed.

Then I'll never be able to believe in him. If he was responsible for my not being expelled, he didn't do me any favours. And the fact I wasn't expelled has a very rational explanation already: expelling a child and sacrificing the tuition that childs parents are willing to pay over a set of keys that costs a few cents to replace is not a smart business decision.

caposkia wrote:

Your ethics idea is spot on.  He is the one that determiens good and bad.  If this God is the almighty, the God doesn't have to be any particular God to interfere in any situation be it that this God would overrule all other gods.  Though technically speaking the Jewish, Christian and Muslim God are all the same God, just different followings and understandings of that God. 

So then you have no argument against the faith of a muslim or jew?

Jabberwocky wrote:

What sort of lab manipulations? Nothing was said of manipulations, was it? To my knowledge, they simply allow animals to reproduce (or in other examples I've read of, bacteria) and examine the results. Nothing more. Even if there was some sort of artificial population separation, what is it that tells you that observations made in the lab wouldn't necessarily equate to what happens in nature?

nothing equates nature like nature.  To modify that by any means is to suggest certain conditions needed to be met and may not have happened in nature even if the conditions are possible

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Why wouldn't I have used that example? Is it because it's a result of artificial selection (AKA human breeding)? Is that why you think I shouldn't have used that example?

yea, there was a lot of human influence in dog breeds.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

  I provided you examples in that above post. Did you read them? Furthermore, do you have any idea how much research I do for posts when it calls for it? I mean, I have no problem doing it, because I enjoy learning. Do you do any research while you make these posts? I provided examples of primates that are alive today that have some walking ability, but not as good as ours. I mentioned a specific example in the differences between the pelves of Au. Afarensis, and Au. Africanus, showing a progression. I mentioned that the only thing that differs in the pelves of all primates is the proportion. There is no extra bone, nothing of the sort. There is no feature in any of them so distinct that it couldn't have evolved from a common ancestor.   Now, it's late, so I'm going to try to speed through this response a bit. I do not have a complete list of fossil specimens showing a gradual evolution of the pelvis so gradual that you would accept it. The reason isn't because there isn't one. I'm actually not sure how much there is on this, but I'm almost positive that you would not accept it, because you are irrational.  I will look at a later date for myself though, as I find it fascinating. I will give you this though:

Quote:

McHenry (1994) summarizes the pelvic adaptations supporting bipedalism that are shared between A. afarensis and H. sapiens as follows:

• Fossil specimens attributed to A. afarensis clearly indicate the presence of a lumbar lordosis, which, when combined with the thoracic kyphosis, facilitates habitual erect posture;
• the sacral ala are expanded laterally, broadening the pelvis (creating a larger space to support the viscera);
• the iliac blades are mediolaterally expanded (also creating more room to support the viscera), superioinferiorly shortened (making room for the lumbar lordosis), and anteriorly rotated. The rotation placed the origin of the anterior gluteals such that they became hip abductors, where they are critical to mediolateral pelvic stabilization during striding (Lovejoy, 2005). This rotation also moved the origin of the gluteus maximus muscles to positions from which they can control trunk extension sagittally at the time of heel strike;
• the appearance of robust anterior iliac spines to support some hip and knee flexors;
• and the appearance of a distinct iliopsoas groove, which carries another hip flexor used during bipedal gait.

(source http://www.wannabe-anthropologist.com/wba_writing_pelvis.php)Au. Afarensis (which you said was not human) sharing traits with us that are important to bipedalism. Does this not contain useful clues as to the origin of bipedalism?

it does.  I see a drastic difference in the link between example a compared to all B, C, and D.  What you describe above sounds like a good progression.  It makes sense that it's how it could have evolved.. do we have fossils of that exact evolution?

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Is it not? Ok. Then I insist that you explain to me how saying "like god" is anydifferent than saying "like magic" in any meaningful sense (where the phrases are used to explain something, as that was what this line of discussion was about) 

Ok.  God is not magic... our perception of God leads us to conclude magic but it is an irrational conclusion only because we can't comprehend God.  Magic is an excuse, not an explanation.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

I asked you for a gap, not "something like it". I want you to take what scientists believe to be the progression of simpler primates (perhaps somewhat similar to modern chimpanzees or gorillas), and name me one gap between two of those that is problematic; in your opinion, and insurmountable gap. So I ask you a third time. Name the gap. 

well it's the progression gap in general with any species.  we seem to be able to explain how a creature could evolve from one species to another, but when it comes to tangeable examples, they seem to be missing... every time.  I'm not sure what you mean by "name the gap"  meaning name the species taht the gap exists between?  for humans, probably the transitional fossile from the bent to the upright.  I'm not an expert in this field, but I haven't seen that... it seems that we see a progression of some primates eventually sort of walking upright, but the hip transition to our design is not quite there yet... then poof, there's the widened hip which allows the upright walk... how did that just happen between those two species?  Are we assuming one random moment in history one was born with the modified hip and then they all eventually followed suit?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Is it? I've never checked this. Provide me with a good easy-to-read source for it if you can. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just honestly want to know. 

um.... lemme see what I can find online... I've only read this in books and learned it from experts.  {I'm friends with a few experts in that field}well, it may not be the easiest read, but Wiki  goes into it a bit, and there's a link on that page that talks about selective breeding... that should give you the jist of it.   

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you're saying that no matter how unlikely it seems, it must be plausible because god was involved? If that's the case, you have made your conclusion and actually have no interest in discussion. 

that's not what I'm saying, but God would have taken that concern into consideration.  It is very possible that more frequent evolutionary booms occured to quickly progress the Kinds.  It is seen in our observations today therefore it is possible in nature and considering God was involved is even more likely of a possibility.  Why wouldn't it be if God was involved?  HOnestly, though we've been trying to rationalize through strictly natural means all these occurances, why is it so far fetched if God actually exists?  

jabberwocky wrote:

The scientific method isn't a "practice". It's a process. 

it is a process that is practiced just as coming to faith is a process... we can manipulate all the terminology we want, but when it comes down to it, the definition sticks.  Stop looking for excuses, are you really going to fight this?  It's not that difficult, really. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

*sigh*. First, I didn't say throat, did I? No. Good. Don't pretend I did. 

you said one tube.. but anyway

Jabberwocky wrote:

Second, you ignored everything I said, again! I proposed a better design that would completely separate the plumbing of these two functions to make choking not even a thing! YYou said "this works, because choking prevents the food from reaching the lungs". My solution would make this not even a remote possibility, unless you deliberately shoved food into your oxygen-hole (wherever god would have decided to put that). 

the flaw in your design is the olfactory sense.  Much of our ability to taste food is by smell... and we smell by inhaling air... if you move that, we likely would nto be able to taste very well.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have decided for religious reasons that "the way it works" is "the way it should work". I agree that there are reasons that things work the way they do. However, it is clearly NOT due to design, unless you want to credit a shitty designer. If we had the ability to re-plumb humans, that is probably a place some would begin (those who don't begin at the genitals/garbage disposals). 

you should really sit down adn think about it.. change one thing and think of all aspects that its' going to affect.  I mean, i'd rather not pee through my toe... and I'd hate to find out how hard it is to pee after I stub my urethra.

The bible is so historically inaccurate that it spawned a thousand denominations of a single faith, as well as the rise of atheism. It has been destroyed by critics with increasing frequency over the last 1500 odd years. It is proof your religion is a lie, nothing more.

Yeah so was I. So a 5 second google search made me more knowledgeable about your religion than you. lol.

You're lying. You don't have 'literally thousands' of ANY copy of a work, and even if you did it wouldn't prove anything other than the copies being descended from the first copy, which I've already demonstrated may actually be a forgery that was quite different from the actual original.

caposkia wrote:

Christianity is based on Jewish writings.... Jesus was a Jew.

So? Your religion and theirs are quite different.

caposkia wrote:

ight, history is always a cop-out.... did you ever consider the reason why the books were compiled in the order they are in?

Did you?

caposkia wrote:

you're reaching hard aren't you. just to grasp anything to hold on to. Why do you fight it so much?

You're projecting again.

caposkia wrote:

Trying to make everything I say look irrelevant doesn't bode well for your credibility

I have yet to have to try. You do it well enough on your own. I just point it out. When you deny it, it is your credibility that suffers. You don't actually have any left. You've been proved a liar by multiple posters.

caposkia wrote:

alright, fine... any author of any Old Testiment book that has been confirmed as an author according to your sources. None could claim to be Christian because they were all written before Jesus' time. Funny you don't find Moses a cited source.

Where's your proof there was a moses?

caposkia wrote:

...and that was?

Go back and read it. I'm not doing your work for you.

How can you see anything if there's no time? Even in your bullshit crntre there must still be time in order to observe anything. You're so ignorant on this subject I start giggling every time you post, to see what hoops you'll jump through this time in order to avoid the truth.

if what you said is true, then the following would in fact be destroyed and not held by the majority of the world.

wow, you do a 5 second google search and believe whatever you read

do you want me to be lying?  why do you keep resorting to that?

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/library.html

I've also specified how identical the copies that have indicated that the orignals are likely well preserved in the copies.  To have what we have then discover the dead sea scrolls, much older than anything we've had before and see they're right in line with what we already had only further confirmed this... there's more reason to believe the originals were not drastically different. 

he only difference is Jesus.  We follow Jesus and believe He is the messiah... they're still waiting for the messiah.  yes, their practices are quite different.. I kind of wish we held onto some of those... I'd likely know Hebrew a little better than I do now. 

so you haven't... it IS a cop-out to try to turn the question around that automatically implies the answer you try to ask.  Just in case you try to claim I didn't answer, yes.

well, be it that we as followers have agreed that the author of the books is likely not Moses, then nothing more than the books and the history of a population in the locations suggested.  however, I go back to any author of any OT book that has bene confirmed as an author according to your sources...

now that's progressive...

that was actually from the Bible.

look up the archives of any news corp.  There are hundreds of illegitimate suspensions, expulsions, etc from schools.  many different reasons, many schools usually try to be hush hush.

I'd probably say; 'oops, I'm sorry, obviously I missed something big..' then ask a lot of questions about what I was misunderstanding and what i can do to rectify that if necessary.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well first, of all, we observe animals migrating to new habitats, and animals' habitats changing (in nature) all the time. This causes selection pressures to change, so just because we're causing the changes ourselves in the lab doesn't corrupt anything whatsoever. However, that doesn't matter anyway, because we can observe speciation occuring in nature too. I also thought you had no problem with speciation anyway, unless I'm remembering things wrong. I once again ask the same question: Do you believe that speciation occurs? Of course this provides that such speciation causes two animals who have a known common ancestor to have diverged genetically to the point of no longer being reproductively compatible. Do you agree that this happens?

I agree it happens in nature, the question is to what degree and how far back... is there a start to the chain, or many starts rather than one common start. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 So what? Same answer as above. Humans manipulating selection vs. selection occuring on its own isn't a problem, as I outlined above. You've sort of conflated these two above points. This string of conversation was to demonstrate that the difference between breeds of the domestic dog (Canis Familiaris; all the same species) are vast in terms of bone proportion and shape. While a chihuahua and a great dane would have trouble mating, they are reproductively compatible if you were to artifically inseminate them. The point is, they are of the same species, but carry so many differences. This part of the discussion was to show that these bone sizes can and do vary over time depending on selection pressures. You had a problem with the evolution of the bipedal pelvis. Considering that even young earth creationists agree that all dogs had a common ancestor, why is it so hard for you to concede that such a change in the proportions of the primate pelvis occured? 

unlike with Dogs, there is no progressive turning point... all we have is the pelvis was one way, then suddenly in this new string it was the other.  With dog breeds, the manipulation took many cycles. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

 

Once again. "Of that exact evolution". What biologists say when they are missing some "links", they say "we have A, and we have Z. We expect to find something that looks like B through Y. I think most likely we should expect to find something in the J to M range". Then they find "N" and you say "A HA! THEY'RE WRONG!" That is ludicrous and evasive. You demand that biologists predict with 100% accuracy the fossils that they find, and that they find every single generation of primate that lead to us, and until then, the theory of evolution by natural selection is not true. You demand a level of proof that while it is theoretically providable, it is not realistically due to how much of the earth we would have to dig through, the time involved, the events that prevent fossilization from occuring, and many other reasons. But the fact that we know so much now that it's extraordinarily rare that a find is uncovered that makes biologists say "Wait...this doesn't fit in with ANYTHING!" is a testament to how accurate their predictions are. When fossils are found, it's typically a bone or a small number of bones per specimen. If fossils were most frequently entire skeletons, and occured in almost every case, then sure we should find that gradual pelvic change. However, they're not, and it doesn't. But what don't we find? Pelves exhibiting bipedal traits before a certain geological time period. We don't find heads designed for larger brains leading to us before a certain time period (and the changes in the pelvis to accomodate that!). The more we find, the more sense any subsequent find makes.  

well no, that's not it... the problem I have is that when trying to evolve one to another the problem ALWAYS  occurs at the same spot, not just randomly.  There are numerous cases where there are claims of ancestry yet the gap of progression from one to the other is always there.  It would be different if it was just one or two species and the rest had the progression, but that's not the case... and honestly, it only happens to be the most pivotal peice of evidence that ironically (edit: the word you seek is "conveniently&quot is always missing.  moreso, if that pivotal peice was actually there, it wouldn't be necessary to show the progression up to that point because it would be quite obvious that they evolved that way, but again, it's always missing. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Like every single person who decries the most important foundational concept of biology (the theory of evolution by natural selection), you show every single time you type a single thing on the topic that you know very little on the subject. When evidence is provided to you, you attempt to say that it's not confirmed because we don't have all of the fossils. This is really your only argument, and it's an awful one. We don't need it. Darwin figured it out just observing living creatures in unique places (like the galapagos islands, where isolation can and does occur quickly, leading to a sudden change in selection pressures which speeds up changes in genes, and therefore appearance). It was years and years after Darwin until we began finding fossils that painted exactly the picture that Darwin proposed. Then many more years before the advent of the field of genetics. And guess what? Everything in that field fits together into this unifying theory of biology as well. This wasn't some deliberate attempt to do so because they liked how Darwin's theory would mean that the bible is false (which is what whackjob creationists like to claim). This is simply the conclusion reached by independant observation in all of these different subsets of biology. Why does it all fit together so well? Why does the evidence point to something? Of course, there are dissenting voices even in the scientific community. Answers in Genesis lists a whopping 194 scientists (45 of whom have "bio" somewhere next to their name on the site). Of course, there's also project Steve. Guys named Steve make up about 1% of scientists.  1344 Steves are part of project Steve, which is merely a list of scientists named Steve that accept evolution by natural selection and everything that goes with it (including universal common descent). Also, instead of only 23% of Steve's being in some way educated in biology, the wikipedia page states that 51% of them are biologists. The view that there are problems with the science is a fringe one, and until some ACTUAL problems with the theory are put forth, it should be viewed as true as all of the evidence we DO have points towards it. Find one fossil in the wrong place. Find one piece of DNA that just makes no sense. I challenge you. The entire legitimate scientific community challenges the whackjob creationists I'm sure. These sorts of theories are always "tentatively true" because they're falsifiable. There are things that were you to find them, would disprove them in an instant. Nobody has ever done this to the theory of evolution, and that is a testament to how correct it is. 

 everyone on one side or the other claims that no one has done X to their understanding and yet it happens all the time, to both sides. 

 It's just whether they're credible.. unfortunately in our case, both sides have a credible point, so the issue really goes beyond evolution.. Evolution is only a peice of the puzzle, but for this thread, thats' likely as far as it should go here. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 That's complete gibberish and does nothing to differentiate "god" from "magic" in your post. I asked you (in the conversation leading to this) to explain why, if universal common descent isn't true, we all look like a family tree (both superficially, and by examining DNA). Your explanation was literally word for word "like God?". You didn't elaborate any further. You simply asserted what I asked you to prove. In two words no less. Also, as I said, if you replaced "god" with "magic" in your "explanation", it would be the exact same thing. A baseless assertion. I'm saying that those who study biology for a living (except for maybe approximately 45 morons) are probably correct about this. Also, their proposition is that this all occured by natural processes that we can examine right now as they happen! You, on the other hand, are proposing a process that has NEVER been observed, being performed by a being that nobody has been able to provide ANY evidence for (let alone conclusive evidence). 

that reasoning is very subjective.  What was gibberish to you differentiated for many.  magic is a distraction... to you God is a disctraction... to us God is Truth.  To you both are the same, to those who know God, we know better than to assume magic 

Jabberwocky wrote:

No we are not. We are assuming that it occured somewhat gradually (although the rate of change could vary within a reasonable range). I discussed fossilization above, and don't need to repeat myself. We won't ever find all of them that DO exist, and some (well, many I'm sure!) are simply lost forever and we never will. You keep on citing lack of evidence (and only fossil evidence, really). Yet you refuse to comment on how all of the evidence fits together, and there is 0....ZERO evidence to the contrary. You demand that we find every single fucking fossil, generation to generation before you accept this. On the other hand, when asked in other conversations with you repeatedly to point me to at least one (I don't care if it's 100, I'll read them!) reasons to believe that the bible is true (and therefore Christianity is), you haven't even given me one. You have an extraordinarily skewed idea of burden of proof, and as usual are engaging in the most extreme form of special pleading. The bible is true until every single verse is proven wrong. Universal common descent is false until we find every single fossil. It's absolutely absurd, and I can't believe that your own head hasn't exploded from the cognitive dissonance yet. You are basically OJ Simpson's defense lawyer here (not as unethical, I'm not accusing you of that, but just about as ridiculous), except at least O.J.'s lawyer had one piece of evidence that didn't fit with O.J. committing the crime (the glove not fitting). The theory of evolution by natural selection in its entirety has no such piece of contrary evidence. Why do you think that is if you also think that it isn't true?

To the contrary, as I stated, if in this particular topic, if that assumed progression is shown in fossils of a transitioning pelvic bone, not up to and then past, but the actual transition, then teh rest are not necessary, but again those pivotal fossils are always missing in all species taht are claimed to have ancestrial relations to specific others.  IF it is actually gradual, then that part of the progression in my mind would not always be missing. On the other hand you claim I haven't given you one reason to believe the Bible is true, well that's as true as you not giving me one reason to believe it's false.  We have both presented reasoning, neither have found it credible for their understanding to be in jeopardy. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

It's not. However, we don't see any evidence that a god has ever intervened in our world, nor any that he intervenes today. This lack of evidence suggests that either there is a god that never intervenes, or there is no such thing. It's not far fetched IF god actually exists, but your argument is circular if that's what it is. You're trying to prove the flood here, and you're essentially saying "As unlikely as these things seem, it becomes much more likely if god is real. Since it's much more likely now, then the flood happens, therefore the bible is true, therefore god exists". Find evidence for your god that doesn't require pre-supposing his existence and then you might be able to form an argument that's at least slightly compelling. What we've gotten instead is the most bizarre framework for creationism that is as flexible as a cirque du soleil performer. Most of the reason is that you refuse to actually outline your entire position, so that your position can be "whatever works in this particular post". You then say wacky shit like the flood occuring 2 million years ago (before humans, CERTAINLY before boats and complex language). 

...and at this point in the discussion I always ask the question, what 'evidence' would you expect to see if God had intervened, taking into conisderation that Gods intervention doesn't necessarily and likely usually does not violate the Laws God likely put in place in nature initially but rather redirects a progression of events to result in the way God intended. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Just face it. There is 0 evidence for the flood. 

be it that I've stated that myself, this should be easy.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Whatever time you place the flood, it is either too early for humanity, or too late to allow enough time for evolution to populate the world from single male/female pairs (that would allow a reasonably small number so that they could fit on the boat). You demand the equivalent of video evidence of the flood NOT occurring (the flood with no evidence for it), but refuse to accept the mountains of evidence (literally and figuratively) for universal common descent. The level of denial, the special pleading, the circular arguments that you have presented are more frequent than I thought anyone would ever try. Either start providing evidence for the flood, or be honest with everyone (and yourself) and admit that there is NONE.

there are a lot of atheists who also agree that universal common decent is not likely.  A few have told me they accept that there were likely several "starts" and then all other species progressed from those several starting kinds.  Special pleading?  denial?  must be on both sides then. I don't see these mountains of evidence that you claim exist against something you also claim has no evidence.   A lot of reasoning has been discussed, but no evidence has been presented regarding the flood on either side.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Except it can be outlined and can be demonstrated to work. Coming to faith is a process that you can't outline, and if you can, it is flawed (trust with all your heart and he will show himself, for example, is absurd. If you emotionally invest yourself in the idea more than you do with anything else, of course you'll believe it, it's how our brains work). 

  a lot of assumptions on your part here... very close minded too.  I mean; "coming to faith is a process that you can't outline, and if you can it is flawed..."  really?  covering all bases huh.  making sure there's really no way it can be proven to you. it's more than just "trust in your heart" it's trust, learn, walk in that path, stumble, trip, get back up, learn walk, question, debate, discuss, walk some more.  etc... it's only a process that literally millions, possibly billions over the years have done.... and it's a process you claim can't be outlined and/or is flawed. sure invest emotinoally and we are wired to believe, however not all emotions regarding this following are positive...and usually psychologically that is a turnoff.  So whereto when that happens?  doesn't seem like it should psychologically work.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

It is one tube if a piece of food can obstruct your breathing is it not?

no, it's a separate tube that food should go down, if it obstructs your breathing, then it went into the wrong tube. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

This suggests that god sucks at producing better tastebuds. Quit limiting your own gods omnipotence, he's starting to get self-conscious (because of course he exhibits petty human emotions being all-powerful up there...your book says it, not me....)

or its ingeneous.  if we couldn't smell what we taste, a lot more people would likely have been dying from eating things that have gone bad.  Quit looking for excuses. 

We are made in Gods image, that includes the emotinos He has.. are they human emotions or are they a reflection of Gods emotions?  My book says it, not me. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

So your answer to me was to come up with a bad solution. Birds have one function. Why not put ALL waste disposal back there, and all the fun stuff into designated fun parts? Nope. Let's run type 1 waste through the male sex organ. Then let's tell them being gay is wrong, but make their prostate accesible for stimulation anally (and let's make it more dangerous as more tearing/bleeding happens back there increasing the transfer of some of the most dangerous STIs). Now let's route the type 2 waste back there too. Perfect. Now women? Yeah, perfect design there. Don't get me wrong, it's great, but that is not intelligently designed. We are compelled by our (evolved) urges to enjoy it a lot, but to say that it was deliberately designed exactly that way is to, once again, be in a great level of denial. 

 

wow, just wow.  Alright, you know more than God about design... then again, evolution is supposed to help correct or form progressions that help a species successfully continue... why hasn't evolution corrected these issues you have?  What caused evolution to form things the way they are if what you say is true and they're terribly flawed.  I mean as you've pointed out, there's a much better way right?

Honestly, you've basically answered part of your issues in your statement above.  You've covered several threads worth of discussions up there.  You should google the joke about the Harley Davidson inventor meeting God.   your statement above reminds me of it.  Better yet... here enjoy: http://famguardian.org/subjects/SexualImmorality/Humor/HarleyDavidsonGod.htm

Jabberwocky wrote:

 As far as one start or many, the only evidence we have for that is genetics. It suggests one start. You can throw that out if you will, but if you do, then you can throw out every paternity test out of a court of law as well. We are using exactly the same type and standard of evidence to deduce one as the other. What evidence do you have for multiple starts?

 Yes and no. For most of what we consider life (plants, animals, bacteria, archaea etc) we are virtuallly certain it all had a common ancestor. The one thing we are not certain of at all is viruses. There are theories that viruses predated all other life, and may have played a crucial role in creating the initial selection pressures. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16223546 Given the uncertainty, it isn't out of the question that viruses may have had an independent start. The problem with tracing viruses, is that they are well known to take dna and/or rna from their host. This allows us to determine where they have been, but does little to prove origins. We can see viruses quickly adapt and coevolve with every lifeform that has ever existed, but if viruses were around before LUCA, and perhaps had an effect on the direction of evolution. Some microbiologists argue that viruses don't even qualify as life, they are so different from cellular life. But isn't that exactly what we would expect if they had a seperate origin? This has nothing to do with Caps argument, but I think it is interesting to consider the possibility. 

 

So you seem to state that he can predict with 100% accuracy quantum effects. Then why manipulate anything? In that situation it would mean that god created a universe where he knew exactly how everything was going to unfold anyway. If he wanted it to unfold differently, he would have created a different universe, even if only slightly. He could have created one where I was born in Brazil. Once again, programming can be used as an example. 

I can make a program that utilizes no random number generator. If I do that, then I can predict what the program would do at any given instance. If I wanted it to do something different, I would have to re-write the code. Of course, I'm not omniscient or omnipotent, so I might not get it right on the first try. Someone who is, would. 

Now, I can implement in my program a random number generator. However, computers don't do random. What happens is that a programmer writes up an algorithm to make something as random as possible. Usually, some random variable is used, like a computer may use a clock counting milliseconds so that two humans attempting to get the same random output likely wouldn't be able to. I remember in high school math when the math teacher explained how the random number generator in our calculators worked, almost everyone got the same result, as the calculator had no such random variable to pull (or perhaps it did but required storage elsewhere). I had by then used it, so my calculator yielded different results (as presumably one of the variables the algorithm pulled was a count of  how many times the generator has been used, or perhaps a certain subset of functions on top of that). Once again, though, your god is omniscient. He knows exactly the algorithm. He knows where every variable sits. Every awful thing that has ever happened to you is your god's fault if he did exist, because he could have, instead, created a universe where all else is the same, but your life goes a little bit better (presumably because of your loyalty to him). Buuuuut he didn't do that. 

Vastet wrote:

You can't have it both ways. Either god can predict the future with sufficient accuracy to be responsible for everything or he can't. Make up your mind.

Ok, God is responsible for everything.  It does say that in scripture.  God allows things and prevents things... Unlike the take you're gonig to put on this, God does not "DO" all things, He will either allow it or not allow it.  God allows us to keep pushing Him away.  I"m guessing to show us that in the end, we can't live without Him.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I've already said this once, but I'll try to simplify it.  You have animal group 0. Animal group 0 ends up splitting into two groups because small variances in habitat draw one half of group 0 to move in one direction, and another half to move in the other. After many many years and generations of breeding and moving away from one another, eventually these groups are fully isolated (because one migrated and the other didn't, or both groups migrated in opposite directions). After a number of generations, if you are to re-unite these groups, you find sometimes that they won't interbreed, and you find other times where their genes have varied so much, that they're not reproductively compatible at all anymore, even with IV fertilization. Everything mentioned in this paragraph has been observed to happen.  So if genes can diverge that much, what prevents them from changing further if selection pressures of a group of descendants changes again? If you can not answer this question, then the #1 assertion of creationists (change can occur, but not THAT much change) is without foundation. If enough change can occur to cause such a speciation event, and life was simpler several hundred million years ago, there is no reason that the divergence to create separate kingdoms, phylums, classes, etc. could not occur.  As far as one start or many, the only evidence we have for that is genetics. It suggests one start. You can throw that out if you will, but if you do, then you can throw out every paternity test out of a court of law as well. We are using exactly the same type and standard of evidence to deduce one as the other. What evidence do you have for multiple starts?

well, I understood what you had said before.  doesn't really answer to what degree and how far back. What evidence for multiple starts?  There are tons of articles out there.. maybe start with oxford journals and go on from there.  I feel like someone on this thread also has that understanding... If you're here, do you have any specific sources that might be a good start?  This is not my expertise.  

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 We are also suggesting that it took "many cycles" in the evolution of the bipedal pelvis. We just don't have the fossils for reasons I mentioned above. 

right, and consistently with all other progressions with the same claims.  the fact that those specific fossils are missing are big red flags for me.  As i said, if those were in our possession, the progressive fossils up to that point would not be needed to prove the point.  The key fossils necessary for driving the point home just happen to not exist. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Always occurs at the same spot? What do you mean? Provide some examples. Be sure to mention what this pivotal piece that is conveniently missing is. You then say it all in your next sentence. If that piece was there, you wouldn't need any MORE evidence of how it got there. It's just that one piece we can't find, right? That's utter bullshit! Because you have yet to provide one single specific example when prompted for it in what seems like my last 8 posts on this topic. Why is that? Because you know if we find "that pivotal piece" you need to maintain the ability to change "what that pivotal piece" is. It took us until very recently to find an actual fossil of what was hypothesized for over a century; the aquatic animal that could sooort of walk. But we found it. Tiktaalik. In my country no less. This was THE pivotal piece to how our ancestors left the waters to live on land, being able to move about without requiring water around them. What was the creationist response? Well I really don't care. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was something along the lines of "well if Tiktaalik is what you say it is, where is the fossil of the two animals that are slightly better, and slightly worse, at walking on land??". This worthless thing will never end for an obvious reason. Creationism is not science. Biologists will tell you what they think happened (as of today). If evidence is found that allows them to add to the picture, they will. If the evidence causes them to need to revise some details, they will. This is what intellectual honesty is. Creationists will never tell you what a "kind" (a word you hilariously capitalize) is. Creationists won't tell you what the first animal of each "kind" looked like.  Have you noticed yet that most of my arguments in this string of conversation are "reasons that evolution is true" and yours are "reasons evolution is false" rather than "reasons creationism is true"? It's because there are no compelling reasons that creationism is true. Also, the reasons given by creationists that evolution is false are always flawed. I don't share Richard Dawkins's view that you shouldn't debate creationists as giving them a microphone is a bad idea to begin with. I do agree that he never should, because it does not take a biologist to disprove them. Hell, it doesn't even take a scientist. A mildly educated layman is enough, as is evidenced in this thread by numerous people. 

Frustrating when you're missing that one peice of evidence that would prove to the other side your understanding isn't it.  Except in this case, it actually doesn't exist.  You can cry bullshit all you want, but the point is clear.  The proof is missing.  The reasoning is there.Also i have noticed that most of your arguments in this string are "reasons taht evolution is true" despite my agreement that it is, rather I'm trying to tell you that darwinistic evolution is not and we haven't the actual proof to support it, only a broken line.  You want another example of missing evolution?  pick one.  we can talk about it.  We can try to trace any creature back and I'm willing to bet there's a gap in a pivotal point in the progression claim. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Does it? Give me one piece of evidence that suggests that evolution is false. Not a "not enough evidence" argument. I have explained at least once why we shouldn't expect to find every single organism fossilized. I want you to find one piece of evidence that says "Hey, wait a second. This could actually disprove evolution!". The disproof for creationism as a broad concept isn't much I will admit. It would mean that a creator would have made the organisms seem uncannily related even though they're not, but there's not much more than that. It would necessitate a deceptive creator though.

why would I do that?  I agree that evolution happens, just not to the degree that you claim it does, from one single cell to every living thing we know.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

 The evidence against creationism that has any relation to the Christian (and consequently, the Hebrew) scriptures is vast. This very thread is about the flood. The number of species we know exist, the number of animals that would have had to have been on that ark, the amount of food, the carnivores not eating the herbivores, the ability for a wooden boat 1/3 the size of the titanic to fit so many more things (and not sink), etc. etc....it's all been said. It needs no more mention than the summary I just gave. Unless you can come up with some solid math that works regarding what you have been challenged to do (since you have a unique idea for a creationist in terms of how long ago this flood occurred), your assertion is false until proven true. We have attempted to argue the range of numbers that fits within the framework you have presented, but you continue to be vague. Be specific, and we can actually discuss how plausible your particular flavour of creationism is. Until then, you have presented nothing, whereas we have presented you with tankers of evidence. 

you want specifics?  Then we need to stop talking about a story that neither side has anything on other than the story itself.  I continue to be vague.  Why?  Because the details are vague.  We know nothing more than what is actually said in the story.    You want to discuss how plausible my particular flavour of creationism is?  we can do that, but this thread isn't the place.  We would need to move on from Noah's Flood. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Whether who's credible? It's not whether a person is credible. It's whether their statement is. You have to evaluate the evidence independant of the person giving it. As far as evolution being only a piece of the puzzle, I don't care. I have just tasked you above with outlining how you fit the necessary animals on the ark. I need solid numbers, and of what. Then, how it evolved from there. If you want to stop the conversation before giving such information that's fine by me, but by that you admit that you have presented nothing. If you disagree with my last sentence, please repeat specifically what evidence you have brought forth. 

Alright, let's do this... You want solid numbers and what, then how it evolved... I just need from you the specific date of the flood.  Once you can provide that for me, we can go from there. Unfortunately, this is a loop.  We've already been there on this thread. It is impossible to give you what you're looking for without a specific date.  We've come up with an educated guess, but I'm not sure about it beyond this thread and what has been presented here.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

 I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding here that we won't agree on. You are content saying "god did it" without wanting to know how. We have provided a mechanism for "how" without god. You have not provided a mechanism for "how" with god. This is why it's similar to saying "like witchcraft" "like wizardry" "like magic"...etc. Because it's not an explanation. It's the exact opposite. It is evading the need to explain. If you don't understand what I'm saying here, feel free to ignore this part of the post. 

I am not content on saying God did it wihtout wanting to know how.. however when God does it, it's hard to argue otherwise.  Considering that God is a being that is understood to have created everything we know to exist including us, logically the mechanism then would be God.  To understand more than that would be to likely be a metaphysical being yourself.to put it in perspective, yes it is just like saying "like witchcraft" be it that there is some truth in that as well.

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

The "actual transition" there is not one transition. Read my first two sentences quoted here. It occurs gradually, therefore there is not one "actual transition" (as I bolded you here). I also believe that if a fossil is found at similar proportions to halfway between two current fossils, you would then merely assert 2 gaps instead of one there. 

that's exactly my point.  It would make a lot more sense to me if there was only one transition because then yea, it would make sense as to why we might not have found that particular fossil yet, but instead as you said, it occurs gradually, which means we have a large gap of missing fossils that would show the actual transition.  That's a problem.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Furthermore, your first three words "To the contrary" are...wow. I have told you to provide evidence (I think this is the third time in this post at least) that evolution is false. Your "evidence" is always "there isn't enough evidence that it's true". Even though there is lots. From multiple disciplines. And they all corroborate one another. If you fail to see this, I don't see what more I can do here. 

To clarify, I was politely stating your assertion was false about what i was claiming.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 Bonus, evidence that the bible is false that you have asked for. Your bible says (hey, it's the topic of this thread too!) that a giant flood occured. We see evidence for floods, and we know how it looks. No evidence of a flood of that magnitude has been found. There. Oh, some more. Genetics show that the human population was down to a few thousand (not as little as one couple....twice). Hmm. No historian wrote of graves opening up and the dead rising around 33CE. You think someone would notice and mention it. What more do you need? You have not provided me anything close standard-wise as evidence against the natural sciences as I have provided you against the bible. 

you have honestly provided me nothing against the Bible... I know you don't see it that way, but it has fallen short.  We have talked about the rationality of such a drastic flood and history shows that weather can be extreme enough that if the right conditions presented themselves, such a flood could occur... it would just need a feeder source to continue, which happens in weather patterns today, just not to that extreme.  Consider a tropical source with a high pressure system manipulating the jetstream to channel all that tropical air into colder climates.   it woudl then condense and fall in drastic amounts... further it would be worse if it were normally dry arid land, which it likely was. no historian wrote of graves opening up.  yo think someone would have noticed... well they did becasue they wrote about it.  A historian?  no, an observer yes. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

If that's the case, you are suggesting that it is undetectable. So then you agree that I shouldn't expect to find any evidence. Good that we agree on this point. 

that makes sense doesn't it?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Then why believe it occured?

the support for scripture as a whole and my relationship with God.  To me it's like looking at an encyclopedia and pulling a random story out and saying, yea, this definitely didn't happen, but the rest of it did.  Not logicalbut I understand your perspective too.  The bible to you is like looking at any work of fiction and then having someone tell that this one chapter actually happened though you believe the rest is pure fiction.  also not logical. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 A lot of atheists? Who are they? Cite them. Also, I wouldn't see this as an impossibility, but if they rule out the supernatural then they typically believe in some sort of pan-spermia theory, that aliens deposited life (in varying levels depending on who you ask who holds this fringe view) on Earth. Then you ask where they came from, and get into an infinite regress problem. The atheists you claim to have spoken to, what do they believe caused these "starts"? Is it what I just posited regarding aliens, or something different? Special pleading and denial? Nope. Quote one example of me engaging in special pleading or denial. Do it. If you would like me to do the same, let me know.  Mountains of evidence against? That's not what I said. I said mountains of evidence FOR universal common descent. Of course that would be evidence against your view, but it is first and foremost evidence FOR something, not against it. The latter is merely a consequence.  And what do you mean no evidence on either side??

well, one I have disccussed with on this site... I had asked them to speak up about a source... I don't remember if they were on this thread or not, but if they don't, remind me and I"ll try to look for them.  It's not so far fetched to consider multiple starts really... there are many sources if you google the idea.  example of special pleading?  just one?  ok how about the fossil gap and how you're trying to argue the point that despite the large gap in a very pivotal point in the progression, it still had to have taken place.  no evidence on either side... we have to admit that neither of us have any evidence for or against the story of Noah's Flood mainly because we haven't even the slightest clue as to when it was even claimed to have happened.   Obviously the only witnesses to the flood would be noah and his family and I'm not aware of any book of Noah.  

jabberwocky wrote:

 

But can it be "trust, stumble, stumble, trip, learn, debate, lose faith, come back, etc."? Of course! It's just as plausible. Whereas the scientific method is always the same, and the predictability of what we learn verifies the accuracy of it. Observe a phenomenon, posit a hypothesis, derive predictions from the hypothesis, and TEST your predictions by conducting experiments. Record your results, and re-test, and test, and test. Whereas the process you posited is wholly internal in your head, and does not involve anything external against which you can test whether or not you're correct, or at least on the right track.  Psychologically, it does work. I'm a sports fan. It's one of the most illogical things I do. I cheer for the same teams I always have in each sport, because I believe it to be no fun if you just switch, and you feel less rewarded when the team wins if you haven't been loyal through the down-times. There is a level of illogical thought to it, but I only do it because it's fun. I am very emotionally invested in it, even though I know it's unimportant in the grand scheme of things. You are the same way with god, but you believe it to be important. That is the only difference between your god to you, and Liverpool FC to me. You can try to tell me to support Manchester City instead but I won't. Trust me, it works. We are somewhat wired for this. I just use that wiring for recreation/entertainment, whereas you use it to bullshit yourself. 

To your first part in reference to the scientific method... The scientific method consistency does not work when talking about educating children.. Each child learns differently and at their own pace, though we still push them through in many instances... We have tried to put every child on one line, but it just doesn't work that way, some children fall short of the line and fail constantly, others rise above it and graduate with honors.  There are many ways to the end result, but as public education has shown, you can outline the progression of education.  more than ninety percent of the students will waver within a confined area of the line.  there are outliers, but that is expected in any situation with so many variables.  This applies to coming to faith as well.  it is a learning process, not a scientific discovery.  it's like using the scientific method, but trying to discover something new without knowing exactly what's going to work.  You have that constant, the method, but your understanding of how to go about it is the variable.  that variable is unknown until you make the discovery and therefore the scientific method doesn't decide how smooth the progress to the discovery will be.  some discoveries are made in a few years, some take a lifetime or several.  There's really no difference here.  Coming to faith and finding God is not like learning the Laws that have already been discovered, it's like discovering something new that you yourself will document and present.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

If there wasn't a fork in that road, and was just two separate roads from the start, that wouldn't be a problem. They should be completely separated were they designed, no?

not for the system to work the way it does.  basically there'd have to be a complete design overhaul if you want to make that one small change.

Jabberwocky wrote:

The olfactory sense could have been designed separately. Is this beyond your god's ability as well?

So god has petty human emotions? Isn't jealousy a deadly sin? Does god get jealous or not?

Many things could have been designed differently I'm sure, but there's a reason why thye weren't. I'm not going to even begin to claim I understand the reasonings behind Creation, only that it works for whta it needs to do.  YOu claim it doesn't but htat doesn't bode well for evolution either then be it that evolution by now would have corrected such an issue if it in fact was an issue for the survival of the species.    If evolution designed us this way per your perspective, then it must have been better than the alternatives. 

 

You're missing one key point. God also created the caretakers. He created their brains, hence even if they have free-will, an omnipotent and omniscient god can't create a being that he isn't able to predict the behaviour of. It's exactly like the funny question "Can god microwave a burrito so hot that he himself can't eat it?". Except the question has real world implications. "Can god create a human with a brain so unpredictable that he, himself, can't predict what it's going to do?" If he's omniscient, the answer to that question necessarily has to be no.

If he can eat a burrito of any temperature due to his omnipotence, then he can predict with 100% accuracy what any human will do because of his omniscience. If you believe that a first betrayal brought sin into this world, then you have to believe that god deliberately created the humans who WOULD sin, rather than the ones who wouldn't. Your analogy in the second long paragraph fails at the outset because of this. If people who typically hire CEOs also created them and their brains, then you might have a point. They didn't. If someone was omnipotent and omniscient, and created a CEO to run their company, they would be able to create a CEO that makes exactly the decision that they want them to. Why would you do it any other way?

...and you know it, there are Christians out there who completely agree with what you said.  now i"m on the fence with the idea that God created people to intentionally sin... My take is God is capable of creating beings that have the ability to sin and He did so.  God also created these beings with the notion that He was going to "allow' them to do whatever they choose whether good or bad. 

Considering omnipotence for a second, I"m not sure if God saw the fall coming or not. 

If He did, then despite the creation He likely figured they could learn from their mistakes... then again, we also must assume then He could see literally the whole future up through now and to the end of all existence if that is to come to be.  He then would have had this whole thing planned... why I don't know.

If He didn't, then an omnipotent God could also choose to not know something couldnt' He?  and to not know something does not make Him not omnipotent if He chose to not know something... this would also assume that at any moment He could choose to see it all.

The Third option is that there are many futures with likely outcomes... I kind of hold to this one.  God can see all possible outcomes of any choice made by any being including the choices He made himself in His creation.  Understanding the likely outcomes, God can manipulate the present to make a future come to the conclusion He intended... however God can also hope that Humans make the right decision on their own and wait to see what happens.  Considerings Gods deep dissappointment and sadness mentioned in Genesis when He was going to make the flood, it seems logical to conclude that God had "hopes" for mankind that ultimately did not come to be.  It also seems logical to conclude that God knew mankind was capable and could make choices that ultimately would not have lead to that outcome but did not. 

Again, this goes back to omnipotence knowing all that is knowable and whether the future really is knowable or not.

right, and consistently with all other progressions with the same claims.  the fact that those specific fossils are missing are big red flags for me.  As i said, if those were in our possession, the progressive fossils up to that point would not be needed to prove the point.  The key fossils necessary for driving the point home just happen to not exist.

You state 3 options. 

1. God knows all (past present and future)

2. God knows all past present, but not all future due to suppressing it from himself, or

3. God knows all past and present, but exact knowledge of the future is beyond his ability, only a range of possibilities is known to him, and the result could be one of many.

 

Option 1: God is an asshole. My life has been good. However, other people have been raped, murdered, tortured, traded as property, etc., but he created a universe knowing that result anyhow. 

Option 2: God is reckless. Imagine an engineer responsible for a bridge design not actually checking if the design he's supposed to approve is actually safe for MORE than the maximum weight the bridge could possibly physically fit on it, and just approves it, insisting he doesn't see it. 

Option 3: God is reckless. Imagine a person who didn't actually get the proper education for an engineering degree approving this bridge. Despite looking at the plans, he has no way of telling whether or not it could support the necessary weight. He approves it anyway. 

If god knew that the result of this universe COULD have been what it is, then in the name of all of those who have suffered pain unimaginable by myself, I would deem that being as evil (if there was evidence that such a being existed at all)

No, that's not correct at all. We DO have concrete evidence to support it. DNA. You should learn something about it. As far as I know, there is nothing that forces DNA to have the exact sequences that all organisms alive do, unless we ALL come from a common ancestor. 

 From here forth, I am going to give you the same response every time you bring up this point.

 Name me two species between which you see a problematic gap in the fossil record. 

 No, we went through that. However here we are not talking about human vs. non-human. We are talking about quadrupedal vs. bipedal. The reason I am asking you to name the two species is because creationists lie a lot, and you like to move the goalposts. I want you to be specific (to, yourself, establish where the goalposts are) so that I can address your actual problem. You have stated that the pelves suddenly go from quadrupedal to bipedal. I don't think that's exactly the case. If you don't know the names as you said above, look them up! It's not hard to find what biologists propose as a progression of species towards homo-sapiens. Find where your gap is, then tell me it's between "species X" and "species Y" in a response in this thread (in any place of the many places I request it) and I will gladly address it. Since creationism uses the strategy of being vague and unspecific to its advantage all the time (such as use of the word "kind&quot I will refuse to address anything unless you get into specifics. Name me the problem and I will address it the best that I can. Until then, I refuse to address your argument. 

No, not the fossil progression. The DNA alone is enough actually. If we lived in a world where fossilization didn't occur, the DNA evidence would be enough. The fossils do help us find in which parts of the world certain changes occurred, and allow us to find evidence for organisms which we may have never otherwise known existed (like dinosaurs). If there were multiple starts to all life on earth today, the DNA would be more distinct. There is conclusive evidence that all life on earth is related in our DNA. As Maury would say "LUCA, in the case of every living thing on earth....you ARE the great great great great great great great great great great great great great.....etc....grand-fathermother." The same technology used to determine paternity shows us this. With 100% certainty. 

 

Hahaha, what? You want me to determine the time that the flood was claimed to have happened?

You are making the claim, but you won't tell me or even give me any hints (or at least you will, but then say we can't pinpoint it exactly, as if that somehow makes it impossible to disprove). YECs claim about 4500 years ago. We know they're wrong, and you don't agree with them either. That is NOT the method of determining that no such flood happened (propose a date, then check that date). We don't find evidence of a flood of that magnitude anywhere on Earth that happened at any time. No physical evidence of such a flood.We don't know how many animals were on the boat, as it would be hard to determine until "we understand what 'kinds' are". I do understand what it is though. What is a "species"? A species is a word describing a category in biological classification. What separates one species from another can be at times ambiguous when two similar but distinct organisms are presented. One commonly accepted definition is that animals that are able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring are considered to be of the same species.  What is a "kind"? A kind is a word describing a category in biological classification. What separates one kind from another is always ambiguous, because it is a word used only by creationists who work very hard to keep it that way. Like your missing pelvis progression, the word kind is vague. There is a reason that they keep it that way.  So what you're saying is that due to different conditions, life was able to become quite different over a long period of time? With help from natural selection and random mutation?

 No. That's fucking absurd!

If I were to do that, you would then propose a different date, until we die, because you could propose different dates for that long.

Floods leave evidence behind. There is no evidence of a flood of that magnitude.

Religious people often scoff at the phrase "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence". I actually agree that in some cases it does not apply.

Since floods leave physical evidence behind, and you are proposing the biggest flood EVER, a world-wide one bigger in every spot than any local flood, we should expect to find the biggest flood footprint ever world-wide.

We don't. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of no flood.

You are the one proposing this happened, and you have provided 0 evidence, and tried, instead, to shift the burden of proof in the most absurd example I've seen in a long time.

I won't provide you evidence that the flood happened,